by Andrew Malcolm
As momentous as Britney Spears' child custody case is for American history, we're examining another aspect of family here: the new cracks appearing in the Republican Party's conservative coalition over the continuing national poll leads of Rudy Giuliani.
Until recently a remarkable thing in the Republican race was the continuing strength, even in conservative areas, of the former mayor with the troubled family life and urban liberal social views. Common wisdom suggested his halo from 9/11 leadership outshined the conservatives' social doubts and that national security concerns and fear of a homeland terrorism attack, which consistently poll as GOP voters' top priorities, were buying the tough-talking mayor a pass on older issues like abortion and gay rights.
Forty-three years ago Nelson Rockefeller's divorce was deemed sufficiently scandalous to deny him any hopes of the Republican nomination. But times change and the soap-opera chapters of the Clinton years and congressional scandals may have lowered the bar on what's prohibitive politically.
Giuliani's strength has continued despite attacks from Mitt Romney on, for instance, the sanctuary city issue. The ex-mayor appears to be counting on a good-enough showing in Iowa, where Romney holds a large lead, and a strong showing, maybe even an upset, in New Hampshire to get him to other states where he'd fare better like Florida, where so many New Yorkers go to die.
Additionally, Giuliani has consistently polled as the most electable Republican. Few things unite many Republicans more than the spectre of Bill and Hillary Clinton back in the White House. And those motivations may be sufficient for many conservatives to hold their nose and vote for Rudy.
Many concerned evangelicals expect to unite later this fall, when the field may narrow some behind one of the other GOP's less-than-perfect-but-better-than-Rudy candidates. That's what Romney, Fred Thompson and the under-financed Mike Huckabee are counting on.
But now comes disturbing evidence for the Giuliani camp. The conservative columnist Robert Novak reported over the weekend that Giuliani is the only Republican contender to not yet accept an invitation to a "values voters" conference in Washington in three weeks where some 2,000 conservatives are gathering under the auspices of the Family Research Council.
He still has time to accept, of course; if he can earn a respectable reception from the National Rifle Assn., for pete's sake, what more is to fear from a family values crowd, even if the thrice-married mayor can't show off his happy family like, say, the smiling Romney clan? Of course, they will have a straw poll at the conference, and we recall last summer what Giuliani did when it became clear Romney would win Iowa's Ames straw poll: Giuliani skipped it.
Also this past weekend, word leaked out about a quiet recent gathering in Salt Lake City of a small cadre of social issue purists like James Dobson, who founded Focus on the Family; Tony Perkins, who heads the Family Research Council; former GOP candidate Gary Bauer; and outspoken activist Richard Viguerie, among others. They are so dissatisfied with the Republican field they debated issuing a letter threatening formation of a third-party candidacy should the GOP nominate a pro-abortion candidate.
In pre-9/11 days, that kind of Nader-like candidacy could split the Republican base enough to guarantee a Democratic victory. What's different this time and will be played out in the next few months is, has the ever-looming spectre of terrorism attacks at home, combined with the powerful Clinton candidacy, now created a more immediate threat in the minds of the Republican right that might this time trump the old moral standby litmus test of abortion?
Andrew Malcolm writes for Top of the Ticket, the Los Angeles Times' political blog.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
So as some republicans, like Gulianni, drifted to the left, the right fringe seems ready to snap & form a 3rd party candidate?
I thought conservatives were all knowing about history, or so they blather. Don't they remember what happened the last time there was a 3rd party presidential candidate?
Posted by: RomanB | October 2, 2007 8:36 AM
Tony Perkins for president. Scary thought!!!
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | October 2, 2007 8:55 AM
As one of the right wing nuts said on TV last night,for the Republics it's all about Power.They've lost what once was a Republican party.
On a blog over the weekend,it was amusing to hear the usual suspects defending Bush/little dick spending!
Posted by: Raving Loon | October 2, 2007 8:58 AM
Loon, what right wing nut said it was all about POWER??? Ooooooh, POWER and OIL!!!!!
Seriously, Loon, are you going to tell me for the Demoncraps, it's not about POWER either??? You don't think for Hillary and Bill, it's not about POWER??
