Rudy: social conservatives should get over being socially conservative Update: context added
posted at 4:10 pm on April 16, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Yup. Rudy Giuliani may have just cost himself the nomination.
“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,” the former New York mayor said at a midday campaign stop.
Republicans can win, he said, if they nominate a candidate committed to the fight against terrorism and high taxes, rather than a pure social conservative.
“Our party has to get beyond issues like that,” Giuliani said, a reference to abortion rights, which he supports.
Early reax to the comment: decidedly negative.
I’m a social con. I was giving Giuliani a close look in spite of quite a few things, because he projects strength on the war. But telling social conservatives to “get over it” is arrogant. It also betrays what he really thinks about the pro-life movement. We don’t define ourselves by “what we’re against,” but by what we’re for: the right to life. It’s the most basic right.
JPod questions whether the reporter got the quote accurate, and it’s always wise to approach any MSM report on any Republican saying anything, with skepticism. But still.
Coupled with Giuliani’s recent flap over federal funding of abortion, this builds a high wall between him and the socially conservative base of the party. I would chalk it up to being a rookie mistake, but Giuliani’s no rookie. He’s just a social liberal who happens to be strong on the war, running for the nomination of a socially conservative party. If there’s a political marriage in the offing, it will be one that features a shotgun.
Update: We have context.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: I have a question about the former platform in the Republican Party allowed abortion in the case of rape, incest, and life of the mother. I believe in that and I believe that because of the abortion issue in the Republican Party it is dividing this party so badly that we may not be able to elect a Republican president and I hope-I’d like to hear what your thoughts are on that.”
MAYOR GIULIANI: “What my thoughts are on the big question? I can tell you my thoughts on both.”
AUDIENCE MEMBER: “The big question.”
GIULIANI: “On the big question my thoughts are we shouldn’t allow it to do that. Electing a Republican in 2008 is so important to the war on terror, the ability to keep up an economy that’s an economy or growth, or from the point of view of what we believe as Republicans to really set us in the wrong direction. Democrats are entitled to think something different but I think that there will be a major difference in the direction of this country whether we have a Republican or Democrat in 2008 and 2009. On abortion I think we should respect each other. I think that’s what we should do and we should respect the fact that this is a very difficult moral question and a very difficult question and that very good people of equally good conscience could come to different opinions on it. My view of it is I hate abortion. I think abortion is wrong. To someone who I cared about or cared to talk to me about it and wanted my advice, the advice I would give them is not to do it and to have adoption as an option to it. When I was the Mayor adoptions went way up, abortions went down but ultimately I respect that that’s somebody else’s decision and that people of conscience can make that decision either way and you can’t put them in jail for it. (applause) And then I think our party, our party has to get beyond issues like that where we can have people who are very good people who have different views about this, they can all be Republican because our party is going to grow and we’re going to win in 2008 if we’re a party that is characterized for what we are for and not if we’re a party that’s known for what we are against. …” (Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Campaign Event, Des Moines IA, 4/14/07)
That is much better. Soundbites can distort remarks out of all proportion, and that seems to have been the case here. I do dislike the part about being a party that’s known for what it’s against rather than for, though. Pro-lifers are for the right to life, period. The media has long cast us as being “anti-abortion” because that’s a negative spin on our point of view. Fellow Republicans shouldn’t use the MSM’s shorthand when describing or addressing each other.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
So are social conservatives really willing to hand the country entirely to liberals, from foreign policy to taxes, in the name of sticking to principle? He is right; get over it and see the big picture.
Patriot33 on April 16, 2007 at 4:14 PM
What a moron. Can we just get a gag order slapped on this man? I’m tired of listening to him.
Gregor on April 16, 2007 at 4:17 PM
“Get over it?”
Hey, Rudy, get bent.
Yeah, I’m in a bad mood now, sorry.
Bad Candy on April 16, 2007 at 4:18 PM
It’s time. Time for Fred! Fred Thompson, that is. Although, as a “Fred”, I think its past time one of us got to be President.
