GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
??????? David Brody of The Brody File reports that conservative Evangelical leaders are not comfortable with Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney and are increasingly enamored with Fred Thompson as a GOP presidential candidate.
Brody also underscores what I have been reporting for some time, that a coordinated and?formal “Stop Rudy” movement is inevitable if the Mayor maintains traction as a Republican front-runner for the nomination. Ralph Z. Hallow of The Washington Times similarly reports on how the Mayor is anathema to social and religious conservative leaders, quoting one as saying, “It’s the moment of truth for conservatives. Either social conservatives rally to stop a Giuliani nomination and victory for him in November 2008 or our issues - abortion, same-sex marriage, the preservation of the family - are permanently off the Republican Party agenda.”
Social conservative icon Richard Viguerie, according to?Vi Shields of Christian News Wire,?is encouraging fellow political soulmates to withhold support for now?from all Republican presidential candidates because he believes none of the front-runners deserve their support. And?Viguerie singles out the Mayor as a “special case,” who he will vigorously oppose as a line-in-the-sand for the Republican Party as to their continued commitment to conservative values.
The next Republican presidential candidates’ debate?- sponsored by CNN, WMUR-TV, and the New Hamphsire Union Leader - will be on June 5 at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, with all GOP presidential candidates except Governor Tommy Thompson expected to participate. Given that the drama and contrasts in last night’s debate were heightened as questions and responses pitted various candidates against each other, look for the issue of Mayor Giuliani potentially fracturing the Republican base to be raised then and throughout the remainder of the primary.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Republius,
Give it a rest, Fred is dead on arrival.
He clearly lacks the charisma and name ID to win anything.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
[...] post by Republius and software by Elliott [...]
May 16th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Yeah, you got me, TM (in #1). Clearly a guy who is running third among GOP presidential candidates in the latest Gallup Poll (behind Giuliani and McCain) without having declared or organized or raised a dime deserves no mention. Sorry.
Of course my post is mostly about the coming civil war within the Republican Party that the Giuliani candidacy is precipitating.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Fred Thompson = Welsey Clark…. everyone kept saying wait until Clark gets in…. then he gets in, and he does poorly.
F. Thompson is really hurting himself by not getting in now. Day by day, ground games are getting stronger in states like Iowa, N Hampshire and S. Carolina. Rudy and Fred will have 20+ million more money then he does… I just don’t see the logic.
The fact it… F. Thompson is not a major social conservative
May 16th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Fred should stay as CEO of NASCAR. Wait that was in a “Days of Thunder.” A stunning performance none the less.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Republius,
I’m more concerned about the Democrat tidal wave that will ensue with Fred Thompson on top of the ticket. Thompson would spell disaster for the GOP. This poll confirms the significant challenge that a Thompson candidacy would face.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_surveyusa_fred_thompson_v.php
We would not only lose the Presidency, but many US Senate seats. Hillary would have a filibuster proof congress.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Why is Tommy Thompson not going to be in the New Hampshire debate? This makes no sense to me… not that I like him, but usually lower tier candidates will do whatever it takes for free airtime.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Figures Republius would do his best to come up with a negative piece on Rudy the day after he has a great evening. Furthermore, Viguerie(sp) is a right-wing, narrow-minded NUT JOB.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Unfortunately for SoCons they don’t seem to get that Giuliani is networked to the teeth *within SoCon circles themselves*. Ask Ralph Reed if you don’t believe it. Ask Vitter, etc. This pounding the rattle on the bars of the crib is going nowhere; and the proof is that Giuliani would have been booed off the stage both at USDC ands Houston Baptist U. if there was any traction here.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Typo, USDC should be U of South Carolina
May 16th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Peter,
You obviously misunderstand who the SoCons are. Just because an elected official or a campaign worker is pro-life does not mean Giuliani has the support of the movers and shakers in the SoCon movement. Like it or not, the SoCons are led by religious leaders. There are no significant religious leaders who will support Rudy and many who have said there is no way on earth they will support him.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
The idea that people who have actually care deeply about abortion (admittedly a minority of the GOP) aren’t going to spend a lot of money and time fighting Giuliani is naive.
He’s an end to their hope for renewing America (through the Republican Party). This group can attack Rudy in ways that hurt him among the general public.
When Rudy decided to run as a liberal he declared war on a large element of the GOP. Whether he defeats the millions who will oppose him or if moderates take over the GOP, the end result is the same.
A weak GOP that is ill positioned to unify against any Democratic nominee. It would be fitting that 2008 would be the GOP’s version of Democrat’s 1968.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Peter,
I totally agree with you. I am a socially conservative evangelical and all I hear from people at Bible study is nothing but good things about Mayor Giuliani. And almost EVERYONE I talk to already knows he is pro-choice. And then the others that are told he is pause and say, Oh, well, yeah, but…..
