Friday, February 16, 2007
|
|
Flat Out Wrong
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
8:45 AM
|
|
Dr. Richard Land is a very smart and widely respected evangelical leader. He's also my colleague in the Salem Radio network. But his prediction of massive defections from Rudy in the event of a Rudy-Hillary race is simply wrong:
Land told The Hill in an interview this week that as it stands now, the top tier of Republican presidential hopefuls lacks a candidate social conservatives can be fully comfortable voting for.
Beginning with Giuliani, Land said “the vast majority” of social conservative voters will not vote for the former mayor even if he gets the nomination and faces off against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).
“If he wins, he’ll do so without social conservatives,” Land said.
I have been addressing scores of audiences for two years on the subject of 2008, most of them full of social conservatives, many of them self-described evangelicals who would be included in that category under even the most stringent definitions. Not only does Rudy get the nod in audience polling when matched in a race against Hillary, he is often the first choice of large majorities of these highly motivated "base" voters. (He has not failed to win one of these straw polls since the collapse of Allen.)
The Republicans have not had a contested primary since 9/11, and the war changed a lot of people's priorities when it comes to the presidency. If Rudy is persuasive on the judges he will nominate, he wouldn't have a problem with the social conservatives in the general election.
In fact, the nomination seems to me to likely turn on which of the big three addresses the war most compellingly and most persuasively over the next year. The debates and media appearances may spend time satisfying the public's desire to get a "feel" for Senator McCain, Governor Romney and Mayor Giuliani, but the nomination will turn on the war and the essential question of who is best suited and prepared to lead it. And every voter serious about the war will be voting for whichever of the three gets the nomination. Today's vote in the House is just another stark reminder that there is a party committed to defeat and a return to fecklessness, and one which is overwhelmingly serious about the threats we face and the need to meet them, not run from them.
This doesn't mean that the mayor won't have problems in the primaries as a result of his positions on these issues. He will.
But not in the general.
|
|
I don't know how much longer self-appointed conservative spokesmen can remain so obtuse about 'social issues' before they commit to winning an election that will mean winning a war. At last.
A president has far more influence over the conduct of a war than he has over the conduct of his (can't bring myself to say 'her') populace. Legal abortion will remain no matter how conservative a president is elected. A conservative only means it's going to get trimmed around the edges. Maybe.
We'd like to retain the White House, and we'd like to win the war. It's very simple.
Same reasoning applies to why we support Bush and urge him to be even more belligerent against Islamism, while we gag on his immigration ideas. Heck, if we could have everything, Bill Clinton would be finishing the court-proscribed community service for his crimes and there'd be no Sen. Hillary.
We've relinquished having everything for having an American war victory. *This* war victory. It's that important. |
|
|
this "support" for Guliani coming from, Hugh? I thought you would say anything to get your man "Evolver" Romney (not flip-flopper, mind you - too negative a connotation) elected? |
|
|
are these the same audiences, hugh, that made you confident of a santorum victory? talk about an echo chamber. |
|
|
If Rudy G wins the primaries and picks a VP with solid conserv creds, he wins in the general election. Now whether the purists will allow that, we will not know until the primary wars are on. It will not be St. John and Mitt is already slipping. That leaves Newt. Methinks that might be the ticket but who knows? Rudy G and Newt. The Two G's. Not bad on those bumper stickers. |
|
|
Guliani and Gingrich would be an excellent ticket. I believe they could beat Hillary and Obama. |
|
|
Rudy's problem will be disenchanted conservatives who will just not vote. The NRA will not support Rudy. If only 10% of their members do not vote that could swing a close election by itself. Many pro-lifers will not support Rudy, both for his pro-abortion stance and his shall we say colorful lifestyle. If only 10% of them stay home, too, Rudy has a big problem. It's not the undecided voters who will kill Rudy it's the disenchanted base. |
|
He hangs out with conservatives. He forgets about pro-life liberals (there are a few) and pro-life moderates (there are more). I know several people who are union members, opponents of the war & overall dislikers of the president who nevetheless have voted for him twice because their understanding of church teaching is that it would be a mortal sin to vote for a pro-choice candidate when a relatively pro-life candidate is on the ballot. Given a choice between Hillary & Giuliani, they would feel free to vote for Hillary. Or at a minimum, they would stay home or vote for a pro-life 3rd party candidate (those two choices being functionally indistinguishable).
It may be a minority of believing Christians, but a sizeable number, who believe that abortion is an issue on which there can be no compromise.
If 2% of the 2004 electorate were to switch sides, the Democrat would win.
Lastly, It is very much debatable for many Christians that the war against islamofascism is issue #1. More lives are lost in two days to abortion than all of the 9/11 victims & American service people killed in Iraq/Afghanistan put together. More lives lost to abortion in a year than a suitcase nuke blast would probably kill.
And to many a Christian, the best way to defend America would be for America to get right with God, who can send chastisements to whomever He wishes. |
|
Besides his impressive personal accomplishments, which far eclipse anything the other candidates have on their resume, what I like about Rudy is that he will fight back.