The GOP field, as currently constituted, is weak, friends. Really weak. The door is wide open for a dark horse candidate to take this nomination by storm and Newt has waaay to many negatives. Fred is perfect. Nominate Michael Steele for VP and enjoy the ride to 2008.
I too was looking hard at Rudy cos I love what he represents in terms of projecting strength and a no-nonsense attitude. But when he’s wrong on too many issues, at some point you have to say no thanks.
Fred on April 16, 2007 at 4:18 PM
You mean, in the name of everything we believe in?
Gregor on April 16, 2007 at 4:18 PM
I think it would be more appropriate if Rudy would just forgot about being president.
rplat on April 16, 2007 at 4:19 PM
he’s more than just strong on the war also, he understands capitalism, is in favor of the flat tax. He’s near perfect except for this, if he will convince me he will nominate contstructionist judges I may vote for him out of pragmatism in primary.(if I think Fred can’t win the big thing).
Otherwise, I will be voting for whoever the GOP nominates in general and refuse to go 3rd party or anything else that will only elect Hillary.
jp on April 16, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Foot-in-mouth disease.
elpresidente on April 16, 2007 at 4:20 PM
I’m with Patriot33 on this. Only one thing matters: fighting our enemies hard, either debilitating them or destroying them outright to the point where they’ll never think of attacking us or any civilized nation again, and winning the GWOT. Abortion, shmabortion. Gun control, schmun control. Gay rights, shmay rights. None of that will matter if we find ourselves on our knees (literally and figuratively) in front of our Islamist masters.
Gottafang on April 16, 2007 at 4:22 PM
he’s just locked in my vote.
jummy on April 16, 2007 at 4:23 PM
Let’s compromise! like that guy Reagan compromised his principles just to get elected ba–.
Oh wait…
ScottMcC on April 16, 2007 at 4:24 PM
Well, As horrible as the Virginia Tech atrocity is today, I think that this should be much more important to a much larger number of people. But is still won’t get much attention on a day like this, or for the rest of the week.
Ok, maybe the quote is not accurate, or Guliani didn’t mean it the way it sounded.
But I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if he meant it precicely the way you headlined it.
Seems like nearly all of the Republicans feel safe to ‘dis’ the Conservative base of the party. What is that old saying? A fish rots from the head. ? President Bush and the RNC don’t seem to care much what conservatives think.
So, Why would a guy that might as well be a Lieberman type Democrat rather than the Republican frontrunner worry about telling folks like you and me to ‘kiss off’.
LegendHasIt on April 16, 2007 at 4:28 PM
I’m not a social con, and I’m moderate on abortion. Definitely not a life at conception guy, so I kinda see his point on this, but the phrasing will be… problematic.
By the way, “get beyond” is not “get over it” people. Get beyond as in dont rule someone out who disagrees with you on abortion. I’m a republican and I’m pro-choice while being very against partial birth abortion or anything 3rd trimester at the least. So there’s room for disagreement I hope.
Dash on April 16, 2007 at 4:29 PM
HEHE.
Theworldisnotenough on April 16, 2007 at 4:30 PM
So Bryan when is Fred announcing?
Theworldisnotenough on April 16, 2007 at 4:30 PM
On almost all issues I find myself with the social cons. That said, there seems to me to be an Achilles heel at the core of the social con political agenda: we’re totally against abortion, yes, but what are we for if a woman goes and has one: jailing her? the death penalty, for murder? if abortion becomes illegal, should doctors who perform them also be jailed (or worse)? Maybe it’s just me, but I never – ever – hear conservatives talk about this, and if it is indeed because of a willful avoidance, it weakens credibility on other issues. Rudy’s stand is politically reasonable, until the question of what we’re for in terms of punishment for abortion is addressed.
Halley on April 16, 2007 at 4:30 PM
Bye, Rudy! I thought the emails at NRO were quite apt.
What arrogance and what total lack of understanding of history.
Rudy hasn’t connected the dots between strong families and strong societies. Morality, responsibility, commitment, yes, they start in a small circle with mom and dad and their impact ripples out.
