Does Giuliani Have the Right Idea?
The leading Republican candidates for President skipped an event sponsored the Values Voters Debate in September. Who are they? A coalition of forty different religious right groups. Faith2action, the Eagle Forum. The VPD had a straw poll in Ft. Lauderdale. Mike Huckabee, a Southern Baptist minister and former Arkansas Governor attended and won. He is in single digits in the polls.
Dr. James Dobson (Focus on the Family) and a few of his friends have recently announced that they may split from the GOP if Giuliani or Thompson get the Republican nomination.
A New York Times article today reported the above and went on to say that 26 percent of the population are “Evangelical Protestants.” But of that number only 12 percent of the population are hardcore religious right voters.
Giuliani, though to my mind pandering with the best of the Republicans is, according to the article, betting that he can win without espousing opposition to homosexuality and abortion, though he’s straddling as best he can from what I can see. Of the approximately 26 percent noted above, 30 percent said they could vote for someone that doesn’t agree with them on abortion and homosexuality. 59 percent said they couldn’t. I guess the other 11 percent aren’t sure. So what does that mean? Giuliani and Thompson, if the poll numbers hold true, will lose 8.4 percent of the vote for their “moderate views.” Keep in mind that is measured against the entire population. They will pick up about 15 percent of the population, maybe a bit more with the undecideds. All this again in the general election. So they start with something over 15 percent of the vote and then go for the great unwashed middle.
So, the bugaboo is getting the nomination. The article didn’t give percentages for the GOP when it comes to the hardcore. Assuming that the hardcore right sits it out, as Dobson threatens, one of the mainstream guys, probably Giuliani, is the nominee.
In contrast, the Democrats seem to be playing politics as usual, at least with the top tier. Clinton wants to pander by proposing to spend $20 billion a year on babies. Add another couple hundred billion in national health care. Obama hasn’t weighed in on babies yet, but he’s on board with buying votes with health care and other entitlement programs. Biden and Edwards in the second tier mouth similar programs.
So, Giuliani and Clinton? A wash on Iraq. They’ll take shots at each other on nuances of staying there for a long time. Clinton will take shots at Giuliani for having no national experience. Rudy will tar her with Bill’s peccadilloes and national health care and very quietly play up the gender difference.
The far left don’t seem to be enamored by Clinton. They know for the most part that the baby boondoggle isn’t going to happen. Health care? Only if there is a Democratic sweep of the Presidency, House and the Senate (over 60). Probably not, and not things that are going to mobilize them.
So what is Clinton left with? A massive mobilization of the teachers’ unions, the UAW and the Democratic equivalent of the religious right – the silent black majority. Single young women? I think that coalition, even if it holds together, won’t do it.
Giuliani may have the ticket, and the plan. If that’s the case, I hope he’s really pandering these days.
6 comments:
Nothing short of a total Democratic Party meltdown will keep them out of the White House at this point, so get used to President Hillary Clinton. I don't like it either - I'd rather see Edwards or Obama, and can always dream that we'll have someone like Kucinich someday - but Hillary won't be a total disaster. She might not listen to labor, minorities, and gays, but she'll at least let them in her office to talk, which is more than we have now.
The answer to your question is, of course, "no".
Ok -I'd like to see a candidate who isn't afraid to speak up for his/her true beliefs -not what that person thinks this interest group or that one WANTS them to say - and then, have the cajones if elected, to stick by those same beliefs as firmly as possible but also be willing to listen to another side's views and possibly give a little bit without totally folding up on their beliefs.
Is something like that at all possible in politics though. Probably not. All they are doing right now is shilling for a vote here, a block of votes there, get in to office and forget any and all beliefs they tried to foist on the public prior to the election.
The president is, in my opinion, merely a figurehead, a mouthpiece representative for the entire nation to the world but as far as a president starting an effort that would help the majority of the country, following through with pushing it through the senate and house, I just don't see any candidate that can, could, would even think of trying to be that much of a leader. They have to be able to go up against all the various egos - and I think too the majority of politicians are mega egoists to beging with - whatever will be in their best interests by virtue of whatever interest groups will benefit thus later benefitting the person in the senate and house. Confused? So am I!
People have already forgotten what Bill's first term was like- Republicans were actually complaining that he had stolen their agenda. He granted China "Most Favored Nation" status, expanded NAFTA and the WTO, wrecked labor unions, passed anti-gay bills, bombed third-world countries just about constantly, didn't do a damn thing about health care...
It makes absolutely no difference who we vote for- Big Business has already won. Again.
I'd like to respond to Jeni's comment if I may. You say you want a candidate who isn't afraid to speak up for his/her beliefs and then stick by them... Granted.
But some have argued that that is exactly what W has done. It just happens that his beliefs match up with enough people that he was able to get elected. Twice. But not mine.
Now, I'm no political maven, and I may be interpreting events wrong, but I think I need more than someone who is stalwart and steadfast.
I have as yet not seen that candidate in any election.
Obama is who I hope will win, but I have a history of supporting the losing side/team/whatever. Almost anyone would be better than what we currently have. Doesn't have to be likable... I'd settle for competent.
Oh, by the way. You've been tagged. If the link doesn't work, visit my blog for details.
You know, Pos, I did think of exactly what you say here about how the W appears to be what I say I'd like to see. Yes, he draws a line in the sand and stays the course with that line because he says it is what he believes, etc.,etc. But I don't recall his saying some of those things PRIOR to his election. Did he? Possibly and I may have missed it, let it slide right on past because I knew all along I was never going to vote for him so I paid little attention to him then -and I try to ignore most of what he says today.
The fact of the matter is, I believe they all say what they think we, the public, simply want to hear, whether they intend to follow through on any of these things or not being immaterial. But too, I believe he was "big business" all along so no matter what he said, he pandered to that group from the get-go and still does. But what other politicians don't also do the same thing in that respect. Old joke you know is that "White man speak with forked tongue" and I am jaded enough on politicians to believe they ALL do just that too! W may have these convictions and all and may stick to them but he misses the boat on trying to compromise -and compromise does not mean "cave in" either which a lot of politicians seem to believe. I may believe firmly in various things, but still be willing to sit down and try to negotiate something that will give a little bit for everyone, not just the special factions.
Post a Comment