I think the first article I ever read on Race42008 was one posted by DaveG on February 23rd of this year. Entitled ”Rudy’s Electoral Math,” Dave commented that, “The notion that Rudy Giuliani will…mirror the Democratic nominee on social issues is just not correct…We’re running a candidate who, while personally not conservative on many social issues, will govern as a functional social conservative on most of the big issues cultural conservatives care about.”
The drumbeat since Rudy Giuliani announced his candidacy earlier this year is that he is wrong on the “big issues” for social conservatives: abortion, gay rights, and gun ownership. However, consider:
On gun regulation, Giuliani has not proposed any new federal controls, and defers to the localities to determine what or whether to regulate firearms. On this, he is a solid proponent of states’ rights. So much for the “gun-grabber” charge.
Regarding gay rights, Giuliani is on record saying that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that this distinction is to be respected. When he did not support the defense of marriage constitutional amendment proposal in 2004, neither did a number of conservatives who do not believe that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to address this issue. The voters in individual states – from Oregon, to California, to Ohio, to Michigan…27 states in all, so far – are stepping up to either affirmatively declare marriage as between a man and a woman, or are specifically banning gay marriage. Giuliani’s stance on states’ authority would oppose federal action to overturn the state-led initiatives on this issue.
The same with abortion. Despite his personal views, Giuliani has pledged to appoint originalists to the federal judiciary. In the nearly 35 years since Roe v. Wade, there has been only one major pro-life legislative victory – the passage and signing by President Bush of a ban on partial-birth abortions. One victory in nearly 35 years – a span of time that saw two strongly pro-life presidents in Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, and 12 years of Republican control of Congress. The partial-birth abortion ban was challenged in the courts, upheld by the Supreme Court, which indicates that it is in the courts that these issues will ultimately be won or lost. Hence, Giuliani’s intention to appoint originalists to the courts should be considered the most important pro-life impact that the next president will have.
Giuliani said that he would have signed a partial-birth abortion ban which includes an exemption for the life of the mother. The pro-abortion Democrats want an exemption for the “health” of the mother. There’s a big difference. “Life” would provide an exemption where the mother’s life is in danger if natural delivery proceeds (and this should be rendered a non-factor because of cesarean delivery in the event of an emergency). An exemption from abortion prohibitions for the “health” of the mother, as favored by the pro-abortion Democrats, has been used as a catch-all exemption as “health” has come to include “mental health,” meaning that if a pregnancy or having a child might create “stress” for the mother, this is enough to fall within the “health” criterion, and would lead to aborting the child.
Mayor Giuliani also supports parental notification before minors can obtain an abortion, which is a long-time goal of pro-life organizations. His position, from appointment of originalists to the courts, to the distinction in his position on partial-birth abortion from that of the pro-abortion left, is reason to calm the fears, and rebut the hysterical charges of some that he’s a “baby-killer.”
Rudy Giuliani’s approach to these socially conservative issues is to de-federalize the issues, take them out of the gridlocked politics of Washington, and allow the states to decide them. Rudy Giuliani is the most pro-states’ rights presidential candidate we’ve seen in decades…maybe ever. What’s not conservative about that?
It should be clear to all that our nation is deeply divided, right down the middle, ideologically. The presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 showed a deep schism among American voters, and that schism is getting harder and deeper. This division has turned America into two camps, and has made each election a nail-biter as results of the last two presidential elections could have turned on the shift of only about 1.5% of the vote. This divide has also imposed a rigid gridlock in Washington on the whole list of so-called “socially conservative” issues. There’s no budge on either side, and consequently the chances of enacting any of the social conservative agenda is worse than slim and none.
Perhaps the way to break this political and ideological gridlock isn’t to surrender socially conservative principles, but to move these issues through a different approach. It’s been said (as I recall, it’s an old Vulcan proverb) that “Only Nixon could go to China,” because of his life-long record as an anti-communist. It may well be that only Rudy Giuliani can move this nation away from the opposing political encampments it’s become, and allow the people – not the federal government, not the Congress – to make progress on issues that reflect what is the inherent social conservatism of the American people.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:38 am
Hence, Giuliani’s intention to appoint originalists to the courts should be considered the most important pro-life impact that the next president will have
Social conservatives are not buying it, probably due to Rudy’s belief that a strict constructionist could vote to uphold Roe — Rudy said he would be fine with such a decision.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:45 am
Greg,
Two points I didn’t bring up in the last post. Actually, all my points in the last post went unanswered (though atleast Aron gave it the old college try).
