I seem to be the only liberal who thinks that James Dobson et. al. will probably follow through on their threat to sink Rudy Giuliani if he becomes the Republican nominee, but now we have Richard Viguerie chiming in with a similar threat. I think this business is real. If Giuliani wins the White House, the pro-life lobby will wind up looking like a paper tiger and nobody will pay them any mind in the future. The mere fact of a Democrat in the White House doesn't threaten their power nearly as much as a pro-choice Republican would.
« Default Rule | Main | A Stopped Clock is Wrong Many Times a Day »
More Threats
08 Oct 2007 01:54 pm
Comments (33)
If there's any time to do it, it's now. Their numbers are dwindling. In about 30 years, they're gonna look like the Temperance Party, so they need to act now to consolidate their power while they still have an issue which, while it's not a winning one, can still be a spoiler electorally.
Republicans do not give a hoot about '08.
Sure, they would like to win every election, but they are thinking long-term now and losing the presidency in '08 fits right in with what their long-term strategy.
They are sabotaging the legislative process through their obstructionism in the Senate. They are setting Iraq up so that it will be impossible to successfully resolve.
In fact, when Iraq blows up over the next 3-5 years, they will blame Democrats for the catastrophe. And the Democrat in the White House will get the most blame.
If they cannot have a pro-lifer carry their banner in '08, why not further insure that a Democratic president and Democrats in general get blamed for the mess Republicans created? And then swoop down in 2012, recapture their party and save the country from the incompetent, ineffective Democrats.
Running a 3rd party candidate to throw the election to the Dems fits right in with everything else they are doing now.
What is really funny is that Democrats do not see the train barreling down the tracks, right at them.
Whenever I see Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, I cannot help but think of the Three Stooges.
I gotta humbly disagree with you gregor. I think that Dobson, Perkins, et al., are just crazy enough to imagine themselves as "saviors" unwilling to compromise their "beliefs".
It may not result in a mass exodus (pa, dum, dum, chee!) of their followers from the GOP, but a number of defections to a third party could cost any Republican the election given the current margins.
I'm sure Dobson et al will follow through on the threat, but I'm not sure many voters will be swayed to their cause. Still, as close as 2000 and 2004 were, 5% could be huge.
I gotta humbly disagree with you, too, frankie d. I think you give the Republicans far to much credit.
No, I think Matt's probably got this right - to an extent. The Viguries and Dobsons maintain power within the GOP based on the perception that the party can't win without their constituencies onboard. If a GOP candidate can win without them, what exactly do these guys have left? Nada. They'd be utterly bereft politically - stuck outside both tents with nowhere to piss. Which is exactly why they're resorting to outright threats. At the same time, losing is odious and they need more than anything to be seen as power brokers to whom attention must be paid. I'm betting they'd be mollified enough by a Giuliani/Santorum ticket to keep their people in line.
Giving credence to your theory (though I'm still not sure), such a plan might help delegitmize the Democratic President. If the Constitution party candidate and the GOP hold the Democrat under 50%, Mitch McConnell gets to reprise Bob Dole's role.
But who would be the Christian candidate? Not Giuliani. Not McCain, for sure. Not Romney, the pagan. They need a plausible standard-bearer, but since Santorum/Frist/Allen dematerialized, I don't see who it would be.
I think Matt's right. Most of the Republican establishment is happy to pay lip service to anti-abortion causes while actually being more interested in maintaining political power than achieving any results. But there's a hard core that will follow Dobson off the electoral cliff if the GOP nominates someone the religious Right doesn't trust on abortion.
I would hazard a guess that this group is smaller than the 19% who went for Perot in '92, but considerably larger than the Nader contingent from 2000.
Of course, Giuliani is probably savvy enough to sign some meaningless pledge to appease these people while maintaining his moderate image in public, and the media are unlikely to hold his feet to the fire and force him to pick a side, but one can hope.
The problem that Dobson et al. face is that a large section of the 'values voter' crowd is also the 'we don't know much about Giuliani, but we do know he kept the n*****s in line' crowd.
It's slightly scary to say this, but the obvious way for the self-appointed moral guardians of the GOP to delegitimise Giuliani isn't via abortion, but via the red nativist rag of immigration.
It pains me to give the Republicans credit, because I think they are, and have been since the '60's, destroying our country.
But in terms of political strategy, Republicans are playing chess while Dems play checkers. It is not even close.