When you start talking about how it’s more important to be a hawk and have the country survive than to worry about social conservative issues, let me ask you this, what do you think happens to civilizations when they do not value children and do not value marriage and strengthening the family? Do they survive? I do not know of any. Their inward implosion leaves them unable fight the enemies outside.
Let me also ask where do you think a nation’s citizens learn to have character that is marked by resolve and perseverance? Where do they learn clarity and wisdom regarding good and evil? Where do you think responsibility and the fortitude to go on in the face of all odds and suffering comes from? Where and how do citizens gain the heart to fight?
Courage doesn’t come ex nihilo. Convictions that are tried over time in smaller battles produce character that has courage to go on to greater battles.
So when you look askance at social conservatives, just remember we are doing our best to be salt and light and by so doing we strengthen the nation.
How does a country and civilization become rotten and weak? They lose their convictions and, thus, their character; and being without character, thus, their courage.
Yesterday, Wade posted this:
I said on another thread that this line is where the rot sets in:
At that point people seem to forget the cost of bondage and the value of spiritual faith; great courage; and liberty.
We social conservatives still recognize that cost and value. We do our best to teach it to our children.
INC on April 16, 2007 at 4:31 PM
And here I thought rudy favored gun control too :P
lorien1973 on April 16, 2007 at 4:32 PM
For those who think abortion and gay marriage don’t matter and that those of us who care about the right to life should get over it, I will NEVER get over it. Our creator did not give us the authority to murder babies for convenience and birth control. When a country allows this violent practice and turns a blind eye to the devaluing of life, the GWOT doesn’t really matter because we are no better than them. What’s the difference between a suicide bomber blowing up 80 people in a market place and a physician using his skills to murder thousands of babies before they are born? Really, what is the difference? I don’t see it and neither do many of us conservatives. I cannot, I will not, vote for a candidate who wants me to “see beyond issues like that”.
Centurion68 on April 16, 2007 at 4:34 PM
IMO, it is Social Conservatism that has given wings to the other forms: political, economic. This because it is rooted in Judeo-Christian values, the foundation of our American Culture. Are we forgetting our history, or just rewriting it to suit the new mores? Step back. Know the “Why”.
BNCurtis on April 16, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Rudy is looking more like a Greek tragedy in the making every day. What an ego. At this point, I’m not waiting for a walk-back “rephrasing” from the Giuliani camp on this quote. This is a massive third rail for him, and he keeps dancing around and on it.
If he can’t keep from alienating his own base, how can we trust him to deal with our allies? He just seems pathologically devoid of tact.
spmat on April 16, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Get over it? Get over it? Fair enough. I’m over Rudy Giuliani.
John on April 16, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Halley on April 16, 2007 at 4:30 PM,
I have never heard anyone in the prolife movement advocate any of those things for women who have had abortion. Instead counseling and compassion is offered.
INC on April 16, 2007 at 4:36 PM
He’s right, the Republican party needs to give a little on some social issues. Having a more moderate conservative run for president is a good thing. It could help the Republicans win the next election. No Congress or Supreme Court is going to criminalize abortion. Rudy won’t be pushing abortion in either direction. It’s a pointless issue that neocons and the religious right make into such a political issue. It is not going to go anywhere in the next 4 years with or without Rudy as president. Embrace a politician for what they are, not religious views on one issue.
thesheesh on April 16, 2007 at 4:36 PM
BNCurtis on April 16, 2007 at 4:34 PM
You have got it!
Too many in America don’t know the “Why” and cannot connect the dots.
INC on April 16, 2007 at 4:37 PM
I was all for Rudy as well, including applying for a job with the campaign, but it’s almost like he’s been working hard to NOT get my vote. I’m amazed that he’s this dumb. What kind of advice is he getting? Go left to get elected??? He could get a lot of the moderates just because he’s RUDY, he’s not going to get dems to vote for him for being like them. There are people who define their entire lives by the party they checked when they turned 18! It’s almost like he’s purposefully sabotaging himself. Just think if he ran as a third party. Barfo!
Spassvogel on April 16, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Afterthought: Rudy may be strong on the war on terror, but if we sell out on our core beliefs, that what are we fighting for?
