Giuliani & the GOP: a premature "I told you so"

Among some of my liberal friends (and some commenters on this blog), it has long been an article of faith that Rudy Giuliani cannot win the Republican nomination because he's too socially liberal and has too shady of a personal life. According to them, those closed-minded Republican religious wackos would never vote for a pro-choice, pro-gay, twice-divorced candidate who once dressed in drag -- never, under any circumstances, regardless of his strength (or perceived strength) on other issues like terrorism and national security.

I happen to think the Republican base is a little bit less monolithic and one-dimensional than that, so I have repeatedly argued against this viewpoint for the last several years. (I think it's come up a few times on the blog, and I can also remember several conversations along these lines in the law school lounge.) I don't deny that Giuliani's socially liberal stances are a liability with your average GOP voter, but I've never believed they are the overwhelming, insurmountable liability that left-wing oversimplification of the conservative psyche would suggest.

Now, with the primaries fast approaching and Giuliani continuing to look like the front-runner, Ann Althouse says the oversimplifiers, like New York Times columnist Frank Rich, are finally having second thoughts:

Why is Rudy doing so well? People in the know used to think the rubes just didn't realize Rudy has dressed in drag and once lived with 2 gay guys; they just remembered him as the star of that 9/11 show they saw on TV that one time.

But now it's dawning on the pundits that Americans probably know all that stuff by now, so why isn't Rudy sunk? They're shuffling around for explanations. You could say "terrorism fears trump everything," or "the rest of the field is weak." But Rich thinks the right answer is that Americans really aren't as narrow-minded as they are portrayed...

I agree, except that it isn't Americans who have been portrayed as narrow-minded, it's Republicans. Let's be clear about that.

Anyway, Rich focuses on the extent to which "self-promoting values hacks" like James Dobson and Gary Bauer have puffed up their own importance, and that's certainly true. But in an odd way, the far left has collaborated with the far right to create the "rarely questioned conventional wisdom...that no Republican can...win the presidency without pandering...to the most bullying and gay-baiting power brokers of the religious right." For Dobson, Bauer, et. al., the benefits of this CW are obvious: it makes them seem more important than they are. For the oversimplifiers on the left, the motivation is quite different: painting all Republicans as Dobson clones is a lovely straw-man argument, lending itself nicely to the all-too-common lefty conceit that liberals are the only tolerant, decent, rational people in this country. (Many conservatives, to be fair, do the same thing to liberals, painting them with a broad brush based on the words and actions of a zealous few. In fact, I must admit that I may have been guilty of doing this on, er, one or two occasions. But I think it's more widespread on the left, though I admit that's a subjective perception that can be neither proven nor disproven.)

Anyway, Rich points out something that some of us who don't spend our time hanging out in the New York Times newsroom noticed a while ago: that Dobson & co. "don't speak for the Republican Party. They no longer speak for many evangelical ministers and their flocks. The emperors of morality have in fact had no clothes for some time." (Now there's an unpleasant mental image... shudder.)

Rich concludes that "should Rudy Giuliani end up doing a victory dance at the Republican convention, it will be on their graves." Yes. But it will also be on the graves of the armchair pundits on the left who have long insisted that Republicans are too one-dimensional and closed-minded to even seriously consider nominating someone like Giuliani.

(Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

P.S. On a related note, I'm feeling pretty good at the moment about my two-year-old dinner bet on the GOP presidential race.

P.P.S. Here's more from Rich on the disconnect between evangelicals and their alleged "leaders":

But the most significant — and happiest — explanation for the values czars' demise as a political force is that white evangelical Christians and a new generation of evangelical leaders have themselves steadily tacked a different course from the Dobson crowd. A CBS News poll this month parallels what the Times reporter David D. Kirkpatrick found in his examination of evangelicals for today's Times Magazine. Like most other Americans, they are more interested in hearing from presidential candidates about the war in Iraq and health care than about any other issues.

Abortion and same-sex marriage landed at the bottom of that list; fighting poverty outpolled abortion as a personal priority by a 3-to-2 margin. To see just how large a gap separates that evangelical electorate from the values organizations that purport to speak in its name, just look at the Values Voter Summit that the Family Research Council convened to much press attention in Washington last weekend. In a survey of participants to determine which issue would be "most important" in choosing a presidential candidate, the summit's organizers didn't even think to list the war, health care or fighting poverty among the 12 hot-button options.

