Will Rudy Split The GOP?

Borger: Giuliani's Social Views Could Spur Mass Defections If He's The Nominee

(US News)  This news analysis was written by CBS News correspondent and U.S. News & World Report columnist Gloria Borger.

---

It's a coalition that has long been the envy of the Democratic Party: the dependable Republican conglomerate of fiscal, social, and national security conservatives. The unity of GOP Inc. has been the key to electoral success, and Republicans know it. Only now, the once predictable alliance is on the verge of unraveling, largely because of one unruly presidential candidate — Rudy Giuliani.

He's pro-abortion rights, pro-gun control, and pro-gay civil rights. He's been married three times and is publicly feuding with his children. And, by the way, he's in the top tier in the polls.

All of which is enough to drive social conservatives crazy. Never mind that some fiscal conservatives respect Giuliani; in fact, the conservative Club for Growth last week gave him a rave review on his business record as New York City's mayor. That didn't stop the party's cultural warriors from grousing loudly.

"Economic conservatives seem to be saying we're codependent on them, saying our issues are not important," sniffs Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a large Christian conservative group. "They seem to think we'll fall in line and support their candidate. Well, they're wrong. ... We have a lot of places to go. We can go shopping."

That's not an empty threat if you're a member of the Giuliani camp. After all, your candidate invested a bunch of time in trying to convince his more religious brethren that he's at least acceptable. What about federal judges? He says he'd appoint "strict constructionists," which is a backdoor way of winking at the antiabortion forces. And about a month ago, at the first GOP presidential debate, he simply shrugged when asked how he would feel if Roe v. Wade were repealed. That would be "OK," he said; then again, he added, it would be "OK" if it remained on the books, too.

Giuliani finally decided to come clean and look a tad less craven — stating his pro-abortion rights views as a natural extension of the nation's "big tent" social agenda. "There are people, millions and millions of Americans, who are of as good conscience as we are, who make a different choice about abortion," he said during yet another GOP debate in South Carolina. "You can respect other people's views on this."

At least that's what Rudy hopes. His supporters figure the leadership he showed on 9/11 gives him the all-important national security cred. If he's accepted by economic conservatives, they argue, all he needs is some evangelical support and he's got a chance. The bet is that social conservatives care about issues other than abortion. That's the test, says an unaffiliated GOP operative: "As these voters mature, they may also get more incremental. If the candidate supports 80 percent of what you want, maybe you can just swallow and go with it."

Not if you're James Dobson, the head of the religious conservatives in Focus on the Family. Even beyond abortion, he considers Rudy to be, well, immoral, and, worst of all, "the darling of the media." Giuliani's private life, Dobson says, is a disqualifier.

"Unlike some other Republican presidential candidates, Giuliani appears not to have remorse for cheating on his wife." (Paging Newt Gingrich, who at least apologized for his philandering!) Dobson even posted a clear signal to his flock: "I cannot — and will not — vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008."

Indeed, he adds, if the choice is between either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani, "I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran or... not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life."

That kind of threat is a killer. Cultural conservatives may account for as much as 40 percent of the GOP primary vote, and Perkins warns they're not party loyalists. "The emerging generation doesn't have a special affinity for the Republican Party," he says. "They came into politics out of a concern for the preservation of human life, and they will never put that aside."

Surely that factored into Mitt Romney's decision a couple of years ago to change his pro-abortion rights position to antiabortion, no matter what he says now. After all, social conservatives are key to the Republican base — and possibly one quarter of the vote in the general election. "Rudy splits the coalition in the most fundamental way imaginable," says a Romney strategist. "Without social conservatives, we are a minority party."

Unless, of course, Republicans decide there's something more important than orthodoxy. Like getting elected.

[cozzicon]

"Christian faith shouldn't be removed from anything. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."-- Posted by bsrasmus

Alternatively, fear of the ignorant... is at least as wise.

God Bless.

