Whither The Evangelicals?

The Values Voters summit has all but completed, and Jim Geraghty and NZ Bear have brought us live-blog coverage of the speeches and events. The event culminated in a speech by Rudy Giuliani to the presumed-hostile Family Research Council audience, and they have responded at least warmly to the Mayor’s address, as NZ Bear notes:

Giuliani received a standing ovation (like every other candidate to speak thus far). No sign at all of any negative reaction, and his standing O seemed at a genuinely enthusiastic one.
OK, my reaction. I think this was a truly great speech: nearly pitch-perfect for the audience and about as well received as could possibly be hoped for by the Giuliani camp. I’m about ready to declare it “brilliant”, in fact. Given how potentially hostile this audience might have been, the fact that he received positive applause throughout his delivery that seemed honestly enthusiastic is truly remarkable.
Besides that, the substance was great. It was probably the best-written speech I’ve heard this weekend, full of great phrases that hit just the right notes.

For anyone who has heard the Mayor speak, this comes as no great surprise. He may be the most effective and inspiring speaker in the Republican primaries, and he can rally people around a banner very effectively. He also knows how to use language in compelling ways, such as when he says, “What you’re entitled to from me is what I really believe… and then figure out if I’m the right person for you to support,”, or “Never let anyone tell you that your faith should not be part of your political values,” or “Our Constitution is not antagonistic to faith or religion or God.”
The question in this primary is whether the evangelical bloc is willing to consider its vote on an ecumenical basis. The latest CBS poll, conducted this past week, seems to indicate more flexibility than one might think from this important GOP voting bloc. (This poll, focusing on Republicans, doesn’t have the same sampling problems as their general polling.) The evangelicals appear just as likely to support the most electable candidate as any other group of GOP voters:

Evangelicals appear conflicted when it comes to Giuliani, who leads in national polls and is gaining strength in the key early primary state of New Hampshire. Giuliani supports abortion rights and, during his tenure as New York City mayor, supported expanding the rights of gays and lesbians – positions evangelical voters overwhelmingly oppose. Only 29 percent of white evangelical voters said they could vote for a candidate that disagrees with them on abortion and same-sex marriage.
Yet, when asked about Giuliani specifically, these same voters seem more flexible. Sixty-one percent of white evangelicals said they would at least consider voting for Giuliani if he were the Republican nominee in 2008, with 29 percent saying they would “definitely” vote for him. Only 17 percent said there was no way they would vote for Giuliani, while 22 percent said it was too early to judge. And 61 percent of white evangelicals said they would vote for a candidate with less conservative views than them in the general election if they believed that candidate would win.

That last number is close to the overall result. 64% of Republican primary voters would support a less-conservative candidate in the primaries who could beat the Democrats in November 2008. It shows that evangelicals have a more rational take on the primary candidates than some of their national leaders.
Part of this can be attributed to the perception held by evangelicals that none of the candidates share their commitment to faith. Even Mike Huckabee gets almost twice as many people who say that he doesn’t have strong religious beliefs as say that he does (28%-15%) despite his status as a Christian minister. In fact, Huckabee scores only as highly on the Yes poll as Rudy Giuliani among evangeicals, and lower than Rudy among all Republican primary voters. John McCain and Mitt Romney score highest, in the 30s, in both groups, but at least as many say they don’t have strong religious beliefs, either.
Fred Thompson, meanwhile, actually scores lower than Huckabee on the perceived strength of his religious beliefs among evangelicals — and yet they prefer Fred over all of them. Thompson garnered 29% of the evangelical vote despite only having 13% consider him strongly religious, and three points over Rudy for the nomination. Quite obviously, the strength of individual religious belief has not played a big role in evangelical support — and while Fred beats Rudy among evangelicals, Rudy still gets 26% to come in second place, while McCain only gets 15% and Romney 7%.
So whither the evangelicals? It appears that they have pushed past the personal and moved towards the practical. If Rudy can convince them that he will keep his word on upholding the Hyde amendment, support parental notifications, and incentivize adoptions while appointing strict constructionist judges to the federal bench, he could appeal to that pragmatic instinct. The evangelicals apparently have begun to consider the effects of losing the White House to Hillary Clinton and want to do their best to keep their own agenda on the table past 2009 — and they have no chance for that in a Democratic administration.

69 thoughts on “Whither The Evangelicals?”

  1. “If Rudy can convince them that he will keep his word on….appointing strict constructionist judges to the federal bench, he could appeal to that pragmatic instinct.”
    This is not an election between Satan and Jesus Christ. This election is about judges. And Rudy certainly could/does appeal to my pragmatic instinct. As we get closer to actually casting ballots (and the specter of a Hillary presidency), don’t be surprised if pragmatism comes to be seen as a virtue….or at least a matter of common sense.

  2. I think it all comes down to trust.
    The majority of Republicans trust Rudy when he states that he will appoint judges like Alito and Roberts.
    Rudy also has a better chance of getting them approved by a Democrat Senate, because he is not making these appointments based on ideology.
    Most importantly, Rudy is the only candidate that can defeat Hillary, so that he can make these judicial appointments.