The Values Voter Summit's survey of the attendees' presidential preferences showed just as large a disconnect. Rudy Giuliani came in next to last (behind Tom Tancredo, ahead of John McCain) in the field of nine candidates, earning only 1.85 percent of the vote. By contrast, among white evangelicals nationwide in the CBS News poll, he was in a statistical dead heat for first place with Fred Thompson; indeed, Mr. Giuliani's 26 percent among evangelicals nearly matches his showing among all Republican voters. The discrepancy between the CBS poll and the summit survey leaves you wondering who exactly follows Dr. Dobson and Mr. Perkins beyond the ticket buyers who showed up for their media circus last weekend at the Washington Hilton.

Indeed.

Comments

[Charlotte]

Check out our trailer on Gay Marriage. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & creates an interesting spin on the situation: www.OUTTAKEonline.com

[Joe Mama]

Rich is probably the worst political commentator at the NYTimes (and that's saying something). It cracks me up when people like him, who have such a misinformed and obnoxious view of conservatives and conservatism, try to tell conservatives what they ought to think about the Republican presidential field.

[Brett]

But Republicans are just racist, bigoted assholes who only care about making more and more money on the backs of the little brown folks.

Oh, and they just want to take over the world for oil.

[Joe Mama]

Heh.

[Derek]

Brendan, first, primaries matter, not national polling. Giuliani trails badly in Iowa. He trails significantly in New Hampshire. He's embattled in a three-way tie for first in South Carolina. He leads in Florida, which will have half of its delegates taken away for violating primary rules. He leads in California, but we have no idea the district breakdown now that Republicans are awarding votes based on congressional district. He trails badly in Michigan.

Basically, unless the polls shape up fast, Rudy may get less than a third of the delegates entering Super Duper Tuesday, and he could lose both IA and NH. Unless his game in those two States changes very quickly, the national numbers are utterly meaningless. When folks go to the polls on February 5 seeing the dominance of, say, Romney, and after McCain and Huckabee and perhaps Thompson have dropped out, we'll be seeing a much different picture.

Second, 7 out of 10 Republicans in that poll are voting for someone other than Giuliani. So while he has "the lead," it's not exactly significant enough to crown him the front-runner.

[Angrier and Angrier]

"But Republicans are just racist, bigoted assholes who only care about making more and more money on the backs of the little brown folks.

Oh, and they just want to take over the world for oil."

Don't forget making money on the backs of stupid white folks, too. Oh, and don't forget the corruption. You forgot about the corruption.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Oh, gee what else? The closet homosexuality. The false Christian thing. Hmmm. I'll have to think a bit more about this.

[David K.]

Guns AA, you forgot about the guns

[JT]

As a liberal, I've obviously declared war on Christmas. Happy Holidays everyone.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Not just any guns, David K. AK-47s. Because nothing spells freedom like allowing a 16-year-old to shoot up his school with a gun developed for the Russian military.

Another thread dragged down the shitter.

Nice dishonest argument.

Crow after the primaries, Loy.

[Joe Mama]

Sen. Norm Coleman is endorsing Guiliani.

Coleman is pro-life.

[Joe Loy]

What Derek said.

No, the Republicans' Fatlady ain't even commenced to Warm Up yet :}.

Oh how I'd love to see this go to Convention without a Nominee Presumptive. / Could happen, y'know. For Repubs, it would be their first such experience since at least 1952, if not Farther back. (No, '76 doesn't count; that one was Close but the outcome was still Locked In beforehand.)

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Should Giuliani get the nomination, he will lose for the following reasons:

1. His pro-choice stance, marital infidelities, the fact that his kids hate him, his multiple divorces, etc, will result in the Christian Right sitting at home instead of mobilizing to "get out the vote."

2. The Dems will Swiftboat him on 9/11, the ONLY thing he has going for him (firefighters with chronic illnesses from the pile, locating the command center at WTC despite recommendations from virtually everyone NOT to put it at the site of the '93 attack. His refusal to force firefighters and cops to use the same radios and his decision not to install repeaters in the WTC so that radios could work up the length of the towers, etc).

