Posted on 10/18/2007 3:39:56 PM PDT by wagglebee
Fears that values voters will walk away from the GOP if a pro-abortion candidate is nominated for president continues to animate election discussions. And it should: if the Republican Party's base of conservative voters isn't with the party during the campaign, America will definitely elect a Democrat president in 2008.
With the stakes so high, and with the negative numbers for Democrat front runner Hillary Clinton so high why is there so much controversy on the Right?
Robert Novak's column at TownHall.com examines why Christians who know Giuliani 's positions on the issues are less than excited about him:
There is certainly not much in Giuliani's background to attract religious conservatives. After he changed from being a George McGovern Democrat in 1972, his successful 1993 campaign for mayor opposed term limits, school choice and an end to rent controls. As the Republican mayor, he backed Democrat Mario Cuomo's losing fourth-term bid for governor of New York. He consistently has been pro-choice on abortion, pro-gay rights (including gay marriage) and pro-gun control. How anybody that liberal can be the apparent choice of the religious right is attributed by Republican pollster Frank Luntz to Giuliani's reputation for fighting terrorism. "He has turned security into a social issue," Luntz told me.
That does not fully explain the strong support for him by practicing Catholics. Giuliani says he was raised as a Catholic but declines to say whether he practices the religion today. When Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis recently said he would refuse Holy Communion to Giuliani because of his position on abortion, the candidate did not dispute the cleric but merely said, "Everybody has a right to their opinion." There is no evidence that Giuliani attends mass apart from funerals and holidays.
Carol Platt Liebau's TownHall.com recent column examines the threat by values voters to walk away from the GOP if Giuliani becomes the Republican nominee. She quotes from an email she received from someone who professes "great admiration" for Dr. Dobson:
What Dr. Dobson has done is to try to influence my vote not by offering open support for an electable pro-life candidate but by threatening me with the specter of virtually handing the election to Hillary Clinton unless I, as a Republican, vote to nominate an avowedly pro-life candidate. This is flat out bullying of the religious right in the name of "principle."
What I find the most short-sighted about this statement is that it assumes the "religious right" is bullying. Rather, I think the liberal element within the Republican Party is trying to bully conservatives and average voters into accepting Giuliani as the "default" candidate. I think the case could easily be made that the "religious right" is being bullied by establishment "country club" Republicans who have, with their large contributions and influence in societal discussion have been bullying values voters into a choice between a liberal Republican and a liberal Democrat--not much of a choice for people concerned about the erosion of traditional values.
Why is it that when liberals want to depart from the values that we've held for hundreds or even thousands of years, and conservatives oppose this, it's the conservatives who are branded "divisive" or "bullies?" Conservatives simply want to maintain the values and limited government that made America the greatest, most successful nation on earth, so why are they painted as the ones who are "rocking the boat?"
I think the answer is clear: liberals get a lot more mileage out of their issues with the general, unsuspecting public if they paint themselves as the "reasonable" and "moderate" victims. It works more often than not, too, because many in the general public don't stop to consider the accuracy of the allegation. And conservatives are usually bumbling and ineffective in their response to such charges.
But this blaming of conservative voters for leaving a party that has already left them is based on another flawed position.
As I've said before, the assumption by most who oppose values voters' stand on principle is that Giuliani can win as long as there isn't an organized exodus of the "religious right." Whether it's sincere or a bluff, that assumption is a mistaken one.
I would hold my nose and vote for Giuliani if it was him or Clinton. But a lot of values voters are more principled than I am; they wouldn't vote for the lesser of two evils. This is something that James Dobson has publicly sworn many times he won't do (vote for a pro-abortion candidate), and many people support him in this vow.
But even if some values voters would hold their noses and vote for Giuliani , almost none of the nation's values voters are going to get excited enough to supply the time, money and buzz needed to create the synergy of a successful campaign. A candidate can't win if their core base is so disgusted with their party's nominee that they can't bring themselves to contribute money or time for door-knocking and promoting their candidate to their community. All the energy that comes with a popular campaign just wouldn't exist. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, except for some public polish to make her appear more palatable to the middle, is made-to-order for the far Left.
This same situation doomed Bob Dole's 1996 candidacy against Bill Clinton and produced a 9-point loss; Dole was far too mushy for people of traditional values to get excited about.
If you need another example, go back to the 1976 campaign between liberal Republican Gerald Ford and Democrat Jimmy Carter. As Family Research Council president Tony Perkins recently told the Baltimore Sun, "My experience has been that you don’t beat a liberal with a moderate, because what you have is a motivated base on the left and a lack of enthusiasm on the other side," Voters just won't buy a fake liberal (a "moderate") when they can have a real one for the same price.
Just having this discussion may be increasing awareness of Giuliani 's liberal positions. Giuliani has fallen to 4th place in Iowa, and a Des Moines Register poll reveals 75% of Republicans are turned off by his support for abortion. Poll results released by Rasmussen on Oct. 13 reveal Giuliani 's negative numbers are almost as high as Hillary Clinton's; 29% say they'll definitely vote for Giuliani and 43% say they'll definitely vote against him. By comparison, Clinton's numbers are 35% for and 46% against, leaving her a net number 3 points better than Giuliani .
There are a lot of busy, everyday Republicans who don't even yet know where Giuliani stands on the issues. How high will his negative numbers go when they do find out he's pro-abortion, pro-homosexual rights, dubious on gun control, been married and divorced multiple times, committed adultery, and lived for a while in an apartment with several homosexuals?
Values voters have always slept in and missed most opportunities to affect presidential campaigns where they count the most: at the primaries. Too many traditional Americans don't take interest in a presidential election until the party nominees are already decided; at this point they're likely to be left with a choice between "the lesser of two evils."
