Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The kiss of death?
Posted by: mcq on Wednesday, November 07, 2007

I mean, I wouldn't want it. However, given Rudy's record on the issues socialcons find important, perhaps he needs it:
Pat Robertson, one of the most influential figures in the social conservative movement, announced his support for Rudy Giuliani's presidential bid this morning at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
So does this drive off those who find Pat Robertson less that palatable? Is there an exasperated secular middle which says "if Robertson is for him, I'm not?" Does this help or hurt Romney and Thompson?

I mean do you really believe this and do you think socialcons will?
The other major effect of Robertson's support for Giuliani is that it will quiet talk in social conservative circles that nominating Giuliani would lead "values voters" to abandon the Republican Party. The stamp of approval from Robertson should assuage the doubts of many (although certainly not all) of the rank-and-file social conservatives.
Dems get union endorsements and Reps get religious endorsements and frankly I don't think either of the organizations, as they're positioned politically, are healthy for this country.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I think there’s been a distortion of this idea of "sociocons" and I’ve also seen them called "single issue voters" because of their supposed unbending opposition to abortion.

I think "sociocons" or "single issue voters" don’t exist in as large a distinct block as is protrayed. I think those issues matter broadly over a more sizable portion of the right, but not necessarily to the exclusion of all else.

I think those issues as well as big intrusive government ( & government spending) & immigration are reasons for resistance to Guiliani. He’s basically an 80’s pro-business Democrat.

In fact I’d go on to say that most voters on the right and even many on the left are some Frankenstien hybrid of paleocon and libertarian and the mix isn’t consistent from person to person. However neither of those fits Guiliani that well.

As for Pat Robertson, his Conservative Credentials aren’t all that strong. And in general many Christians are shifting politics to the Left. So saying far right politics is synonomous with the religious right isn’t so true anymore.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
The term "social conservative" is being used improperly here.

Giuliani is solid with social conservatives, i.e., those who reject the expansion of the welfare state.

It is cultural conservatives, like me, who are also called religious conservatives, who will not vote en masse for Giuliani because he is pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-"gay marriage" (or some facsimile thereof). (Guns are a crossover issue with, say, non-cultural conservative libertarians.)

What Pat Robertson has to say about it is irrelevant. He will not sell Giuliani to cultural conservatives. Instead, the Clinton campaign will sell Giuliani as an egregious cultural liberal to cultural conservatives. That’s how that’s going to work in the general election campaign.

Yesterday, I caugh John Ashcroft on, I think, the Fox Business channel evading the question of Giuliani’s pro-abortion position and talking about how he will support a candidate who will appoint "judges who will interpret the Constitution and not make up their own law." That usual song and dance.

Let me just say it as plainly as I can: any cultural conservative who believes that Giuliani will appoint USSC justices who would overturn Roe or rule in any way to the liking of cultural conservatives are out of their f**king cultural conservative minds.

As a differential matter: religious/cultural conservatives are not necessarily social conservatives, i.e., opposed to the expansion of the welfare state. Catholics in particular can be adamantly opposed to abortion and "gay marriage," but eager to see poor families offered support by the state, and that has its roots in the Catholic social doctrine going back a century.

I am a Catholic who is first and foremost a cultural conservative, but also a social conservative. I see abortion as far more damaging to American society than welfare, but welfare is obviously corrosive in its own right, including its manifestation in middle-class entitlement programs.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
The state needs to tread a very fine line when it comes to legislating morality.

None of the terms come close to describing me.

Call me socially tolerant. I really believe most people are this way. They want to "live and let live," for the most part.

There is behavior which I find personally objectionable, but which I don’t think should be illegal, or any business of the state.

There is other behavior, such as abortion, which should be restricted, but not illegal.

As such, I don’t think most people care a wit what Pat Robertson has to say.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
People who are worried Robertson would endorse him probably wouldn’t have voted for him anyway.

Think of it in the reverse - if Kos suddenly endorses one dem over another, I’m still not bloody likely to vote for him or her anyway.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Pat Robertson on one side......Jesse Jackson on the other.

WASH
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Put me down in the: I don’t Give a Fig who Pat Robertson supports column. There might be a few old biddies out there that dote on his every word but I certainly don’t know of anyone waiting with baited breath to see who Pat Robertson endorses. The same applies to any other endorsements be it Charlton Heston, Barbra Streisand, The Dixie Chicks, Ted Nugent, The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal. Even if the great McQ himself gave an endorsement I’d just say...So? Well actually, there is one endorsement I’d pay attention to and that is Al Gore’s...and that’s only because he consistently spoils anything he touches.
 
Written By: Bob
URL: http://
Just smile, say "thank you" and move on.
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
Martin:
Let me just say it as plainly as I can: any cultural conservative who believes that Giuliani will appoint USSC justices who would overturn Roe or rule in any way to the liking of cultural conservatives are out of their f**king cultural conservative minds.
Do you think Rudy’s USSC nominees would be better or worse that those of either Hillary, Edwards, or Obama’s?

