instructions to voters

By Diogenes (articles ) | Apr 03, 2007

New York Post columnist John Podhoretz thinks that Rudy Giuliani stumbled in his early presidential campaign by talking about how much influence his (latest) wife could have in the White House. It was a rare mistake, Podhoretz observes:

Until that moment, he had handled his presidential bid as perfectly as could be imagined - maintaining the enthusiasm of social conservatives even as they learned of his stances on behalf of abortion rights and gun control.

Huh? Show me a social conservative who's enthusiastic about Giuliani's campaign, and I'll show you the product of a neoconservative imagination.

This column is based not on reporting but on wishful thinking, and on a desire to instruct conservative voters. Republican strategists who are not particularly keen on the social issues fervently believe that the social conservatives should swallow hard and accept a candidate like Giuliani, since (where have we heard this before?) he'd be better than Hillary. And from the observation that they should do it, it's a short step to the observation that they have done it. If they haven't, you see, they're disobeying instructions from their betters. So it's really more charitable to keep saying that they are accepting Giuliani-- enthusiastically, mind you. And keep saying it often.

Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 14 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: - Apr. 04, 2007 1:30 PM ET USA

    I will vote for the strongest pro-life candidate in the primary. Should it come down to Hillary -vs- Rudy, I will vote Republican. Hillary will pour billions into the war against life using her "cradle as to grave" health agenda. At the very least, we can slow Rudy's pro-infanticide agenda.

  • Posted by: - Apr. 04, 2007 12:02 PM ET USA

    I don't see how I can support any candidate who voted for the Patrial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The Act seems to me radically incoherent, and as such pseudo-law. I've stated my case very carefully in a letter dated March 26 to Senator Sam Brownback, copy to Fr. Frank Pavone, Founder/Director of Priests for Life, who has endorsed the Senator for President. I await their reply.

  • Posted by: - Apr. 04, 2007 12:07 AM ET USA

    Conservatives need to quit voting for the "lesser of two evils" or for someone "who can win" instead of backing the best man possible for President. I'm voting for Congressman Ron Paul (Texas). He comes as close to the ideal as anyone I've seen. As for Giuliani, I'll bet my bottom dollar that he'll either win the GOP endorsement or he'll run as an independent if he doesn't get the endorsement. It worked for Lieberman, and it will work for Giuliani too. The liberals are in control again.

  • Posted by: - Apr. 03, 2007 9:07 PM ET USA

    Not to get too political but we cannot allow this to become a lesser of two evils situation, though admittedly it may boil down to that. However, it is early in the game. Early enough to do our very best to muster a groundswell of support for Senator Sam Brownback. Look at his strongly stated and never contradicted positions on sanctity of marriage, moral values, pro life etc. I will do all I can to get him the nomination as he is the only one I see that reflects true Catholic vaues.

  • Posted by: - Apr. 03, 2007 7:51 PM ET USA

    For the record - "Rudy McRomney" will not be getting my vote!

  • Posted by: - Apr. 03, 2007 5:24 PM ET USA

    Every time the powers that be in the Republican party have run some retread like Dole who is not an enthusiastic pro-lifer (at least as far as baby-murder is concerned), he's lost big. The older Bush was put in the trash heap largely because he couldn't excite pro-life after term 1. Dole was a joke. Run Rudy and lose. Same for most of the others.

  • Posted by: - Apr. 03, 2007 4:19 PM ET USA

    I don't know of any candidate who has a snowball's chance in hades who conservative Catholics are enthusiastic about. Right now, it looks like when I go to vote in November, 2008, it will be to vote against a candidate ... whichever one who represents the lesser of two evils.

  • Posted by: - Apr. 03, 2007 3:51 PM ET USA

    I do not know one Conservative who is excited about Rudy. We watched him support gay rights, abortion on demand, late term abortion and appoint liberal judges. He is a typical NY liberal; wrong on all the important issues.

  • Posted by: - Apr. 03, 2007 3:45 PM ET USA

    When are so-called "conservative" (read: orthodox) Catholics going to wake up and stop voting for the "least evil" mainstream candidate, and start voting for candidates who actually stand for something, no matter what their chances of winning?

  • Posted by: - Apr. 03, 2007 3:03 PM ET USA

    Publicus, I believe there are now TWO Thompsons who have declared their intentions to run in 2008: Fred and Tommy. While it is true we in the GOP have no saints to nominate, why should we be forced to settle for Rudy Giuliani? He's a better fit for the other party anyway. Speaking for myself, I cannot vote for Rudy but either Fred or Tommy Thompson look pretty good! We can't fall into the "just nominate whomever can beat Hillary" trap.

  • Posted by: - Apr. 03, 2007 12:36 PM ET USA

    In the neocons machiavellian world of compromise & capitulation the real social conservatives should just go ahead and drink the neocon purple kool-aid so they can keep the White House. The fact that Guliani is a favorite of Sean Hannity who publicly mocked & ridiculed Fr. Euteneuer is reason enough to not suppport Rudy but one need only to actually read what Rudy says and does in regard to key social issues to grasp that he is wholly unfit to lead this nation.

  • Posted by: - Apr. 03, 2007 10:42 AM ET USA

    God forbid, mankind has survived all kinds of despots from Caligula and Nero to Stalin and Mao and with His help, we ill continue even if that dishwater blond from Park Ridge, Il gets officially elected to the White House--(the first eight years being a practice run). That said, those of us who are "conservative" Catholics may not find a saint to campaign for the Presidency, but there are somethings that are evil, no matter who wears the mantle of office--abortion and "gay" rights being two.

  • Posted by: - Apr. 03, 2007 10:19 AM ET USA

    Though Rudy would be a much more palatable President than Hillary, I don't know of any social conservatives who are excited about his candidacy, this writer included. Is Podhoretz ignorant of the "draft Thompson" movement driven by social conservatives?

  • Posted by: - Apr. 03, 2007 9:37 AM ET USA

    Oh, yeah, Rudy would be better than Hillary. . . How? Abortion rights? Homosexual agenda? Rudy is fundamentally opposed to the laws written by our creator. Please don't try to weasel him into the presidency by claiming he would be tough on terrorism. His constituency would not allow him to hold fast to such a position. It wouldn't be very long before Rudy's and Hillary's goals would be indistinguishable. The next time Rudy cross-dresses, perhaps he should do a Hillary imitation. No, not funny!