Hat Tip and some what crossposted from Elect Romney Blog
Mayor Giliani:
Rudy Giuliani didn’t score many points with social conservatives last week when he issued this impassioned endorsement of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a federal ban on “partial-birth” abortion: “I agree with it.” He certainly didn’t win over Richard Land, who has said he would never vote for Mr. Giuliani. . . “If he’ll lie to two wives, what makes you think he wouldn’t lie to you?” . . . we have Rudy Giuliani, a twice divorced, pro-choice, supporter of civil unions.
—–
But it seems there is just about nothing Rudy Giuliani could do to change Mr. Land’s mind about his candidacy. “Three is one too many spouses for most evangelicals,” he says. . . What bothers Mr. Land is the “circumstances of [Mr. Giuliani's] divorce and the fact that there is more than one of them.” It’s not exactly a distinction the Bible makes, as Mr. Land no doubt knows, but he may be right about how much spouse-hopping evangelicals will tolerate.
Governor Romney:
Mr. Land might, on the other hand, vote for Mitt Romney. He says that evangelical voters may be able to get over their problems with a Mormon. “Charitably speaking,” Mr. Land says, “they would call [Mormonism] the fourth Abrahamic religion. When they’re less charitable, they would call it a cult.” And they might even let him off the hook for his flip-flops on the social issues. “A lot of people in this country who are pro-life didn’t used to be.”
Mr. Land says that reporters have misunderstood what it means that Mr. Romney has changed his mind. “Why does the liberal media call it a flip-flop? Because they believe in the moral correctness of their pro-choice position. The only reason someone would move from the morally correct position, as they perceive it, to the morally incorrect position is because of political expediency. But religious conservatives believe that their position is the morally correct position. So they don’t see this as a flip-flop. They see this as a journey . . . as growth.”
“Hard-to-Get”:
Richard Land is a man waiting to be courted, and on behalf of religious conservatives he is playing hard to get. He wants “to make certain that we never become as taken for granted by the Republican Party as African-Americans have been taken for granted by the Democratic Party.” . . . With a bachelor’s degree from Princeton and a doctorate of philosophy from Oxford, he has often been credited with providing the intellectual heft behind the religious right’s political strategy.
-
Dr. Richard Land [Wikipedia]
President of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
-
Senator McCain:
John McCain, who voted against the gay marriage amendment and who crafted the campaign finance laws that have done much to damage the anti-abortion efforts of religious conservatives;
Senator Thompson:
. . . or perhaps Fred Thompson, who supported McCain-Feingold and says that gay marriage is a state issue. Mr. Land remains oddly upbeat, particularly about Mr. Thompson, the possibility of whose candidacy he finds “tantalizing.”
“The Unelectable Candidates”:
But he acknowledges the reality of his constituency’s situation: “Evangelicals would be very happy if Mike Huckabee or Sam Brownback or Duncan Hunter were the nominee, but the problem with those three guys is they don’t give any indication they can win.” And he adds, “With Hillary Clinton looming on the horizon, electability is a very important issue.” . . . At the very least, the evangelical influence in the Republican primary will be diluted, with some religious conservatives thinking ahead to the general election and others going for the purest representative of their values. It is noteworthy that even among the unelectable candidates, evangelicals can’t make up their minds between a free-trade, open-immigration candidate like Sen. Brownback and a closed-borders protectionist like Rep. Hunter.
Governor Romney:
Mitt Romney is still a good possibility, but Mr. Land is waiting to see if the former Massachusetts governor will take his advice and give a major address on the way his faith influences his politics (à la JFK’s 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on his Catholicism).
Speaker Gingrich:
. . . Mr. Land wouldn’t vote for Newt Gingrich: “I am not a big enough hypocrite to have made character an issue with Bill Clinton and turn around and vote for men who broke their oaths to their wives.” Having been in his current position since 1988, Mr. Land has had more than enough opportunity to see Mr. Gingrich up close, and he has not been impressed: “When he was speaker, when they went into conference to negotiate, it was always our issues that got negotiated away and his economic issues that didn’t.” . . . Mr. Land suggests that Mr. Gingrich was good at paying lip service to evangelicals: “He always understood how important social conservatives were to the coalition.” But Mr. Land believes that many of them have learned their lesson: “I think most evangelicals still don’t trust him.”
Consequences of a Giuliani GOP win?
If Mr. Giuliani does somehow win the nomination, Mr. Land predicts that “you will see a drop in evangelical participation in the presidential election and in races below that.” Sounding more like a preacher warning of a coming plague, Mr. Land says, “even if the alternative is Hillary,” a lot of evangelicals will stay home.
These are some provacative comments from Richard Land. Land has already promised to wage a full frontal assault on Giuliani should he still be a strong candidate as things get closer. Not so sure that is a good thing for the generals, we do need to win. But what I do find especially heartning though is his position on Romney’s “flip-flop’s” and his honesty about the need for a commander in chief who has some good marital standards- something I believe in strongly, despite the fact it bothers people here.
April 28th, 2007 at 8:10 am
[...] post by Jason and software by Elliott [...]
April 28th, 2007 at 9:23 am
If Mr. Giuliani does somehow win the nomination, Mr. Land predicts that “you will see a drop in evangelical participation in the presidential election and in races below that.”
