Rudy Giuliani

Wayne Slater, writing in The Dallas Morning News, says that while Rudy Giuliani might not be much liked by the Republican Party’s social conservative, right-wing base, he might not be totally unacceptable either, especially if they are faced with the prospect of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee:

As the most powerful movement in American politics for several decades, conservative Christians insisted that above all else, their candidates adhere to their positions on social issues, particularly abortion and gay marriage. But as their movement changes, many are placing the fight against Islamic extremism at the top of the list as well.

For the last several years, the “fight against Islamic extremism” has never been a key issue for the Right.  While it has been an issue they’ve mentioned occasionally, its importance has always paled in comparison to their primary goals of fighting for restrictions on abortion, passing a federal marriage amendment, and controlling the federal judiciary.  As a matter of fact, the issue of terrorism was nowhere to be seen on last year’s Congressional scorecard [PDF] put together by the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, which claimed to be a “compilation of significant votes representing a cross section of issues affecting the family.”

So what could explain this relatively sudden rise in the importance of national security issues and terrorism for the Right?

A few months ago, Richard Land appeared on “Hard Ball with Chris Matthews” where he repeatedly stated “I don‘t endorse candidates.”  Of course, that hasn’t stopped him from “negatively endorsing” potential nominees such as Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich.

But while Land may not have technically “endorsed” any Republican presidential hopeful, it is becoming increasingly clear that he is enthusiastically supporting Fred Thompson’s campaign.  So enamored with Thompson is Land, in fact, that his relentless campaign to heap praise upon him is becoming somewhat embarrassing and calling into question his claim that he doesn’t endorse candidates. 

For instance, when James Dobson questioned whether Thompson was sufficiently Christian, Land came to Thompson’s defense, praising him as a “Southern-fried Reagan” and saying that to “see Fred work a crowd must be what it was like to watch Rembrandt paint.”

Since then, Land has been Thompson’s number one fan, introducing him before he addressed the right-wing Council for National Policy and more recently riding to his rescue after it was reported that Thompson had once lobbied for a pro-choice group, gushing to CBN’s David Brody that he has “never seen anything like this grassroots swell for Thompson” and telling WORLD Magazine that the candidate would be “red meat” for conservative Republican primary voters. 

And when the Washington Post recently ran a story about the impact Thompson’s past lobbying might have on his support among right-wing voters, there was Land again to praise him as the second coming of Reagan and the great right-wing hope:

Richard Land, an official with the nation's Southern Baptists, called the video "stunning in its strong, pro-life message."

…

"I'm around a lot of Baptists," Land said. "They find Fred Thompson to be a tantalizing combination of charisma, conviction and electability. He's got a Reaganesque ability to connect with ordinary folk that is powerful."

Land added: "He also has the same Teflon coating that Reagan had: Bad stuff just doesn't stick."

It is getting to the point where Land would be better off just dropping the claim that he doesn’t endorse candidates and admit that he is endorsing Thompson, as he claims of neutrality and nonpartisanship are becoming increasingly dubious.  

A few weeks ago we noted the formation of an anti-Giuliani Catholic front, including Joseph Cella of Fidelis and Steve Dillard of Catholics Against Rudy, right-wing activists key to forcing the withdrawal of Harriet Miers from nomination to the Supreme Court. Now more self-identified Catholic activists are mobilizing against Rudy Giuliani, himself a Catholic and the leading GOP candidate for president.

Acting under the rubric of “Republicans Against Rudy Giuliani,” two activists put out a press release targeting the candidate for “liberal views on foundational issues of abortion, homosexuality, judges, and gun control” – in particular, his dressing in drag for comedy sketches:

Republicans upset with Rudy Giuliani's anti-family policies protested on Sunday, June 10th when the "Republican" presidential candidate appeared in Irvine. A "Rudy Giuliani in drag" was among dozens of sign-holding protestors outside the hotel. …

"Imagine what heads of state would think of an American president known for dressing up as a woman," said Bob Cielnicky, a southern California pro-life leader. "What was Rudy Giuliani thinking when he did this publicly three times as mayor of New York? Obviously not the Presidency." …

"It's appalling to see some Republicans abandoning their Republican Party core principles for Rudy Giuliani," said Ken Fisher, a conservative Republican activist in Orange County, California. "If you support Giuliani, you aren't supporting family values."

