Posted on 02/16/2007 4:56:04 AM PST by Spiff
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who said Wednesday night he is making a bid for the White House, will not be America’s 44th president because he supports abortion rights and gay rights and has been married three times.
At least so says Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.
Land is considered an influential evangelical leader, and he has a new book, due out next month, entitled The Divided States of America? What Liberals and Conservatives Are Missing in the God-and-Country Shouting Match — with a foreword written by Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn).
Land told The Hill in an interview this week that as it stands now, the top tier of Republican presidential hopefuls lacks a candidate social conservatives can be fully comfortable voting for.
Beginning with Giuliani, Land said “the vast majority” of social conservative voters will not vote for the former mayor even if he gets the nomination and faces off against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).
“If he wins, he’ll do so without social conservatives,” Land said.
While Giuliani’s moderate to liberal stances on social issues are beginning to be discussed more and more in conservative circles, Land said the mayor’s annulment, divorce and subsequent third marriage will seal the deal against hizzoner for social conservatives.
“It’s got to surface at some point,” Land said. “There are too many social conservatives talking about it, and it applies to [Newt] Gingrich, too.”
Land talks often about the weight social conservatives carry within the Republican Party, citing exit polling and warning GOP candidates that they can “no more win without conservative voters than a Democrat can without overwhelming support from blacks.”
“That’s the reality of politics in the early 21st century,” he said.
Land looked at the current field of Republican candidates and offered his appraisal — not endorsement — of those he views to be in contention.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has to “convince” social conservatives his conversions on issues such as abortion and gay rights are authentic rather than politically motivated, Land said, adding that many conservatives will likely give Romney the benefit of the doubt on his changed abortion position.
“Conservatives would see that as ‘He’s seen the light,’” Land said. “They would see it as less of a flip-flop than as a journey.”
Of Romney’s Mormon religion, Land said it’s not a “deal-killer.”
Land said he has encouraged the former governor to reach out to social conservatives about his religion and appeal to “the American people’s sense of fair play,” much as President Kennedy addressed his Catholicism in front of the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in 1960.
As for oft-perceived Republican frontrunner Sen. John McCain, Land paused, then said the Arizona senator’s strengths with independent voters are what is hurting him with socially conservative voters.
McCain’s “maverick” streak may be a winning personality trait for reporters and independents, but social conservatives consider it to be a sign of unpredictability.
“They don’t like being surprised,” Land said.
Though Land doesn’t question McCain’s consistency on abortion issues, he said McCain’s involvement in the “Gang of 14” — the bipartisan Senate group that prevented the “nuclear” option on judicial nominees — and his refusal to support anti-gay marriage proposals severely hurts his chances with traditional-values voters.
In the end, Land said, social conservatives are concerned about the kind of judges a President McCain would nominate.
“Voting pro-life is not enough,” Land said. “He has got to express himself in other venues.”
Add that to the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform law, legislation that sparked an outcry in religious organizations, and McCain, despite a conservative record and his continued, loyal backing of President Bush, does not come in as a favorite of the religious right.
But Land said the second tier of candidates offers voters of his ilk two contenders so-called values voters could get behind — Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R).
Both men are considered long-shots at this early stage of the game, but Land said impressive fundraising or gains in the polls could open a door to either candidate through which social conservatives might run.
“They don’t have to convince other social conservatives they’re one of them,” Land said. “They just have to convince other social conservatives they can win.”
Land called Huckabee a “Republican Bill Clinton,” praising the longtime governor’s charisma and affability with voters.
“I think he could catch fire,” Land said.
As it stands today, probably a good 10 months away from the first votes, Land said Romney and McCain “get the first chance to close the deal,” but concedes with those two as the frontrunners, social conservatives are left without a candidate who makes them 100 percent comfortable.
“That’s why if I were a Brownback supporter or a Romney supporter, I wouldn’t be all that discouraged,” he said.
