Lisa James is Rudy Chair for AZ

The Rudy Giuliani campaign has announced that Lisa James will officially serve as the Arizona state chair for the campaign.

I remember two unassailable pro-lifers saying that Lisa was the pro-life candidate for Chair of the Arizona Republican Party. Imagine my surprise when I read that she is now heading up the Giuliani campaign in AZ. Rudy does not just have a few variations with the pro-life movement. He is the least pro-life candidate on the Republican side, even speaking in favor of public funding for abortions. Her husband’s firm, Gordon C. James Public Relations, has been working on Rudy’s behalf in Arizona for a while. Some people stated that Lisa should not be judged on the work of her husband’s firm (a valid point.) Now, it can no longer be said that Lisa is a solid pro-lifer. The questions is what happened? Did Lisa have a change of heart or were some within the pro-life community mistaken about her?


Comments

  1. gop4ever2008 says

    Ugh… Does that mean people supporting Mike Huckabee don’t like tax cuts? Or that Ron Paul supporters are necessarily all against the existence of Israel? One-issue voting (and labeling) gets us no where… IMHO.

  2. Lisa is very much pro-life and dedicated to that position. She is solidly supportive of Rudy and believes he will appoint judges in the conservative trend of Roberts and Alito.

    If such template driven definitions continue within our party, all we will have left will be a shredded and tattered image of what once was.

  3. Sonoran Alliance says

    4ever, Are you saying that Ron Paul does not support Israel’s right to exist? Do you have any documentation for that comment?

    Ann, “Lisa is very much pro-life …” Sorry, no longer plausible while also being AZ Chair for Rudy.

  4. nightcrawler says

    Not sure I understand your logic on this one. The implication here is that Lisa should have not accepted this position in order to remain true to her position on life. So is it better to sit back and let Hillary win ? Huckabee is a decent man but will certainly not win the general. His pro-life credentials are great. His other conservative measurements are at best questionable. Pick your poison.

  5. Sororan- So you are asking for documentation on Ron Paul, what about your documentation? Where is your documentation on your comment that Lisa is anything but pro-life? Simply stating she is Rudys chairman is not documentation, that’s an opinion, and a false one at that.

  6. Is this a good pick for Giuliani, probably not for a candidate looking to bolster his conservative credentials with social conservatives. But for a candidate looking to suck as much money as possible out of Arizona – a laudable goal in a campaign that costs what this one will, then James is probably a good choice. This is all about money for the Giuliani people. They know they won’t win AZ with McCain in the race and in the end with the AZ’s primary falling on Feb 5th, they won’t even try-too many other states they have to focus on that day. So when all is said and done, this is about picking someone who they think can get them some cash out of Arizona.

  7. If Giuliani ends up the nominee, this pro-lifer will certainly vote for him. That said, picking him in the primary isn’t the act of a die-hard pro-lifer.

    In fairness to Lisa though, maybe she’s just nominally pro-life, you know, if you ask her about the issue, she will be pro-life. Now, does she really care about the issue? No, clearly not. It might not be in her top ten or twenty issues, so it just doesn’t figure in her decision making on who to support.

    So, pro-life? Maybe. A hard-working ally in the battle to protect innocent life? Obviously no.

  8. Tom,

    I’m not going to go into why you are wrong and why I am right; but there will be a day very soon when no matter who we like right now…I’m still very much a Fred Thompson backer, we will all be behind the R nominee. Sure I hope it is Fred, but if not I will support whoever it is. If you don’t, be prepared for Obama or Hillary to be picking out drapes and carpet for the Oval Office.

    Back your choice and let the process happen; the other garbage serves no one.

  9. Folks, her husband works for the guy. Who else is she going to support? Sure, if she were principled on the life issue she could simply take a pass, but the James’ also do this stuff for a living. Giuliani could well be the next President, and her service will be remembered and rewarded at that time.

