My argument against the Giuliani candidacy, from December 2004 to January 2008

In the period between early 2007 and fall 2007, when Rudolph Giuliani was considered the Inevitable GOP Nominee and it seemed that virtually no mainstream conservatives were questioning this prospect, I wrote at VFR frequently and in the strongest terms against his candidacy. Prior to that, I had written privately to several mainstream conservative Giuliani promoters going back at least to 2004, trying—unsuccessfully—to convince them that the idea of a Giuliani Republican presidential nomination was an absurdity. Below are a few of these e-mails I’ve found in old e-mail folders. Ironically, the collapse of Giuliani may have come too quickly. If he had gotten more votes in Florida, that would have taken votes away from McCain, and Romney might have won. But as fate has had it, one totally unacceptable front-runner has fallen by the wayside, only to be replaced by another.

To Hugh Hewitt, December 2004

From: Lawrence Auster
TO: Hugh Hewitt
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 5:56.p.m.
Subject: Your Giuliani fantasy

Your article at the Weekly Standard claiming that Giuliani is the odds-on favorite for the GOP nomination in 2008 is utter fantasy. The fact that the Country-Club-type Republican women you were addressing favored him is a reflection of their own feminism/liberalism. It just ain’t gonna happen. There is no way that the Republicans are going to nominate a man who supports abortion, who marched in gay pride parades, who dressed as a woman, who conducted a more or less open affair with a female subordinate while he was mayor, who had his attorney trash his SECOND wife in public while he, Giuliani, as mayor of New York, was carrying on a relationship with his future THIRD wife, who shared an apartment with a male homosexual couple after he had separated from his SECOND wife prior to his marrying his THIRD wife, who defends protections for illegal immigrants … and on and on and on …

You’re welcome to your fantasy that Giuliani, this way-out social liberal, will be the Republican nominee. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s a fantasy.

Also, I would remind you that a week before the election you were predicting that Bush would carry 45 states. As a pundit and predictor, you’ve repeatedly let yourself be carried away by Republican triumphalism.

Sincerely,
Lawrence Auster

To Fred Siegel June 2005

From: Lawrence Auster
To: Fred Siegel
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 10:30.a.m.
Subject: your interview about Giuliani

Dear Fred,

Very interesting thoughts about New York, as always.

But I disagree with your views about Giuliani’s presidential prospects:

NRO: Can he beat Hillary? He could beat anyone else, I assume?

Siegel: We’re too far away from 2008 to talk seriously about it. But with his broad appeal to the American voter across a wide swath of the political spectrum, he would be a formidable candidate.

I think he has a precisely zero chance of getting the GOP nomination. If he did, it would split the GOP. This is the twice divorced man who dressed as a woman, who publicly dumped his second wife, who marched with child molesters, who supports abortion, etc. etc. etc. It’s an utter fantasy to think that he could win the Republican nomination.

Best regards,
Larry Auster

To Fred Siegel, June 26, 2006

From: Lawrence Auster
To: Fred Siegel
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 11:11.a.m.
Subject: Your article on Giuliani

Fred,

On the Giuliani candidacy, you say that “homosexual rights may not be the third rail among Republicans that it was a few years ago.” What are you saying, that the GOP should support Giuliani and thus sign on to homosexual rights, including marriage? If that is your position, it is both wrong in itself, and politically fantastical. Ain’t gonna happen.

Next, you suggest that Giuliani has not made his position on marriage clear, but then you show that he has done so, namely, you point out that he opposes the marriage amendment, and he supports civil unions. So what is there left to know about his position? Since the ONLY way to stop homosexual marriage is though the amendment, anyone who opposes the amendment is objectively on the pro homosexual marriage side.

Sincerely,
Larry

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 31, 2008 09:33 PM | Send