Fisher is president of Concerned Roman Catholics of America, which seeks to “undo the last thirty-plus years of watered-down Catholicism.” One section of the group’s website attacks the “Pro-Sodomite, Pro-Abortion” Knights of Columbus, listing politicians associated with the Catholic fraternal order. Fisher is joined by Cielnicky, who has been involved with various groups in California including the Life Priority Network, the Alliance Against Abortion Funding, and Californians Against Assisted Suicide.

In addition, the New York Observer reports on the question of whether the Roman Catholic Church itself will get involved against Giuliani’s bid. Some U.S. bishops made headlines in 2004 by announcing that they would not permit Democratic candidate John Kerry to receive communion in their dioceses; one clergyman told the Observer, “We’ll wait and see if the dozen or so bishops who all went after Kerry, if they go after Giuliani for the same thing.”

Back in 2005, when Harriet Miers was humiliated and forced to withdraw her nomination to the Supreme Court, the Republican Party’s right-wing base was largely responsible.  Having torpedoed their own president’s nominee for being insufficiently zealous regarding their social and legal agenda, the Right forced President Bush to send them someone whose ideological commitment could not be doubted, which he did by nominating Samuel Alito.  

In the face of what, initially, seemed insurmountable odds, the Right mobilized and managed to torpedo Miers’ nomination in just under a month, achieving arguably their single most significant political triumph of the entire Bush presidency to date. 

Now, heading into 2008, the Right is facing what some of them see as an even more ominous threat: the prospect that Rudy Giuliani could win the GOP presidential nomination.  And just as they did with Miers, right-wing activists - especially anti-choice Catholic ones – are gearing up to launch an all-out attack in an effort to deny Giuliani the nomination:

Last week, Richard Land was a guest on “Hardball With Chris Matthews” where he stated that while he did not endorse political candidates, that didn’t mean he wouldn’t “negatively endorse” them.  And that is just what he proceeded to do regarding Rudy Giuliani:

I don‘t think I could sell him to most of them and I wouldn‘t try.  I would say vote your values and your beliefs and convictions and have to leave it to them to connect the dots.  But I have said publicly, I don‘t endorse candidates, but I‘m negatively endorsing. I could not vote for Giuliani.

In addition to Land’s negative endorsement, Giuliani has also received a similar endorsement from right-wing direct-mail pioneer Richard Viguerie:

“If the Republican Party nominates Rudy Giuliani as its candidate for either president or vice president, I will personally work to defeat the GOP ticket in 2008,” says Richard A. Viguerie, author of Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause.

And if that wasn’t enough, Focus on the Family’s James Dobson has now taken to the pages of WorldNetDaily to declare that under no circumstances will he support Giuliani:

My conclusion from this closer look at the current GOP front-runner comes down to this: Speaking as a private citizen and not on behalf of any organization or party, I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It is an irrevocable decision. If given a Hobson's – Dobson's? – choice between him and Sens. Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama, I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran – or if worse comes to worst – not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life. My conscience and my moral convictions will allow me to do nothing else.

It should also be noted that Dobson has already negatively endorsed John McCain and has suggested that potential candidate Fred Thompson is not enough of a Christian.

If one was looking for an example of just how fractured and confused those on the Right are as they attempt to decide which Republican presidential candidate to support, one wouldn’t find a better example than this article from CNS News.    

As it stands now, the Right is so desperately lost that the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue, of all people, is touting Rudy Giuliani and pushing anti-abortion voters not to be ideological purists:

But it is Giuliani's commitment to appoint "strict constructionists" to the U.S. Supreme Court that should matter most to Christian activists, Donohue said.