Sounds like a reason to vote Giuliani.
April 28th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Sounds like a reason not to. Leaner coalitions are less successful coalitions.
But it remains to be seen how much influence Mr. Land has.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:18 am
“oddly upbeat” Jason?
Land has been pro-Thompson since March.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:23 am
and number 2. I’m a second marriage child, and if that makes you or Mitt’s family have more moral decency then my family, then you are seriously out of it. My mother got out of an abusive relationship, where her first husband beat her, cheated on her, and did some serious drugs. If she has less moral authority than Romney because of some seriously delusional formula, then I’m glad we’re not moral people (by these recent standards)
April 28th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Unfortunately Land is a prime example of the far right of the republican party
which threatens to make it the minority party. Its pro-life or I will say home even
if it means electing a Hillary Clinton. What a sad commentary about Land and others
who are of a like belief.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Tommy,
You misunderstand. In marriages: one is great, two is tragic but can happen, and three seems to show an underlying pattern. Jason in no way criticizes your family or your mother. When you split with your spouse because of your own infidelity(multiple times), as Newt and Rudy have done, you open yourself up to attacks of this type. I happen to agree somewhat with Land; if Rudy broke the most important promise of his life(more than once) how can you count on him to keep his promises made on the campaign trail. He simply can’t be counted on, especially considering his contradictory “personal” beliefs, to do what he has said.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:52 am
I’m an evangelical voter and find myself in almost total agreement with Land here.
Tommy, I think divorce is always sad and it’s tragic what your mother’s first husband did to her. But that doesn’t make the rest of you less morally decent to me. I don’t think all divorce is equal for most social conservative voters. It’s a negative in the background of Reagan, Dole, or McCain that I could overook. But multiple divorces, infidelity, and estrangement from children as in the cases of Gingrich and Giuliani is more concerning when looking at someone’s character and trustworthiness. That’s a lot different than leaving an abusive spouse.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:54 am
MCon, you posted while I was composing mine but it looks like we’re on the same wavelength here.
April 28th, 2007 at 11:01 am
MinnCon;
I get that much. I’m just a little touchy about the whole discussion on here the other day. Jason was fair about it, but it kind of creeped me out, the whole of virginity and the whole latter. I’m not arguing anyone’s going after my mother because of this, but everybody’s situation and upbringing is different. Mitt had a blessed childhood, and must’ve been brought up by decent people. He also must’ve had morals instilled at a young age. Not everybody has been privy to that. Some people have to make mistakes, and by those mistakes, they become stronger as human beings.
My mom came from good people too, but at the low end of the working class. She’s probably not the best example here, because my parents marriage has lasted over 30 years (My dad was my mom’s 2nd).
I get what you are saying about Newt/Rudy, I just don’t think using Mitt’s virginity until he got married(which was brought up the other day) should really be an issue. His successful marriage should.
April 28th, 2007 at 11:07 am
When speaking of morals while we’re campaigning, did anyone else see this article about youtube? I thought it was a good read and wakeup for all of us:
http://www.longislandpress.com/?cp=40&show=article&a_id=11744YouFool
April 28th, 2007 at 11:08 am
I’ve never understood the whole divorce hangup either. The fact that a candidate has been divorced is just sort of presented reflexively as a negative that the candidate will have to deal with, and yet no one really articulates just exactly why divorce is such an evil. Of course, divorce CAN be evil depending on the situation. But what is it about divorce that makes it such a kneejerk turnoff to some voters?
April 28th, 2007 at 11:21 am
I can understand how Rudy and Newt’s can be seen as sketchy, since they both went through some high-profile divorces that were publicly embarrassing, and both cast them in very negative lights, but I don’t think it should be used as a moral authority, so to speak.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Why would we assume that a divorce is equivalent to lying to the public? Where are examples of Rudy lying to the public? The reason he’s winning is precisely because of his integrity.
The world’s most successful leaders have often had tumultuous personal lives. Voters are savvy and they know this.
It works the other way, too. The most unethical people I have ever been in business with were Southern Baptists in Atlanta, who screwed people over 5 days a week. I guess the idea is if you get forgiveness on the 7th day, that’s OK. And the head of the company was a Deacon in the church.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
After 8 years of Bush and a divisive urban-rural red-blue divide, is giving people like Richard Land power over the GOP a winning strategy?
I’m tired of being grouped with religious theocrats.
A large minority of the GOP is more metro/secular, and it takes their votes plus a whole lot of swing voters to get to 51%.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
I’m just saying I can understand why some people are turned off from it because it was a public fiasco. It doesn’t affect my personal judgement of him much, but can see where the red flags come from.
Newt, on the other hand, looked like a hypocrite.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
David in #14:
Henry answers your question in #3. We are a coalition of groups and we can’t leave one behind. It isn’t entirely about religion. Most religious conservatives look for a candidate of high moral “fiber”. Giuliani is certainly not that candidate.
regarding #13:
This is laughable. If someone is dishonest, they are dishonest. It doesn’t matter where the dishonesty occurs. Giulani is not a man of integrity. Period. Lying in public is no different than lying in private in terms of overall integrity.
PS. perhaps you have missed Rudy’s campaign trail flips on a number of issues.
