Should Conservatives Support Rudy Giuliani?

(Hat tip to a veteran CO Republican operative for the story)

From Scripps Howard News

"The most important 'traditional value' in this election is keeping the Clintons out of the White House," says Greg Alterton, an evangelical Christian who writes for SoConsForRudy.com and counts himself among Rudolph Giuliani's social-conservative supporters.

People like Alterton are important, if overlooked, in the Republican presidential sweepstakes. Anti-Giuliani Religious Rightists are far more visible. Also conspicuous are pundits whose cartoon version of social conservatism regards abortion and gay rights as "the social issues," excluding other traditionalist concerns.

New York's former mayor "has abandoned social conservatism," commentator Maggie Gallagher complains. He "is anathema to social conservatives," veteran columnist Robert Novak recently wrote. Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson has said: "I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008." Dobson and a cadre of Religious Right leaders threaten to deploy a pro-life, third-party candidate should Giuliani be nominated.

This "Rudyphobia" ignores Giuliani's pro-family/anti-abortion ideas, his socially conservative mayoral record, and his popularity among churchgoing Republicans.

While Giuliani accepts a woman's right to an abortion, he told Iowa voters in August: "By working together to promote personal responsibility and a culture of life, Americans can limit abortions and increase adoptions." Among Giuliani's relevant proposals:

--"My administration will streamline the adoption process by removing the heartbreaking bureaucratic delays that burden the current process." Giuliani notes that sclerotic court schedules, exhausted social workers, and tangled red tape prevent moms and dads from adopting some 115,000 boys and girls in foster care.

-- Giuliani wants the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to promote organizations that help women choose adoption over abortion.

-- He would like to make permanent the $10,000 adoption tax credit.

-- Giuliani also would encourage states and cities to report timely and complete statistics to measure progress in abortion reduction.

This is no sudden conversion on the road to Washington. As mayor, Giuliani did nothing to advance abortion. On his watch, total abortions fell 13 percent across America, but slid 17 percent in New York. Between 1993 and 2001, Gotham's tax-funded Medicaid abortions plunged 23 percent.

Giuliani's campaign for personal responsibility created a climate that seemingly discouraged abortion. Moving 58 percent of recipients from welfare to work may have encouraged women and men to avoid unwanted pregnancies. New York's 57 percent overall-crime reduction and 67 percent homicide drop probably reinforced such self-control.

Compared to the eight Democratic years before he arrived, adoptions under Giuliani soared 133 percent.

-- Giuliani also proposed eliminating the city's $2,000 marriage penalty. He chopped it to $400.

-- Giuliani opposed gay marriage in 1989. "My definition of family is what it is," Giuliani told Newsday 18 years ago. "It does not include gay marriage as part of that definition."

-- He jettisoned New York's minority and women-owned business set-aside program. Giuliani explained: "The whole idea of quotas to me perpetuates discrimination."

-- Giuliani sliced or scrapped 23 taxes totaling $9.8 billion and shrank New York's tax burden 17 percent. This left parents more money for children's healthcare, private-school tuition, etc.

Giuliani could have governed comfortably as a pro-abortion, pro-welfare, pro-quota, soft-on-crime, tax-and-spend, liberal Republican. Instead, Giuliani relentlessly pushed Reaganesque socio-economic reforms through a City Council populated by seven Republicans and 44 Democrats.

These accomplishments may explain why he leads his competitors and impresses churchgoers. Among Republicans in an Oct. 3 ABC/Washington Post poll, Giuliani outran former Sen. Fred Thompson, 34 percent to 17, versus Sen. John McCain's 12 percent, and Mitt Romney's 11. As "most electable," Giuliani scored 50 percent, versus McCain's 15, Thompson's 13, and Romney's 6.

An Oct. 3 Gallup survey found Giuliani enjoying a 38 percent net-favorable rating among churchgoing Catholics, compared to McCain's 29, and Thompson's 25. Among Protestant churchgoers, Thompson edges Giuliani 26 percent to 23, with McCain at 16, and Romney at 7.