Look at what they did in the '90's. From the moment Clinton assumed the presidency they attacked him. And ultimately impeached him. They probably knew that the odds of actually throwing out of office for any of the minor things they tarred him with were not very high, but they did it for tactical reasons. And ultimately, those small, somewhat irrelevant matters morphed into Ken Starr and an impeachment by the House. And they knew that they did not have the Senate votes to convict him but they went ahead anyway. (I think they had 55 GOP Senators at that time.)
The result?
They keep the 2000 election close enough to they can steal it.
As a direct result of these "scandals" Al Gore felt (erroneously, I thought) that he had to distance himself from Clinton. And instead of running his 2000 election campaign as a "3rd Clinton term" he had to distance himself from a very popular and successful president.
And even now, there is a hesitation on the part of Dems to fully embrace the Clinton years.
The Repubs delegitimized Clinton's successes and made it difficult for Dems to run on what should be a shining Democratic legacy.
Contrast that tendency with how Republicans have re-written history and turned Reagan's years back into "morning in america". So successfully that even Democratic politicians routinely pay homage to what is an utter and complete myth.
If you don't think the Republicans are not thinking way ahead of the Dems, you haven't been paying attention to the last 20 years.
Yglesias is absolutely, undeniably right about this. The worst thing that could happen to Dobson et al is for a pro-choice Republican to win the presidency, especially in an election that the conventional wisdom says a Republican has no business winning.
If Rudy wins the general, it will be almost impossible not to conclude that his "moderate" social positions were the deciding factor, especially if he manages to flip a blue state or two.
Remember, too, that if Rudy wins, there will be not one but two election cycles which do not include an anti-abortion candidate. By 2016, it will have been over a decade since a major party even ran an anti-abortion candidate.
That scenario would come very close to guaranteeing the permanent irrelevance of the anti-choice movement. They just can't risk it.
It's not just you -- I think so too, and for just this reason:
If Giuliani wins the White House, the pro-life lobby will wind up looking like a paper tiger and nobody will pay them any mind in the future. The mere fact of a Democrat in the White House doesn't threaten their power nearly as much as a pro-choice Republican would.
It's a mistake to think these people care all that much about the Republican Party. They care -- whether their true motives are policy- or power-motivated -- about their faction, and the extent to which the machinery of the Republican Party can help it. A Giuliani win doesn't help their faction, and hurts their ability to take advantage of the GOP generally.
"If you don't think the Republicans are not thinking way ahead of the Dems, you haven't been paying attention to the last 20 years."
I don't disagree, but I also believe there's a cyclical nature to political dynamics that exists with or without Karl Rove's "math".
I also take heart knowing that despite the structural limitations, poor leadership and self immolation within the Democratic Party and the vast sums of money, homogenius population, and race to to bottom political style of the Republican Party, they were still only smart enough to "win" two squeekers in the last seven years.
Their "skills" and intellegence are highly overated.
Matt is indeed absolutely right, and I join him in my surprise that more's not being made of this. I still feel like Giuliani, in fact, can't even win the nomination given what's going to be arrayed against him once the voting starts. Romney has the money, the demeanor and the leads in Iowa and New Hampshire--if he holds on, I don't think Giuliani has a chance. What people forget about Giuliani's so-called Northeastern strongholds is that people do not like him here. Given a viable alternative, they'll throw Rudy over in a heartbeat.
Where is the evidence that Guiliani will nominate judges who are any less hostile to abortion rights than Romney, Thompson, or Huckabee? As far as I can tell any of these men would nominate the same ultraconservative, anti-Roe radicals to the nation's highest courts.
Does Dobson really think theocrat voters would vote for his handpicked 3rd party candidate over the Republican and likely give the Democrat an easier road to election? He's crying wolf. He's got nowhere to go. And even if he did bolt the GOP, that would be the best thing that happened to them in a long time and could be the one thing that could allow the elephants to stop their party's slide into radical theocratic irrelevance.
"If Giuliani wins the White House, the pro-life lobby will wind up looking like a paper tiger and nobody will pay them any mind in the future"
I think Yglesias is basically right in this calculation, however the pro-life lobby is a paper tiger. The only thing worse then a GOP pro-choice victory would a third party bid that had no real impact. This isn't 2000 the margins might be fairly large and I don't know who they could get to run that could any votes. If Giuliani loses they could always advance the idea that the GOPs core supporters stayed home, but that excuse would be imperiled by having a third party candidate that doesn't get any votes either
Dobson's a clown. Yes, he has some influence, but not enough. He's irrelevant to Republican chances.
Dobson absolutely has to follow through on his threat. You can't make a bluff like that and then not follow through. If he backs down and supports Guiliani then The Republican party will no longer have a pro-life litmus test and Dobson's influence is gone.
Rihilism,
Close only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades.
A win is a win.