  3. Oh please, republicans nominate Rudolph Guilliani. If you think the voters in my very red Southern state are going to get all excited about him, you are very mistaken. Oh sure, they’ll vote for him over Hillary Clinton, but they will hold their noses when they do so. They are not going to work for him or send him much money. If you think a DemocratIC senat will vote for another Alito or Roberts because they think Rudy is no “ideological” you are also mistaken, as long a Roe V. Wade is on the line they will not. Also, are you so very sure that Gulliani will appoint very conservative judges just because he says he will. He wil pro choice and like all politicians he will say whatever he has to to be elected. That’s one of the main reasons the conservative voters in my state will not really trust him. As Bush says, “Bring it on.”

  4. “This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1,282 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone October 12-16, 2007. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. 312 interviews were conducted with white evangelicals, and 283 with white evangelicals who are registered to vote. The margin of error for those subgroups is plus or minus six percentage points.”
    That renders a lot of the numbers cited as junk.

  5. Putting aside all the jumping up and down in their playpens the social conservatives will slowly but surely come to realize that a “Rudy type” is a whole lot better than a Clinton.
    You don’t stick to your principles by helping to elect the Clintons, bringing abortions and partial birth abortions etc into everyone’s living room, by staying home or backing a third party candidate assuring a Clinton victory.
    All this blather is just huff and puff during the primary season. I say, have at it, but at the end you vote for the nominee.
    Yes, I hope its Rudy with all his warts, phone calls, wife etc. However if you don’t want to vote for Rudy make sure you never see him speak in person!

  6. Carol H, you are right. Guilani is simply unacceptable to most of the conservative base. They might love him in the Blue and Purple States but he will not fly with the rest. I personally know more than a few that will never vote for him. They will move their efforts to governor races and on down. If he is the MOST electable, we are sunk.

  7. If Rudy still hasn’t convinced some that he will pick strict constructionists, he will never convince them. He has said so many times that I have lost count. That isn’t to mention his entire staff which is an orgy of strict constructionists: Ted Olsen, Miguel Estrada, et al. Rudy actually leads among SoCons. That is an amazing feat considering his social positions, but Rudy (the candidate I support for full disclosure) is an amazing politician and the rest of the country will figure it out soon enough. Only a politician as crafty as Rudy can tick off as many people of all shapes and sizes and still be effective.

  8. Guilani is simply unacceptable to most of the conservative base.
    Then I can honestly say that the conservative base are idiots; no longer able to except incremental changes and instead looking for the whole ball of wax.
    If long term strategic thinking is now a thing of the past, the conservative base will lose all the the progress it has made in transforming the judiciary.
    This election is about judges, that’s it.
    Fight for your guy in the primary, but the base better get behind the nominee, regardless of who it may be.

  9. I think the discussion is being mischaracterized. Let’s not use the term “evangelical.” It has too many religious connotations. Let’s use “conservative,” which is the far more inclusive and accurate term.
    In the eyes of this conservative, Rudy is a Democrat in GOP clothing, and he will never, ever get my vote. I’ll stay home.
    He is running partly on his record of being “America’s Mayor” during 9/11. Give me a break. One of the major problems on 9/11 was that the first responders were not adequately equipped. And whose fault was that? And after 9/11, what did Rudy actually DO? He did what all politicians do … he talked and talked and talked and put on a good show.
    The GOP and some of the talk-show hosts (especially Hannity) need to start changing their frame of reference. The GOP needs to line up behind conservatives, rather than the other way around. We are not going to be led by a liberal, be it Republican or Democrat.
    (Let’s see. Republican Bush and Democrat Congress both have low approval ratings. How could that be? What might they have in common? Aha. They’re both liberal … far too liberal for the country.)
    And don’t give me the “judicial appointment” rationale, either. Some of the most liberal and destructive judges ever have been appointed by “conservative” presidents. You never know what a judge will decide after he/she has been on the court three or four years. So appointing judges is a craps shoot at best, any way you slice it.
    Mark my words. The GOP, if it wants to win, had better field a true conservative. Conservatives are not going to vote for a liberal Republican again under ANY circumstances.

  10. It sure would be nice if Rudy backers could develop an argument other than “He’s better than Hillary.” Well, so are all eight other candidates, and none of them are pro-choice social liberals with no discernible background in foreign policy. Why don’t we nominate one of them and not worry about what conservatives will do if they have to face this horrible choice.

  11. One more thing:
    What’s wrong with standing up for principle? Shouldn’t somebody do that? And if nobody does, what becomes of the principle?
    We have far too much political expediency in the world today. Everything is relative, and we are urged to compromise on everything. But if we don’t stand for something, then we stand for nothing.
    Liberals have demonstrated that they have principles, and the liberals don’t bend. They support all abortions, for example, and they are not willing to compromise and outlaw late-term abortions.
    If liberals can stand up for their principles, why can’t (shouldn’t) conservatives do the same? Why are conservatives called “stupid” when they say enough is enough, but liberals are praised for their steadfastness?
    Guiliani? Never. Not for this conservative.

