One word: abortion.
It’s not a matter of where you, my fellow Republican voters, or I stand on the issue. Whether you are “pro-choice” or not the Republican party has had a pro-life plank in its platform since 1980. Rudy has many admirable qualities and the highest name recognition in the GOP field, which is what made him a tantalizing candidate back when the time to vote was a year away. America’s Mayor was going to take on the Clinton machine and win. But getting closer in to the primaries one has to analyze the candidates and their stances much closer. And Rudy just doesn’t stand up to GOP scrutiny on some issues, and one in particular.
Conventional wisdom is that Rudy lost this election when he bailed out of New Hampshire, a state where his “moderate” views should have appealed to independents and Democrats that could vote in the Republican primary, and decided to bet all his chips on Florida.
But the truth is that Rudy lost the election many years ago when he declared himself in favor of legal abortion. Perhaps it helped him burnish his non-Republican Republican credentials in New York City but it put a ceiling on him as a national candidate for the GOP.
Rudy, we hardly knew ya.
31 thoughts on “Why Rudy was never going to get the GOP Nomination”
Comments are closed.
Then why does McCain get a pass on stifling the pro-life message in the service of suppressing free speech … for the benefit of pro-abortion Democrats?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmVhYjdlYzJjNzI0NGE2MjRlYTNlMDc0ZDlkZGVhNTg=
He doesn’t get a pass. In case you’re not aware the entire conservative establishment (as opposed to the Republican establishment) is actively campaigning against McCain as your citing of a National Review article clearly shows.
And McCain has never proclaimed himself to personally be in favor of abortion.
The abortion issue is a litmus test, no doubt about it. So is my second amendment right to keep and bear arms. That said, and being a pro-lifer, I would have voted for a pro-choice Republican candidate that met my other criteria, as long as it put a Dem in the unemployment line. I am pragmatic enough to recognize the real foe. I wouldn’t vote for one of them under any circumstance.
All three candidates flip-flopped on this issue. Romney was honest enough to admit that he had made an error when he switched positions. McCain doesn’t get a pass from me on anything. He has been dishonest and is now trying to pass himself off as a conservative. He’s even saying that he wants to make the tax cuts permanent… that he voted against!
McCain has always been pro life and has never flip flopped on the issue as others have.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4
I don’t think Rudy’s position did him in; I think his flip flopping on it and other issues made him look insincere. I do think his family issues hurt him too. (when you’re own kids are against you, that hurts).
At the end of the day, I believe the majority of people will vote over the economy rather than on narrow social issues like abortion.
It’ll be interesting to see how the conservative movement reacts when or if Hillary or Obama wins the presidency. The next president will, in all likelihood, appoint two justices to the court. Since 1968, there has been a pro-life Republican in the White House for 28 of the 40 years and not only did we get the Roe v. Wade decision but really nothing done towards overturning it. 7 of the current 9 justices were appointed by pro-life Republicans. The unavoidable fact is that a president is simply powerless to do anything except appoint justices that would see Roe v Wade for what it is, bad law. Even Ginsberg has said as much. But let’s not have any delusions on what would happen if Roe v. Wade were overturned. Abortions would not become illegal, it would simply be left for the states to determine and the wide majority of states would not outlaw abortions. Conservative South Dakota put the measure on a ballot in order to challenge Roe v. Wade and it lost overwhelmingly just a few years ago. It’s absolutely certain that NY, NJ, California, Texas and Florida would not outlaw abortions. Rudy Giuliani has the endorsement of Pat Robertson and has said repeatedly he would appoint “strict constructionist” judges to the courts in the Scalia-Thomas-Roberts-Alito mold. Do you really believe McCain would appoint justices that would undoubtedly overturn his landmark legislation, McCain-Feingold? particularly since he has said repeatedly he doesn’t want Roe v. Wade overturned or Romney who was “for it before he was against it?” I agree with you that the abortion issue has hurt Giuliani, but whether we like it or not, legalized aborions are going to be a part of the country’s future. The best course of action is to inform people and those results are palpable. The number of abortion in the US are at a 35 year low. As mayor, Giuliani oversaw the largest reduction in the number of abortions in NYC’s history. So good luck to all those who would like to “punish” the GOP’s only true fiscal conservative for his position but try realizing that the entire pro-life/pro-choice movement is nothing more than a funding/get-out-the-vote gimmick since outside of Supreme Court justices there isn’t anything a politician can do.
as to the campaign finance law, given the right case, it may be struck down.
for an example of where the court is leaning see last terms’ opinion in the Wisconsin right to life case …
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-969.pdf
Mike,
My biggest problem with McCain is that campaign finance reform bill he sponsored. If Fred had one chink in his armor it was voting for that abomination. The 1st Amendment (I don’t have to tell you) was created to protect political speech first and foremost. The McCain Feingold act is an affront to the 1st amendment and also drives political money underground as an “unintended” consequence. Many have called this the incumbent protection act and I tend to agree.
If there’s one criticism of McCain it’s that he makes his decisions based on his personal moral judgments and not based on any understandable political ideology. In other words we never know what we’re going to get.
With all due respect, McCain-Feingold isn’t “the only problem with McCain.” Aside from McCain-Feingold which is the most egregious government assault onfree speech in our lifetime. In fact, are we now currentl breaking the law by even posting these comments on election day?!?!
* Immigration – While most recognize that there will and must be some form of amnesty, given that the INS was only capable of deporting 200,000 in 2006 and there are an estimated 16 million illegals (you do the math as to how long it would take to deport everyone) granting amnesty at this point without securing the borders
would be suicidal.
. Granting Social Security to Illegals – Regardless of whether anyone agrees
with eventually granting Amnesty, Social Security benefits should
be off the table until after illegals become citizens or at least residents.
. Closing Gitmo – Insane!! McCain wants to close Guantanamo Bay and
bring the combatants into the federal court system. Beyond ridiculous and
completely populist. He goes so far as to advocate that terrorists have full
access to the intelligence files being used to prosecute them
. Water Boarding Terrorists – I do not believe that pouring water over
an illegal combatant (not covered by the Geneva Convention) to get vital
information on possible terrorist attacks is torture.
. Stem-cell research on human embryos – Bush was criticized for
opposing and McCain supported it. Turns out that they can now replicate
stem-cell without touching human embryos.
. Global Warming Legislation – According to McCain, the debate is
over. Of course, a very large percentage of scientists dispute the man-made
version of GW. McCain-Lieberman would start charging companies a carbon tax.
. Opposed the Bush Tax Cuts – In both 2001 and 2003 McCain opposed the
cuts because they were for “the rich”. Now he wants us to believe that it
was because he wanted spending cuts to match the tax cuts. Either way it
shows a complete lack of understanding economic principles.
. Drilling in Alaska – McCain opposes drilling for oil in Alaska. I
guess that drilling in Azerbijan, Russia, Mexico and Venezuela doesn’t
affect the environment. They’re all nearly as close to the US and the
companies doing the drilling aren’t nearly as clean as US companies have to
be.
. Terrorist Fighter – McCain wants us to believe that he is the best
terrorist fighter when he did nothing throughout the 1990’s when we were
attacked 12 times. He was quick to criticize Rumsfeld but didn’t say a word
to Clinton’s Sec. of Def. Cohen because they are close friends. Who did more
to transform the US military? Rumsfeld or Cohen?
. The Keating 5 Scandal – Never heard of it? You will!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
. The “Agents of Intolerance” Comments – Insulting Falwell and
Robertson Why???
. Pro-Life? – Not so fast. He has repeatedly said that he opposes the
repeal of Roe V. Wade because it would force women to undergo “illegal and
dangerous operations.”
. Choosing Judges – The next president will likely get to appoint 2
justices to the Supreme Court. I do not have confidence that McCain will
appoint justices of the Roberts/Alito mold which in the end may wind up
overturning Roe v, Wade. Because if he did there would be a great likelihood
that they would overturn his only landmark legislation McCain-Feingold….
McCain has done a great job of re-inventing himself but it’s only on paper….there are more points but these should be enough….
GA,
I never said “only” I said “biggest”. I agree with you on most of your points. I don’t however give any credence to anything posted at Wikipedia.
Henry I agree 100% with you on the campaign finance law. It was and is overkill. I agree and the law is clear that the campaigns can and should be regulated; but the restrictions against who can advertise chills speech. As you can see from the link to the Supreme Court’s decision last year; it could be that the law is on the way out.
Why GWB didn’t veto the law is beyond me. Now all the same crap that was done before is done under the guise of 527’s.
Congress with the support of the Prez enact bad laws all the time. Portions of the Patriot act for example. Overkill. That’s the problem with Congress. They try to fix things with overkill. The No Child Left Behind law, sucks. Overkill.
However, despite what all the pundits say, as you can see here from the ACU, McCain’s lifetime conservative voting record (82.3) is higher than those of the South Florida congressional GOP delegation.
And frankly, if he or mitt get the nod, their getting my support anyway, but being wrong on 1-2 issues doesn’t at least in my book disqualify someone from consideration.
I mean Hillary’s lifetime rating is 9.0 and O’bama is 8.0. So the alternative is frightening to say the least. Just look at the old Reagan ad I posted on CAP today. The Dems win, our taxes will double.
I agree with Cigar Mike. Romney will be eaten alive by the Democrats. The only chance of a Republican winning the presidency (and that is a slim chance)would be with McCain. If Romney wins today, we just might as well forfeit the next election. Just my humble opinion. And, it is humble.
