Dobson Versus Rudy

It seems to me that with the publication of this James Dobson op-ed, Rudy Giuliani just got a lot less electable:

After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.

It would be a big, big problem for Giuliani's general election campaign to have any of the major cultural conservative institutions backing a third party candidate. It's generally very difficult to win when you have a spoiler trying to take you down the way Ross Perot was gunning for H.W. Bush in '92 or Ralph Nader was taking aim at Gore in 2000.

Comments

Was John Anderson trying to take down Carter or Reagan? My guess would be Reagan ...

Also there's everybody's favorite survivor of a third party challenge ...

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | October 4, 2007 3:30 PM

I have a feeling the nominee will pander enough to "convince" these people he is suitably pro-life.

Posted by Goldberg | October 4, 2007 3:31 PM

It doesn't mean they'd back a third-party candidate. It just means Rudy would have to take the pledge.

Posted by Steve | October 4, 2007 3:42 PM

They are looking for a pledge from Rudy. Nothing more, nothing less.

These guys aren't dumb. They know that if they allow Rudy to take the primary without ever forcing him to commit to firm anti-gay and anti-abortion positions, Rudy may move back to the center on social issues in the general.

They want him to pledge to hard right positions to make it harder for him to reverse himself down the road if he wins. Perhaps more importantly, if Rudy pledges now and then reverses himself later, the Dobsons of the world can claim they "took him at his word" and save their own skins. It's all about protecting themselves.

Posted by owenz | October 4, 2007 3:42 PM

Yeah, Rudy's already got his posse out trying to convince people he's "pro-life." So much for principled stands.

And I think Dobson et al are, unlike Nader and his supporters, too smart to really follow through on this threat. They know what a third-party anti-abortion candidacy means: a Dem victory.

Posted by Glenn | October 4, 2007 3:43 PM

I have a feeling the nominee will pander enough to "convince" these people he is suitably pro-life.

But all it takes to lose the general is one or two instances where the small number who are unconvinced by his pander cause him to lose him a state.

It's good news, no question. I wouldn't put it past stubborn, imperious Giuliani to stick to his pro-choice guns rather than kowtow. But I think the impact of a hard-right spoiler candidacy will depend a great deal on who the candidate is. If Dobson and crew can't find someone at least minimally credible to head the ticket, it'll have no impact. It's hard to imagine any of the unequivocally anti-abortion GOP also-rans (basically, Huckabee and Brownback) challenging their own party. They'll want a future within the Republican fold. Buchanan shows no sign of interest in running again. Who does that leave?

Posted by Ryan | October 4, 2007 3:48 PM

I suspect that when it comes time, there will be no evangelical 3rd party run, or if so, these major groups won't back it, and they will eventually shut up and push their voters to get out there and hold their nose and save the nation from Hillary / Obama / Edwards.

Posted by El_Cid | October 4, 2007 3:49 PM

I'm with Nicholas on this: it's only some third-party candidates clearly draw only from one side's potential supporters (think Ralph Nader or George Wallace; the latter, I think, actually apologized for his stances later), while others are more mixed in their effects. A single-issue pro-life third party candidacy would presumably draw predominantly from Republican voters, as would a single-issue anti-immigrant third-party candidacy, but the examples chosen are poor.

According to my recollections of the exit polls, Perot drew from the Clinton and Bush camps in proportions far more even than Yglesias presumes. Yes, Perot slammed Bush often; but he slammed Clinton on similar grounds (if less enthusiastically, as Clinton wasn't the incumbent), and lots of votes for Perot were votes against Bush.

P.S. I'm also with the prevailing sense (Goldberg, Steve, owenz, Glenn, et al.) that this will, in fact, not happen. Roy Moore in '04, anyone? These people know the score, and all this grumbling is just a horse's head in the bed, minus the laundry bills. Sufficient pandering will happen.

Posted by Warren Terra | October 4, 2007 3:55 PM

No way Rudy flips outright on the social issues. He's putting all his money on "strong leadership" and that would be a pretty obvious flip-flop.

And I'm not entirely sure that Dobson, et al., really want a Republican to win. A Hillary Clinton victory would be a lot better for them, in terms of the amount of vitriol they could disperse, and all the new money in donations they could make. Actually, come to think of it, this pronouncement makes perfect sense...I always get the feeling that certain conservatives like playing the marginalized "voice in the wilderness" card more than actually wielding power.