Religious Right leaders should study Giuliani's entire, socially conservative record, not just the "socially liberal" caricature of it that hostile commentators and lazy journalists keep sketching. Social conservatives should not make the perfect enemy of the outstanding. Ultimately, they should recognize that a pro-life, third-party candidate would subtract votes from Giuliani in November 2008.

This would raise the curtain on a 3-D horror movie for social conservatives: "The Clintons Reconquer Washington" -- bigger, badder, and more vindictive than ever.

The Truth about S-CHIP

Congrats are due to Marilyn Musgrave, Doug Lamborn and Tom Tancredo for their opposition to the ridiculous S-CHIP legislation.

The Liberal Left has so distorted the facts, that I thought a brief reminder of what S-CHIP really is, would be in order.

Here is some of the analysis done by Republican Study Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling:

H.R. 976 reauthorizes and significantly expands the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), while increasing cigarette taxes to supposedly offset the bill’s costs. The legislation follows closely the Senate-passed version of SCHIP reauthorization, expanding the program but discarding much of the Medicare-related provisions included in the House-passed legislation. Highlights of the bill are as follows:

Cost: H.R. 976 provides $34.9 billion over five years and $71.5 billion over ten years in new mandatory spending—this spending is on top of the $25 billion over five years that would result from a straight extension of the program. The House-passed version provided $47.4 billion over five years and $128.7 billion in new SCHIP spending (as well as billions of non-SCHIP spending).

The new spending is partially offset by increasing taxes on tobacco products (see below). However, this CBO score overlooks a major gimmick which the bill employs to lower its costs. The bill dramatically lowers the SCHIP funding in the fifth year by 80%, from $14.25 billion in the first six months to $1.75 billion. In all likelihood, such a reduction would not actually take effect, which would make this an effort to generate unrealistic savings in order to comply with PAYGO rules. To that end, H.R. 976 is technically compliant with PAYGO.

Some of the worst parts of S-CHIP include:

Encourages Spending: H.R. 976 shortens from three to two years the amount of time a state has to spend its annual SCHIP allotment. Under current law, states are given three years to spend each year’s original allotment, and at the end of the three-year period, any unused funds are redistributed to states that have exhausted their allotment or created a “shortfall,” i.e. making commitments beyond the funding it has available. In addition, the bill establishes a process through which any unspent funds would be redistributed to any states with a shortfall. Some conservatives may be concerned that this process provides incentives both for states to spend their allotment quickly and to extend their programs beyond their regular allotments into shortfall, so as to be relieved by the unspent funds of other states or the new Contingency Fund (see above).

Expansion to Higher Incomes: Under current law, states can cover families earning up to 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) or $41,300 for a family of four in 2007 or those at 50% above Medicaid eligibility. However, states have been able to “disregard” income with regard to eligibility for the program, meaning they can purposefully ignore various types of income in an effort to expand eligibility. For instance, New Jersey covers up to 350% of FPL by disregarding any income from 200-350%, allowing them to cover beyond 200% with the enhanced federal matching funds that SCHIP provides.

As of 2010, H.R. 976 increases the eligibility limit to 300% of FPL or $61,950 for a family of four but also continues the current authority for states to define and disregard income. States which extend coverage beyond 300% of FPL would receive the lower Medicaid match rate. The bill also grandfathers states with an approved state plan amendment (or a state about to submit such an amendment in compliance with state law) that already covers those above 300% of poverty. This provision is for New Jersey and New York (seeking to cover 400% of FPL or $82,600 for a family of four). In addition, Section 116 of the bill overturns CMS’ current policy of requiring states to ensure that 95% of the eligible children in their state below 250% of FPL are enrolled before expanding coverage to higher incomes.

Adult Coverage: Under current law, some states cover nonpregnant, childless adults—these states have received waivers in the past in an effort to expand health insurance to uninsured populations, even though the program was intended for children. H.R. 976 would prohibit any further waivers but would provide continued funding for existing coverage of such adults through FY 2008. Beginning in FY 2009, funding for nonpregnant childless adults will be capped at FY 2008 levels, but states would receive the lower Medicaid match and be limited to only covering those already enrolled.

