??????? As some of us have expressed concern over and predicted, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins tells Susan Page of USA Today that conservative Christian leaders are prepared to mobilize against Mayor Rudy Giuliani should his 2008 presidential campaign gain traction in the Republican primary. Perkins deems Mayor Giuliani “unacceptable” as a?GOP presidential nominee.
This?potential, and I would argue inevitable, scenario is?reminiscent?of the press conference many of these same conservative organizational leaders?held in 1995 to savage the ideology of Colin Powell?after the former general came out with his memoirs, made public the fact that he was a Republican, and admitted that he was thinking about running for president in 1996.
I am not sure there is anything Mayor Giuliani can do to placate these conservative special interest groups. But I think there is a real question whether the general membership of these conservative organizations agree with their leaders about whether Mayor Giuliani is an acceptable Republican nominee given his more liberal views on some social issues. Polling data seems to indicate that plenty of conservatives could, if not actively do now, support Mayor Giuliani for president.
February 1st, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Not too surprising. The AFA is targeting Romney, and Focus on the Family is hostile to McCain.
What makes 2008 unique is that all of the frontrunners have their problems with these groups, which will have the overall effect of lessening the impact to all.
February 1st, 2007 at 8:13 pm
These people are growing more & more irrelevant. McCain to told them to stick in 2000, Rudy is ignoring them for the most part as he should. They don’t like Romney or any other Republican who is not of their ilk.
I’m fairly certain that one of these three will be the next president of the US and another may be the VP. How foolish they will look if that were to happen. They will be completely ignored as they should.
February 1st, 2007 at 8:21 pm
What in the world is the AFA?
February 1st, 2007 at 8:30 pm
In recent weeks I’ve been wondering just how much longer what we currently consider the conservative coalition in this country will remain viable. There seem to be very few principles on which the individuals and groups that came together 27 years ago can agree on these days. Example: the fact that no one can really articulate today’s “Republican foreign policy,” because GOPers now range from Buchanan to Hagel to McCain to Bush on international issues. Another example, more on point with this post, is the way the leaders of religious conservatives were pleased to unite with a divorced, formerly pro-choice governor from a coastal state with lots of Hollywood friends 27 years ago, but are now demanding candidates whose policies and personal profiles likely appeal to less than a majority of the electorate. “Victims of our own success” may be a bit of a cliche, but it also might be true. It was easy to unite the many conservative subgroups against activist judges, the budgets of a Democratic Congress, 70 percent tax rates, and Communism. It is far less easy to unite those same individuals and their ideological heirs on the issues of today, such as same sex marriage, education, health care, 35 percent tax rates, immigration, an 8 trillion dollar debt, and a war against Islamist terrorism. At some point, some sort of realignment is probably inevitable.
February 1st, 2007 at 8:33 pm
American Family Association
February 1st, 2007 at 8:43 pm
I think it is a huge mistake for these grups to come out in open oppisition to a potential candidate. BAsically hat they have done is seperate themselves from the possibility to influence. If Guiliani wins despite there attacks he will definitly see no reason to listen to them in the future.
If they instead went into it with the idea of influencing him, they would nt only sway the candidate but insure that they have some say when the candidate wins.
February 1st, 2007 at 8:58 pm
These groups were not able to keep some very good conservative GOP candidates from being wipeout in 2006.
Unlike Emily’s list, these groups really have no money or serious influence on public opinion. The reality is, they have very little money to support candidates.
Of course, Emily’s list is just the tip of the iceberg of the Liberal movement.
Check this link out:
http://www.americavotes.org/coalition/index.aspx?catID=8
The conservative movement is on the ropes right now, and it’s unlikely that this will improve anytime soon.
Ironically, this could be a benefit to the GOP, which would allow a non-traditional candidate like Rudy to win the nomination.
February 1st, 2007 at 9:13 pm
I should add, that I’m not opposed to conservative groups like the Family Research Council. They do some really good work.
I just wish they had more money to support conservative candidates.
February 1st, 2007 at 9:44 pm
From what i have heard popular conservative commentators like Limbaugh and Hannity seem somewhat open to Rudy and they hold much more sway than groups like this. I know Limbaugh hates McCain and I could see him endorsing Rudy to stop the Senator. Does anyone know if Rush, Hannity, and others of their type have stated how they feel about Rudy?
February 1st, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Ain’t Perkins already with McCain….
February 1st, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Dave,
It’s exactly for those reasons that I am more and more terrified of what 2008 will bring us. Obviously, the war is the biggest factor in American politics right now, I’ve been stunned to hear that Tony Snow and Jim DeMint have more or less said that John Warner’s Iraq resolution essentially emboldens the enemy. John Warner of all people! Now, I don’t agree with that resolution, but that’s just going too far.