Tommy, Dave, and David:
The discussion is not at all about virginity or really even about divorce. We are talking about how Giuliani and Gingrich have demostrated a pattern of infidelity and divorce that says a great deal about their character and honesty. If Rudy’s wives couldn’t trust him fulfill his promises what in the hell makes us think we can.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Tommy,
My wife is from a second marriage herself. I have a 6 nieces and nephews born from second marriages. Divorces happen, but they are not the ideal, and a strong first marriage that has been able to succesfully wade through the worlds problems and achieve success should be our model and considered superior to any other type of arrangment. When me and my wife married it was with the ideal marriage in mind, that didn’t consist of me divorcing my wife for the women I am having an affair with on National TV.
Weather you like it, divorce is ugly and at it’s heart selfish and unfair to those involved. Divorce happens because someone in the relationship didn’t keep there marriage promises, so the contract is voided. In any other situation we would say someone who doesn’t keep their promises to have a lack of integrity. There was a study that showed 90% of divorcees thought it was in the best interest of the family to get divorced, yet the same study showed the children of the same parents felt 90% of the opposite. There are times when Divorce is necessary, but it should be the rare exception, not the 50% rule it is today. When someone has been married more than twice I would say it is fair to question there judgment.
I know this offends people, but divorce is ruining our nation and at the source of nearly all of social ills. Where crime is the highest, so are single parent families. It’s hard to be an effective leader of a nation when you are a poor role model.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Jason, kudos.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Regardless of what any of us may think personally, many voters, especially southern Evangelical voters are motivated to vote almost completely based on social issues. I am not saying all or most southern Evangelicals will stay home, but undoubtedly some will.
Let’s not forget that John Kerry got the 2nd most votes ever for a Presidential candidate. If some of the GOP base stays home because of Giuliani’s positions on social issues, it could mean losing multiple southern states, especially to Edwards or Obama, who each have unique qualities to appeal to southern voters.
Even though Rudy would win some blue northern states, it might not be enough to overcome his potential losses in the South.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Do the previous 2 posters have any freaking clue how such talk goes over with swing voters?
April 28th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Oops, I meant Jason and MN Conservative.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
dskinner11: Head to head polls show Rudy winning in the south by large margins, just not quite as large as Bush’s.
Makes sense to redistribute a few excess, uneeded votes in the South to the swing states.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
David B., I think that Rudy is easily the closest thing to a lock that either party has. I am just stating that his election isn’t inevitable.
I wouldn’t rely too much on head-to-head polls until those two candidates are actually running against each other.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
David,
Jason and I didn’t do anything other than call a spade a spade. Swing voters, and the Goppers in general, are not blind enough to not see the same thing.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
If head-to-head polls NOW are not accurate, it is because a few religious conservatives are punishing Rudy by telling pollsters they won’t vote for him. More will vote for him in the voting booth than will tell pollsters.
That means Rudy is really winning by an even larger percentage.
And it totally blows away the argument large numbers of religious conservatives won’t vote for him. NOW would be the time they’d be registering that opinion more than any other time.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
MN Conservative: It’s you who is blind if you think swing voters respond positively to disparaging candidates because of their divorces.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
No they aren’t accurate for any candidate, not just for Rudy.
The reason that they aren’t accurate is that people aren’t campaigning against each other. Right now Rudy is trying to beat McCain, Thompson and Romney while Hillary is trying to beat Obama and Edwards.
If Hillary’s legendary campaign team gets a chance to specifically target Rudy, he will lose votes. Nobody has more negatives that are unknown to the general public. Hillary has more negatives, but everyone already knows about them.
Don’t forget that before 9/11 Rudy was judged to be a poor mayor by most objective observers. Nobody is talking about why, yet.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Point taken about Rudy having the most unknown negatives. He also has the most unknown positives, especially among conservatives, who this week reacted surprised and please he was defending private medicine and Democrats as unfit to lead the GWOT.
“Was judged to be a poor mayor” by WHOM? By the NYC liberal establishment. By any objective measure, he was the greatest example of conservative governance in 50 years (George Will). Have you even checked his record? Like taken 2 minutes to do so?
April 28th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
If Mr Land is so concerned about divorce, mabey he should concentrate his efforts in his own back yard since satistics show that as many or more of professed Christians file for divorce as the general population.
Rudy is not running for Pope ,he is running for president. How he ran New York City tells me more about how he will run the nation than his personal life( Mc Cain has been divorced and so was Reagan)How many people gave Bill Clinton a pass(he won twice dispite Mr Land’s opposition) because of a good economy?
There is only ONE unfogivable sin in the Bible,and divorce is not it.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Jason, divorce rates have been dropping since 1979. By more than 20%.
http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html
But they’re highest in socially conservative areas of the country where people marry too young. A lot of divorced people there who won’t have a problem with Rudy.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
TennJoe, nice timing right after my post. Thank you.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
A lot of religious conservatives confuse church and state. They’ve tainted the GOP with that, and the middle of America detests them for it.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
I have read his book and taken a bunch of time to try and get myself to like him. I do like him on most non-social issues, but if 9/11 never happened, we wouldn’t be talking about him.
