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.
Good article. If it comes down to a liberal vs. a liberal, I can promise you I won’t vote for the liberal.
OK, so they filibuster, then, after the election the Dems are still in power? Same questions from me, different year.
If the GOP wins, they will be a pain, but eventually confirm. If Hitlery wins, they will give her whoever she wants.
Giuliani is polling ahead of Clinton in MO. Missouri has been leaning left for a couple of years now...Giuliani will take it back in 2008...
If it comes to that, then "A plague o' both your houses!"
Okay, so you’re saying if Giuliani wins the primary, God is punishing you? Why should you be punished?
Even if that’s true, it doesn’t matter. Rooty WILL lose red states (and plenty of them) and WON’T win any blue states. No matter what the final tally, my prediction is that we lose at least 100 electoral votes if Rooty is nominated.
I don’t believe this is happening again. Rooty Toot? Why does this forum have to devolve into this childish nonsense? Liberal watchers go orgasmic when they see this kind of divisiveness (and frankly silliness) among conservatives. By the logic I’m seeing here, we NEVER should have supported the atheist Soviets OR opposed their enemies during WWII. The Soviet Union and eventually Britain would have fallen and Nazis would almost certainly have dominated all of Europe with all the attendent, obvious consequences, but at least we would have adhered to strict, uncompromising principle. Just as certainly, with Hillary as president, we’ll have an overwhelmingly PRO PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION SCOTUS for the balance of a lot of people’s lifetimes. I’m sorry but this is NUTS.
It’s not my place to say how FR should be but it is really nice when folks can voice their differences, accept others’ differences, and then rejoin the common front against the real enemies of America and of liberty everywhere. Giuliani says he would appoint constructionists to the bench. I can’t say with absolute certainty that he will but nor do I have any reason to believe he’ll brazenly renege on that promise. I can say (and everyone knows) exactly what Hillary would do.
However, this is a CONSERVATIVE web forum and we oppose liberals, no matter what letter comes after their names. The real enemy of America is the left and Rooty Toot is a leftist, therefore he is the enemy.
We’ll just to have to see in November when the time comes...if Giuliani joins up with McCain as it looks at this point, they will hold all the Red states except for OH and have a good shot at PA, MI, CA, WI...
Rooty Toots IS NOT getting the nomination, so we will never know.
Bullhockey. The above shows a total ignorance or a total disregard (I don't know which) of/for the primary system. To think that we could win nationally with a candidate who can't even win a primary is absolutely insane. Whoever wins the primary is the strongest candidate, period, end of story. If you can't convince your own party to vote for you in the primary, how in the world could possibly hope to convince anyone outside of the party to vote for you? Think about that for a minute.
It is a conservative site and I’m a cast iron conservative. When the chips are down, I’ll do ANYTHING to prevent our nation from becoming the Godless, marxist/facsist, bankrupt, third world moral cesspool Hillary and her ilk would make it. In the interest of comity, I’ll concede this: if a Rudy nomination, for whatever reason, means Hillary wins, then I do pray to God from the depths of my being we get a different nominee. If it’s Rudy vs. Hillary, however, I’d feel inexcusably irresponsible if I didn’t vote Rudy.
Rooty = Hitlery in a dress!
If I was back home (Chuck Hagel’s district), I would have probably voted for my dog and called it a wash :)
I remember those arguments when Arnold was running for Gov of CA. And boy, he's really delivered - hasn't he!
With Rudy, we'll have a seat at the table - just like we do with Arnold. Anyone who wants to know how a Rudy presidency will look need only turn left and look at California.
I can hardly wait...
Not voting for rooody does not equal staying home and not voting at all. I will assume everyone here is intelligent enough to vote on the down ticket races and against tax increases, etc. that are on the ballot. Rudy is a no go for me, but I won’t be staying home on election day!
Hillary’s a Marxist. Rudy’s less conservative than we’d want in a perfect world and pretty liberal on some social issues. If I agreed he was a male Hillary, I’d be as adamant as you about this. I don’t. Rudy isn’t a Reagan but he doesn’t shrink from fighting America’s enemies, here and abroad - or calling them what they are. There are lots of people I’d prefer over Rudy. There were lots of people I’d have taken over GWB. I voted for Bush twice. I’ll vote for Giuliani if he’s our candidate. We each know where the other stands. Let’s agree to disagree on this issue and exert our efforts where they’ll maybe do some good.
Remember when we said the goal was to reduce the size of government? Well, I compromised on that. There is no longer a “limited government” platform in the GOP (wasn’t practical). Now the prior GOP congress tried mightily to out spend the previous ones, and came darn close (not counting defense spending). They passed the prescription drug package, which along with Medicare and other entitlements is going to only grow in cost. But while I didn’t like that, I still stood with the GOP.
Then there is the actual topic of defense. Yes, the current military has done a lot and deserves the credit for it, but here we are 6 years after 9-11 and we are not even keeping up with the equipment repairs, much less building a better and stronger force. We should be increasing the military in a time of war, not relying on “security contractors” to do the job. But that wasn’t a politically practical thing to push through Congress, so we compromised on that.
Then there is illegal immigration. Well, while the rank and file don’t like the massive flood of illegals, the party said “Oh we need them”. On this there was stand made by the grass roots, but the president and many other GOP leaders just thumbed their noses at the base and called them racist. Again, against my better judgment, I can and would still support the GOP.
But now we are to the abortion issue. Looking at all the other issues that I mentioned, and many others, I know that if this is “compromised”, it will soon disappear from the party plank. You say we should support Rudy, since other wise we (as pro life voters) won’t have a seat at the table. In reality, if Rudy is the nominee, we won’t no matter what.
You have to make a stand somewhere. That is something that the GOP has forgotten these last few years.
Oh, I have. Here's what I think. Guiliani is going to win the Republican nomination. He is the strongest candidate. Sure, he isn't doing so hot among FReepers but out there in the real world a lot of people like this guy. With the primaries right around the corner, nobody else seems to be getting much traction. Now whose fault is it that the current Republican frontrunner doesn't appeal to Christian conservatives --a core Republican constituency? I think this says more about the waning political influence of the religious right than it does about the GOP.
Now, if Guiliani is trounced by Clinton, the blame will be placed on the fact that Guiliani did not appeal to the social conservative base. If Guiliani wins the presidency? Well... That changes everything.
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.