  12. Cap’n – I’m not sure what your obsession is with conservative value voters. You keep ragging on us to vote for Guliani, while holding up a Hillary voo-doo mask and saying “Boo!”
    If that is the best reasoning you have, it’s not going to work. I will not vote for someone who supports the killing of the innocent.
    Let me do a little math for you :
    Lesser of Two Evils = Still Evil.
    Like telling someone they have to vote for either Hitler or Stalin, and if they dont vote it’s their fault if one of them gets elected.

  13. Giuliani backers face an almost insurmountable problem – the backers of the two candidates nearest to him (Thompson, Romney) that will not move to Giuliani.
    (You can leave aside for the moment that 30-40 percent of politically-naive conservatives that are ‘sitting out’ current activities.)
    But, you can not leave aside the convention delegates that nominate the candidate. If you want to handicap this election, you need to know who these people are – and who they are currently supporting. They make the nomination, and no, it isn’t always ‘cut and dried’ before they get there.
    Giuliani currently has maybe 25% of national party members in his camp (and that’s the high count!) – but too few of them will be actual voting convention delegates.
    The problem Giuliani has is that he faces nearly 60% committed conservative convention delegates, and a pool of only 15-20% of ‘the uncommitted’ that he might pull support from. Point is – at the moment there is no way Giuliani will get the nomination, unless he somehow sweeps the southern primaries, which is highly doubtful.
    Look for Thompson to not only sweep the South, but win the nomination – the uncommitted, and most of Giuliani’s backers will fall in behind, and yes, a few will go home and pout.
    And no – Hillary won’t even come close to winning the Oval Office – if she can even garner the nomination of her own party – a growing number of Dems doubt she will be able to.

  14. The other 800lb gorilla in the room no one will talk about in connection to Rudy is the second amendment/self defense block. This is 6-12 million voters who will not hold their nose and vote for Rudy, even if Hillary is the other choice.
    Why? Becuase we know Rudy will throw us under the bus the second he’s in office. And even if he would appoint the strict constructions judges, and like other commenters I’m not convinced of that, it will do us no good when he and a Democratically controled congress pass restiction after restriction, “assault weapon ban II”, national waiting periods, lead ammo bans, bans on ammo that will pierce “bulletproof”(an oxymoron) vests (actally proposed by Ted Kennedy)which would ban all hunting rifle ammo, the list goes on.
    And the judges would do us no good, because we would have to get a case to the court, with no assuance we would win then.
    Yes I know I sound paranoid, but that doesn’t mean they are not out to get me, as the joke goes. Only this is no joke.
    I will not vote for Rudy, I may vote for Mitt, with a large enough cloths pin, I would vote for Fred. And I have before and will vote libertarian. Because as other commentors have pointed out, I don’t really see where I would be any worse off with Hillary then with Rudy.

  15. I don’t think that National Rudy Online and NZ Bear are exactly impartial observers. I’ve looked at actual evangelical blogs and they seem unimpressed. Don’t confuse good manners with approval.

  16. The other 800lb gorilla in the room no one will talk about in connection to Rudy is the second amendment/self defense block.
    There are several 800lb gorillas with respect to Giuliani. Besides this one, and the abortion one, there is the Amnesty one. His position on immigration is identical to Bush and McCain. Or perhaps slightly to their left. He favors amnesty for all the tens of millions of illegals.
    It’s a mystery what all the “right-wing” blogs see in the man. A Rudy nomination is an engraved invitation for a third party run.

  17. Rudy says, I don’t agree with you, but I will vote your way on judges.
    Sounds a lot like the lines President Bush gave to Pa. Republicans about Arlen Spector.
    The Red State, Blue State divide is very much alive. It is as simple as Republicans keeping the Red States Red. Game over. We win, you lose.

  18. Sounds a lot like the lines President Bush gave to Pa. Republicans about Arlen Spector.
    And that worked out so well for us.
    Most importantly, Rudy is the only candidate that can defeat Hillary
    There is not one shred of evidence to support this belief.

  19. The reason we are forced to use the “better of two evils” with supposed social conservatives that post here is they are either learning impaired or trolls.
    Amongst Rudy supporters we have several reasons why we support him first but will ultimately support the nominee. But you idiot savants–K Mart is open–are the only group we encounter that will support mass murder to make a point of principle, that you are supposedly pro life. For us, life is too important to make an example of it. For that reason we try to appeal to your child like emotions by trotting out the bogeyman.
    We realize this is fruitless but it’s our civic duty for a few posts.
    Here’s a prediction. The vast majority of true social conservatives will vote for Rudy if he is the nominee. You folks won’t. But get this, we give a shit.

  20. Patrick, I’ll give you this. You and your language are a powerful argument for abortion. Does your mother know how you turned out? She can’t be proud.

