Rudy Seals The Deal. For the General, Not The Primary.
By Erick Posted in 2008 | FRC Action — Comments (20) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I, unfortunately, had to miss Rudy Giuliani's speech this morning. But the buzz here at the Washington Briefing is generally very positive.
NZ Bear, luckily, was there and provides very good coverage of it.
he hit abortion head on, going through what he would do to reduce the number of abortions:
"First, I will veto any reduction in the impact of the Hyde amendment. "
"I will support any reasonable suggestion that promises to reduce the number of abortions. I support parental notifications and i will continue to and i support and will continue to support the ban on partial birth abortion."
"I will reduce the red tape that makes adoption so difficult... I'll make the... adoption tax credit permanent."
Here's the deal. I've been out roaming the hall talking to people and there is a consensus among the people here that Giuliani did what he had to do to stop a hemorrage in the general, but he did not pull them to him in the primary.
That's probably what he needed to do. These are folks who are deeply, deeply skeptical of Rudy. They know he is not one of them. But they also know, as he showed them today, that he'd at least be passable, if not palatable, in the general.
[UPDATE:] Jim has some more. Also, I talked to some people I really, really respect and the three of them all said the same thing stuck with them. Giuliani talked about abortion rates versus adoption rates and kept stumbling over which was rising and which was falling. It was a minor stumble in his speech, but these three, who are thought leaders in this movement, all noticed it and it stuck with them.
Pay attention to Nathan Bradfield's blogging on Giuliani. He's been here live blogging it and is really in tune with the crowd here.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | No one here wants a third party — Comments (2) »
Rudy Seals The Deal. For the General, Not The Primary. 20 Comments (0 topical, 20 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Trust needs to be earned.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
This is the same stuff he's been saying since the campaign began, which is not nearly enough. And also isn't believable. Color me underwhelmed.
Look, all politicians (most especially Mitt Romney's crowd) make the same mistake - of believing that us SoCons do whatever Land, Dobson, the FRC and other "leaders" tell us to do. That's backwards. The reason we keep up with what the FRC, etc. is saying is because we find that they are in tune with what we already believe.
Social conservatives are not sheep to be led around by the likes of Joel O'Steen. What determines whether there will be a third party challenge if Rudy is nominated is not whether the FRC says so, but more probably if a credible third party candidate comes forward. I like James Dobson a lot, but I can safely say that he has never changed my mind about *anything.* Ditto Tony Perkins.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
Hear, hear, Leon. That's exactly what I've been saying - Dobson and other so-called "Christian leaders" are simply reflecting the opinion of the rest of the Christian conservative community. They are not telling us what to think - they are relaying what we believe. And if they TRIED to tell me what to think, I'd tell them what I think - just as many of us did in a previous posting here that reported on one of Dobson's statements (sorry, I couldn't find that one...it was several weeks ago)
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
about which to appear knowledgeable when the talking-head network analyst can talk of various voters who focus on particular issues being told what to think, how to vote. While this has been true of some blocs of voters -- they form into a giant lemming and fall of the cliff faster -- it is not going to happen.
If the GOP is going to nominate Rudy, it will do so no matter what Dobson et al. say to Party leaders. For now, there remarks can be safely classified as a bit of frustration and bluster. It will be interesting to hear what they have to say if Giuliani becomes the nominee, if they are staring, point blank, at Rudy vs. Hillary.
If, after Rudy wins the nomination (if he does), Dobson, Perkins, et al emerge from a [non-]smoke filled room and declare, "We have decided that you may all vote for Rudy Giuliani, and therefore you will do so," how do you think those of us who had already decided that we wouldn't will react?
I know how *I* will - by wishing them "Good Luck" in the traditional Hawaiian fashion.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
Erick, if I understand you, the SoCons leadership aren't going to vote for him or support him in the primaries but they won't run a third party candidate against him. That is all he needs and frankly I thought he could have done it without the support of the SoCon's leadership.
That is all he needs. He leads among the SoCons as it is. In other words, Rudy went into the lion's den, again, and came out with all his fingernails. That is his style frankly, and one of the things that I like most about him.
We are men of action, lies do not become us
I'm supporting Fred because he is the most conservative candidate and I KNOW he can beat Hillary. But if i comes to I will vote for Rudy in the general. The reason is obvious, I feel the same way as those who attended the summit.