IN regard to the "family values" crowd, well I suppose I am one of them and I have no qualms about supporting Guiliani. If Perkins and Dobson are serious (perhaps they are, perhaps they aren't), then they are way off-base. More than likely it is just a little posturing on their part.
Posted by: John D | October 2, 2007 9:17 AM
Note that neither gossip columnist Malcolm, nor Swamp reporter Silva, actually bothered to talk to ANY so-called "social issue purists", let alone the "social issue purists" mentioned in the article.
Anybody who actually looks at the right-wing blogosphere knows that Dobson's threats are being dismissed. For example, see Ed Morrissey at http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/014009.php:
"The problem with the Christian Right is that they have consistently made these threats in the past and have always dropped the idea when they started counting numbers."
Or at redstate.com:
"I am not prepared to make too much of concerns that there may be a split in the Republican Party; as Ed [Morrissey] points out, these threats are oftentimes made and never followed up on. But for those making the threats, perhaps they ought to remember what Ronald Reagan said: "My 80% friend is not my 20% enemy."
And even if Rudy Giuliani is only a 60% friend, that is better than the alternative. Interestingly enough, people like Hillary Clinton never say that they are willing to spend years in the ideological wilderness and make the perfect the enemy of the good.
Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned in that."
Posted by: Joe Six Pack | October 2, 2007 9:51 AM
First: The national polls, and most straw polls show Fred Thompson leading, although the mass media hates to admit it. Second: Giulliani never had the nod from the Conservative Coalition. Here's a clue for the Left and the Press (Actually the same...) Giulliani (Just like Bush) ARE NOT CONSERVATIVES!!! Duh! So, what's the news here?!?!?!?!?
Posted by: R. Joseph Reece | October 2, 2007 10:29 AM
I see as we usher in a new era in the Swamp, Bruce has picked up a new moniker. Not satisfied with his usual Bruce, or Former Leftist, or JFK Democrat, today Bruce unveils: Joe Six Pack!
You're more fun than a barrel of monkeys, Brucebot!
Posted by: Distrust and Verify | October 2, 2007 12:16 PM
The Wall Street Journal talked to a Guiliani staff insider and found out that he's taken a cell phone call during a speech OVER 40 TIMES. The WSJ editors told him to knock it off and grow up.
source: http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/
Posted by: BC | October 2, 2007 12:22 PM
Seriously, Loon, are you going to tell me for the Demoncraps, it's not about POWER either???
Posted by: John D | October 2, 2007 9:17 AM
(Beavis)
He said DEMON... haha (Butthead)
yea, yea, he said DEMON!!!
Beavis to John D, quit stealing our lines.
Posted by: Beavis | October 2, 2007 12:42 PM
I am a conservative pastor, who just so happens to be a techno geek. I network with a LOT of these religious conservatives, who turned out in great numbers to elect and re-elect GW Bush. Most of these people are NOT going to read posts like this, nor are they going to post in any blog. They are, for the most part, 45-75 years old, and will for the most part either stay at home if a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Republican candidate is nominated. No poll, or blog is EVER going to reflect this. I worked in the WH under the Clinton administration, and it scares me to death to think of them back there, BUT I see no difference between her or a RINO (republican in name only), so yes, I will leave my ballot blank when the election comes around and so will many others. I would rather have a democrat in office, than put my stamp of approval on Rudy or his like!
Posted by: Charles | October 2, 2007 3:48 PM
Giuliani would make a terrible president, just as he was a bad NYC mayor. He is a tyrant, with little compassion for anyone but himself. 911? Ask the New York Firefighters if they support him - no radios in the WTC, after 8 years of asking Giuliani. Hundreds died thanks to his negligence.
His membership in the Council on Foreign Relations ought to disqualify him also.
Ron Paul has my support.
Posted by: zenpiper | October 2, 2007 6:25 PM
The Neo conservatives are soon HISTORY. Bring it on Hillary. Just do me a favor, and select Evan Bayh as your running mate. PERFECT! Go Hill!
Posted by: Michael | October 2, 2007 6:39 PM
Mitt Romney is my choice.
Posted by: AmericanWoman | October 3, 2007 9:39 PM