The Giuliani Problem

Here's the transcript of the interview above: Exclusive: Dr. James Dobson talks with Sean Hannity

Here is the New York Times Op-Ed letter penned by Dr. James Dobson explaining why he will not vote for Rudy Giuliani: The Values Test

Here's a key quote:

REPORTS have surfaced in the press about a meeting that occurred last Saturday in Salt Lake City involving more than 50 pro-family leaders. The purpose of the gathering was to discuss our response if both the Democratic and Republican Parties nominate standard-bearers who are supportive of abortion. Although I was neither the convener nor the moderator of the meeting, I’d like to offer several brief clarifications about its outcome and implications.

After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.

The other issue discussed at length concerned the advisability of creating a third party if Democrats and Republicans do indeed abandon the sanctity of human life and other traditional family values. Though there was some support for the proposal, no consensus emerged.

Speaking personally, and not for the organization I represent or the other leaders gathered in Salt Lake City, I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed.

The other approach, which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles. In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of cherished beliefs that conservative Christians have promoted and defended for decades. Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear.

This is significant: 27% of Republicans Would Vote for Pro-Life Third Party Instead of Giuliani (Proof Rudy Can't Win)

Fred Thompson: Rudy Giuliani's Pro-Abortion, Republican Views Don't Mix

My thoughts are after the jump...

My thoughts:

If Giuliani supported legalizing rape or euthanizing the poor, nobody would consider him a worthy candidate. Everyone would understand that his views are untenable and cannot be supported by decent people. Nobody would advocate voting for him, no matter how good his ideas are in other areas.

Anybody who advocates voting for pro-abortion candidates in a primary election has clearly succumbed to a cultural mindset that accepts legal, elective abortion. Such a person is, at best, desensitized to the moral evil of abortion, and such a person would, by voting for Giuliani in a primary election, be supporting a Republican candidate who stands at odds with most of the things Dr. James Dobson and other social conservatives, including Ronald Reagan, have fought for, for decades.

It is also my contention that a vote for Bircheresque crank, Ron Paul, in the primaries is essentially a vote for pro-abortion, pro-homosexual union, gun grabber, Rudy Giuliani, to get the nomination, and consequently a vote for Hillary Clinton as President of the United States, because it is becoming increasingly obvious that Giuliani couldn't beat Hillary in a general election; especially given the fact that the last time he ran against her was a disaster.

Republicans don't need Giuliani to win. So that argument is not going to work.

Here's evidence: Fifty percent of adults would not vote for Hillary Clinton

Why would pro-life voters hand the Republican party over to pro-abortion leadership which, while possibly fiscally conservative, is opposed to socially conservative values?

Any thoughts?

Comments

[Jimbo]

Wait a minute. "The last time he ran against her was a disaster." What are you talking about? The last time he ran against her he had to step down because of cancer. I think he had a very good chance at beating her, although this point is arguable.

I think the whole argument basically comes down to whether or not a poor candidate on the issue of abortion is better or worse than a horrendous candidate. Rudy has pledged to nominate only constitutionalist judges for SCOTUS opennings--a code word for anti-aborion judges. You will get 2-4 Ruth Ginsburgs on the Supreme Court with a Hillary presidency. The issue will be, for all intents and purposes, settled for our lifetime. We'll have NO chance to ever see Roe v. Wade overturned in our lifetime if Hillary wins. Just acknowledge that, and I'll at least know you understand the stakes. Now, maybe you disbelieve Rudy's honesty when he says this--maybe he is lying--but that is quite different than saying Rudy would not be an improvement over what exists currently...and what will exist if Hillary wins.

Perfection is often the enemy of the better for religious folks. I would prefer Rudy not be the nominee, but if he is, he will be a much better president than Hilary would be, particularly in the area of pro-life issues.

[Hawke]

I think with any candidate you've got to look at the whole of the issues and come to the conclusion that Rudy is right on a larger percentage than others. If the end-all single issue is abortion then I think the analysis is right.

I honestly don't believe come next november Republicans would vote that high for a pro-life candidate that suffers on many other issues including experience. Right now it's a fun easy prospect on a poll but when it comes down to it many voters remember how Perot handed Clinton his win and wont make the same mistake.

I think Jimbo's comments are spot on as well - what major effect can we expect in a single term of a Hillary vs. Rudy? Rudy will be much better.

[RobK]

I disagree completely. The lesser of two evils is often the most dangerous, because it gets you to accept evil.

If Rudy is elected it teaches the Republican party that they can disregard those who vote for them because of this issue. Remember when to be a Catholic meant you were a Democrat? Not anymore. Why? Because of the life issues. I, for one, will not abandon these values so I can get Rudy elected.

If the Republican party is smart, this entire issue will be moot. Let's nominate a pro-life candidate.

[Ian]

Rudy is mentally inconsistent about appointing pro-life judges. Go research his record of judge appointments in New York. You might also want to read comments I wrote about this months ago.

[Subvet]

I thought that Catholics were concerned more with their salvation than winning elections? Seems there will be few, if any, political parties in the hereafter.

My three children need the example of someone who will do whats right, not what's expedient.

Expedience requires picking the lesser of two evils. Doing whats right requires avoiding all evil. If that avoidance means sitting out an election or throwing my vote to someone bound to lose then so be it.

[Katherine]

Brownback to meet Rudy
By Alexander Bolton
October 25, 2007

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) is considering endorsing Rudy Giuliani for the GOP presidential nomination and will meet with him Thursday in Washington.

Brownback, who ended his White House run last week and is a champion of social conservative issues, said he would consider Giuliani because he had heard that the former New York City mayor had changed his position on partial-birth abortion and has pledged to appoint to the courts strict constructionists who would not overturn anti-abortion laws.