I've been very disappointed in President Bush's reluctance to fight back against Democrat lies when the facts are clearly on his side. Maybe the think this is a strategy that works, but as the years go on and the left's lies pile up, it's damaged him.
Rudy won't let Democrat lies go unchallenged. He can intellectually eviscerate the Clinton dingbat and the Barak dope.
|
|
because the Senate leaders refuse to stand firm for victory in Iraq - a boycott in which I share Hugh's commitment - you can surely see how other principles set limits on other help.
I can swallow some of Rudy's behavior (serial adultery) and positions (gay agenda, gun bans)in the interest of the greater good of holding the Presidency.
I cannot as a matter of conscience vote for anyone who favors killing innocent unborn children. If that is not evil - a family member putting out a contract to corrupt a healing professional into torturing to death another family member - then nothing is evil.
It would surprise me greatly if there were not a great many active conservatives whose conscience sets a like limit on their votes. |
|
It is amazing how Rudy Guliani can possibly be supported by any conservative when he is the Republican version of Bill Clinton. I guess sexually immoral, baby killing, gun grabbers are terrible when they are democrats, but are completely acceptable when you put an R in front of their name.
Rudy also has the "honor" of making a fortune off the victims of September 11,2001 with his $100,000 an appearance speaking fees. What a guy! |
|
|
There are many who will not vote for anyone if they are on the open borders express. We can't have homeland security without border security. We don't support the importation of cheap labor for the jobs that can't be exported. It does not matter if they have a D or an R after their name. If they aren't willing to stand up for America and Americans, they will not get my vote. |
|
With all due respect to Richard Land and his faithful years of ministry, he does NOT speak for the vast majority of Christian evangelicals in America in this case, not even the vast majority of CONSERVATIVE evangelicals, nor even a majority of SOUTHERN BAPTIST evangelicals.
As a conservative evangelical, I can understand the unease that many have with the thought of a Giuliani candidacy. But, we are taught the scriptural mandate of citizenship, including the duty to make the "best" choice when voting, even when neither choice is "perfect".
Land is a good man who seeks to follow Christ, but, and this is a big but - he is NO Al Mohler, NO Jack Graham, NO James Merritt, and certainly NO Adrian Rogers. While this certainly does not disqualify Land from speaking out as an evangelical his pronouncements certainly are often not in political line with the men who do represent the majority of evangelicals. Those men today include the 3 listed above and Rick Warren, Chuck Smith, Greg Laurie, and Franklin Graham among others. Though in occasional disagreement on how to best approach certain political arena choices, they all have much more in common with each other than does Land, and they oversee and influence much more directly the millions of evangelicals in this country. To a lesser extent, and only because of his sometimes "over-the-top" public comments, James Dobson also speaks on behalf of the majority of conservative evangelicals. And, though they are surely good men, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have 0 influence in this arena - their time has passed.
I can confidently say that each of the men of influence listed above would MUCH rather see a Giuliani - or even a Romney - take the oath of office in 2009 than a Hillary or ANY of the current Democratic field.
|
|
|
Maybe this country needs to get its a@@ kicked in order to wake up some people suffering from colo-craniaitis. |
|
Do you think Rudy would get votes from the conservative Democrats? Can he unite the country and finish the job, with a victory? I think he can. I think social issues have to wait till we have defeated our enemy and have won the war. He is a strong candidate for winning the war on Terror and that is THE Only Issue right now.
|
|
As a Christian conservative, I'd choose to stay at home if Rudy is the Rep nominee. Some of Rudy's personal life and values are just the opposite of what we believe and fight.
We don't sacrifice basic principles and values for other ones.
What I don't like from the Republicans is the "belief" that if Hillary becomes President, the US would cease to be a country.
Come on, be like men.
While the country's direction would move more rapidly to a secular progressive society under Hillary or any other Democratic president, the belief, or at least the argument, that Hillary would surrender to Islamic terrorits is a little bit dishonest.
Hugh perhaps didn't know how to interpret the 2006 elections. Well, many Christian conservatives didn't like what they saw, gave up and stayed at home, and some just voted for the Democrats.
Give them Rudy in 2008, and they would do it again.
The Republicans and the conservatives better hurry in "finding" another Gipper: has deep conviction in conservative values, charismatic, tough, great communicator, and have a sense of humour. A light Gipper would be just fine.
|
|
Ellie wrote:
"He is a strong candidate for winning the war on Terror and that is THE Only Issue right now."
What do you mean winning the war on terror?
Do you fight terror?
You must be kidding yourself, just like millions of other Americans inluding those in the Capitol Hill and White House.
You don't fight terror, but you fight the ideology that inspires the terrorism.
And you cannot win it by solely putting more police on the street (muscle approach). And you cannot win it in four years or even in eight years. It's a long struggle.
