Giuliani and the evangelicals

One of the great questions of this election will be whether social conservatives abandon Rudy Giuliani. Conventional wisdom suggests that they will. The Giuliani campaign has gone to great lengths to argue that they will not. Today, the LA Times weighs in with polls and anecdotes:

"He’s got that New York mentality — that’s why I don’t like him," Veenstra said. "Around here, it’s family, pro-life."

But in conversations with Republicans here in the first state to vote in the 2008 presidential race, the more striking thing is how evangelicals Carolyn Vande Voort, Joy Milby and Mike Brown see Giuliani: They disagree with him on social issues, but lean toward him anyway.

And therein lies a startling aspect of Giuliani’s candidacy: Nationwide, he is the No. 1 choice of white conservative Christians for the Republican nomination. A Times poll this month found 26% of them favor Giuliani — more than double the portion supporting either of his top rivals, John McCain or Mitt Romney.

Now, the questions are: do voters know about his positions and what else could he appeal to them on that would be just as strong. Gallup defends the conventional wisdom:

A March USA Today/Gallup poll found a majority of Republicans were unaware of Giuliani’s positions on abortion, gun control, and same-sex marriage. Research shows that significant segments of Republicans, particularly more conservative Republicans, are less likely to vote for Giuliani once his positions on these issues are explained.

However, the LA Times found a number of people who were not moved by that:

But it also demonstrates the potency of his tough-on-terrorism message among conservatives who prize strong leadership on national security.

"You want someone who’s demonstrated character," said Mike Brown, a Pella city employee walking past tulip beds in the town square, on his way to lunch at In’tveld’s diner.

Brown, 56, thinks Giuliani is wrong on abortion, but he wants a president who will cope with crisis the way the mayor responded to the terrorist strikes of Sept. 11, 2001. "Just being able to remain calm, dispatch the people, handle the situation — those are things I really find favorable," Brown said.

In the end, we don’t know. Rudy is betting one way. Romney, as Jonah Goldberg pointed out, is betting another way. We shall see. As I said, elections are experiments.

As I have argued, and Rudy has echoed, he only needs to win enough social conservatives to cobble together a winning coalition. But, ultimately, I suspect, if Rudy can find a winning coalition, it is not likely to be dominated by social conservatives. To some extent, I think that this whole narrative is a product of a press that may not understand what putting together a coalition means.

And, in the end, Rudy’s fate is probably more determined by the issues that Messrs. Veenstra and Mr. Brown mentioned:

"He’s got that New York mentality — that’s why I don’t like him," Veenstra said. "Around here, it’s family, pro-life."

"You want someone who’s demonstrated character," said Mike Brown, a Pella city employee walking past tulip beds in the town square, on his way to lunch at In’tveld’s diner.

Tags: , ,

PBA decision impact

I have not yet decided what the impact of the Partial Birth Abortion decision will be on 2008. I see two scenarios. Will the narrative that emerges be about abortion or about judges?

John McCain and Mitt Romney will want to talk about partial birth abortion and abortion. It is a 70% issue nationwide and higher among Republicans, and they are on the right side of it. Rudy Giuliani will not because of things like this:


So Rudy will probably try to frame this as about judges, which is his pivot on social issues anyways. Furthermore, none of the leading GOP candidates is on particularly strong ground here. Mitt Romney appointed plenty of gay rights and abortion activists to the Massachusetts courts. Rudy Giuliani has the same problem, and he quibbles with some conservatives about what "strict constructionist" means. And John McCain has the whole Gang of 14 thing, although he argues that he cut the deal that got Alito and Roberts on the court.

In fact, Romney and McCain probably want to talk about both because it traps Rudy even more. Romney and McCain can say "we are pro-life, and we want more strict constructionist judges to move the ball on the issue." Again, Rudy can’t go there.

A lot of Republicans are celebrating, and Rudy will have to play dodgeball. Tough day for Rudy.

Also, start your office pool. How much does Emily’s List raise online today?