Additionally, the bill also weakens current law regarding illegal aliens recieving S-CHIP monies, increases taxes and penalizes those with private insurance.

The bottom line is simple: the bill would expand the SCHIP program by $35 billion over five years and loosen the program’s eligibility requirements while astronomically expanding the big-government welfare state.

Huckabee: unions are the future

Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee's populist campaign continues to stray from conservative, and even Republican ideology with his support of labor unions. This sort of apostasy doesn't go over will with the base.

From Change to Win (a union political website) Huckabee says:

"The real fact is, unions are going to take a more prominent role in the future for one simple reason: A lot of American workers are finding that their wages continue to get strapped lower and lower while CEO salaries are higher and higher.

And the reality is that when you have the average CEO salary 500 times the average worker, and you have the hedge fund manager making 2,200 times that of the average worker, you're going to create a level of discontent that's going to create a huge appetite for unions.

So unions are the natural result of workers finally saying, "Look, I can't go from a $70,000 year job to a $15,000 a year job and feed my family of four." That's when unions are going to come back in roaring form."

This is the hallmark of unionism: violence against workers.

NARAL wants Rudy

The national pro-abortion lobby, NARAL, is saying that a Giuliani Presidency would be good for the pro-abortion "movement."

From Huffington Post:

NARAL's political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it "would help" the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights...

As mayor of New York City, Giuliani had a pro-choice record, which has come under intense scrutiny since he entered the presidential race. In the GOP debates this past May, Giuliani said "it would be okay" to repeal Roe v. Wade, before adding, "But ultimately, since it is an issue of conscience, I would respect a woman's right to make a different choice." In recent weeks, a coalition of prominent Christian conservative figures has threatened to support a third-party candidate should Giuliani win the Republican nomination.

NARAL has yet to announce an endorsement in the 2008 race. But Shipp acknowledged that Giuliani is the lone Republican in the field who could potentially win the organization's support. [Emphasis added]

Musgrave's image improving; while maintaining principle

Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave gets a decent write up from today's Fort Collins Coloradoan on her re-branding and the "Musgrave 2.0" phenomenon.

"I've worked hand-in-hand with numerous Democrats to address bread-and-butter issues that are relevant to my district," Musgrave said in a statement. "My bipartisan efforts to pass (emergency) agricultural disaster assistance are far more important than a procedural vote."...


"Where she has reached out to the Democratic side, it has been on issues of direct concern to Colorado," Wadhams said. "I don't think there's any suggestion that she was changing her overall mainstream philosophy as a member of Congress."

There goes the electability arguement

A recently release Quinnipiac poll has Rudy Giuliani struggling head to head with Hillary Clinton in many battle ground states.

This certainly hurts his elect-ability argument.

The bottom ine:

Matchups by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds:

• Florida: Clinton tops Giuliani 46 - 43 percent, breaking a 44 - 44 percent tie September 12;
• Ohio: Clinton tops Giuliani 46 - 40 percent, compared to 47 - 40 percent September 6;
• Pennsylvania: Clinton beats Giuliani 48 - 42 percent, up from 46 - 44 percent August 23.

"The news just keeps getting better for Sen. Clinton. She has a Democratic primary lead over Sen. Obama ranging from 27 to 34 points in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and is widening her margin over the Republican hopefuls in each of those three critical states," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

(H/T: NRO's The Campaign Spot)

There's more to Life than just judges

From today's National Review Online:

Douglas Sylva on "We need a president to do more than just appoint the right justices." The Money Quote:

The “Pro-life, Pro-family” voting contingent require a candidate who sees threats as they do — as the pervasive efforts of cultural and social elites— and who is vigilant, and active, and courageous in response to these threats...

President George W. Bush has been that champion, and his administration has proven just how much more there is for a conservative president to do to than to select judges, even Supreme Court justices.