Also, I really don't attribute their success to intelligence or skills.
I think they are successful simply because they are willing to do certain things that Democrats cannot bring themselves to do.
They are willing to fight as brutally and dishonestly as need be. For whatever reason, Dems simply cannot or will not respond in kind.
Growing up in the City of Detroit back in the day, I saw plenty of fist fights on the streets. (Now they use guns.) But back then, most times, the guy who was willing to pick up a brick or a bat or anything handy and fight dirty won the fight. He may not have been as brave or as good a fighter as the other guy but he was certainly willing to fight dirty.
And that guy usually won.
Oh yea...after a very short time, no one even remembered that he'd fought dirty to win.
All they remembered or talked about was the fact that he won the fight.
Dems still refuse to fight dirty. That's a big part of why they continue to get their butts kicked.
If there's any time to do it, it's now. Their numbers are dwindling.
How's that again? Once the kids from families with six children each grow up...
"Dems still refuse to fight dirty. That's a big part of why they continue to get their butts kicked."
No argument here. But, there's dirty, and then there's "dirty". Some of what the Republicans are willing to do, I can not in good conscience do and still stay true to my beliefs.
"Dobson's a clown. Yes, he has some influence, but not enough. He's irrelevant to Republican chances."
Just Dobson, then yes, I agree. But they had that "brain trust" meeting with Perkins, Bauer, and the other assorted "holy rollers". One must sympathize with the stenographer once they began speaking in tongues....
Some of what the Republicans are willing to do, I can not in good conscience do and still stay true to my beliefs.
Unfortunately, that is exactly what Republicans count on.
That is why they continually up the ante, understanding fully that Dems will respond in exactly that fashion.
See: Swift Boat ads, Osama/Max Cleland ads, etc...
Everyone has to be comfortable with their own sense of what is right and what is wrong, but one must simply understand that in order to win, one must sometimes do distasteful things. If the other side leaves you no choice.
In our current political environment, I don't think Republicans give Dems much choice.
Dobson is a republican operative. He's not going to torpedo the gop nominee. He's not a man of principle. He'll continue to work to build his influence in the party. He's made these declarations many times.
Third party bids are really difficult without tons of money, and the pro-lifers don't have it. Who could be a charismatic standard bearer? I'm sure Alan Keyes is available, but he seems a laughing stock even to those who agree with him. Someone credible like Brownback would never leave the party. If Matt could come up with some plausible names, who would be exciting and interesting to pro-lifers (and even conservatives who don't want a Podhoretzian foreign policy) it could be worth talking about. Buchanan of course might be perfect, except he's done it already once too often, is in his late sixties. . .
I find it odd that frankie d can be so hectoring about this topic in the face of the biggest swing against the Republicans in decades. They certainly didn't hold back in 2006. Did they plan that too? Did they plan to have Allen taken out? And Santorum? And Frist?
I'll make you a deal. If the GOP take two of Pres, Senate, House in 2008, we'll listen to you all day. Until then, it's just weirdly defeatist, as though you can't absorb the fact that Dems are winning.
This idea that the religious right will field a third party candidate if Rudy wins the nomination is silly on it's face. Do they have an organization lined up to get this supposed candidate on the ballot in all 50 states? No? Do they at least have a candidate? No again? Sorry, talk is cheap. Show me an organization behind the rhetoric and I'll start taking it seriously.
Another quibble though. It's been said here that Republicans are far ahead of Democrats in terms of
strategy. Dem's need not worry. Simply put, Clinton's do not lose elections. Period. The Republicans last beat a candidate named Clinton in Arkansas in 1980. Democrats might not know how to be beat Republicans at election strategy but the Clintons most certainly do. If the wingnuts think they can lie their way to the White House again in '12 against an incumbent Hillary, they have not been paying attention.
Winning? Winning what?
They pass legislation that allows the government to spy on us all.
They vote to allow our government to torture suspects and hold them without filing charges.
Our three leading presidential candidates are too afraid to say that they will pull troops out of Iraq before the end of their first term.
This administration simply refuses to honor subpoenas issued by congressional committees and Dems simply say never mind.
Dems allow racist judges like Southwick of Mississippi to sneak out of a committee they allegedly control.
Dems are too afraid to say no to any request for military expenditures and Bush knows this and therefore keeps asking for more and more money, knowing Dems are going to cave and simply give him as much as he wants for as long as he wants.
Democrats are afraid to use congressional procedural rules to their advantage while Republicans use any rule or means available to accomplish whatever they deem important.
I've been voting for Dems since McGovern in '72.
I hope and pray that Dems get it together and do what is necessary to solidify their gains.
