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.
Barney Frank had Newt's number. He said Newt was a guy that was in love with the idea of having an idea.
As for myself, I question Newt's judgment and emotional maturity. If there were a Dem that were half way acceptable (alas at the moment there is not, since Mark Warner is not running), I would cross party lines.
I just crunched him under my tires actually. :)
Is Newt the next one to get thrown under the bus?
It's a rather silent thread right now --- stunned silent, I reckon.
"I am a born again Christian and would have a rough time going into the booth and voting for Rudy. I would take him over any of the democrats, but it would be an extremely hard vote to cast."
Ditto. He is the lesser of two evils compared to a democrat but I cannot stomach a GOP candidate who is pro-abortion.
Newt is totally unelectable,
It's a rather silent thread right now --- stunned silent, I reckon.
FOTFLOL! For repairs or refueling?
Good analysis. As the population in general becomes less interested in the "details" of politics, the populism you describe is a natural drift. It's easy to understand and "feel" for many people
Newt has a voice that is too high-pitched and is somewhat nasal. And his mannerism is that he's a know-it-all.
Those don't set well with much of the public and that's before you even consider what he's saying.
Many conservatives, even to the right of me, consider him unelectable, so it must be true. I like to hear his thoughts. I don't always agree with them, but usually I do.
Regardless, I don't think he's getting into the race. Like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, he's got a good gig, and not much motivation to change that.
I have never heard him deliver a full speech. Have mainly heard him on Hannity. He sounds to me like a professor(which he was) lecturing. I don't know if that might have something to do with his negatives.
Agreed. Shifting everything to the extreme of any base alienates more people who are not extreme. I'd rather have a small government, fiscal conservative who is not very socially conservative than a socially conservative who is liberal everywhere else. Being socislly conservative does not translate into actually changing the country into one which is more socially conservative. There is little a president can do, besides sound off from the bully pulpit, on abortion, gun laws and gay marriage. The president does have control over budgets, immigration, and defense, wherer I think the issues are. Social conservatism is important, but the fiscal and small government trump social values to me.
Interesting analysis.
Taking your analysis one step further, one can argue that there exists one R--Giuliani--and only Giuliani-- who can overcome the GOP breakup and win.
As someone whose appeal transcends party, Giuliani will compensate for the loss of Rs with a pickup of Ds.
I am a born again Christian and would have a rough time going into the booth and voting for Rudy. I would take him over any of the democrats, but it would be an extremely hard vote to cast.
Perhaps knowledge of the following will help to ease your difficulty and resolve any moral conflict:
WHY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT MUST MOBILIZE AGAINST HILLARY:
CLINTON CONFLATES EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS AND ISLAMO-FASCIST TERRORISTS
AFTERWORD: A Note to the Religious Right
bump
Thanks. Good reading and listening. I have passed the link on.
We can try to use that as a baseline. Knowing Bush's history as TX Governor and his campaigning statements and criticisms of him, the Christian voter turned out at 78%.
Now, in 2008, we can try to estimate what the percent turnout for Rudy would be by comparing his history as NY mayor, his campaign statements, and criticisms to Bush's in 2000.
As a skilled estimator, I say 68%. Looking at the current poll on FR, it might be lower.
But what about my thesis, that Giuliani is the one R who would be able to offset the loss of Rs with a pickup of Ds?
It is most critical in Florida where Bush fluked by in 2000. The polling from 10 days ago showed Rudy leading Hillary by 3 points with a margin of error of 3.8. Against McCain, she led by 3. I don't recall the exact numbers but she was about 15-25 up on Romney.
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.