For years now an effort has been underway at the United Nation, for instance, to reinterpret international law in the hope of creating a universal right to abortion on demand. Various forces at the U.N. also seek to redefine the family, to establish complete sexual autonomy for adolescents, to create a worldwide right to homosexual marriage, to depress world fertility rates, and to legalize cloning in order to create human embryos for medical research...

More specifically, on his very first day in office, Bush reinstated the Reagan-era “Mexico City Policy,” which restricts federal funding from non-governmental organizations that perform or promote abortions in foreign countries. His enemies erupted in anger, naming the Mexico City Policy the “Global Gag Rule,” and claiming that Bush would be responsible for killing women who would not have recourse to legal abortions....

Would Giuliani have taken any one of these important actions? Not caring much about these issues, would Giuliani have even known about the threats? It is time for Rudy to acknowledge what pro-lifers already know only too well: that they need a president to do more than just appoint the right justices. Executive-branch neutrality is not acceptable. Rudy has to tell “Pro-life, Pro-family” voters whether or not he can be this sort of president, and he can start by promising to continue George W. Bush’s fight — his entire fight for life and family — at the United Nations.

The unnecessary Bush cheering aside, I think this is spot on. And for the record, I don't believe Rudy knows about pro-life issues and frankly I don't think he cares either.

Giuliani, abortion and Christians

I feel a couple of comments need to be made about John Galt's posting of The Hill's article on the third party controversy that has arisen in the last severals day, as well as the incoherent blabbering over at the re-activated RockyMountainPolitics.

It isn't news that the leaders of the major Christian groups didn't agree on a potential pro-life third party candidates. That was reported in the original article.

The larger point is they were all in unanimous agreement that they would not support Rudy Giuliani for President.

Additionally 27% of Republican voters say they would support a pro-life, third party candidate over Giuliani. Regardless of what Gary Bauer and Tony Perkins do or say, the natives are restless.

I will not vote, under any circumstance vote for a pro-abortion Republican for President. Enough of my fellow Christians feel the same way, that it will be next to impossible for Giuliani to win.

I highly recommend this post from RedState.com. It is a passionate response to the knuckle-heads in the Giuliani personality cult.

Money quote from Red Sox Republican:

...what my pro-Rudy friends don't seem to understand is that for guys like me, support for Rudy is a non-negotiable proposition. And it's not just (or even primarily) because he's a dirty, stinking Yankees fan. It is, of course, the abortion thing.

Now, a lot of people say that abortion is just an "issue" and that it's wrong to let a single issue dictate your whole politics. Generally, that's a sound proposition. I guess there are a wide variety of reasons that people might oppose abortion - but I oppose it because I think it's killing. And the way it's practiced in this country, it's a *lot* of killing. It's killing in numbers per annum that roughly equal the holocaust. And so I'm sorry to say that it's simply not an option for me in my conscience to pull the lever for a guy who supports the continuation of current abortion policy in the United States.

This is the point in the conversation where my pro-Rudy friends generally interject, "Yes, but, *HILLARY!!!*" And then I have to wonder whether I'm speaking clearly or something, or whether my pro-Rudy friends have somehow gotten the idea that the concept of supporting a candidate who would stand by and allow what I consider to be mass infanticide is a negotiable one. So let me just say it: it isn't. Sorry if you got the wrong impression, here, but I'm not really interested in being persuaded on this point.

I think that part of what makes this so insulting is that there's so little else about Rudy which might even make me think about at least standing aside for him, if not actively working for him. At this point, the only arguments I have ever heard for why Rudy would allegedly be good for this country are these:

1. He's not Hillary Clinton
2. He'd aggressively continue the war in Iraq

Well, put me on the growing list for whom #2 isn't such a high priority any more, and as for #1, well, the country survived Andrew Johnson, Jimmy Carter, LBJ, and Bill Clinton; it will survive Hillary Clinton. And the parade of horrors that would supposedly attend a Hillary Presidency are simply not enough for me to vote for a guy who is pro-legal-abortion. Not even close. So, I mean, thanks for the effort, Rudy fans, but perhaps you'd better move on to someone else in that 27% group, because the issue is not up for negotiation here.

