Last week, we discussed the threat made by leaders of socially conservative organizations to run a third-party pro-life candidate for President if the GOP nominates someone unacceptable to them. I questioned the wisdom of that strategy, arguing that supporting a third-party candidate is functionally equivalent to supporting the Democratic nominee, and would set back the pro-life movement decades.
Since then, I've had several people email me this Rasmussen poll:
If Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination and a third party campaign is backed by Christian conservative leaders, 27% of Republican voters say they’d vote for the third party option rather than Giuliani. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that a three-way race with Hillary Clinton would end up with the former First Lady getting 46% of the vote, Giuliani with 30% and the third-party option picking up 14%.
Note that this is not 27 percent of pro-lifers, but 27 percent of all Republicans.
Glock21 pointed to the 2004 exit polls in our previous discussion, and I wanted to look at them for a bit of context, to see how many pro-life voters and how many Republicans voted for the Democratic nominee in 2000 and 2004. (These are exit polls, so take them with the same huge grain of salt with which you take all polling...)
In 2000, the Democratic nominee got the votes of eight percent of self-identified Republicans and 22 percent of people who agreed that "abortion should always be illegal."
In 2004, the Democratic nominee got the votes of six percent of self-identified Republicans and 22 percent of the people who agreed that "abortion should always be illegal."
I don't really know what conclusions to draw from this, but I do want to emphasize that pro-life voters aren't a monolithic GOP voting block, though sometimes it feels that way. I know there are a number of pro-life Catholics who are already enthusiastic supporters of Hillary Clinton, for example - they're my Mom and her family, and they will support Hillary over a catholic Rudy Giuliani, if that's the November matchup.
Regardless, I wanted to share the data, because I thought it was interesting. If that Rasmussen poll is correct, though, it's awfully clear that the person who would benefit most from a generic third-party anti-abortion candidate is the Democratic nominee, which is exactly my point from last week.
Also, Jim Geraghty at TNR's The Campaign Spot blog had this:
This strategist believed that if Rudy Giuliani gets the nomination, he could defuse a lot of the tension on this issue if he picked a staunch conservative with serious street cred in the pro-life community.
The strategist mentioned a conversation with a figure he described as ‘one of the largest Catholic pro-life donors in the country’. “He said, ‘I can’t support Rudy, and I won’t vote for him.’ I asked him, ‘What if he picks Rick Santorum as his running mate?’ Then he said, ‘well, that’s a different story!’”
“If a Rick Santorum or a Mike Huckabee goes to James Dobson and says, ‘look, before I accepted the offer to be his running mate, I looked this man in the eye. I sized him up, and I know he’ll be a help to us. He gets us. And if you sink him, you sink me,’ then how can he go on?”
Then, he noted, religious conservatives weren’t huge fans of George H. W. Bush… until he picked Dan Quayle as his running mate. He pointed out that Bush did himself a world of good not just when he picked Quayle, but when he took on the media’s criticism of Quayle. This strategist said he could easily see a similar scenario, where Giuliani picks a Santorum or Huckabee-type figure; the Katie Courics and Keith Olbermanns of the world rip the nominee, and Giuliani comes out swinging in defense of his pick.
And that's also an excellent point.
Wouldn't a Huckabee or a Mark Sanford-type VP nominee be much more palatable from a swing-voter perspective than someone as controversial as Santorum? It seems like choosing Santorum would immediately destroy whatever credibility Giuliani would have with centrist voters, who would be more likely to focus on Santorum's vitriolic opposition to abortion and gay rights than on the presidential nominee's views on the issue. With Huckabee or Sanford, you would get virtually the same stance on those issues but without the baggage Santorum would bring to the position.
I think Santorum is mostly unknown to "centrist" voters on an national level. He's an arch-villian to Democrats, and would certainly provide fodder for Democratic attacks, but I think here he's being used as an example. The example being:
Rudy wins the nomination, and picks a VP with a long record of social conservatism. The Democrats attack said VP nominee for being a "right-wing extremist." Rudy defends nominee, earning bonafides with socially conservative voters.
In that scenario, if the VP nominee needs to be socially conservative enough that the Democrats predictably attack, to allow for Rudy to defend.
That said, I think there are lots of potential VP candidates who could fit this example.
Absolutely. That's why I don't expect it to happen. Dobson, Wildmon, and the gang know they'd be handing the White House to the Democrats on a silver platter in an election when Democrats will also tighten their grip on Congress. They're pretty full of themselves, but they're not going sacrifice their party to the godless liberal Democrats just to assuage their own egos. The fundamentalists will rattle their sabres and say "this time we reallly mean it," but they don't have anywhere else to go.