But I truly feel that Rudy's odds of winning the general are lower then Fred's, by a significant margin. The reason is Rudy will put the South in play, and I dont feel he will win any blue states.
you are totally out of your mind if you think Rudy has a worse shot of defeating Hillary than Fred. That is just a$$ backward in my opinion. Frankly, Fred has nearly no shot of defeating Hillary.
You think Southerners would vote for Hillary over Rudy? Based on what. The South always votes Republican and they will this time around as well. New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, California, and much of the rest of New England would be in play if Rudy wins. Fred has no shot at any of those states.
Rudy somehow managed to win two elections in one of the most liberal cities in the country. He somehow managed to tick off every prominent liberal while running the city and did I mention he wound up being one of the greatest mayors of all time. This is after he was one of the greatest prosecutors of all time. You can underestimate him all you want, but it is completely ridiculous to assert that Rudy has less of a chance of defeating Hillary that FDT.
We are men of action, lies do not become us
Getting cutesey with puncutation doesn't make the langauge less clear to all of us, and doesn't coarsen the site any less.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
though I don't think that is the coarsening language most people worry about. It won't happen again. My point stands. To say that Fred has a better chance of beating Hillary than Rudy is to think with your heart not your head.
We are men of action, lies do not become us
In my opinion Thompson waited too long although in the past
elections it would not have been considered too late to throw his hat in but for some reason this election is very differnt the debates started several months ago. My sister who lives in Nashville was strongly supporting Thompson but now she has come to the realization that Rudy Giuliani is not only our strongest candidate but he is clearly our best candidate he is the right man for the job no doubt about it.
Lets hope more people begin to feel this way!!
Go Rudy!
Americas last best chance to stop the Clinton machine from taking over for 8 more years!
Rudy has made all the right concessions to the pro-life movement, pledging to keep the partial-birth abortion ban, federal funding (Hyde Amendment)for abortion, encouraging adoption, and most significant, appointing strict constructionist judges to the bench.
I can understand a pro-life conservative voting against Rudy in the primary, but to vote against Rudy in the general makes absolutely no sense if you truly care about the issue of abortion.
I think it's abundantly clear Rudy would be a much better ally to the pro-life cause than Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Im with you 100%. Vote against him all you want in the primaries, but we have to pull together as a party in the genreal, people who want to knock him off have their chance right now, if they are able to do it, more power to them. But if Republican voters pick Rudy fair and sqaure its lame to run away.
"I think it's abundantly clear Rudy would be a much better ally to the pro-life cause than Hillary Rodham Clinton."
I believe this is true but there are a large percent of us considering other issues such as GWOT and wouldn't sacrifice one issue for another. If Rudy makes it to the general election one would be foolish to stay home or vote a 3rd party. What point is made allowing Hillary to become president?
Any no-vote or 3rd party vote in the general election is a vote for Hillary and her agenda! This isn't an all or nothing situation and like anything in life you get as much as you can and try again next time to get a little more.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that spoils the party for me and although I wouldn't vote for Hillary I would have to accept she is the better man for the job.
My heart is torn between Fred and Rudy, but so far my head is solidly with Rudy. I just don't think that Fred puts any new states into play, and we face the serious threat of not winning some of the states that President Bush won in 2004, such as Ohio and Virginia.
The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.
I don't know the exact percentages but my guess is that Fred would get a larger percentage of R's and less D's where Rudy may lose some of the R's but could gain more moderate D's.
Having lived in VA for the last 38 years I am concerned with the swing from strong right to center (NOVA) and our candidate being too far Right worries me. No matter who I like I feel sure that any R other than Rudy or Fred will push VA blue.
*COMPLETELY* repudiates the following:
http://edition.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/giuliani-s...
and maybe, not even then. His "unscripted" moment tells me a lot more about him than his poll-tested focus-grouped attempts to get the principled Republican base back on his side. Not just his positions on abortion, but also what sorts of things he thinks tax money should be used for. Where's my free govt-provided Smith and Wesson, if "constitutional rights" should be publicly funded?
I agree with NZ -- Rudy appeased the crowd just enough. Like you said – passable. Ironically Rudy almost slipped up when he was trying to say “decrease abortion and increase adoption” and stuttered “decrease adoption and …” OOPS. I know I know -- it was a mistake -- but ‘Freudian slip?’ ran through my mind – I bet it was just the pressure of the massive amounts of social conservatives judging him.