Richard Land to critics on voting for a pro-choice candidate: “Could you vote for a Klansman?”
posted at 4:06 pm on October 23, 2007 by Allahpundit
The nuclear option is on the table, my friends.
NEWSWEEK: So we wanted to ask you, first of all, about the third party idea and whether it’s serious. A number of people are suggesting it is just a threat.
Land: My intuition [is that] this is not a bluff. If Giuliani is the nominee, there will be a third party. There are things that Giuliani could do to help mitigate the damage. But I have been in too many discussions over the last 15 years where evangelical leaders have said, “The one thing we will never allow to happen is for the Republican Party to take us for granted the way the Democrat Party too often takes the African-American community for granted.”
This is not a bluff…When Rudy says “I will appoint strict constructionist judges,” you are not hearing that?
I hear it. I hear it.Well, you don’t hear Hillary saying that.
[Land turns to question a Newsweek reporter] Could you vote for a Klansman?[Reporter responds] No.
You’ve answered my question. I cannot vote for someone who believes that it’s all right to stop a beating heart.
He predicts 25-30% of evangelicals will walk away if Rudy’s the nominee, and that’s assuming Rudy does his level best at “mitigation,” i.e. promising to veto any attempt to expand abortion rights and to sign any attempt to restrict abortion rights. If he doesn’t, then his social liberalism plus the “abominable” circumstances of his second divorce, in Land’s words, will drive away even more. The good news? Any other nominee will obviate the need for a third party, including Mitt — but in his case perhaps only if he delivers a speech promising that he won’t have a lot of Mormons in his administration. “That is a concern that has been expressed to me by my constituents,” says Land. Seriously.
Exit question: Is it time for the big A and the other three other Republican atheists in America to walk? You’ll miss us when we’re gone. Well, no, probably not.
Update: Isn’t this whole debate getting us sidetracked from the real issue?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Rudy Guiliani is not Robert Byrd
William Amos on October 23, 2007 at 4:08 PM
to be fair im not sure robert byrd is robert byrd half the time.
zane on October 23, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Proves Rudy will get some portion of the Dem. vote
JiangxiDad on October 23, 2007 at 4:11 PM
The tent is getting smaller
tommylotto on October 23, 2007 at 4:12 PM
So tolerance for “intolerant” Christians is now impossible?
IMO their “intolerance” is based on holocaust morality. I don’t agree with that but have tolerance for their intensity.
boris on October 23, 2007 at 4:12 PM
I’m no evangelical–I’m actually getting pretty annoyed at their self-aggrandizing preening lately–but I don’t mind a big tent. It’s only when a bunch of self-important idiots try to hijack the tend that it becomes a problem.
My opinion… these people aren’t as important as they think they are, and they are about to learn that the hard way. The people who they think are their “flock of sheep” will ignore them for the most part and will support whoever the Republicans nominate.
So, no… don’t leave.
DaveS on October 23, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Evangelical christians feel they have been taken for granted for too long by the GOP – the party loves them when they donate, loves them when they walk precincts and run phone banks, but the rest of the time it’s back-of-the-bus time; just sit down, shut up and hold on. At some point, they’re going to tell the GOP to go eat bricks. You can’t use and abuse people forever and expect them to act like good little sheeple. Rudy is going to have to really stretch hard to get these people on board. And insulting them is only going to make them go away even faster and in larger numbers.
jdawg on October 23, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Hell, I’m conflicted about Giuliani. I don’t understand why the Republican Party as a whole, with its pro-life plank, is alright with his social-liberalism.
But if it comes down to Rudy v. Hillary – or pretty much anyone on the Left, I know which box I tick.
His point about being taken for granted I find interesting. The comparison to the Klan, while, ahm, overstated, underscores the importance of abortion of the religious right.
nailinmyeye on October 23, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Who is Richard Land?
bnelson44 on October 23, 2007 at 4:19 PM
nailinmyeye on October 23, 2007 at 4:17 PM
It’s so much more than that, but the GOP has been the pro-life party for many years. The Dems have made it clear they don’t want any pro-lifers, and if the GOP thinks they can just push the pro-life crowd aside without taking some heat, they’re dead wrong.
jdawg on October 23, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Yeah…I mean, what has the Republican party given us, anyway?