John on April 16, 2007 at 4:38 PM
He’s right. I didn’t vote for Reagan, because he was against abortion. I voted for him, because he could handle the Cold War, and the other security threats. The biggest issue in our world, today, is not abortion or gay marriage. I’m less intimidated by two gays getting married, than my children being on a plane, flying into a tower.
Getting over it, means not allowing it to be the deciding factor, and road block. Look at other things, besides the social issue. Look at Bush. Strong on abortion, gay marriage and the whole thing. How’s securing our borders going?
amerpundit on April 16, 2007 at 4:38 PM
Show me where Reagan went out of his way to piss off the Rockefellers and pro-choice Republicans, and I’ll agree with you that this was a remotely intelligent thing to say before a primary.
spmat on April 16, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Say good night Rudy.
oakpack on April 16, 2007 at 4:42 PM
You’re right, he didn’t. However, take a look at the current, declared, field (not Thompson). Who’s your alternative?
amerpundit on April 16, 2007 at 4:43 PM
amerpundit on April 16, 2007 at 4:38 PM,
Reagan’s prolife position was part of the total man.
Moral clarity and resolve permeated his thinking from an analysis of communism to becoming prolife.
It makes total sense that he would know how to take a stand on both issues. No moral schizophrenia.
INC on April 16, 2007 at 4:44 PM
Because, the declared candidates all have weaknesses, and have pissed Conservatives off, in one way or another.
amerpundit on April 16, 2007 at 4:45 PM
INC, if Reagan was pro-choice, would you not have voted for him?
amerpundit on April 16, 2007 at 4:45 PM
Would you have missed out on all his other strengths, mainly ending a nuclear buildup, without a shot being fired?
amerpundit on April 16, 2007 at 4:46 PM
In the national election, yes, I would have voted for Reagan.
INC on April 16, 2007 at 4:46 PM
I’m not pleased he said this, and I know this hurts his chances considerably. But if we say goodnight to Rudy we may be saying goodnight to the United States of America.
Patriot33 on April 16, 2007 at 4:46 PM
It right now seems difficult to imagine Rudi getting the nomination with his social & 2nd Amendment views. But if he does get the nod, it would be a bad idea not to vote for him. Because you’re right, Bryan: “If there’s a political marriage in the offing, it will be one that features a shotgun…” – a shotgun aimed at our heads by the jihadists.
eeyore on April 16, 2007 at 4:48 PM
Having a more moderate conservative run for president is a good thing.
MikeG on April 16, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Meanwhile, Romney is busy winning an election.
This is going to get to be a common phrase in the next few months, IMO.
spmat on April 16, 2007 at 4:49 PM
My point is that character does count and Reagan might not have had those other strengths, had he not also had the moral clarity to understand the prolife position.
See BNCurtis on April 16, 2007 at 4:34 PM and my longer comment at 4:31 PM.
INC on April 16, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Note that Rudy didn’t use the words “get over it.” (That was Bryan’s paraphrase.) I’m with JPod at the Corner, who points out that we have only the reporter’s word that Rudy was specifically referring to abortion here. Without knowing the context it’s difficult to say, but it sounds to me that he wasn’t asking social cons to “get over” the issues dear to their heart, but, amid a sea of other–some would say equally vital–issues, to think about what central identity we want to build the party around in the ramp-up to 2008.
ThanksMo on April 16, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Rudy, I’ll vote for Fred!, thanks.
Get over it.
BirdEye on April 16, 2007 at 4:50 PM
wasn’t reagan ‘pro choice’ as governor of California?
jp on April 16, 2007 at 4:53 PM
I had already decided agains voting for Rudy so this changes nothing for me. I am proud to be socially conservative and if Rudy doesn’t like my views he can kiss the nomination goodbye.
ArkCon on April 16, 2007 at 4:56 PM
See above. Romney is winning this primary election in every way that counts. He’s keeping his head down (the “lifelong hunter” gaff notwithstanding) and his nose to the grindstone. He’s not flirting with being President, nor is he expecting to be President. He’s working his butt off for it.