What people really do not take into consideration is the fact that, one of the first things out of people’s mouths when they talk about Mitt Romney is, “He’s Mormon”. And then, shortly thereafter, they say, “He is kind of smarmy. He seems to tell people what they want to hear.”
I feel most people have accepted Mayor Giuliani’s pro-choice position and are ready to move on to real issues facing the nation, even amongst the evangelical community. Evangelicals, more than most, know these battles are won and lost in the courts. But I truly believe Mitt’s Mormonism, and, even more so, his flip-flopping, especially after last night, are going to become real issues.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Rudy will solidify the SoCons by putting someone like Romney or Huckabee on the ticket.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
TM (in #6), that poll has been previously posted. It is meaningless right now given that the Quinnipiac poll showed that 63% of voters across the country do not know enough about Fred Thompson to assess whether they view him favorably or unfavorably.
It is too early to tell if Fred Thompson will be a strong or weak candidate.
Guess what? The election is not tomorrow. These polls will change substantially between now and when voting commences, especially given that Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich are likely to get into the race, that the campaigns have not begun (including their negative ads), and that social and religious conservative leaders will mount a formal and coordinated crusade against Giuliani.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
With all respect to Kavon and this site, I am increasingly convinced that the reason so many around here do not believe or understand the intensity, breadth, and depth of the animus toward Mayor Giuliani by social and religious conservative leaders is because the principals here are more libertarian than Republican (and also perhaps too young to have much experience in these matters); they just do not understand establishment Republican leaders, who I know and have worked with.
This is going to get ugly. Just watch. We are talking civil war, and potentially a convention as divisive as the 1964 GOP one in San Francisco and the 1968 Democrat one in Chicago.
And guess what? The party that has the divisive convention always loses in November. So loyal Republicans had better think about it. You need a nominee who can unify the party rather than mollify folks who have questionable Republican loyalty.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Republius,
“religious conservative leaders is because the principals here are more libertarian than Republican; they just do not understand establishment Republican leaders, who I know and have worked with.”
And the simple fact that you think rank and file evangelical voters, whom I have “worked with” since I am one, my entire life, vote based upon what “religious leaders” like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell say is absurd. That just proves you have no idea what you’re talking about regarding the evangelical community.
If this gets ugly, which you’re right, it will, then it gets just as ugly for the ENTIRE top tier. The mud flung at Romney will be just as thick, and stick just as long, because the man has no core set of values and beliefs, as evidenced by his past on the record statements.
After 2000, evangelicals just flat out don’t trust John McCain and many of my friends are still upset that he basically called us religious bigots to score political points on national television.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
I don’t envision Baptist leaders in my state (Missouri) allowing Rudy to finish above 3rd place. In GOP primaries a candidate like Giuliani is simply DOA because of the strength of the (more conservative than usual) powerful Baptist organizations.
Where conservative Churches are less powerful or less serious about the principle of standing up for life, Rudy could win. Hard to tell how whether these organizations that supported Bush in 2004 would go third party or just be uninvolved in the election if the GOP betrayed them by nominated a candidate that didn’t care about standing up for life.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Geoff (in #17), I agree that it will get ugly for the entire first tier because they all have significant vulnerabilities. I think last night’s debate showed a preview of how much mud is going to fly. The entire top tier is extremely vulnerable to negative advertising by GOP colleagues based on their records.
Ironically, the inclination of future GOP debate sponsors to eliminate candidates from participation may now be considerably tempered due to the barbs thrown out by such ostensibly non-viable candidates as Gilmore, Paul, and Tancredo last night. The real winners last night may have been the lower tier candidates, whose willingness to mix it up may get them invitations to future debates.
And keep in mind that I am referencing conservative evangelical leaders when I talk about political civil war, not necessarily grass roots members like yourself, many of whom I admit will support Mayor Giuliani regardless of what their so-called leaders do. My point is that the social and religious conservative leaders, even if they cannot bring close to all of their followers with them, have enough clout to initiate this civil war.
Certainly one of the great political myths is that interest groups are completely homogenous or rotely follow the call of their movement’s so-called leaders.
But their is enough rancor and heft in the ranks of social and religious conservative leaders to cause mass mayhem down the road within the GOP in this primary. If you disagree, then just sit back and watch. Republicans had better prepare for the coming storm.
May 16th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
“Certainly one of the great political myths is that interest groups are completely homogenous or rotely follow the call of their movement’s so-called leaders.”
Okay. Now I see where you’re coming from. I agree. I think there will be a different outcome, especially as Dems begin to debate more and more, they just announced like six today.
May 16th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Geoff (in #20), Giuliani would not be where he is in the polls today if he wasn’t getting some support from social and religious conservative voters at the grass roots. You cannot build up such numbers in the Republican Party absent tapping into that facet of the GOP coalition.
But so-called social and religious conservative leaders are almost universally opposed to Giuliani, and a great proportion of them are calling for war to stop his nomination. Let’s see how it plays out.