Lamborn Gets Seat On House Armed Services Committee

Press Release Below


LAMBORN BECOMES ACTIVE MEMBER OF
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

WASHINGTON – Today, Congressman Doug Lamborn (CO-5) became an active member of the House Armed Services Committee.

"It is an honor to have the privilege of serving as an active member of the House Armed Services Committee. Colorado’s Fifth District is the proud home of five military installations and is one of our nation’s most military-intensive congressional districts. Our strong military presence is a great source of pride for my constituency, and I am proud to represent them as a member of the Armed Services Committee.

It is critical for Congress to enact strong defense policies that ensure our servicemen and women are provided with the training, the tools, and the resources necessary to keep America safe. Serving on the House Armed Services Committee will afford me the opportunity to ensure our military interests are advanced in order to meet our national security requirements.

The loss of Congresswoman Jo Anne Davis (VA-1) is something the Davis family, friends, and Congressional community will mourn, but her life and dedication to public service will serve as an inspiration to all of us. She will be missed. I intend serve on the House Armed Services Committee with the high honor and integrity she exhibited during her tenure." – Congressman Doug Lamborn (CO-5)

###

The Ram Republic Debuts At CSU

The aftermath of CSU newspaper the Collegians infamous headline, has lead conservatives on campus to start their own newspaper The Ram Republic. To view the newspaper or to donate to their cause click here.

Social conservative leaders back off third-party threat but still fear Giuliani

From The Hill

Evangelical leaders Gary Bauer and Tony Perkins said Wednesday it is still possible for social conservative Republican voters to find a candidate to rally behind, and painted another Clinton administration as the worst outcome of the 2008 election.


Speaking to reporters at a breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor in advance of next week’s Values Voter Summit, Bauer and Perkins backed away from earlier threats that Christian conservatives would consider a third-party bid if a pro-abortion rights candidate wins the GOP nomination. They both agreed that supporting such a bid next year would virtually “guarantee” Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) victory.

“Politics by nature is a messy business,” Bauer said. “And you rarely find somebody who agrees with you all the time.”

Perkins agreed with that assessment, but he said social conservatives have not found a candidate who stands out on their issues.

Bauer said former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the most “problematic from the standpoint of values voters.” Both men said they thought that former Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.) did well in his debate debut, that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney can overcome questions about his religion and — perhaps most surprisingly — that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is perceived to be good on their issues but soft on terrorism.

Perkins and Bauer said social conservatives’ fears of a Clinton win will not be enough to motivate evangelical voters, pointing to Giuliani as a candidate who might not be able to stir evangelical support.

“He gives social conservatives very little to be motivated about,” Perkins said.

But the conservative leaders acknowledged that there is a divide currently among social conservatives as to what is more important to their base, social issues or projected national security strength.

Bauer said the divide is “puzzling” to Washington-based evangelical leaders, but Perkins maintained that once social conservatives know more about Giuliani’s position on abortion, his support would weaken.

“I think it’s a stretch for Mayor Giuliani to get a majority of the social conservative vote once it’s all said and done,” Perkins said.

Perkins said Giuliani would need to experience a “road-to-Des Moines conversion,” and Bauer said Giuliani’s early stumble on federally funded abortions was akin to “sticking your fingers in both eyes” of social conservatives.

Perkins and Bauer said Giuliani has not gone far enough to assuage their concerns by saying that he would appoint “strict constructionist” judges.

“He’s trying to send all sorts of signals,” Bauer said. “But he [has] got a hard sell, and it’s going to take a lot more.”

Perkins cited the influence that the conservative movement has had over the Bush administration, particularly after it was able to pressure the White House to fix what they considered a huge mistake in the form of Bush’s attempt to appoint former White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“Saying you’re going to appoint conservative judges is not enough,” Perkins said. “I’m under no illusion that social conservatives would have any influence in the Giuliani administration.”

