As the 2008 presidential campaign heats up, Republicans throughout the country are faced with a difficult choice. They can nominate the candidate who seems to have the best chance to be elected president next year, but who will also alienate a major part of the party’s political base and hurt other Republican candidates. The other option is nominating a candidate who is less likely to alienate the party base and less likely to hurt other candidates, but who also seems less likely to win the general election.
The candidate who seems most likely to win the presidency is former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Nominating Giuliani, while maybe giving Republicans the best chance to retain the presidency, will have serious short-term and long-term negative consequences for the Republican Party. Giuliani would alienate the social and moral conservatives that make up an important part of the Republican base. Also, he would hurt Republicans running for other offices because some of these alienated Republicans will boycott the election and not vote for these Republicans, as well.
The average of current polls, according to Realclearpolitics.com, shows Giuliani more than 8 percent ahead of his nearest competitor, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson. The other two top-tier candidates, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, trail far behind both Giuliani and Thompson.
Perhaps as important for Giuliani’s prospects are polls that show him only slightly trailing the likely Democratic nominee, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, while Thompson is a double digit behind Clinton. Since many Republicans, me included, feel that keeping Clinton out of the White House is of utmost importance for America’s future, the urge to nominate Giuliani is quite strong.
Republicans must resist this urge, however, because Giuliani, even if elected president, will cause serious problems for Republicans in 2008 and for years to come. Many prominent social and moral conservatives have made it very clear that they are completely unsupportive of Giuliani’s candidacy. The reasons for this feeling are numerous, and many relate to the liberal positions Giuliani took on social issues as mayor of New York. Giuliani is admittedly pro-choice, and has even, in the past, opposed a national ban on the horrific procedure of partial birth abortion. Giuliani and his former wife even made financial contributions to the radical pro-abortion group Planned Parenthood.
Giuliani is now trying to distance himself from this past by saying that, while he is still pro-choice, he now does support the ban on partial birth abortions and promises to appoint strict constructionist judges. Social conservatives are rightfully very suspicious of these changes in Giuliani’s views, however.
Giuliani also has many issues in his personal life that turn off the portion of the Republican base that is most focused on family values issues. Giuliani has been married three times and began living with his third wife before divorcing his second wife. In addition, Giuliani lived with a gay couple during one of his two divorces and allegedly told the couple that he would marry them if gay marriage became legalized. These actions, along with Giuliani’s positions on social issues, make Giuliani a woefully poor nominee and representative for the Republican Party.
While I actually believe that there is a place for pro-choice individuals in our party, I believe our party’s presidential nominee should certainly be a consistent opponent of barbaric abortion practices such as partial birth abortion. Republicans have always prided themselves as the party that supported strong moral values and strong traditional families. Republicans would be sending a terrible message by nominating a man for president who seems to have had little regard for these important principles in his own personal life.
Giuliani adds to the problem by stubbornly refusing to discuss any family related or moral issues during his campaign. Recently, in a debate, a voter asked Giuliani about family values and his family life. Giuliani responded by totally dodging the question and returning to his standard speech about doing such a great job as mayor of New York. Giuliani’s refusal to discuss any family-values questions is in sharp contrast to the recent trend of Republican candidates being strong family people.
No matter what anyone says about President Bush’s policies, no one can question the fact that he is a strong family man. Republican officeholders and Republicans planning to seek elected office have a much more practical reason to oppose Giuliani’s nomination as well.
A certain percentage of social and moral conservatives will stay home and not vote in November 2008 in an act of protest against the Republican Party nominating Giuliani. These boycotting voters, if they had come to the polls, almost certainly would have voted for Republicans in races throughout the ballot because they are consistent Republican voters. Thus, nominating Rudy Giuliani may allow Democrats to win at least hundreds of additional races. This issue is of special personal significance for me because I am considering running for a county commission seat next year and fear that Giuliani’s candidacy could jeopardize my chance of winning in my Republican-leaning district.
Instead of nominating Giuliani, Republicans must find another candidate that can beat Hillary Clinton without dealing the overall Republican Party and Republican candidates everywhere a devastating blow. Republicans must find the best candidate, not only for 2008, but for the Party’s future. The Republican rallying cry next year will rightfully be, “Hillary NO,” but right now, forward thinking Republicans should be proclaiming a rallying cry of, “Rudy NO.”
John Witt is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences.