As for Democrats, Land challenges the assumption held by many that Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, giving her “50-50” chances.
He said as he talks to conservative voters, he hears the word “calculating” used most often to describe the former first lady and cites “Clinton-Bush” fatigue as one of the factors working against her.
“When people talk to me about her, their facial expressions change,” he said.
I voted for one dem congressman about ten years ago because I knew him and liked him.
He got elected governor, and became a great disappointment to us all.
Ive never voted for a dem for president and cannot conceive of that changing at this point.
That's just not true. A lot of very good conservatives lost. It was a bad election for Republicans across the board. The idea that "more conservatism" wins in every election, in every jurisdiction and at all times is just nonsense.
IMHO Congressmen going to jail and Governors pleading guilty (OH) had more to do with our losses than ideology. That, and the Iraq War.
The problem is, DG, is that fundraisers, consultants, pollsters and bull**** increasingly drive elections. And as many Rudy boosters have noted, the primaries are front-end stacked more than ever.
So even more than in recent years, it's little more than an informercial after Iowa, New Hampshire and SC. Which is why the nuts and bolts have to be worked out now. Rudy does have a chance to win - it's not nearly as certain as his proponents claim, but he and his machine can use the new system to their advantage to try and cancel out all the problems with his positions by just hawking Rudy nonstop on TV. And that is what scares the crap out of me - that Rudy CAN win the nomination with that approach by out-fundraising his opponents. However, if he wins, it will then be a level fundraising field with the Dems, who will tear into him with a vengence and fund 527-type groups to splinter GOP support for Rudy.
Republican Incumbents Who Lost in the House:
Jim Ryun (KS) - ACU rating 98
J.D. Hayworth (AZ) - ACU rating 98
Richard Pombo (CA) - ACU rating 97
Chris Chocola (IN) - ACU rating 95
Gil Gutknecht (MN) - ACU rating 94
Charles Taylor (NC) - ACU rating 92
Mike Sodrel (IN) - ACU rating 92
Melissa Hart (PA) - ACU rating 91
John Hostettler (IN) - ACU rating 90
Don Sherwood (PA) - ACU rating 87
Anne Northup (KY) - ACU rating 86
Clay Shaw (FL) ACU rating 82
John Sweeney (NY) ACU rating 77
Jeb Bradley (NH) ACU rating 71
Charles Bass (NH) ACU rating 71
Curt Weldon (PA) ACU rating 70
Sue Kelly (NY) ACU rating 65
Mike Fitzpatrick (PA) ACU rating 60
Nancy Johnson (CT) ACU rating 47
Jim Leach (IA) ACU rating 43
Vacated Republican seats lost
DeLay (TX) ACU rating 95
Beuprez (COL) ACU rating 93
Green (WI) ACU rating 88
Nussle (IA) ACU rating 86
Ney (OH) ACU rating 86
Foley (FLA) ACU rating 78
Koly (AZ) ACU rating 74
Boelert (NY) ACU rating 40
Democrat Incumbent seats lost
None.
+++
Republican Incumbents Who Lost in the Senate:
Burns (MT) - ACU rating 91
Allen (VA) - ACU rating 92
Santorum (PA) - ACU rating 88
Talent (MO) - ACU rating 93
DeWine (OH) - ACU rating 80
Chafee (RI) - ACU rating 37
Democrat Incumbent seats lost
None.
In a close race it can make a big difference between a plurality and a majority. And it increases the liberal influence on the GOP primary.
(Excluding my relatives by marriage.)
Now, how many of those pubbies were implicated in the Abramoff scandal? What was the impact of Foley and DeLay resigning because of their problems? That's ten seats right there that have nothing to do with ACU rankings.
The reality is that the RNCC was spending money on moderate #1 over moderate #2 to counter the DNC money being spent moderate #2. The dems knew if they could split the moderate vote, Graf would win the GOP primary and he had no chance of winning the general.