A ban on stem cell research, a ban on partial-birth abortion, constructionist judges, a ban on federal funds for abortion, money for faith-based initiatives, abstinence teaching in the schools…
We should totally stab the do-nothings in the back!
Slublog on October 23, 2007 at 4:24 PM
My contempt for abortion is based upon Scripture; both Old Testament and New Testament.
Let’s do it this way – instead of using tidy, little euphemisms like “I’m pro-choice” – let’s call it what it is:
“I’m pro-every mother is free to exterminate the child in her own womb, as a means of birth control.”
There we have it. Damn, my intolerance!
OhEssYouCowboys on October 23, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Does anyone really believe that a President Guliani, with a Republican majority in Congress (hey, a guy can dream…), is going to push a pro-abortion agenda? Or a pro-gay marriage agenda?
CurtZHP on October 23, 2007 at 4:25 PM
If there’s been a time that the tent was large enough to accomodate a pro-choice presidential nominee, I don’t remember it.
A party that’s so inclusive that it accomodates almost any viewpint effectively stands for nothing.
Hollowpoint on October 23, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Ironically enough, each party’s perception of the other side as ruthless and girded for battle is leading them in the direction of settling on flawed candidates. Republicans may quite possibly crack the coalition that has served as the foundation of the party by nominating a pro-choice candidate for the first time since the pro-life plank was put in the party platform.
And Democrats, who continue to have the political wind at their back, are going to risk their best chance at winning the White House on a candidate with the highest unfavorable ratings of any candidate in recent history, and one whose baggage continues to spill out onto the front pages of newspapers with alarming frequency.
- Tom Bevan
MB4 on October 23, 2007 at 4:26 PM
Conversely. Does anyone believe that if a pro-life candidate is elected that roe v wade would suddenly be overturned?
Not that I just -love- this 2008 being turned into an abortion debate or anything. But let’s be honest.
If abortion is topic #1 in your head during this race, then you need to take a look at the world around you.
lorien1973 on October 23, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Does anyone really believe that a President Guliani, with a Democratic majority in Congress (which will almost certainly be the reality), is going to push a pro-life agenda? An anti-gay marriage agenda? A pro-gun agenda? An anti-amnesty agenda?
Hollowpoint on October 23, 2007 at 4:28 PM
If they make it so Hillary gets in, there will be many mea culpas, but after the fact.
bbz123 on October 23, 2007 at 4:28 PM
Oh puhlease…
The choice will be clear…Cankles or fill in the blank.
Fill in the blank wins every time.
swami on October 23, 2007 at 4:30 PM
No, but should people really believe that a pro-choice candidate is going to nominate judges who will overturn Roe v Wade? Especially when his view of a “strict constructionist” judge includes those who would let it stand as precident?
Hollowpoint on October 23, 2007 at 4:30 PM
Selling out has consequences.
I think this is all to do with the GOP elite selling out on fiscal responsibility, spending and gov’t growth, most importantly, its outright eagerness to get into a vicious war with its own natural base of support over Amnesty, and the fallout from that, social cons are jumpy now because they think they’re about to get sold out like the rest of the conservative movement has been and continues to be.
Bad Candy on October 23, 2007 at 4:31 PM
This would mean a lot more to me if I knew who this dude was.
Verbal Abuse on October 23, 2007 at 4:32 PM
Ok, let’s say a Third party candidate does actually take the WH? Could he possibly get anything worthwile accomplished? I’m serious as to what whole other set of problems that would incur?
bbz123 on October 23, 2007 at 4:34 PM
That sound you hear is Hillary chuckling.
Halley on October 23, 2007 at 4:35 PM
I’ve talked to a number of evangelical Christians who tell me they would prefer Hillary to Rudy because if Hillary is in office, it will galvanize a Republican minority in Congress to lock-step oppose any efforts by Hillary to legislatively move the country to the left on social issues. By contrast, if Rudy is elected, Rudy can be expected to support Democratic initiatives in Congress that are socially liberal. It’s much harder for the Republicans in Congress to routinely oppose a Republican president. (Look at how hard it was for the GOP Congress to stand up to Bush on immigration reform, for example. They did it, but it took a LOT of effort.)