  21. Patrick Neid said – “Here’s a prediction. The vast majority of true social conservatives will vote for Rudy if he is the nominee.”
    And my mother would say – “If the vast majority of true social conservatives jumped off a cliff, would you follow them?”
    Well, if I truely was a “learning impaired” “idiot savant” with “child like emotions” who gives a shit, I guess I would.
    And personally, I shop at Target.
    Back to you, Patrick. And please keep the words small for us.

  22. Amongst Rudy supporters we have several reasons why we support him first
    Care to actually name a few? Or would you rather just throw your little bit of sanctimony at the rest of us. After all, only true conservatives disregard their principles and vote for liberals.

  23. Rudy accomplished a lot in NYC. How much would he have gotten done if he had tilted at the windmills of abortion and gun rights? The “shall-issue” concealed carry laws increasingly common throughout the states show that the anti-gun forces are in retreat. Abortion will never be illegal again in all 50 states. Never, no matter how much we might wish it.
    Orwell was right that the pacifists of 1940 were objectively pro-facist, and you folks threatening to sit on your hands rather than vote for Rudy are objectively pro-Hillary, with all that entails. I hope you holier-than-thou folks stay home so Rudy’s win can permanently marginalize you.

  24. Via Josh Marshall:
    Results from “Values Voter Summit” Straw Poll
    Candidate Name … Percentage
    1. Mitt Romney … 27.62 %
    2. Mike Huckabee … 27.10 %
    3. Ron Paul … 14.98%
    4. Fred Thompson … 9.77 %
    5. Sam Brownback … 5.14 %
    6. Duncan Hunter … 2.42 %
    7. Tom Tancredo … 2.30 %
    8. Rudy Giuliani … 1.85 %
    9. John McCain … 1.40 %
    I’m surprised at how well Ron Paul did, not at all surprised about Fred Thompson being such a dud.

  25. Personally I hope that Fred wins the Republican nomination. Even if he doesn’t, I still plan to vote Republican. I’m sure that, if Rudy wins the Presidency, the Republicans in Congress will do as much as they can to insure that he remains within the values and promotes policies that Republican favor.
    As for appointing Judges, it doesn’t matter who the Republican President is, the Democrats will do everything in their power to defeat those appointments. The last 6 years has proved this beyond a doubt.
    The real question is: are you willing to allow your political opposite to gain the the White House simply because you don’t agree 100 percent with the beliefs and/or values of someone that is politically aligned with you or because that person doesn’t have all the same believes and values you do? In other words, are you willing to let the Democrats win simply because you didn’t vote for and don’t like the Republican nominee? Well, if that’s true, then you just as bad as the Democrats as you are unwilling to compromise simply out of spite.
    Think it through people. The presidency is far too important to let spite make make your decisions for you.
    This isn’t some local city council we’re we’re dealing with here. This is a battle for the White House and the policies that will be made during the next 4 to 8 years. The selection of Judges are only a small part of those policies. There’s also the selection of the various department heads, like the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, The Attorney General, etc. These are VERY important positions and the people appointed to those positions have a huge impact on America, much more so than a Judge. Are you willing to let Hillary, or whoever the Democrats nominate, make those decisions of who will run those departments?

  26. Fred is dead. If he couldn’t do better with this crowd then he is in serious trouble. I think Rudy will get the nod with Thompson and Romney mortally wounded. Two questions remain: How will the Huckster do and will Ron Paul do well enough to suggest an independent bid would be viable. I have trouble seeing Rudy and the Huckster on the same ticket. Its like a hot dog with cool whip. If Ron Paul could get in the debates, I think he could gain traction. The GOP base is not happy about Rudy. The Democratic base is not thrilled about Hillary.

  27. “I’m sure that, if Rudy wins the Presidency, the Republicans in Congress will do as much as they can to insure that he remains within the values and promotes policies that Republican favor.”
    Rudy will almost certainly face an overwhelmingly and possible veto-proof Democratic congress. I don’t think this will bring out the best in him. To keep the misguided war on tara going, he will have to cave in on all the domestic economic fixes required to clean up after W. And, if you are a “social conservative” – fuggedaboutit.

  28. We desperately need a new political paradigm that will lead us to the real “real question.”
    The “real question” is NOT: Are you willing to allow your political opposite to gain the White House simply because you don’t agree 100 percent with the beliefs and/or values.
    The “real question” is: Are you willing to vote for a liberal simply because he calls himself a Republican?
    Rudy would be just as intolerable as Hillary would be. Forget their campaign rhetoric. Think in terms of what they actually would do in the White House.
    Republican? Democrat? What’s been the difference over the past seven years? Is the country better off today because we have had a Republican president? I vote “no.” Our social problems have worsened, we face profound military and economic threats from other nations, and we still haven’t figured out how to make air travel safe from terrorists. Kerry could have done as well.
    And as for judges, nobody should hang their hats on Rudy’s words or, if he’s elected, his choices. Judges do what judges want to do. (Read “Men in Black.”) Anybody remember who picked Earl Warren? I do … and it sure wasn’t a Democrat.

