Tuesday, July 17, 2007
|
|
Rudy's Cultural Con Credentials
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
10:26 AM
|
The Indispensable Geraghty makes a key point about Rudy's appeal to social conservatives:
Rudy's friends point out that their man was the guy who cleaned up Times Square, citing a Daily News article from March 2001: “Mayor Giuliani revived his crusade to crush smut shops and X-rated clubs yesterday - vowing to seal a loophole in a 1990s law that failed to slow the topless dancing and porno video trades in many neighborhoods. … The mayor said his proposal would let city inspectors take into account other factors - such as the prominence of sex-related items - when deciding whether to shut an establishment. The proposal also would require owners to place partitions between the adult and non-adult portions of their businesses - helping to end "sham efforts" to sidestep the law, Giuliani said.”
Rudy fans also point out their man is the man who fought the Brooklyn Art Museum over its “Sensation” exhibit, over a painting of the Virgin Mary that used elephant dung. (You know, the one the New York Times kept using to illustrate its stories on the cartoons of Mohammed.) They quote the candidate in a 1999 appearance on CNBC, “Is there Catholic bashing going on? Go—go ask Cardinal O'Connor if there's Catholic bashing going on. You take one of the most important symbols to Catholics and throw dung at it and have pictures of private parts of women splayed all over it and, of course, it's Catholic bashing.”
When I praised Romney's "Ocean" ad yesterday, I noted that part of its impact was Romney's willingness to make the social conservative agenda part of his message. Rudy's got a great record on some of these issues as well, but he needs to put them at the center of his campaign to persuade especially the values voter that the toughness with which he pursued the agenda in New York will also mark a White House tenure.
|
|
|
is an easy fight compared to true social issues of today--on which Guiliani takes stances against traditional social conservatism. I don't care about an art museum--in the greater scope of social issues. |
|
|
i don't know if rudy's conservatism is really what we republicans think of when we look for a conservative with family values. nice try hugh, though I must admit, you are being fair and balanced. |
|
Given all the abuse this blog has heaped on McCain, I think it is odd how consistently polite it is toward's Giuliani, who is worse than McCain in most respects.
Among other things, Rudy is as bad as McCain on immigration.
If we had a problem with America being overrun with squeege-men, Rudy might be a good answer. Since we are being overrun with illegal immigrants, it is a good idea to look at what Rudy's response is to illegal immigration. News flash - he likes it.
|
|
|
These are only secondary social issues. Things like abortion (not only is he on the wrong side of it, but he's also completely incoherent - it's evil, let's permit it!) and immigration are going to be far more at the head of things. He cracked down on smut shops and stopped having taxpayer dollars used to deface religious icons? Wonderful, but trite in comparison to the death of a child. |
|
...conservatives are not going to dismiss a winning Republican just because he fails to score 100% on the conservative-meter. There have been a number of these stories lately, all produced with the same air of disingenuous astonishment: What, southern conservatives would consider voting for a socially liberal Massachusetts Mormon? Or a socially liberal NYC Catholic?
It gets a little old after a while (I don’t refer to Geraghty or Hewitt, but to the background against which the MSM paints each startling revelation of unsuspected conservative open-mindedness).
There was a note in today’s sports section about the France family’s (and other NASCAR elites’) donations to the Giuiliani campaign, and how Rudy appeared at the July Daytona race. If you can attract the NASCAR crowd – and you know they’re looking for a winner – you can attract anyone on the right.
The right is not the doctrinaire left. If anything, the big tent philosophy of the GOP leads us to settle too quickly for the most electable right-of-center candidate (which helps wins elections in the short term, but also results in a constant re-centering of what passes for the political middle). But there is little chance that conservatives will suddenly revolt and refuse to vote for a Giuliani (or to give him credit for his genuine conservative credentials). |
|
Rudy's strength is as a tough, no-nonesense manager who was able to effect conservative change in New York. He didn't just talk about conservative policies, he made them WORK on the ground.