I know that perception is important and we can’t ignore that, but what did he really do after 9/11? I ask that sincerely since I was out of the country on 9/11 and until 6 months after. The only substantive post-9/11 things I have heard about Giuliani are that the firefighters really dislike him for how he handled things.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Divorce in general is a problem in our society. There are certainly situations where a divorce is necessary and good (abusive relationships, etc.). However, my impression is that most divorces are brought about selfishness. I didn’t grow up in an ideal home, and I know my parents had a rocky relationship at times (and a great relationship at times). But I can see that it was much better for them to stay together than to get a divorce.
As for Rudy and Newt, the circumstances of their divorces are completely unacceptable. They were more or less chasing the new flavor of the month while they were still married to the last flavor of the month. I have no problem disparaging them for such behavior. Anyone that violates his/her marital vows lacks character. I would say this about Newt and Rudy (especially Newt) or anyone else that cheats on their spoouse (the colleague that goes on a business trip and sleeps with anything he/she can find at the bar). It is wrong. It shows a serious lack of character. I would have a very difficult time voting for that person.
I understand that some people of that nature have been very successful leaders. Maybe they are better leaders because they use the same kind of deceitful techniques in their public careers (Bill Clinton). I don’t want someone like that to lead the country no matter how successful he/she may be. I want to support someone that I believe is genuine both in public and in private. Sometimes that means I end supporting a George Bush (not to bright in many ways, but very genuine). So be it.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
dskinner11,
Yes, we’d be talking about him. He’d already run for Senate pre-9/11 and has always had big plans.
What did he do after 9/11? Devoted 2004 and 2006 to campaigning for Republicans across the country. Always scored the largest audiences and biggest fundraisers. Did more for the party than any other single individual during that time period. And you ask what did he do. Some gratitude!
If you weren’t here seeing Rudy on TV daily post 9/11, then I see how you do not appreciate his relationship with the American public.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
dblagent: You have more of a point with Newt. Rudy and Donna were de facto separated and he had moved out of Gracie Mansion long before he began dating Judi.
Good point about Clinton being deceitful in public office. That is not Rudy.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Dave B,
Other than you saying it turns off swing voters, what in comment #17 do you specifically disagree with?
April 28th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
What Newt did was bad even by Hollywood marriage standards (that is a low standard). As for Rudy, I am not entirely up on all of the facts there. I thought though that he more or less moved Judi into Gracie Mansion while Donna was still there and he was still married to Donna. Also, the fact that his children don’t seem to want anything to do with him based on what he did to Donna leads me to believe there is something more there than meets the eye (although I would still say there is a 20% chance that Donna unfairly turned the children against him).
April 28th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Jason, we are here to win an election. Swing voters decide it.
I disagree with the notion that a President’s marital life serves as a role model. That’s for church, or Dr. Laura, or wherever you look to for personal values.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
dblagent: Judi never moved into Gracie Mansion. I don’t know all the details, because, frankly, I don’t care. I know Rudy has shown the greatest leadership and character of any leader in America.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Jason, a further point, a bunch of Romney supporters here (don’t remember if that was you) insisted they would vote for a gay candidate who represented their views. But not a straight one who divorced twice? Hard to believe.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
I meant what did he do in his last several months in office. I recognize that he is a huge asset to the Republican party and is the most prominent moderate Republican in the country. As I said before I like him and could vote for him. He is a close second to Romney because I believe both bring leadership and charisma that no democratic candidate can dream of.
I do recognize that he has the reputation as “America’s Mayor” and that is something that can’t be overlooked. I also recognize that many conservatives from NY like Hannity and O’Reilly both really like him, and that means something.
I am being sincere in asking what he did because I didn’t see the news or his daily briefings until he was already out of office.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
dskinner: Well, you said you read his book….
What the book doesn’t capture is the impact he had on Americans. They saw a man who was simultaneously 100% in control, honest even when it was hard to hear, and compassionate.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Yes, Hannity, O’Reilly, Podhoretz.. NYC conservatives love Rudy because they witnessed the war he waged against the liberal establishment on a daily basis.
As far as the conservatives who call Rudy a liberal: what on earth to they think that war was about?!?
There are really choice quotes and actions from Rudy during his Mayorship that conservatives will drool over. Why aren’t we hearing them now? I think Team Rudy wanted to get all the liberal stuff out early, and to later release the red meat as the primaries approach.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
If the Republican Party unifies behind a pro-abortion presidential nominee in 2008 (and my prediction is that either the pro-abortion position of Mayor Giuliani will prevent him from getting the GOP nomination or, if he does get the nomination, it will cause such a rift within the party that he will be rendered unelectable in the November general election), then I will admit to knowing nothing about politics.
A bigger political problem for Mayor Giuliani in this race than the way he announced to Donna Hanover at a press conference in 2000 that he was filing for divorce will be the reports of him dating his Communications Director, Cristyne Lategano, while Mayor and still married (four years before he filed for divorce with Hanover).
Similarly, if Newt Gingrich runs he will have a huge problem when the media focus on him having an affair (with his current wife) while married during the Clinton impeachment proceedings.
These personal indiscretions while in high public office amount to reckless behavior that puts at issue the questions of character and judgment. While the press ignored these issues during the mayoralty and speakership in question, they won’t during a presidential campaign.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Republius: Check the history of U.S. Presidential elections. Ideological/pragmatic coalitions usually do not last more than a few cycles. Just because all you’ve known is what you’ve known since 1980 does not make it true forever.
