Peace On That

I haven’t discussed politics in a while but I was over at Chatter’s blog and she has some very interesting post on Rudy Guiliani and his lack of support from James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Rudy is pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, anti-gun, borderline incestor (he married his second cousin), three-time divorcee who has no relationship with his children and has a host of other issues of ill-repute. Yet, he is leading the race for the GOP nomination.

James Dobson’s issue is that Rudy supports a woman’s right to choose. This one issue is enough to not support his presidential bid and has threatened to back a third party candidate in 2008. This is causing some infighting in the GOP ranks and I personally think it is a necessary fight. I think Chatter’s argument is surmised with this quote:

“…this was about right and wrong and that he just couldn't allow Hillary to become president for the sake of this country and the moral issues that he holds dearly.”

An opposing view from Paul, one of many commentors on Chatter’s blog who makes the argument for not supporting Rudy based on his abortion stance:

“For most of us, the only thing we can actually do to advance the pro-life cause is vote for pro-life candidates. If we're voting for a pro-abortion candidate, then in what sense are we pro-life?”


Then there is the comment by CajunTiger to rebuff Paul’s statement:

Paul you haven't answered the MAIN point in this whole "debate". If Rudy does win the nomination, how does not supporting him help the pro-life cause at all? I have no problem with you backing another Repub in the primaries as hard as you want, but if Rudy does win the nomination and Dobson has his way, say hello to President Clinton

There are several factors to consider here. First, fiscal conservatives are upset that social conservatives have dominated the Party for the past ten years. The Republican Party has controlled the White House and Congress for six years and got little to show for it. Dick Army, a noted fiscal conservative is openly challenging James Dobson to wrestle the control that Focus on the Family has forged over the years (source: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/20/news/gop.php) . A Rudy Guiliani nomination would strengthen fiscal conservatives.

Although I can understand Chatter supporting Rudy to avoid a Hillary presidency, in doing so, I believe she and those of like mind undercut their influence in the Party. If Rudy wins the nomination and gets significant support from social conservatives, the like of James Dobson will be silenced for decades. It will set a precedent and it will embolden Rudy to push his agenda which is very different from that of social conservatives in the Republican Party. Future GOP presidential candidates will feel confident in forging a centrist position earlier in the campaign to look electable knowing that not electing a Democrat is the primary motivating factor driving his/her support in the general election.

Where Paul’s stance falls short is that it doesn’t take into account that politics is a game of positions and pragmatism. And the last thing any constituency can afford is to relinquish their position. By supporting a third party candidate, social conservatives will render their voice mute.

The great thing about being a Democrat is that their so many factions that make up the Party that none have the ability to truly dominate the Party’s agenda; which is not at times because Democrats seem to do whatever the hell they please after their elected. But this infighting is the most interesting story in this election cycle and should continue for several elections cycles.