The one place where I think that reasoning breaks down is in judicial nominees. GOP Senators can threaten a filibuster all they want; Hillary would clearly appoint more liberal justices and appeals court judges than Rudy. A GOP filibuster could stop a crazy lefty, but not every lefty.
Outlander on October 23, 2007 at 4:35 PM
If we don’t fight for the life of our babies, do the other battles really matter?
When we can think of murdering an unborn child to keep from being embarrassed or inconvienced what hope have we left as humans?
Please adopt out your unwanted children, murder is not the answer.
leanright on October 23, 2007 at 4:36 PM
Plus,Outlander, there is precedent that Hillary would replace EVERY judicial post she is allowed to.
bbz123 on October 23, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Any of the political evangalical votes the Republican party loses can be offset with Independents’ and moderate Democrats’ votes. The third party scenario isn’t the nuclear option it’s made out to be, it might just save the Republican party.
RightOFLeft on October 23, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Yes, they do. I think the need to protect our civilization from the creeping onset of a new fanaticism should be taken into consideration when deciding which party you want in control of the White House.
Slublog on October 23, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Except for Paul, I really like our guys. I feel proud when I hear them speak at the debates. I’m not convinced the Democrats are in as strong a position as so many seem to think. I think the sands are already moving (again) beneath their feet. Some how I don’t see a Guiliani Convention removing the pro-life plank. (am I dreaming?)
Nyog_of_the_Bog on October 23, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Wishful thinking. Currently Rudy is polling behind Hillary; for your scenario to be true he’d have to be so far ahead that he could afford to lose the religious right / social con vote- a bloc with a typically high voter turnout.
Hollowpoint on October 23, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Would it still be the republican party? Sounds like a moderate finger in the wind party.
sunny on October 23, 2007 at 4:42 PM
If the Supremes overturn Roe and dump the abortion issue back to the legislative bodies, does that help or hurt the Republicans? Might be a Pyrrhic victory.
dedalus on October 23, 2007 at 4:42 PM
If we had run off elections this wouldn’t be a problem. We’d have 5 real parties and a lot less muddy water.
1. Social Conservative Fiscal Conservative (Reagan/Gingrich)
2. Social Liberal Fiscal Conservative (Schwarzenegger/Lieberman)
3. Social Conservative Fiscal Liberal (can’t think of any off the top of my head)
4. Social Liberal Social Conservative (Pelosi/Kennedy/Kerry)
5. Fruit Bats (Ron Paul/Truthers/Bill the Cat)
- The Cat
MirCat on October 23, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Edit
4. Social Liberal Social Conservative (Pelosi/Kennedy/Kerry)
Should Say
4. Social Liberal Fiscal Liberal (Pelosi/Kennedy/Kerry)
MirCat on October 23, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Are there Red states that would turn Blue in a Rudy Hillary race? Blue to Red might be PA, CT, NJ.
dedalus on October 23, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Slublog on October 23, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Then the teachers, administrators of our public schools, and our college professors are this country’s most dangerous enemies, for they are teaching our children those things you fear most.
leanright on October 23, 2007 at 4:50 PM
There’s George W. Bush, but he can’t run again.
dedalus on October 23, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Like it or not, Land is right when he says this is not a bluff. There are many, many people on the Right that are absolutely serious about not voting for Giuliani.
CP on October 23, 2007 at 4:52 PM
Well I’d say that sorta kicks the ole ‘only Rudy can win’ argument right in as*.
Ex-tex on October 23, 2007 at 4:53 PM
3. Social Conservative Fiscal Liberal (can’t think of any off the top of my head)
There is always the idiot bridge to nowhere man from Al.
leanright on October 23, 2007 at 4:54 PM
I think the country’s most dangerous enemies are those who actually want to kill as many of us as possible.