Posted by Lev | October 4, 2007 3:58 PM

How likely is a Ron Paul independent candidacy?

Posted by Danny | October 4, 2007 4:00 PM

"Who does that leave?"

Maybe Dobson himself?

Posted by Reality Man | October 4, 2007 4:03 PM

"It would be a big, big problem for Giuliani's general election campaign to have any of the major cultural conservative institutions backing a third party candidate."

If a third-party cultural conservative with some kind of name recognition and appeal runs it may be lib Hitler Hillary's best chance of beating Giuliani.

On the other hand, poll after poll has indicated that Bush's base is also Giuliani's base. Dobson is an elite and an aging one.

Posted by Linus | October 4, 2007 4:05 PM

smells like they want their churches' tax-exempt status revoked!

Posted by cleek | October 4, 2007 4:06 PM

This is not about the general -- this about the primaries. Guiliani's main asset among the GOP is that he is the most electable -- my god, they even talk about putting NY, CT and NJ into play with Rudy. Dobson has just raised a real doubt about that electibility argument.

Posted by tom in ma | October 4, 2007 4:10 PM

I wouldn't put it past stubborn, imperious Giuliani to stick to his pro-choice guns rather than kowtow.

And I wouldn't put it past rabidly ambitious, utterly unprincipled Giuliani to strangle an abortion provider with his bare hands, if he thought it would help him gain power.

No way Rudy flips outright on the social issues. He's putting all his money on "strong leadership" and that would be a pretty obvious flip-flop.

While I agree that he's primarily pushing the authoritarianism and the promise to brutalize lots more dusky people, I still wouldn't completely rule out a fake "Road to Damascus" moment on the social front. It's only a pretty obvious flip-flop if the MSM doesn't completely ignore it.

How likely is a Ron Paul independent candidacy?

Now that sounds like an interesting possibility, once he drops out of the Republican race. On the downside for the Dobsonites, he's anti-Iraq-war. On the upside, he's anti-choice, anti-gay, and chummy with a Southern pro-Confederacy group. But I'm not sure all of that cancels out the fact that he would be unlikely to start/continue war with Iran.

Posted by mds | October 4, 2007 4:16 PM

they even talk about putting NY, CT and NJ into play with Rudy.

They may be trying to kneecap Giuliani by a bank shot. Force him to take positions that will not fly in NY, CT, and NJ, and he loses his Unique Selling Proposition, clearing the way for somebody else, someone less 'coastal', less ethnic.

Too bad Brownback is certifiable, and below the Mendoza line...

Posted by Davis X. Machina | October 4, 2007 4:17 PM

Oh, come on. The evangos are not going to go with a third party candidate. This is just to get bargaining power over Rudy. He'll swear to appoint anti-Roe judges and justices and that will be enough for the Christofascists to support him.

Posted by grytpype | October 4, 2007 4:22 PM

He'll swear to appoint anti-Roe judges and justices and that will be enough for the Christofascists to support him. - grytpype

Yep. It's all about the judges.

The religious right knows they won't get a candidate they like from the GOP, but they'll hold their nose and vote for the GOP in the generals because they have their eyes on the prize -- getting a GOP lock on the Courts.

Posted by DAS | October 4, 2007 4:27 PM

You're wrong about Perot.

Posted by Anonymous | October 4, 2007 4:30 PM

There's a lot less to the comment than meets the eye. First, remember that on other occasions Dobson has sat quietly by and let Republicans take a pass. He's a Republican partisan first, a religious zealot second.

Second, his purported threat leaves a lot of loopholes. Where he could have been very specific, he fudged ("minor party candidate"). He could easily have said "right-to-life party" or "candidate. In the end he won't rock the boat but will accept something far less from the Giuliani camp.

Posted by Eric Lee | October 4, 2007 4:39 PM

There is no way to paint this as good for Giuliani, whatever happens.

Any viable social-right candidate will reinforce that the Dem nominee is going to win anyway, and would encourage a one-time 3rd party vote that would lead to a Dem electoral landslide (maybe 45 or more states). But it could also slightly temper the House/Senate rout if it brings otherwise stay-at-home voters to the polls to vote for other GOP candidates.