What I see, however, is a Democratic party that is cautiously trying to back into a Congressional majority that will allow them to govern.
And while they are doing that, Republicans are doing what is necessary to use whatever strength they have to accomplish their goals. And they are regrouping and getting ready to come back at the Dems. Get ready for the push back.
I'll give Dems credit when they actually start accomplishing important things.
Like ending the war. Providing all Americans with health care. Reforming the tax code so that it does not simply benefit the rich and corporations. Passing election reform so that our current system of legalized bribery is a sad note in history. Pushing forward on congressional subpeonas so that the GOP's rampant criminality can be exposed.
Having meaningless House votes that lead nowhere is just that: meaningless.
They can "win" all the seats they want, but until they develop a core a set of values, a backbone, ideas they will actually fight for, and actually fight for them, what does it mean?
As I have maintained several times, the Theocrats are the remnant of the Dixie wing of the party (once upon a time, of the Dem but today the Repub party). To predict their behavior, you have to think of them as heirs of BobJones and StromThurmond. They will happily destroy the Repub party so that they will be the sole owners of it's ruins. They believe in the righteousness of their cause and that today's defeat is transient because God will in His good time give them victory, if they keep the true faith.
I am not making this up. You pretty much have to be born and raised a Southerner and Fundamentalist (as I have the honor) to realize how serious they are. To the theocrats this is not a ploy or gambit (to use the chess analogy) it is how God wants them to behave. If they 'compromise' their principles they expect God to withhold his blessings on their cause.
Southerners love a lost cause anyhow. Down here there is a particular intonation we give to the word "we" that still refers to the Confederacy and the Army of Northern Virginia.
"They will happily destroy the Repub party so that they will be the sole owners of it's ruins."
Though not a Southerner, I concur. And this is not just wishful thinking.
"Show me an organization behind the rhetoric and I'll start taking it seriously."
Not trying to be snotty when I ask you, "You are kidding, right?"
"Do they at least have a candidate?" I've mentioned in previous posts that I think they're grooming Tony Perkins.
Now, of course, this is speculation and life's full of suprises, but I pray everyday to the Lord Jesus that it is true...
Not about the Presidential race
Yes, most likely this talk by the fundies of running their own candidate for Preznit is just bluster designed to convince Republican primary voters that they shouldn't support Giuliani because he's unelectable because they will bolt if he's the nominee.
But their actually running their own candidate wouldn't be a bad idea for them, or the Republican Party. It doesn't just look like the Repugs will lose the WH race this year, but that it won't even be particularly close. If it isn't at least close in the polls on Election Day, many fundies will not bother to vote. If it isn't even close three weeks ahead, many won't help their GOTV. And if it isn't close months ahead, many won't be out IDing voters. Now, none of this matters for the Presidential race, because, in this scenario, that is lost anyway. But the depressed turnout of their voters, and desertions from what is usually the army of ground troops the fundies provide them for GOTV, could turn what already looks like a tough year for Repugs down-ticket into a rout. And their team is in huge trouble if they get below filibuster level in the Senate, or too low to win any votes in the House even with Blue Dog defections, or they lose even more state houses and state legislatures, what with the census and redistricting coming up. But they can keep their voters going to the polls, and their volunteers out GOTVing, if they have their own fundie party running a candidate for Preznit. Yes, their votes, and their canvassing, for the fundie candidate will be wasted, but the Republican isn't winning the WH this cycle anyway. And while they're in that voting booth voting, or pounding the pavement canvassing, for a lost-cause third-party Presidential candidate, they will be pounding the pavement or pulling the lever for many downticket Republican candidates whose causes are lost only if these people stay home because they have no stake in the Presidential race. If the Republican Presidential candidate can't be their personal stake, because he has no chance and doesn't represent their fundie beliefs, the fundie leaders will give them a third party fundie to be that stake, and thereby rescue the party from down-ticket disaster.
You will be able to tell that this is a true schism in the Party if the fundie third party runs its own candidates down-ticket as well as for Preznit. If they do run folks down-ticket, they're serious about revolting from the party of Mammon. If not, this is just another example of indirectly expressed loyalty to the Republican Party, similar to the "tactical voting" you see them organize often in local Democratic primaries.
A third party bid might even be good politics. If the presidential candidate is going to lose anyway, a third party ultraconservative might boost their turnout. This could aid the Republicans in state and local races.
Comments closed October 22, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I humbly beg to differ.
Republicans are so drunk on power that they will do anything to get the Presidency, even if it means voting for the devil incarnate if he somehow wins the nomination.
Posted by gregor | October 8, 2007 2:13 PM