Does Rudy Giuliani Want to Win

Rudy Giuliani attempts a tried and true failed strategy for persuading Republicans to nominate a baby killer:

Giuliani made his sharpest case for moving beyond social issues this weekend in Iowa, telling The Des Moines Register, "Our party is going to grow, and we are going to win in 2008 if we are a party characterized by what we're for, not if we're a party that's known for what we're against."

Asked about abortion, he said, "Our party has to get beyond issues like that."

Rich Lowry is displeased and rightly so -- there's no reason to think cultural conservatism is an electoral liability for the GOP, and there's certainly no reason to think that given the current political climate. Indeed, traditionalism is probably the one GOP plank that hasn't been discredited in some obvious way by George W. Bush's conduct in office. I think the anti-choice view is wrong, but nothing has happened that I would expect to change people's opinions about this stuff.

Comments

I agree that traditionalism/cultural conservatism "is probably the one GOP plank that hasn't been discredited in some obvious way by George W. Bush's conduct in office."

The funny part is the reason it hasn't been discredited: he hasn't really enacted serious cultural conservative policies (he only makes noise about it). For example, no effort to ban stem cell research (remember, he only withheld federal funding for future stem cell lines), and no hard push for an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment (just a brief endorsement of the idea just before elections to try to fire up the base).

In other words, the policies GWB hasn't discredited are mainly the ones he hasn't really tried!

Posted by JWR | April 16, 2007 12:17 PM

Giuliani : GOP nomination :: Houston : NBA Championship

It looks great on paper, but when you start playing out the games, not so much.

Posted by Petey | April 16, 2007 12:23 PM

Traditionalim has not been discredited by Bush, but at what point do the anti-abortion folks just give up? Republicans controlled every branch of government from 2002 to 2006, including the Supreme Court. They didn't make any serious moves to restrict abortion, introduce prayer into schools, or even slow the momentum in favor of gay marriage. It may finally be sinking into the heads of at least the more intelligent traditional conservatives that no serious politician actually cares two figs about their issues. These people may not vote for Giuliani, but if enough of them give up on politics in disgust, at least for a while, and don't vote at all then Giuliani might be able to slip through the primary process. I think a strategy of making these people feel unwelcome works to Rudy's advantage.

Posted by Vanya | April 16, 2007 12:29 PM

Good point, JWR.

Also, I think the title of this post is off-base. The problem with Giuliani's candidacy isn't that he's pursuing a strategy that is hindering his Presidential prospects. His prospects are simply hindered by his record. Trying to minimize the importance of abortion is the ONLY strategy Giuliani can pursue, even if I question him pulling it off.

Giuliani's troubles will be masked for some time because (a) his biggest opponents in McCain and Romney also have credibility problems with the GOP base; (b) the mainstream media tends to kiss GOP ass but doesn't necessarily adopt the social positions of the base, so Giuliani will continue to get favorable press; and (c) he can raise buckets of cash.

However, I predict the social conservatives will be unsatisfied with these choices and will rally around a GOP dark horse -- a Republican Howard Dean, if you will. My pick: Brownback.

Posted by space | April 16, 2007 12:32 PM

I haven't yet observed the Radical Right and its various factions having any problem getting in line behind the Anointed Leader(tm) regardless of his stated positions on specific issues. Giuliani is a tough-fisted authoritarian and that is all they really need to know when it comes down to it; the rest can be negotiated/enforced later.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | April 16, 2007 12:35 PM

Republicans controlled every branch of government from 2002 to 2006, including the Supreme Court. They didn't make any serious moves to restrict abortion

Um, no. For purposes of abortion, conservatives did NOT control the Supreme Court at any time during that period. The reason that cultural conservatives are happy enough with GWB is that he moved the Supreme Court one vote closer to a conservative majority on the issue. But they are still one vote short.

Posted by Al | April 16, 2007 12:38 PM

BTW - agree with MY (and Lowry) 100%. Bad, bad move for Giuliani. He was actually doing as well as could be expected on abortion, given that he is on the wrong side of the issue for the party, before this episode.

Posted by Al | April 16, 2007 12:41 PM

Guiliani may be trying to position himself as a moderate Republican. There is, in Republican circles, a nostalgia for the good old days when, supposedly, Repulbicans were reasonable people. I don't buy this myself. I mean just when were those good old days? During the MacCarty era? During Wateregate? During the proto-Bush era of Reagan when the Bushites did their take over of the party? The Republican party has always been the party of the selfish who bamboozled the middle into voting for them by appealling to people's baser instincts. Bush is different only in degree, not kind.