  10. Julee Dawson says

    I am a great admirer of Lisa James. I did not start out that way. I thought someone as nice and pretty as her had to be a fake…but guess what, I was wrong. She is a most genuine caring Republican Woman. It matters not to me where she stands on life…but that she stands for something… Getting Republicans elected. Once we have a nominee, we will all join together to support. In the interim it is nice we have talented Republican people on all the various Presidential Campaigns here in Arizona…
    As for Juliani’s choice of Lisa James …Brava !!!!

  11. I’m pro-life and pro-Rudy; there’s no contradiction. Although I would like a social conservative, a president has little direct impact on social issues.

    Outside of preaching morality from the bully pulpit or an all-too-rare veto of some extreme social legislation, the Chief Executive just doesn’t affect “family values.” The main way in which a President touches on social subjects is through his appointments to federal courts. This is extremely important, and I think Rudy will appoint conservative, “constructionist” judges as he (and Ted Olsen) promised.

    Why would a pro-choice Manhattan liberal nominate another Alito or Roberts? Rudy is first and foremost a “law and order” guy. He cut his teeth on prosecuting the mob out of NYC. As mayor he cleaned the streets of crime, big and small. The last thing he’ll do is nominate Supreme Court justices that would find an innate constitutional right to create graffiti or limit jail terms. As a lawyer – and as a president – he will prefer judges who defer to the laws set by the legislature. And that is the textbook definition of a “constructionist.”

    Rudy might not be the most conservative candidate. But I believe he will achieve the most conservative results.

  12. I applaud those who speak out for positive positions and reject the vicious echo chamber of those who have chosen to be bitter not better.

    I have nothing but the greatest respect and admiration for Lisa James. I have worked by her side on more than one occasion and can say she is a solid workhorse with a strong dedication to conservatism.

    Again, I am putting my efforts behind Fred Thompson and not Rudy. That does not eliminate my respect for her or her ability to hold a different perspective. It is mutual, she appreciates my personal commitment and we both agree that when the nomination is made, we will work to do whatever we can to elect the Republican nominee.

  13. Ann,

    I’m curious, why am I wrong?

  14. Ann,

    BTW, My favored candidate right now is Giuliani.

  15. Tom,

    I read your post as meant to discount her ability and label the position as nothing but a money grab.

    If that was not your intention, I apologize. Her skill and genuine intentions have been so often minimized by a few posters here that I may have clumped you in erroneously.

  16. I should add that while we agree that at some point we will all be working for the nominee…we respectfully disagree as to who that will and/or should be. 🙂

  17. A reminder that the post dealt with whether or not James turned out to be the raging pro-lifer we were promised during the chairman’s campaign. She did not.

    The rest of the stuff over who to support doesn’t mean too much. 99% of the folks here will support our nominee against any of the Dems running. We want our judges!

  18. Sonoran Alliance,

    First, to be clear, Lisa James is a solid pro-lifer. If you will recall, she had the endorsements of our solidly pro-life Republican Congressional Delegation.

    Second, I am very confused by your logic. If, by your standard, Lisa James is not pro-life because she is serving as Rudy Giuliani’s Arizona chair, then Pat Robertson is no longer pro-life, or perhaps never was, because of his endorsement of Giuliani. By extension, Senator Rick Santorum, a solid pro-life Catholic, is no longer credible on the life issue because he stumped for pro-choice Republican Senator Arlen Specter. Are you willing to extend the same standards by which you judge Lisa James to other pro-lifers? Yes, the life issue is important, but if we continue to slaughter the rest of our coalition and support only those Republicans who agree with us on every issue, we are destined for defeat.

    One final point – why should the readers of Sonoran Alliance believe anything that you have to say about Lisa James? During the race for Party chairman, Sonoran Alliance served as one of the primary platforms for those who screamed that James was nothing more than a puppet of John McCain. If that’s the case, why is she not serving on the McCain team? Interestingly, the argument has evolved from her simply being a McCain lackey to not really being a real conservative. Before you continue on in your diatribes against Lisa, perhaps an apology is in order as well as an admission that you were wrong on her being in McCain’s pocket.