Keith:
The state needs to tread a very fine line when it comes to legislating morality.
Virtually everything the state does is legislating morality. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, SCHIP, education, etc., are all morality legislated. The difference is most people tend to agree with the morals behind these programs.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
bains asks me:
Do you think Rudy’s USSC nominees would be better or worse that those of either Hillary, Edwards, or Obama’s?
Probably worse, in the sense that they will become major disappointments along the lines of David Souter, who is perhaps the most worthless member of the Court.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
That aspect I am aware of, and frankly dont think is that relevant. I’ve heard a number of self-designated cultural cons opining that if Guiliani were the nominee, they could not vote for him. Most of them sidestep the issue of whether or not they would prefer Giuliani to fill USSC vacancies or any of the Dem candidates. If another Souter is the worst Rudy would nominate, is that worse for the conservative movement than enabling Edwards to nominate another Ginsburg?

Or set forth using a verbal venn diagram, the range of nominees Rudi sets forth are a circle on the right with Souter occupying a spot well on the left. The range of nominees any of the Dems sets forth is on the left, and perhaps Souter occupies a spot on the right. If a Dem is President, the USSC candidate can not be right of Souter, whereas he/she most likely will be left. Conversely, a GOP candidate will not nominate someone to the left of Souter, chosing someone most likely to the right. Is it worth not supporting Giuliani (if he is the GOP nominee) given these odds?
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Virtually everything the state does is legislating morality. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, SCHIP, education, etc., are all morality legislated. The difference is most people tend to agree with the morals behind these programs.
Maybe, but I was thinking more when you get into the sticky situations (pun intended) of things like laws against gay sex, gay ’marriage’, and the like. Questions where one group of people are not going to agree with another group, and saying it’s immoral so it should be illegal isn’t going to ’fix’ the problem. To me, that’s legislating morality, and getting close to crossing the line of establishing a religious code of conduct.

Social entitlements are a whole different class of legislation.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
bains asks:
If another Souter is the worst Rudy would nominate, is that worse for the conservative movement than enabling Edwards to nominate another Ginsburg?
What’s the difference?

And, frankly, I’m not interested in this sort of choice. If Giuliani has the arrogance to pursue the Republican nomination without supporting the entire spectrum of the Republican coalition, why should he expect the entire spectrum of the Republican coalition to support him?

Would the national defense part of the spectrum support him if he vacillated on national defense? Would the economic growth part of the spectrum support him if he vacillated on economic growth and instead proposed huge tax increases?

Why the hell should the pro-life part of the spectrum support him if he is pro-abortion?

I happen to be from all parts of the spectrum of the Republican coalition, but the pro-life part is the most basic part for me.

I would rather have a full-fledged fight with a rotten Democratic president than have to endure the pretense of supporting a half a Republican. I will not vote for Giuliani for president. Period. And I won’t support him if he’s elected. Paragraph.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Keith writes:
I was thinking more when you get into the sticky situations (pun intended) of things like laws against gay sex, gay ’marriage’,
There is a gulf of time and space between gay sex and "gay marriage."

The former happens, the latter is a social endorsement.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
I don’t understand who the Giuliani supporters are. Is there anyone who believes he has a platform and will stick to it? The only thing I’m fairly sure of is that he will enact a similar-but-dumber version of George Bush’s foreign policy. That would be fun to watch in a movie, but I don’t want to be a part of it.

In what way is he worse than Hillary Clinton? Not that I respect lawyers, but she has a law background with which to select nominees. It’s not like she really cares about liberal principles. We may get a disastrous nationalized health care system, but I can no longer say that a cookie-cutter Republican will support free (market) health care.
 
Written By: Effeminem
URL: http://ethermind.blogspot.com
In what way is he worse than Hillary Clinton? Not that I respect lawyers, but she has a law background with which to select nominees
Um, Eff, did you know that Giuliani has a much deeper law background than Hillary?
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
"If Giuliani has the arrogance to pursue the Republican nomination without supporting the entire spectrum of the Republican coalition, why should he expect the entire spectrum of the Republican coalition to support him?"

Meanwhile Giuliani has campaigned hard for the entire spectrum of GOP candidates in past elections. Nice of you to reward his loyalty to the party by calling him arrogant. And since the entire spectrum of the party included pro-choice, pro-gay marriage people as well as cultural cons, how could he possibly do what you want?

I think his plan to promise on the judges is the best path that allows a big tent party. Fred’s not too bad either with his Federalism solution.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
I disagree Martin, but I can respect this sentiment:
I would rather have a full-fledged fight with a rotten Democratic president than have to endure the pretense of supporting a half a Republican.
While I think your stance counterproductive to your cause, I do not know this, and admit that by being outside and unencumbered, one may be a far more effective advocate.

But I am not from all parts of the Republican spectrum, nor of the conservative spectrum for that matter. Consequently, while overturning Roe.v.Wade is important to me, it is not the end-all, be-all issue. State sanctioned gay unions will eventually pass - no big deal; my objection is that we be forced to treat them as indistinguishable from marriage. And I am way off the reservation in regards to drug laws.

That being said, my desires for:
national defense (sometimes requiring pre-emptive actions);
elimination of state sanctioned welfare systems (as opposed to real safety nets);
cessation of government extortion (income taxes);
revocation of onerous ’public safety’ laws (gun laws, seat belt laws, smoking laws, transfat laws, etc.);
and the decimation of the concept of a ’living Constitution;’
all lead me to believe that a Democrat President, possibly appointing 6 USSC Justices, is something worth voting against.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
I see.. Maybe Giuliani needs some help getting his resume out there then. Also I meant to ask how he’s "better" not "worse," but same difference.
 
Written By: Effeminem
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider