RoR: Forum

Ed wrote:

Bush suggested that she went to a church or something that strongly opposed abolition.

Uh ... I think she missed this by a century or two -- unless you meant abortion here.

Post 21

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 3:55pm

Ed: "One example makes bad scientific, but this does suggest that the CPAC poll is an indication that some of the hardcore conservatives are willing to overlook Giuliani's stand on abortion and gays."

No, it doesn't. That example shows that one serious Christian is willing to overlook Giuliani's stand on abortion and gays. There probably are some others who will too--but a small percentage.

Ed: "I'm sure Rudy will come in for a lot of criticism but it's not a forgone conclusion that he'll never make it through the Republican primaries."

Well, I can't predict the future. I do believe it won't happen though. There's a good reason why all the Republican presidential nominees in the last 30 years have been avowedly anti-abortion.

Why do you think Steve Forbes, who ran for the GOP nomination in 1996 basically as a waste-cutter and flat-taxer, ran again in 2000 also championing his social conservativism? That wasn't enough for him to win the second time around either (his Washington-outsider act was widely viewed as stale by that point), but he knew his chance of getting the party's nomination if he didn't kow-tow to the religious right was slim to none.

As I said earlier, I'm not claiming that serious Christians are a *majority* of Republicans. But they are, on the whole, a strong minority that's well-organized, wealthy, and dedicated to a cause. They can easily be kingmakers--or kingbreakers--in the GOP presidential contest.

Post 22

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 8:54pm

I think that conservative support of Giuliani is based mostly on a perception of electability. With the recent losses in the last election, Republicans fear losing control of the executive branch and are willing to throw their hat in with a winner who's at the very least "strong on defense". I can't see any of the Democratic front runners even coming close to Rudy in a head to head election.

Post 23

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 9:56pm

Can anyone see Giuliani making abortion law in the US more liberal? Will he be the one to institute a "gay marriage" amendment?

Remember that it was Giuliani who had Arafat thrown out of Lincoln Center, Giuliani who refused to use public funds to support the dung-besmeared Virgin Mary.

When the time comes, the religious-right will do the calculus, and vote for him.

And if McCain wins, I'm moving to France.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 3/07, 4:29pm)

Post 24

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 - 7:17am

Ted: "Can anyone see Giuliani making abortion law in the US more liberal? Will he be the one to institute a "gay marriage" amendment?"

Doesn't matter to most hardcore Christians, Ted. They want to feel like the US president is on their side in spirit, that he understands that America is at heart a "Christian nation", that he pesonally endorses their cause. They don't care whether or not he can singlehandedly achieve their policy goals, as long as he publicly vows to support them when and if the time comes.

Post 25

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 - 10:26am

Early fact time: A poll released today by Constituent Research and Data Acquisition, which was very accurate in past election prediction, surveyed voters in the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Of those responding that they intend to vote in the Republican primary or caucus, 29.26% were for Giuliani, 16.14% for McCain, 12.96% for Gingrich, 7.95% for Romney, 5.75% for Brownback and 27.92% no preference.

Of all those favoring Rudy (which includes Democrats), 62% describe themselves as pro-life and 79% support traditional marriage.

Post 26

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 - 2:51pm

Ed, I don't know anything about this poll (sample, definitions, method, etc.), so I can't comment on the results--or what they might mean for primaries to be held in a year.

Let's just see how things look months from now after the major Christian organizations mobilize on behalf of a GOP candidate who's more their cup of tea.

Post 27

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 - 3:26pm

There were 2,088 Republicans responding to the question concerning who they would vote for. A total of 2,772 answered all the poll questions. 6,494 answered at least some.

I know to take polls with a grain of salt and to look at details. Over the past decade polling companies have had to deal with new sources of sampling error, for example, people with only cell phones.

But as Objectivists we know that we should make judgments based on evidence. Robert, I and others have offered quite a bit to suggest that Giuliani is not garnering the universal opposition that many thought would come from the religious right. He's still not the favorite candidate of most of them and still could lose the nomination for a variety of reasons. But let's face the reality that some on the religious right are weighing their religious agendas against other priorities.

(Edited by Ed Hudgins on 3/07, 6:43pm)

Post 28

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 - 4:23pm

Ed's right. National security is trumping abortion, gay marriages, "family values," and the like in the minds of many on the religious right. And, face it: since 9/11, Rudy has the best public image (at least) on that issue of any candidate. That's neutralizing a lot of the expected religious right opposition to his candidacy.

Face it, Christians despise Islamists a lot more than they do gay marriage. For example...

Post 29

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 - 9:17pm

Here are some links suggesting that Giuliani could be in for some trouble from the Religious Right.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257502,00.html

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=politics&id=5099811

Post 30

Thursday, March 8, 2007 - 6:07am

Pete observed:

Giuliani could be in for some trouble from the Religious Right.