Perhaps these recent discussions between leaders in the values voter constituency indicates this group won't be sleeping in for the 2008 primary. Maybe conservative voters have finally realized they can affect the choice of the nominee in the primaries, work to get the best nominee, and are getting energized to do just that.
And we've seen the same thing here with the FRiberal Rooty Rooters.
Pro-Life Ping
Stop Rudy Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
A while back, I asked someone here what value or stand they wouldn't abandon just to get a "R" win. They basically said "Nothing. Party is all that matters".
When I posted more frequently, there were some who would try to blame me and every other Christian for the loss in '06, just like they will in '08 if Rudy is nominated. What they fail to realize is that there are those of us who consider our standing before God before our standing in the GOP.
Pretty well written article.
But even if some values voters would hold their noses and vote for Giuliani , almost none of the nation’s values voters are going to get excited enough to supply the time, money and buzz needed to create the synergy of a successful campaign. A candidate can’t win if their core base is so disgusted with their party’s nominee that they can’t bring themselves to contribute money or time for door-knocking and promoting their candidate to their community. All the energy that comes with a popular campaign just wouldn’t exist. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, except for some public polish to make her appear more palatable to the middle, is made-to-order for the far Left.
There are freaks on both sides.
That would be dumb. Best solution is no Rudy. However, Value Voters maybe want to keep their power dry rather then shoot themselves in the foot by issuing ultimates.
Judges imposed Roe V Wade, Judges will overturn it. With the GOP Value Voters have a seat at the table. With any Leftist, you will not only NOT have a seat at the table, you will lose some of the ground the Pro Life movement has made over the last 15 years.
How is this demonstrably different from electing Rooty Toot who will ALSO appoint three leftist justices to the Supreme Court?
With any Leftist, you will not only NOT have a seat at the table, you will lose some of the ground the Pro Life movement has made over the last 15 years.
Exactly! Rooty is a LEFTIST!
They dont have a seat at the table w liberal Giuliani
You know the GOP is a loser if they have to rely on “if you dont vote for so-and-so GOP, Hillary wins”. Its time for the GOP to get back to its conservative values, not to Bush liberalism
versus electing Rudy so that he can appoint 3 leftist judges to the supreme court and call them “Republican.”
do you know why Bill Clinton was impeached? it wasn’t because he raised taxes or cut defense or because of his other liberal positions. No, it was because he was a scummy guy and the last thing I want to see is that from the GOP.
I get the same treatment. I keep telling the FR RINO's here that Christians aren't the problem, Guliani is. You can't force me to vote for a liberal by putting an "R" behind his name. Jeffords has as much chance as Rooty to get my vote. If the Republicans can't give me someone to vote FOR, then it looks like Hillary to me. Republicans will slink back into obscurity for 60 years if they dis the Christians and suck up to the Rockerfella's. It is just as important to block homosexual marraige and abortion as get a tax cut if you want to win the vote.
“... blaming of conservative voters for leaving a party that has already left them ...”
If the Party leaves us, I don’t think it will be coming back.
I’ve heard Rudy say he would close the borders. What is his stand on Amnesty?
I'll use myself as an example. I don't promote Rudy here on FR, because Jim has made it clear that it's a bannable offense. However, it's no secret that I've supported Rudy from the beginning.
Now, am I bullying anyone? No. The proof is in the pudding, I'm not trying to exort a vote by threatening to help elect a Democrat should Rudy lose the primary. If Thompson wins the primary, he's got my vote. If Romney wins the Primary, he has my vote. If Hunter wins the primary, I'm Hunter's man. If...well, you get the point by now, I hope.
However, the charge of bullying is accurate when someone threatens to help elect the opposition should their candidate not win the primary. When someone says, "If Hunter wins the nomination, I'm going to vote 3rd party." knowing full well that a divided GOP will fall before the Democrat nominee, then yes, it's trying to extort a primary vote and that's bullying.
The GOP will collapse like the Whigs if conservatives leave.
Rooty Toot is NEVER going to close the borders and he turned NYC into a sanctuary city for illegal aliens.
Turn that around. What are you willing to compromise on to get your principals advanced? Only in God is perfection found. Nothing in human life, especially not politics, is going to be perfect. So what are YOU willing to give on to advance your political agenda?
From your posting it is obvious you define everything you personally want as "Standing on principals" That feed the shouters egos, it does nothing to advance a pro-Life political agenda.
Which is abandoning principal? Staying in the fight in the hopes of getting something done on your issue, or quitting the fight because it isn't going your way?
Standing on Principal means fight for your views even when times are looking grim. It is not "standing on principal" to throwing your hands in the air and screaming "You're not doing what I want so a pox on all of you.
Using the logic being expressed here, by self proclaimed "Standing on Principals Freepers" a 3 year old throwing a temper-tantrum is "Standing on Principals"
NO the toddler is engaging in wholly self destructive emotional grandstanding. So are all the supposed adult Freepers who continually define their own personal opinions being immediately gratified at every turn with "Standing on Principals.
With the GOP most, if not all, of your values are being advanced and strengthen. On Judges alone the GOP has done more good for Value Voters in the last 7 years then the Democrats ever will.
With the Democrats, Value Voters get 100% of what they claim to loath imposed on them. With the GOP, Value Voters have a seat at the table when Judges are nominated, legislation is crafted ect.
Demanding the you get only 100% of what you personally want and nothing you oppose, is NOT "Standing on Principal"
I asked this on another thread, but no one answered:
“The questions in electoral politics are:
Which states will turn from ‘red’ to ‘blue’ based on the GOP nominee?
Will the Southern Block become blue?
All other questions are navel gazing....”
Maybe someone can respond on this thread....
First we need a real Republican. Someone who will not give in to the head-chopper lobby, the race industry lobby, the alternative lifestyle lobby.
Doesn’t look good.
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.