  29. Rudy accomplished a lot in NYC.
    It’s funny how his supporters can never get into specifics.
    you folks threatening to sit on your hands rather than vote for Rudy are objectively pro-Hillary
    You folks insisting that that everyone else fall into line behind a candidate to the left of Bill Clinton are objectively pro-Hillary.
    And on a side note, it is really pathetic to watch a lot of formerly reputable pundits on the right selling their integrity and reputations down the river in an effort to convince people that Giuliani is something he clearly is not.
    National Rudy Online and Powerline have lost all credibility with their behavior here. As the MSM could tell them, credibility is all you have, and once lost it’s almost impossible to recover.

  30. Jonathan Martin;
    The two groups agreed on one thing: Hillary Clinton was voted “least acceptable” candidate both overall (4,141 votes, or 72 percent) and in on-site voting (733 votes, or 77 percent). In total voting, Giuliani was the runner-up as least acceptable, ahead of all the Democrats on the ballot. On-site, that honor went to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)
    But, but all the smart right wing pundits assured me that Giuliani hit a home run here. How is it possible that he was voted into second place behind Hillary in the “least acceptable” poll?
    And why do I think this news won’t get as much attention as the carefully choreographed cheerleading.

  31. Hmm skeptic,
    Ron Paul HAS been in the debates; the man is a loon. Those who might like him because he’s “pro Constitution” will not support someone who is rabidly “bring home the troops NOW” consequences be damned.
    Those of you who think you’re standing on your principles vowing no vote for Rudy, you astound me. I don’t understand how you can consider yourselves “principled” when you’d allow another Clinton administration to wreak what could be total destruction on the country.
    I’m doing a lot of praying right now; praying John McCain isn’t our candidate…..but if he is, there is no way I’d abdicate my duty and stay home rather than vote for him.
    As for the red states; ya’ll have been important up until now because the GOP hasn’t fielded a candidate who could make a dent in blue states for quite some time now. Rudy will change that. I’m located in NE Pa. in a heavily democratic area. Most folks here Dem or Repub are Rudy supporters.
    The one reason I think Rudy is appealing to more conservatives than some thought is because he IS willing to stand up and speak out about the Dems. The biggest complaint about the Bush administration has been it’s inability or unwillingness to fight back against the constant wave of slime hurled by Pelosi, Reid et al. I have one uncle who (I thought) wouldn’t vote for Rudy, but he surprised me by stating Rudy’s his man. When I asked why, he said “when Rudy told that sheik to shove his check, that told me all I needed to know about the man”. Rudy is pugnacious; for a lot of folks that beats constantly reaching across the aisle and constantly getting slapped in the face.
    The Dems don’t want to fight the war in Iraq, but they sure don’t mind declaring war on Republicans. For a change, I’d like us to fight back.

  32. Wow! Some of the commenters here really scare me. You claim (and honestly believe?) that you will maintain the moral high ground by staying home on election day even though that strategy guarantees that Hillary will become the next POTUS instead of the (presumptive nominee) Guiliani? So because Guiliani ultimately believes that women deserve a choice on abortion even though he hopes to promote adoption, you think he will be worse than a woman who believes in a woman’s right to unfettered abortion? You must also believe that Hillary will better lead this country in the war against Islamic fanaticism. You must also think that her tax policies will be better. You must also believe that her choices for the Supreme Court will be better. etc. etc.
    When will you realize that a religious conservative will never – NEVER – be elected president? The best you can hope for is somebody who votes with you more often than not. Reagan was an incredible president, but he was not a religious conservative. I am a fiscal conservative and hawk on national defense, but I would never vote for a religious conservative. If you cannot get my vote, then how do you think you will get the vote of the majority of people who consider themselves moderates?
    Please do not elect Hillary president because you are having a hissy fit over Guiliani. If he wins the Republican nomination, he will win because a MAJORITY of Republican voters think he will make the best president. If you think you know better, than elect your own nominee.

  33. Shawn says:
    I don’t really see where I would be any worse off with Hillary then with Rudy.
    I say:
    George Soros

  34. Either many of these “stay at home if Rudy gets the nod” whiners are MoveOn blog graffiti artists or “true conservatives” who are complete morons.
    The former I get, the later have no excuse for their idiocy.

  35. VA Gamer,
    Bush is a religious conservative — and he was elected President.
    I’m a Catholic. Giuliani claims he is a Catholic. Just from those two statements, I get to use the stated positions of my Church as a litmus test on Giuliani. He fails the primary one (sanctity of life) badly.
    My top issue is abortion — totally against it. But Giuliani is pro-choice, just like Clinton. My second issue is the War on Terror, and I don’t see a discriminator between Hillary and Giuliani. My third issue is immigration, and I’m more in line with Giuliani’s position than with that of most people here. But Clinton and Giuliani hold nearly identical positions on immigration as well. Fourth issue is economic conservatism; again, nearly identical positions.
    So where’s the discriminator for me?
    Now, if it were Obama vs. Giuliani, issue number 2 would certainly drive me to vote for Giuliani. But, as I see it right now, Rudy is a male Hillary.

  36. Flenser:
    Now you’re a conservative trashing Rudy? Over at Power Line your a raving liberal mucking up the forum with your Che rants.
    It’s clear that Flesner is a paid MoveOn blog
    graffiti artist.
    When does your next paycheck come in?

