Wayne Slater of the Dallas Morning News argues that Rudy Giuliani’s strength on national security may override concerns that evangelicals have about his liberal social views:
“The Republican Party’s staunchest supporters of the war on terrorism . . . may be motivated by a candidate they believe will protect them against terrorism. In particular, that could help Mr. Giuliani overcome the conventional wisdom that a GOP dominated by Christian conservatives won’t nominate a social liberal for president.
“‘The national security issues appeal to a number of evangelicals,’ said John Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum for Religion and Public Life, who has long studied how religion motivates voters. ‘They are among the strongest supporters of the war in Iraq.’”
I think this reporter is sorely mistaken and that this is one instance in which the “conventional wisdom” is right on the mark. I think the “security evangelical” is a myth. I’m going to go out on a limb with a prediction. Here it is.
A pro-choice candidate cannot win the Republican primaries. The aversion to abortion among the Republican base is substantial, and Giuliani will not be able to overcome it. Moreover, even if Giuliani could scrape by in the primaries, a Republican cannot win the general election without the support of social conservatives (see the Ohio swing in 2004). Social conservatives will not support Rudy Giuliani. In my view, Giuliani’s candidacy is DOA.
Agreed.
Another great choice of picture, Denny.
Looks like he could’ve had a V8!
Right on Denny.
The assesment in the article even begs the question of whether the current war on terror really provides more security.
No fan of Rudy But and a big But he may be the only one that can win… Those fools in Ohio how happy are they with this congess led by libs, and how will they like another clinton running the ship into an iceberg….
Rudy would be a horrible choice. If my choices were Rudy or Hillary, I wouldn’t vote.
Daniel,
I’m sorry but what your planning is not acceptable. The only acceptable response is to vote for the least destructive candidate and then move forward working hard to be sure that neither “unacceptable” can win another or future election.
Not voting is giving the country away.
Stu, I disagree. There are plenty of situations where there would be no candidate that I could pull the lever for.
It is certainly an acceptable choice for believers to abstain from voting. And I have to agree with Daniel, if it came down to Rudy or Hillary, I myself would abstain.
I’m not sure that we should always vote for the lesser of two evils. Sometimes we shouldn’t vote.
To tell you the truth, I’m not convinced really that Rudy is that much better than Hillary.
When it comes to the isssues that I care about, both of them are anti-marriage and anti-baby. I don’t really see much of a difference.
But I would be surprised if Rudy picks up the GOP ticket. I don’t think that he will get it. He’s just socially liberal.
[...] August 21, 2007: “A pro-choice candidate cannot win the Republican primaries. The aversion to abortion among the Republican base is substantial, and Giuliani will not be able to overcome it. . . Social conservatives will not support Rudy Giuliani. In my view, Giuliani’s candidacy is DOA.” [...]