May 16th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Perhaps one of the bloggers ought to post the latest Cook poll that shows Rudy up 1 point nationally?
John McCain…..24
Rudy Giuliani ..25
Newt Gingrich .. 7
Mitt Romney …..9
Fred Thompson …8
http://www.cookpolitical.com/races/report_pdfs/2007poll_tl_may11.pdf
May 16th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Republius, if Evangelicals stab the GOP in the back by withholding support from the entire field of candidates, they will become paper tigers in the next election. Do you think that Brody has it right, that Evangelicals would take the nuclear option?
May 16th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
JF - they won’t. Evangelicals voted for Bill Clinton in droves. The supposition that abortion is a deal breaker for them is nonsense. I’ve heard Michael Cromartie speak very authoritatively on this very issue.
May 16th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Peter (#24), we’ll see. So far, the polls don’t bear out these vague threats that Republius keeps referring to, and as he points out in #21, Giuliani enjoys SoCon support today. He’s taken about as clear a pro-choice stand as can be taken in the GOP, and they stick with him. If they aren’t already paper tigers, they will become paper tigers after the other candidates (or in future elections) see that social conservatism is no longer a litmus test.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Peter,
Again we aren’t talking about the same people if you say Evangelicals voted for Clinton in droves. There are literally millions of people who only are involved in politics because of social issues. They have millions of dollars at their disposal along with the best and most well organized grass roots get out the vote operation anywhere. As Geoff has pointed out not all pro-life Evangelicals feel this way, but you miss the point that millions of them do.
Right now Republican can be elected if is pro-choice just the same way none can be elected that are for cutting back the military or raising taxes. These are the fundamentals of the different coalitions in the party. None of these has been broken since Reagan put it all together in 1980. If Rudy Giuliani is elected to the White House, it will mean that the Defense and Economic conservatives no longer need Social conservatives to win the White House. It will be the end of the coalition and the Social conservatives will have been pushed out forever.
You severely underestimate the impact these Evangelical leaders will have on the vote. Rudy isn’t just trying to skate by, he declared war because he saw the Socons getting ready to declare war against him. Rudy’s only hope is that McCain, Romney and Thompson all stay competitive through 2/5. He will never be able to get above 35% after the negative ads start running which means he needs the conservative vote to be split 3-ways.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Should read “can’t be elected if he is pro-choice.”
May 16th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Dskinner (#26), the talk on Evangelicals seems to indicate that they are far more likely to withdraw from the field of battle than engage. I keep hearing threats to stay home on election day, so why would the nomination be different? The received wisdom is that the SoCons comprise about 40% of the GOP, so why isn’t that showing up in the polls? It’s because many SoCons support Giuliani, as Republius pointed out. I just don’t think the Evangelicals can be depended upon to challenge Giuliani’s lead.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
I’ve always felt this way, and the feeling just gets stronger.
At the end of the day, the GOP will get behind the guy who is right on social issues, strong (in a GOP way) on defense, has very deep experience, and is very well respected personally (despite the many problematical issue positions he takes). Yeah, I still think y’all are going to end up nominating McCain.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Engage in the primaries withdraw in the general.
Only time will tell, but anybody who as ever underestimated the social conservatives has lost. Clinton only won because of Perot. If you discount those two unique 3-way races the GOP is 5 for 5 when nominating a politician who stands firm with each branch of the coalition.
I can guarantee you that the pastor that I work with at Crisis Pregnancy Center will fight very, very hard to make sure that anybody but Rudy is the nominee. I am sure there are 1000s of ministers just like him with millions of people in their congregations, not to mention the attack campaign that will be organized against Rudy over the airwaves and through direct mail.
IMO, Rudy is no different on defense issues than the other top candidates and certainly no better on economic issues than Romney or Thompson. Right now he is benefiting from the image that he is tougher on these issues. If (when IMO) that image is broken and he is seen as equal in that area his support will drop to his basement level. Right now he has already dropped below 30 and that is before he has been attacked. He is dropping after only he has talked to the people about his position. When negative ads start flying it will drop him even further.