Last month Rudy laughed at the notion that he is “effectively pro-life”. It often seems to be his supporters who disagree.
Not only is it probably counter-productive to try convincing pro-lifers that Rudy is their friend on social issues, it’s also not such an endearing argument to discount and marginalize the efforts of the entire pro-life movement over the last 35 years.
I find the arguments that this election is about more than social issues to be far more persuasive than arguments that tell me the guy with the 100% NARAL rating is really my friend…and my efforts don’t really matter anyway.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:59 am
WiseGuy, um, isn’t that also what John Roberts and Sam Alito testified to in their confirmation hearings?
November 30th, 2007 at 3:09 am
Metro,
As I recall, Roberts and Alito weren’t opining on whether or not a strict constructionist could vote to uphold Roe. Theirs was an argument over stare decisis.
Besides, the fact that Rudy finds the ruling of Roe in harmony with strict constructionism may be even more alarming. (Unless he has truly flipped on whether Roe is good constitutional law…I haven’t figured that out yet).
November 30th, 2007 at 3:46 am
If Roberts and Alito aren’t sure *they* would uphold the “super duper” precedent of Roe based on stare decisis and its entrenchment in so many other rulings, doesn’t that mean they are not strict constructionists, under your definition?
All Rudy’s “OK with either way” on SCOTUS and Roe is, is a recap of what Roberts and Alito told the Senate.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:55 am
Metro, just because Roberts and Alito might not turn out doesn’t mean that we should
get a president who thinks Roe is good law. If Roberts and Alito turn out to pro Roe, than that
it is just more reason to try and find anti Roe justices. I will say though that I was highly
impressed with Rudy’s speech to the FedSoc, I heard him give the best endorsement of Originalism
that I’ve heard. If just wasn’t for the fact that he said he thinks Roe is good law. Anyway the
FedSoc speech may be enough to get my vote in the general.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:57 am
Aparenty the last time I used this computer (the computer at my late night
desk job, I was doing satire.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:58 am
ThatRudyBot is me.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:19 am
“Rudy Giuliani’s approach to these socially conservative issues is to de-federalize the issues, take them out of the gridlocked politics of Washington, and allow the states to decide them.”
Why stop there? Lets go down to the level where we can end these culture wars once and for all.
Lets de-federalize and de-stateize these issues.
Lets let every individual have the freedom to live by their own conscience.
What’s not conservative about that?
November 30th, 2007 at 7:04 am
“Lets let every individual have the freedom to live by their own conscience.
What’s not conservative about that?”
That’s called anarchy. Individuals tend to do very bad things. The government is there to deter them and restrain those who can’t be deterred.
In 1856 your position would have been right at home with the slave owners though. The right to live by your own conscience and not have someone tell you what to do with your property.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Greg,
I think one of the difficulties of your post, beyond the points murphy brings up, is that on the vast majority of the issues you’ve outlined, Rudy has flatly flip-flopped. On guns, he vigorously Clinton’s Crime Bill. He once said “crime would drop 30-40% if [the US] had NYC’s gun laws”. Etc. He opposed a partial birth abortion ban which included a perfectly adequate “life of the mother” protection. His claim that he opposed the bill on those grounds is absolutely bewildering. He showed no signs of these deeply federalistic principles as mayor. What has changed? I find it frankly astonishing that he has yet to be asked these questions. Romney’s been questioned on every flip-flop under the sun, but they can’t bring themselves to ask why a guy who once delighted in national gun laws, now opposes them. It seems like a fairly simply question.
Other then that, I generally agree with you, though I’m not convinced, as murphy suggests, that it’s wise for you to minimize the pro-life movement. Wise or not, it’s probably an accurate assessment of the president’s power on the issue. And I tend to think that, even though he’s changed his tune on some of these issues without explanation, he’ll do as he promises.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Romney is subtly making the point against Giuliani that a president can’t make push a conservative social agenda with unclean hands. The “father knows best” ads and all the talk of family not only contrast with Giuliani’s more unconventional family but also represent the platform from which Romney could speak about the importance of a child being raised by a mother and a father (as he said in the debate).