Rudy just seems like he’s vamping until the general, resting on his name recognition. His current name recognition won’t matter a hill of beans if someone else takes the first primaries. Even if he gets to the general, he’s not going to get on-the-ground support from the social cons (the Republican party’s historically most active and diligent set). No door knockers, no callers, lukewarm field support.
The man is welcome to hold the social cons in contempt, but he’s a damn fool to think he can win a general without them. And as satisfying as I’m sure it is to riff on “You better vote for Rudy or you’ll get Hillary!” that isn’t a way to win. It’s only a way to minimize a loss.
spmat on April 16, 2007 at 4:59 PM
Hopefully Rudy wins and deflates the social con movement…
Social “Conservativism” is, in my opinion, antithetical to Small-Government Conservativism. Social cons screech about gay marriage and their solution is for the legislature to step in and tell people what to do… sound liberal to anyone else? Yet the marriage issue according to social cons (sacred intitution under God) could be solved by removing government from the equation completely, disgarding marriage-based taxes, and returning it to a purely religious institution social-cons like to pretend it is.
Or take abortion. Some women want to whore around and then kill their babies. I’ve got news for social-cons: the knitting needle has been around for centuries before Planned Parenthood arrived on the scene. Yet the social-con impulse is for Big Federal Government to step in and control the issue instead of doing as Rudy has done and use small government, strong criminal justice, and conservative economics to lower abortion rates naturally.
A cursory glance at the social-con platform reveals a raft of issues for which the social-con “solution” is fundamentally opposed to a small-government solution. They will join in the fiscal/defense/small-government conservatives’ cries against Big Brother, all while pushing an agenda that calls on Big Brother to “fix” America’s problems.
Social Cons don’t seem to want the Federal Government to stop meddling in our lives… They seem to think the government just isn’t doing the right kind of meddling.
Lehosh on April 16, 2007 at 5:00 PM
From an old comment of mine, if you want the links to my sources look at the original comment:
I tried tracking down Reagan’s change on abortion while governor from 1967-1975. This is what I found:
I think I’ve linked previously to this column by Fred Barnes Choosing Life How pro-lifers become pro-lifers. He mentions the abortion bill Reagan signed in 1967, his first year as governor, and says it was the only political mistake he ever admitted:
Lou Cannon in his book Governor Reagan His Rise to Power mentions on page 213, that in 1970 Reagan successfully opposed legislative attempts to further liberalize abortion law. I couldn’t find further comment on the web.
On a Marxist website, (which I won’t link to, but you can search if you like) in an article titled Our Bodies! Our Choice! Winning the Fight for Reproductive Rights by Evelyn Sell, she writes:
TIME Magazine, Uproar over Abortion, February 16, 1976, discussing Carter, Reagan and Ford on abortion:
In 1983, Reagan published the passionate pro-life essay, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation.
INC on April 16, 2007 at 5:01 PM
Lehosh on April 16, 2007 at 5:00 PM,
your comment has many false assumptions about social cons and the impact of the family on society.
The libs are the ones who want the government to step in and engineer social change that most Americans do not want.
INC on April 16, 2007 at 5:04 PM
We Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to wait for our candidates to say something, anything, to piss us off so that we can indignantly say, “That’s it! He’s out!” I understand that this isn’t the only thing causing many of you to toss Rudy aside, but it’s indicative of what we as a party tend to do.
Newt said something about taking action against global warming, and many Republicans tossed him aside. There was a rumor that Fred! might have been pro-choice at some point, and some Republicans were ready to toss him aside. Mitt “evolved” on abortion and many Republicans tossed him aside. Brownback wanted to apologize to Native Americans and many Republicans tossed him aside. McCain did lots of things we didn’t like and we tossed him aside. You get the point. We’re going to keep tossing our guys until there’s no one left but Hillary and Obama in the race.
aero on April 16, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Here’s the link to the comment I mentioned above at 5:01. My comment is at 2:43 PM on that old tread.