If they get Giuliani to pledge, then it reinforces one of his many weaknesses - he craves prower too badly, too much and will cower before Dobson. The campaign ads write themselves (Giuliani the flip-flopper, Giuliani too weak to stand for principles, Giuliani will do anything to be elected).

And once this genie is out of the bottle even if the main forces capitulate, it means someone getting far more votes than Nader did would run (Roy Moore as a natural choice).

Ron Paul is not a social issue conservative. Tom Tancredo would make sense if it didn't mean giving up his House seat - but he might just think it's his ticket for a future run.

Posted by hopeless pedant | October 4, 2007 5:13 PM

I don't think that you can analyze the exit polls alone to determine if Perot made a difference in the election. Perot got a lot of votes but he probably came off as a little too kooky to get enough votes to be president. But his campaign got a lot of exposure and the overarching message was that the country was on the wrong track. All the graphs and the funny schtick got everyone's attention, and his appeal hurt Bush tremendously.

Nader got a relatively small number of votes, but they were decisive, giving Bush a slim margin in Florida (officially, anyway) and the White House. (If just 1% of the Nader voters in FL had voted for Gore instead...oh, what a wonderful world....)

In either case, a third-party candidate changes the dynamic of the campaign and the strategy of the main-party candidates. It makes a big difference if the base is divided, and Giuliani will have a lot of trouble if he has compete with another conservative to get the prolife/evangelical/"values" voter. I don't see any Republican having a chance unless he can count on a big turnout from a united base and bamboozle enough of the rest of us.

Posted by JJF | October 4, 2007 5:15 PM

Anonymous,

Did Perot cost Bush the 1992 race? Probably not. Was Perot a Clintonist plot to cost Bush the 1992 race? Definitely not.

But read the exact wording of the claim carefully -- MY is not claiming Perot cost Bush the race, but rather that Perot was motivated to run (and act as a spoiler for Bush) knowing full well he would be a spoiler (just as Nadar knew full well his effect on the race would be to tip it away from Gore ... although Nadar also had the positive effect of getting liberal voters out to the polls, easing some Dem. victories in other races along).

Perot certainly would not have entered the race if he thought that his entry would cost Clinton the election. Read some about the recent history of Texas (Made in Texas by Michael Lind tells some of the story in bits and pieces): Perot hates the Bush family, and has many reasons to hate them. He certainly wanted Bush to loose ... he didn't want Clinton to loose (while Clinton and Perot disagreed about NAFTA, which was to be sure a big issue for Perot ... Clinton and Perot agreed about most everything else).

Perot didn't cost Bush the race. But Perot entered into the race figuring he'd more likely cost Bush the race than Clinton. He intended to be a spoiler ... more so maybe even than did Nadar. And that was MY's point, was it not?

Posted by DAS | October 4, 2007 5:17 PM

Dobson's op-ed reaffirmed something I've known since my childhood among the evangelicals in Georgia: the religious right will never, ever accept a pro-choice GOP nominee. Ever. If you think otherwise, you simply do not understand these people.

With such a prominent column, Dobson has thrown down: either Rudy publicly checks off the evagelicals' three boxes -- the overturning of Roe v. Wade, a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and a pledge to continue Bush's ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research -- or they'll mount a third-party challenge, or simply stay at home. They'd welcome a Hillary presidency over a pro-choice Republican president: it would allow them to reassert their power over the outcome of national elections (by handing it to a second President Clinton) as well as rekindle their personal sense of martyrdom, which they revel in.

The Dobson folks are holy warriors. They do not compromise on their core issues. Ever. Rudy should move South, attend an evagelical church for a few years, and then he'll learn who he's dealing with.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | October 4, 2007 5:27 PM

One of the lasting inaccuracies of Ross Perot's run was that he took down GWH Bush. The AP reported in 1992 according to a VRS study, 38% of Perot voters would've voted for Clinton and 37% for Bush had Perot not been in the race.

I know this is tangental to the Dobson discussion but this is an oft repeated canard that fits an anti-Clinton right wing narrative.

Posted by sluggo | October 4, 2007 5:28 PM

Rudy and Dobson will work something out, once/if he wins the nomination. Dobson would lose influence within the GOP if his going nuclear caused Hillary Clinton to become president. And it's not like Giuiliani has principles. They'll find some way to split the baby.

