Posted on 06/22/2007 8:24:00 AM PDT by Wolf13
WASHINGTON - What matters most in a presidential candidate: “electability” or ideology? In other words, can a candidate’s perceived ability to win sometimes transcend ideological heterodoxy? Or are a candidate’s positions on the issues always ascendant?
These are the questions — always a crucial part of the voting calculus — that stand at the very heart of the dilemma facing social conservatives as they consider the candidacy of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Opinion polls suggest a sizeable number of social conservatives would support Giuliani because, while he stands diametrically opposed to them on their most important issues, principally abortion, they believe he is the only candidate capable of defeating likely Democratic nominee Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.
Most recently, a Pew Forum analysis found that while twice as many social conservatives feel Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., comes closer to their view on abortion than Giuliani does, McCain receives just 22 percent of their support overall, while Giuliani enjoys the support of 30 percent of the social conservative bloc.
Giuliani’s support among social conservatives, whom Pew defines as white Republican Christians who attend church at least weekly, stems from the 44 percent who believe he has the “best chance” of becoming president in 2008. This contrasts with the scant 19 percent who believe McCain has the best shot.
But social conservatives ready to temporarily eschew the right to life in order to prevent a Democrat from capturing the presidency should remember this: Historically, few issues have proved as auspicious for the Republican Party as the right to life.
President Ronald Reagan annihilated his two Democratic opponents in large part because his conservative views on social issues like abortion attracted many socially conservative Democrats to cross the aisle and vote Republican.
While running as an openly pro-choice candidate in 1980, George H. W. Bush lost badly to Reagan in the Republican primary. Then, after experiencing his own pro-life epiphany, Bush resurfaced in 1987 as an acceptable pro-life candidate to many pro-lifers and won the 1988 presidential election.
In 1996, former Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., tried to water down the GOP platform on abortion, thus alienating many pro-life voters. Dole finished with just 41 percent of the vote — the second-worst showing for a Republican presidential candidate since 1964.
In contrast, President George W. Bush’s position on moral issues like abortion helped him activate millions of “values voters,” the difference makers in his two presidential victories.
Add these up, and a powerful reality emerges: Pro-life presidential nominees have been responsible for an unparalleled run of success — winning five of the last seven elections for the Republican Party.
But that’s not all. The pro-life position remains as durable as ever, while support for abortion is waning. In the 2006 election, EMILY’S List, America’s largest pro-choice political action committee, won just two of 19 competitive House races in which it backed and funded a candidate. So far in 2007, EMILY’S List’s donations have plummeted by almost half from 2005, according to Federal Election Commission reports.
What’s more, a May Gallup survey revealed that the portion of the public that considers itself “pro-life” has grown 12 percentage points over the last 12 years, while the share calling itself “pro-choice” has decreased 8 points. Gallup also found that 22 percent of pro-life Republicans consider abortion a decisive issue, meaning a candidate must share their position on the issue in order to get their vote, while just 8 percent of “pro-choice” Republicans felt similarly.
These numbers help explain why few pro-choice Democrats seem willing to discuss abortion anymore. A recent review of Senate Web sites by Third Way, a Democratic policy group, found that Democratic members used the word “abortion” fewer than 350 times, while Republicans used the word 1,900 times.
When reminded recently that his position on abortion puts him at odds with his party, Giuliani responded, “Our party has to get beyond issues like that.” Clearly, a significant and growing number of pro-life Republicans disagree.
As social conservatives continue to survey the field of presidential candidates, the dominant question in the media will be: Should conservatives jettison their pro-life litmus test in order to help the Republican Party retain the presidency?
No.
A better question is: Why should the Republican Party abandon its fidelity to the pro-life position, a time-tested and enduring winner?
Daniel Allott is a writer and policy analyst for American Values, a Washington-area public policy organization.
Examiner
It’s going to take more than a pro life stance. It’s going to take a longstanding record of having a pro life stance.
The same can be said about border control. I won’t be voting for a candidate who changed his position simply because the old one wasn’t the winning position.
Give me a candidate who is unapologetic about what he honestly believes.
How about the rags support somebody who is correct on the issues, which will also give him electability?
Giuliani (D) is not the man for the job.
Duncan Hunter
OUr govorner in Alaska is not ashamed to be pro-life, not ashamed to be anti-homo marriage. She swept the election, and is doing fantastic.
Check out Sam Brownback - pro-life from way back. Also not ashamed to say so. I introduced the Sen. at an event last night and had people thanking me for bringing him to town (i really did not do the bringing) but they were so excited to hear a man not be scared to tell the truth on life, terror, and religion in the public square.
D-U-N-C-A-N H-U-N-T-E-R
26 YEARS-Consistent & clear on abortion & border control.
www.gohunter08.com
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.