"Social conservatives are going into this campaign with some degree of reservation, if not trepidation," he acknowledged. "But when push comes to shove, there is a day and night difference" between the three leading GOP contenders and their Democratic counterparts, he added.

"The problem with the pro-life movement is that some people are purist, and as far as I'm concerned, they're detrimental to the cause," Donohue said. "It's important to be principled, but it's also important to be prudential."

While Donohue singles out Giuliani’s pledge to appoint "strict constructionists" to the Supreme Court as the candidate’s top credential, other candidates -- Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Mike Huckabee – have all stated that, if elected, they would nominate judges like Roberts, Alito, and Scalia.

It is somewhat surprising that Donohue hangs so much on this Giuliani claim, considering that his judicial appointment history has not been particularly reassuring to the Right.

But at least Giuliani has someone out there championing his campaign – the best John McCain could get in the article was a quote from Janice Crouse of Concerned Woman for America saying he’s “never been popular with any branch of conservatism” and that it “may be too late for him to prove himself.” 

As for Romney:

Jordan Sekulow, a law student who works as a consultant on Romney's campaign, said prospective voters should look at his record as governor of Massachusetts, where he closed a $3 billion budget gap during his first year in office by eliminating waste and streamlining government.

Romney was willing to confront the judicial activism of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of same-sex "marriage," Sekulow added.

If the name “Jordan Sekulow” seems familiar, that is probably because he is not just some ordinary “law student” – he was the national chairman of “Students for Bush” in 2004 and is the Deputy Director of Government Affairs at the American Center for Law and Justice, which just so happens to be the organization headed by his father, Jay Sekulow, who is himself an advisor to the Romney campaign.

But while Romney may have the support of the Sekulow family sown up, he’s going to have a hard time winning over Donohue:

Donohue also said there is good cause "not to trust" Romney, since he "made it clear to everyone in Massachusetts" during earlier campaigns that he was an abortion-rights supporter.

Apparently Donohue doesn’t think Giuliani has that sort of problem at all.

Last month, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention declared Rudy Giuliani’s campaign for president doomed, citing the former New York mayor’s reputation as a supporter of gay rights and a woman’s right to choose. He told The Hill that “If [Giuliani] wins, he’ll do so without social conservatives” – a result Land considered impossible. But less than two weeks later, Giuliani garnered a warm reception at the Conservative Political Action Conference, where he side-stepped social wedge issues and emphasized his supposedly Reagan-like leadership qualities in the context of 9/11. Conservative columnist Bob Novak declared Giuliani “the big winner here,” and he came in second to Mitt Romney in the CPAC straw poll. Unlike Romney, noted Novak, “Giuliani had not stacked the crowd with supporters,” a strategy that casts doubt on Romney’s first-place showing. And Giuliani continues to top polls of primary voters.

According to Novak, “Some activists expressed dismay that so many conservatives would cheer Giuliani without even making him offer anything for the Right” – apparently flying in the face of what every other Republican candidate has been doing for the past few months. But it’s still early in the campaign. Giuliani is scheduled to speak at Pat Robertson’s Regent University next month, and the televangelist himself has declared that the former mayor “did a super job running the city of New York and I think he'd make a good president.” Last year, he helped raise money for Ralph Reed, an unsuccessful candidate for Georgia lieutenant governor who is better known as the former head of the Christian Coalition and one of the seminal organizers of the Religious Right in the late 80s and 90s.

And recently, he has been making promises to the far Right on an issue that could be seen as a calculated revision of his abortion position: judges. “On the federal judiciary I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am,” he announced in South Carolina. And he offered specific praise for right-wing members of the Supreme Court: “I think those are the kinds of justices I would appoint -- Scalia, Alito and Roberts.” Such statements fall short of the ham-handed pandering of long-shot candidate Rep. Duncan Hunter (“If any judicial candidate comes before me and can look at a sonogram … and not see valuable life, then I will not appoint him,” said Hunter to applause at CPAC), but they do echo almost exactly the words President George W. Bush deployed when he was campaigning for the office.