3. His connections with people like Bernie Kerik and his profiteering from 9/11.

4. Playing that clip of him at the 04 RNC convention "Thank God George W. Bush is President." Just play it over and over again with the tagline - "Do we really want more of the same?"

[Bucky]

The thing is, the Republican party highest principle is winning. They don't really have any core principles they adhere to (Exhibit A: The biggest expansion of U.S. power ever).

In 2004 it was terrorism and hatred of gays. In 2008, Rudy is going to 9/11 us to death.

John Cole has a great post on this:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8887

[Brett]

The thing is, the Republican party highest principle is winning

Wow, you are truly a tool.

[emily]

Brendan, I thought this was an interesting post. While it seems like Giuliani's popularity vindicates the accusation that the Republican party is the party of choice for bigots, there is still something disconcerting about his popularity. What does he bring to the table that would encourage his party members to overlook his moral weaknesses? I can't decide whether I prefer the bigotry to apocalyptic war-mongering (alarmist, perhaps; but nonbinding resolutions, anyone?). Perhaps I am still only seeing the Republicans one-dimensionally (well, actually two-dimensionally), but seriously -- what is the draw if not the September 11/war thing?

[Alasdair]

Brendan - you are observing upon (and observing) the "Big Tent" effect ...

The MSM can tout the narrow-minded bigotry that they project upon Republicans til their stock is worthless even for toilet paper, and the GOP will *still* be the party which has a spectrum of voters from far enough apart in said spectrum that the ends *really* don't like each other ... the Democrats, who, on the other hand the MSM try to portray as "liberal", "tolerant", "accepting", continue to throw anyone out who doesn't cleave to the party dogma (can you say Saint Joe ? I knew you could) ...

Giuliani draws 'em in and keeps 'em cuz he has a sense of humour and expresses it ... and his is a wonderful contrast to HRHighness (Hillary Rodhma Highness, that is) in her tin-eared attempts at delivering humour (see recent Democratic party debates) ...

Poor Emily ("While it seems like Giuliani's popularity vindicates the accusation that the Republican party is the party of choice for bigots, there is still something disconcerting about his popularity.") apparently is still shaking her head, because reality is not as Newsweek and the MSM protrays ... the echo-chamber isn't matching that is real ...

Joe the Elder - contrary to Derek's comments about the national vote not mattering ("Brendan, first, primaries matter, not national polling. "), it's the national poll (with the vagaries of the Electoral College) that picks the President ... the Primaries used to be able to make a difference - I suspect that those days may even be over - those days are certainly numbered ...

[Alasdair]

(I apologise for the typos - it has been a VERY long day!)

If the Dems follow Mad Max's attacks on Guiliani, he'll win it in a walk.

Alasdair, did you even bother to read Derek's post? First of all, there is a gulf of difference between "the national vote" (your characterization of what he said) and "national polling" (what he actually said). Second, it is most emphatically NOT "the national poll" that picks the President. Indeed there is no such thing as a "national poll." Third, even to the extent that you were trying to say that the aggregate preferences of voters nationwide necessarily and inescapbly exerts a disproportionate influence on the outcome of individual state primary elections to determine a party's presidential nominee, you are wrong. Just look at the disparity between the national polling Brendan cites and the state polling in early primary states. Fourth, the "vagaries of the Electroal College" have absolutely nothing to do with the current political context, which of course is the parties holding primary elections to select their nominees. Fifth, to the extent you were trying to comment on the end result in November, those "vagaries" that you seem content to relegate to parenthetical status in reality swallow whole your unsupportable argument that "the [mythical] national poll . . . picks the President." The interposition of the Electoral College between the aggregate national will and the actual winner of the election completely undermines any "point" that might accidentally be lurking in your comment. Sixth, it is vapid, if not downright nonsensical, to lament that "the Primaries used to be able to make a difference" when it continues to be the primaries that determine the delegate counts that will produce the nominee. Seventh, to the exent you mean the primaries no longer make a difference because the "national poll" influences them, not only are you wrong (see "Third," above), you are spouting meaningless drivel, because the simple fact that statewide primary results mirror nationwide polling trends does not mean that the latter caused the former (correlation not equaling causation, you know). Eighth, alternatively, the fact that statewide primary results mirror nationwide polling trends is entirely linked, and is also PERFECTLY OKAY, because after all, the nationwide polling measures preferences among the electorate, and *so do the state primaries*, so it's not at all surprising that they would yield similar results, and in no way suggests that the one impermissibly influences, threatens the future utility of, or undermines the existence of, the other. Ninth, it must have been a very long day indeed for you to have spewed forth a typo as massive (and massively wrong) as your commment at 11:15. Tenth and finally, just as a gentle suggestion, if you plan to comment about the intricacies of foreign political processes, you would do well to become familiar with the basics of those foreign countries first.