That doesn't prevent the possibility of a self-financed pro-life third party candidate, who would do just as much damage to the GOP whether or not the rollers sanction him.
This is, in a major sense, a hole the GOP has dug for itself. Since Roe v. Wade, the GOP has used pro-life rhetoric to politicize the churches; in doing so, they've made it impossible to nominate a pro-choice candidate without giving away the presidency. So now they're feeling the blowback for decades of letting the Falwells and Robertsons and Dobsons call the shots.
The GOP has told fundamentalist Christians that they should be -- as the most American of Americans -- in a position of complete power in the US government. The problem is, they aren't a big enough group demographically to have that kind of absolute electoral power in perpetuity. Some things lined up well for them for a while, but that's no longer the case, and they don't know what to do -- revolt? pout? sit one out?
If the theocons ever abandon the GOP, it will be because they're abandoning politics altogether as of-the-world and have stopped caring about who wins. I don't see that happening while the Supreme Court is still teetering on the brink of takeover by the far right.
You could argue that the wisest thing the GOP could do right now is hand power over to the Democrats, because the economic bill for all the GOP borrow-and-spend nonsense is about to come due, the American economy is about to hit the reefs, and the GOP would be better off if it were the Dems holding the bag when the oil barrel hits $100.
A waste of electrons. Hillary will get the Dem nomination, and will beat anyone, and any Pres and veep combo, the Rs have to offer. Thanks ENTIRELY to Bush. The "Compassionate Conservative", until Katrina, the "Uniter" until his total mishandling of the war. I'm really, really, really PO'ed at Bush for destroying the national Party and the top-down effect it will have on other races, for destroying the Reagan legacy, for putting the Rs behind especially when redistricting is coming up.
I saw an excerpt of Dobson on the Hannity show on Fox and after being pressed repeatedly on why he would support a third party candidate when the result would be to elect a Democrat who would be far worse (from their point of view) Dobson said something to the effect of, "You have to remember, it's a long time until the election." I took that to mean this third party talk is only an attempt at scaring Republicans away from Guiliani. I suspect it doesn't much matter who the running mate is, if Guiliani is the nominee, he will give assurances about judicial picks and the right wing conservatives will fall in line rather than elect a Democrat. Dobson has repeatedly shown that his "principles" can be sacrificed for political expediency.
I don't see what Santorum brings to the table except the same baggage that got him beaten in Pennsylvania. Are the majority of the electoral votes in states more conservative than Pennsylvania?
I absolutely agree that, should Giuliani get the nomination, he needs to take a VP candidate who is more conservative than he. And you're right - there's a lot of potential candidates who could fit that bill (Huckabee, Brownback, Sanford, Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Rep. Mike Pence, etc.). The nomination of Santorum, though, would probably lose as many votes as it would secure.
Again, Santorum is just an example.
I think people have been complaining on this site for sometime about the GOP's slide away from republican principles, and as the republicans have gotten further and further away from those conservative principles that got them elected in 1994 they have lost more and more seats in congress until they lost the congress. Now the GOP is going to lose the White House because people are tired of holding their nose and voting for people that are suppose to represent republican principles, but don’t. Could we find a candidate that is at least close, so we don’t have lie completely to ourselves? You can whine about people not voting if you want but it really only tells me your not listening to their concerns. Doing exit polls only sample the voters that are voting not the voters that aren't, why aren't they do you want more voters? We keep losing in ever increasing numbers, shouldn’t that be the question why are our voters not voting or giving? Dr. Dobson is trying to tell you why he’s feed up, as someone else has said if these Presidential campaigns are lost by 2 or 3%. Even if IP is half right 7% of family values voters not voting would give the election to Hillary. I don’t think they wouldn’t vote because they would want Hillary, I think they would with hold their vote because it their only option to get their point across and other reasons.
I still think Sen. Kay Hutchison would be the best VP pick for Rudy. Kay is a solid conservative. Being from Texas she would help solidify the vote in the south and help with the vote in the west and southwest. She would also help narrow the gender gap by giving women who find Hillary's gender a reason to vote for her another alternative. As a practical matter, if she were on a winning ticket, her Senate seat would be filled through appointment by a Republican governor. I'm wholly against quotas and traditional affirmative action, but the GOP is going to face long term political problems if they do not engage in much more aggressive outreach and cultivation of conservative talent among minorities, especially women. Huckabee is great, but he should be running for the Senate in AK where he's needed, not the VP slot.