I slightly disagree; there are pro-life people like me who’ve been involved in activism and we are willing to vote for Rudy. I have like-minded friends willing to vote for him because of his stand on other issues (considering what choices are out there for conservatives). Not all pro-lifers have tunnel vision. Not all of use are single-issue voters either. Many of us use our brains. Without getting into a debate on abortion, I think Rudy is behind because he gambled to spend his energy and $$$ in the big states and ignored the little places that, like it or not, fair or not, get a lot of press and give exposure to candidates, i.e, Iowa and New Hampshire, etc.
“The only chance of a Republican winning the presidency (and that is a slim chance)would be with McCain”.
Calabaza,
Never underestimate the ability of the Democrats to implode.
In August 1988 Dukakis had a 17 point lead over then Vice-President Bush.
Gigi,
Like I said in the post, it’s not a matter of what you and I think. There is a bloc of Republican voters for which this is a no-compromise issue. As a result, Rudy in a multi-candidate field was doomed to fail.
Calabaza,
I disagree. I think that if Hillary is the nominee she’ll be vulnerable to Mitt moreso than to McCain. Number 1 Mitt is not part of the Washington establishment that McCain and Hillary are both part of. Who would be the real candidate for “change” Mitt or Hillary? Hillary is part of the current Democrat majority in Congress. If the economy does slow down who will be more attractive, a business man with a track record as a turn-around artist or a big spending Democrat with plans to create socialized medicine?
I think too many people have drunk the kool-aid about McCain’s electability. Why? because the NYT says so? Please.
JackW:
from your lips to God’s ears
Henry:
my fear is that Romney will be portrayed as a businessman alright: Gecco from Wallstreet. Remember his past with buying and sellling off corporations.
Since when is it a sin to buy sick companies, fix them and sell them?
That’s ridiculous and really demonstrates how the media’s attitude toward big business is poisoning the well that we all drink from.
Cigar Mike,
Lifetime ACU ratings can be very misleading…check out this article from today’s American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/mccains_acu_ratings.html
Since 1998, McCain ranks among the most liberal voters in the Senate…..slightly above Lincoln Chafee who considered switching party affiliation…
It’s unfortunate that so many want to dismiss the only fiscal conservative in the GOP field, Giuliani, based on what people in Iowa, NH and SC think….but voting for a liberal Republican will only lead to further disaster particularly on the financial front in the coming years.
As for the polls indicating that McCain is the only Republican who can beat the Dems, that’s laughable!! When was the last time this country elected a non-southern liberal President? Arguably JFK in 1960 and he barely defeated an ill-prepared Nixon. Since then LBJ a tough talking Texan, Carter a Navy grad who ran as a moderate and Bill Clinton who beat a fractured right w/ a mere 43% of the vote. Don’t believe the hype when the issues are presented most Americans aren’t going to move that far to the left….it would be a real shame if it’s a Republican liberal, like McCain, that takes us there….
“the media’s attitude toward big business is poisoning the well that we all drink from”.
Agreed.
However, I believe the Democrats with the help of the media will spin it that way.
Dear friends, Personally, I am PRO-CHOICE and pro-abortion rights, as well as for civil unions (not gay marriage), so I don’t see how he should lose merely for this. What I think Americans should care of the most is the war on Islamo-Fascism and fixing the economy through a Reaganite-style free market reform. Don’t voting Giuliani ONLY because of his pro-choice stance is ridiculous, that’s my opinion.
Stefania,
That’s why this is America. You are free to have the views you have. But as an analyst, you can’t dismiss the fact that a large bloc of voters in the Republican party don’t agree with you on those issues and that those issues are more important to them than they are to you.
It’s like this. I like the Florida Marlins. I’d like the Florida Marlins to win the World Series this year, but logic dictates to me that the Boston Red Sox have a much better chance of winning the World Series based on the criteria needed for winning. A dispassionate look at the situation would lead you to believe that Red Sox have what it takes at this point in time and Marlins don’t.
All I am saying is that at this point in time, the GOP is NOT GOING to nominate a pro-choice candidate. Each bloc within the Republican party has certain non-negotiable issues. And if you want the party to win you have accept that and respect it so that they in turn will respect your issues. That’s why you need a well rounded candidate to vote for. That’s why I was backing Fred Thompson despite the fact that I agree more with McCain on immigration. That issue wasn’t as important to me as other issues.
Look at the post again. I did not say that I didn’t want Rudy. I did not say that he shouldn’t get the nomination because of his views on Abortion or other social issues. I simply said his candidacy was doomed because of them. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Henry, I am not referring to you, don’t take it as a personal criticism.
