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.
Wow! You've found a full-on black helicopter, tin foil hat conspiracy right there, I tell ya. Land is the leader of one of the most conservative Christian organizations in the nation, but he had Jew write the foreword to his book. What's the frequency, Kenneth? < /sarc >
"Rudy's their savior and any criticism of him for his extreme left views makes them howl in rage, just as they are doing on this thread."
Isn't that what liberals do?
If the GOP controlled Senate had any backbone, President Bush would have pushed those judges through. You can't blame the President for that one. How will Rudy get anyone through except liberal judges, especially now that the Democrats will control the Senate?
The Constitution Party is dead in the water....they are Anti-Israel and subcribe to what is called "Replacement Theology"....
Look folks...you have two choices so far...Duncan or possibly Newt (despite his weaknesses)...
If conservatives boycot the election Hillary or whomever gets the whitehouse....
Lets get real....OK?
Either some conservatives swallow their pride on we will see a Dem in the whitehouse. Its gonna be close as it is.....the red states are growing smaller while the blue states get bigger
I guess you wouldn't have voted for evil Christian conservative Ronald Reagan then.
So a party can't change their platform? I guess Democrats still support slavery, huh?
If Rudy gets the Nomination...I won't vote...Period.
So you backers of Hunter and Newt better get a fire lit soon.
Look, there's been an uneasy alliance between the old-line GOP types and the social conservatives since the very start, and maybe it is time to address some of the things that have made the alliance uneasy instead of sweeping it under the rug for 30 years, but is going that far really productive?
That is sooooooooooo self evident.
That puts it exactly right - The problem with those pictures has to do with the state, not the government. That is, the British PM is head of government but not the head of state, at present Queen Elizabeth II.Here the situation is otherwise - we need a Washington or a Reagan who can be a dignified head of state as well as the head of the government. Likewise, the multiple marriages. It was one thing to have Reagan, who (since it was not he but his first wife who wanted the divorce) was not the offender in the breaking of his initial family. But AFAIK that's not clearly the case with Guliani, Gingrich, or McCain. Which leaves only Romney as a good candidate for head of state. For head of government, Gingrich would be the choice.
Which finally leaves us looking for a more suitable candidate generally. Leave aside the immigration issue (and the fact that people are tired of the last name) and the obvious answer would be Jeb Bush. I suspect that the immigration issue will probably be moot by then. Not in a way you and I will necessarily like, but . . .
So I guess my desire for this primary season is: no decision. Nobody who I actually want to be POTUS is gonna go into the convention with a lock on the nomination, so better that the convention sort it out. IMHO.
First it was "if McCain gets the nomination, we won't vote, period." Now it's "if Rudy gets the nomination, we won't vote, period."
Bush won. He was never strongly anti abortion, other than in words. He spoke of a need to "change people's hearts," but never pushed an anti-abortion platform.
Rudy and McCain are basically the same. Both see it as mainly a state's issue. Both are willing to allow some abortions. Both are opposed to partial birth abortion except to save a mother's life. Both believe in fairly strong parental notification. I predict that neither will touch the "right third rail" of gun control.
I also believe that the number of far rightwingers who will sit on their hands on election day will be greatly outnumbered by the moderates who will vote for Rudy or McCain.
With the latest poll here, it is pretty clear that a Rudy run would meet an ugly end in the general election.
Land is considered an influential evangelical leader
He is???? Never heard of him. I think that the Influential Evangelical Leaders are Haggard, Farwell, Robertson, and that glasses wearing fello who had a stroke (can't think of his name). Land is hardly influential unless the population of the United States has at least heard of him.
if Rudy or McCain get the nomination by the GOP, I will vote.
I just won't vote for either of them -- or the Democrat nominee.
Land is an official with the Southern Baptist Convention, which is a rather large denomination, so he's not unknown. I attend a Southern Baptist church, although I don't consider myself a Southern Baptist, theologically I don't have a lot of use for denominations and I'm troubled a bit by the way things are going worship-wise in a lot of Southern Baptist churches including my own although that's grist for another thread; the point is I would wager most Southern Baptists have heard of him.
Which is your right. In my younger days I made a few "statement votes." Never again, though ... stakes are too high now.
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.