Evangelical leader sizes up GOP field, says Giuliani’s campaign is doomed

The Hill ^ | 16 February 2007 | Sam Youngman

[Spiff]

Evangelical leader sizes up GOP field, says Giuliani’s campaign is doomed

By Sam Youngman
The Hill
16 February 2007

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.

[dirtboy]

Blackirish says that Richard Land should keep his day job as a preacher cuz flatly stating who will win or not this early in the game is idiotic.

I suppose you'll say something similar to the folks on FR saying Rudy is gonna win?

[Ben Ficklin]

Graf lost because of the independent vote.

Those on the far right, such as yourself, don't understand why an independent's vote counts twice as much as yours.

If you stay home and don't vote for the GOP candidate, you are denying him one vote, or a one vote swing.

The independent voter doesn't stay home and not vote, he votes for the dem, denying the GOP candidate one vote and giving the dem one vote, or a two vote swing.

Mathematically, you are a loser.

[Blackirish]

Like all things political, talk is cheap.

---

You think Rudy is lying...I don't.

Really no more point debating the topic then.

Still..... no checkbook for you guys.

[You Dirty Rats]

Let's go to the front page:

"Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!"

JimRob has made his position on social conservatism very clear on the Rudy threads and I respect him for it.

But notice what the first two points are on the front page. The first refers to government spending; the second to fraud and corruption. Forget liberal, conservative, social conservative, economic conservative, paleoconservative, neoconservative, CINO, RINO, whatever -- the fact is that the 2005-6 Republican Congress deserved a "F" for those two key issues and deserved to lose power.

We didn't deserve Pelosi and Reid, but that's the price paid when our guys "F"d up.

Fat, dumb and corrupt is no way for Republicans to hold onto power.

[Melas]

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.

That's debatable. It's just as likely that it would increase conservative influence on the Democrat primary. I have yet to see any compelling evidence that open primaries benefit one party over the other.

[conservatrice]

I can't think of single Democrat that I could vote for.

I will never vote for Rudy, but I did vote for Lieberman in CT this past November. As a CT senator, he's really not bad, but I wouldn't vote for him for president. Guiliani is the same - he was a great mayor of NY. He's not presidential material.

[Dog Gone]

IMHO what cost the Republicans the election (if I had to narrow it to a single thing) is it's infatuation with eliminating our Southern border. Not that it was the only issue by far, but I believe it tipped the scales.

I don't believe that, but if it's true, we're too stupid to vote. Voting in Rats is not going to improve the southern border.

[Coldwater Creek]

I think that HE said something about spewing them out of his mouth!

[Blackirish]

Hey I'm not one of the pout and stay home crybaby posters who threaten to not show if Rudy wins.


I will vote for whoever gets the Repub nod....just to keep hillary off my TV.

[Blackirish]

Hey I'm not one of the pout and stay home crybaby posters who threaten to not show if Rudy wins.


I will vote for whoever gets the Repub nod....just to keep hillary off my TV.

[dirtboy]

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?

That's the problem. Money and bull**** can win Rudy the nomination despite his liberal past. However, the Dems are just as good at money and three times as good at bull**** - so Rudy's advantage in that department becomes a liability come the general election. And all the issues that money and bull**** were able to railroad during the primaries will still be there, waiting for the Dems to exploit them as wedges for the general election.

As a result, Rudy will not be able to hold the party together and will have a very difficult time coaxing independents and Dems over to his side in the general election because he does not give the full differentiation of issues that a pubbie candidate typically has. He will not pull pro-life Dems. He will not pull pro-gun Dems. He can only pull pro-war independents and Dems, and there are fewer of those with each passing week.

[conservatrice]

Everyone vote for the Republican Theocratic Party. After losing, let's all go wander in the desert for two generations.

Why are you on this board? This is a conservative website. We should have to defend conservatism here.

[dirtboy]

You think Rudy is lying...I don't.

Silly me. Believing what a politician says when he runs for a new office. And being unwilling to ignore the years of what he did while in his old position.

[dirtboy]

That's debatable. It's just as likely that it would increase conservative influence on the Democrat primary. I have yet to see any compelling evidence that open primaries benefit one party over the other.

I didn't say one party over the other. I said one candidate over the other within a given party's primary. Primaries by definition do not pit parties against each other.

[conservatrice]

Don't you understand that his book is political analysis? You do know the difference between that and an opinion essay, do you not? He's not endorsing any particular candidate; he is analyzing the situation. And he's right on target.

[Ben Ficklin]

All you self-annointed "true conservatves" are not real conservatives. You are democrats who have been voting republican temporarily.

[conservatrice]

If Rudy or McCain wins the GOP nod and you stay home or vote for some 3rd party, you're voting to lose gun rights, you're voting to expand abortion rights, and worst of all, you're voting to surrender in the WoT.

Great logic, there. We should vote for a gun grabbing baby killer to save gun rights and babies?

[dirtboy]

But notice what the first two points are on the front page. The first refers to government spending; the second to fraud and corruption. Forget liberal, conservative, social conservative, economic conservative, paleoconservative, neoconservative, CINO, RINO, whatever -- the fact is that the 2005-6 Republican Congress deserved a "F" for those two key issues and deserved to lose power.

My point exactly. they, and Bush, drifted leftwards on those issues. And the party lost in 2006 as a result.

Now Rudy wishes to take even more of those core issues out of play. And don't call him a fiscal conservative - he can only appear as such as compared to his predecessors. Spending in NYC during his last four years increased well above the rate of inflation. And like Bush and Ahnold, he massively increased the debt load. Tax cuts are fine and dandy, but they need to be matched with spending cuts, not increased borrowing.

[dirtboy]

We should vote for a gun grabbing baby killer to save gun rights and babies?

If Rudy is the nominee, we won't have a choice if we wish to stay in the GOP. And that's the entire point.

[Condor51]

Pro-life, pro-liberty, pro-gun Americans--- straight-shooting loyalists who MADE the party what it is today

The minority party?

Hardy har-har. Do you do Stand Up?

In case you forgot, the House was lost by RINOs trying to out Dem the Dems. The RATS that won all mostly ran to the right of the so-called 'republicans'. Also don't forget that some of the RINOs that lost were also tainted by scandal and/or corruption.

Another falicy is that it was due to illegals
he Great Illegal Immigration Myth of '06

Conservatism WINS. Wishy-washy, 'big tent', middle of the road moderates gets you this...

Lincoln Chaffee post Election