  37. unclesmrgol says:
    “Fourth issue is economic conservatism; again, nearly identical positions.”
    I say:
    WTF?

  38. I will vote for whomever the Republican Party nominates.
    Decency and morals are sadly lacking in my part of the country.
    I don’t want someone who steals from the WH, lies, enables her husband, cackles, and screams at the Secret Service and military assigned to protect her.
    I especially don’t want a POTUS that has called out General Petraeus.

  39. Now you’re a conservative trashing Rudy? Over at Power Line your a raving liberal mucking up the forum with your Che rants.
    What are you babbling about?
    If you want to make the case that Rudy is not to the left of Bill Clinton, go ahead and try.
    I don’t really see where I would be any worse off with Hillary then with Rudy.
    I say:
    George Soros
    And I say, you are not the most articulate guy I’ve ever seen. Try writing in whole sentences and expressing complex thoughts.

  40. flenser asked:
    “Rudy accomplished a lot in NYC.
    It’s funny how his supporters can never get into specifics.”
    FYI, former NYC resident here…
    I would think you could research his crime-reduction programs, welfare-reduction and even his economic management. Then we’ll talk.

  41. VA Gamer
    Wow, some of these commenters here really scare me! You claim (and honestly believe?) that you will maintain the moral high ground if you nominate a man who repudiates what the GOP has always stood for? Are you really so hooked on power like a junkie on smack that no price is too great to pay for it?
    And the reality is the those who sacrifice principle for power end up with neither. Rudy cannot win. He is one of the most disliked people in the country today. Just wait untill campaigning starts, it will get much worse.
    This cynical, craven attempt to hitch the GOP wagon to Giuliani deserves to fail.

  42. FYI, former NYC resident here…
    Funny, same here. Where abouts did you live?
    The crime rate in NYC peaked in 1990 and started falling. RG did not take office until 1994 by which time crime was already falling steadedly. You can look it up.
    As I recall, Bratton was the key figure in reducing NY crime. But Rudy fired him for taking the glory.

  43. I totally reject the idea that Rudy is the best chance to beat Hillary. In fact I think he is our worst chance, because so many conservatives will stay home, vote third party, etc.. if he is the nominee.
    I also don’t think he has a chance of winning the Republican nomination.
    Rudy is on the extreme left of key issues to republicans. Abortion, Guns, and Illegal Immigration. It is amazing that he is running for the Republican nomination at all.
    His promise to nominate strict constructionalist judges is laughable, given a cursory look at the judges he actually did nominate… guess what they are all leftists.
    Really sad seeing people insulting conservative voters who won’t abandon their principles and values by voting for Rudy.
    If you care about beating Hillary, vote for someone other than Rudy. The democrats know Rudy will split our party, that’s why the leftist press is pushing him as THE nominee.

  44. Hugh BEaumont,
    Examine Giuliani’s NYC budgets. What’s the track record?
    What’s his stance on global warming? How will that stance affect our economy, and drive his budget?

  45. flenser (MoveOn man)says:
    “RG did not take office until 1994 by which time crime was already falling steadedly. You can look it up.”
    Your stats are full of crap. What matters is what’s going on at the street level.
    I lived in Manhattan during Dinkins tenure and through Rudy’s.
    One year after Rudy took office it was if someone through a light switch.
    It was that radical a change on the street.
    Cops everywhere, squeegie a-holes gone, subway vermin booted for the most part.
    Where did the beloved Hookers, tranvestites and pimps go in Times Square?
    Quality of life was night and day….your numbers are worthless and don’t tell the real story.
    Rudy’s problem is that he doesn’t know when to quit….when he started picking on the hot dog vendors, I had had enough of his strong arming.

  46. I still don’t see what differentiates Rudy and Hillary besides the letter next to their name. Isn’t the reason why the Republicans in the positions they are in now is becuase they keep acting like democrats? They both are pro-abortion, anti-gun, social liberals!
    It ticks me off to see the belt-way republicans give out orders to the conservative base because the base won’t act like the pet voting blocks of the democrats. Thank God that the conservatives have a mind of their own. Which yes, does help to keep the candidates on their toes (after all, can anybody claim that Rudy will even throw out that he will hire good Judges to the bench if not for the voices of the conservatives?).
    And besides, since primaries are not even on for a few months, why are all the belt-ways trying to force the conservatives to vote their way? Are calling conservatives idiots and whiners a portent to what will happen if Rudy gets elected?
    Sorry, those that consider themselves conservatives will never simply tow the line just to make the beltwayers feel better about themselves. If not for conservaties, that awful immigration bill of a few months back would certainly have been made into law; among other things.

  47. Let’s see if I got this straight?
    Vote For:
    1) Gay Marriage
    2) Abortion
    3) Shamnesty
    Against:
    The second admentment
    All righty then, I feel All “Warm and Fuzzy!”
    A choice between Hitlary and Hitlary Light!!
    No Thanks!