"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." --Friedrich Schiller

Post 31

Thursday, March 8, 2007 - 7:38am

Ed: "But as Objectivists we know that we should make judgments based on evidence. Robert, I and others have offered quite a bit to suggest that Giuliani is not garnering the universal opposition that many thought would come from the religious right."

You've offered evidence that some serious Christians are ignoring Giuliani's socially progressive views--likely because of his strong national defense stand. I don't think discounting that would be objective.

I believe I've also offered evidence that the influence of the Christian Right on the GOP presidential nominee is strong (and no evidence has been offered that its strength in the Republican Party is seriously waning). Recent history itself shows any Republican who isn't anti-abortion has an uphill climb. I don't think dismissing that would be objective either.

Of course, McCain himself is no slouch in the area of the military. As we're constantly reminded, he was a POW in Vietnam for years, which automatically makes him the darling of some conservatives. He's also been a strong supporter of the Iraq War, including the recent proposal for 20,000 more US troops.

Let's also not forget that it's still a YEAR before the GOP primaries. Someone else might still enter the race in the next few months, changing the dynamics significantly. And the most powerful Christian organizations haven't even begun to mobilize on behalf of a candidate yet. In any case, I think it's too early to be attributing much value to opinion polls.

(Edited by Jon Trager on 3/08, 10:09am)

Post 32

Thursday, March 8, 2007 - 11:35am

Just browsed the thread, Congrats Robert and Ed!

Jim

Post 33

Friday, March 9, 2007 - 2:45pm

Conservative hit piece on Giuliani on YouTube.

Post 34

Sunday, March 11, 2007 - 11:25am

Many recent articles in both the NY Sun and the NY Post address Giuliani's general chances and his position via the religious right. Most on the religious right see him as someone who stands on principle (Arafat, the Virgin Mary,) and who doesn't change his avowed stance (gun control, gay marriage, abortion rights) just to pander or please. They know what they are getting with him. With McCain they take issue with McCain-Feingold, and they remember McCain's derisive comments about them in 2000. Gingrich has also had three marriages. And Romney is a RINO who has disavowed all his "moderate" stances of years past, a fact of which the left is quite aware.

The two relevant questions are:

Is he too left wing to get the Republican nomination?
Is he too right wing to win the general election?

The answer to both is no. Only 28% of Republicans see abortion and other social issues as the most important. The rest see out-of-control spending and the war on terror as the most important issues, and he is the strongest horse in both of those races. Barring some unforeseen devlopment, I would bet a large sum that Giuliani will win the next Presidential election. He might end don't ask don't tell, which would be wonderful, although I don't expect it. But he is not going to become some leftist doppleganger once he takes office. He has always been the same opinionated, belligerent SOB and even if you disagree with him on certain issues (again, I abstained in both of his mayoral elections, even though I went to the poll to vote for other offices) you can respect his integrity, and the religious right will back him over a panderer when push comes to shove.

I wonder if Rice will consent to be his VP running mate?

Ted Keer

Post 35

Monday, March 12, 2007 - 1:07pm

A few months ago Tracinski, in TIA Daily, mentioned that a symptom of a pseudo-science is its lack of testability; any fact that comes along is evidence in favor. The leading examples in the twentieth century, he said, were Marxism and psychoanalysis, and today it's global warming. To this short list we might add the conspiracy theories about the "religious right" and its control of the Republican party. Jon Trager says in #31 that he has offered evidence of this, and maybe what he says is convincing to people who already agree with him, but I have a hard time seeing it.

Presumably #21 is what he calls evidence:

Why do you think Steve Forbes, who ran for the GOP nomination in 1996 basically as a waste-cutter and flat-taxer, ran again in 2000 also championing his social conservatism? That wasn't enough for him to win the second time around either (his Washington-outsider act was widely viewed as stale by that point), but he knew his chance of getting the party's nomination if he didn't kow-tow to the religious right was slim to none.

To paraphrase: Forbes tried to win the nomination by playing to the religious right, and he failed; ergo, the rr controls the nomination. If this is evidence, he might also mention Phillip Crane, John Connally, Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan, all of whom had the same experience as Forbes. If these examples support Trager's contention, Bill Frist is a knock-down proof. His behavior in the Schiavo case, giving the rr just what it wanted, promptly ended talk of his presidential prospects, and he was out of politics altogether when the next election came around.

Was it #26? A prediction is not evidence by itself, but its success or failure can be. Could we have a testable prediction of the form: within n months (not later than the end of 2007) the major Christian organizations will ______ (checkable claim of fact goes here)? Or was it #24, in which Trager defines away the possibility of testing his assertion at all? Make you wonder what would count as evidence against it.