I know other candidates have negatives as well, but that doesn’t change anything about Rudy and what the future may hold for him.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
JF,
That’s the point though. The moment such an openly and unapologetically pro-choice Republican, and one who seems entirely unlikely the 5th anti-Roe vote, gets the Republican nomination, evangelicals will become paper tigers. The evangelical movement and the pro-life movement will be shattered. Unless of course, they’re able to torpedo his candidacy in the general election. In 1992, economic conservatives voted for Perot because HW had raised taxes. He lost, and both Dole and GW felt compelled to stress economic conservatism, the next go around. To be sure, neither was particularly solid on the issue, but it became a greater focus. If Bush had won in 1992 in spite of Perot, a Republican would have shown he could win without economic conservatives. And if Perot had never materialized in the first place, a Republican would have shown he could raise taxes without any negative consequences. Either way, economic conservatives would have been deadly weakened. Staunch evangelicals really have no choice with Rudy. I’m not an evangelical, but I am a staunch pro-lifer. And unless Rudy at some point convinces me that what he means by “strict constructionism”, is the same as what I mean by constructionism, I’m fully prepared to go to “war” as it were in a general election to preserve the pro-life movement. If I was convinced he’d appoint the 5th anti-Roe vote, I’d be willing to allow the national pro-life movement, and the Republican Party’s coalition to collapse. Restoring the constitution would make the national pro-life movement effectively unnecessary (as much as I’d like a constitutional amendment, it’s not going to happen). And I’m fully willing to spend decades in the wilderness as we build a new coalition, if we’re able to secure the SC for the immediate future. But, thus far, Rudy has been utterly abysmal in all his judiciary related questions, and I can’t imagine anything he could say at this point, that could convince me he’s not likely to send up boatloads of Anthony Kennedy’s and Sandra O’s.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Matt, the analogy doesn’t hold up. Fiscal conservatives abandoned the candidate who betrayed their principles (Bush 41) and voted for another candidate who was closer to their convictions (Perot). What you’re implying is that Evangelicals will abandon the candidate who betrays their principles (Giuliani) and allow a candidate who betrays their principles with even more certainty (Clinton) to get elected.
I agree with you that Giuliani doesn’t have credibility on the matter, but I believe that’s because in his heart, Giuliani simply doesn’t give a damn about the whole abortion issue either way. Clinton, however, is in the pocket of NOW, so she’s highly motivated to oppose a change in the status of Roe v. Wade. It’s unprincipled of the Evangelicals to, for lack of a better way of saying it, betray their principles simply to spite the GOP.
I also don’t believe it would happen in such an important election. Better to have some influence than none at all. And Evangelicals have no hope of finding a place in the Democratic Party, so what you’re calling for in the destruction of the GOP is the Evangelicals to revert to their pre-1980 non-political state, an dI’m not sure how that helps them.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
I generally agree with your article, but Viguerie is no conservative icon. He spent most of the Reagan years attacking Reagan as a betrayer of the conservative movement. That’s his standard MO.
But if the Stop Rudy movement required working with Viguerie, I’d swallow hard and do it.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
JF,
In the general election, the social conservatives would be likely voting for a candidate they do agree with as well. I have no doubt that, if there’s an actual visible evangelical uprising of sorts, some enterprising pro-lifer will rise up to fill it. The evangelical movement, even splintered, could fund a fairly strong third party run.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
“Clinton only won because of Perot.”
That is ridiculous. Clinton was 6 points ahead of Bush.
Perot got 19%.
For Bush to have been just even with Clinton, he would have had to taken 6 points off the top of the Perot voters, then split the remainder with Clinton. I.e. Bush would have had to get 12.5% with Clinton getting 6.5% of Perot’s 19. Just for a tie.
That means Bush getting 2/3 of Perot voters. Exit polls showed the second choice of Perot voters to be rather evenly split.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
JF,
The point is that in 1992 the economic conservatives let someone get elected who didn’t espouse their values (Bill Clinton). Whether Evangelicals accomplish this by voting for a 3rd party or by not voting at all really doesn’t matter. The point is if Rudy wins the general election then Social Conservatives are finished forever as a player in national politics. If a Democrat wins the election the SoCons will only be out of power for 4 years. If Rudy loses in a general election the SoCons become even more powerful than before by demonstrating that they can’t be taken for granted by the GOP.
Matt, Good point about economic conservatives in 1992.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Also, I don’t believe that “Rudy doesn’t give a damn about the abortion issue either way” at all. Even Rich Lowry, who was promulgating that for awhile, has admitted that he doesn’t know that he believes it anymore. The actions Rudy’s taken in this primary are not the actions of a person who doesn’t care about abortion. Kavon, DaveG, and numerous others of high profile, outlined a perfectly feasible strategy for Rudy to employ to get the nomination. Instead, he whined about not wanting to throw women in jail, about having to respect “personal liberty”, etc. He said it’d be “ok” if Roe was overturned, or sustained and admitted that his version of strict constructionist could go either way on the issue. He grimaced, and paused for a solid 5 seconds when asked whether or not he could appoint a justice that had indicated they weren’t favorable to abortion legally, before finally mumbling “I might be able to”. I mean, there’s no reason whatsoever to do this sort of awful tap-dance, unless it’s an issue you really care about. Not to mention, Rudy has been active in the pro-choice movement for over a decade. I don’t understand you’re assertion at all. It’s virtually without support anywhere.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Tano,
Every liberal I have talked to have given me the same line about exit polls (which we all know are garbage. Just ask Kerry and Gore) Every conservative believes the opposite. It is plainly obvious though that Perot’s platform was competency and economic conservativism. It’s not like he was a left of center guy. Because exit polls are notoriously inaccurate I will believe what makes sense.