When asked what Giuliani would have to do to allay their fears, Perkins and Bauer said a legitimate conversion on the abortion issue or some sort of behind-closed-doors pledge to be strong on their issues would be required.

Perkins and Bauer said they are both convinced that Romney’s evolution on the abortion issue is a legitimate conversion, “even if the movement tends to coincide with a primary schedule,” as Bauer said.

“I don’t think he’s flip-flopping,” Perkins said.

The two conservative leaders said they remain optimistic that a Republican candidate who is strong on their issues can win next year, but they think Giuliani against Clinton in the general election would be a “frustrating option.”

What does not appear to be an option next year is a break with the GOP in support of a third-party candidate.

While conservative religious leaders said last week the move is something they would consider, Bauer and Perkins said doing so would ensure a Democratic president. Perkins, however, said it is something they would consider in the long run.

“Everybody realizes that a third-party candidate would not work in this election,” Bauer said.

Dobson keeps pressure on pro-abort Giuliani

Dr. James Dobson continues to flay abortion supporter Rudy Giuliani, this time attacking the idea that Giuliani would be elect "constructionist" judges.

From Hannity & Colmes:

But you're taking Rudy's word on his intention to appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court, and I would like to remind you that he has a terrible record in New York of appointing judges. He appointed some of the worst possible judges.

I've already reported on Rudy and judges: what Rudy means by "constructionist" isn't what the pro-life community means.

Tancredo Takes On Rogue Mayors

From The Hill

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), a GOP presidential hopeful and leading critic of immigration policies, blasted Texas mayors Monday for not letting the federal government build a border fence on their land.

Tancredo is reacting to reports that mayors of some Texas cities oppose the construction of the fence, which Congress approved to improve border security.

“These mayors are jeopardizing national security with their not-in-my-backyard attitude,” Tancredo said. “Congress approved the border fence with the overwhelming support of the American people to protect our nation from terrorists and illegal aliens and it will not be thwarted by a handful of rogue mayors.”

The outspoken Tancredo, who is polling in the low single digits in national polls, also offered his solution to the problem, which is to “build the border fence north of these communities.”

“These mayors have already demonstrated that their hearts and loyalties lie with Mexico — perhaps they’d feel more comfortable if their cities were geographically located there as well,” Tancredo said.

Carpetbagger

Here's a little humor for your Friday afternoon, Steamboat Pilot style:


I've said it before and I'll say it again. Al White is the single most liberal Republican in the Colorado General Assembly.

Pro-life community flexes muscles

Rassmussen has just release a poll that shows 27% of Republicans would vote for a third-party pro-life candidate over Rudy Giuliani.

If Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination and a third party campaign is backed by Christian conservative leaders, 27% of Republican voters say they’d vote for the third party option rather than Giuliani.

That's the ball game, folks. Thanks for coming to Yankee Stadium.

If 27% of Republicans don't vote for him in a general election, that is enough to sink any hope he has of beating Hillary Clinton.

Good. I don't want a pro-choice Republican killing babies under the GOP banner.

Additionally, Dr. James Dobson reiterates his opposition to pro-abort Giuliani in a New York Times Op-Ed:

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...

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.

One other clarification is germane, even though unrelated to the meeting in Salt Lake City. The secular news media has been reporting in recent months that the conservative Christian movement is hopelessly fractured and internally antagonistic. The Los Angeles Times reported on Monday, for example, that supporters of traditional family values are rapidly “splintering.” That is not true. The near unanimity in Salt Lake City is evidence of much greater harmony than supposed. Admittedly, differences of opinion exist among us about our choices for president.

That divergence is entirely reasonable, now just over a year before the national election. It is hardly indicative of a “splintering” of old alliances. If the major political parties decide to abandon conservative principles, the cohesion of pro-family advocates will be all too apparent in 2008.

Dobson hit a home run.

Rudy Giuliani Courting Mike Huckabee

CCP EXCLUSIVE BREAKING NEWS: POTUS candidate Rudy Giuliani is said to be courting social conservative Mike Huckabee as his running mate for the 08 Presidential election. In the category of 'duh', Giuliani is hoping to win back some of the conservatives upset over his stances on abortion, gun rights, and gay marriage.