Having said this, I don’t know McCain’s stance on abortion rights and choice issues, nor I do care about knowing it. Indeed, what I do care the most is his stance on the Islamic threat, Cuba, Iran, etc. I’m a right-wing independent,would vote Democratic even if someone should force me. I don’t care if they are pro-choice. What I hope is that next US president has the guts President Bush didn’t have during his second-term: to face the Castros, the Ayatollahs and the Islamic monsters who are slowly taking over our countries.
CORRECTION: “would NOT vote Democratic even if someone should force me.”
I was backing Fred from the start, unfortunately, he’s out of the race… now that we must vote for the remainder of the few… my vote is with John Mc Cain.
Mr. Guliani is not a conservative by any means… Mitt isn’t either… John Mc Cain can at least hold the record of being the most experienced and the most patriotic American GOP candidate standing ( In my opinion )
as long as a DONKEY doesn’t reach the White House, I’ll be fine.
It sucks to be me (and Rudy) today, and I understand all the points made here. My sister cannot be persuaded to vote for Rudy and asked me why I’m backing a “baby killer.” She votes a purely pro-life platform- even telling me to not vote for a PA treasurer one year because she was pro-choice- because treasurers are known for their legislative powers? So I do see the importance of the issue. However, for me, there are much bigger issues that scare the crap out of me- terrorism and border security and the economy.
I tried, Rudy.
Rudy! Rudy! Rudy! Anyone who could straighten out NYC when I lived there gets my vote. That being said, I’ll live with the other Republicans. Just not Hillary, please.
KMendiola,
I beg to differ. You should read the posts at the beginning of the thread regarding McCain. If you voted for McCain you just voted for Global Warming Carbon Taxes (see McCain-Lieberman), the closing of Gitmo with the enemy combatants entering our federal court system, amnesty for illegals without closing the border first, no drilling in Alaska, justices to the Supreme Court who will NOT overturn Roe v. Wade or McCain Feingold or eminent domain(think Souter, Kennedy), to name just a few…McCain’s ACU rating over the last 10 years is barely higher than Lincoln Chafee a senator who often considered switching party affiliation. McCain is as liberal as Al Gore on global warming, Kennedy on immigration, Feingold on freedom of speach, and he very well might be the Republican nominee…..God save the Republican Party….
I’ll stand firmly that out of the three candidates, Mc Cain has what it takes to move our country forward on the global war on terror (primarily what I voted on).
Fred Thompson possibly endorsing Mc Cain says a lot… would you argue with Thompson?
Guiliani endorsing Mc Cain? What do you say about Guiliani now?
at the end of the day we only had one true conservative and he dropped out…
I don’t pay attention to endorsements. If you look at the post I entitled: It’s over you’ll know how I feel about this impostor that is John McCain. McCain, endorsed by the NYT times. McCain, darling of the mainstream media. McCain, darling of liberals and independents. McCain, enemy of free political speech.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/
you may want to take a look at this website…
Mitt may be running on a small Republican fan base as well.
* “The Massachusetts Republican Party died last Tuesday. The cause of death: failed leadership. The party is survived by a few leftover legislators and a handful of county officials and grassroots activists who have been ignored for years. Services will be public and a mass exodus of taxpayers will follow. In lieu of flowers, send messages to New Hampshire Republican voters warning them about a certain presidential candidate named Romney.”
– Boston Herald, 11/12/2006
Get this through your head. McCain may be the nominee but he is not and has not been for at least 10 years any type of conservative.
Perfectly said Henry! The only thing I would add is that McCain wants to close Gitmo thereby granting constitutional rights to “illegal combatants” who aren’t even covered under the Geneva Convention. Bringing the terrorist from Gitmo into our federal court system would reverse the Bush gains returning to the Clinton mantra of terrorism as a “law enforcement” issue. Terrorists would now have access to inteligence reports for their defense. That will unquestionably deter people from coming forward with information and hamper field operations as infiltrators would be uncovered. Doesn’t sound like a terrorist fighter to me. As far as commander-in-chief, Mark Levin wrote an article recently very accurately pointing out that being a war veteran doesn’t in any way make one more qualified to be C-in-C. Some of our greatest wartime C-in-Cs have had no military experience whatsoever. Lincoln, FDR, Truman, Reagan etc. McCain was in the Senate (a supposed national leader) and did nothing to persuade the Clinton guard to change their stance on terror and never criticized Cohen who was his personal friend. So how exactly is he better credentialed to fight terror than a Giuliani who had repeatedly said he would continue to “take the war to the terrorists”?
The conservative movement took place within the Republican Party but they are hardly synonomous. Carter may have been a disaster but the Republican Party certainly wasn’t much better before the advent of Reagan. Unfortunately, McCain is moving the Party back to the Nixon-Ford-Dole-Howard Baker days where big government is the solution. Principles that should have died in 1980. Like I said yesterday “God Save the Republican Party.”