[cozzicon]

And just because it's a great quote:

"The Founding Fathers were neither passive, death-worshiping mystics nor mindless, power-seeking looters; as a political group, they were a phenomenon unprecedented in history: they were thinkers who were also men of action. They had rejected the soul-body dichotomy, with its two corollaries: the impotence of man's mind and the damnation of this earth; they had rejected the doctrine of suffering as man's metaphysical fate, they proclaimed man's right to the pursuit of happiness and were determined to establish on earth the conditions required for man's proper existence, by the "unaided" power of their intellect."
-- Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual

[cozzicon]

"No, the founding fathers didn't separate church from the state. They separated the state from the church. Faith in Christ was assumed in everything they did."-- Posted by bsrasmus

"But the most dangerous Hypocrite in a Common-Wealth, is one who leaves the Gospel for the sake of the Law: A Man compounded of Law and Gospel, is able to cheat a whole Country with his Religion, and then destroy them under Colour of Law: And here the Clergy are in great Danger of being deceiv'd, and the People of being deceiv'd by the Clergy, until the Monster arrives to such Power and Wealth, that he is out of the reach of both, and can oppress the People without their own blind Assistance."
-- Benjamin Franklin, comparing the politicized clergyman with the regular clergyman, a thing which a few have ventured to do in recent times (Ahem!), quoted in The New England Currant (July 23, 1722), "Silence Dogood, No. 9; Corruptio optimi est pessima." quoted from The History Carper

[cozzicon]

"No, the founding fathers didn't separate church from the state. They separated the state from the church. Faith in Christ was assumed in everything they did."-- Posted by bsrasmus

"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."
-- George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792, quoted from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom, also James A Haught, 2000 Years of Disbelief

[cozzicon]

"No, the founding fathers didn't separate church from the state. They separated the state from the church. Faith in Christ was assumed in everything they did."-- Posted by bsrasmus

I'll assume you have simply deceived yourself:

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient allies."
-- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assemby, June 20, 1785

[bigal321321]

Rudy and Mitt is the only GOP guys I would even consider as I am a Democrat. Why? They trying thier best to keep religion out of this election. It doesn't even belong in politics. That's why the founding fathers seperated church and state. When you vote for a candidate your choice should NOT be decided by any religious belief, either yours or his. It should be decided by which person can do the best job for our country.

[tumbleweedin]

With RON PAUL leading in many of the on line polls like he is, I doubt Rudy will even be a factor this fall. My question is, why isn't the mainstream media reporting the truth about who is winning their own polls? Like this one...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18436681/from/ET/.....and / or this one...http://abcnews.go.com/politics/beseenbeheard/popup?id=3135373&POLL288=4000000......cut and paste, and then ask yourself (WHY?).

[kansas1946]

I'm pro-choice and I still wouldn't vote for Rudy. Actually, I don't think that there is a Republican so far that has a prayer in 2008. The Republican party is in disarray, so if the Democrats can hold it together and not act like idiots as they are wont to do, I think they have it cinched. Of course, in politics, as in life, anything can happen in a year and a half.

[cozzicon]

"I will not vote for a candidate that supports abortion. Period. Ever. Many Christians join me in that conviction. Call that "religion in politics" if you want, but that's never going to change. Law is inherently based on values. If our values are not from God then our values are worthless. Faithful Christians will not forsake the values found in Scripture. And they won't renouce Christ when they step into the voting booth, either.
Posted by bsrasmus at 03:45 PM : Jun 04, 2007"

I disagree.

Law is based on compromise that allows all people in a diverse society the maximum liberty at the lowest cost. At least this is the democratic ideal.

What you are talking about is evangelism, and the imposition of your values on other's that do not share them.

On wedge issues like abortion, most people in the country hold to the view that it should be legal in limited ways, or not legislated at all. That view, since God hasn't appeared lately to impose a ruling that a clump of cells is a human, is the least limiting in the liberty department.

But we cannot achieve those compromises with what the conservative church teaches these days about political activism. You view it as a victory- I view it as political fascism.

Abortion kills a beating heart? Well so does the death penalty and "God hates a hypocrite".

[gunownerdan]

Rudy Giuliani doesn't stand a chance against Dr. Ron Paul!

[acauble1]

bsrasmus:

Hopefully some day... some way... religion will be seperated from politics. (I hope).