Slublog on October 23, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Oh, c’mon now…
GEORGE W. BUSH !!!
singlemalt_18 on October 23, 2007 at 4:56 PM
I would have a hard time voting for RUDY. If he is the nominee then that means the Republicans are becoming more like the Dems… abortion, anti-gun, gay marriage, etc… I would vote 3rd party just to let the Repubs know that I want a CONSERVITIVE party, not 2 liberal parties… Who knows, maybe Mrs. Bill Clinton won’t be that bad… after all her platform is almost the same as Rudy’s…
m1a1usmc on October 23, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Helps, its a double win, it gets it off the federal table and back to the states where it belonged in the first place, which will satisfy those who favor decentralization of power and ending judicial fiat, and those who oppose abortion can ban it as they please in their own backyards and fight it out on a local/state level, then we can focus on the rest of the GOP platform nationally. Sure, we’ll lose the focus of a number of single issues voters, but we can make progress on other fronts, and move to further conservatism. Sounds good to me.
Bad Candy on October 23, 2007 at 4:56 PM
It’s not my #1 issue, nor is it the only issue on my radar, which is why I’m not about to hand the country over to terrorist sympathizers just so single issue voters can pat themselves on the back that the law of the land regarding abortion will still be the law of the land.
As I stated, it pretty much hinges on what kind of Congress he has to work with (or against). If he has a Republican majority, and he wants to serve more than one term, he’d better step carefully.
Speaking as an Evangelical, I wish Land, Dobson, et. al. would STFU. I’m a big boy now, and I think I can figure out who to vote for. I’ll call you if I need you.
CurtZHP on October 23, 2007 at 4:58 PM
I’ve been advocating not voting for some time now. Frankly, I don’t see the point. My vote has been cancelled out by dead/nonexistent voters in Wisconsin for years, it’s just not worth my time anymore.
By the way, who the hell is this Richard Land jag? And why is Newsweek pushing him on us? Does anyone else get the impression that Newsweek is trying to put one over on its evangelical readers – “It’s okay to vote third party and assure a Hillary presidency, Bible-thumpers. After all, Richard Land says you’re a racist if you vote for Rudy. Write in Huckabee. You’re getting very sleepy…”
Enrique on October 23, 2007 at 5:04 PM
oh crap..now mitts got a serious problem.
Anyway, if Rudy is the nominee it will be without my vote. But he will have my vote in the general because that woman is too much. I’m a pro-life guy, but a sit out or throw away will not do.
sunny on October 23, 2007 at 5:08 PM
I think those jackasses have way too much (or think they have too much ) influence in the GOP. Hopefully any voters lost by their hissy fit will be replaced by Democratic voters disgusted by the leftward drift of their party.
Hilts on October 23, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Yeah that will be great…then we will have the GOP being liberal and the Dem’s being nutcase leftists…thats something to look forward to…
EnochCain on October 23, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Thanks for the reply. I agree with your point on judicial fiat. Overturning Roe would inject abortion into every congressional race (not to mention the state houses). I think it might make it harder for Republican Senators and Reps from the majority of states to get elected without adopting a pro choice position. Here’s one set of stats.
It would be interesting to see what legislative compromises would ultimately be achieved.
dedalus on October 23, 2007 at 5:13 PM
But all indications are that he won’t have a Republican majority in Congress. We’re lucky if we don’t lose seats.
Hollowpoint on October 23, 2007 at 5:16 PM
Forget it. New Jersey is more liberal than California. It will never, ever vote Republican, period. CT and PA won’t go for Rudy over Hillary either.
The Republicans are doomed. Too many in the GOP want to spit on pro-life voters and think that the balance can be made up with so-called “independents.” What a fantasy that is. The only reason many social conservatives vote for the GOP to begin with is because it’s supposedly pro-life.
Everyone on this blog saying “good riddance” to pro-lifers has no idea how big a constituency they are. This would be the equivalent of the Democrats saying to the 90% of blacks in the country that vote for them: “We don’t need you anymore.” It is just crazy.