The "values voter" is a shrinking breed. This campaign is going to be the most policy-centric in a generation - between war, healthcare, the environment etc. Touchy-feely issues will be laughed at - and make no mistake, a candidate who just talks about "values" with no concrete actions behind it will be seen as trivial.
In short, Mitt is fighting yesterday's campaign, not tomorrow's. |
|
|
...to do a photoshop of Romney now that it has been revealed that he spent $300 on makeup? |
|
I wonder how Hugh will slant this. My guess is he'll dismiss Glen Johnson (the writer of the article) as a God hating liberal member of the MSM. Hugh never hesitates to play that card, over, and over, and over, and over.......
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/WireStory?id=3384404&page=1
"And Romney has dismissed financing his own campaign, saying in January that donating any of his personal wealth to his campaign would be "akin to a nightmare." Rather, he said he planned to seek support from a broad grass-roots network.
Romney ended up lending the campaign $2.35 million in the first quarter, and as of July 1, the total had climbed to $8.9 million.
That makes Romney the largest source of money for his campaign. He and his staff have also been no slouches at spending." |
|
|
Rather than stating that Rudy may not score 100% on the conservative test and so should be given a break by us absolutists, why not instead be more precisely truthful and acknowledge that he scores under 10% (which is less than 100%) and so is just like Hillary. Does that help you see things clearly? It's not the conservatives that are being blind, it's you. |
|
You might want to pen a new book, entitled "None of the Above in the White House?":
"And the leading Republican presidential candidate is ... none of the above.The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that nearly a quarter of Republicans are unwilling to back top-tier hopefuls Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain or Mitt Romney, and no one candidate has emerged as the clear front-runner among Christian evangelicals. Such dissatisfaction underscores the volatility of the 2008 GOP nomination fight.
More Republicans have become apathetic about their options over the past month.
A hefty 23 percent can't or won't say which candidate they would back, a jump from the 14 percent who took a pass in June.
Giuliani's popularity continued to decline steadily as he faced a spate of headline headaches, came under increased scrutiny and saw the potential entry of Thompson in the mix; his support is at 21 percent compared with 27 percent in June and 35 percent in March.
The former New York mayor is running virtually even with Thompson, who has become a threat without even officially entering the race. The actor and former Tennessee senator has stayed steady at 19 percent. McCain, the Arizona senator who is revamping his nearly broke campaign, clocked in a bit lower at 15 percent, while Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, remained at 11 percent.
None of the top candidates has a clear lead among Christian evangelicals, a critical part of the GOP base that has had considerable sway in past Republican primaries. Giuliani, a thrice-married backer of abortion rights and gay rights, had 20 percent support — roughly even with Thompson and McCain who have one divorce each in their pasts. Romney, a Mormon who has been married for three decades, was in the single digits."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070717/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_race_ap_poll_1
P.S. Time for you to drop your shtick about liberals being the religiously intolerant party. |
|
I differ.
I dismiss Rudy entirely, and I am a social conservative. In the worst possible situation where McCain is pitted only against Rudy, I'd vote for McCain--for whom I have much disdain.
|
|
|
How did it help Rudy to be touring CA with Bill Simon making statements like "When I was mayor of NYC, I ran things just like Arnold runs California." Rudy is not even a Republican and is running in the wrong party. An open-borders, pro-abortion candidate has no chance to win in a meaningful way, by that I mean with 50+% of the vote. Rudy could win with about 35%. That is no mandate. |
|
I'm not voting for a pro-abortion Rudy, either; not as long as there are more conservative GOP alternatives. And yes, I'll vote for the consistently pro-life, pro-national defense McCain before I'll vote for Rudy. But my point is that I don't represent all GOP voters.