Also true: Before 1980 Republicans were not nearly so far to the right as Rudy is on economic and defense issues.
Things evolve.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Besides, do you really think America is going to grant a 3rd consecutive term to the GOP, as the current GOP brand currently stands?
Do you really think the ideological platform that barely won the Presidency in 2000 and 2004 will work again post 2006?
April 28th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
What you are arguing for, David B (in #45 and #46), is an outcome that would be a first and a dramatic departure for the Republican Pary in modern times. Sure, history changes. But I am not betting on it happening with the Republican Party this presidential election cycle. Mayor Giuliani has too much additional personal baggage, in addition to his pro-abortion stance, to survive this race without blowing up the GOP.
I do think the pro-life party can win in 2008 as long as they change their focus and adherence to principles in other areas. Abortion is not the problem for the GOP – the country increasingly admits to the tragedy that is abortion. The problem for the GOP is straying from the principles of freedom, liberty, fiscal responsibility, governmental and judicial restraint, economic populism, and peace through strength (Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot, it has been the Bush presidents who went to war).
Again, if I am wrong, I will admit to being clueless as to national politics.
I think Giuliani and his campaign and supporters are whistling past the nominating convention as to where his candidacy is headed.
April 28th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Republius: Have you checked the crosstabs in national polling? Rudy wins every single conceivable group in the GOP. Are you staring at his negatives so strongly you don’t see the positives people love about him? Checked to see where abortion ranks on the list of issues GOP voters are concerned with?
April 28th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
…Considered the fact that his abortion views have dominated talk of the GOP race, yet every category of Republican STILL prefers him in recent polling after all that saturation?
April 28th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
David B. The reason ideological coalitions don’t last long is because the issues they are based on go away, not because the rest of their coalition stops caring about that issue. You may argue that abortion is going away as an issue, but the excitement/outrage over the PBA ban would discredit this theory.
April 28th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
David B (in #48 and #49), I think I am pretty aware of everything that is going on and all the data that is available. What I think you are missing is that these polls do not reflect a campaign that has begun in earnest. The press and his opponents have not come close to detonating the amunition they have at their disposal to blow up the Giuliani candidacy. This part of the cycle will be a day at the beach compared to what is coming. And the Mayor is walking right into the trap, blinded by hubris and ambition and the insular nature of the counsel he is receiving.
I think, in hindsight, you will find the confidence behind Giuliani at this point in the cycle to have been delusional when all is said and done. I am not going to be able to convince the Giuliani acolytes, although I think DaveG is starting to see the handwriting on the wall, so only time will tell. As I said, I am willing to stake my claim to having political experience and insight on it. We’ll see.
As Barry Goldwater famously opined, the way to beat the Democrats is to provide the voters a choice, not an echo.
April 28th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Republius: I agree the dirty laundry will come. But Americans already drew their conclusions about Rudy as the greatest example of moral leadership they’ve seen in their lives. The attacks will backfire due to this.
Also, attacks showing his blunt, take-no-prisoners style will actually help him, I think. The electorate would like to see someone who is more of a fighter and less of a scared/calculated politician– especially when we’re at war.
April 28th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
dskinner11: The electorate is in the middle on abortion. They don’t believe a clump of cells has rights and that we should prohibit early abortions, the morning after pill, stem cell research, etc. They are also generally appalled at the abortion of viable fetuses without compelling reasons.
April 28th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
David B (in #52), we disagree. Voters are thinking of a mythical Rudy Giuliani as of 9/11/2001, who does not really exist. Once the campaign begins in earnest, which has not happened yet despite your protestations and the claims of those who constantly post polling data showing Giuliani in the lead, voters will be reminded of where Rudy Giuliani stood as of 9/10/2001 – as one of the least popular politicians in the country, for a multitude of reasons (and reasons that have only expanded problematically in time such as with the whole Bernie Kerik situation). In addition, voters will be counseled as to why the level of adulation post-9/11 may not be deserved based on how New York City was actually managed and prepared in the run up to 9/11.
The country has not done their homework on Rudy Giuliani, despite your claims of polling data to the contrary; it only thinks it has. And campaigns are the vehicles to provide such education. Just watch what is coming next. It will be one of the biggest presidential front-runner collapses in history.
April 28th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Republius: The pre-9/11 Mayorship that George Will called the greatest example of conservative governance in 50 years? That was so thorough the city looked like an entirely different one afterwards, from something like a third world country to a shining city on a hill?
Americans know the Rudy of 9/11 exists and is real, contrary to what you say. In fact, nothing much of politicians is as real or true in their minds as his performance was then.
I think you’re in for an education.
April 28th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
George Will has obviously lost it (with respect to #55). Citing him as authority only reinforces my claim.
You have to either be on heavy medication or embarrassingly ignorant to opine that the Giuliani mayoralty surpassed the Reagan presidency as a matter of conservative governance.
I rest my case. Giuliani supporters are delusional, as the coming GOP presidential primary will prove.
April 28th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
It seems like we will keep going in circles about Rudy until we have more information.