But there are just so many other things that the Republican Party is split on as well. If the major conservative interest groups each mobilize against a candidate (McCain-FotF, Romney-AFA, Rudy-FRC, Huckabee-Club for Growth, etc.), there will be a whole lot of hostility and bad blood by the time someone gets the nomination that make it more likely that there’ll be a third party (Richard Viguerie is dropping more doomsday hints of one, be sure to go to his website and look at the poll results). It’s 1968 all over again.
February 1st, 2007 at 9:47 pm
The other thing is I hear that the Club of Growth type groups like Rudy the best (Through that not thrilled with everyone). Will will have open warfare between the two groups.
February 1st, 2007 at 9:51 pm
John R,
Hannity loves Rudy.
February 1st, 2007 at 9:55 pm
You know I was thinking about this. Rudy is the only Republican that can get the whole vote of anyone from Everyone Loves Raymond Family.
February 1st, 2007 at 9:59 pm
While I support many of these conservative groups, they have very little money or influence.
The Liberal groups will have a lot more influence over the Democrat nomination.
All the special interest group political power is on the Liberal side:
http://www.americavotes.org/coalition/index.aspx?catID=8
February 1st, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Paul:
You just hit on EXACTLY the way I see the 2008 race shaping up, with the fi-con wing potentially uniting behind Rudy and the so-con win uniting around, well, someone else, with large factions on both sides saying the other candidate isn’t acceptable.
In other words, a potential replay of the 1996 Primary, with Giuliani in the role of Steve Forbes and the “so-con standard bearer to be named later” in the Buchannan role. I guess that would make McCain the Bob Dole of this matchup, but here’s the thing: people forget how close Forbes and Buchannan came to knocking Dole out of the race; between the two of them, Dole went almost two months before he won an actual Primary election (as opposed to a caucus). And there is no doubt in my mind that Rudy will be a stronger candidate than Forbes, and he clearly has a more solid resume. As for the so-con candidate, he will have had a history in elective office and will, if nothing else, be a more credible
candidate than Buchannan.
February 1st, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Sean P,
I’d always thought Rudy’s game was star power and thumping bad guys. Why would the ficons line up around Rudy? Romney outperforms him in every single way from the fiscal side of things.
February 1st, 2007 at 10:48 pm
GOP Activist,
EMILY`s List has gotten pummelled in the last few elections. Check out the bottom of this Novak column for their 2006 record. I`d hope conservatives could shoot a little higher.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/157503,CST-EDT-novak03.article
February 1st, 2007 at 10:57 pm
I would hope so as well, but these Liberal groups contribute a significant amount of money to Liberal candidates.
Having run many local GOP campaigns, I can tell you that there is very little conservative support of any kind.
The best we can hope for is an endorsement. The reality is, this has very little influence without the financial support.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Somebody`s got to speak out against these guys. Important members of the coalition have serious problems with all three, and they need to be held accountable.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:03 pm
The doomsday of #12 will come to fruition if Rudy gets the nod.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:11 pm
If that’s the best we can hope for, than maybe you are correct.
It comes down to money.
I just don’t see any real financial support from any conservative group for any candidate, running for any office.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:32 pm
I think it would be more productive for conservative groups, to put their money where their mouth is.
Tell us whom you support, then put financial resource to support that candidate.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:38 pm
The USA Today article said only 1 in 5 of the GOP even know about Rudy’s social positions. Ouch!
I see a major hit job on his social positions coming. If Rudy supporters don’t think this will
come hard and fast at some point, they are fooling themselves.
Wait till April 4 and the CNN debates when he has to speak about his pro choice pro gay positions on national
TV.
His poll numbers will drop off a cliff shortly after.
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:03 am
I fear, that Liberal groups understand this concept better. They don’t just tell you what their against, they support candidates they agree with.
The bottom line is, without financial support, conservative groups will continue to have very little influence.
February 2nd, 2007 at 9:36 am
I should add that this relates to a much larger problem for the conservative movement.
It is very difficult to recruit quality conservative candidates without any financial support. Endorsements really don’t mean much, if there is no financial support to promote the endorsement.
Liberal groups understand how important it is to develop good quality candidates and they support them financially.
February 2nd, 2007 at 10:03 am
Mark my words: if Rudy wins the nomination, we lose the general election. I know it’s a bold prediction and antithetical to everything the poll numbers say right now, but there is no way Rudy wins a general election in this country. He will atrophy a ton of the support from the GOP base, and will never be able to pick up enough “independents” to cover that loss.
Relying on independents to win an election is never a winning strategy.
And when 80% of GOPers don’t know Rudy’s social positions, the only place his numbers have to go in DOWN, big time. Think about it: he’s got star power, name recognition, status, money – everybody knows Rudy. His numbers are as high as they’ll ever get right now. When McCain and Romney show an ad of him accepting that NARAL award or hosting the pro-choice dinner for the group that wants to remove the entire pro-life plank from the GOP platform, it will be all over.