"Blind," Phil? Conservatives aren't blind to Rudy's many non-conservative positions. The whole Fred-nomenon has been fueled by dissatisfaction with the many known flaws of Rudy, McCain, and Romney. I never said he should be given a break by all conservatives; I said he will be given a break by many. |
|
do you even understand stats and how easily they can be skewed. how the questions can be used to manipulate a desired response? if so you wouldn't be pointing to an Associated Press Poll.. LOL....LOL...
the numbers can easily be skewed.
btw, what does this have to do with religious intolerance? you threw that comment in at the last but how does that relate to your facts presented prior?
you ability to analyze and formulate a clear conclusion is well foggy at best.
the republicans in the poll you mention were not necessarily evangelical christians, it just states they were republicans. where did the AP get these republicans? how did they know if they were true evangelicals? non of this is mentioned in the article. no information is provided about the types of questions asked and how they were worded. that is key.. to any survey/poll.
and it also states that they are just undecided, that doesn't fit to your comment regarding intolerance, being undecided is just that undecided, not intolerant. please, your argument is that of an 8th no 5th grader..
maybe if you could not just quote the article but provide a dissemnation of the article with more than throwing out fallacies and hoping they stick, you could be taken as seriously. |
|
|
I provided the link. Feel free to read the entire article as well as the underlying poll data. As far as the religious intolerance comment, it has to do with Romney's single digit support among evangelicals. |
|
I can't find anywhere on the net that AP-Ipsos asked this or a similar question:
"Are you going to vote for any of the GOP candidates?"
Apparently, "none of the above" is actually for "can't or won't say which candidate they would back".
And of course we know "can't or won't say which candidate they would back" means they are undecided and NOT that they aren't going to vote for any of the candidates. This is basically the AP raping the meaning of "undecided".
I did find this from the USA Today-Gallup Poll which completely shelves the AP-Ipsos poll that GOP members are voting for "none of the above".
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28144
According to this latest Gallup Poll, 11% of the GOP are "undecided" as to who they will vote for. Or as the AP-Ipsos would say, 11% of the GOP will vote for "none of the above".
Of course the media is running with "none of the above" instead the correct saying, "undecided". |
|
Before crowning Rudy as the social-con messiah, you may want to keep in mind that he did not exactly run the sex clubs out of New York. They relocated a few blocks from Times Square to the West Side Highway, that's all. NY is as much Sin City as it ever was. Maybe more so. You just have a more upmarket class of sinners these days.
|
|
How would this wording have been?:
"The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that nearly a quarter of Republicans feel no hurry to commit early to one candidate among the popular Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Such richness of choice illustrates the depth of the 2008 GOP nomination field.
But only 13 percent of Democrats felt comfortable declaring that their options were still open, underscoring Democrat anxiousness to quickly settle for a single candidate among the limited field. The Democrat Party has lost the last two presidential elections and seven of the past ten such elections, in many cases after protracted primary battles.
Democrat voters have in particular been quick to commit themselves to New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is white. She holds a comfortable lead over Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who is black. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, whose mother was Mexican, trailed even Obama."
See - it reads just the same. There's no editorializing in mainstream news reporting. They just give us the straight facts. |
|
The more conservatives learn about Rudy, the less they like him. He polls well in Florida because of all of the NY retirees down there but I doubt if the conservatives feel the same way. It all on depends what you mean by
"conservative". More and more Republicans are beginning to choose conservative over Republican and that works against Rudy too. He may in fact defeat Hillary (52% of voters say they will NEVER vote for her) head-to-head but barely. That is why there are so many candidates running and why there is so much talk about third party candidates. Both parties are committed to bad strategies with bad candidates. Even Ron Paul may double his support and get 1% of the vote this time. This is just a very weak field and voters are very unhappy. This is going to be an election like no other. |
|
I guess it should have told the truth, something like:
Giuliani 21%
Thompson 19%
McCain 15%
Romney 11%
others 11%
undecided 23%
In fact Thaale, you re-wrote that pretty darn well.