[4-7]

It sounds kind of one-dimensional to me to suggest that Rudy deserves to be a shoe in because he is true Red State on issues of national security and fiscal policy. It is not like Romney is advocating to close Gitmo and pull out of Iraq or Thompson is suggesting we grant amnesty to Bin Laden. I think the so-called monolithic conservatives are ticked off because Giuliani is doing so well when there are arguably just as good candidates on national security with a commitment to republican and conservative ideals in toto. We don't want Giuliani to win the nomination because it's selling the party to tomorrow's Hillary to beat Hillary today. I say we kick Hillary's @$$ today with a true Red Stater, then kick her @$$ again in whatever form the demon manifests itslef in 2012, 2016 and so on. We can do better than Giuliani (good as he looks with Hillary as the only alternative) and we should. Don't sell the party. It would probably better for Hillary to win, ruin the country, and then have a Renaissance in 4-8 years (if we're alive) than to fuel the Giuliana-Clinton centrist party that will eventually pull back left following economic downturn and political opportunism.

[4-7]

Although this flak against "The Values Voter" as if its some marginalized bloc of intolerant ignoramuses who will sink the Republican ticket because Giuliani won't promise to put Fred Phelps on the ticket is probably fueled by Giuliani's campaign to help eliminate the very real and very respectable True Values Voter that simply wants a reliable conservative. The fact that Rudy is complicit or tacitly approving of the marginalization of the true Values Voter is another glaring example that he warrants heavy suspicion.

[David K.]

Alasdair remind me again which party feels it not only important but necessary to amend the constitution to BAN gay marriage and tell me which party is more intolerant? Yeah, thought so.

[Derek]

David K., the (I assume you mean federal) amendment would not ban homosexual marriage. It would (1) prohibit recognition of homosexual marriage at the federal level (which President Clinton already has signed into law at a statutory level in DOMA), and (2) prohibit States from being required to recognize the homosexual marriages initiated by other States. It would emphatically not prohibit (1) religious recognition of homosexual marriage or (2) any State's recognition of homosexual marriage. It doesn't "ban" marriage, except that the federal government won't recognize homosexual marriages at the federal level, which is already the current law.

I know this is a deviation from the meaningful original topic, but I'm tired of hearing the "BAN gay marriage" cry when, in fact, that's not what's actually on the table.

[Joe Mama]

David remind me again which party won't even let a pro-life politician speak at its nat'l convention, let alone be its presidential nominee, and tell me which party is more intolerant? Yeah, thought so.

[Joe Mama]

The Republican Party so far appears willing to possibly nominate a candidate who doesn't hold the party's mostly pro-life views. Let me know when the Democrats appear willing to possibly nominate a candidate who doesn't hold their party's pro-choice views, and then you can spout off about "we're more tolerant" . . .

[Brett]

OHhhhhhh, David just got pwned!!!!

[treybien]

I am not a conservative, so I cannot speak personally to this issue, but I do read a fair amount of conservative blogs and I see a ton of comments relating to Rudy being the most electable of the bunch and that is why certain conservatives are supporting him. To tell you the truth, the conservative blogs look eerily similar to the liberal blogs pre-2004, not focusing on who will advance their agenda, but who will beat the person they hate. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of this pro-Rudy support seems to come from people that are more terrified of Hillary than anything else.

Which I also find interesting, b/c in all of the state by state polling I've seen (SUSA has put out a fair amt. of polls and Drudge linked to another polling outfit earlier this week), Hillary kicks Rudy's ass...by a lot. Over 20 points in NY, and good leads in states like Arkansas, New Mexico, Colorado, Florida, and Kentucky. I understand that it is a long way from the election, but the early polling can't look good for R's, especially b/c very few people have yet to make up their mind on these 2.