Getting back to the post about Richard Land, it will be very interesting to see how much his endorsment matters. It seems fairly certain that he will endorse either Romney or Thompson. When he chooses one, will it ruin the campaign of the other? Will it be enough to push the candidate ahead of Rudy or McCain.
I don’t know who he will endorse, though there are compelling reasons for him to endorse both (perhaps more for Thompson). Either way I think it will make a difference because both need to strengthen their social conservative credentials, but not because masses of Evangelicals care about what he says, but because the local Evangelical leaders will care and their congregations will listen to them.
April 28th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Republius, Wow, I thought you were more of a respectful debater here. Hell, I even ended my last post with a
Reagan accomplished comparably little domestically, except for his tax cuts, thank God. Rudy turned a socialist government on its head into an example of capitalism.
“George Will has obviously lost it” is not logical grounds to dismiss any argument he agrees with.
I do believe Fred will push Romney and McCain into the 2nd tier– I’m with you on Fred’s viability in the primary.
April 28th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
dskinner11: I don’t think Richard Land has anywhere near that power. I’d never even heard of the guy until a couple months ago. I’d heard of Dobson and others.
April 28th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
He does have a bunch of power. Have you heard of the Southern Baptist Convention? He will (with others) decide who they endorse. I don’t know where you are from, but for Evangelicals, the Southern Baptist Convention does have influence especially among Evangelical leaders.
April 28th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
He does have a bunch of power. Have you heard of the Southern Baptist Convention? He will (with others) decide who they endorse.
I don’t know where you are from, but for southern Evangelicals, the Southern Baptist Convention does have influence especially among Evangelical leaders, who again, have a strong influence over their congregations.
April 28th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Sorry for the double post.
April 28th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
I thought churches were prohibited from endorsing candidates.
April 28th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
I don’t know what the Southern Baptist Convention is categorized as for tax policy. As far as individual congregations, I am not sure how it works, but it is pretty clear that many of the leaders make it known who is the good candidate and who isn’t.
I don’t think they were confused as to whether their leaders liked Gore or Kerry versus Bush. How they convey that message doesn’t really matter so long as they get it out and it is effective.
These Evangelical leaders are a large part of the reason why McCain didn’t win in 2000.
April 28th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Conservatives are not the only ones who think Rudy’s personal life is a problem.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
All this talk implying that multiple divorces make for a more electable candidate is hilarious. I don’t care what side of the political spectrum you reside on, this sort of thing is universally frowned upon.
April 28th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
David B (#58), I am trying to debate respectfully, but find claims that the mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani was a larger conservative triumph than the presidency of Ronald Reagan completely lacking in credibility. To me, such claims, again, show how delusional Giuliani supporters have become in many instances.
Trust me, if Giuliani comes anywhere close to seriously competing for the GOP nomination (and I think that remains to be seen at this juncture), folks will be hearing from social and religious conservatives who are a lot more well known than Richard Land. The folks I am referencing are keeping their powder dry – for now; they are waiting to see the whites of their opponents’ eyes before firing.
April 28th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Republius,
Even though you think Fred will the beneficiary of this collapse, I agree completely about Giuliani’s future. I have been saying for at least 8 months that he would be a “rock star” candidate until people actually looked closely, at which time he would be tossed aside. I still believe that is true.
David,
”
The pre-9/11 Mayorship that George Will called the greatest example of conservative governance in 50 years? That was so thorough the city looked like an entirely different one afterwards, from something like a third world country to a shining city on a hill?
Americans know the Rudy of 9/11 exists and is real, contrary to what you say. In fact, nothing much of politicians is as real or true in their minds as his performance was then.
I think you’re in for an education. ”
ahh the irony. The one who loves to call others “bots” is the most “botty” of them all.
April 28th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Cwpete: Looks to me like Howard Dean is terrified of a Giuliani nomination.
Still haven’t gotten an answer to my question from earlier about what makes divorce intrinsically a bad thing. It seems to me that divorce is only a negative in certain situations, pretty much anything involving children, but can be a positive in other situations, such as abusive relationships. I fail to see anything morally or ethically wrong about two people with no children deciding they’re not right for each other and separating rather than staying together in misery and bringing children into the world in the same context. Until someone can give me an answer to this question, I will continue to consider the view that divorce is intrinsically wrong as a relic of antequated mores.
April 28th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
David B-”I disagree with the notion that a President’s marital life serves as a role model. That’s for church, or Dr. Laura, or wherever you look to for personal values.”
I disagree. I once talked to a man who was over young people in his congregation, and he said he noticed them having a lot more problems after Bill Clinton’s affair.
Everything you see and hear has an effect on you. People tend to emulate what they see around them-that’s why culture is such a good determinant of how people will act in different situations in different countries. Young people are especially impressionable, and tend to soak everything in about their culture. The president is a looming figure in American culture, and does a great deal to define and shape the times during which he is president.
Do you seriously think having the discussion about the Monica Lewinsky affair on television for weeks didn’t impact the country and people’s moral standards at all?
April 28th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Minnesota Conservative (in #67), I have never said that Fred Thompson will be the beneficiary of a Giuliani collapse. I have said Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich ought to get in the race for the sake of debate and because the groundswell for their candidacies is so great.