Abortion is also a symptom of unwed mothers and a President and First Lady should reinforce the importance of having a committed relationship before engaging in sex. Giuliani is certainly an adult and can do as he pleases, but he would nevertheless lack the credibility to tell young people to live moral lives.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:21 am
New ARG polls, which actually LOOK pretty accurate, though I still don’t trust them. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html
Romney’s up 1 in Iowa, 14 in NH, and Rudy leads Romney by 2 in SC, with Huckabee 2 points behind Romney, and Thompson 5 points behind Huckabee. Also, an astonishing Rasmussen NH poll, that shows Romney up 19 points and, get this, Mike Huckabee just ONE point behind Rudy and McCain. So much for the Southern Baptist minister not being able to appeal to non-Southern States. http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2008_new_hampshire_republican_primary
November 30th, 2007 at 10:24 am
New ARG polls, which actually LOOK pretty accurate, though I still don’t trust them. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html
Romney’s up 1 in Iowa, 14 in NH, and Rudy leads Romney by 2 in SC, with Huckabee 2 points behind Romney, and Thompson 5 points behind Huckabee.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Also, an astonishing Rasmussen NH poll, that shows Romney up 19 points and, get this, Mike Huckabee just ONE point behind Rudy and McCain. So much for the Southern Baptist minister not being able to appeal to non-Southern States. http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2008_new_hampshire_republican_primary
November 30th, 2007 at 10:29 am
I trust Rasmussen tremendously, and frankly, looking at that NH poll, it’s hard for me to imagine an Iowa Huckabee win NOT leading to a strong showing in NH. In fact, if that’s accurate (and we’ll need more polls confirming it), I think if Huck wins Iowa, he has a good chance of placing second in NH (second only to Romney). If Iowa and NH look like this: IA: Huck, Romney, Rudy and NH: Romney, Huck, Rudy, how quickly will a Romney/Huck match-up narrative start? Is Rudy practically frozen out of the discussion in that scenario?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Polls have become so volatile.. ARG places Rudy 1st in SC with 23% while Clemson placed Rudy 5th yesterday with 9%.
I am not thrilled with Rasmussen polling technique after they missed to track the Huck surge in Iowa.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:46 am
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2008_new_hampshire_republican_primary
In NH a 3 way tie for second place with McCain, Giuliani and Huckabee.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:48 am
It occurs to me that Fred Thompson’s entire candidacy hinges on what happens to Mike Huckabee. Huck is now only 3 points behind Fred in the SC RCP, and he’s 12 points ahead of him in Iowa. Both new NH polls have Thompson at 3% in NH, and he’s fallen to 2% in a previous poll. This race ends for Thompson the day Huckabee wins Iowa. Thompson MUST go hard after Huckabee. Romney has NH to fall back on. Thompson can’t survive a Huckabee win in Iowa (though he could arguably survive a Huck second place showing). And if Huckabee continues to show some strength in NH, even Rudy’s propping up of Huck will end. In other words, Huck’s going to have a pretty huge target on him in the coming weeks.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Greg, There are so much I want to say, but I will stay with just one topic, the marriage. True, 27 states do have an amendment to their own constitutions that marriage are between man and woman. However, do you know that there are a few cases ongoing right now challenging those amendments – AT FEDERAL LEVEL? The Congress does have the constitutional authority to define the jurisdiction of the federal judges. And there are also a few cases challenging the Federal Defense of Marriage Act? So far, a few cases have failed, but there are new shift on the challenge of contract from out of state recognization clause? Until there is something done at the FEDERAL JUSTICE LEVEL concerning the marriage issues, no body can claim we do not need to concern ourselves with this. I am not in favor of marriage constitutional amendment myself as much as I am in reining the FEDERAL JUDGES in. If that fails, then, MCA is the next step! As long as there are activities at FEDERAL LEVEL, there is a danger of another Roe case, but instead of abortion, it’s about marriage!
November 30th, 2007 at 10:55 am
http://thepage.time.com/
November 30th, 2007 at 10:56 am
New ARG Polls, Romney is starting to pull away some in NH, but if he loses NH watch out for Huck who is ahead of McCain Now?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Three tickets out of Iowa, two out of NH. Huck and Romney and ? out of Iowa, Romney and ? out of NH.
Giuliani was on the defensive all day yesterday, pushing back against the billing records story. He needs to knock that off the front pages else there is no way he finishes in top three of either IA or NH.
If Huckabee wins IA, he will probably leap into the lead in a few southern states and compete for second nationally. I agree, Matthew, that Thompson’s campaign goes on life support.
I think one of the more important questions is what happens with Ron Paul after NH. Does he try to become a kingmaker, offering his loyal internet following and fundraising in exchange for a cabinet post? Huckabee could use the dough.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:00 am
I am beginning to think that it is in the interest of Rudy that Mitt wins NH after losing IA because if Romeny loses both, Huck may be able to consolidate all Socon vote against Rudy.