Posted by kth | October 4, 2007 6:15 PM

Dobson: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate.

Rudy: Since 9/11, I have pledged himself to the "sanctity of human life."

Posted by Econobuzz | October 4, 2007 6:52 PM

I think you are missing what Dobson is doing.

It's not a threat to Rudy inasmuch as it's a THREAT TO THE REST OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

You vote for Rudy, we take the whole thing down. It's the logic of Mutual Assured Destruction, my friends.

As conservative trainee Mitt Romney recently outlined them, there are three basic types of conservatives: defense, business, and social. Dobson is telling the other two groups that if they try to diminish the power/influence of his part of the party, then he's going to bring the whole house of cards crashing down.

Posted by ohiomeister | October 4, 2007 8:36 PM

Re: You're wrong about Perot.

well, except that before Perot re-entered the race in Sep of 92 Clinton was comfortably ahead of Bush. Perot did perform a vital function earlier in 92: he drew voters away from Bush and when he withdrew from the race many of those voters, convinced by Perot's critique of Bush, shifted over to Clinton. That is what put Clinton ahead and doomed Bush. But Perot's re-entry was not crucial to the final result. He drew back some of his least Clinton-friendly supporters (and of course took back some of those who had gravitated to Bush). But all he really did was deny Clinton a true majority of the popular vote, as again he did in 1996.

Re: The Dobson folks are holy warriors.

Maybe, but George W Bush has been their prophet for the last six years, the Lord's anointed. And I've seen signs that they care about the war on Islam (er, Terror) more than they care about domestic issues. Apostacy on the war equals heresy from the Bush party line, and that they will tolerate even less than a pro-Choice position. This is why so many congressional GOPers are still suporting Bush in lockstep, despite the fact that they are losing large numbers of their constituents: they fear primary challenges from these True Believers. The Religious Right may well grit their teeth and accept Giuliani if he promises to continue all Bush's major policies.

Posted by JonF | October 4, 2007 9:24 PM

Dobson has made these threats many times over the years. He's not going to abandon a grip on a major political party. He has no principles whatsoever. Like everything, this is about power and he wants to make sure the gop nominee - any gop nominee, regardless of their position on ANY issue- kisses his ring.

Posted by mark | October 4, 2007 9:29 PM

I don't think Perot's only negative effect on Bush Sr. consisted of the shifting votes.

At the time I felt that what Perot really had done was to have robbed Bush Sr. of much of his attempt to preserve a weakened conservative image. Perot's campaign undermined the image of Bush Sr. as the more fiscally responsible leader, and as the best representative of the values of hard-headed businessmen, to just note one set of tropes.

Of course, it's impossible to test the counterfactual -- Perot did run, he did campaign.

Posted by El_Cid | October 4, 2007 9:31 PM

Re: At the time I felt that what Perot really had done was to have robbed Bush Sr. of much of his attempt to preserve a weakened conservative image.

By co-opting much of the GOP-leaning center (especially the Reagan Democrats) Perot may also have forced Bush to move rightwards. Remember the vitriolic GOP convention of 92 showcasing the ranting Pats (Buchanan and Robertson) and all the culture war rhetoric? SoCons could not support Perot (he was pro-Choice) so they were the only significant constituency Bush could really count on. But by embracing the far Right Bush lost any possibility of appealing to the center, leaving it to Perot and, yes, to Clinton who famously dissed Sister Souljah in order to signal his own moderation.

Posted by Jonf | October 4, 2007 10:29 PM

Sloughing your losers

Running a third party candidate for President this year may simply be the best way for the wingnuts to help the Republican Party. Yes, a serious fundie third party run would definitely make it harder for the Republican candidate to win the Presidency. But perhaps they have already cut their losses on the Presidency. They figure it's unwinnable this cycle anyway, but perhaps down-ticket races can be saved if only they could keep their voters turning out despite the hopelessness of the Presidential race. So they run a wingnut candidate in the Presidential race to keep fundie turnout high enough that down-ticket races don't suffer. The added benefit is that the fundie leaders get to restore their credibility as ideological purists with their fundie followers. They take a holiday from following the Republican party line in a race that the Reps can't win this year anyway, and make a great show of independence by running their own Presidential candidate, the better to keep the troops of God in line for the party of Mammon the next time it might make a difference.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | October 5, 2007 12:23 AM

Two things to consider. First, it ain't JUST Dobson, it's a bunch of evangelical leaders. If Dobson unilaterally goes woobly, that gives the others an opportunity to poach some of his followers. Remember how Falwell faded from relevance (although the Beltway media was slow to notice) -- Dobson may well be more interested in being a kingmaker than a prophet (in the Biblical sense of "one who calls to repentance") but if he loses his prophet status the kingmaker goes out the window too.