Will it work?

Who knows, Huckabee has been by far the most enjoyable to watch out of any of the candidates Republican or Democrat and Rudy is looking to be the top contender out of the GOP lineup.

It could very well be a formidable line up if the James Dobson crowd is satisfied by this concession to the point where they would vote Republican instead of third party this election.

Catholics join attacks on pro-abort Rudy

St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke announced that he will deny Presidential Candidate, and self-proclaimed Catholic, Rudy Giuliani communion if he tries to celebrate mass in St. Louis.

From the STLtoday:

Of the six Catholics running for president, only Republican Sen. Sam Brownback has a legislative record on abortion that meets the church's approval. Along with Republican Rudy Giuliani, Democrats Sen. Joseph Biden, Sen. Christopher Dodd, Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Gov. Bill Richardson all have public records that are inconsistent with church teaching on abortion rights.

"It is a cause of concern for me and for all bishops to find ourselves in this situation," Burke said in an interview last week.

Asked if he would deny Communion to Giuliani if the former New York mayor approached him for the sacrament at the Cathedral Basilica, Burke said: "If the question is about a Catholic who is publicly espousing positions contrary to the moral law and I know that person knows it, yes I would."

In an interview earlier this year, Burke said of Giuliani: "I can't imagine that as a Catholic he doesn't know that his stance on the protection of human life is wrong. If someone is publicly sinning, they should not approach to receive Holy Communion."

(H/T: Andrew Sullivan)

Presidential Quiz

Whose Your Candidate? After you're done with the quiz come back and comment to let us know which candidate you are most aligned with(according to the parameters they set in this poll).

	John McCain Score: 28	Agree Iraq Immigration Taxes Health Care Social Security Line-Item Veto Energy Death Penalty	Disagree Marriage
-- Take the Quiz! --

Burma

From the talented Scott Bieser.

GOP Downballot Considerations

Interesting article from RollCall about the impact the GOP nominee for POTUS will have on downballot races. Regardless of whom our nominee may be, having Clinton on the ballot only helps Bob Schaffer.

From RollCall

Amid much discussion of the impact Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) could have on downballot Congressional races next year if she is the Democratic presidential nominee, a much quieter debate has begun among Republicans about the potential pros and cons of their presidential frontrunners when it comes to picking up House and Senate seats.

The belief among many Republican Members and strategists is that if Clinton is on the ballot in 2008, it will matter little who her opponent is because the GOP’s base and conservative independents will turn out in droves to cast an “anti-Hillary” vote. Still others in the party argue that mobilizing the base won’t be the party’s primary problem next year. Instead, it will be appealing to the moderate and independent voters who are credited with handing control of Congress to Democrats in the 2006 elections.

Already, the battle for the House is shaping up to be waged largely in suburban districts in the Northeast and Midwest. Additionally, the top targets in the Senate are Republicans representing Democratic-leaning states like Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Oregon.

Backers of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), who continues to lead the GOP field in most national polls, say he is the best-positioned candidate to appeal to the more moderate electorate in those areas.

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), a leading Giuliani booster in the House, argued it is paramount to have a candidate at the top of the ticket who can appeal to former Reagan Democrats and independent voters in places like New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Florida.

King said he has discussed Giuliani’s downballot impact with high-ranking Republicans, whom he declined to name.

“They agree that we have the best chance of picking up seats, if not taking back the House, with Rudy on top,” King said. “He would run stronger [in swing areas] than any of the other Republicans.”

King said Giuliani could especially aid vulnerable Republicans in New York. Reps. Jim Walsh (R-N.Y.) and Randy Kuhl (R-N.Y.) face competitive races again in 2008, and the GOP also has hopes of winning back the seats currently held by freshman Reps. Kristen Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and John Hall (D-N.Y.).

Recent Democratic polling appeared to back up the notion that Giuliani would run best in swing territory.

