Welcome to CPAC, Rudy

Republicans — By on March 2, 2007 at 5:17 pm

According to the reports coming out of the annual Conservative Political Action Committee conference, Rudy Giuliani drew “huge crowds” and was treated like a “rock star.” I find this disconcerting. Are the people attending CPAC completely unaware of Giuliani’s positions? If so they need to watch this video:


Supported Roe, gun control, illegal immigration, partial-birth abortion, gay rights, allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military, McCain-Feingold. At the end of this video he even jokes that he’d like to run “on the Democratic line.” Since his positions match up so well to the Democrat’s platform, he could — and he’d probably win.



  • http://parablemania.ektopos.com Jeremy Pierce

    A number of Democrats are giving Hillary a hard time, and the only reason they’re just giving her a hard time is because she’s backed down from her support of the mission in Iraq. Rudy hasn’t done so. There’s no way he’d get a Dem nomination without changing his stance on that.

  • http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com Joe Carter

    Jeremy There’s no way he’d get a Dem nomination without changing his stance on that.
    Ah, yeah, you’re right. That’s a great point.
    So what will end up happening is that the the Democrats will get two candidates: Hillary for the anti-war crowd and Joe Lieberman, er, I mean Rudy, for the war supporters. ; )

  • http://www.zackofalltrades.com Zack

    What in particular is wrong with McCain-Feingold? (I honestly don’t know).
    And what do people think of McCain as a candidate?

  • http://king-of-fools.com King of Fools

    The one thing Rudy has going for him on the conservative side is that he has leadership. McCain just doesn’t have the temperment. Romney is unknown. The rest of the field are lightweights.
    Good leadership can compensate for a world of imcompatibilities; at least image-wise.

  • markg8

    Guiliani also showed just how clueless he is on the military by saying Reagan put “cruise missiles” in Europe. Those were Pershings not cruise missiles.

  • http://www.randythomas.org Ra ndy

    Absolutely amazing. I am definitely worried that people are getting swept up in “electibility” (sp?) hype. Hopefully that bubble will burst in short order. He is not on our side.

  • http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com Joe Carter

    Zack What in particular is wrong with McCain-Feingold? (I honestly don’t know).
    Great question. My brief answer: If violates our First Amendment rights. It’s tentacles have a broad reach but one example is that it puts a ban on all broadcast political advocacy advertising that mentions candidates by name, beginning 60 days before the election.
    For example, it would be against the law for me to run an ad reminding people that Giuliani is not a good pro-life candidate just before the election. I could print p*rn*graphy which would still be protected by the Constitution but not a political opinion.
    It’s a law that was intended to clean up politcs and instead has made things much, much worse.

  • Barry

    Many voters see the possibility of a Hillary Presidency and see Rudy as the lesser of 2 evils, and certainly MUCH stronger on terror and defense.
    Sadly, anyone else who runs against her will get smacked. The Republican nomination is about who can beat Hillary, not about social issues.
    Maybe some folks don’t like it, but that is the political reality.

  • Jared

    To elaborate a bit on McCain-Fiengold: It was campaign finance reform. Which is a horrible idea. And McCain naively supports it still.

  • http://aperfectcontradiction.blogspot.com/ fabulinus

    You should read this.

  • http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com Joe Carter

    Barry Sadly, anyone else who runs against her will get smacked.
    I have to disagree with you there. I think while McCain or Romney have a slim chance of beating Hillary, Rudy has none. Hillary’s dirty laundry has been airing out for almost 12 years. What new information is there to find about her?
    But all most people know about Rudy is that he didn’t crack on 9/11. When his positions (gun control, etc), personal life (his wife found out he was leaving her when he held a press conference), and his “weirdo factor” (marrying his cousin, dressing in drag) all get more attention, people will sour on him.
    That’s why we’ll be stuck with McCain. Everyone will be hot on Rudy until he implodes and then they’ll be looking for the next most “electable” guy.
    By the way, how did we get in this situation? Did we conservatives forget there was an election in 2012? Why haven’t we been grooming a real conservative these past few years? When Hillary get elected, we conservatives will have no one to blame but ourselves.

  • http://thebronxblogger.blogspot.com Matthew Goggins

    Joe,
    I couldn’t agree with you more strongly about McCain-Feingold.
    I know President Bush didn’t like it, and only signed it because of the strong congressional support it enjoyed, but I hold him accountable anyway. He should have spent some capital knocking it down and explaining why it deserved to be knocked down.
    About Rudy, I don’t know what to think about him. When he was a federal prosecutor, he got carried away with himself and ended up seriously abusing some people. But he was a terrific mayor. I saw him in action, sometimes in person, and he was even better than people say he was.
    In any case, if it’s Rudy versus Hillary, it’s a no-brainer.

  • http://parablemania.ektopos.com Jeremy Pierce

    As critical as conservatives should be about Rudy (and I’m on record preferring Romney), I think two things remain:
    1. He’s far preferable to Hillary. If he gets the nomination, conservatives who don’t vote for him to “send a message” are morally responsible for the liberal takeover of the Supreme Court that will almost certainly follow and for whatever she gives in to the left on with the war.
    2. According to current polls, he kills her. She doesn’t have a chance against him. Both are very well known. It’s true that some people don’t realize he’s pro-choice, but it’s just as alarming how many people don’t realize she’s pro-choice. Some people are going to be ignorant. But they’re both well-known entities, and he does so much better in polls at this point that he is almost assuredly going to win if he’s nominated. With any other nominee (and again I’m saying I support someone else) it’s not entirely clear what will happen in the general election. But that’s not what we should be thinking about at this stage in the game except to rule out people like Sam Brownback who would have no chance whatsoever because they put their foot in their mouth every time they open it. The Dems made that mistake with Kerry last time, and we surely don’t want to do it now with someone who prefers circular firing squads to engaging with the issues (never mind his weakness on Iraq).

  • J. J.

    conservatives who don’t vote for him to “send a message” are morally responsible for the liberal takeover of the Supreme Court that will almost certainly follow and for whatever she gives in to the left on with the war
    What possible reason would there be to think that Giuliani would nominate conservative justices? Republicans in general do not reliably nominate conservative Supreme Court justices. Even Reagan wasn’t very good at it. And someone who thinks Roe v. Wade was good law is going to be?
    The Supreme Court went to Hell in handbasket long ago. How can people voting their consciences in 2008 possibly be responsible for its demise?
    Where is the moral responsibility in voting for someone who is Pro-Choice?

  • J. J.

    Joe very succinctly covered McCain-Feingold, but just let me add that I think the historians will see it as a watershed event. They’ll find plenty of reason to believe Americans were already willing to give up their rights to free speech, but when they note the apathy that met something as blatant as McCain-Feingold, they will have proven their case for sure.
    Of course, I’m assuming that the government of the UASR (Union of American Socialist Republics) at that future time will allow the historians to write about such things. :-)

  • JohnW

    Zack,
    Here’s what I think about McCain.
    First I respect him for his service to country in the military. I liked McCain in 2000, but now he’s changed and I couldn’t vote for him. For example he had previously spoken out against the religious right, but now he is cozing up to them.
    My ideal republican candidate is Congressman Ron Paul from Texas. For democrats, I like Obama (Obama/Edwards would make a good ticket).