Tags: , , ,

Romney’s flip-flops take a village

Mitt Romney opened his mouth and inserted his foot again. However, it turns out that he was replacing Hillary Clinton’s words with his foot, so it may well be a trade up.

You see, back in 1998 he said that Hillary Clinton was "very much right" that "it takes a village:"

Hillary Clinton is very much right, it does take a village, and we are a village and we need to work together in a non-skeptical, no-finger-pointing way…

Now, you see, "it takes a family". Just in case you missed that, he was talking about Rick Santorum.

Perhaps one should say that Romney’s flip-flops take a village. There are so many of them…

Tags: , , ,

Romney, like Giuliani, ducks on SC ultrasound bill

Last week, I said that Mitt Romney supported the South Carolina ultrasound-before-abortion bill. But I was wrong. He has said that it is a state issue and ducked, invoking the same federalism argument that Rudy Giuliani is using. From AP:

"I would like to see each state be able to make its own law with regard to abortion," Romney said after a speech to about 50 small business leaders. "I think the Roe v. Wade one-size-fits-all approach is wrong."

This feels like Romney settling on a position that is anti-Roe, but not particularly pro-life. Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and John McCain have all declared their support for the bill.

Is this going to be salable to pro-life activists and evangelicals?

Tags: , , ,

GOP Candidates and Federalism

Yesterday and today (in response to Andrew Sullivan), Hotline’s Marc Ambinder pointed out that Rudy Giuliani is, perhaps, making a dodge on a variety of issues by invoking federalism. In essence, Marc’s position is:

By not saying something like

I think the flag is divisive, and I don’t like it. But Alabamans can do what they want.

And instead saying only “Alabama should do what it wants,” Giuliani implies that each side’s arguments have equal merit – which, in an of itself, is a moral judgment whether Giuliani realizes it or not.

In other words, Marc is saying that Giuliani is using some sort of "states rights" argument to avoid answering the question. This belies the Giuliani campaign’s argument that "voters know where Rudy is on the issues."

Now, each major GOP candidate is making some sort of federalism argument on a major social issue. However when John McCain and Mitt Romney take federalist positions, they still state what their position is.  Rudy does not. That is the contrast that Marc is making. Start with a chart (yes, I like them):

  Abortion Marriage
  Federalist Pro-life? Federalist? Pro-amendment?
Giuliani No? No Yes No
McCain No Yes Yes Yes
Romney Yes Yes No Yes
Field No Yes No Yes


Giuliani is saying, I think, that he supports Roe and opposes the marriage amendment, and would vote against a marriage amendment in his own state. (I don’t have a reference on the last point)

John McCain is saying that abortion should be decided at the federal level and that he is pro-life (he supports a federal Life amendment). However, he does not support a federal marriage amendment, "only" a state one.

Mitt Romney is the flip of McCain’s position. He does not support a federal life amendment. He said in his Ask Mitt Anything clip on Life:

My view is that instead of having a one-size-fits-all pronouncement for the entire nation that we currently have, that each state should be able to make their own choice in this regard.

However, Romney is not a federalist on marriage, supporting a federal marriage amendment.

The remainder of the GOP field is, to my knowledge, not federalist on either issue and both pro-life and pro-FMA.

It is fair to say that using a federalism argument in the GOP is a way of moderating your stance.  For a long time in the GOP intelligentsia circles, being pro-choice but anti-Roe has been somewhat acceptable. And here Mitt Romney appears to be anti-Roe (however, he does call for "reasonable" pro-life laws, whatever that means) and pro-life. People have attacked John McCain for not being opposed "enough" to gay marriage. (Mitt Romney called it "disengenuous." I wonder if Romney’s federalism on life is based on principle or politics).

Again, as Marc points out, "We’re a politics blog, and so we’re making a political point." So let me close on a political point.