An August survey done by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, who is working for Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) in the 2008 presidential race, showed the former New York mayor ahead of both Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in 31 Democratic-held House districts that are considered to be the most competitive.

The poll, reported on last month by The Washington Post, also showed that the two leading Democratic contenders could even be a drag on the incumbent lawmakers’ re- elections.

Meanwhile, supporters of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) are more apt to argue that the top of the Republican ticket will have little impact downballot, and some say it shouldn’t be among the top criteria when choosing a nominee.

“Whoever is on the ballot opposite Hillary Clinton is going to ride a huge wave of popular support as the anti-Hillary,” said Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), who is backing Romney.

He added that either Romney or Giuliani “is going to do very well in the South” as the party’s nominee.

Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), another Romney supporter, noted the former chief executive’s business background will help him appeal to conservatives, moderates and independents alike. He said above all else, the public is looking for change and a competent leader and that Romney’s “sunny disposition and positive outlook” will win voters over if they don’t agree with him on all issues.

Other Republicans contend that it won’t matter which name is at the top of the party’s ballot come next year, just as long as it isn’t Bush.

When the Republican nominee emerges in February or March he will become the national face of the party, and lawmakers contend there will be much less talk about President Bush’s low poll numbers.

“I think that gives us the opportunity to restore some of the Republican brand that we’ve lost,” McCain backer Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio) said.

While Republican House Members are more likely to be directly affected by the success or failure of their party’s presidential pick, Senate incumbents also are mindful of the impact the top of the ticket may have on their reelection hopes, especially given the difficult landscape the party faces.

With 22 Republican Senate seats in play, fundraising faltering and recruitments stalled, the party’s presidential nominee could prove critical to incumbents’ successful re-elections.

Too conservative a nominee could easily damage the chances of a vulnerable Senator running in a swing state, while a more moderate White House hopeful — such as Giuliani — could actually boost those incumbents’ odds at re-election.

Sen. Norm Coleman (Minn.), who is among the GOP’s most threatened Senators in 2008, said Giuliani would clearly be an asset to his campaign and that “there’s no question [Giuliani] has a chance to win Minnesota.”

Coleman, who has not endorsed a 2008 contender, said he is not concerned that the more socially conservative White House hopefuls would hurt his chances, either.

“There are no negatives in this, and potentially there’s a strong upside,” Coleman argued.

Giuliani supporters have long avowed that he is the only candidate who can change the electoral college math, putting traditionally blue states in play and forcing Democrats to spend money in states like California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Michigan and New York.

There are eight House Republicans whose districts were carried by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in the 2004 presidential race. Giuliani has been endorsed by four of them, including Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.).

Dent said one of his reasons for endorsing Giuliani was that he believed he would be the best person to run with in his Democratic-leaning district.

“Rudy Giuliani will give the greatest assistance to candidates running in the mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions and help bring more independents back into the Republican column,” he said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a McCain backer also up for re-election in 2008, agreed Giuliani could make things easier for moderate Republicans in cycle. But he also argued that McCain — who has broken ranks with conservatives at times — could help his party’s candidates in swing states.

“We need to play in the blue states and we need a nominee who can put the blue states in play,” Graham said.

Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), a former top party strategist and potential 2008 Senate candidate, said it would be impossible to predict now which candidate might be a drag or boost downballot. But he agreed that the nominee can make a huge difference, citing the 1964 and 1972 presidential elections as evidence of one-sided landslides that impacted Congressional races. Voters traditionally are less prone to ticket splitting in presidential years, he said.

Other party operatives argue that President Bush had little to no coattails in the 2000 and 2004 elections and that similarly, the down-ballot impact for both parties will be minimal next year.

Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.), who faces a difficult re-election next year, narrowly won an open House seat in 1996 — as then- President Bill Clinton carried the district with 48 percent, compared to former Sen. Bob Dole’s (R-Kan.) 40 percent. Independent candidate Ross Perot got 10 percent.

“In that case, it didn’t have too significant an impact,” he said. “But I can’t predict the future.”