I think it’s unfortunate that many Republicans are being convinced by the corporate sellouts in the party that the pro-lifers can be jettisoned without repercussions. A party doesn’t throw away a gigantic constituency that has voted for them for years.
If the Republicans do this, they won’t crack 40% of the vote. Guaranteed.
Sydney Carton on October 23, 2007 at 5:16 PM
I hate the whole pro-choice(anti-life)/pro-life(anti-abortion) divide. Both options are morally and logically unfeasible. On the one hand you have a bunch of idiots who think that life begins with the before-dinner-appertifs before a first date, on the other there are those idiots who think infanticide is a valid choice. The true boundary is somewhere in the middle. Which, by the way, is where most people actually vote. First trimester abortions are not going to go away. Third trimester and late second trimester abortions (except in cases of valid medical neccessity) are going away. No cadidate who runs on the single issue of either extreme will win. EVER. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.
Also, the phrase “I cannot vote for someone who believes that it’s all right to stop a beating heart,” is singular in its complete and utter stupidity. My hamburger stops a beating heart, too. Idiot.
Frankly, the Evangelicals are only ensuring a Hillary victory if they do pull this third party garbage.
It was only thanks to Perot that we got stuck with Bill for eight years.
TABoLK on October 23, 2007 at 5:18 PM
If Evangelicals are upset with Rudy, imagine how upset they would be if Hillary becomes President.
SoulGlo on October 23, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Tell that to Reagan. He was the one who insisted on putting the pro-life plank in the Republican platform to begin with.
Sydney Carton on October 23, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Slublog on October 23, 2007 at 4:24 PM
Cute. You missed my point completely. Never mind.
jdawg on October 23, 2007 at 5:24 PM
The last Quinnipiac poll had Rudy a point ahead of Hillary in NJ. He’s like a favored son in NJ and probably better liked there than in NYC.
Going 3rd party is certainly understandable and principled, though a lot of Nader voters in 2000 are kicking themselves. I encourage you to fight for a pro life candidate in the primaries and then decide if you want to support the GOP in November.
I don’t think the GOP or Rudy is saying “good riddance” and Rudy would give you a lot more than Hillary would. With regard to your point about black voters, the Dems expect 90% of the their vote, and are routinely criticize by black leaders for not delivering on all their demands.
dedalus on October 23, 2007 at 5:27 PM
Based on where things stand today, given open seats and retirements, the Dems could push close to 60 in the Senate.
dedalus on October 23, 2007 at 5:29 PM
So pro-life voters and evangelicals have not received whatever they’ve wanted for eight years?
Slublog on October 23, 2007 at 5:29 PM
That’s one single plank, not the center pole for the tent. And you are in a tiny minority on that plank.
tommylotto on October 23, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Heh. Good luck with that prediction. Polls continue to show that the average conservative voter is not aware of Giuliani’s liberal stances on issues such as abortion, illegal immigration, and gun grabbing. As we move closer to election time, this will change and you’ll find his numbers continuing to drop.
TRUE conservatives DO NOT WANT GIULIANI. Conservatives who stand up for what they CLAIM to believe DO NOT WANT GIULIANI.
You’ll find that your prediction is completely wrong. Now, I’m sure we’re about to hear from several Rudy supporters about how it will be us to blame if Hillary should win because of our stubborn desire to stick to our values.
Not so. If Hillary should win the Presidency … it will be due to those of you who insist on nominating a candidate who does not share the values of most of America.
I’m not Evangelical, but I’ve made the decision that I will no longer vote for the “least bad” anymore. I refuse to vote for a man who is everything I’m against.
Dishonest. Pro-abortion. Pro-illegal immigration/amnesty. Gun grabber.
The man can join the Democratic Party where he belongs and the rest of you will get exactly what you asked for. Hillary Clinton and a socialist third-world country.
I’m done electing lying scumbags to lead this country.