The campaign has yet to begin in earnest. And until it does, all of the announced and potential candidates, it seems to me, need to prove that they deserve to be accorded as serious threats to win the GOP nomination. And Thompson and Gingrich have been scrutinized the least because they are unannounced candidates. Let’s see how they do once the vetting begins; I have predicted Gingrich will not do well, but don’t know enough about Thompson to say one way or the other.
April 28th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
DaveG,
Jason and I answered your question in #16 and #17.
April 28th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
DaveG (#68), let’s be clear and honest. The problem Gingrich and Giuliani have with their divorces is the affairs that led to them in many instances, as Minnesota Conservative pointed out in #16. Fred Thompson had a divorce that nobody thinks will be problematic because it was amicable and not based on any infidelity; same thing occurred with Ronald Reagan.
Gingrich and Giuliani allegedly had affairs with staffers while married and in positions of high leadership in government. Think about the arrogance of having an affair with your Communications Director or having an affair with a staffer from the Agriculture Committee while undertaking impeachment proceedings against President Clinton for lying about adulterous sex. And such will be problematic for many voters as matters of character and judgment. To say otherwise is whistling past the adultery.
April 28th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
“To say otherwise is whistling past the adultery.”
which Giuliani supporters seem to have no problem doing. I personally can’t and I think a large part of the GOP will think the same way.
April 28th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
DaveG,
My comments in #6 are also quite relevant to your question.
April 28th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Affairs are understandably an issue with any politician who is caught red-handed. But wasn’t Reagan also seen as breaking new ground as our first divorced president? That seems to suggest that residue still exists of a societal view of divorce as being intrinsically wrong, affairs or otherwise. And I’m not naive enough to deny that this view once existed. Heck, one could argue that the Brits would all be Roman Catholic right now if it weren’t for a disagreement over divorce by a couple of prominent men. I’m just trying to get a handle on the stigma of divorce, which may be more of a sociological question than a political one.
April 28th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Republius,
You are right in #70; I can’t read your mind and I probably should have said that I believe you think that way….
April 28th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Minnesota Conservative (regarding the implications of #76), we are comrades on this issue.
Character counts, a lot, in positions of elected leadership. We have seen this repeatedly in presidencies.
And we know what behavior reflects bad character.
I am uninterested in a Republican Bill Clinton nominee, or in an “everybody does it” standard for our nominee, and am glad to run across devoted Republicans like yourself willing to speak up and out on the issue.
April 28th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Republius,
Thanks for the praise. Based on your many posts here, I would be glad to call you a comrade.
April 28th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
For the record, Donna Hanover dropped “Giuliani” from her name in 1996 and no longer appeared with him publicly (with apparently one exception).
Rudy met Judi in 2000.
And what if they overlapped? How are we to define “cheating”? That depends on what was going on inside the marriage and what understanding there was between the parties.
We already know Rudy’s character from his leadership of NYC, both before and after 9/11.
April 28th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
DaveG (#75), with all due respect, you are not addressing the fundamental issue, which is character and judgment. Divorce is not necessarily a proxy for a lack of character or bad judgment (and I think only a small number of folks are claiming otherwise), but having affairs with staffers as a high government official is.
This is a simple test, which many of us believe Ronald Reagan and Fred Thompson and other divorced elected officials passed but which Giuliani, Gingrich, JFK, and Bill Clinton failed miserably.
April 28th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
David B (#79), the first thing all good campaigns do is opposition research on their own candidate. I think you would be wise to do so yourself, and read all the biographies of Rudy – both positive and negative. The Mayor’s character pre-9/11 is extremely controversial, which you seem to either not know or be unwilling to admit.
Yeah, Donna Hanover dropped Giuliani from her name in 1996 because husband Rudy was reportedly having an affair with his Communications Director, Cristyne Lategano. Mrs. Giuliani did not stray first in 1996, Mr. Giuliani did.
April 28th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
As I said in an earlier post and implied a recent one, I don’t care– nor do most Americans. The last thing they want to hear about is a candidate’s personal life dissected. They care if he can LEAD.
April 28th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
David
“How are we to define ‘cheating’?”
That sounds an awful lot like what Bill said. what was it? Something like “what the meaning of ‘is’ is?” How fitting that Republius said “I am uninterested in a Republican Bill Clinton nominee”.
April 28th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
David B (in #82), a few thoughts.
You can’t care about infidelity as a proxy for bad character and judgment and still support Rudy Giuliani. So at least you are consistent.
But let’s see what other Republicans think once they have all the facts, which I am convinced they don’t yet. I don’t presume to speak for them as you seem to.
My guess is that this issue will be problematic for the Mayor, as I think it should be. I am guessing that a lot of Americans would care if a president was having an affair with his White House Communications Director. So what can we expect to hear from Rudy at the 2008 Republican National Convention, “Read my lips, no new adulterous affairs!”? We’ll see.
And I can’t help but comment that though the Mayor claims in his campaign that if elected president he will make us all safer, it seems clear to me that such is certainly not the case when it comes to the unborn (and I guess your response would be that most Americans don’t care about them either).
April 28th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
“And I can’t help but comment that though the Mayor claims in his campaign that if elected president he will make us all safer…”
and I guarantee you will see commercials of firefighters blasting Rudy for his pre 9/11, 9/11, and post 9/11 actions regarding everyone’s safety.
