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.
That's not demonization, or so I'm told.
When I say that they don't turn out, I don't mean zero percent turn out, I mean enough of them don't turn out. In the case of 2000, where only 78% turned out, had it not been for the Greens in FL and Mountaintop mining in WV, Bush would have lost.
Nothing less than perfect!
That makes two of us! Cannot understand some of these posters and don't want to after seeing their comments about Ms. Clinton.
25. Thinking ahead to the next presidential election, if the 2008 general election
were held today and the candidates were [Democrat NAME], [Republican NAME],
and [independent NAME], for whom would you vote?
Hillary Rudy Ralph (Other/
Clinton Giuliani Nader Don’t know)
13-14 Feb 07 40% 46 5 9
Democrats 73% 17 5 5
Republicans 7% 84 3 7
Independents 40% 41 6 13
26. – 27. What if the candidates were [Democrat NAME] and [Republican NAME]
(ROTATE QUESTIONS 26 AND 27 AND ROTATE ORDER OF NAMES WITHIN QUESTIONS)
Hillary Rudy (Other/
Clinton Giuliani Don’t know)
13-14 Feb 07 40% 49 11
Democrats 73% 20 7
Republicans 6% 87 8
Independents 39% 46 15
Common sense indicates that those who are consumed with tearing down a candidate and never build up the candidate of their choice have a serious problem.
Wasn't it terrific about Ronald Reagan's son Michael trying to talk common sense to Republicans today? He sounded like he's been listening to a certain group here on FR that would have you as its leader of common sense Republicans. Congratulations!
I'm off to dinner; ping me to anything interesting and check your freepmail for mail from another party.
Thanks!
Nader gets 5-6%? Don't think so. What poll is that?
He's not going to do it, but I think it's way too late for even a great candidate like Jeb Bush to get into the race.
My dream ticket is Jeb Bush/John Cornyn, but it's not going to happen. Too much Bush fatigue.
My second favorite would be to have Gingrich in a slot on the ticket. Looks like VP at best now, since he's not making the right moves to run for President.
If conservatives are going to refuse to vote for whomever is the GOP candidate might be, and let Hillary, or God forbid, that idiot from Illinois move into the White House, then I'll agree with the "Stupid Party" label, only it will apply to the voters.
It's a Fox poll which I linked.... Take Nader out of the mix and Giuliani winning margin increases.
2.7%.
Max.
We'll see.
I think he's merely holding himself out as an emergency candidate if all the front runners implode.
that's exactly right. Gingrich is looking for the conservatives and evangelicals to take down all the front runners, and he figures if the party is going to go with "someone else" - it might as well be him.
It's not a bad strategy if you're not dead set on running for President. Or maybe even if you are.
There is going to be loud dissatisfaction with any of the current frontrunners. The problem Newt has is that many of the evangelicals have the same problem with him as they do the others.
He is, by far, the most intelligent and articulate conservative spokesman out there. But he has a very high negative approval rating to overcome. People do love to hate him for some reason.
Gingrich, who co-wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed with Giuliani last month, said he is not endorsing the man who led New York City through the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and he noted that he may still jump into the presidential race against him.
Is Newt the next one to get thrown under the bus?
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.