The Republican party hasn't contributed anything connstructive to this country since Roberrt La Follette's day. (Did I spell that right?)

So the nostalgia isn't for a reasonnable, sane party. It's for a successful party. It's for a party that more effectively package its selfishness and authotitarianism to be appeallinng to a wider audience.
The unforgivable thing about Bush to most Republicans isn't the religiouus fanaticism., the white collar crime, the politicizing of government agencies, the abuse of power, or the unnecessary war, or the money mismanagement. All of that would be fine if his poll ratinngs were above 50%. The problem is that he didn't get way with it. The Republicans got caught acting in public like Republicans annd none of us normal people like their behavior. Guiliani realizes that the appearance of the party needs to change.

So Republicans have to blame someone. Looks like Guilianni has decided to blame Bush and the religous right.

Guilianni is telling wingnut primary voters that their demands on rightwing social issues won't be met by him. As a result, he may lose primary votes, but, probably, his hope is to get election votes from people who consider themselves to be moderate Republicans. The danger to us all is that the ploy will work and we will get four more years of selfish authoritarinism, minus the interns from Regent University.

Posted by wonkie | April 16, 2007 12:48 PM

I've posted about Giuliani's FT op-ed at my blog, trying to discover whether i'm even worthy of a readership if anyone's interested, feedback appreciated.

Posted by Mr. Todd | April 16, 2007 1:17 PM

Cranky Observer is right. The right wing is all about power and nothing else (except hating "libruls" and Hillary Clinton).

They have no real problem lining up to vote for Rudy because he's the only one they think can win.

Now, IF Fred Thompson continues to get favorable press, he could emerge as the right's answer to Rudy and the un-electable John McCain.

They still hate McCain, because they hate him. This is the right wing. Their hate doesn't have to be logical.

They don't really trust Rudy. All those appearances in drag? What does that say about him? Yet, they have to love the little Himmler complex he has going for him. If Guliani comes out for "tolerance on abortion and gay civil marriages, but let's nuke Iran!" that will probably be enough.

Whether any Republican can win in 2008 in the face of the total collapse of the Iraq war is another question.

Thompson might win the nomination if he can convince them he's a winner, plus he has the right-wing credentials. After all, they think that they lost in 2008 by being NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH. If only they'd stayed HARD right all the way with no "compromising (where?) with Democrats" then voters would reward them.

That's because, by definition, conservative principles can never be wrong, they can only be betrayed. If Bush tries every wing-nut position on everything, and it fails miserably, that's Bush's fault for abandoning his principles, not their fault for believing in nonsense that doesn't work!

The Republican party really IS like the Bourbon dynasty of France -- they never learn and they never forget.

Posted by Cugel | April 16, 2007 2:06 PM

The Republican party hasn't contributed anything connstructive to this country since Roberrt La Follette's day. (Did I spell that right?)

Well, you spelled the last name right. ;)

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | April 16, 2007 2:24 PM

For example, no effort to ban stem cell research (remember, he only withheld federal funding for future stem cell lines),

This is effectively banning stem cell research.

First, there are about 4 lines out there right now that are becoming more and more useless by the day as they degrade with time. So their position is akin to banning new production of milk and then claiming that you haven't banned milk because you can still drink old milk.

Second, it would be one thing if all they were doing is cutting off funding for new stem cells. If that's what they were doing, it would be easy enough to grab funding from the states or private foundations to carry on research. But the administration has also prohibited the use of government funded labs for doing research on the new lines. So, in order to work on new cell lines, not only do you have to get funding to secure these lines outside the usual channels, you also need to get funding to set up an entirely new lab. Needless to say, this is a huge barrier to entry for all but a few research institutions.

Posted by michesmith | April 16, 2007 2:33 PM

[T]here's no reason to think cultural conservatism is an electoral liability for the GOP, and there's certainly no reason to think that given the current political climate. Indeed, traditionalism is probably the one GOP plank that hasn't been discredited in some obvious way by George W. Bush's conduct in office.

What parallel universe are you living in?

Posted by martind | April 16, 2007 4:17 PM

minus the interns from Regent University.

That's not nothing...

Posted by TW Andrews | April 16, 2007 5:06 PM

Indeed, traditionalism is probably the one GOP plank that hasn't been discredited in some obvious way by George W. Bush's conduct in office.

How about "small government"?

Posted by Leonard | April 16, 2007 5:07 PM