    I would highly suggest a redaction of the above post – it serves no purpose except to further divide a fractured party. At the very least, I would hope that the moderator of Sonoran Alliance would post a statement saying that the views in the above post do not represent the opinions of all bloggers on this site.

  19. Lisa is also helping Laura Knaperek (pro-life), Tim Bee (pro-life), and Bill Konopnicki (pro-life). She was also endorsed for party chair Len Munsil (pro-life). She also ran the Bush campaign in Arizona (he is pro-life).

    Supporting one pro-abortion candidate makes all of this meaningless? Give me a break.

  20. Gerry Mander says

    I am forming an angry mob to assemble outside the offices of Len Munsil and Trent Franks over their support of Lisa in a chairman’s race that took place 12 months ago. I’m thinking Friday would be a good day.

    Who’s with me? (Please bring your own torches and pitchforks. We’ll need a lot of people since Len has all those kids to fight with him.)

  21. Not to mention his daughter now is an employee of….The Republic!

  22. LOL, Gerry!

  23. publious needs correction says

    There is no such thing as a pro-abortion candidate. There are pro-choice candidates.

    Yes, I am a Republican too !

  24. Franks and Shadegg both supported Lisa James, and they are pro-life. You just can’t call someone not pro-life. That is absurd.

  25. Sonoran Alliance says

    LD-11,

    Pat Robertson is getting old and is prone to poorly thought out statements. Senators always suck up to each other, that is why Santorum helped Specter and why Brownback endorsed McCain.

    To some people the life-issue is singular and paramount and to others it is one of many issues. The story was not about that though.

    Why believe anything this blog has to say? How about because most of our work has a link to the source. Or maybe because we are usually right. As to our coverage of the race for state chair please find a story where this blog said Lisa was a puppet of McCain. A post, not a comment.

    At this time we do not plan on redacting the story. The story represents the views of one contributor (as do all posts on SA.) This blog does not moderate because readers disagree with the story. It is not the job of this blog to heal a fractured party. We cover the news. If the party is fracture we cover that. If the party wants to heal then let it heal. We are not stopping people from coming together.

    If it helps you to sleep better at night then go ahead and call Lisa James pro-life. Makes no difference to me. Just calling ‘em as I see ‘em.

  26. Let SA, the writer not the blog in general, have his/her opinion. The overwhelmingly consensus of responses says that the premise of this post is way off base.

    This is one more example of the negativity displayed by a handful who would choose the way for all of us regardless of our personal thought. They would be the thought police if allowed, labeling all and accepting no room for endowment of thought by any other than their own perpsective, no matter how flawed.

    Such postings can be a cathartic action, purging the body of what is not good. So, let the air be cleared by the posting of such irrational thought. Continue to call it what it is. This may be the way to heal our brokenness; speak out against such fallacious, narrow minded and damaging words. When the few who are weak on their own but gain strength in the pack are isolated, their destructive ways stopped in their tracks, we will be a better, stronger, and successful party again.

  27. For heaven’s sake grow up. If you don’t like the post, don’t read it. “fracturing the party” “thought police???” “destructive ways” ??? all from a blogger. Give me a break.

  28. publious needs correction Says:

    There is no such thing as a pro-abortion candidate. There are pro-choice candidates.

    Pretty much the same thing only one is politically correct and one is not. If you are pro-choice that means you agree people should have the right to abortion, pro-abortion.

  29. Saying that working for a pro-choice candidate makes you pro-choice is an unfair statement. I believe that at this point you have to believe that working for a candidate that has a better-than-most chance of winning the nomination, and the white house is just being realistic & positioning herself, and her husbands firm for further work after the election.

Leave a Reply