But it should have read this way:
WASHINGTON - And the leading Republican presidential candidate is Rudy Giuliani.
The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that nearly a quarter of Republicans are willing to back Rudy Giuliani. Fred Thompson is not far behind with 19%.Both John McCain at 15% and Mitt Romney at , and no one candidate has emerged as the clear front-runner among Christian evangelicals. Such dissatisfaction underscores the volatility of the 2008 GOP nomination fight.
|
|
In the recent Fabrizio/McLaughlin poll that looked at how the Rep party has changed over the last 10 years the Moralists were the largest groups with 24%.
They are not shrinking. Many of them are undecided. Romney is going directly after this crucial voting block. He is also doing it at the right time as Thompson appears to have flattened out, McCain is moving down and Rudy may be slipping a little as the undecided vote goes up.
Voters are evaluating candidates. They want someone who will fight for their issues. Romney is dead on with his latest 2 commercials and his targeting and timing.
Get used to Romney niching his way up the polls. It worked in IA, and NH and it can be made to work in other states.
He can do the same thing nationally but the time is not right yet.
No knock on McCain but if he really understood niche Marketing he would not be in the mess that he is in. It is one thing to be for an issue, it is another to lead a suicide charge. Knowing when to tacitly support and when to overtly lead on key issues is crucial to winning a campaign.
Your causes do not benefit if you do not win. |
|
I accidentally hit the post button.
Here is what I was trying to write:
WASHINGTON - And the leading Republican presidential candidate is Rudy Giuliani.
The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that nearly a quarter of Republicans are willing to back Rudy Giuliani. Fred Thompson is not far behind with 19%. Both John McCain at 15% and Mitt Romney at 11% continue to struggle nationally. No candidate has emerged as the clear front-runner, especially with 23% of the GOP undecided.
I think that would have been much better. But it wouldn't make any headlines. That's why they went with: AP Poll: GOP pick is 'none of the above'
|
|
Rudy's conservative support tends to come from women who like his 9/11 image and tough on crime/terrorism positioning. That is slowly eroding. No one candidate has directly gone after that group yet.
Rudy can be challenged for this group but first you have to set up some other key issues that they care about and then they have to decide that another candidate is good enough on crime/terrorism and better on two or three other important issues.
The same thing can be done with men and Thompson but first all of the the Thompson dirt needs to come out. |
|
will not make up for the number of marriages at which he failed, the affairs he had while in office or the number of children whose home he destroyed with his shameless pleasure seeking.
He can fake talking the talk but he cannot walk the walk.
He has lived the life of a hedonistic liberal. |
|
We need someone with the courage to take a hammer to the State Department and to the CIA. Rudy is the only one who can do that!!!!!!!!!!!!!
copiousdissent.blogspot.com |
|
Which would you rather have: a sinner who can govern conservatively (like Reagan, Giulani, or perhaps Thompson), or a moral man who can't (like GWB?)
Romney's trying to portray himself as a moral man who can govern conservatively. Problem is, his strengths are on the latter part of that equation, but his campaign cheerleaders (and acolytes like Hugh) push him to the former. |
|
To all you “conservatives” out there, let me ask you this….What are you looking for in the current field of GOP candidates because I am 100% confused? You have one candidate out there (Rudy) who actually, you know, has PROVEN to govern with conservative practices in mind. What has Fred ever shown anywhere? Mitt? Any of the others? From what I can see its all talk and promises. I guess to be considered a Republican now you have to be given some mythical title of “real conservative” by some group or persons.
I mean – what is a conservative? I thought it was someone who is for less government, law and order, and loves the USA and for what it stands for. But for some reason the GOP is getting taken over by a bunch of social conservative bible beaters that don’t really give a damn about winning elections.
It’s getting to the point now I might not ever vote again. I’m sure as hell am not voting (D), and will never ever vote for someone like Bush again. He showed me nothing as Gov of Texas and I should have paid more attention to it. But hey, the social cons loved him and see where are now.