Ultimately, cases are made on these issues in direct mail. These are not made on TV. (although YouTube and highly segmented cable markets may change that) From a political-mechanical perspective, it is easy to see how the non-federalist position is the easiest to explain. Expect mail like, "Mitt Romney is not pro-life. He thinks that Massachusetts should be able to have pro-choice laws," and, "John McCain doesn’t support marriage. He voted against the marriage amendment." The second sentence in each of those is true, and taken, incorrectly for some but correctly for others, to be evidence for the first. Such is life.

As Matt Lewis said, "Politics is tough.  Get a helmet!"

Tags: , , , ,

Romney still struggling with abortion

Mitt Romney has struggled with his position on abortion. He has been accused of being a flip-flopper, and Romney has shifted his stance from being pro-choice, to saying that he was always pro-life,  to now admitting that he used to be pro-choice.

Earlier this week, Romney released clips from "Ask Mitt Anything," including one he titles "Right to Life". David Brody, over at the Christian Broadcasting network asked his readers what they thought. There was… a split over whether Romney was even pro-life:

"This is the clearest statement I have heard from him and I am shocked. This is not even vaguely pro-life. I am not sure it is even anti-Roe. He limits what kinds of pro-life laws could be passed to "reasonable" ones, while allowing MA to do whatever it wants."

In other words, an actual pro-life voter doesn’t think that Romney is even opposed to Roe, much less pro-life. However, an interest group guy ("national Evangelical leader") was much more open to Romney’s position:

When I contacted a prominent national Evangelical leader about this he told me:

"I am not bothered by his statement. It has been my opinion for sometime that restoring a culture of life in America is going to be a state to state battle. Fortunately, when you get to the states, the pro-life perspective is much stronger than in Washington. Its the same with same sex marriage, the problem is not the state elected officials it is the unelected federal judges who have interjected themselves into the most controversial public policy debates of our time without regard to history or the citizens." 

My sense has been for a while that Romney does better with the Washington crowd, which is variously more incremental (strategic?) or just assimilated to Washington. I think the second opinion both describes and exemplifies that perspective.

A group of state-level pro-life activists have recently attacked Romney’s pro-life record with RomneyCare, claiming it publicly-funds abortion. Now, this is an old fight. But these guys have managed to bring two new angles. First, they have a FOIA request, asking how many abortions have been publicly funded under RomneyCare. Second, they argue that he could have line-item vetoed certain provisions of the law.

On a certain level, the issue is not so much the truth of these statements. Inevitably, Romney will have a finely parsed statement. But credible people keep beating the drums. These stories are not going away. And Mitt Romney will continue to struggle with attacks on his social conservative credentials.

Tags: , ,

Huckabee attacks Romney; praises Giuliani

On Face the Nation yesterday, Mike Huckabee attacked Mitt Romney over his hunting record. He said:

"I think it was a major mistake," said Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor. "It would be like me saying I’ve been a lifelong golfer because I played putt-putt when I was 9 years old and I rode in a golf cart a couple of times."

"I think American people are looking for authenticity," Huckabee added. "Match their record with their rhetoric."

On Sunday, Huckabee said Romney’s comments undermined his credibility as a candidate.

At the same time, Huckabee praised Rudy Giuliani’s honesty:

"Now, I disagree with him. I don’t think we ought to use federal tax dollars for abortion, and I wouldn’t if I were president," Huckabee said.

"But I thought it was at least a statement of extraordinary honesty and candor on the part of Giuliani that he would go into South Carolina, a very pro-life environment, and just say, look, this is who I am. I’m not going to change just to get your votes," he said.

Now I have suggested that Huckabee ought to get out, but this illustrates an interesting strategic calculation. Is Huckabee trying to damage Romney to help Giuliani? Is this a game of kiss-up for the VP spot or a cabinet post? Or is Huckabee just shooting from the hip? (consider his recent comment that candidate’s personal lives should be taken into account)

Tags: , , , ,

Rudy on how he wins

"In a loud voice" that perhaps reporters weren’t supposed to hear, Rudy Giuliani says that the social conservatives will be split and that he will form a coalition of the remainder:

In a voice loud enough to be overheard on the other side of the room, he outlined his view that the other candidates would divide up the "right-wing," voters, as he called them, leaving him to consolidate the moderates and the economic and military conservatives who aren’t fixated on social issues.

