8mm
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.
But what will happen if say Rudy wins the primary and decides to bring along a Rick Santorum as his VP? The VEEP’s job is to preside over the Senate and Santorum was a senator who literally took Hillary to the woodshed on Abortion...I think she went after his seat when he publicly took her to task. Many candidates eased concerns by picking running mates that would help - I’m very curious to see how the primary comes out and who’s name gets tossed into the ring for VP...
I think we really ought to concentrate on voting in the primaries, and making sure it’s NOT Rudy.
It’s still early, and please don’t let MSM let you think that Rudy, or any of the candidates for that matter, are a done deal.
I feel like MSM is trying to brainwash us.
If Rudy’s the nominee, there will be a strong 3rd party candidacy. And that’s a shame.
When your best argument for why someone should vote for you is, “well, the Democrat is even worse than me,” prepare to embrace defeat.
Now a resident of Virginia, I DID NOT stay home during the 2006 elections, in spite of the manifest ineptness of the Republican party in Virginia.
However, if the Republican nominee for President in 2008 is Giuliani, McCain, or Romney, they are going to have to win without my time, money, or vote.
The Right to Life, Second Amendment, and closing the borders are nonnegotiable. I would prefer to lose to Her Heinous and have the socialists drive the country over a cliff than support a RINO or liberal in drag.
When faced with an inevitable catastrophe, quick and brutal beats slow and measured every time. The sooner the Marxists and wannabe Marxists get done destroying our country, the sooner the rest of us can start to rebuild it.
The only GOP candidate who could possibly pull the Hispanic swing is Huckabee. The infidelities of both Guiliani and Thompson will be HUGE targets in the runoff and could hurt the female swing big-time, and for all of Romney’s posturing, I think many conservative voters see him as an opportunist (his health plan in MA is a socialist dream and will be a debacle). McCain is a non-candidate to most evangelicals based on his 2000 performance.
Huckabee will be working uphill against the Dems, and some of his positions are not going to endear him to conservatives. His tax increases in Arkansas were based primarily on federal mandates that were unfunded, but he is zealous about some of the health stuff. Still, I think he could politely and populously wipe the floor with Hilliary Clinton’s face in a one-on-one debate and he can articulate ideas in a big way; people genuinely like him and that could go a long way in knocking the wind of Hillary’s cold ‘competence is my virtue.’ That said, it now becomes a question of momentum for him; I don’t know if he’s got any real chance.
It will be a serious election cycle, and the GOP has got their work cut out for them. This is a battle for the soul of the party. But if they decide to ditch the evangelical vote in the interest of political expediency, my feeling they will wash away and you will see a split into two or more parties, ensuring the Dems power into the future. Scary stuff...
Christian conservatives have been burned by the rino GOP so many times that it is obvious that they beleive the Christian bible believers are as ignorant and unread as the liberal lockstep fascist left.
I for one will no longer vote for social liberals pretending to be conservative republicans. It is up to the GOP whether to be smart and run a conservative or a rino liberal. I believe that the conservative Christian base if fed up with lies and trechery from the rino GOP and many will not vote for Rudy or Mitt or McCain, unlike the left who are ignorant fascists.
We will see the results at election time.
Rooty Toots isn't even pretending to be conservative. His entire campaign theme is, "so what if I'm a liberal -- I was mayor on 9/11."
[pretending to be conservative.]
What I don’t understand is the blatant arrorgance of the rino right who appear to be determined to lose the 2008 election just to show them right wing Christian conservatives who they are.
Their tactics and reasoning are the same as the marxist leftists.
I couldn’t give a fig about anyone’s claim to “values.”
Howard Dean spouts off about “values.”
“Values” are relative.
I’m concerned about adherence to principle. The principles America was founded on, and survives because of.
My “values” spring from those principles, and I require in a candidate that they not only hold those same principles dear, but that they have demonstrated loyalty to them over the course of their entire public career. And that they have, where necessary, been willing to pay any price in their defense, with no regard to the personal cost.
FYI:
Values Summit:
http://www.frcaction.org/index.cfm?c=WASH_BRIEFING
The briefing is on Fri. and Sat., and is now aired on C-Span, and you can listen online if you don’t have cable:
http://www.c-span.org/watch/index.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS2
The GOP presidential candidates, Mark Levin, Judge Moore, and PLENTY of other great speakers. Listen up. It’s going on NOW and tomorrow.
Rick Santorum, coming up.
Not exactly. If that bad-news boy Ghouly wins the election, we're going to all feel punished whether God is involved or not.
Just look how he went after the NRA and the gun makers. That's just the start of his power grabs.
Later read ping/flag.
In this we agree.
However, Value Voters maybe want to keep their power dry rather then shoot themselves in the foot by issuing ultimates.
Numerous election cycles of accepting lesser evils has led here, to a candidate whose positions on numerous 'one issue issues' are essentialy and historically the same as the opposition candidate.
So for those of us who will vote based on values, the question is clear. Do we suffer more of the same inexorable morphing to the Left, or (finally) deliver an ultimatum?
Face it, we're fresh out of cheeks to turn. It is time to make a stand.
Otherwise, the 'values voters' can STFU and BOHICA, and frankly, we've had enough of that.
As for the anti-Hillary voter, well, they can vote for our candidate, can't they?
If they have no deeply held beliefs other than that Hillary needs to be defeated, then they can vote for a candidate with values as easily as one without.
Mitt Romney is good, but being from Massachusetts and being a Mormon may turn off Southern and Western voters.
I personally consider the Rino of the Republicans to be Rudy (hey, Rudy the Rino has a ring to it!)
I also see Fred Thompson doing things that I like -- he is asking people for what they consider important and he is giving time to get this staff and himself on the same page.
He has a lock on the gun part of the Republican Party. And the Pro-Life section does not want Rudy the Riho.
Like Ronald Reagan, Fred Thompson has name recognition because of his TV Star status. He is also an old hand at politics.
As for Rudy the Rino, for starts, he lost to Hillary Clinton. For another, he recommended a person with a shaky background to Bush for Homeland Security (too important a post to nominate a person with too many skeletons to hide in his closet).
Another good indication of the fear of Democrats and Liberals at the mention of Fred Thompson is how viciously he was attacked before he even announced he was running...
Did the Democrats do that for Rudy or Mitt?
And finally, and most important, though FRED IS THE NEW KID ON THE BLOCK WITH ONLY ONE DEBATE, he is running a strong second.
Father Frank Pavone said as much on the O'Reilly Factor in 2004 in talking about Senator John Kerry.
Now there is talk of Dr. James Dobson and other Christian leaders promoting a Third Party Candidacy.
As individuals, they can state their preferences without regard to the organizations that they represent.
Since both Dr. James Dobson and Rev. Frank Pavone are indeed good friends, it would be advisable for them and other Christian leaders to come out with such a statement.
The immorality of the Hillary Clinton/Rudy Guiliani Candidacies are clear.... And Christian/Catholic leaders could (and should) cite the Bible as to why...
>>I would like to see an effort by Christians to put pressure on Dr. James Dobson and Father Frank Pavone to come out and tell Christians/Catholics that it would be a sin to support either Hillary Clinton or Rudy Guiliani.
Father Frank Pavone said as much on the O’Reilly Factor in 2004 in talking about Senator John Kerry.
Now there is talk of Dr. James Dobson and other Christian leaders promoting a Third Party Candidacy.<<
Some concerns -
First “putting pressure on Dobson” - while he is not my favorite public figure I must admit he does not respond well or buckle to pressure. If he believes voting Rudy/Hillary is a sin he’ll likely say it any way.
Two, Dobson is already talking third party while the early primaries have not started. There are some truisms about third parties. At the right moment, they can lead to a new major party but the rest of the time the most they can do is play spoiler.
There may come a time, God forbid, when Rudy and Hillary are the only choices. That would be a time for each person to search his conscience and decide between unpleasant choices.
But we are not nearly there yet - the main thing a third party movement does is to push the Republican party to the middle to try to get crossover voters to make up for the social conservatives they can no longer count on.
What we need now is to be pushing conservative issues - balancing the budget - opposing new spending, making sure we don’t cut and run in Iraq and cause a catastrophe.
It would be very useful if Rudy could lose the first few primaries while we take a look at Fred and any other conservatives who emerge with a chance.
But Dobson’s approach seems mainly to increase his power base rather than increasing the chance of a conservative President.
It’s really pretty simple. Abortionists need not apply!
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.