That’s the question today’s New York Times poses after surveying reactions to a recent social conservative gathering in Florida.
A group of influential Christian conservatives and their allies emerged from a private meeting at a Florida resort this month dissatisfied with the Republican presidential field and uncertain where to turn.
The event was a meeting of the Council for National Policy, a secretive club whose few hundred members include Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, the Rev. Jerry Falwell of Liberty University and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. Although little known outside the conservative movement, the council has become a pivotal stop for Republican presidential primary hopefuls, including George W. Bush on the eve of his 1999 primary campaign.
But in a stark shift from the group’s influence under President Bush, the group risks relegation to the margins. Many of the conservatives who attended the event, held at the beginning of the month at the Ritz-Carlton on Amelia Island, Fla., said they were dismayed at the absence of a champion to carry their banner in the next election.
Many conservatives have already declared their hostility to Senator John McCain of Arizona, who once denounced Christian conservative leaders as “agents of intolerance,” and former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, a liberal on abortion and gay rights issues who has been married three times.
But many were also deeply suspicious of former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts; the council has been distributing to its members a dossier prepared by a Massachusetts conservative group about liberal elements of his record on abortion, stem cell research, gay rights and gun control. Mr. Romney says he has become more conservative.
And some members of the council have raised doubts about lesser known candidates Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Representative Duncan Hunter of California, who were invited to Amelia Island to address an elite audience of about 60 of its members, and Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, who spoke to the full council at its previous meeting, in October in Grand Rapids, Mich.
Although each of the three had supporters, many conservatives expressed concerns about whether any of the candidates could unify their movement or raise enough money to overtake the front-runners, several participants in the meetings said.
I’ve long thought that despite the so-cons dissatisfaction and distrust of pretty much every candidate in the running, they will eventually have to unite around a candidate, because otherwise they do risk complete marginalization. If Rudy somehow wins the Presidency, despite efforts by so-cons to stop it, he will not be beholden to them as GWB is. So, it’s better to have some influence than none at all.
February 24th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Social conservatives are at least 40% of the GOP vote
nuff said
February 24th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
NYT and really all media make a living using words like “maginalized.” Even GC has done this often. Space to fill. If so-cons are marginalized than all groups are marginalized.
February 24th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Gamecock,
Obviously the So-Con vote is a significant portion of the GOP. But when I say marginalized, I don’t mean that they won’t vote, but that they won’t unify behind a single candidate. So if that 40% or so divides among McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, Brownback and Hunter, their influence in the outcome of the election becomes negligible. The reason they were so prominent the past 7 years is precisely because of their unification around George Bush that helped him win in 2000 and 2004. But if that doesn’t happen in 2008, their clout among whoever becomes President would be greatly weakened.
February 24th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
The Brody File (CBN) has a different story then the NYtimes:
In another Post today though, Brody mentions he hear’s total opposite numbers when talking to McCain people. Who do you beleive, NYTimes, The evangelical leader quotes or the McCain camp?
LJ, you hit the nail on the head. Social conservatives are in danger of really hurting themselves by backing a second tier candidate. When a first tier candidate wins despite of their best efforts to stop them, or they are too fractionalized, they have loose a huge amount of equity in their political influence. I really hope they will instead find ways to be productive and back the right candidate and not margnalize themselves.
February 24th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
LJ
agreed
February 24th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
LJ
But here is the crux of my objection to the theme of the NYT. They assume so much about social cons amd the potency of their influence as being relugated primarily to who they choose for president.
Most so-cons are war hawks first and care about their free speech and the right to govern themselves that judges have taken away that what a candidate belives.
In 2000, both candidates were pro life, but Mccain was caught in a pro choice moment the week before the Sc primary. Bush had no opposition in 2004.
Don’t you think the NYT fears this marginalization because they know Rudy can beat Hillary?
February 24th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
“the right to govern themselves that judges have taken away”
Huh? Isnt that backwards?
What judges have been doing, that the socons seem to object to, is RECOGNIZING rights, not taking them awayt.
What the socons want is the (unconstitutional) right to govern not just themselves (which any individual is always free to do) but THE REST OF US. To use the power of government to take away freedoms from their fellow citizens.