Run4cvrlib - The party didn't lose the last election because they weren't pro-life or anti-gay marriage enough. Republicans lost because of Bush's war strategy in Iraq, and Republican contentment with corruption, spending, and general big government. Limiting the nomination to social conservatives won't ensure a renaissance of government reform by any means, especially considering all our party leaders in 2006 WERE social conservatives and we still lost.
"Now the GOP is going to lose the White House because people are tired of holding their nose and voting for people that are suppose to represent republican principles, but don’t. Could we find a candidate that is at least close, so we don’t have lie completely to ourselves?"
Sure. That's why there's a Primary. But what happens if the "pro-values" candidate doesn't win the Primary? Does that mean the the Party isn't paying enough attention to values voters, or that the majority of voters preferred a candidate other than the one Dobson likes, or even - GASP! - that perhaps most GOP primary voters don't think of Rudy as "anti-values" or Thompson as "not Christian enough."
"Limiting the nomination to social conservatives won't ensure a renaissance of government reform by any means, especially considering all our party leaders in 2006 WERE social conservatives and we still lost."
Bingo. Look at the six GOP Senate seats that were lost in 2006 - MT, VA, MO, OH, RI and PA. Other than RI, the GOP candidate in each of those races was more socially conservative than the Democrat who beat them. Without going into all the House races, I'd be that the same statement is true for the vast majority of flipped House seats in 2006, too.
The GOP got clobbered in 2006. It wasn't because the GOP didn't pay enough attention to social conservatives. It was because they didn't pay enough attention to those voters who cared about spending, corruption, governmental efficiency and other issues.
Further evidence: The percentage of voters in 2000, 2004 and 2006 who attended church weekly: 42, 42 and 45 percent, respectively. "Values voters" voted in 2006 even more heavily than they did in 2000 and 2004, yet the GOP got shellacked.
... because people are tired of holding their nose and voting for people that are suppose to represent republican principles, but don’t.
Ha! I think we've seen plenty of "republican principles" over the last six years and we're all pretty sick of it. Bush has employed the exact same governmental strategies (cut taxes on the rich, drive up the military spending, cut social services to the poor and middle class) as his father and Reagan. If he has strayed from the conservative agenda it has only been by inches, not miles. After all, there has never been a time when more conservatives have had positions of incredible power within an administration. Bush's legacy is the legacy of the Republican party, and the conservative agenda, not some rogue Texan with a plan of his own.
But I admire the desire to scapegoat Bush. He is an easy target and it distracts from the fact that your IDEAS are the real problem here, not Mr. Bush. You might even ride that backlash far enough to give Rudy the nomination and then who knows? Keep everyone's eye on that terrorist ball and play the social issues game long enough and you might have a chance.
But whatever you do, I wouldn't mention those tax cuts too often. The one thing all Republicans agree upon is the one thing that makes you so unappealing to the center. Keep up the fascade as long as possible. Long live the Great Oz!
Can we drop the "values voters" schtick? I seriously want to gouge my eyes out every time I see those words.
Each of us votes based on our values. Mine might be different than yours. They're still the principles that I value.
And it's still a mistake to equate church attendance with conservativism. Take the Community UCC on campus. Rev. Mulberry's congregation is extremely liberal, and they vote too.
"And it's still a mistake to equate church attendance with conservativism. Take the Community UCC on campus. Rev. Mulberry's congregation is extremely liberal, and they vote too."
True - but it's the best measure I could find in the exit poll questions for "social conservativism" of the type that Dobson and Run4cvrlib seem to be talking about.
"But whatever you do, I wouldn't mention those tax cuts too often. The one thing all Republicans agree upon is the one thing that makes you so unappealing to the center."
Boggle. Do you have any sort of evidence that the center is opposed to tax cuts?
"If he has strayed from the conservative agenda it has only been by inches, not miles. After all, there has never been a time when more conservatives have had positions of incredible power within an administration. Bush's legacy is the legacy of the Republican party, and the conservative agenda, not some rogue Texan with a plan of his own."
I'm sorry, but President Bush has strayed from conservatism by miles. As examples of his non-conservative governance, I give you No Child Left Behind, entitlement expansions, McCain-Feingold and zero spending vetos for six years.
Guliani - serial philanderer
Romney - non-Christian
Thompson - tired old lazy windbag
McCain - and Feingold
Huckabee- HICk -a-bee
Brownback - aren't we putting up fences to keep out brownbacks?
Duncan Hunter - the cake guy?
Ron Paul - nuts
Who else ya got?
It's gonna be a Reagan-esque landslide. For whoever runs as a Dem. Maybe a woman, maybe a black guy,
Core values? Ha. It's a loss. May as well put up George Ryan for all the chance you have. Make that Alan Keyes. HE has core values!