It’s a strategy. It’s what I talked about as a possibility in Iowa. Rudy wants as many candidates as possible. That is why it is so important for him to be the fiscal conservative candidate, as he expressed in New Hampshire (at the same house party, I believe)

So perhaps Rudy thinks that this kerfuffle over public funding for abortion doesn’t bother him so much?

Tags: , ,

Local legislation, national implication

There are now two pieces of legislation that are going through the legislative process in early primary states. In South Carolina, there is an abortion-related bill that requires that doctors review ultrasounds with a mother before an abortion.

In New Hampshire, the House just passed a civil-unions bill.

This matters because candidates will be asked where they stand on these issues. For example, in South Carolina, all the Republican candidates except for GIuliani have come out in support of the legislation. For example, Huckabee and McCain:

One who supports the S.C. proposal is former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

"I’m pro-life, and my attitude has always been if we’re going to take a position, take it on the side of preserving life," said Huckabee, a Baptist minister. "Anytime we can help to highlight what an abortion is, that would be a good thing."

U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona suggested that he supports the ultrasound proposal.

"Given the profound nature of a decision to end the life of an unborn child," he said in a statement, "I believe the more information that can be provided to a woman struggling with the decision of whether or not to have an abortion, the better."

On the other hand, other candidates like Rudy Giuliani  has said that he supports a state’s right to make these laws but have not taken a position so far on the law

Other candidates are more nuanced.

"The ultrasound proposal currently under consideration … is a good example of a matter best left to the states to decide," said Elliott Bundy, a spokesman for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Giuliani has said he believes in a woman’s right to have an abortion. But he’s also signaled that he would appoint conservative U.S. Supreme Court judges, who could restrict abortions.

Romney’s was a little in-between

Like Giuliani, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has supported abortion rights in the past. Now he says he doesn’t.

"Gov. Romney is pro-life," said spokeswoman Gail Gitcho. "(He) believes that states should be free to place restrictions on abortion, and favors measures that protect the sanctity of life."

Note the difference between supporting the idea and supporting the process…. Sam Brownback was not quoted in the article, but has posted a statement on his blog in support of the legislation.

Is this going to start happening with civil unions? What will happen in Iowa, which, like New Hampshire, flipped to the Democrats. (they have already had a stem-cell bill go through, but it seems unlikely that that will be a mobilizing issue in the same way.)

Tags: , , , ,

Iowa is weird… But complicated

The Politico’s Jonathan Martin has an interesting article on potential struggles for Rudy Giuliani in Iowa. Hotline’s Marc Ambinder has a partial rebuttal this morning. And Sunday, AP’s Mike Glover had an interesting story about difficulties faced by conservatives in Iowa right now:

As the 2008 race takes shape, these conservatives are no longer the unassailable force they once were, although they remain a powerhouse in Iowa’s GOP.

The role of Christian activists in the state is closely watched because of Iowa’s leadoff position in the presidential nominating season. At this point, however, there is little sign that activists are uniting behind a candidate or trying to channel the race in a particular direction.

And that is why Rudy Giuliani may yet have a chance in Iowa. Ultimately, winning Iowa is not about getting "the conservative vote". It is about identifying new people and swaying old people, and making sure that you place better than everyone else. Rudy’s coalition, with Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Sam Brownback fighting over conservatives, could very well become a plurality. Marc has the numbers for how this coalition would be put together.

When writing about politics, especially primary politics, people often forget that people don’t often vote in blocs. In fact, that is the exception. "The social conservatives" won’t stop Rudy because they will be too busy voting for other people. "The social conservatives" only beat Rudy if they manage to decide on a candidate before the voting starts. That said, I still have a question for the Giuliani campaign. Who are your volunteers? You need them in Iowa and New Hampshire. These are not fly-by states. Caucus-goers and voters want to meet the candidate and talk to his volunteers.

Tags: , ,