INC on April 16, 2007 at 5:06 PM
There will never be another Reagan…that is what he should have said. Conservatives cling to him like democrats do to Clinton. You have to be smarter than the other guy.
tomas on April 16, 2007 at 5:06 PM
My point above is that we Republicans have too many “deal-breakers,” as individual voters and as a party. We end up shooting ourselves in the collective foot because of this tendency, and that may be the point Rudy was trying to make. Pick your priorities and look for the best representative of those priorities in your candidate. If Rudy doesn’t match your priorities, fine. But stop looking for the Republican Messiah in 2008.
aero on April 16, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Great, but at that point, the only thing that does, is give you the ability to say you voted for him. The electoral college decides between the two nominees.
amerpundit on April 16, 2007 at 5:07 PM
I don’t think I was not the one who first mentioned Reagan, but I did expand on the topic :-)!
INC on April 16, 2007 at 5:07 PM
I’ve been posting on Guiliani for a while now. Get the point conservatives?
VOTE FRED THOMPSON!
VOTE FRED THOMPSON!
VOTE FRED THOMPSON!
msipes on April 16, 2007 at 5:08 PM
I think the reason’s repubs suck at politics is that conservatives by nature are more likely to be indivdualist and indpendent. Just waiting for something to dissent on to declare said independence. Dems/libs on other hand are collectivist which by nature makes them better team players.
i think this is where the ‘your’re a partisian’ talking point from the liberals who claim to be moderate comes from, they know it has an effect because conservatives by nature won’t to be independent and not be accused of being a sheep. Unfortunately politics is a team sport.
jp on April 16, 2007 at 5:10 PM
amerpundit on April 16, 2007 at 5:07 PM
Sorry, I don’t quite get your point. I know all about the electoral college. Sorry, but I do have to run now.
INC on April 16, 2007 at 5:10 PM
So tell me Rudy….what other “issues” should I get over?? What is the point in believing in ANYTHING if you are not willing to stick to it?
As far as handing the country over to “liberals”…..well…..how do you propose we stop that eventuality when we “social conservatives” are continuously asked to “get over it”???
We have MANY enemies that would love to see this country destroyed and they ain’t all in the ME. There are PLENTY right here at home folks. This battle for America has more than one front. Do not think otherwise.
Talon on April 16, 2007 at 5:13 PM
Attention social conservatives: Get over it. Unless you never want another Republican elected President in our lifetimes. People aren’t getting more religious, they’re getting less religious. The more you social cons whine about candidates not being “moral” enough on abortion and gay marriage, the less electable Republicans are.
I admire Rudy for not kowtowing to the retrograde attitudes of social conservatives. Frankly, I’d rather have Hillary elected in 2008 than another President that needs Jesus’ permission to invade countries. I’d prefer my President to base his/her policies on, you know, facts. If I wanted a head of state to turn to God for advice on how to govern, I’d move to Iran.
Get over it. Get over it. Get over it.
Enrique on April 16, 2007 at 5:13 PM
Hold your horses folks.
Notice the damning statement is not quoted. Everything he said in quotes is not damning as this statement is, and the reporter did not quote it. It looks like he made his own “logical” conclusions.
Better wait for Rudy’s response before you ship him off.
Vincenzo on April 16, 2007 at 5:24 PM
You want the social cons out of the party? Have fun being a permanent minority. Newsflash: Ayn Rand conservatism (strict libertarianism) does not win elections. Not in Europe, and certainly not in America. Never has, never will.
Reagan conservatism does. Romney is the only serious contender that’s running as a Reagan conservative. Thompson just isn’t a serious candidate. He has no infrastructure, he has no money, and he has no experience running in a highly contested race. He’s got name-recognition and lukewarm conservative bona-fides. He’s McCain sans political baggage.
spmat on April 16, 2007 at 5:25 PM
I’m voting Newt/Thompson/Delay/Malkin
MirCat on April 16, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Social or no social conservative, I’ll be voting for the Republican candidate b/c it’s head-and-shoulders above the talent on the Democrat side. The top 3 Democratic candidates hardly have any governing experience, and the U.S. Senate doesn’t count in my book.
