Traditionalists Versus Giuliani

More talk of a Republic split if Rudy Giuliani becomes the Republican nominee:

“He’s stated a pro-abortion-rights position,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative group. “There is nothing more fundamental to social conservatives than the preservation of human life. Right behind that is the issue of marriage, which he is vulnerable on. It gives social conservatives very little to be motivated.”

Frighteningly, Giuliani's best hope of holding the party together is to try to stoke the flames of clash-of-civilizations type thinking, turning the "war on terror" into a Christian ersatz crusade.

Comments

Probably the most dangerous man to run for President since Goldwater.

Posted by Northern Observer | October 17, 2007 4:26 PM

Northern Observer proves that a dishonest campaign ad can influence perceptions four decades later. Had Goldwater been elected, we wouldn't have had to wait until the early 80's for the great boom unleashed by Reagan's tax cuts.

Here's an idea: maybe the anti-abortion hardliners and the anti-war hardliners can form a third party. Certainly the anti-war part of the Dem base can't be happy with Hillary's prediction of U.S. troops in Iraq in 2013.

Posted by Juan | October 17, 2007 4:36 PM

I have no interest in involving myself in an internecine sectarian conflict for which there is no military solution.

Seriously though, I don't think democrats need to intervene here. The Giuliani candidacy will either die in utero or kill the party that attempts to carry it to term. It is not fit for this world.

Posted by southpaw | October 17, 2007 4:48 PM

Here's an idea: maybe the anti-abortion hardliners and the anti-war hardliners can form a third party.

You mean like the Reform Party?

Posted by Monty | October 17, 2007 4:50 PM

So, 1) Conservatives are angry at Giuliani because he violates the most fundamental tenet of social conservatism, the preservation of human life, but 2) Giuliani can overcome this, to a certain extent, by implying that he'll kill a lot of people.

Posted by Julian Elson | October 17, 2007 4:55 PM

This is an interesting point and considering how tepid the enthusiasm is for the Republican candidates to-date, I'd like to see what Giuliani's actual favorability ratings are.

On the Democratic side, whoever wins with nomination can pretty much depend on enthusiastic support in the general election. This doesn't seem true for the Republicans.

Posted by Jinchi | October 17, 2007 4:57 PM

Had Goldwater been elected, we wouldn't have had to wait until the early 80's for the great boom unleashed by Reagan's tax cuts

Strange notions of economic history. The early 60's, when Goldwater ran, were boom times. The early 80's, in contrast, were hard times for a lot of people, with disasterous inflation being brought under control only at the cost of sky-high interests rates and widespread unemployment. Reagan's tax cuts just made things worse--the last thing the economy needed was for the government to be running record deficits.

Posted by rea | October 17, 2007 5:28 PM

Gosh darn it, I could have sworn I closed italics there somewhere . . .

Posted by rea | October 17, 2007 5:30 PM

This is wishful thinking. The percentage of Republicans who will not vote for the Republican if Rudy is nominee is no different than if McCain is nominee or Thompson is nominee, and it is significantly less than if Romney is nominee.

Specifically, USAT/Gallup asked the following in its latest poll:

3. (Asked of Republicans and independents who lean to the Republican Party) If the following wins the Republican nomination for president, which would best describe your reaction -- you would vote for him enthusiastically in November 2008, you would vote for him, but mainly as a vote against the Democrat,

BASED ON 411 REPUBLICANS AND REPUBLICAN LEANERS

2007 Oct 12-14 (sorted by "vote for enthusiastically") Vote for enthusiastic-ally Vote for, mainly against the Democrat Vote for the Democrat Stay home, not vote No opinion

Rudy Giuliani 51 27 6 9 8
John McCain 38 37 5 10 10
Fred Thompson 37 30 5 11 17
Mitt Romney 25 38 9 13 17

link

As you can see, 15% threaten to bolt if Rudy is nominee, which is the same as would happen if McCain or Fred is nominee, and less than the 22% who would bolt if Romney iss.

Posted by Al | October 17, 2007 5:35 PM

The reality is that Republican voters, historically, are more motivated to vote against Democratic Nominee X than they are to support Republican Nominee Y.

To put it another way, Republicans are simply better at hate campaigns than Democrats. Rove understood that.

Posted by Monty | October 17, 2007 5:51 PM

The reality is that Republican voters, historically, are more motivated to vote against Democratic Nominee X than they are to support Republican Nominee Y.

In 2004, the exact opposite was the case. Bush voters were almost all voting for Bush rather than against Kerry. Kerry voters, however, were about equally likely to be voting anti-Bush as pro-Kerry.

Posted by Al | October 17, 2007 5:59 PM

"On the Democratic side, whoever wins with nomination can pretty much depend on enthusiastic support in the general election. This doesn't seem true for the Republicans."

That's probably because your frontrunners aren't a trio of NRA life members with a history of trying to sue abortion clinics into bankruptcy, when they're not working pro bono for the Right to Work movement. Wait until your party's leaders decide to run an experiment to see how many factions of the base they can piss off without the party falling apart, and we'll see how much enthusiasm you can muster.

Frankly, the GOP's only chance of not going down the tubes is if the three frontrunners auger in as soon as party members get a chance to actually vote.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | October 17, 2007 6:02 PM

Frankly, the only chance Republicans have at pulling out a win in 2008 is for the Democrats to nominate Ms. Clinton.

Posted by Splinter | October 17, 2007 6:44 PM

Or maybe if Colbert wins South Carolina . . .

Posted by southpaw | October 17, 2007 7:18 PM

Re: Frighteningly, Giuliani's best hope of holding the party together is to try to stoke the flames of clash-of-civilizations type thinking, turning the "war on terror" into a Christian ersatz crusade.

I don't see that happening for the simple reason that it flies in the face of the long-time allience of the GOP with the Arab world powers-that-be, like the Saudis. That's largely why Bush and even Cheney at his worst sings the "Islam is a religion of peace" hymn even while proving that America is not a nation of peace. Giuliani is just as busy sucking on those teats also to want to upset the apple cart just to pander to the likes of Dobson and Perkins. Moreover those types wouldn't accept him even if he donned knight's armor, stood under a cross banner and shouted Deus Vult!

Posted by Jonf | October 17, 2007 7:36 PM

Isn't the traditionalist position on abortion that it is technically illegal but de facto available, sometimes, by no means always, with a significant degree of danger to the health and future fertility of the woman? Plus that the final decision depends on the young man's future not the young lady's wishes?

At least that's what it was when I was young. By that standard Rudy is almost certainly the most traditionalist.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | October 17, 2007 8:02 PM

There is nothing more fundamental to social conservatives than the preservation of human life.

I'm sure Perkins could get more fundamental than that. What about obedience to God? If God ordered Perkins to take a life, would he do it? (And don't say God never would, because it's all over the Bible.)

Posted by Grumpy | October 17, 2007 8:55 PM

In 2004, the exact opposite was the case. Bush voters were almost all voting for Bush rather than against Kerry.

Right. They loved his performance in the debates.

If we are talking abou Giuliani, let's not forget the Giuliani theme song:

"Oh, he'll kill the sand-n****rs and that's good enough for me!"

Posted by Glaivester | October 18, 2007 1:40 AM

Pro life right up until the moment of birth. After that, fuck em.

Posted by merlallen | October 18, 2007 2:28 AM