April 28th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Someone should make a list of great historical leaders who had failed marriages.
If they had to pass social conservatives’ religious-marital tests, the world would have lost the benefit of their having been able to win their battles.
Come to think of it, if social conservatives always had their way, we wouldn’t be able to marry interracially. We’d still have segregation. Hell, we’d still have slavery. And women would still be second class citizens.
Real moral leadership, there.
April 28th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
I’m not an expert on politics outside of my home region. In the lower Midwest I can tell you that Rudy probably couldn’t win any state except Indiana.
In Missouri you have social conservatives and urban liberals. There is no significant “libertarian” or “secular” bloc of swing voters.
In Ohio a secular social liberal candidate like Rudy won’t win the Southwest part of the state. Without that Ohio is lost.
In Pennsylvania, vital Republican votes are won from socially conservative Democrats (that’s why so many PA Democrats in Congress are pro-life). Rudy offers these economically liberal voters nothing. There aren’t enough swing voters in suburban Philly to make up the difference.
In Louisiana, West Virginia and Arkansas Democrats win unless a culturally conservative candidate is nominated. Rudy doesn’t qualify.
So Rudy starts out with 51 fewer electoral votes than Bush. Rudy can’t make up that kind of deficit even with the armies of libertarians and secularists that are supposedly out there.
It’s pretty obvious that Rudy is a weaker candidate than Romney, Thompson or McCain because he loses states Republicans win on social issues (Ohio, WV, MO, LA, AR) while taking Pennsylvania off the table and putting Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky at risk.
Giuliani would most likely lead us to a 1996 style defeat ala Bob Dole. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/ElectoralCollege1996-Large.png
April 28th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
David B, is it ok with you if Guiliani were to have an affair while President?
April 28th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
econ grad stud: Since you deal with data, I suggest you go back and check the head-to-head polling to find out just how strong Rudy is in many of those states, especially Rust belt states like PA.
JF: I’d have a problem with it in that it’d squander his political capital.
April 28th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
David B, but you wouldn’t consider it an abuse of his office? What about embezzling? Once you take the moral aspect out of it, it’s not like it harms anyone specifically, even if it is corrupt behavior and would cost him political capital. And blackmail? He could pass a lot of legislation by using blackmail, even if it is a morally bankrupt tactic. True, those last two are illegal, but correct me if I’m wrong: you’re basically saying that as long as it’s legal and effective, Guiliani would be well-advised to do whatever he wants.
April 28th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Head-to-head polling isn’t relevant.
Campaigns occur between early polls and elections. Do you know what a campaign is DavidB?
If early polls were accurate George Bush would have lost in a landslide in 1988. Didn’t happen. Early polls are historically poor indicators of who actually wins elections.
At this point a candidates’ positions and vulnerabilities are more informational about election results.
Rudy’s positions simply don’t win the socially conservative Democrats needed to win MO, AR, LA, OH, or WV.
April 28th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Well said econ. If look at the electoral votes http://www.270towin.com Rudy is by no means a lock. I do think that he may put PA in play by winning more Philadelphia moderates than the number of pro-life Democrats he will lose.
Either way, he definitely isn’t a lock.
April 28th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
JF,
Basically that is exactly how David seems to feel. At least he is honest about how he feels. He and Giuliani probably feel the same way except Rudy finds himself having to appeal to social conservatives.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Giuliani is really frank about his views and who he is, generally speaking. And I like that. What I don’t like, is, well, who he is. His personal life reads kinda like a trailor trash scenario. Seems like he indulges in some weaknesses at the expense of loyalty to family. He can be insensitive, have a “that’s your problem” attitude. Stuff like that.
The big values, like, who would I trust with something of great value to myself,who’s advice would I seek, clearly that’s Romney over Giuliani. Divorce does speak volumes. It is like a failed business venture, or breach of contract, or perjury depending on the circumstances, but WORSE. Because you do it to real people, not just some corporation. So ‘course it matters ’cause it speaks to judgment, loyalty, self-mastery, personal responsibility and such. So it’s great stuff when Giuliani talks about the war, and patriotism. But he can’t speak to social conservative issues and personal morality. He just can’t. Not qualified. So he takes the stand it just ain’t important, folks, don’t waste my time. So much for President being able to set the appropriate moral tone for the nation, y’know? Clinton relived. So it’s gotta be Romney. If you care at all about THE MAN, not just “the issues.”
April 30th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
It seems to me that divorce is only a negative in certain situations, pretty much anything involving children, but can be a positive in other situations, such as abusive relationships.
Giuliani was involved in an abusive relationship? News to me. Good luck selling the electorate on that. Good luck persuading the electorate that divorce is yummy! That’s a winning message if I’ve ever heard on.
I fail to see anything morally or ethically wrong about two people with no children deciding they’re not right for each other and separating rather than staying together in misery and bringing children into the world in the same context.
Giuliani does have children.
Until someone can give me an answer to this question, I will continue to consider the view that divorce is intrinsically wrong as a relic of antequated mores.
You know why us out here in fly-over country vote GOP year after year? Because the Dems keep telling us that our concerns are “a relic of antequated [sic] mores.” Somehow I don’t see “Vote Giuliani, because your morals are stupid” message getting much traction out there.