MyDD :: What A Right-Wing Challenge To Rudy Would Mean

What A Right-Wing Challenge To Rudy Would Mean

by Todd Beeton, Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 01:34:48 PM EST

As I wrote on Sunday, the evangelical movement's version of the Stonecutters held a super secret meeting on Saturday during which they apparently "decided to consider" supporting a third party challenger in the presidential race if Rudy Giuliani becomes the Republican nominee. Family Research Council's Tony Perkins, who attended the meeting, tried to pushback a bit on that story on Monday's Hardball:

This was more of a proclamation of principle, rather than a declaration of intent. There`s no desire to run a third-party candidate. But there`s been a line drawn, which I think most pro-life conservatives are not willing to cross.

But today, in a New York Time oped, Focus On The Family's James Dobson confirms that that line they decided to draw was indeed between their support and a Rudy Giuliani presidency:

The purpose of the gathering was to discuss our response if both the Democratic and Republican Parties nominate standard-bearers who are supportive of abortion. Although I was neither the convener nor the moderator of the meeting, I'd like to offer several brief clarifications about its outcome and implications.

After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.

So how does this impact a Giuliani presidential bid? TPM brings us a new Rasmussen poll that shows that a three-way race between Giuliani, Clinton and a third-party challenge from the right would be serious trouble for Rudy.

The poll finds that 27% of Republican voters would rather vote for a third-party Christian right candidate in a general election than vote for Rudy Giuliani -- and that's in a three-way race with Hillary Clinton.

The hypothetical three-way race shows Hillary with 46% support, Rudy at 30%, and the third-party conservative with 14%. Among self-described pro-life voters, Rudy gets only 36% support, with the third-party candidate at 29% and Hillary with 23%. Not just that, but Rudy gets only 25% of pro-choice voters, with Hillary still walking away comfortably with 65%."

The Giuliani paradox: that which makes him most electable may make him unelectable in the end. Then again, those electoral maps of Giuliani's touting his electability against Clinton were pretty compelling...

Tags: 2008 presidential election, Republican primary, Rudy Giuliani (all tags)

Permalink :: 38 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: What A Right-Wing Challenge To Rudy Would Mean (none / 0)

What potential religious right candidate is credible enough--um, maybe that's the wrong word--well-known enough to garner a significant number of religious right votes?

"I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."--John McCain

by lorax on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 01:42:32 PM EST

Re: What A Right-Wing Challenge To Rudy Would Mean (2.00 / 1)

Alan Keyes, Hutton Gibson, Roy Moore, Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, Marilyn Musgrave, Tony Perkins, Rick Santorum, Jack Thompson or Don Wildmon

I would say the most likely choice would be Santorum or Moore, with Moore being the top choice given he wasn't just handed his ass in 2006.

They see Moore as a martyr and he would actually excite a lot of the theocons... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore

"I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington... I'm asking you to believe in yours!" - Sen. Barack Obama

by yitbos96bb on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:38:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What A Right-Wing Challenge To Rudy Would Mean (2.00 / 1)

You know who could do it is Judge Roy Moore who refused to remove the ten commandments in the Alabama courthouse. The "values voters" LOVED him at their debate. Matthews suggested that Tony Perkins was itching for a run himself although he did "take it off the table." But hey, why mess with a good thing: Alan Keyes, baby!

by Todd Beeton on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 01:50:55 PM EST

Re: What A Right-Wing Challenge To Rudy Would Mean (none / 0)

If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate.

I think this story is being oversold as a promise to run a third-party candidate if Rudy is nominated. To me, it sounds like all they're doing is demanding that he take a pledge, which he would probably do.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 01:52:00 PM EST

Re: What A Right-Wing Challenge To Rudy Would Mean (none / 0)

or trying to stop him from getting the nomination and assert themselves over the rest of the repug electorate...

I think more infighting is brewing and will come to a head very soon.

Rise, Hillary, Rise

by sepulvedaj3 on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:07:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What A Right-Wing Challenge To Rudy Would Mean (none / 0)

Well, I certainly agree that they want someone other than Rudy to get the nomination. But they're smart enough to realize that it might happen and that they lose all their leverage if they exit the tent altogether.

