Posted on 02/16/2007 7:11:02 AM PST by Valin
As I often do I checked Hugh's page first thing this morning. I saw his post where he takes a fellow Salem Colleague Dr. Richard Land to task for his observations on the possibility of a Guiliani general election candidacy.
Hugh believes that it is an impossibility that social conservatives would sit out a general election match-up that featured Rudy Guiliani. Dr. Land disagrees.
Hugh believes that his experiences speaking in front of audiences and conducting surveys of the audience is giving him a better barometer of the assessment on the ground than Land's perspective as an activist.
I've seen Hugh do his surveys and I know that he is most sincere in his beliefs about the data he's compiling by way of his pocket abacus. I also know that Dr. Land speaks to the movers and shakers amongst evangelicals like Dobson, Mohler, Perkins, Bauer, and Wilder - he hears from such as to what bothers them and why they can or can not activate their base to support a candidate.
I've also been to nearly every major event in the last year where bona fide conservatives have gathered. Hosted by groups like Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, American Family Association, Young Americas Foundation, The Values Voter's Summit, and in two more weeks the next installment of CPAC. I have seen the response taken in the straw polls at these events as well.
This past weekend I also key-noted the 40th Annual Conservative Party of New York State's conservative shin-dig. The conference heard from David Keene the head of the American Conservative Union. I followed Rich Lowry of National Review who did his own straw poll.
Every single one of the straw polls I have witnessed at these events favor Richard Land's view on the matter. Conservatives are not (at this time) embracing Guiliani. In the poll that Lowry did Guiliani got no more than five hands in the gathering raised in his support.
Dr. Land brings up good points. Ones that Hugh - because he relishes the GOP echo chamber - may be tuned out too. Marriage, family, abortion are as passionate issues as they have ever been to the true conservative movement. Guiliani is a disaster on all three, McCain has two strikes against him, and interestingly enough the "Mormon" candidate is the strongest. It's also interesting that the Mormon in the race is the only top tier candidate who has been married to only one woman.
To his credit in recent days Hugh has been harder on GOP rebels than ever before (Lincoln Chaffee) but Hugh also steadfastly embraced Bush's disasterous strategy of strong arming Rick Santorum into stumping for horrible GOP'er Arlen Specter. (And we see how far that went - we lost Santorum and are stuck batty Uncle Arlen!)
Also to his credit there has been no more consistent advocate going deep on the war than Hugh - and his willingness to lead the charge to hold Congress accountable to "The Pledge" demonstrates true commitment to the tough fight against terror.
Lowry said on my show that "Conservatives WANT to like Guiliani." I think that's an extremely fair assessment... and may on some level prove Hugh's point. But I think that Land's observation is also true - the more conservatives get to know him (Guiliani) - the more they will be disappointed in his past moral behavior and positions on morally conservative issues.
At the end of the day because conservatives strive to be philosophically consistent they will long more for a candidate who will fight the tough war on terror abroad, and wage war for the culture family/life at home with values that reflect their own.
It's all very interesting speculation - but on this one - I deem it nearly too tough to call!
(See reply 1)
Flat Out Wrong
Hugh Hewitt
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/0977b611-504d-4e9f-a5ed-5ce05aa70cfc
Dr. Richard Land is a very smart and widely respected evangelical leader. He's also my colleague in the Salem Radio network. But his prediction of massive defections from Rudy in the event of a Rudy-Hillary race is simply wrong:
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.
I have been addressing scores of audiences for two years on the subject of 2008, most of them full of social conservatives, many of them self-described evangelicals who would be included in that category under even the most stringent definitions. Not only does Rudy get the nod in audience polling when matched in a race against Hillary, he is often the first choice of large majorities of these highly motivated "base" voters. (He has not failed to win one of these straw polls since the collapse of Allen.)
The Republicans have not had a contested primary since 9/11, and the war changed a lot of people's priorities when it comes to the presidency. If Rudy is persuasive on the judges he will nominate, he wouldn't have a problem with the social conservatives in the general election.