Like I said earlier, I'm not a conservative and I probably wouldn't vote for any of the 3 R's that look in the best shape, so I'd like to hear why I'm wrong about perceived electability being one of Rudy's strongest draws among conservatives and if he was the nominee what states he'll beat Hillary (which unfortunately looks like the current D candidate) in that couldn't be won by another R.

[David K.]

Joe Mama, which of the two parties currently has both women and minority candidates for President and which seems to consistently only be able to find white males to run? I'd be interested to see an anti-NRA candidate from the GOP, or a pro-gay-marriage candidate. Actually what woudl be really interesting would be a GOP candidate with mainstream support who actually supported the ideals of fiscal conservativism and individual/states rights over federal power and prolofic spending.

[Derek]

Hi David K., I suppose that the previous candidacy of Alan Keyes or Elizabeth Dole, which undermines the notion that the GOP is "consistently only . . . able to find white males to run." But you got 'em this year, for sure. Of course, the GOP ran, among other candidates, four black men for Senate. There are 16 women in the Senate, 5 of them Republicans.

[Brendan]

Oh good lord, are we doing the race/ethnic/gender candidate head-counting thing now? What a waste of time. Either side can "win" the argument by changing the terms of the debate. E.g., do candidates merely ran in the primaries count? (If so, the GOP does a lot better.) Do vice presidential candidates count? (The Dems have a woman and a Jew.) Do secretaries of state count? (The GOP has a black man and a black woman.) What about Supreme Court justices? (The GOP has a black man and a woman, the Dems also have a woman.) What about white people with diverse ethnic/immigrant backgrounds? (Arnold Schwarzenegger; Madeline Albright; etc.) Blah, blah, blah. Who cares? Can we please talk about something that matters? Like the parties' respective policies on the issues, including those relevant to various races/ethnicities and women?

The idea that only a woman can advance the interests of women, or only a black person can advance the interests of blacks, etc., is ridiculously offensive, as is trying to judge the parties by the skin tones and genitals of their top-level candidates and officers.

I don't deny that it's important to try and get diversity at all levels of society, including the highest levels, but direct racial/ethnic/gender preference is only one of about 1,000,000 factors that plays into how people end up in those positions; focusing only on it is therefore just idiotic. (For instance, the historic tendency of whites to have more money and get better educations than blacks arguably has a lot more to do with the paucity of black office-holders today than does any present-day racism on the part of one or the other national party.)

Moreover, to the extent that diversity is particularly lacking in a given party, there are (again) about 1,000,000 reasons other than "one party is clearly more open-minded than the other." For example, maybe there are more black Democrats in high office because blacks have historically identified with Democrats ever since the 1960s, and today's governing class grew up in the '60s, so it's logically inevitable that there are more middle-aged black Dems than middle-aged black GOPers today. That doesn't prove the GOP in 2007 is racist, it proves that there is such a thing as cause-and-effect.

I think it's pretty clear that both parties, in the present day, are pretty committed to diversity. It's inevitably going to take some time (like, decades) for that to fully manifest itself, though. And anyway, if you disagree with me that both parties like diversity, you're going to have to do better than saying, essentially, "OMG BARACK OBAMA IS BLACK AND RUDY GIULIANI IS WHITE." That line of argumentation is f***ing lame. As is rebutting it with "OMG BUT ALAN KEYES IS BLACK TOO." Lame, lame, lame.

Next topic, please.

[Derek]

Sorry, Brendan, I agree, but I was citing a counter-example as a quick refutation to the silliness. But your'e right, it's lame.

[Joe Mama]

What Brendan said. Who brought up the whole race/ethnic/gender thing again?

[yea]

Romney leads Guiliani in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Romney will be the Republican nominee. I'm about 90% confident in saying that. The power of the religious right is much greater in this country than anyone cares to admit, and that really scares me.

It's also scary that Hillary is going to be the democratic nominee. I find it ironic that Nader isn't running this year because Hillary, much moreso than Al Gore, and slightly moreso than John Kerry, is the exact type of candidate his movement was protesting.

Anyone who is expecting significant change after the next election is kidding themselves.

[David K.]

Alasdair brought up the whole "tolerance" issue, and I agree completely Brendan that both sides can "win" the argument. My response was to Alasdair and his claim that the GOP was clearly the tolerant party and the Dems were clearly the intollerant one.