Lord help us.
|
|
The difference between liberals and conservatives from a social perspective is now more important than ever, it is now more obvious than ever, it is now more emergent than ever. It is not all these things because “now” is some ultra crucial point in history. It is all these things because we are on a constant path towards extreme social liberalism and with each passing day the difference between liberals and conservatives from a social perspective grows wider. Therefore “now” will remain the most important time in this battle from now until the battle is over.
As was pointed out by another post - if we keep sacrificing conservative values for this etheral notion of "electability" we still end up socialists, it will just take a little longer.
Do you guys watch the debates? Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo are all more "socially" conservative than Rudi, Fred, Mitt, or John. Why aren't these guys our candidates?
"They can't get elected" is the answer. That is simply not true. The media define for us a bunch of liberal republicans and they maintain a win-win situation no matter which party gets in office. We need to shut off the MSM get organized and pick somebody like Brownback or Huckabee or even Ron Paul.
I will not vote republican if my party's Presidential platform does not include being pro-life. There are already too many RINO's fitting that bill. I can even accept the lazy pro-lifer who does nothing but nominate pro-life judges - because that is still the most likely place for victory on this issue.
But to support one of these "I am personally pro-life life but I support a womens right to chose" candidates is more than I can bear. Like, "I am personally against slavery, but I support others rights to have slaves."
|
|
You put it well.
To David, who said: "Touchy-feely issues will be laughed at...": Then they will laugh me right out of the party. Social conservatives took a party that was in tatters in the 70's following the Nixon administration, and helped get Reagan elected by two landslides. Without their support, Rudy would be lucky to win New York if he got the nomination.
To Hugh's story: correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the Times Square revival substantially the result of Disney coming in and buying up a substantial portion of that area? http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/1997/05/05/newscolumn1.html |
|
The reason why social conservatives are ok With Rudy Guliani is because the best way to be pro-life is to wage war on the terrorists that are trying to kill us. Winning the War on Terror preserves life.
Also, forget that he stood up to the Mafia and Yassir Arafat...he even stood up to the teachers' unions!
http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/03/14/why-rudy-is-right/
eric |
|
We all want things just our way and that's that, well this is a big country and we as conservatives need to give a little to get a lot.
We get furious at dems for wanting us to adopt their views 100%, well they feel the same way about our more conservative issues. Rudy offers us some middle ground on some tough issues. While at the same time taking a personal moral position. Remember, America is about FREEDOM, freedom of religion, etc. as such we can not demand our moral positions on others, no matter how strongly we stand by them. (Judge not, ...)
Let's give Rudy's middle ground a chance, He is charismatic, geniune and flawed. The general American public loves a flawed persona, as it is easier to connect to one. As Christians, we are sinners, so let's not stomp all over someone because they are not perfect. (Don't throw stones...) |
|
The Rudy McRomney machine is wrong for America. Just because Rudy didn't like a certain clientale in his city, who does he think he is by banning such? So we are to believe by his action in New York, when the Nazis did the same thing at Krystallnacht, that was "wrong"?
Censorship is just a stepping stone towards a dictatorship. Prince Rudy is on his off white steed riding to resue us from ourselves. Rudy, you are a political prostitute. Worthless RINO hack......
Rudy can trumpet his own bugle all he wants, but those of us who know him, know enough that he will do more damage by assuring a HillBillary victory in November 2008.
Enough is enough. Rudy can't hide his past anymore.......
Without appologies........ |
|
On that one issue ALONE he never gets my vote, even if the Dems resurrect and nominate Lenin.
If I want to vote for a liberal, I'll vote for one with a (D) behind their name.
|
|
Like George Bush, Rudy is not a conservative.
Let's face facts, other than his pro-life support, Bush is a liberal. He spends money with the best of them, supports open borders and treaties that are not in the best interest of the United States and supported No Child Left Behind and McCain-Feingold. |
|
|
|