Better to reaffirm their power by forcing the nominee to swear a loyalty oath to the evangelical movement.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:27:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What A Right-Wing Challenge To Rudy Would Mean (none / 0)

Evangelicals have been very disenchanted with the GOP, and this is just a continuation of that. They care about political power (and the party) less than about principals. Remember that before 1980 they were largely apolitical, and a return to that if they see the GOP not in line with their wishes (which Giuliani would certainly represent in their minds) may make that a reality again. Of course, the leaders want to stay involved in the political process, so this 3rd party option if Giuliani is nominated seems like a logical step for that group.

by georgep on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:43:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What A Right-Wing Challenge To Rudy Would Mean (none / 0)

I'm talking about the leaders as opposed to the voters.

Ever since the rise of the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, and the like, it's been clear that the leaders are fixated on political power to the exclusion of actual religious principles.

This is why I don't think they will be abandoning the Republican Party if they can possibly help it. Like Markos and Jerome in Crashing the Gate, they realize that there are only two games in town, and it certainly won't be the Democrats who enact their policy goals. They really have no choice but to work within the framework of the Republican Party. That's why I think this is 99% saber-rattling.

It is, indeed, possible at some point that if the Republicans truly abandon the causes of the evangelicals, the voters may stop showing up no matter how much the likes of Dobson and Perkins try to persuade them that the Democrats are the party of Satan. But we're not there yet. With a few utterances of the right phrases, Giuliani still has a chance of passing muster.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:09:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What A Right-Wing Challenge To Rudy Would Mean (none / 0)

As a matter of game theory, I disagree. If Dobson and his ilk decide that it is highly likely that the GOP presidential candidate will lose even if they try to rev up the base, their most effective play is to encourage their supporters to support a third party candidate (or note vote) for president, while voting down ballot.

If they can show a huge gap in the number of Republican votes for president vs. congress, they can argue that the party must toe the line in the future, or else lose the support of these voters.

by Ephus on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:33:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What A Right-Wing Challenge To Rudy Would Mean (none / 0)

Didn't work for Nader. I think they'd have to be pretty confident in their ability to move millions of votes to a candidate with no chance of winning in order to try something like that.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:42:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What A Right-Wing Challenge To Rudy Would Mean (none / 0)

But this saber-rattling runs counterproductive of that theme. Dobson has been on this "anyone but Giuliani" kick for months, and he provides compelling arguments that seem very hard to simply just say "never mind" to in the end. In a way it is like Nader's talk.

I think this is more real than you think. They would probably be holding their tongues and then work with Giuliani's people to press concessions out of him. But think about it, the big "principle" thing for them is abortion, and I don't see a way for them to come together on that. According to Dobson abortion is murder in any way, shape or form. If Giuliani continues his pro-choice stance (which he is unlikely to convert out of at this stage) there is no basis for them to "split the difference" IMO.

by georgep on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:48:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What A Right-Wing Challenge To Rudy Would Mean (none / 0)

I don't know if "anyone but Giuliani" is a fair statement. Did you see his rant against Fred Thompson? Unless they're prepared to embrace a Mormon, they're pretty much out of candidates!

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 04:04:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What A Right-Wing Challenge To Rudy Would Mean (2.00 / 1)

Oh... darn.

"I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington... I'm asking you to believe in yours!" - Sen. Barack Obama

by yitbos96bb on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:39:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Off topic, but ... (none / 0)

I was just thinking ... who will the Republicans run in '08 should a Clinton win?

If for some reason she is in the tank and below 50% then I would say Jebbie in a heartbeat. But if she is above 50%, then who?

Would John Boehner give it a go?

Might Bill Frist consider it?

Wait, back on topic.

Why isn't Bill Frist running again? It seems like he towed the fundy / wingnut line right up until the end. He wasn't the most effective guy ever to be Senate Majority Leader, but still he is not a total mouth breather and would square with the fundies like Dobson.

by dpANDREWS on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:19:28 PM EST

Re: Off topic, but ... (none / 0)

In 2012, do you mean?