Gregor on October 23, 2007 at 5:31 PM
The comments that denigrate those who are against the extermination of a child in the womb are getting interesting. Speaking for myself, I’m against abortion because of the sanctity of life in the womb, as set forth in both the Old and New Testaments. Instead of denigrating a Christian for following his faith; consider, instead, whether or not you should be following your faith(s) – you know, “hedonism,” “nihilism” and/or “narcissism.” After all, aren’t they what most abortions are all about? Putting a lifestyle choice, and the ramifications thereof, above what is growing in the womb?
OhEssYouCowboys on October 23, 2007 at 5:32 PM
So a constituency that gets a great deal of attention for eight years would somehow be ‘spit on’ if GOP voters pick a candidate who is personally pro-choice but would act in the interests of pro-life voters if elected president?
Slublog on October 23, 2007 at 5:32 PM
The election is still a long way off, so I’m not even paying attention to the polls. I’m not necessarily talking about the upcoming elections, either (although I’m optimistic). It may take a couple of election cycles.
A lot of the people I’m talking about used to be Republicans, so I’d say (emphatically) yes. A lot of the people I’m talking about elected Reagan twice.
RightOFLeft on October 23, 2007 at 5:32 PM
And I might win the Powerball while holding a royal flush in a poker game.
And yes, there are southern swing states that could otherwise go red but turn blue in a Rudy / Hillary race- even without a 3rd party spoiler. TN being one of them.
Hollowpoint on October 23, 2007 at 5:32 PM
Please…if you folks do go third party, please name it the Passive-Aggressive Party, because that’s classic “look what you made me do” thinking right there.
Slublog on October 23, 2007 at 5:34 PM
I could be wrong but I think most of the evangelicals are not crazy about this “Get out of our party” attitude they are receiving.
EnochCain on October 23, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Abortion isn’t among my top issues (though overturning activist decisions like Roe v Wade is high up there), but to say that the pro-life side is a “tiny minority” of Republican voters is beyond absurd. We wouldn’t be having this discussion if it wasn’t an issue very important to many Republican voters.
Hollowpoint on October 23, 2007 at 5:38 PM
Yeah, it’s all the fault of those stupid voters that Rudy has views they find abhorrent.
Hollowpoint on October 23, 2007 at 5:41 PM
It isn’t the ‘evangelicals’ fault that the REPUBLICANS ignore a plank in their platform. Abortion isn’t really important to me as a single issue (although I do consider it barbaric and murder).
If there were an (honest) Catholic conservative 3rd party candidate – preferably black – he/she would win this election if it were between Rudy and Hillary.
The Catholics (generally Democrat) would vote pro-life, the ‘evangelicals’ would vote anti-Hillary, anti-Rudy, and the blacks could be convinced that their vote was more important than a bit of political speak about ‘feeling your pain’.
Maybe even a hispanic Catholic. The issue is whether or not there is a conservative base in this country. The GOP used to be that conservative party. It is not any more.
But it is not the ‘evangelicals’ fault that the REPUBLICAN PLATFORM is pro-life. Change the platform if you want to change the party. But don’t be surprised when there is at least one other third party candidate.
Ron Paul will definitely run 3rd party and he’ll win more D votes from Hillary than anything.
ThackerAgency on October 23, 2007 at 5:41 PM
If those voters have so much power, then they should surely be able to defeat Giuliani in the primary. If not, then they’re not nearly as powerful as advertised.
Slublog on October 23, 2007 at 5:41 PM
NC has a D governor and we also brought you none other than the Silky One in an election that didn’t have a strong R too.
It’s OK though, what do I know.
ThackerAgency on October 23, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Well in my opinion it comes down to this…Evangelicals and the more secular in the GOP are stuck with each other unless we really want to keep seeing Democrats get elected.
EnochCain on October 23, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Gregor on October 23, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Beautifully said. Prior to the 2004 Presidential election, my last vote for President was in 1984. That was the last time that I believed in a candidate. After that, I voted for Bush, because he was the lesser-of-two-evils. I regret having made that vote. I wish that I’d just not voted.
The way that I see it, voting for the lesser-of-two-evils, is still voting for evil. I won’t bastardize my vote, again, by voting for a candidate that is against what I stand for.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 23, 2007 at 5:43 PM
If those voters were willing to take responsibility for the result of their third-party vote or refusal to vote, that would be one thing. But more often than not, they’re trying to blame those of us who actually like Giuliani for the action they already plan to take. Projection may help salve one’s conscience, but it doesn’t change the political reality.
