There are millions of us who usually vote GOP who WILL NOT vote for Rudy, for a variety of reasons. For me it's the amnesty issue, for others it's life, still others, homosexuality or gun rights. Whatever the issue is, it is a bright line we will not cross. No amount of Hillaryscare, intimidation, name-calling or cajoling will get us to vote for Rudy. He's in the wrong party. He is a liberal. I don't vote for liberals. When he loses, don't blame us, we tried to warn you. Flipping off half your voters is not a winning strategy.
Virginia Patriot, commenter on a post by John Hawkins at Townhall.com
Many in the Republican party ask Christians to look at the big picture. To think how much worse Hillary will be than Rudy. To think how much better Rudy is on the war on terror. But let's face it, the MSM has convinced most Americans that we don't have much to fear with the war on terror. Americans take our safety for granted once again. Christians aren't immune to this. Conservative Christians tend to see an even bigger picture, which specifically involves eternity. So all these things, even war, come and go, but our decisions and our actions go with us into eternity. This is why they will stay home, and this is why Hillary will win.
Don't say I didn't warn you.
The answer coming back from Giuliani supporters is always the same, he can beat Hillary. Oh, and he will appoint conservative judges. (One would think all the President does is appoint judges). I disagree Rudy's the only one who can defeat Hillary. When she turns her attention from her Democratic rivals - and President Bush - and begins to focus on the Republican nominee, don't think she won't go on the attack, and a Giuliani nominee would give her much to attack. Imagine debate questions concerning illegal immigration. Or gun control. Or abortion. Or gay marriage. Hillary could bury Rudy on those questions. There's no way a Rudy nominee could challenge Hillary's changing positions without inviting the same from her. Make no mistake, she will pull out all the stops against Rudy just as she will any other Republican, the difference is she would have much less dirt to dig up on some of our other nominees (Fred Thompson, for instance).
Another claim coming from the Rudy camp is that he will attract moderate voters. I wouldn't bet on that either. If he is shown to be the liberal he is, it's just as likely the moderate voters will split. Besides, what good will it do to attract moderate voters if we lose conservative voters? Sounds like a wash to me. If the whole purpose here is to attract moderate voters, John McCain would appear to be the most likely candidate to do it.
It seems many Republicans are letting the fear of Hillary influence their decision. Are these the same people who criticized, to put it mildly, President Bush on the immigration issue? Are they willing now to support Rudy Giuliani who supported the 2006 version:
Giuliani has been criticized for embracing illegal immigration. Giuliani continued a policy of preventing city employees from contacting INS about immigration violations. He ordered city attorneys to defend this policy in federal court. Giuliani has also expressed doubt that the federal government can stop illegal immigration. In April 2006, Giuliani went on the record as favoring the US Senate's comprehensive immigration plan which includes a path to citizenship and a guest worker plan.
Presidential candidate Giuliani called the 2007 bill a "Washington mess". Convenient.
Those who insist social conservatives should support Giuliani generally harp on two issues, abortion and gay rights:
...social conservatives should think long and hard before they decide to pass on Giuliani. This may be difficult advice to credit. Giuliani is thoroughly alienated from the dominant concerns of the social right.
The bundle of social issues that provoke so much vitriol in our politics arise out of the effort to reverse society's moral decay. Social conservatives see a country with declining respect for the value of human life, and they don't want government to hasten the decline by celebrating abortion and indiscriminately funding the destruction of human embryos for research. They see a country that no longer understands what sex is for and they don't want government promoting further confusion by equating homosexual alliances with traditional marriage.
That is accurate but there's more for conservatives, not just social conservatives, to oppose when it comes to Giuliani. Is the Second Amendment a "social issue"? No. It is a Constitutional issue. Is illegal immigration a social issue? No. It is a law and order, and national security, issue. In order for Giuliani to stand with conservative Republicans on those two issues he will have to denounce his own actions as Mayor of New York:
On June 20th, I was pleased to announce that the City of New York filed a lawsuit against two dozen major gun manufacturers and distributors. This is an industry which profits from the suffering of innocent people. The lawsuit is intended to end the free pass that the gun industry has enjoyed for a very long time, which has resulted in too many avoidable deaths.
In his own words:
"If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city."
There you have it, in a nutshell. Forgetting for a moment that potential terrorists could also be hardworking, think about the financial consequences of that mindset. If you "happen to be in an undocumented status", you're invisible to the tax collector. How many times have we heard that Giuliani is a "fiscal conservative"? Fine, well, and good, but what's fiscally conservative about forcing legal citizens to foot the tax bill for "undocumented" aliens? What about the cost to educate their children? What about the cost to provide healthcare, police protection and such that hardworking American citizens pay for? What about the tragic deaths caused by illegal aliens? Yes, I know American citizens drive drunk and commit murder, but the undeniable truth is that many Americans would be alive today if our borders had been protected and these hardworking illegal aliens had been in jail or deported. Or better yet, prevented from coming here in the first place.
Rudy's appeal is based primarily on one issue, the War on Terror. Yes, he would be outstanding on that issue but he is not the only Republican candidate who can make that claim. And as critical as that issue is, it is not the only critical issue the next President will face. Republicans must consider the whole package because that's what we'll get. I don't think Rudy's whole package holds up under scrutiny:
A report posted on Ploitico.com Wednesday said that at the time when Giuliani was beginning an extramarital relationship with Judith Nathan, who eventually became his third wife, he billed obscure city agencies thousands of dollars for his police security detail covering trips to visit Nathan.
But Giuliani insists that everything was done in the open, “honestly, honorably, above board.”
At the link Giuliani sits down with Kati Couric to discuss the issue. First let me ask, is anyone else bothered by that first sentence? I mean when a story about a Presidential candidate begins with an "extramarital relationship" and that's not even the scandal, you have to wonder what so many Republicans are thinking supporting this man.
It's a puzzle. Kate O'Beirne:
Republicans are right to worry that there could be plenty more to come after this week's story about how Mayor Giuliani handled the billing for his security detail when he was meeting up with his mistress. ABC News reports that NYC's long-suffering taxpayers footed the bill for security details for both the mayor's wife and girlfriend. It does present an opportunity to unite social and economic conservatives. How to cut government spending? Be faithful in office.
Another example of Rudy's fiscally conservative philosophy?
The truth is that Rudy Giuliani is not a conservative. He's a Rockefeller Republican, a RINO, a tougher, more charismatic version of Arlen Specter -- which is why it's mind boggling that so many conservatives who are furious at George Bush and senators like Lindsey Graham, John Warner, and Trent Lott for not being conservative enough are happily backing Giuliani.
It's a puzzle. If he's the nominee, I will aggressively, if not happily, support him. He is preferable to Hillary Clinton, but then again, who isn't?