-
Farewell to the Spectator
December 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
Tentative Praise for Ryan’s New Bipartisan Medicare Plan
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
-
The Day Ahead: Thursday, December 15
December 15, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Examiner for Romney, National Review Against Gingrich
December 14, 2011 | 39 comments
-
Paul Ryan to Introduce New Medicare Plan with Democrat Ron Wyden
December 14, 2011 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Jonathan Bernstein believes that a possible Rudy Giuliani campaign for president is doomed from the start. Why? Because he’s pro-choice.
Rudy also happens to be a social liberal - and a socially liberal Republican nominee in 2012 is simply not possible. Not going to happen. Giuliani may think that abortion is an important issue mainly for one limited faction of Republicans. But that’s just not true. It’s an issue, and probably a voting issue, for large majorities of Republicans nationwide. It’s one thing to speculate on whether those voters will be willing to accept a Mitt Romney, who is a late and possibly insincere convert to their cause. It’s something else entirely to wonder whether they would accept someone who disagrees with core party issues. They won’t.
Gary Johnson also faces this same obstacle (among others). After he was excluded from Monday’s CNN debate, he complained that primary voters wouldn’t have someone to represent “those who believe that individual rights extend to women who face choices about abortion, Americans who happen to be gay, and those who don’t place other asterisks on freedom.” On that basis, CNN was right to count him out.
All the other declared candidates are strongly pro-life, with the exception of Romney, for a reason. And Romney might be the exception that proves the rule, because his pro-choice past could easily prevent him from winning the nomination.
View all comments (28) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Joseph Lawler
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/06/10/giuliani-has-no-chance
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
PattyMor| 6.10.11 @ 5:16PM
If liberals believe in abortion so much, why do they have to have the gov'ment funding Planned Parenthood. If the Liberals believe it, they should be willing to put their own private money in the organization to fund it. Leave the rest of us and our gov'ment out of their gizzly business.
Kingofthenet| 6.11.11 @ 5:27PM
How about YOU Rethugs just stay OUT of peoples Medical Decisions PERIOD!
Nick| 6.11.11 @ 11:45PM
Kook of the Net,
Um....how about....NO!
Warrior | 6.12.11 @ 10:57AM
Be happy to. Pay for all that crap yourself and then we have no say.
Occam's Tool| 6.13.11 @ 6:02PM
When you disown Obamacare, I'll be glad to.
Occam's Tool| 6.13.11 @ 6:03PM
Actually, no. I won't. Abortion is wrong. But, considering the NICE approach Obama has waiting for us, your post, King, is hypocritical.
Occam's Tool| 6.13.11 @ 6:04PM
NICE= National Institute for Clinical Excellence---the UK NHS rationing machine.
Other Romney Clown| 6.10.11 @ 7:13PM
This election will not be about anything but the economy; the only mitigating factors concerning the litmus of the candidates will be restoring rights or preventing the government from infringing further. The SoCons have had their chance on the National stage for forty years with virtually no effect. (Hint: See “preventing government from infringing further.’) Their recent difficulties do not reflect a sympathetic nations’ abandonment, but instead the general public’s focus or priority concerning saving the Republic.
To paraphrase this scenario in electoral terminology for the pro-lifers; too many franchised women - not enough time. Their efforts should focus on States rights moderation or clarification, other than an outright ban much success at that level is possible. Certainly a pro-life candidate such as Palin con triumph, but not by prioritising the abortion issue.
Michael| 6.10.11 @ 7:17PM
Look at 2008. Rudy--$63M. Total--1 delegate from Iowa.
Sparky| 6.10.11 @ 9:19PM
The time to deal with social issues is not now. Abortion is the law. Let's get our house in order before we go into bankruptcy. Why not Rudy?
NoLib| 6.10.11 @ 10:19PM
Rudy supported partial birth abortion. If that's okay with you, you can both go to hell!
Teflon93| 6.11.11 @ 11:41AM
In your eyes---and those of the RINOs---it is NEVER time to deal with social issues.
What it is clearly NOT time for is electing a scandal-creator like Giuliani. Obama may be a disaster, but when it comes to family, Giuliani can't stand up to him. After all, Obama hasn't divorced his wife and publicly embarrassed her the way Giuliani did.
He lacks judgment. We need judgment.
NoLib| 6.11.11 @ 3:18PM
We need goodness, and it's sorely lacking in our people and our leadership.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 6.11.11 @ 1:49AM
Yup, that's right - he stands no chance to win the nomination, let alone the WH. And it isn't just because of his personal opinions on abortion and guns, to which he's entitled, but also because of his appeasement policy towards Communist China, his endorsement of the Big Government Bush policies, and his comment about strict constructionism.
Specifically, in 2007, during an interview with Dana Bash, Giuliani claimed that a strict constructionist "could come to either conclusion about Roe v. Wade." That is not just a liberal statement; it's plain wrong. Any strict constructionist would have to overturn Roe v. Wade. That ruling says that the Constitution contains a right to abortion. It does not.
RJ| 6.11.11 @ 2:42AM
Rudy has a bigger problem than abortion. He ran a poor race for NY Senate before pulling out and he ran a poor race for President in 2008. I supported him at the beginning of both races and was disappointed. I remember him saying he was the only Republican candidate with a 50 state strategy. If I recall correctly, he did not run in the first three contests: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. When he finally got on the track in Florida, he under-performed. Rudy's chance was in 2008, not now. Same for Mitt.
NoLib| 6.11.11 @ 4:51AM
Newt, too. 2008 is gone and so are their chances.
RJ| 6.11.11 @ 3:50PM
Yes, Newt has no chance either. I don't even believe he entered into the race thinking he could win. He likes to express his ideas and sell books. What better way to get more attention than to run for president?
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.11.11 @ 5:33AM
New York is and always has been a corrupt city. No one can escape that fact.
Mike| 6.11.11 @ 9:25AM
The premise of this article is that no pro choice candidate can win the Republican nomination. Even in a year when fiscal issues dominate, that is exactly right.
martin j smith| 6.11.11 @ 10:12AM
Its not only about Rudy G but about being serious as a candidate. I truly believe Rudy is well aware of his pitfalls as a candidate because without strong support from the conservative base no one can win. I think Rudy is too much of a control freak little different from Mike Bloomberg but not that different and this notion plus his social liberalism is not too attractive. He was good for NYC--he was the right fit. But nationally I am not so sure.
NoLib| 6.11.11 @ 3:19PM
I'm sure! Rudy would never get my vote.
Kingofthenet| 6.11.11 @ 5:26PM
Palin/Bachmann 2012, mind as go down BIG!
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.11.11 @ 9:02PM
Run that by me again if you would be so kind. Rephrase it or something.
ml| 6.12.11 @ 6:47AM
Giuliani is not pro-life and he will not get the nominee in 2012. Also, it won't be Romney, Palin, Gingrich, Cain, and Bachmann. It might be Pawlenty or Perry will get the nominee.
NoLib| 6.13.11 @ 2:19AM
Pawlenty's a stiff and Perry's another GWB RINO--neither will be nominated.
JimH| 6.12.11 @ 7:42AM
I’ll credit Rudy with hiring an able chief of police. Of course he then fired him when people actually started crediting the chief rather than the mayor with the reduction in crime. One wonders what he was thinking by having the city emergency management center put in the WTC. I have heard reports; perhaps others can confirm or refute the claim that on 09/11 hizzoner was a bit of an emotional wreck and it was thanks to the leadership of the police and fire depts. that the crisis was handled as well as it was. Of course more lives may have been saved if the firemen and police had better radios. I think he also has too much personal baggage to appeal to the SocCons, with several divorces, one of them rather messy. I lived in NYC until just before 9/11 so I have a bit of first hand experience.
Tom| 6.12.11 @ 8:38PM
I absolutely refuse to vote for Northeastern liberal RINO trash. If that's the best that the GOP has to offer, I'll either vote Third Party or just stay home. If the GOP does not embrace my values; then I will not support their candidates. And I really couldn't care less if means that this puts Republican politicians on the unemployment line.
NoLib| 6.13.11 @ 2:20AM
NO MORE RINOS!