I am not a social conservative, but that’s just not fair.
Big decision coming soon.
budorob on April 16, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Yeah, let’s trust what the media says, over a fellow Conservative. As several people have pointed out, it wasn’t a quote. It was a part of a story, by the MSM.
amerpundit on April 16, 2007 at 5:26 PM
We need to watch ourselves that we don’t turn into the rage machines that the left has turned into over the last several years.
We are conservatives. That means we take our time, we think things out, we digest information first.
Slow down everyone, we’re not Moveon.org. We don’t want to be them, either.
Vincenzo on April 16, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Note to Rudy:
What’s the point of promoting an agenda if I’m not allowed to promote my agenda? And what’s the point of me supporting you if you’re not going to promote my agenda?
What, as a fiscal conservative, is the point of voting for a president who supports high taxes? And what does this have to do with my social conservative views?
Lawrence on April 16, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Ack, I forgot Steele.
and umm Rudy, this is how we lost ‘06; by relaxing what we believed and letting rinos in until it reached a critical mass or morons
- The Cat
MirCat on April 16, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Cue Fred! to come riding in on the white stallion!
Let’s see Fred! is a social conservative, and he’s strong on the War on Terror, and he’s against higher taxes. Works for me. Thanks for playing, Rudy. Maybe you will get some nice parting gifts.
Mallard T. Drake on April 16, 2007 at 5:31 PM
How can you eat your heart out with your foot in your mouth?
Well if you’re Rudy, you just keep on chewing.
When does the Republican party stop being Conservative?
Oops, before Rudy came along.
Go back Rudy from whence you came, since you’re not Conservative you can only be a liberal.
Speakup on April 16, 2007 at 5:33 PM
This isn’t a matter of ideological purity. It’s a matter of political incompetence, which Rudy is showing in spades. This is not a time for him to be castigating social conservatives. It’s a primary for heaven’s sake.
The only thing I can think is that he’s planning on gaming the new rules allowing “independents” to vote in the California et al. primaries such that he can build enough inertia to carry him through on the domino principle. It’s very shrewd in its way, but it’s also very, very novel. He’s betting the house on an inside straight. That’s just stupid.
spmat on April 16, 2007 at 5:37 PM
What’s retrograde about the belief that it is wrong to kill a fetus?
Bill Ramey on April 16, 2007 at 5:39 PM
Is that all social conservatism is? Abortion politics? I thought it was bigger than that.
lorien1973 on April 16, 2007 at 5:41 PM
And another thing, while we’re talk’n about it.
I’m fed up to my nostrils with stinking FauxCons!
It’s like sex with skunk, you get tired of that ole stink’n sh*t.
Speakup on April 16, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Sorry, I’m just not willing to give up truck loads of dead babies for a few Kullyfornia votes.
oakpack on April 16, 2007 at 5:43 PM
The notion that social cons want a nanny state meddling in our lives is absurd. Banning or limiting abortion and not recognizing gay unions would hardly make the country into a nanny state or theocracy. Indeed, those policies are quite consistent with classical liberalism.
Bill Ramey on April 16, 2007 at 5:45 PM
No, but I suspect that abortion is one of the issues on which Enrique finds social cons to be “retrograde.”
Bill Ramey on April 16, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Yeah, Presidents that pray for guidance really are sociopaths.
– Abraham Lincoln (Second Inaugural address)
spmat on April 16, 2007 at 5:49 PM
I’ll vote for whoever Enrique is not voting for.
Rose on April 16, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Run Fred! Run!