Slublog on October 23, 2007 at 5:44 PM
I want to know when did the conservitive platform become vote for our prochoice, anti-gun, pro-gay marriage, pro amnesty candidate or prochoice, anti-gun, pro-gay marriage, pro amnesty Hillary Clinton might become president.
m1a1usmc on October 23, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Preach it brother! Like I said, abortion isn’t one of my top issues, but there’s plenty of additional reasons for conservatives not to support Rudy- especially at a time when the Republican party is in a crisis borne of straying from it’s principles.
Hollowpoint on October 23, 2007 at 5:46 PM
You have that backward. I’m not sure if you intended it that way or not, but Rudy CLAIMS that he is “personally pro-life” but “recognizes that abortion is the law of the land.”
Your suggestion that he would act in the interests of pro-lifers does not relate to anything he’s ever said or done.
Look. It’s quite simple. Either you’re a true conservative, or you simply claim to be because it makes you feel better. It’s absurd to claim to be a conservative and then go and elect a person who stands against everything conservative. Those who do this are frauds and you’re sending a message to all future candidates that there’s absolutely no need to stand on principle.
Good job!
Gregor on October 23, 2007 at 5:48 PM
And should Rudy be nominated and lose due to poor turnout from social cons, you Rudy pre-nomination backers wouldn’t bear any responsibility? Even though you know full well the risk of alienating a significant portion of the Republican voting bloc that he poses?
If those of us inclined to sit it out instead of voting for Rudy in the general (should he be nominated) bear blame for Hillary being elected, so too would you for nominating him. The blame wouldn’t lie only on one side of the argument.
Hollowpoint on October 23, 2007 at 5:50 PM
Ah, I see it now. A “true conservative” allows a socialist to get elected so he can revel in his purity, while the gains of the past few decades are systematically dismantled by the Clintons.
Slublog on October 23, 2007 at 5:52 PM
The single overriding factor of pro-life voters is to ensure that the next Supreme Court justice will overrule Roe v. Wade.
The fact that O’Connor upheld Roe, and that Kennedy upheld Lawrence, and the fact that Bush nominated Hariet Miers in a spectacular debacle, should be enough to tell you that pro-lifers do not accept “trust me” anymore when it comes to the Court. GULIANI CANNOT BE TRUSTED when he says he’d appoint a “strict constructionist.” He has even said that a “strict constructionist” could uphold Roe – which is flat out absurd, but also more importantly shows how hollow his promises are.
The pro-lifers will be spit on if the next Justice is pro-choice in the mold of Ginsberg, or even in the mold of Kennedy. You must understand that there is no difference between Guliani and Hillary in this context. In fact, Guliani’s promises ring hollow and thus he has the added negative of falsely tempting people to trust him.
I’m a pro-lifer and I live in New York City. I voted for Guliani as mayor. I’m extremely concerned about terrorism and frankly think we should be bombing Iran at this point. But I cannot vote for him. I’m the kind of guy who WOULD vote for Guliani, but for the fact that he’s not pro-life.
There is no point in rescuing an America that continues down the path of abortion. There is no point in rescuing a culture of death.
Sydney Carton on October 23, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Again, what if someone actually likes Giuliani for the candidate he is? The problem with your equation is that it does not allow for the possibility that people are affirmatively voting for Giuliani. Why should your pique guide my vote?
Slublog on October 23, 2007 at 5:53 PM
A number of prominent conservative legal minds disagree. I think the people he picked to sit on that Justice Advisory Committee only agreed to do so because they were promised future federal benches. And those are some solid folks.
Slublog on October 23, 2007 at 5:57 PM
See Hollowpoint’s comment above.
Giuliani is YOUR nomination. Not ours. Take responsibility for insisting on voting for a man who doesn’t fit the mold your Party is supposed to represent.
Gregor on October 23, 2007 at 5:57 PM
Ah, so you’re just a RINO, then.
