Everybody’s trying to read tea leaves, wondering if there would be an evangelical third-party run if the nominally pro-choice Rudy Giuliani were to take the Republican nomination. The latest signals are conflicting. Sam Brownback, whose support is so wide and deep that he just dropped out of the race in the middle of October, proclaimed himself much more confortable with Giuliani’s views on abortion and particularly the appointing of “strict constructionist judges,” which is code. The backlash from various sources suggests that Brownback’s view is kind of unpopular, which is obvious, considering he’s no longer in the race.
“There’s obviously something more going on here than fidelity to the pro-life cause,” said (Jim) Bopp, a legendary pro-life activist and lawyer who is an important voice for Romney because he vouches for his conservatism. “Brownback is angling for some personal political benefit by cozying up to Giuliani.”
[...]
“I’ll believe he supports Giuliani when I see it,” FRC veep (Charmaine) Yoest says. “For the pro-life movement as a whole, life is a deal-breaker. There would be no better way to demoralize the GOP base than to nominate Giuliani. It would be a disaster for the Republicans party.”
Whether this is all talk, or presumptive of action, is the $64,000 question. I think at this point, it’s clear that there would be a third-party effort against Giuliani. The real question is whether or not it will be sanctioned by the larger groups of social conservatives, or whether it will be just from the fringe. The latter is manageable; the Constitution Party runs a wacko candidate every year who gets a handful of meaningless votes. The former would really close Republican hopes in 2008. I don’t think anyone can be confident about which way things will go.
5 Responses to “The Third Party Question”
I do not think that Giuliani can be trusted in his promise of the type of judges that he will appoint. He has proven to the world that his family could not trust him to keep his marital vows. Also, the types of judges that he appointed in the past should be the best indicator of the types of judges that he would nominate. In my opinion the the conservatives like myself in the party should not support him at all!
As for Brownback….. he is a traitor to the Pro-life cause if he backs Giuliani. If he does this
he is a total hypocrite! His supporters care about life issues even if he sells out and will not follow his endorsement, if he suggests Giuliani! It just won’t happen!
The party needs to unite and either get behind Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney. Of course both have problems to overcome to bring voters to support them. I prefer Mitt Romney, but then my top issue is cleaning up Washington DC and I do not have a problem with his religion. Mike is a good man, but he isn’t sound on economie issues and seems weak on the war too. But at least we can all see that Thompson is not the answer! Hopefully Fred will drop out soon too.
Many social conservative leaders have indicated a willingness to endorse Rudy if he’s the party’s eventual nominee or have at least softened their resistance to a Rudy nomination. I think there is no chance they will mount a third party challenge that has any discernible impact on the election.
The real question is whether there will be significant apathy or discontent among social conservatives to dampen GOP turnout in key presidential states, and possibly have ramifications for Republicans lower on the ticket as well.
Something to say?
Strict constructionism is known by most thoughtful people to be a transparent facade for anti-abortionism. But I think it’s becoming clear that the question is whether it is ENOUGH of a facade to give Giuliani the necessary wiggle-room. He has obviously decided he can appease the right by claiming to be a pro-choice strict constructionist, taking advantage of the fact that in strictly philosophical terms the two ARE compatible. So the right are now asking themselves, or should be: who is being played here? I personally think the strategy may work because Giuliani IS planning to sell out his pro-choice principles under the guise of a judicial philosophy. That kind of scares me, because in the general election he can keep claiming to be pro-choice to win moderates, who won’t figure out that his strict constructionism, if adhered to, makes his personal willingness to keep abortion legal meaningless. It will however be fun to watch those people on the right who think, like we do, that all this jurisprudential mumbo-jumbo is a bunch of bs, and that if you are pro-life you should just say so. It will force the constructionists to admit the whole idea is just a meaningless code in order to re-assure them.
Left by The Sleep Thief
October 27, 2007 at 4:38pm