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.
I would think all the Romney-haters on FR could better spend their time hating and obsessing against Rudy Guliani rather than Mitt Romney, who by logical estimates, is fairly conservative.
I am perplexed as to why a small percentage of Freepers seem to hate Romney, yet seemingly could care less that Guliani might be verge of splitting the GOP in two.
Not that I necessarily believe the pro-guliani polls, but just the fact that a Guliani candidacy could be possible is enough to send shivers down my spine.
If Guiliani wins the presidency, I don't even think I want to log on to FR the following day.
Every election I hear the same thing: the “values voters” stayed home this year, if only they’d voted, blah blah blah.
I’m wondering if they ever, in fact, vote at all.
If economic and security conservatives think they can win without very high percentage of those 36 million votes, they're in denial.
Republicans win when all three legs of the stool are motivated to get out and vote. That's the fact of the matter.
I wouldn't expect those who self identify as economic/security conservatives to vote for an economic liberal or security mushhead. Somehow there seems to be a lack of reciprocity for Evangelical social conservatives. Why do you suppose that is?
I think if the internet can spread the word voter to voter, we can bump Rudy G.
no Giuliani = NO PROBLEM
...where they'll be told to shut up and vote as they're told.
Remember how Dole ran right for the primaries, and then hard center as soon as he had the nomination in the bag? He wouldn’t even read the platform of his own party.
If Rudy gets the nod, we won’t have a seat at the table. We won’t be allowed in the room. He’ll run as “Hillary Plus Experience”.
Arnold Redux.
bttt
That’s a vote I agree with.
My question was asked in earnest, but obviously you aren’t the one to direct it to.
BTW, for what’s it’s worth, I agree that my obligation is to the Almighty long before it’s to the GOP.
Good article. If it comes down to a liberal vs. a liberal, I can promise you I won’t vote for the liberal.”
_______________________
And neither will I....(and so say my friends as of this posting...!)
I doubt you'll have to worry about that. I hate to say it but in my heart I believe that Hillary is going to be our next president regardless of who the Republicans nominate. The Democrats are energized and the Republican base is fractured and uninspired.
On that cold Wednesday morning next November, Free Republic will have come full-circle. We'll be back to posting about the latest (of many) Clinton presidential scandals and this forum will be one big happy family again.
I think you have it just about right. It seems the ‘social conservatives’ are taking a longer view of circumstances. We may have to loose in ‘08 in order to have a chance in ‘12. The conservatives will simply say we need the republican party to be republican in it positions. If 2 liberals are offered, one on each of the parties, many, many, many will vote 3rd party or simpy not vote. A 2% third party response will preserve the party to fight another day for conservative isssues. If not, a third party will be born and the republican party will assume a 3rd party status in perpituity. It is important not to elect Rudy of Romney in the primaries. To those who have the tempertantrum that the singular issue around which we must rally is the defeat of Hiltlery is not enough. We have to stand for something. It seems a straight forward choice. Hitlerys’ election may be determined in the Republican Primaries. Romney and Rudy will fare no better than the senator from Kansas did.
It’s been so long since a party convention actually selected a presidential nominee that we almost dismiss the reality that that primaries might not send anyone to the convention with enough delegates to have nomination already locked up.
With Thompson, Romney and Giuliani almost certain to win states, and maybe even McCain and a favorite son or two, we could have such a convention. The bunched up primaries make it even more likely since there won’t be as many weeks for candidates to build upon their successes and do better during the next round of state primaries. We could have a convention where Giuliani has the most delegates, but Thompson, Romney and two or three other candidates have more than 50% of the votes among them. Then the old style deal making would begin once delegates were free to vote for a second choice (a candidate they weren’t pledged to).
If Rudy or Hillary wins we can welcome 38 million new citizens and all their relatives, the borders will still be open. If Hillary wins you can add Socialized Medical. With that many new illiterate voters this country will become a socialist country.
That's not true. The only reasons I've heard presented for voting for Rudy is that he can beat Hillary...but if you're saying he can't beat Hillary than you have no reason to vote for him just as I have no reason to vote for him.
I've already stated several times on this board that I won't be voting for Rudy, but if you think you can replace my vote by selecting a liberal as the republican candidate that will be your choice...but don't blame me...it's your choice.
Have you seen this?
Republican and Dem presidential candidates stand on abortion:
http://www.nrlc.org/Election2008/allcandidatescomparison08.13.07.pdf
And it’s still early enough where we can support one of the so-called dark horse candidates.
Duncan Hunter is a strong Values Voter candidate, and here are a few great reasons why:
1) Pro-God: 100% rating from the Christian Coalition; fought hard for prayer in public schools; took on the ACLU and fought for the Mt. Soledad Cross to remain, and more!
2) Strong 26-year pro-life commitment: authored the personhood-at-conception bill; attended the pro-life march in D.C., and more!
3) Pro-family: voted for traditional marriage between a man and a woman through HJ Res 88; 100% rating from the Concerned Women for America, and more!
4) Border security: the only politican that was EFFECTIVE on building a fence at a strategic place on our borders (which made drug trafficking and crime go down tremendously in San Diego), and author of the bill to build an 854 mile fence which was signed into law;
5) Pro-2nd amendment: A+ NRA rating!
You might be interested in this from my e-mail. Only thing is that some candidates might put their best foot forward, so I look at their history, as well as what they have to say. But that’s me.
“The entire Washington Briefing to be webcast live on AFA.net this
Friday and Saturday
Here is your opportunity to be a part of the largest pro-family,
social conservative event of the year without ever leaving home!
AFA.net will stream the Washington Briefing, the largest meeting of
social conservatives this year, live on the internet. The event
begins this coming Friday morning and ends on Saturday evening. The
entire conference, which features all the major candidates for the
Republican nomination, will be streamed live on AFA.net.
Participants include Sean Hannity, Chuck Colson, Judge Robert Bork,
Dr. James Dobson, Newt Gingrich, Dr. Richard Land, Phyllis Schlafly,
Ed Meese, Paul Weyrich, Bill Bennett, Ken Blackwell, Bishop Harry
Jackson, Sen. Rick Santorum., and a host of others.
In addition to the candidates, the line-up is a virtual who’s who
of social conservatives. Click here to see the line-up.
We encourage you to register now for the live webcast. Then, on
Friday, all you have to do is to enter your e-mail address! A
complete schedule of when each participant will be speaking will be
given in advance so you can pick and chose which speakers you want
to listen to.
Don’t wait. Register now. You will be reminded on Thursday of the
event. Registering will allow you to participate in the straw vote
taken on Saturday afternoon.”
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.