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:28:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Off topic, but ... (none / 0)

Yes, excuse me - 2012

by dpANDREWS on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:59:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Off topic, but ... (none / 0)

Well, it depends. If present trends continue, and 2008 is another sweep for the Dems, at some point the Republicans will have to face up to the reality that their platform just isn't appealing any more. At that point, they'll have two choices: (1) reinvent themselves, or (2) wait for the ruling party to screw up so they can win by default. (You'll recognize #2 as the current Democratic strategy.)

If a Democratic President doesn't get us disentangled from Iraq before 2012, the Republicans will most likely find a candidate who can run to the left on that issue. If we pull out and things don't go well, maybe we could expect a firebreather who will claim vindication for Bush's policies at long last. On the other hand, if we elect someone who does a basically good job, they've left searching for a Bob Dole-type to be their sacrificial lamb. A lot depends on events, since they obviously don't have any clear successor in the wings.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:14:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Off topic, but ... (none / 0)

Well the real question is who do they run against any Dem, not just Clinton? Do they have a deep bench at all?

If they get the constitution amended, then we may see the Governator run, but he isn't beating an incumbent unless the incumbent is really unpopular... He'd wait until 2016 or take a VP nom with the 2012 person.

So who else... Jeb is an option, but I don't think this country elects a Bush again for at least 30 - 50 years.

Charlie Crist? Mitch Daniels? Tim Pawlenty? Mark Sanford? Rick Perry?

"I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington... I'm asking you to believe in yours!" - Sen. Barack Obama

by yitbos96bb on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:06:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Off topic, but ... (none / 0)

Frist lost the majority

Rise, Hillary, Rise

by sepulvedaj3 on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:40:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hardly his fault (none / 0)

I Dubya had a lot, and Macaca had a little, bit to do with it

by dpANDREWS on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:00:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hardly his fault (none / 0)

oh definitely, but its still nice to point out.

Rise, Hillary, Rise

by sepulvedaj3 on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:47:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Off topic, but ... (none / 0)

Bill Frist? Are you kidding? He makes Hollywood Fred sound exciting.

Jim Webb - Born Fighting

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 04:28:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Think of the mess (none / 0)

Fundies run a wingnut on the third party line.

Paul re-ups with the Libertarians.

The Greenies dig up Nader's corpse one more time.

Yeee haaaw!

Now that will be an election to remember.

by dpANDREWS on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:21:50 PM EST

Re: Think of the mess (none / 0)

In that circumstance, I think the Dem wins with over 350 electoral votes. I think the Dem would carry all of the states carried by Kerry (252), plus Virginia (13), Ohio (20), Iowa (7), Florida (27), New Mexico (5), Colorado (9), Arizona (10) and Nevada (5) for a total of 358. Depending on the Dem candidate, the following states would also be in play West Virginia (5), Missouri (11), Arkansas (6).

In other words, so long as the Democrats are not the only party with a siphoning candidate further from the middle of the spectrum, I think the Dems win in a rout.

by Ephus on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:41:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What A Right-Wing Challenge To Rudy Would Mean (none / 0)

On WNYC's Brian Lehrer Show today Charles Dunn speculated that this announcement could be a sign that Dobson himself is going to run! I sure hope he does because I can't imagine a more damaging move in Right-Wing politics. The great and unholy union of big business and religious conservatives like Dobson are finally coming apart.

$439Billion spent on the US Military and still no universal health care.

by jlars on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:29:29 PM EST

Re: What A Right-Wing Challenge To Rudy Would Mean (none / 0)

Ah, George Bush and Karl Rove's true legacy. The downfall of the Republican Party...

NJ Hussein Independent

by NJIndependent on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:41:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What A Right-Wing Challenge To Rudy Would Mean (none / 0)

The Giuliani paradox: that which makes him most electable may make him unelectable in the end.

