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.
Those answers demonstrates they are acting our of ego and anger not in God's spirit. The issue of life is WAY more important then validating any person's ego and anger. Nothing in life is perfect. Adults understand this. 51% of something is WAY better then 100% of what we oppose.
Geez, it’s about time!
“The Republican Party appears to be recognizing that Ron Paul has a chance of winning the nomination. Paul said to supporters:
“After all the aggressive wars, the assaults on our privacy and civil liberties, the oppressive taxation, and the crazed spending and deficits, I believe that many Republican voters are ready to return to our roots. And the big boys feel it too.It is no coincidence that the Republican National Committee invited me to a fundraising dinner involving only top-tier candidates.””
More:
http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=128737
Google Trends:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=ron+paul
www.ronpaul2008.com
Walk away from a Republican to elect a Liberal Marxist who espouses the same agenda...only more so. I hope not!
Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, Arkansas, Georgia, Colorado and New Mexico could all easily go blue if Rooty were nominated. Not a single blue state would go red. It would be the biggest defeat since 1964.
Put down the bottle (or is it a bong?)....
Zero chance...
Many people don’t realize how important it is.
Any suggestions? Is there an existing website?
It is more complicated than that. Actually it is quite simple. The Christian Right fears a Guiliani presidency more than a Clinton one. Why? If Clinton wins, the social conservatives can sit back and say, with valid conviction, that the Republicans lost because the GOP did not run a conservative candidate. If Rudy wins? Well, this changes the Republican landscape drastically. This means that Republicans can win elections running as social liberals. There will no longer be any need for Republicans to court the Christian Right and social conservatives will have been effectively neutralized as a political voice.
LMAO!
“Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, Arkansas, Georgia, Colorado and New Mexico...”
Thanks...
So those are the only States in play where the GOP candidate could sway the votes to blue...no current ‘blue’ states can be swayed to red by any GOP candidate...?
I didn't say that, I said that Rooty Toot couldn't put any blue states in play. A CONSERVATIVE could, just like Reagan did.
East Tennessee will stay home too, giving the middle and western more left-leaning areas a Blue TN as well.Media darling and family of corruption Democrit Harold Ford lost, but it was because we voted...
Have to disagree. Rudy stands to pick up some blue states— New Jersey and Pennsylvania come to mind. Florida is not in play. New Mexico was trending blue but might not fall with an a candidate attractive to independents. I can’t see any Southern states going Hillary. But as I have posted before — Rudy puts blue states in play and makes the Dems spend money where they didn’t intend to spend it. This gives them less money to spend in red states where they will need to spend lots of money to win.
I wasn’t certain about Tennessee, but I had a hunch it could go blue. Missouri easily could too. Rooty could cost us about 140 electoral votes that Bush won in 2004.
OK, fair enough.
This hasn't happened yet, but it might: If a Justice for SCOTUS retires or dies prior to fall 2008, how will you explain your involvement in electing a Democratic Senate?
Serious question, asked honestly.
I hope you will answer in the same spirit. I've asked that question before, and only got dodging and dancing in return.
You are delusional. Rooty would mark the first time in history that a major party nominates a candidate who could not even be expected to carry their home state.
No Supreme Court justice is going to retire before the election and if one was to die, the Senate would filibuster and not confirm any appointment.
It would serve them right if they both lost their primaries, and please join with me in prayer that they do.
Father God, please do not punish your servants with evil leaders. I ask this in the Name of Your Son Jesus, Amen.
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.