Slublog on October 23, 2007 at 5:58 PM
slu, you can vote for who you want. I understand why people would want to vote FOR Guiliani because he SEEMS LIKE a strong leader. He says the right things. He says boogie man Hillary (who he could have tried to beat for the senate of NY), he says how much he likes Reagan.
This is all fine. But you have to understand the climate of the country as well in the context of the R party and its historical conservative values that he does not represent.
ThackerAgency on October 23, 2007 at 5:59 PM
So you have no problem then if Guliani came out and said that he would only nominate a pro-lifer to the Supreme Court?
Sydney Carton on October 23, 2007 at 5:59 PM
The Royal Flush is about 2,500,000 to 1 and the Powerball is about 85,000,000 to 1. I didn’t propose Rudy would sweep those 3 states but I would bet that trifecta straight up against someone hitting the Powerball and royal flush.
Rudy changes the way that Hillary has to allocate her campaign dollars. He makes states competitive that wouldn’t otherwise be if Fred were the nominee. I’m not a Rudy supporter, but the electoral math works well for the Republicans with him running against Hillary.
dedalus on October 23, 2007 at 6:00 PM
The climate of the country is trending liberal/moderate. The “I’s” are in charge. Look at the makeup of state legislatures and governors.
Although…I have to admit the election of Jindal and the very close election in MA have given me some measure of hope.
Being a pessimist by nature, though, I can’t let such a feeling exist in me, so I have to go lay down until that flame of optimism goes away.
Slublog on October 23, 2007 at 6:01 PM
No, because I’m pro-life.
Slublog on October 23, 2007 at 6:01 PM
Huh? What exactly is he? A guy who talks tough? A guy who claims to have saved NY City from 9/11? A guy who goes around saying the right things, while actually doing nothing conservative?
Oh yeah, I left something out of the previous list of things to like about Rudy:
Dishonest. Pro-abortion. Pro-illegal immigration/amnesty. Gun grabber. AND SLEAZY WOMANIZING CHEATER.
He’s your man!
Either you don’t understand the nature of this man’s past … or you like the fact that he’s a true liberal in almost every area.
Like I said …
True conservatives will not vote for this man.
Gregor on October 23, 2007 at 6:03 PM
It’s not an issue of whether someone genuinely prefers Rudy. Your argument seems to be disregarding electability which I think we’d both agree is a factor that should be considered when choosing a nominee.
If a Rudy nomination leads to a 3rd party spoiler or a poor turnout, Hillary wins hands down. From what it looks like now that’s a significant possibility should he get the nod.
Hollowpoint on October 23, 2007 at 6:03 PM
No. And Yes.
No, in that this is an important issue.
Yes, in that there are other important issues.
Lawrence on October 23, 2007 at 6:04 PM
The Kerry trap! :-D
Slublog on October 23, 2007 at 6:06 PM
Honestly … YES, if the current leaders of the Republican Party define it, I want nothing to do with it.
I’m a “conservative.” I’m a “Reagan Republican.” I refuse to follow the Party to the left like a blind sheep.
Gregor on October 23, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Wow. I see the light now…I’M JUST TOO STUPID TO THINK FOR MYSELF!
Thank you Gregor. Thank you You have saved me from a future of staring at the cave walls!
Slublog on October 23, 2007 at 6:08 PM
That’s absolutely false. The reason the liberals picked up seats in the mid-terms are because conservatives were sick and tired of the current batch of RINOS screwing them over and they refused to go to the polls, or voted against them in protest. We lost because the Party wasn’t conservative enough. Not the other way around.
Gregor on October 23, 2007 at 6:10 PM
Awwwww … the victim card. How cute.
Gregor on October 23, 2007 at 6:13 PM
Slublog,
If you’re really a pessimist, and if you’re pro-life as you claim, then how could you possibly trust Guliani to nominate a pro-lifer to the court? Please explain to me why you believe him when (A) nothing in his background suggests this is important to him and (B) he’d probably say anything right now to win the nomination.
Sydney Carton on October 23, 2007 at 6:13 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »