Rudy Laying Groundwork To Sell Himself To Social Conservatives
Here's another interesting nugget about Rudy Giuliani's big rollout of his new big-bucks fundraising team that we mentioned earlier today. In the Times's piece today on this, there's a description of a private meeting where Rudy told his new fundraisers why his social liberalism wasn't as big a liability in a GOP primary as it seemed:
In interviews, several of [Rudy's new fundraisers] said the former mayor had discussed his potential liabilities in a Republican primary — perhaps the greatest being his liberal views on social issues like abortion and gay rights.“Certainly one of the first questions that was asked was how his views on things like gun control and pro-choice and gay marriage would affect the views of the party in terms of nominating him,” Mr. Immergut said.
“He talked specifically about what his views on those issues were, and he said that his own view was that when he was able to engage in conversations with party members who were more on the right, they could understand that his views were not as black and white as they had been painted.”
Mr. Immergut added, “He said that for many important issues, his views would be right in sync with the huge majority of Republicans.”
Translation: Giuliani is laying the groundwork to make the case to social conservatives that he isn't the social liberal he's been made out to be. Maybe he'll blame the liberal media for painting him as a liberal, or something.
Seriously, Rudy's impending effort to pull off a convincing ideological self-transformation is going to form one of the more interesting storylines to watch as we move into the Presidential race. As someone who's seen him up close undergoing previous political mutations over the years, I can tell you that he's way better at distancing himself from the reality of his own past -- and sounding awfully sincere in the process -- than many people might think. So: Will the big news orgs hold Giuliani accountable for his own past statements and positions on issues important to GOP primary voters, or will his designation by the media as an "independent" Republican who allegedly says what he thinks earn him the same kind of hands-off treatment the big pundits and commentators have tended to grant to fellow "straight-talker" John McCain? We'll find out soon enough.
Is it true that "giuliani" means "whore" in Italian?
November 17, 2006 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's going to be fun to watch the GOP self-destruct before our eyes.
November 17, 2006 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rudy likes to take trips out to hard-core conservative areas (like here in Texas) to give red meat speeches to the faithful. And he receives enthusiastic responses. Which certain among the punditocracy and media have concluded means that Rudy will be well received by social conservatives in the party.
I don't buy it. Republicans will applaud dang near anything you put in front of them. For a good laugh, take a look at the Borat video where he addresses the Pima Arizona Republican Committee luncheon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67r7Q0lG98c
Even Borat gets a lot of applause. Now consider that Rudy Giuliani is only slightly less strange and foreign to deep heartland Republican faithful than Borat.
When it comes down to the primaries, you can pretty much count on another candidate angling to capture the christian conservative vote the same way Bush did. And that candidate will not be Rudy.
November 17, 2006 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The same goes for Mitt Romney, who basically ran as a social liberal in Massachusetts four short years ago and now talks about himself as a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention.
Would the governor of any other state get away with that? Could a liberal Texas governor say he was a vegetarian at a cattle rancher convention?
Regardless, he is not to be trusted on these issues either, although he appears poised to get the far-right vote in the GOP primary.
November 17, 2006 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm kind of looking forward to Giuliani running. I doubt he'll be the nominee, but I think he could make debates between Republican primary challengers a lot more interesting.
November 17, 2006 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Y'all are all forgetting that Bush's record in Texas was just as bad ...
Environmentally, Texas was the worst in the country, according to the EPA.
He had never run a successful business.
He had scrubbed over major parts of his resume before going national - the drunken driving incident, and his military service, and the allegations of cocaine use.
BUT most importantly, y'all are forgetting that most Republicans are ditto-heads, believing what Faux News tells them, and what the politicians say, without bothering to read between the lines. (unless it's conservative code such as likening Roe v. Wade to Plessy v. Ferguson ... and even then they have to be told what it means by their "spiritual" leaders)
November 17, 2006 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's pretty amazing that the two strongest potential GOP candidates are a guy who will be 73 on Inauguration Day 2009 and one who dumped his wife and moved in with a gay couple. They're going to love this stuff in the heartland.
November 17, 2006 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guiliani and McCain are going to destroy one another. Independents are not a disciplined group that can be expected to coalesce around one of the two early. They'll vote their conscience and split their votes between the two until the end. The GOP establishment, on the other hand, will put all their chips on someone like Romney relatively early. But Romney is significantly more beatable in a general election than the other two guys. None of the three would be wildly popular in the South. A Mormon from Massachusetts may have the National Review all excited, but there are Southern states which would be in play if for example Edwards gets the nod. He's got conservative elites but not the conservative mass.
Another good thing about Romney, as formidable a candidate as he is, is that he has no foreign policy credentials to speak of. That would make the weaknesses of Edwards, Obama, or Hillary in this area less important.
November 17, 2006 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm wondering if the press will talk about his history of adultery. Openly living with his girlfriend in the Mayoral mansion if I recall while he was still married... More importantly, I wonder about his judgement in hiring and promoting Bernie Kerik. Wait, I can see it now, Bernie Kerik for Secretary of Defense!
November 17, 2006 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
An Atrios-style Simple Answers to Simple Questions.
Greg Sargent asks:
So: Will the big news orgs hold Giuliani accountable for his own past statements and positions on issues important to GOP primary voters, or will his designation by the media as an "independent" Republican who allegedly says what he thinks earn him the same kind of hands-off treatment the big pundits and commentators have tended to grant to fellow "straight-talker" John McCain?
Answer to first part of the question: No
Answer to second part of the question: Yes
This has been a TPM Cafe Election Central version of Simple Answers to Simple Questions.
November 18, 2006 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nancy Irving
Rudy will make a big mistake if he tries to re-tool himself for the Kristian Krackpot vote. He can get their votes without retooling, merely by pushing his authoritarian cred. They don't really care about the issues, not even abortion.
At this point, any candidate who tries to please the right wing is going to lose in the general, imo.
November 18, 2006 3:26 AM | Reply | Permalink