Every single Republican friend of mine I’ve talked to about this (okay, so it’s like 5 people, but still, it’s every one) was unaware that Rudy was pro-life and even supports PBA. Every one of them, after I told them that, said they didn’t think they could vote for him then.
February 2nd, 2007 at 10:18 am
“80% of GOPers don’t know Rudy’s social positions”
That’s almost laughable, if anything MSM has overplayed Rudy’s liberal stance on social issues, hoping to divide the base.
USA Today just ran a front page story, and they actually over emphasized his liberal stance on social issues.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-31-giuliani-cover_x.htm
Despite all this publicity, Rudy continues to lead in just about every scientific poll out there.
This Rasmussen poll confirms my point.
And Giuliani has increased his lead over Hillary! in a general match up:
Giuliani 49% (47)
Clinton 43% (42)
February 2nd, 2007 at 10:50 am
GOP Activist,
Do you realize how few people even care about this 2008 election right now? Other than the bloggers and ther
hard core political fans, 2008 is a million miles away. It’s not even on the radar for most people.
Just look at his website. You have about 5 consistent bloggers and I would guess about ten people that actually read
this stuff.
To say that more than 80% of Republicans know about Rudy’s social positions is ridiculous.
I guarantee when these people get a poll phone call at night from Fox news, they say to themselves
“oh yeah, Giuliani, he was the mayor of New York during 9/11. Yeah he seem like a good leader. I’d vote
for him.”
Do you really think most people at this stage even have a clue what his real positions are? 95% of all voters
will find out 1-2 months before the primaries. That is when the wheels fall off for Rudy and he drops
like a rock.
February 2nd, 2007 at 11:06 am
Facts are tough to beat.
Giuliani 49%
Clinton 43%
I think that Republican primary voters are very plugged in to the 2008 race. We have less than year now until the nomination will be decided. As stated on this blog, the GOP has a long history of nominating frontrunners.
What really surprises me, is how well Rudy is doing in all the polls.
February 2nd, 2007 at 11:17 am
Rudy’s at his high watermark. He has nowhere to go but down. There is no way he could ever beat Hillary in a national election. It would be a repeat of ’06 for the Republicans. Why would the base be mobilized against Hillary to vote for her opponent who was 99% like her?
February 2nd, 2007 at 11:29 am
I think that you are overstating the power of the Republican base.
This is real political power.
http://www.americavotes.org/coalition/index.aspx?catID=8
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:35 pm
[...] conservatives, save our friends at the Family Research Council, seem to be warming to [...]
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:45 pm
murphy: “Why would the ficons line up around Rudy?”
1. Rudy has a better record cutting taxes.
2. Romneycare.
February 2nd, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Sean P,
Are ficons unconcerned with Rudy’s $16 billion ballooning debts in NYC? What are the actual numbers for his tax cuts? In fact (and this is a general question for anyone who knows), how unilaterally does the NYC mayor decide a budget, compared with a state governor?
February 2nd, 2007 at 3:54 pm
murphy: When Rudy took office, city spending was out of control and taxes were through the roof. Rudy cut both. However, since the city taxes and deficit were both so high, Rudy had to choose whether to stimulate the economy and run a deficit (albiet a smaller one) in the short term or allow the economy to sink deeper into the toilet for its potential long term benefit. Rudy chose the first option. It might not be the preferred choice of “deficit hawks” but deficit hawks are not fi-cons.
Your second question is a good one, but I don’t really have an answer. Hopefully someone here does.
February 2nd, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Sean P,
When Rudy took office, city spending was out of control and taxes were through the roof.
Did you know that city spending (which was out of control) continued to rise under the Rudy administration by an average of 5% per year while he was in office? That doesn’t sound like he “cut both”.
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Rudy cut spending from 1994-1995. The 5% number you are citing probably refers to spending increases after 1995 or 1996, when the city finances came under control, while he was ramping up hires of police officers, teachers and school construction and paying teachers the “make up” salaries they won in exchange for agreeing to salary freezes for the first two years of his term. According to Giuliani’s administration overall spending through fiscal 1999 (covering all of Rudy’s 1st and half of Rudy’s 2nd term) grew by an average of 1.7% in NYC. Pretty impressive, if correct.
source: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:g59_p0N2ebsJ:www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/om/html/98a/pr178-98.html+Giuliani+budget+New+York+City&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=23&gl=us
February 3rd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Sean P,
I have to appologize. It seemed like there was a contradiction between my annual spending increase number of 5% and yours of 1.7%, so I looked it up in more detail. I was mistaken.
During the last 5 Giuliani years, the rate of borrowing rose by 5% annually…not spending. It’s borrowing that Rudy had no control over, taking the city debt from $26.6 billion to $43 billion in debt. That’s a 62% total increase in city debt over 8 years in office. That’s over $5500 per man, woman, and child of Gotham at the end of Giuliani’s term.
Currently, NYC pays 20% of every dollar just to cover the interest on its debts.