  48. I am with Dawn.
    Not a Rudy fan. But, I too, will vote for however gets the Republican nomination — Ron Paul excluded.
    Stand by your principles, sure. But refusing to vote for the candidate who will run against a Democrat because it wasn’t your personal choice is foolish.
    I’d rather stand as close to my principles as I can, and vote for the Republican, next to a liberal — whatever that takes.
    If you stay home or split the vote and the race ends up being so close that it would have made a difference, you should sit down and shut up for the following 4 years.

  49. Steve Benen has a very interesting breakdown of the actual vote of those who were in attendance:

    The official tally, which included over 5,000 votes, showed Mitt Romney on top with 27.6% support, followed by Mike Huckabee with 27.1%. Paul was third with 15%, and Fred Thompson was fourth with just under 10%. But if you limit the results to people who were actually in the room for the far-right gathering, you get an entirely different set of results.
    1. Mike Huckabee – 488 votes – 51.26%
    2. Mitt Romney – 99 votes – 10.40%
    3. Fred Thompson – 77 votes – 8.09%
    4. Tom Tancredo – 65 votes – 6.83%
    5. Rudy Giuliani – 60 votes – 6.30%
    6. Duncan Hunter – 54 votes – 5.67%
    7. John McCain – 30 votes – 3.15%
    8. Sam Brownback – 26 votes – 2.73%
    9. Ron Paul – 25 votes – 2.63%
    That’s a huge difference. Huckabee goes from a close second to an easy first. Romney goes from the big winner to a distant second. Paul goes from third to last. John McCain … well, he’s still unpopular with this crowd no matter which results you look at.

    Looks like the hard core of the religious right is not happy with the current front-runners, and that’s a problem to say the least for the GOP.

  50. SF Dude,
    I hope Steve’s paying you for publicity. At least 50% of your comments here lately begin with “Steve Benen ….” Or are you Steve Benen as a sockpuppet?
    Try posting your own thoughts, or at least link to the people who actually attended the conference and first reported those numbers. I’m about to put “Steve Benen” on the junk list.

  51. “Ron Paul HAS been in the debates; the man is a loon.”
    No, the loons are the ones that said Iraq had WMDs, Drones of Death to deliver them, mobile bioweapons labs and could strike within 45 minutes. Count among the loons those who said Russian Spetznaz troops covertly secreted the WMDs in Syria. Add in those that realize Iraq was a big mistake but won’t admit it.
    Of course, the looniest of all are those that still believe that Iraq was a good idea. These people give loons a bad name.

  52. If you’d post the numbers yourself Ed, then I wouldn’t have to bother repeating them here. I’d say they are of interest to others and worth passing along in the comments despite the fact that they come from Steve Benen, who you’ve quoted yourself in the past on your blog.
    BTW, I’m not surprised about how badly Fred Thompson did, as he’s really not very good on the stump. Giuliani is definitely seen as untrustworthy by the hard-core religious right also, and talk about a split in the GOP has to be taken seriously now. Huckabee isn’t quite ready for prime time either. Ron Paul has quite the support online to be sure, but that’s it. So Romney is becoming by default the only one who seems able to patch together the various factions in the GOP, although he’s clearly a phony willing to change his views on a dime.
    [You’ve obviously made the mistake that you dictate the contents of this blog. You also haven’t answered whether you’re actually Steve Benen, which I am beginning to suspect. And I’m not aware that I have ever linked Steve at this blog. — Ed]

  53. It has nuttin to do with religon for Me, Not a damn thing, it’s called being Conservative!
    Killin Babies for convenience sake, Give me a Break!
    I am very conflicted on this abortion thing, Not my main concern, there are times when abortion is necessary!
    Let’s see, How does that go, “Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness?”
    Oh yea, NOW I remember, seems many have forgotten!

  54. One more thing:
    I guess that as a conservative, I resent the heck out of the GOP trying to shove a liberal candidate down my throat. Guiliani doesn’t pass the smell test, and he sure wouldn’t taste any better.
    So a second “real question” may be: Is the GOP inclusive enough … do conservatives have a “home” in the GOP?
    If the answer is “yes,” then we need to be more outspoken, instead of suffering in silence, as some on this blog would have us do. And if the answer is “no,” then the nation’s ripe for a political realignment.
    Conservatives are a big (decisive) part of the GOP base, but time and again, the party has ignored us and now thinks we’ll “settle” for a Guiliani.
    GOP leaders (and the president) thought they could ram the illegal immigration bill down our throats, and we coughed it back up. It seems to me that it’s time to cough Guiliani back up.
    The GOP needs conservatives more than we need the party, and it’s time we spelled that out clearly. We are in the driver’s seat; the party is not. The tail does not wag the dog, despite what some on this blog suggest.