Those commandments that the "religious" folk hear, telling them to vote for a particular candidate or to allign themselves with a particular political party is simply the Devil trying to push his/hers/its own agenda.

Politics is about lies, deceit, and self-centered agendas. Those are all characteristics of Satan.

God is above politics.

[cozzicon]

"What faithful Christian has ever claimed that they were willing to compromise rather than obey God? Your point apparently is that faithful Christians value obedience to God over winning elections. In that case, you are right.
Posted by bsrasmus at 02:28 AM : Jun 04, 2007"

Again, you solidify my point.

[cozzicon]

"It doesn't matter in the slightest to me if people are sick of dealing with God-fearing men and women." -- Posted by bsrasmus

Absolutely... you made my point.

[cozzicon]

"Eventually one of the parties will nominate a candidate that Christians will be able to support without betraying God. We make up about a quarter of the electorate. One of the parties is going to need us.
Posted by bsrasmus at 12:37 AM : Jun 04, 2007"


Oh the irony.

I highly doubt that you can offend God by voting for a good administrative manager. Which is what these politicians should be doing- running the country.

Your 25% injects so many wedge issues into the fray, and issues that should have never ever been legislated, that our system is bogged down by divisive issues that have little to do with running the country.

Your pundits call other AMERICANS "Godless" and "Mentally Ill".

Though, the wedge issues, have a lot to do with exhibiting control over other people's rights. And even more to do with righteous absolutism.

These issues have to do with an opinion held by 25% of our population, and you hold the rest of us hostage with it. You have also controlled a formerly effective political party with the same issues.

You can believe what you want. The only problem is that your political actions take those same choices away from the other 75% of the American public. Who by the way, have never imposed themselves upon you.

If you wish to not be disenfranchised when people get sick of dealing with you. I'd suggest you defend other people's rights, as strongly as you protect your own.

That in my mind would be far more productive.

[acauble1]

Go Rudy! Heck, I'll vote for him in the primary if he keeps the crackpots away from the polls! "Divide and conquer..."
Posted by nmsuip at 06:36 PM : Jun 03, 2007
.............


Absolutely! We need to make the "christian" conservatives a minority in the GOP as they were over 30 to 40 years ago during the days of Barry Goldwater conservatism Let's show the "religious" right that THE CONSTITUTION IS THE RULE OF THE LAND, NOT THE BIBLE! (Or any holy book for that matter)!

[gordon.couger]

I was a conservative democrat most of my life until the liberals took that party. Now the religious right has taken the republican party. I don't like that either.

Its not the religious right or the liberals fault my political parties were ripe for picking it is mine and people like me that can't bother ourselves with taking care of our country's business and tend to our politics.

If we can't whip the religious right in line and make them toe the mark an eat a candidate more geared to the ideal of the everyday person maybe the democrats can after they have a few years of the extreme side of their party in charge.

If we want a sane government sane people have to get involved on the local party level and fix thing from the bottom up and throw the rascal we have in there now out.

Gordon

[nmsuip]

"...Dobson even posted a clear signal to his flock: 'I cannot %u2014 and will not %u2014 vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008.'

Indeed, he adds, if the choice is between either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani, 'I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran or... not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life.'"

Go Rudy! Heck, I'll vote for him in the primary if he keeps the crackpots away from the polls! "Divide and conquer..."

[sparks224]

I just want to see what the Republicans new cheating scheme will be for this election. It%u2019s like waiting for the new car models to come out.

[pollroller1]

At first I didn't Rudy, but I'm starting to change my mind.

[cozzicon]

"The good news is, Bush CAN'T run again. So it can only be better for us in the future." --Posted by willia451

Please forgive my tinfoil hat here:

He can't run again, but he can try to "not leave". And considering how weak the GOP is right now...

Well.. I've always been afraid that he would not leave office. Some executive order, some wizbang constitutional interpretation by his Attorney General, or some "catastrophe" might be used to keep him in office.

Luckily, I do not think the military, the public, or congress would allow this to happen at this point.

But the idea still sends *shivers* down my spine. I would put nothing past our current president- who by Watergate standards should have been impeached years ago.