February 24th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
I think that the danger of marginalization for the socons is greater if Rudy or Mitt actually wins.
The Dems will, of course, continue to define the liberal position. As president, with all the enormous power that that entails, Rudy or Mitt would define conservatism for the next decade. And the socon position will not be given a very prominent role in that definition.
It would be best for the socons if Rudy or Mitt were to lose. Then they would be in a position to insure that the official opposition position would be defined around their concerns. It is probably the only way to avoid marginalization (except electing Brownback…)
February 24th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Considering that Bush did close to nothing for the pro-life cause besides a few half-hearted efforts, just imagine what things would be like under Rudy?
February 24th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
No Tano
What we want are free religious speech rights at least equal to profanity and local control of schools. SCOTUS precedents that Roberts and Alito abhor btw, took many of thise rights away.
A Massachusetts judge recently ruled that a religious couple had no right to stop theit local school from teaching prepubescents thathomosexual marriage is OK.
I favor that ruling. Local control. I would move, try and get on the school board or home school.
Courts shold also uphold schools that teach judeao-christian values.
Someone’s values WILL be taught in schools. We fought a war to allow us to self government, not judge dictated government.
February 24th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
On the same topic, here’s a video I can guarantee you Rudy Giuliani would prefer you didn’t see. Not exactly presidential:
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2007/02/video-rudy-giuliani-does-not-want-you.html
February 24th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Tano,
Romney has made CoCon positions the top issues of his campaign. Rudy hasn’t and neither has McCain. McCain backstabs conservatives whenever he has the chance who never comes to any SoCon events. Guiliani is an unapologetic liberal. Clearly Romney is the social conservative choice of the top three. He testified on behald of the FMA, and fought gay marriage up to the end of his term. Jay Sekulow who litigated the Goodrich case, argues Romney did everything possible as governor in MA to stop gay marriage.
Romney vetoed embryonic cloning and the overcounter abortive passed in the legislature. If Romney was really a liberal at heart than he missed quite the opportunity to enact his liberal beliefs on the state of Massachusetts. I see no validity in the claim that somehow Romney and Guiliani are on the some plane of liberalism that somehow McCain is not, other than you saying it. After all it was McCain that knocked on the social conservatives and the religous right in 2000. Has he changed?
Romney is the one candidate who is campaigning on a Social Conservative platform.
February 24th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Oh yeah Gamecock,
Play the victim card. The poor oppressed Christians! Making up only 80% of the population – they are just about on the level of slaves. No justice no peace!
If you want your children to learn good religious principles (by your definition) then teach them yourself. Or send them to Sunday school. That is your responsibility as a parent. The schools are there to teach children about the real world. If you dont like the real world, then that is your problem.
The values taught in public schools are the CIVIC values of a democracy. They do not teach Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam or any other religion. Thats your job. What you are trying to do is to force the government to do your job – to teach your children the religous values that you uphold. Oh, and to teach my children the same things. Well, sorry – religous values are for home and church. Math, science, literature, and civic values are for public schools.
February 25th, 2007 at 12:52 am
Tano
SCOTUS cases have trumped our majorities on many issues. Its a fact that Roberts and Alito will remedy.
And btw, I do my job at home. Don’t worry.
I favor local control of local schools so that the communities civic values are taught. These include judeo-christian values upon which the country was founded, not religious indoctrination. OK.
February 25th, 2007 at 2:28 am
You realize that you’re resorting to the “ad populum” logical fallacy, right?
February 25th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
nusrat
please explain to GC
February 25th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Just because a majority opinion holds a view does not make it morally sound.
February 25th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Since when did the NY Times care about social conservatives?
Could it be that the NY Times is more concerned about Rudy defeating Hillary?
I don’t think that social conservatives will be so easily baited into this line of thinking.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:54 am
It will be a sad, sad day for the republican party if they nominate Mitt Romney as the “Last hope conservative candidate”. He will be cleaned up by the democrats in the general. He will not get the independants, the so-called Reagan-Democrats, the women, the blacks, the hispanics…in short he will lose disasterously. Only Rudy can appeal to ALL of these segments of the population.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
KT: I am an independent, and I like Romney.