Iblis on April 16, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Rich Lowry just posted transcript from this event at the Corner, and the context helps explain what Rudy was saying. Among the interesting tidbits:
“On abortion I think we should respect each other. I think that’s what we should do and we should respect the fact that this is a very difficult moral question and a very difficult question and that very good people of equally good conscience could come to different opinions on it. My view of it is I hate abortion. I think abortion is wrong…”
ThanksMo on April 16, 2007 at 5:55 PM
christians are not conservatives. they can just as easily be found smuggling weapons for latin american marxists as they can be found bending the constitution around their crusifix.
i saw footage of a dallas gop convention once. instead of policy, they were discussing exclusively how to expand their mission through the power of government. then they held hands and sang – not the national anthem – a gospel song.
it was the most disgusting perversion i’ve ever seen.
jummy on April 16, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Lowery, after riling people up like Bryan did here, posted the full context at National Review:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWU5Zjc2MzlkZjRjMjAxMTlkZWY1M2NjMzNiZTU4YTM=
Good to see our side already doing out of context hits on the canditates…
Dash on April 16, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Edit ^ Lowry, sorry.
Dash on April 16, 2007 at 6:07 PM
christians are parasites on the legitimate conservative movement. they attatched themselves in the 70’s.
christians want clerical rule in the u.s.. time for a fleabath.
jummy on April 16, 2007 at 6:10 PM
Let us not forget that we lost Congress because Republicans were not living up to their Conservative claims. You can be a strong Conservative without being a whack job. It is a belief in the false dichotomy fed to us by the MSM that leads people to spout things like “Moderate Conservative”.
What I really want is a president who will choose judges who will force Congress to be bound down by the Constitution, as they weren’t meant to be.
Why do so many Americans (and even most Republicans) forget about Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. Congress is supposed to be limited in what it can do. If “General Welfare” meant what the Left wants to say it means (”Congress can do whatever the hell it wants”), why have 18 paragraphs describing exactly what Congress can do? Until we have a president that can enforce that, I can’t be 100% behind any of them. In the meantime, I’ll vote for the one who is most likely to do that, even if by accident. I’m just waiting until I can run for president.
Decoy256 on April 16, 2007 at 6:12 PM
That doesn’t excuse the comment at all. It makes it even more senseless and stupid. He could have stopped at the previous sentence, the applause line, and moved on. That which has gotten him in hot water was extraneous vamping on a subject he should leave well enough alone.
He doesn’t know when to shut up.
spmat on April 16, 2007 at 6:14 PM
What principle? That belief in God and his splendid gift of life leads the believer to cherish life and defend it? That principle?
Oh those bad bad Christian people with their crusifix (sic). Off with their heads.
I don’t know anyone who has become less religious. In fact, I have seen quite a surge in churchgoing where I live, so much so that we now have three services a day and have to have people directing traffic. No, I think you are wrong on that statement.
Glynn on April 16, 2007 at 6:18 PM
Oh, well that’s it then. They must be eliminated. Like Hitler did with the Jews. Round up the Christians! Feed them to the lions!
Glynn on April 16, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Love how people always seem to squeeze in the Christian hate.
EnochCain on April 16, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Uh. Dude.
spmat on April 16, 2007 at 6:29 PM
“excuse”? lol! get over yourself. he owes you know apologies and he certainly doesn’t have to submit his concience for your approval.
i hope he keeps talking. i hope christians eventually eject an indignant “harumph”, and walk out, and keep walking, and keep walking, and when you get to the church, turn on your heels and construct your kingdom of “god” there. that’s where it belongs.
jummy on April 16, 2007 at 6:31 PM
No, really.. dude.
spmat on April 16, 2007 at 6:31 PM
Never mind. You have reading comprehension issues.
spmat on April 16, 2007 at 6:32 PM
Among other things. I loved the link to the speech you posted. I read it years ago and was glad to find it again. Thank you.
Glynn on April 16, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Thank you, Rudy.
Glynn on April 16, 2007 at 6:38 PM
it’s your idol. you spell it. i don’t care personally.
nope. out of the party.
just like socialists: one sedcond they boast of their control of the party and all sorts of “we will crush you” stuff, but if you confront them in the slightest, suddenly they’re poor little martyrs.
jummy on April 16, 2007 at 6:42 PM
Sorry. You might as well jump ship. I have a feeling several regular Rudy supporters on this site are working on his campaign.
It’s time to “get over it.” Get a real candidate. Fred Thompson will be looking for campaign workers soon, and he will also be tough on terrorism and defense, so there’s really no comparison.
Gregor on April 16, 2007 at 6:43 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »