-
Who’s Politicizing Benghazi?
May 9, 2013 | 6 comments
-
A Tale of Two Teams and Two Stars
January 10, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Mitt Romney Just Got Himself Elected President
October 3, 2012 | 17 comments
-
Obama to Gays and Hollywood: Show Me the Money!
May 9, 2012 | 13 comments
-
Ruinous Obama Austerity
May 9, 2012 | 2 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Jim Antle, Joseph Lawler and, in the comments section of my post, Steven Ertelt, the founder and editor of Life News, all make very fair and convincing points about Rudolph Giuliani’s position re: abortion. And, in light of their responses, I think it’s fair to say that I have, indeed, engaged in some wishful thinking and self-projection, as Joe says. Giuliani simply does not seem to be as operationally pro-life as I had hoped.
And that’s a shame, because as a GOP presidential candidate, Giuliani has real potential to shatter the Democratic coalition, He certainly has the potential to appeal to blue collar Reagan Democrats, whose allegiance likely will make or break the Republican Party in November 2012.
As the American Enterprise Institute’s Henry Olsen points out in National Review, “Non-whites’ increased share of the electorate has left the GOP heavily dependent on substantial majorities among blue-collar whites for even a shot at victory. To win, Republicans have to learn what makes Joe Six-Pack tick.”
Rudy knows what makes blue collar ethnics tick. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to know what makes conservative primary voters tick. He seems to have needlessly staked out an extreme-left position on abortion, which is guaranteed to incite the active opposition of pro-life activists.
I still hold out the hope (alright, maybe it’s a political fantasy) that Giuliani’s position on abortion is sufficiently ambiguous and ill-defined that, with considerable effort, he could yet woo pro-life voters — or at least stop them from actively opposing him.
But to do that, Rudy would have to oppose, for example, taxpayer funding of abortion. Unfortunately, there’s no indication that Giuliani understands this or is prepared to adjust his political sails accordingly. And, until he does, he never will be president.
View all comments (12) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John R. Guardiano
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/06/14/rudy-coulda-been-a-contender
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
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.14.11 @ 11:27AM
Never thought that I would say this, but it appears that the SoCons actually perform some function after all, even if it is ancillary.
Tom| 6.14.11 @ 11:46AM
Like Rudy? Much better candidate in Cong. Pete King. Pro l;ife ( for real) Very well liked by Republican Conservatives and blue collar Reagan Democrats for a variety of reasons, especially on national security. He always tells it straight. Time for a down to earth truth teller.
David T| 6.14.11 @ 1:37PM
Peter King is presidential timber. It would have been interesting if he had run for governor vs. Cuomo. Understand he is considering 2012 senate run against Gillibrand.
J.C.Eaton| 6.14.11 @ 11:47AM
Rudy had his uses, being President simply isn't one of them. If you want someone to sue a gangster ,a tax cheat, or some other sophisticated crook, he's your guy. If you want some fella to restore a bit of civic pride in a decaying and repellant city, he's your guy. If you want someone to be touched by the sanctity of life and love....well, he's NOT your guy.
Teflon93| 6.14.11 @ 12:42PM
Why treat Rudy's abortion position as sacrosanct? Wouldn't it be better to hope that he would come around and have some empathy for aborted children?
If Rudy wants to win, he needs a change of heart---on this issue, and on how he treats women.
opal| 6.14.11 @ 1:35PM
Not a chance that devout Catholics will vote for him. His choice is Loudly and clearly Prochoice. I personally, will never again vote for a Repulican that is even remotely wishy-washy on the subject. Obama has done more for the prolife cause than John McCain would have done. And as the priest I listened to today from EWTN said, immorality is the greatest national security threat today. It is irrelevant how many wars we could potentially win in some other country, if our country is rotting and murdering itself from the inside out. Oh and by the way, I am young and have many, many children who are growing up to think just like me, since I homeschool. Go away, prochoice Republicans-you can never win again....
Alan Vanneman | 6.14.11 @ 1:48PM
"Rudy knows what makes blue collar ethnics tick. "
What, they want a candidate who shacked up with his mistress at government expense during "business" hours? If this were the Fifties, Big Rudy would be excommunicated. If Rudy runs, he will do worse this time than last time.
Tom| 6.14.11 @ 5:16PM
Not to mention publicly appearning in drag and leading "Gay Pride" marches!!
Occam's Tool| 6.14.11 @ 2:00PM
In addition to the Abortion Albatross, Rudy has No Fire In The Belly. If he did, he would have been in Iowa in 2008.
David T| 6.14.11 @ 2:00PM
If Giuliani is serious about running again, he needs to stake out a clear position on abortion, such as absolutely no federal funding and no pro-choice judges. But, alas, he probably won't--he appears to be tone deaf on the issue. Too bad, because Rudy would win the blue-collar vote, as Mr. Guardiano points out, and he would also take the independent vote, where national elections are won.
PattyMor| 6.14.11 @ 3:13PM
You really must be kidding. What we need is new, fresh blood. Rudy had his chance in 2008, and all he came up with is one measley electoral vote.
Like Newt, Mitt, Hucksterbee, Rudy do us a favor and get off the stage. As Jim DeMint said, the social issues drive much of the spending. We need strong families; not panderers at the altar of abortion. Beside there is nothing in the constitution that permits the federal gov'ment that says it can spend money on abortion or support abortion providers.
Tom| 6.14.11 @ 5:15PM
"I still hold out the hope (alright, maybe it's a political fantasy) that Giuliani's position on abortion is sufficiently ambiguous and ill-defined that, with considerable effort, he could yet woo pro-life voters -- or at least stop them from actively opposing him."
In other words, Little Rudy's only hope is that he can lie through his teeth and hope that pro-lifers are STUPID enough to fall for his act!!!!
Mr.Guardiano, since you openly advocate that tactic, I am publicly calling you a liar. You have forever lost all credibility with me. I will NEVER place the lsightest bit of confidence in another word you say or write. Unscrupalous hacks like yourself are a cancer in modern American political lifs.
BTW, I am a different "Tom" than the gentleman who posted above using that name.