The dems saved a lot of money by spending in the GOP primary. If Graf had lost and the moderate had won the GOP primary, the dems would have had to spend a whole lot more in the general election. As it was, they didn't have to spend a dime to beat Graf.
Tell it to GrandEagle, who said we lost last year because we weren't conservative enough. As you say, the losses had nothing to do with ACU ratings. Onyx was merely backing that up.
Hardly. It was extremely unprincipled of the RNCC to have intervened IN THE PRIMARY and funded ATTACK ADS against a REPUBLICAN candidate.
It's hard enough to beat the other team when some on your own team turn on you as well.
That was a factor as well. Spending. Attaching earmarks to war appropriations bills.
As well as Hastert ripping into the FBI for searching Jefferson's office. Abramoff. Foley.
Every election, the party in power has to make the case why they should stay in power. It's pretty hard for swing voters to take a pro-war party seriously when they add pork to war approprations bills.
I believe 2006 shows the beginning of the end for the "vote for our candidate or else you get worse" philosophy. No matter what you blame the shift in votes on, it comes down to this: fear of Democrats does not motivate enough voters for Conservatives to win if they or the party are not seen as representing Conservative values.
Like all things political, talk is cheap.
Like all things Rudy, his past actions betray his current talk. He ignored federal law and federal court rulings to maintain NYC's sanctuary city policy. And he is in favor of amnesty, which has already been shown to INCREASE illegal immigration, not decrease it. Not only has he sheltered illegal immigrants from the INS as mayor, he refuses to learn from past mistakes. That's not the mark of a great leader.
And once again, YOU raised the issue of illegal immigration as a knock against social conservatives, who happen to largely be AGAINST illegal immigration. But you sure drilled Rudy where the sun don't shine.
That is what we should all be doing. The republican party knows how conservatives feel on certain issues and if they think that Rudi can win without the Christian base they are living in a dream world. I am a conservative Catholic and most of my friends cannot see Rudi as President maybe sec. of state but not President. For me voting for Rudi with him being so proabortion goes against what my faith stands for. Can God be with a country,especially with the wot,when we legally kill millions of unborn children and then vote for those who support the killing of these children. Would that be considered luke warm faith and what did Jesus say about the lukewarm. I do not want Hillery for anything so we must do whatever we can to make her look bad and tell the republican party to get somebody out there we can support.We need to be out there working on what we believe in rather than just giving in already. Americans can do anything we put our minds to especially with Gods help. If the dems can put some inexperienced nobody like Obama then we need a fresh young face out there too. Especially against Hillery. Think about it a nice young looking man against Hillery!
We've been told for years to vote for the lesser of two evils.
That becomes much less effective when the GOP leadership is working long and hard to narrow the gap between the two evils.
There are several bills in the Texas legislature at the moment to move its primary to February 5. I suspect one of them will pass and be signed into law.
It's going to get even more front-loaded.
Texas has more delegates than Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina combined.
In my opinion, the only reason why Rudy has not only a chance, but is the overwhelming favorite for the GOP nomination is the utter lack of a viable conservative candidate to his right.
I know you hold hope out that Duncan Hunter can achieve parity with Giuliani, but there's no realistic gameplan in place to accomplish that. Rudy can raise a million bucks at a single speech and rubber chicken dinner. How does Hunter do that?
I imagine the eventual nominee will have spent $50 million in campaign expenditures prior to February 5. Perhaps more, if California also moves its primary up. The candidate can't be everywhere at once, but his television ads can.
I'm in the Gingrich camp. I think he's the only real conservative who could beat Giuliani out. Unfortunately, he's not showing any serious sign of running, and I don't have a second favorite among the announced candidates.
So, for now, I'm just watching. I do know that I'll vote for the GOP candidate in November 2008, even if it's one of the guys who I think are idiots. Our idiots are better than their idiots.
THe sade truth of it is Rudy McRomney are so liberal I have lsot my fear of the rats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.