Thompson remains viable until he places below second place in SC for three reputed polls taken in the same week in late December.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Ras tracking poll
Rudy
27%
FDT
12%
Romney
13%
McCain
13%
Huckabee
13%
November 30th, 2007 at 11:24 am
#23.
It is in Rudy’s interest to either win some early states or keep the race as evenly divided as possible going into Feb. 5th. The longer it takes for his opposition to consolidate against him the better.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Colin Jones,
You make a good point. That is that Huck and Romney, if they choose, will likely keep Rudy out of the White House. There is much more in common between the two of them on social issues then there is between either of them and Rudy. They are also friends from their time as Governors. If the alternative is Rudy, I would expect them to come together. Though if Huck ends up on top, it won’t be much better than a Rudy presidency.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:30 am
I think Rudy has always had two major potential liabilities that us Rudy fans have quietly been resigned to facing at some point. First is all the years of negative NY press: There’s so much muck-raked background there for rivals to unearth and publicize, whether directly or surreptitiously. The other is that — at least in my observation — many people simply don’t like what they perceive to be typical New Yorkers. Talk about bigotry!
If Rudy is brought down by either of these while Huck continues to rise, it’ll be interesting to see how Huck deals with Mitt’s zealous slash-and-burn campaign tactics. I relish watching it backfire on Mitt at some point. Against Huck, Mitt’s more likely to come across as a vicious bully than he does when “kicking Rudy’s trash,” as some commenters euphemize…
November 30th, 2007 at 11:33 am
#23. Rudy could still win MI or NV after coming 2nd in NH. The important point for Rudy is that no other candidate should emerge as the sole(dominant) beneficiary of anti-Rudy vote and begin to sweep IA,NH,MI and SC before FL. The race should remain fluid and so-con vote should remain divided for Rudy to take advantage of his strength in FL.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Colin is right. As I’ve said all along, what does it take to keep FL voters in Rudy’s column? All it takes is a single win by Rudy pre-FL, if the alternative is Mitt winning all of them. Could be NH or MI or NV or SC, doesn’t matter.
BUT if Huck wins Iowa then the pre-FL contests will be split, and that keeps FL with Rudy.
If Huck wins IA, the remaining contests probably break down in one of the following fashions:
IA: Huck, NH: Mitt, MI: Mitt, SC: Huck, NV: Mitt
IA: Huck, NH: Rudy, MI: Rudy, SC: Huck, NV: Rudy
IA: Huck, NH: JMac: MI: JMac: Sc: Huck, NV: MMac
Notice the pattern. Odd how “Rudy McRomney” are in a 3-way tie for 2nd and Huck is the constant, IF he wins Iowa. Even so, I don’t believe Huck can win in states outside of the South and the Plains.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Metro,
Your first option is most likely. How does Rudy or McCain win NH if Huck wins Iowa? It won’t happen. Romney could loose Iowa, but it will be close, he won’t implode.
If Romney and Huckabee take the first 5 states, they will unite and take the rest. I’m increasingly of the opinion that Rudy needs to start going after Huckabee now, or he’s toast.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:57 am
How does Rudy or McCain win NH if Huck wins IA?
More easily than if Mitt wins IA!
Odd question.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
“Even so, I don’t believe Huck can win in states outside of the South and the Plains.” I think its underestimated how many delagates are in those states. Afterall those are the Red states, and I think states that voted for Bush get like twice the number of delegates. It seems like there very well may be at least enough of these states to keep from a majority of delegates even if he gets a plurality.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
John, they get a bonus, but it’s not double. It’s not even 50%.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Of course I guess however, big the redstates are they were enough to give Bush a majority. Huckabee won’t win all of the redstates, but he might win enough with some of the other candidates winning some that Rudy doens’t get a majority of delegates. I could see this race going to the convention.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
John, And convention is a bad news for Republican Party, because it will be in September, merely 2 months before the General Election! Whoever wins the convention won’t be able to fight against the Democratic Machine for just two months, especially when MSM is having a field trip with how unconfidential the Republicans have for their own candidates for most of the year. I hope the trailing candidates will wise up and back out after Florida, and leaves the rest of the states (including SuperTuesday states) with 2 or 3 candidates.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Looks like the rudy folks cheering huck on may have shot themselves in the foot
November 30th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
SDGOP (#37) Yeah, I wonder how those max-contributors of Rudy’s who also donated to Huckabee’s campaign feel now? How severe is their buyer’s remorse?