Bush got killed for “Read my lips. No new taxes.” and economic conservatives abandoned him for Perot a candidate who is an economic conservative.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Dskinner (#36), again, the analogy isn’t accurate. Bush 41 raised taxes, so he had already betrayed fiscal conservatives and had to be punished. Clinton raised taxes too, but as a Democrat, he was expected to. The message sent to the GOP set up the Republican Revolution in 1994 and the mistake was not repeated.
It depends on how the Evangelicals play this. If they vote for a third party candidate, then their power will be intact: the GOP will realize that they sacrificed a vote that they otherwise could have had, and will pay more attention to SoCons in future elections. But if the Evangelicals stay home, it’s a toss-up as to whether they should be pandered to in an attempt to draw them back in, or whether they are undependable Republicans. Don’t forget that there is a whole swath of independent voters who are not motivated by social conservative issues but appreciate fiscal and national conservative issues. I think it would be a catastrophic mistake for Evangelicals to play this as though they are indispensable. They are not.
Remember soccer moms?
May 16th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Well considering I attend The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY (for those who don’t know this is the mother school of the Southern Baptist Convention - a religious group with over 30 million members) the Issue of Life and the defense of marriage are supreme. I do not see Rudy winning over the circle of Evangelicals I interact with daily and those they interact with as well.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
What people really do not take into consideration is the fact that, one of the first things out of people’s mouths when they talk about Mitt Romney is, “He’s Mormon”. And then, shortly thereafter, they say, “He is kind of smarmy. He seems to tell people what they want to hear.”
I wish I knew 5 languages so I could tell you you were clueless in all of them. Your beefs with Romney are irrrelevant to Giuliani. I’m not against Giuliani because I like Romney. I’m against Giuliani because he’s pro-choice, pro-immigration amnesty, pro-gay marriage/civil unions, and anti-gun.
I’m far more likely to donate money to a Stop Rudy movement than I am to donate to any specific candidate in the primary. I’ve already said several times that in my state I ‘ll be voting for whichever candidate is t serious alternative to Giuliani, even if that is not my first choice.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Matt (#37), I don’t see how that’s inconsistent with not caring about the abortion issue. Giuliani indicated that he’s not willing to throw a potential justice under the bus if he agrees with the justice on everything except for abortion. Giuliani is not a social conservative, so he’s not motivated by social conservative issues. Some frames of thought are so alien to some people that it’s impossible for them to understand. For example, I will never comprehend what motivates Democrats to be so eager to surrender to the jihadists, with so much evidence showing that a weak America is an America that pays a price in lives. In my world, we call those kinds of people “collaborators” or “traitors.” But I’m sure in some strange way, Democrats are doing what they are doing because they believe it is in the best interests of the country, no matter how much reality contradicts those views.
In the same vein, Giuliani, a northern, socially moderate Republican, probably has no idea how motivated social conservatives are over the abortion issue. He’s thrashing around on this issue because he doesn’t take it seriously and probably can’t conceive that a voter would throw away the GWOT or fiscal policy over the abortion issue, but there are such people. And you know what? You said that there’s no support for my views. Well, he’s leading in the polls, so there is something to this. In your version, social conservative revulsion would be so powerful by now that Giuliani would long be out of the number one spot. But he’s not.
And there you have it.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
It’d be more then passing strange if in November 08′, we wound up with 6 serious nominal Republicans, through a Bloomberg/Hagel ticket, a Giuliani/whoever ticket, and an evangelical financed pro-life ticket.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
I don’t think that’s true JF. Evangelicals aren’t stupid. They realize that, in practical terms, its better for their goals, and for the Republican ticket’s chances in November, that they stay in the shadows if at all possible. They want to war over this issue, thereby alerting the general public that the Republican Party really is controlled by crazy fundies (using their terms obviousl), about as much I’d want to see Giuliani the nominee. It’s much more logical for them to simply wait and see, and hope that some candidate can torpedo Giuliani, or that he torpedoes himself, without any overly visible efforts on their part. As the primaries get closer, if Giuliani remains in the same place in polls, you can be assured this posture will change.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Matt (#44), I don’t think the Evangelicals have been shy about their goals since they have become politically active, so I’m not sure the puppet master strategy fits with precedent. The other problem is that the GOP has historically operated on the “inevitability” track, and the longer Giuliani is in first, the more he will be perceived as the unstoppable nominee. I don’t think the SoCons have a huge window of time to derail Giuliani if they indeed plan to do so, and maybe FDT will be the opening the Evangelicals need to do this, but I don’t think the wait-and-see approach will be successful if that’s the way it turns out.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
DSkinner,
Exit polls may have their inaccuracies, but they arent going to misrepresent a 67% vote with a 50% result.
And a huge part of Perot’s appeal was the protectionist appeal (that sucking sound) that appealed to a lot of union-types and working class leftists who were disenchanted with Clintonian pro-globalization positions.
I am not denying that Perot appealed to economic conservatives as well, but that was only part of his appeal.