In fact, the nomination seems to me to likely turn on which of the big three addresses the war most compellingly and most persuasively over the next year. The debates and media appearances may spend time satisfying the public's desire to get a "feel" for Senator McCain, Governor Romney and Mayor Giuliani, but the nomination will turn on the war and the essential question of who is best suited and prepared to lead it. And every voter serious about the war will be voting for whichever of the three gets the nomination. Today's vote in the House is just another stark reminder that there is a party committed to defeat and a return to fecklessness, and one which is overwhelmingly serious about the threats we face and the need to meet them, not run from them.
This doesn't mean that the mayor won't have problems in the primaries as a result of his positions on these issues. He will.
But not in the general.
The mayors problems in the primary will sink him, I pray.
Some of the religious right might sit it out. But I can tell you that most will not. I'm a conservative Southern Baptist, and of the GOP candidates who have a chance, Giuliani is my choice.
You need to look at the dynamics of this election cycle with a bit more of an open mind and modify your definition of "who have a chance."
I have only made one decision at this time...it will be a cold day in hell before I support John McCain.
I could vote for either Giuliani or Romney. Duncan Hunter? He needs to show me he can 1) raise money, 2) move people. I like a lot of his ideas but, I question weather he can win.
He seems to be a genuinely good person who tries his best to live by the principles he preaches.
Agree, but (and is't there always a but) I'm starting to think it may take a Guiliani to beat Hillary. Someone who can get down and dirty, throw some mud...because you KNOW she will.
I expect McCain will drop out by Labor Day
Not a tough call at all...
Folks like this will oppose Rudy in the primaries, which is fine...but most will vote on election day for him if he is the candidate.
There is nothing too close to call about it.
If it winds up Rudy V Hillary, the base by and large is not going to bolt... Now it is more than possible that the Dems will back some hard right guy to try to split the right vote so that Hillary like her hubby before her can win without getting 50% or more of the popular vote.
Rudy won't win the nomination. If by some magic he does, like dems crosssing over, there will be a prolife guy who will run as a third party.
And many pro life voters will go that way. Myself included.
Basically, your viewpoint is mine. I don't consider Hunter to be a viable candidate. If he had as much support as Giuliani, or maybe even Romney, then I'd not hesitate to support him, although I don't agree with this ideas on foreign trade.
But since I don't think Hunter can win the general election, I see Giuliani as the best choice in the pack.
If McCain is the nominee, I'll probably vote Libertarian.
Romney being a Mormon is going to hurt him some, because there are biggots and fools in the world...
Just as the fact Guliani has been divorce will hurt him with some small number of folks.
I doubt however either will suffer greatly for either of those.
And you can pat yourselves on the back for giving Bubba the white house again.....
Cutting off ones nose to spite ones face accoplishes nothing.
From your lips to Gods ear.
The problem is he's in love with the limelight, so I don't think he will. After the early primaries...well that's a different story.
Maybe... But I'm pro-life, and I'll vote for Giuliani. I agree completely with Giuliani that because the only thing the Pres. does to impact the abortion issue is appoint Supreme Court nominees, and he has made a commitment to appoint strict constructionists, a Giuliani Presidency will be good for the prospect of overturning Roe.
I can see how other pro-lifers might feel otherwise, but since I am a lawyer, I have a pretty good understanding of what we've got to do in order to get rid of the Roe v. Wade decision, and a Giuliani Presidency will help us get there.
What this country needs to do is STOP focusing on emotional issues, and START worrying about the candidate that will address the issues of RUNNING AMERICA. The government is an embarrassing mess of corrupt and self-serving politics, and it needs to be CLEANED UP. The big issues of spending, taxation, trade deficit, the military, national defense, OUR BORDERS AND IMMIGRATION (God what a mess), support of the Constitution, our system of laws, all the things that are a shambles by virture of malfeasance, irresponsibility, personal politics, corruption, etc. due to a pathetic performance and attitude of the Congress and the administration had better be on the table as the REAL ISSUES facing this country.
Otherwise, complacency, non-voter turnout, will just put a hammer-and-sickle power-mad Marxist in the White House and then it is straight down the crapper from there.
This a trick question...
Who has ego enough, that if losing in the primaries would run some 3rd party action... or attempt to align in some way with the opposition?
Church pastors can mobilize voters, and they can de-mobilize voters. They can cause a huge change in the outcome for Giuliani. Hewitt is being extremely loose with the assumptions that everyone will just roll over and vote against their own conscience.
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.