  55. P.S. What’s that old admonition? “Follow the money”? Then take a look at this from the WSJ on Oct. 19:
    “The bad news keeps getting worse for the Republicans… They have twice as many seats to defend as Democrats next year in the narrowly divided Senate. The Democratic presidential candidates are raising twice as much money as the Republicans. And now it looks like the party will even have trouble holding its ground in the House, which had been considered its best shot.”
    What’s more, contributions to the National Republican Congressional Committee are only a fraction of the contributions to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committe.
    If we follow the money, the message seems clear. The Republicans can’t “out-liberal” the Democrats, and conservatives are not buying what the GOP is trying to sell.
    If Republicans continue their liberal ways, they’re going to go down in flames. And Guiliani being president won’t save the party. In fact, if he’s the GOP nominee, he may hasten the party’s demise.
    Conservatives are holding back big time, and the GOP had better wake up and recognize that its survival rests with conservatives and their checkbooks.
    The money figures clearly indicate that the Republican Party, as its presently constituted, is becoming an irrelevant force in American politics.

  56. Huckabee is a lot more acceptable to this conservative than Guiliani. Huckabee is a little weak on foreign policy, but it’s not a fatal flaw.
    The “debate” tonight could be interesting.

  57. I made a mistake in my previous comment: Giuliani ranked 5th in the straw poll of the among the attendees of the FRC Values Voters Summit. My apologies for the mistake.

  58. There’s one aspect to all of the debate here that a lot of people seem to have missed. We’ve only been discussing republican voters, specifically the Religious Right (and I believe that this particular segment would vote for Rudy over Hillary every time). What about the swing voters ? Since most elections are actually decided by those who have no allegiance to any single party, what would their reaction be to a Rudy nomination? Also, what about those democrats that refuse to vote for Hillary? Would they be quicker to vote for Rudy as opposed to Fred or another Republican nominee?
    If it comes down to Rudy vs. Hillary, I think Rudy would win.

  59. Hugh Beaumont
    Your stats are full of crap. What matters is what’s going on at the street level.
    The stats tell you what is going on at the street level. It may be that the decline in crime was not really appreciated by people until a few years after it happened, but crime dropped markedly before Giuliani ever took office.
    Murders peaked in NY in 1990 at 2,605. By 1993 it was down to 2,420.
    Aggravated assault dropped from 92,000 to 85,000. The overall crime index dropped from 1,144,874 to 1,010,176. This is a ten percent drop in crime before Rudy became Mayor. It is false to say that Giuliani took over a city with crime out of control and turned it around. He took over a city in which crime was already dropping significantly.
    Where did the beloved Hookers, tranvestites and pimps go in Times Square?
    The West Side Highway.

  60. Giuliani ranked 5th in the straw poll of the among the attendees of the FRC Values Voters Summit.
    Giuliani ranked second in the poll they took of the least acceptable candidate. He came in behind Hillary Clinton but ahead of Obama and Edwards.

  61. G. Moore writes:

    I guess that as a conservative, I resent the heck out of the GOP trying to shove a liberal candidate down my throat.

    As another conservative, I say: No one is shoving anything down your throat. Rudy is a Republican candidate for President who is popular garnering support. If you don’t like that then stop whining and do something about it. Pick one of the remaining candidates and work for them.

    But there’s nothing offensive about a popular candidate with views you disagree with.

  62. I still don’t see what differentiates Rudy and Hillary besides the letter next to their name.

    I guess I missed Hillary’s press release when she praised Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas as being great justices

    I guess I didn’t see that press conference where she came out for school choice and homeschooling.

    I guess I must have been out of town when she came out for tax breaks …

    … supporting the war in Iraq …

    … blasting the NY Times …

    … opposing socialized medicine …

    Yeah, I guess I missed all of those announcements because after all, there’s nothing that differentiates Hillary and Rudy besides the letters next to their names.

  63. I guess I missed Hillary’s press release when she praised Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas as being great justices
    It is beyond naive to believe that Giuliani thinks Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas are great justices.
    If he really thinks this he kept it well hidden until very recently.
    I guess I must have been out of town when she came out for tax breaks …
    Giuliani is one of the few Republicans not to pledge to keep the Bush tax cuts permanent.
    supporting the war in Iraq
    Rudy does not support the war in Iraq.

  64. PackerBronco: But there’s nothing offensive about a popular candidate with views you disagree with.
    In case you missed it, Guiliani is the darling of a lot of Republicans, including, apparently, you. (Just read the comments on this blog.) And I get really sick and tired of people saying, without any documentation, that if we don’t back Guiliani, Hillary’s going to be our next president. That’s fear-mongering at its worst.
    I suggest you stick to football, and leave the political heavy lifting to others.
    And as for other candidates, I like Huckabee and I’ll work to get him nominated and elected.
    Please don’t pout.

  65. G.Moore wrote:

    And I get really sick and tired of people saying, without any documentation, that if we don’t back Guiliani, Hillary’s going to be our next president.

    Well, I’m not the one saying that. However, if Guiliani is the party nominee and we don’t back him, and then yes, Clinton will be the next president.

    I have not made up my mind between the Republican contenders. I see things that I like and dislike about each of them. But if race comes down to Clinton vs. Thompson/Guiliani/Romney/McCain/Huckabee/Etc. I have no hesitation about who I’m against and who I’ll be for.

Comments are closed.