As examples of his non-conservative governance, I give you No Child Left Behind, entitlement expansions, McCain-Feingold and zero spending vetos for six years.
The problem might be in symantics. Who do you consider to be the model Republican President? I'll assume you'll go with Reagan (other choices being Nixon, Ike, Bush Sr. - the rest are historically irrelevant, imo) as a good model. But Reagan signed off on three tax increases (82, 84, 87) and pushed hard for the Reform Act of 1986, which cut taxes on the wealthy but raised taxes on the lower income brackets. All while presiding over a 5-7% increase in spending (including entitlements) and huge deficits over his eight years.
I'll give you McCain-Feingold, though I am not sure how that fits into conservative philosophy (seriously - I'd love to hear your take). I see NCLB as vouchers-through-the-back-door legislation so, even though it definitely expanded federal control, it's overall scheme seems to be the destruction of public education.
But I am a conspiracy nut on that one, for sure. I guess my model of a conservative president is someone who cuts taxes (check one for Bush), raises military spending (check two for Bush), cuts social services to the poor and middle class (check three for Bush), privatizes the government at a rapid pace (check four for Bush), and decreases regulation on business (check five for Bush). Reagan did all of the above, as did Bush Sr. Nixon not so much, but he wasn't really a conservative and Ike was so long ago that he now looks like a Democrat.
But this is an interesting discussion. I have a hard time seeing the items you listed as being disqualifiers for Bush when they are compared to the conservative principles he pushed forward (see list above).
Conservative principle - a smaller, less intrusive gov't, and when necesary, the more local the better (didn't Reagan say "gov't is the problem")
"I have a hard time seeing the items you listed as being disqualifiers for Bush when they are compared to the conservative principles he pushed forward (see list above). "
Bush never really promised to govern as a conservative. He promised, rather, "compassionate conservatism," which has been a mix of tax cuts and massive government interventions.
I'm rather more libertarian than most Republicans - I believe that the government that governs least governs best, although I can make exceptions to that to accomdate external existential threats like the Cold War and international terrorism. There are very few modern Republican Presidential candidates who match up to me on the majority of issues, as many campaign as if the Federal government is actually capable of solving problems.
The four examples I cited of Bush's non-conservatism are all massive Federal government interventions where none was needed. As for your characterizations of what makes a conservative President, I'll have to quibble with:
Anyway, we've digressed far in this discussion. In a nutshell, I don't consider this President to be particularly conservative, except on social issues, and certainly not when it has come to expanding the Federal government.
"We keep losing in ever increasing numbers, shouldn’t that be the question why are our voters not voting or giving?"
I definitely do not understand the first part of that statement. Elaborate, please?
I still think Sen. Kay Hutchison would be the best VP pick for Rudy...As a practical matter, if she were on a winning ticket, her Senate seat would be filled through appointment by a Republican governor.
The same could be said about Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida. Rep. Gov. Charlie Crist can replace him with another R...(Jeb?) Florida is going to be up for grabs, and it's just as important now as 2000. The black vote is lost to the R's, but the Hispanic isn't...yet. Martinez could grab any nationwide Hispanic undecideds plus solidify the Florida Cuban vote.
IP - Personally I don't think this conversation is too far off topic since we are essentially talking about who is "conservative enough" to maintain the balance of powers in the Republican party. As far as social services go, perhaps I should be more specific. Bush's budgets have attempted to scale back, to the tunes of billions of dollars, anti-poverty programs, education programs, etc. that would directly help the poor and middle class. He has not, however, attempted to address any of the corporate welfare that continues to rain down on the least needy among us. Oil industry subsidies are just one example, but to me the point is quite clear: cut spending by reducing programs for the poor and middle class, but don't touch tax breaks and loopholes for businesses. Quintessential conservative economics.
On privatization I could not disagree with you more. Bush came into office promising to privatize almost 1 million federal jobs. He has privatized sections of the air traffic controllers, the FBI, the military, education (see NCLB), etc. He privatized the Katrina clean up and recovery efforts (to terrible effect, btw). I am not sure if he has matched the 850,000 job projection he laid out for himself, but I reckon he has come pretty close.
But you might have a different definition for privatization, I am not sure. If you are talking about something like social security, then I would humbly suggest that (as you know) Bush tried that tactic and it didn't work out so well. Historians will most likely attribute the beginning of his fall from grace to those attempts to privatize SS, which kind of proves my point that it is the IDEAS that are the problem here, not the leader.
