Guiliani and Evangelicals

[Annie]

I like this, because it is nuanced.
Granted, the Corner is better than usual.
Links at site

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTkxYzAyNGM0OTAxMWU2YzY4MzI5NWZkOTVkODkxMmQ=

Giuliani and Evangelicals [Peter Suderman]

At best of the web, James Taranto points to this Washington Post piece suggesting that Giuliani’s recently expanded lead over McCain is due to a newfound support from evangelical voters. Needless to say, this is at least a little bit surprising considering Giuliani’s social views. There are all sorts of possible explanations for it. Taranto gives us two useful ideas to start with: One is that the religious leaders don’t actually exercise as much power as we're constantly hearing. Another is that the religious right is actually far more thoughtful in their political picks than they’re often given credit for. As a variation on that, I’d suggest that the religious right just isn’t as monolithic a group as it’s often characterized. Suggestions that they always act in concert, lurching along like some troop of zombies, forget the myriad regional and personal differences amongst religious, socially conservative voters.

And let me also suggest that part of Rudy’s appeal to evangelicals might have something to do with what at least appears to be a genuine willingness to take opposing views seriously. In this clip from Hannity and Colmes, you can see Giuliani talking about his support for civil unions and gun control, and, unlike so many on the opposite side of the social issues debates, he doesn’t emanate disdain or condescension toward conservatives who disagree with him. The manner in which he presents these views just seems reasonable and respectful. Even his abortion answer takes seriously the anti-abortion position—he says he “hates” abortion, would advise someone against it, and touts his record pushing down the abortion numbers. If Rudy wins religious/socially conservative voters, it will be by being fair toward their views, not bowing to them.

He also manages to project a pretty convincing mix of humility and confidence when discussion terrorism. When Hannity presents him with George Will’s “seven minute question" which deals with his preparededness for an attack, Giuliani looks almost taken aback, and says with a bit of hesitation, “Um, yeah, I’m as ready as anyone could be.” But he follows this up with clear, tough language about the war on terror: “We’re at war. And we’re at war because they’re at war with us… They [terrorists] want to come here and kill us.”

The public persona he’s created—at once tough, fair, humble, dedicated, competent, and hard working—is rather potent, and that’s why his favorability ratings are so high across the political spectrum. Who knows if this will hold up? After all, his social views aren’t nearly as well known as some think. But for now, it’s clearly quite effective.

02/28 04:41 PM

'The Evangelicals' are often referring to a diverse group which includes Catholics and Jews. Obviously the grouping is wrong, but that doesn't stop the MSM.

Abortion is important to Catholics, but right now it's the 'law of the land' so until we get at least one more judicial constitutionalist, we deal with it. More important to Catholic conservatives and I'd venture Jewish conservatives is the WOT. While McCain is likely as strong, he has McCain-Feingold. Not acceptable, cutting free speech is a non-starter for those that others wish to oppress.

Add McCain's stance and condescension on illegal immigration and Rudy's numbers are unsurprising.

 

[Avatar4321]

I have a feeling McCain is going to go down quickly once the other candidates are known better.

 

[Annie]

I have a feeling McCain is going to go down quickly once the other candidates are known better.

He's already fallen, but not as much as Mitt.

 

[trobinett]

He's already fallen, but not as much as Mitt.

I don't agree, lets give it a little more time.

Everyone is still "feeling" their way around.

McCain has to get his "sea legs".

Lets see what this looks like in 16 months.

 

[Annie]

I don't agree, lets give it a little more time.

Everyone is still "feeling" their way around.

McCain has to get his "sea legs".

Lets see what this looks like in 16 months.

Agreed, it's way too soon to call it.

 

[red states rule]

Whistling Past Graveyard: Some in MSM Cling to Belief GOP Won't Support Rudy
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on March 2, 2007 - 20:58.
I seem to be detecting a trend. There's a current in the MSM that fears Rudy Giuliani, perhaps sensing he might be best positioned to defeat the Dem candidate. Such folks console themselves by clinging to the belief that the GOP won't nominate Rudy, or at least won't avidly support him if he is the candidate, given his liberal positions on some issues.

This evening's Hardball offered a perfect example of the phenomenon in the person of Craig Crawford. Time and again, the MSNBC analyst returned to the theme:

View video here.

"Getting onto the social conservative stuff: abortion, gay rights, etc., [Rudy at CPAC] did make the case that I'm 80% with you, better than most marriages, a pretty good line, but at the end of the day, they're important issues to these people, and I just really wonder, the more they learn about him, and just how liberal he really is on those issues, I think it's going to matter to them."
"Maybe I've just covered these social conservatives and these Republican races for too long to believe they're suddenly going to forget about that stuff, no matter how much they like Giuliani otherwise."
"I think if Giuliani wins this nomination, and he well could, social conservative voters are not going to play in the general election, and that's going to help Democrats."
"I really do believe a lot of these [socially conservative] voters and a lot of these groups are losing interest in politics."
"I don't think they've heard all the details of his personal life, and the judges [the liberal ones in NYC Rudy appointed] we're talking about."
Jim Vandehei, ex of WaPo, now with Politico.com, was dubious of Crawford's notion: "I think that the conventional wisdom must be wrong, this idea that once conservatives get to know Giuliani's record. I mean, how can they not know his record? Everybody's talking about it."

Chris Matthews, flatly rejecting Crawford's theory, adopted a real-politik analysis:

"Are [abortion, gay rights] relevant issues?"
"Hasn't [Rudy] kow-towed a bit by saying I'll pick strict-constructionist judges?"
"You really think they're going to put Huckabee up there against Hillary Clinton or Obama and risk getting beat?"
"I couldn't disagree with you [Crawford] more. When [conservatives] get a look at the Democratic nominee, they're going to vote like they've never voted in their lives."
"American voters don't vote 'for,' they vote 'against.' And when they see Hillary or Obama coming, a lot of these Republicans are going to say, 'God, that Rudy is pretty cool, I like him."
"Sometimes I wish I was in the gambling business. I could stop talking to guys like you [Craig] and put some money on the table, and I'd get rich. Wait a year from now."
Be that as it may, whether the MSM is finding reasons to hope Republicans won't nominate Rudy, or betting they will, it does seem clear that the liberal media view him as the most formidable candidate.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11163