No doubt many conservatives believe what you beleive, but that is hardly an indication that it makes any sense.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
I think JF and Matt might just be talking about slightly different things.
It seems like Matt is saying Rudy is an abortion rights advocate. Therefore he is only pretending to be indifferent and that he in fact would nominate pro-Roe justices on purpose.
It seems like JF is referring more to Rudy’s politics and that Rudy doesn’t care about the issue politically (assuming he can win the primary without pandering to the SoCons) and is thus underestimating how much social conservatives do care.
Slight difference but it may explain your disagreement.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
JF,
As far as the analogy to 1992. I don’t think your analogy holds water. If they vote for a 3rd party their power is intact, yet if they stay home the moderates and economic conservatives will win the election because social conservatives are dispensable?
If social conservatives are dispensable as you suggest then voting for a third party wouldn’t help them anymore than staying home. For the record I think a 3rd party candidate would run. I think this election season will determine whether or not they are indispensable to the GOP. I think you are so wrong if you say that the GOP doesn’t need them. They are the GOP’s largest, most easily motivated, most well organized and most reliable faction. The GOP would lose a Carter/Mondale/Dukakis type landslide if the Social conservatives didn’t vote.
This isn’t 1972. Bush got 62 million votes to Kerry’s 59 million. A conservative estimate is that 20 million of those 62 are Socons. If only half of them didn’t vote or voted 3rd party the GOP would get killed. You make the assumption that there are millions of voters who love the GOP but have to vote for the Dems because of social issues. That is so wrong. Have you ever talked to people from Planned Parenthood or people from the left that vote on social issues. They are almost all socialists and would still vote for the Dems even if pro-life wasn’t part of the GOP platform.
Giuliani’s only hope is that socons believe him on judges otherwise what is the difference between him and Hillary?
May 16th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Dskinner (#47), concise and correct. Giuliani is undoubtedly pro-choice, of that I have no doubt. I don’t think he will deliberately choose pro-choice justices, but he won’t fight for constructionist judges the way Bush 43 has. And with his current (albeit diminishing) lead in the polls, why should he change course? He can get [cheap] applause by hammering September 11 over and over again, so he doesn’t need to go off-message by developing a full platform.
Who here knows what his plans are for taxes and spending? For that matter, who here knows how he will run the Iraq and Afghanistan wars differently, and what he plans to do about Iran or North Korea? No one knows. Giuliani doesn’t have to develop a serious policy because he doesn’t have to as long as the electorate will let him get away with the sentimental reminders about September 11.
I’m not saying all this because I’m suddenly a Giuliani supporter. I’m saying this because reactions to the debate last night lead me to believe that it’s time to start thinking about Plan B should Romney fail, and I don’t think a viable Plan B is to stay home on election day.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Dskinner (#48), I don’t believe that the coalitions we see today are permanent. The Democrats have the DLC and the Blue Dogs to attract fiscal and social conservatives, and the Republicans have no equivalent. In other words, the Democrats have the ability to siphon off independents who might otherwise go with moderate Republicans, and the GOP has no equivalent. Some day, someone is going to try to form some equivalent in the GOP for the sake of power, and Giuliani is the first sign of that. Giuliani is our Clinton: he’s triangulating against his own party. What I want to distinguish is that the GOP doesn’t need Evangelicals, but the conservative movement does. The GOP can win by fracturing the conservative coalition and accepting liberals in some capacity (again, as Giuliani is trying to do).
That’s not what I want to happen, which is why I am wary of the Evangelicals staying home. Politicians have proven that they will adapt to go after a shrinking pool of voters as opposed to trying to bring new voters into the process. The best and most recent proof is the way the GOP is behaving after the November 2006 elections with the amnesty bill and the corrupt appointments to the appropriations committee. I just wonder when staying home has had as dramatic an impact as you claim it will have, whereas voting for a third party proves to politicians that there are still votes to be had among a segment of the population that can be motivated to turn out.
Politicians don’t pay attention to citizens who don’t vote.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
JF,
My plan B is that I’m voting for whoever is closest to Giuliani on February 5th, even if it’s not Romney. I have no plan C. Correct me if I’m wrong JF, but I seem to recall that you have a Jim Gilmore esque position on abortion. I.e., moderately pro-choice. I think we’re just coming from different perspectives here (though we seem to agree on almost everything else). My top priorities, are in order, 1.) Restoring the constitution through the appointment of strict constructionists, 2.) Competence, 3.) The Global Jihad, 4.) Abortion, 5.) Spending. Rudy fulfills 2, 3, and 5. But, 1 is a litmus test for me. And 5 is tremendously important, until 1 is accomplished.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Plenty of evangelicals a la Tony Campolo will vote for Giuliani.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Matt (#51), you are correct, I basically have the Gilmore approach to abortion, not because I believe in any so-called right to choose over life or death, but because I believe that to a certain extent, abortion will happen one way or another (as it did before Roe v. Wade), and better to have it open and regulated to some degree than have butchery happen in back alleys as it used to a few decades ago.