It's like the DLC paradox, only inside-out.
.

by Grand Moff Texan on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:31:59 PM EST

Re: What A Right-Wing Challenge To Rudy Would Mean (none / 0)

by Grand Moff Texan on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:32:06 PM EST

Re: What A Right-Wing Challenge To Rudy Would Mean (none / 0)

So, then, Giuliani is REALLY the polarizing candidate here, right?

by georgep on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:46:03 PM EST

Re: What A Right-Wing Challenge To Rudy Would Mean (none / 0)

Unfortunately, Rudy will just take "THE PLEDGE" even stronger than he has already - more Alitos on the bench, people saying how pro-life he has always been. The fundies will just fall in line. It will be up to the Democrats to point out all his new found right wing stances and make sure that the independent voters know that he is the NEW Rudy not the Rudy from New York City

by NYMARJ on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:46:40 PM EST

Re: What A Right-Wing Challenge To Rudy Would Mean (none / 0)

What's interesting about this is that if it happens, Sen. Clinton will have been elected under very similar circumstances to her husband. Bill Clinton won a plurality, but not a majority of the popular vote in 1992 due to Ross Perot taking 19% of the popular vote. The righties used the result from day one to attack Clinton's legitimacy, arguing that Perot's support came largely from George H.W. Bush. This was utter nonsense, but of course the MSM parroted it as gospel truth. It didn't make sense on its face, since Perot was strongly pro-choice, and post-election polls of the time showed that Clinton and Bush would have split the vote almost evenly had Perot not been in the race. Plus, Bill Clinton won a solid majority of the Electoral College, which the righties regard as sacrosanct (when it's to their advantage, that is). Be prepared for a similar meme if Sen. Clinton wins a similar victory.

by laviolet on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:50:56 PM EST

Re: What A Right-Wing Challenge To Rudy Would Mean (none / 0)

We saw a similar attempt to de-legitimize the Democratic victory in 2006, with the incessant talking point that it was all because we ran "conservative" Democrats.

Be that as it may, a win is still a win. Hopefully we can push back against the stupid narrative a little more effectively than we did in 1992, and hopefully we'll have a President who knows better than to rely on the punditry to find out if they have a mandate or not.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 04:07:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What A Right-Wing Challenge To Rudy Would Mean (none / 0)

I agree with your general premise, but Perot was actually strongly pro-life. Without a doubt though, the GOP will try to argue any Democratic win is purely do to a third party challenger. Facts don't get in their way.

by HSTruman on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 04:14:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What A Right-Wing Challenge To Rudy Would Mean (none / 0)

Perot was unequivocally and strongly pro-choice. A summary of candidate's positions by the MIT Tech said "Perot supports a woman's right to choose, federal funding of abortions for the poor and federal funding of counseling for pregnant women, while also encouraging adoption." See the complete article at

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V112/N51/ross.51 w.html

I also remember well the vice-presidential debate that year, when Admiral Stockdale flatly said that whether a woman terminated a pregnancy was none of the government's business.

P.S. For some reason an extraneous space appears in the URL above. Page should be ross.51w.html

by laviolet on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 05:04:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What A Right-Wing Challenge To Rudy Would Mean (none / 0)

I stand corrected -- thanks. I remembered reading an analysis of Perot's impact on the '92 election that described him as a supporter of some loony "life amendment" to the constitution. After some quick research, that seems to be clearly incorrect.

by HSTruman on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 01:11:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What A Right-Wing Challenge To Rudy Would Mean (none / 0)

The Giuliani paradox: that which makes him most electable may make him unelectable in the end.

----

That's no paradox.

That's justice.

by Bush Bites on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 05:47:19 PM EST

Re: A Right-Wing party in 2008??? (none / 0)

actually there might be more than 3 candidates....i get the feeling that a left/iberal, democratic, independent, republicn and a christian party being represented.

So a real independent could come out the winner????

by pate on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 06:13:13 PM EST

Re: What A Right-Wing (none / 0)

Why don't we pretend we're scared of Rudy to help him get elected and then run him in the ground with the pro-abortion ads? I know that type of group, they are like the ones who voted for Nader- they know voting for someone else will hurt the conservative frontrunner's chances but they don't care and they will do it anyway. That's just how they are.

NY TIMES ENDORSEMENT: "Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.... She would be a strong commander in chief."

by reasonwarrior on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 07:23:53 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.