Several reports have made clear in recent weeks that prominent religious right leaders are threatening to break with the GOP if Rudy Giuliani wins the party’s presidential nomination. As part of my ongoing fascination with the subject, the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins addressed the subject today during a conference call with reporters. His comments are worth considering in detail.
Perkins began by arguing that, for social conservatives, “there’s little distinction between” Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. While conceding that the two are “not identical,” Perkins added, “If they’re indistinguishable on so many issues that are vital to these voters, it’s hard to see why you should vote for one instead of the other.”
Asked about the recent Council for National Policy meeting in Utah, which he attended, Perkins said:
“I was at that meeting it’s been misconstrued a little bit. It was not a declaration of intent, it was a declaration of principle that there is a line we will not cross. If the party chooses to break its commitment to creating a culture of life, we’re not going to go in that direction with the party.
“There’s only one candidate who has this issue, and that’s Mayor Giuliani. It would be very problematic for the party to nominate a candidate who broke with 30 years of Republican Party history.
“There’s no desire to create a third party, no action underway, simply the statement that if the party breaks with social conservatives, then social conservatives will break with thee party. It’s an if-then scenario.”
Ed Morrissey believes Perkins’ remarks suggest he may have “reconsidered the statement from ten days ago,” when Perkins and his allies vowed to support a third-party candidate if Giuliani gets the party’s nod.
I have an entirely different read on this. Perkins seems to be taking a this-is-a-promise-not-a-threat approach. In fact, far from a reconsideration, Perkins seems to be taking an ever harder line than Dobson — “[I]f the party breaks with social conservatives, then social conservatives will break with thee party.” There isn’t a lot of wiggle-room there.
What’s more, as Greg Sargent noted, “In 2004, President Bush won 78% of the white evangelical vote, or about 18% of the total electorate. If Rudy lost half of that, it would be nine points down the drain.”
As long as we’re on the subject, I wanted to also respond to a compelling point Kevin Drum raised yesterday. Responding to my argument that Dobson, Perkins, & Co. really will bolt if Giuliani is the nominee, Kevin said concern for the federal judiciary might pull the religious right back into the fold.
Dobson might be pissed, but what he really cares about is judicial appointments, and he knows that even Giuliani will appoint judges that he likes. Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, by contrast, certainly won’t. So in the end, even if Rudy gets the GOP nomination, he’ll swallow hard and endorse him.
Maybe, but it’s worth noting that Dobson has considered this point, and is threatening to leave anyway. On Monday’s Hannity & Colmes, Hannity mentioned that Giuliani has pledged to appoint judges like Thomas, Alito, Scalia, and Roberts.
HANNITY: We know if Hillary is elected that she would appoint people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and we know she supports partial-birth abortion. In that sense, if that Rasmussen poll is right, the result will be far worse for the cause that I know you passionately and deeply believe in.
DOBSON: It will be terrible, Sean. That’s absolutely true. 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.
Dobson has no doubt read this Ben Smith piece from March.
A Politico review of the 75 judges Giuliani appointed to three of New York state’s lower courts found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 8 to 1. One of his appointments was an officer of the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges. Another ruled that the state law banning liquor sales on Sundays was unconstitutional because it was insufficiently secular.
A third, an abortion-rights supporter, later made it to the federal bench in part because New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a liberal Democrat, said he liked her ideology.
Cumulatively, Giuilani’s record was enough to win applause from people like Kelli Conlin, the head of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, the state’s leading abortion-rights group. “They were decent, moderate people,” she said.
With this in mind, I don’t think judges alone will keep the religious right on board.