Rudy is not the answer. You think today's terrorims is like mafia. No.
|
|
|
Let's just say it's your prerogative to stay home if Rudy is nominated. Having said that, what is more important; being alive, and/or still work on making social improvements..There is a conservative paradigm movement afoot in this country, IMO. |
|
|
Richard Land's assessment of the big 3 candidates is right on target. The real problem is that mainstream GOP leaders and thinkers won't even listen or try and use the advice Richard Land is providing. Just say he is "Flat Out Wrong". The GOP has been told that there are icebergs ahead and the ship is not unsinkable. So the leaders just go full steam ahead to a GOP disaster in 2008 with these 3 candidates. I should be the person who is in the back pocket of the GOP. They should not have to worry about my vote. I will not vote for any of the big 3 candidates. I don't know how the GOP will win without me (and others like me). Richard Land is not "flat our wrong". Full steam ahead on the GOP titanic. |
|
If Mr. Hewitt thinks folks feel some compulsion to vote for a "status quo ante" RINO, he deludes himself. Hillary or Rudy would ultimately give us the same result, just garnished a tad differently. Their regard, or more precisely the lack thereof, for our soverignty, our right to keep and bear arms, and the sanctity of innocent human life are virtually indistinguishable.
The only folks in the room afflicted with cognitive dissonance ar Mr. Hewitt and the RINO's beholden to no one but the oligarchs.
That dime's worth of difference is currently down to about three cents.
So apparently, the lessons of last November's General Election have not been learned. November 2008 will be deja vu all over again unless someone who truly puts this nation's sovereignty and the welfare of its citizenry at the top of their priority list makes it to the ballot. Failing the nomination of such a candidate, expect another GOP defeat Mr. Hewitt.
It would appear your flat out hubris is clouding your flat out judgement as well as that of your quisling, big wig colleagues, flat out.
|
|
|
|
|
An edit button would indeed be useful. |
|
I'm wondering which "social" conservatives Hugh has been associated it. Certainly not those who vote in primaries.
The simple fact is, Rudy G is unacceptable to social conservatives on a wide range of issues. Those issues are as follows..
1) Abortion
2) Gay marriage
3) Gun rights
4) illegal immigration
And if the Iraq war continues its downward spriral, Rudy (like McCain) will be on the wrong side of that issue as well.
Ironically, Rudy's greatest strength is also his greatest weakness among conservatives. That is to say, Rudy is very articulate and has the ability to describe and sell his views in a likeable manner. In fact, Rudy has done such a good job articulating his views that it is obvious he is a liberal and way outside the mainstream of the republican party... and therefore wouldn't get my vote.
But, because the republican field is currently weak for 2008, and given the fact that California has moved its primary up to February, there is a chance Rudy could get the nomination even though he is a liberal. But if that happens, you can bet there will be a third party conservative candidate who splits the republican vote in the general election. And you can also bet that the end result will be a Hillary Clinton victory in November 2008. |
|
»As a Christian conservative, I'd choose to stay at home if Rudy is the Rep nominee.«
And let the Democrat win? A Dem would do precidsely what you want not to be done!
I don't care who the Republican candidate is in the end. I will do my part not to let a Democrat sit in the Oval Office.
Ultimately, I may not like some of the things the Republican candidate will say. I may not agree with him on all things. However, in the end, if I got a choice between a Republican and the Democrat -- based on the way Democrats have been behaving -- I will vote for the Republican just to deny the Democrat.
Disgruntled Republicans who either didn't vote last year, or voted for other than Republican, just to "get back" and "teach them a lesson," contributed to the Democrat takeover of Congress. They cut off their nose to spite their face. They did more damage by helping to elect Democrats than they would have done by voting in Republicans.
So, if I were you, I would think long and hard about the damage I could do by not voting at all, that I would be enabling Democrats to do more damage than some wussy Republicans. A straying Republican is far better than any Democrat today. |
|
|
even as a highly motivated social conservative base voter because, as much as I love the Judaeo-Christian heritage, and think it needs attending to, which for the sake of argument Rudy does not, there will be no such heritage if the jihadists win, and Rudy would stand up to them. |
|
"But if that happens, you can bet there will be a third party conservative candidate who splits the republican vote in the general election. And you can also bet that the end result will be a Hillary Clinton victory in November 2008."
If Hillary get the nod what makes you think that there won't be a 3rd part candidate from the moon bat base splitting the dem vote? Hiilary is viewed too favorable on theh kook fringe. |
|
I won't vote for a pro-choice candidate. If I have no options then I won't vote for president.
I am still hoping that some conservative will rise from the ranks to challenge these Rockefeller Republicans.
Romney -- Rhino.
McCain -- Traiter to his fellow Republicans.
Juliano -- Good guy but pro-choice (see above).
A solid conservative could beat any of those guys. He just needs to step forward.
|
|
|
John, and other who agree with him, that wouldn't vote rather than vote for Giuliani over a democrat. like a kid holding their breath and turning blue. I believe that he is at least against partial birth abortion--that would be a nice start, we pro-lifers have to be satisfied with partial victories, and the appointment of Scalia like judges which he has promised would seal the deal. |
|
|
He cares more about winning than principles. I listen to his show every day and you can hear it in his voice. Giuliani might be able to win, but he is not a conservative. Brownback is the true conservative candidate. |
|
|
draft dodgers, adulterers, anti-life, pro-gay marriage, anti-gun...need I go on? Winning is nice, but Giuliani is NOT a conservative. |
|
|
|