My order of priorities is a bit different than yours, but we otherwise overlap. That’s why I support Romney, because I believe his platform most closely matches those priorities, and I’m hoping that FDT puts a substantive policy platform out there so I can have an easy fallback, but right now, there’s a rather large gap between Romney and the other declared candidates which makes a Plan B difficult to formulate.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Yeah, Fred’s basically my fall-back at this point. I can’t say I have any particular confidence that he’d be an above average president, but I’m convinced he’s right on the majority of issues, and as electable as one can be without being denounced as “Rudy McRomney”. And I trust him completely on judges, in part due to his prominent role during the Roberts’ confirmation hearings, but more importantly because he seemed to oppose Roe even in his pro-choice days. And there’s no one I trust more then a pro-choice, anti-Roe, Republican. As much as I like McCain, I think he’s too flaky on judges, and the last few debates have convinced me that McCain simply doesn’t have, or perhaps never had, the sort of communication skills necessary to win against any of the 3 Democratic frontrunners in such a hostile environment.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
JF abortion will occur but overturning Roe and raising the cost of abortions (in time, moral feelings, transportation, and outright cost) will save millions of lives.
It isn’t likely that abortion can be ended but I think it can be mostly replaced by contraception with perhaps less than one hundred thousand abortions that aren’t health related. The millions of saved lives are worth more than any party or any candidate to me and a lot of other people.
I’ll tolerate a candidate like Bush (who is subtle with his support) but supporting a candidate that openly excuses abortion requires too much compromise.
I understand that for some of you the lives of innocent fetuses aren’t as important as an election. As I look forward to a child with my wife I can’t feel that way.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
JF (#28), I am not sure what you expect to be shown in polls about soc-cons not voting for Rudy, but I do think it is already showing. Let us look at the latest posted national polls on this site (Cook from 5/16). Rudy has 25%. Now, let us consider this number under this light , where the Republicians were asked about overturning Roe, after they were explained what was involved. There are 29% who do not support overturning Roe. I think Rudy is pretty much stablized with these non-soc-cons. There are remaining 71% that are distributed among other candidates. I think the majority of these are soc-cons. So, to me, it already looks like they are not voting for Rudy IF they have the choice. I am not sure how they would vote if Rudy is a nominatee.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
As much as I agree with your point SGS, that cook poll is unreliable because it samples registered voters instead of likely voters.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
I think that most SoCons are hoping that the GOP comes to its senses before it nominates Rudy. We know, and we’re telling the party, that Rudy, if nominated, will be catastrophically divisive for the party. A majority of the SoCons will essentially walk out of the party, not voting in the general or voting third party (or even for the Democrats for those that are socially conservative but economically liberal). SoCons know that, and we sure as hell don’t want it to happen.
But SoCons also don’t want there to be an open fight between the different sections of the party. Unity is the only way a party can be successful, and a fight would damage that unity. That’s why we’ve been relatively quiet up to now, because we may be able to convince enough people about how harmful Rudy is to the GOP without it becoming a fight that makes the whole party look bad in the eyes of the nation. As such, if the rest of the base comes to realize how strongly SoCons feel about this without us having to do a “Stop Rudy” campaign, that will be better for all of us, SoCons and non-SoCons. If it comes to a “Stop Rudy” campaign, we will do it, but not because we want to. It would be much more favorable to the party if we didn’t have this problem. Unfortunately, however, a “Stop Rudy” campaign would be absolutely necessary for both SoCons and the rest of the party if we have any hope of electing a Republican to the White House in 2008. SoCons will not support Rudy, because he will not represent us. We as a party need to realize that if we have any hope of winning.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Can someone please explain why Thompson won’t be there? (Other than thae fact he was useless in the first two debates?)
If he’s not there, they should not have the likes of Paul or Tancredo either…
May 16th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
JayPe,
I bet it has something to do with the fact that he is 100% banking on winning or placing in the Ames straw poll. He has said if he doesn’t do well there he will drop out. My guess is that Tommy Thompson is putting literally all of his resources in Iowa and thus New Hampshire isn’t going to invite someone to a debate who isn’t even campaigning in their state.
May 16th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Don’t forget to keep in mind how much so-cons HATE Hillary Clinton. Even if they despise Giuliani many will still vote just against Hillary.
May 16th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Oh no! What will we do without Tommy Thompson!?
Stay awake?!
May 16th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
I can tell you this, the fact Rudy isn’t lock-step with to SoCon’s is one reason he is so popular with the Independants. Right now SoCon’s are being lumped in with the hypocracy we were shown with this administration and both are coming out losers.
I think both the GOP and DNC are blind. If you look at the polls the only clear winner for the GOP is Rudy and the only DNC that wins against everyone isn’t Clinton it’s Edwards. Not many seem to be paying attention though.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Casey,
You are probably right about moderates, but as the saying goes “Decisions are made by those who show up.”
Moderates don’t vote in nearly the proportions that conservatives and liberals do. That is why polls of adults or of registered voters are not useful for predicting resutls. Likely voters is a different universe and a universe that conservative candidates do much better in. That doesn’t mean Rudy can’t do well with likely voters, as many of the current polls show, he is doing well right now.
It is telling though that there is a clear downward trend of the RCP average for Rudy. Over the past 10 weeks he has lost 10 points. That is only partly explained by Thompson as Romney is up by a few points over that period.
How does Rudy get those voters back. While he did well last night, that certainly won’t bring a 10 point swing. Rudy is trending down in all the state polls of early primary polls.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
I’m a social conservative in NH who attends an independent baptist church. If Giulinai is the nominee I will vote for a pro-life 3rd party candidate. If McCain is the nominee I will vote for him but without much enthusiasm. If Romney or Thompson is the nominee I will work for the campaign. My #1 goal in the primary is to stop Rudy.
Here are some names of social conservative leaders who I think would strongly oppose Giuliani if he continues to lead as the primaries get closer:
Gary Bauer
James Dobson
Terence Jeffrey
Richard Land
Marvin Olasky
Tony Perkins
Phyllis Schlafly
Cal Thomas
Paul Weyrich
Some evangelicals wouldn’t care but they definitely would make an impact.
Also, here are some numbers from NH that I think are instructive:
In the 2000 Republican primaries there were 16,819 votes for Alan Keyes or Gary Bauer. I think it’s safe to say these are almost all strong social conservatives for whom the issue of abortion is very important. This was 7% of the Republican primary voters. Some Bush voters would also fall in this camp. I think a lot of these people would have a hard time voting for a pro-choice Republican nominee. And social conservatives are a smaller part of the party here in NH than they are nationally.
Now, here are some other NH numbers to put that 16,819 in perspective.
2000 General election vote for Ralph Nader: 22,198
2000 Bush margin of victory over Gore: 7,211
2004 Kerry margin of victory over Bush: 9,274
A loss of those social conservatives to a 3rd party candidate would be significant in a swing state. Remember that Gore would have been president in 2000 if 1/3 of those Nader voters had voted for Gore instead.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Yep, so a weaker person (in the general) will run, as will Clinton or Obama. The race may be determined by those more loyal to their party, which might not be good for the GOP. I think the average Republican is far more unhappy with their party than the Democrats are.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Yeah, I quoted Cook because it was the most recent polls on this site. Still, the national polls with strong lean toward Republicians has Rudy in low 20s and those polls which include the independents, middle 30s. Rudy has already attrached most of Republicians who do not care for Roe. Now he need to move beyond and for him to do so, which as I have said often, he need to reconsider his strategy to reach out more of us; to accomdate more of us. Until he start to look into his stance on social issues, many of us soc-cons won’t care much for him if he is not that much better on those issues than Democratic nominatee.
May 17th, 2007 at 7:12 am
Fred is old news already. everybody got tired of waiting around. we all know he is lazy and not up for the challenge. as commander and chief you cannot just write two articles a week on a blog.
one of bush’s biggest problem was that he didn’t get out and push his message enough, which a republican must do. i don’t trust Fred with the job becuase he appears to avoid any unecessary hard work. People will soon realiize that he has nothign special to offer fromt he existing group anyway. He doesn’t come close to romney and adminsitrative prowess, not close to mccain on military experience, not close to guliani on terrorism credentials. what more does he have to offer? it is not conservatism. his conservatism rank is one point different from mccain and he was also once pro choice. he looks good, but i am already bored with him.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:04 am
I’m not an evangelical, but I am a staunch pro-lifer. And unless Rudy at some point convinces me that what he means by “strict constructionism”, is the same as what I mean by constructionism, I’m fully prepared to go to “war” as it were in a general election to preserve the pro-life movement.
Amen. That gets the blood pumping.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:10 am
A majority of the SoCons will essentially walk out of the party, not voting in the general or voting third party (or even for the Democrats for those that are socially conservative but economically liberal). SoCons know that, and we sure as hell don’t want it to happen.
I don’t think you will lose a majority of SoCons. You’ll lose a lot, though, probably enough to
lose the whole election. But lets not find out. Lets stop Giuliani in the primaries.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:14 am
In the 2000 Republican primaries there were 16,819 votes for Alan Keyes or Gary Bauer.
In Utah, where I was living at the time, Keyes got above 30% of the vote. If Giuliani gets the nod and he doesn’t back down on his aggressive pro-choice stance, I think a third-party pro-life candidate who wasn’t too crazy would probably win the state. I could see some other places in the south and the west that a third-party candidate could pick up in a three-way race, assuming the candidate wasn’t too crazy.
Unfortunately, the only existing third parties out there (Libertarians, Constitutionalists) are all a little nuts.