Monday, October 01, 2007

I hate to say "I told you so", but...

...the Republican party is finally starting to confront the Elephant in the Room for the Rudy Guiliani campaign. His pro-abortion past is catching up with him, as some Evangelical leaders are threatening to go Third Party.

For months, Christian conservatives have been escalating their warnings about the risk that nominating Mr. Giuliani could splinter the party. Dr. Dobson wrote a column declaring that he would waste his vote before casting it for either Mr. Giuliani or a Democrat who supports abortion rights like Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Richard Land, the top public policy official of the Southern Baptist Convention, has said that nominating a Republican candidate who supports abortion rights would make white evangelical votes “a jump ball” between the Republicans and Democrats, with other issues taking the fore.
You may recall I said that I could not vote for the Mayor, despite my respect for him, from Day 1. I doubt that I am among the more extreme members of the anti-abortion wing.

9 comments:

"Nick" said...

I agree. In some ways I think the next election (and maybe the one after, I hope not) will be mainly corrective action on those in power, regardless of who they are (similarly to the last election). This is one example.

Ward said...

I think this will be a big showdown in some ways and will set the path for the Republican party for quite a while. True, some social conservatives will not vote for Rudy, and will even leave the party. But I've talked to quite a few more moderate and Democratic and liberal leaning types around my parts who are already saying they would gladly vote for Rudy, especially over Hillary.

That means that the Republicans need to make a choice. Stay with the social/Christian conservatives and put up a candidate that has a good chance of losing, or move to the center appealing to a different group and possibly win.

And yes, I do believe that the Republicans can win without us. If they just run a conservative that we don't like and aren't excited about, then they will lose. But if they run someone who can appeal to a large swath of middle-ground society, they can easily pick up the 3 million or so votes elsewhere that Christians account for.

Nomad said...

I believe the Republican party could theoretically win without Evangelicals. However, they would have a hard time doing so. Especially if a popular Democrat like Obama gets the nomination. And as someone who lived in the NY suburbs for most of Guiliani's time as mayor, I can say he has a lot more negatives that have not come out in public.

That being said, I *DO* respect the man. I just can't accept him as my president.

shadwomom1 said...

I still think he is far superior to Hillary, who would probably wind up as President if we do not vote for the Republican candidate.

Sean said...

i think that there's a wrong assumption that all evangelicals put abortion as the number issue when they vote. there certainly is a large chunk that do, but i think that it would be wrong to assume that most do.

as of right now i'm still probably going to vote for Rudy as i just don't like any of the other options. i was really hoping Newt would get in, but alas he's not.

Anonymous said...

Sean,

So character is not an issue for you?

- Cynic

"Nick" said...

There are quite a few problems with Guliani, aside from his abortion stance. He is wishy washy on illegal immigration, he is generally for bigger government... his only strength is his history (with 9/11 only) and the general perception that he will "kill the bad guys, no questions asked".

I tend to be a one issue voter in that one issue (abortion) disqualifies a candidate. I can vote for someone who I don't agree with on almost anything else and will weigh this position against that position, but legal killing of unborn children is something I can't vote for no matter what.

If we end up with Hillary, maybe it will spark change (look who we got after Carter!)

Sean said...

it's about qualifications to run the country to me. both newt and rudy are the best men for the job. yeah, their personal lives have been a mess - but in spite of that they've both been able to do what they do and do it well. that's the most important thing for me. we're looking for a political leader not a religious or moral leader and when we look at that criteria nobody comes close - at least in my mind.

"Nick" said...

But the private life shows you who the person really is and how they treat problems. Both Rudy and Newt have shown that they walk away from problems and that they don't have self control. Why should I trust them to run the country? The same thing was said of Bill Clinton.

Not to mention that Newt couldn't "do what he did" very well, he ended up messing up his own congressional career. Rudy did some good things in New York, but he also did a lot of damage, and it was only 9/11 that seems to have given everyone amnesia about how much they hated him before.

And no, we aren't looking for a religious leader, but the president represents the values of the country.