Post 36

Monday, March 12, 2007 - 3:10pm

Thanks for responding, Peter.

Peter: "To paraphrase: Forbes tried to win the nomination by playing to the religious right, and he failed; ergo, the rr controls the nomination."

I didn't say the Religious Right "controls" the GOP presidential nomination, as though I think the RR's favor is *sufficient condition* for winning the nomination. I said I think it's a *necessary condition* for winning it, because evangelical Christians are a minority of the party wealthy enough, organized enough, and zealous enough to thwart a socially progressive Republican. Do you think it's a coincidence that all the GOP candidates for president since 1980 have been anti-abortion religionists? Just wondering.

Peter: "If this is evidence, he might also mention Phillip Crane, John Connally, Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan, all of whom had the same experience as Forbes. "

Why? Haven't those men have always been outspoken social conservatives? The point of my Forbes example was that social conservatism was NOT a feature of his 1996 campaign--many people thought he was the most "libertarian" of the major party candidates--and he lost to Bob Dole. When he decided to run again in 2000, he put social conservativism front and center. Why would he do that, Peter?

Peter: "...Bill Frist is a knock-down proof. His behavior in the Schiavo case, giving the rr just what it wanted, promptly ended talk of his presidential prospects, and he was out of politics altogether when the next election came around."

I'm not making the connection here. Are you implying that because Frist did what the Religious Right wanted in the Schiavo situation and it backfired on him politically, that proves the RR is irrelevant to who gets the Republican nomination for president?

The only claim I've made on this thread is that I don't believe that a pro-choice, pro-gay Republican can win the party's presidential nomination. The recent historical record--which does qualify as evidence--supports that idea. If anyone wants to argue that today's RR wields much less influence in national Republican politics than it has in past couple of decades, then go ahead and present evidence of it. I'm always open to considering credible evidence, but I haven't seen any yet.

Oh, and FYI: It appears that former Sen. Fred Thompson--a social conservative whom some are already likening to Ronald Reagan--is considering running for the GOP nomination for president.

Does anyone think that might affect the race at all?

Post 37

Monday, March 12, 2007 - 6:40pm

Thompson is certainly the only candidate who could outcharisma Giuliani. I expect he's angling for the VP spot. But I wouldn't kick either of the men out of the tent

Ted

Post 38

Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 9:20pm

I didn't say the Religious Right "controls" the GOP presidential nomination, as though I think the RR's favor is *sufficient condition* for winning the nomination. I said I think it's a *necessary condition* for winning it...

What I had in mind was your statement in #21: "They can easily be kingmakers--or kingbreakers--in the GOP presidential contest."
One evidence that comes to mind against your necessary-condition claim is Reagan. The rr supported Crane, who dropped out early, then they switched to Connally, who dropped out late. They only supported Reagan after he had the nomination sewn up. Whoever won the nomination (Bush Sr.?) when Robertson was in the race did not have the support of the organizations that were backing him, but he won without it.

When [Forbes] decided to run again in 2000, he put social conservativism front and center. Why would he do that, Peter?

Presumably because he thought it would get him the nomination, same reason as the other losers whose names have come up. They were wrong.

Are you implying that because Frist did what the Religious Right wanted in the Schiavo situation and it backfired on him politically, that proves the RR is irrelevant to who gets the Republican nomination for president?

Yes.

I don't believe that a pro-choice, pro-gay Republican can win the party's presidential nomination.

Reagan was not pro-choice, but he and his wife, coming from shobiz as they did, were quite friendly toward gays. His condemnation of the Briggs initiative in California in 1978 (to allow local school boards to fire gay teachers) was one of the reasons it lost as badly as it did. Guiliani will be a good test of whether or not a pro-choicer can win the Republican nomination. Another case in point, though not presidential, is the Contract with America which led the Republicans to a massive victory in 1994 without mentioning abortion.

Do you have any hard numbers on the money Christian organizations have to spend on politics? I don't, but I understand that it's negligible by the standards of a presidential campaign.

If anyone wants to argue that today's RR wields much less influence in national Republican politics than it has in past couple of decades, then go ahead and present evidence of it

It's your assertion and your burden of proof, and no amount of retroactive raising of the bar will change this.

In this connection, you never did answer my question: what would convince you that Christian-conservative organizations are irrelevant to the nominating process? You mention Fred Thompson, and he strikes me as a good test of your claims. He has no national reputation, he's in too late to raise big money (unless the Christian conservative organizations are as rich as you say they are) and most of his positions are repellent to most voters. If he wins the nomination despite all this, I'll stand corrected. If he doesn't, you will.

Post 39

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 9:02am