Second, they can do the math. In a generic poll the Republican candidate trails the Democratic candidate substantially and has higher negatives than chlamydia-- 2008 is shaping up to be a great year for Democrats. If the Republicans lose in 2008 after the Dominionists get on board with the program, then everybody's a loser together. But if the evangelicals bail on the GOP over principles they can spend the next four years pointing out that 2008 is what you get when you don't toe the religious right's line, and make sure that the Republican candidate in 2012 is completely their man. Remember, in their minds it was their abandonment of George H. W. Bush that got them George W. Bush eight years later.

Frankly, I think the Dems win the White House either way-- but if the evangelicals sit this one out it has huge potential for us to make progress downballot. (Which is my own anti-electability argument for Hillary-- she's unfairly perceived as such the Antichrist that she could singlehandedly bring the evangelicals back to the polls just to vote against her, and the House and state legislatures would be more Republican as a result. Obama is more liberal than Hilary, but less polarizing, and his ability to use religious language like his "Joshua Generation" speech at Howard makes it harder for them to paint him as a Jesus-hating liberal.)

Posted by Dave Pooser | October 5, 2007 6:23 AM

Re: Remember, in their minds it was their abandonment of George H. W. Bush that got them George W. Bush eight years later.

The Religious Right did not abandon Bush 41 in 1992. They were in fact about his own solid constituency (see my post above).

Posted by JoNF | October 5, 2007 6:49 AM

On the news-go-round the other day, someone mentioned they might be grooming Tony Perkins as their candidate of "choice". Might prove interesting if true, and he certainly doesn't appear to be burdened by Dobson's "sunny" demeanor. Don't recall who said this, but if it was Chris Matthews, "you can take to the bank"...

Posted by Rihilism | October 5, 2007 8:58 AM

The numbers might prove me wrong, but I bet that in the end, it won't take a lot to really screw the Republicans. Imagine if just two or three percent of the electorate in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin, for instance, votes for a third party instead of the Republicans. The beauty is that this alone would almost make them sure to become sure things for the Democrats.

Posted by Brian | October 5, 2007 9:13 AM

Oh, come on. The evangos are not going to go with a third party candidate.

Maybe not, but if they're smart they will. If Rudy wins the nomination and they go third-party and cost him the presidency, you will never see another pro-choice Republican nominee again.

Whereas, if Rudy is nominated and wins, you could very well never see another anti-abortion nominee.

If I were an anti-choice lunatic, I would rather Hillary win than Rudy.

Posted by Jason C. | October 5, 2007 9:36 AM

Dobson imagines that he have control over vast amount of voters. However, check the polls and you find that A) the war against Islamofacism is the #1 issue with evangelicals and 2) they are going for Rudy, despite his social positions. This, of course, rather scares Dobson, so they launch this "test balloon" of a third party to try to push Evangelical voters away from Guliani. The hope is that leaders within the Megachurches will take their cue and start pushing their parishoners to vote a certain way, or (more probably) not vote at all.

Dobson has a lot less influence that everyone thinks; in fact i'd say that so-called "Values Voters" are much more sophisticated that portrayed in the MSM. There are a lot of Evangelicals (including myself) who are pissed that Dobson has run the movement into the ground with his very impatient and impertinent attitude towards the GOP at large. You can't get the sort of social change that Dobson wants through the Presidency (although the courts do matter), so don't put so much weight on this election.

If Dobson is successful enough in forcing a bocyott of the '08 election (which is where it would really go) and gets Hillary in there, Hillary will take the opportunity and use a combination of a Dem Congress, her own judges and Justice Dept, the MSM, and liberal interpretation of tax laws to shut down Evangelicals politically. Make no mistake - Both Clintons consider us their #1 domestic political target, and would take a political victory and twist it into a mandate to destroy the abilty of people of faith to have a say in American politics.

Posted by Shawn | October 5, 2007 1:17 PM