As for de-regulation, I would suggest a look at the Bush-Cheney "clean coal" energy plan. I won't bother bringing up the efforts to increase the levels of mercury in our systems, the opening of vast tracks of federal lands for logging and mining, the prescription drug plan which turned over billions in tax dollars to Big Pharm, or the complete refusal to push for lower mileage standards (you can propose it, but if you don't push for it what's the difference). In fact, if you look at what Bush has attempted to do and actually done regarding just the environment and worker rights, you'll find that he makes his Dad and Reagan look downright socialist.
My point is that Bush is indeed a conservative. He doesn't just play one on TV. No doubt he has strayed a bit here and there but a big piece of his unpopularity is the fact that (imo) his IDEAS are not widely loved by the People. Not because they don't understand the core nature of those ideas, but because they have seen these ideas in action and the results just aren't very pretty.
"Martinez could grab any nationwide Hispanic undecideds plus solidify the Florida Cuban vote."
Martinez barely won to a weak Democrat and has had horrible numbers ever since.
Back to the subject, here is a piece by a guy from the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. He details a number of things Bush has done, mainly internationally, working against abortion. Closing quote:
"My point is that Bush is indeed a conservative. He doesn't just play one on TV."
My point is that Bush isn't a conservative, but that he does play one on TV.
He talks a lot about conservative ideas - smaller government, reduced spending, efficiency, greater opportunity and less regulation - but has governed in nearly the opposite fashion. While you've certainly got a lot of issues with how he's governed, and you like to pigeonhole everything he's done as "conservative," in reality you're picking obscure and relatively unknown facets of his Administration and portraying them as centerpieces. And, in reality, the centerpieces of his administration have been, other than tax cuts, not conservative at all.
It may be useful for you to do so, to try to damage the conservative brand as badly and Republicans have damaged the Republican brand, but in reality most conservative ideas - as articulated by actual conservatives, rather than someone who hates conservative ideas - are still quite popular: less government intervention into everyday lives, lower taxes, reduced Federal spending, greater efficiency in government, and greater opportunities within a growing and global economy.
"He details a number of things Bush has done, mainly internationally, working against abortion."
I'm Pro-Life, and I don't want a President who will continue to fight abortion at the United Nations. I want a President who will start holding the UN accountable, not someone who legitimizes it by using it as an vehicle to push issues.
Maybe I should have put more excerpts in:
Some other examples cited do indeed show Bush using the UN (like a international ban on human cloning), but the above examples are far from "legitimiz(ing) it by using it as an vehicle to push issues."
One, I don't know if Rudy is opposed to any of those measures, but even if he said he agreed with them, would you believe him? Would you believe Romney?
Two, I think those measures are much less important than Federal judicial appointments, which have been the focus of the American Pro-Life movement for decades. Do you?
would you believe him? Would you believe Romney?
yes. And I would love to hear them express support for those kind of positions, and a continuation of restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
Are these measures less important than the Supreme Court justices? Yes, but that doesn't mean they should just be ignored, and it doesn't mean they are unimportant.
"And I would love to hear them express support for those kind of positions, and a continuation of restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
Are these measures less important than the Supreme Court justices? Yes, but that doesn't mean they should just be ignored, and it doesn't mean they are unimportant. "
Are they important enough to wait and see what Rudy's position is before Dobson and his ilk start looking for ways to elect a Democrat?
I think Dobson is trying to sink Rudy's primary campaign, no question. Whether he would actually go thru with his threat to sink him in the general - don't know.
I personally have still not decided who will be getting my vote, but Rudy has some work to do.
"I personally have still not decided who will be getting my vote, but Rudy has some work to do."
I realize that, and I'm glad you're giving him a chance to actually do that work. If he's still lacking next February 5, then that's Rudy's fault, and not yours.
Dobson, on the other hand, is another issue.
For the record, Mel Martinez was born in Cuba and is thus constitutionally ineligible to be VP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Martinez
"Are they important enough to wait and see what Rudy's position are" like Illinois weather it will change.
We don't have to wait for "his ilk" "· Embryonic stem cell research is supported by such key Republicans as Sen. John McCain, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and former First Lady Nancy Reagan."--http://www.parkinsonsaction.org/content/view/212/212/--The Parkinson website.
"Two, I think those measures are much less important than Federal judicial appointments, which have been the focus of the American Pro-Life movement for decades. Do you?" --Yeah those measures have been completely forgotten, getting judge's though a Democrat Senate will be very hard especially Conservative one's, do you really expect a pro-choice President to put up the fight Bush did? Presidents do a heck of a lot more then put up judge's that effect Pro-Life issues.