Baptist leader to GOP: ‘This is not a bluff’

October 24, 2007

As part of my ongoing effort to convince people that the religious right really isn’t bluffing, and that the Dobson crowd really will break with the Republican Party if Rudy Giuliani is the GOP’s presidential nominee, consider this Newsweek interview with Richard Land, a leading evangelical who serves as president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

NEWSWEEK: So we wanted to ask you, first of all, about the third party idea and whether it’s serious. A number of people are suggesting it is just a threat.

LAND: My intuition [is that] this is not a bluff. If Giuliani is the nominee, there will be a third party. There are things that Giuliani could do to help mitigate the damage. But I have been in too many discussions over the last 15 years where evangelical leaders have said, “The one thing we will never allow to happen is for the Republican Party to take us for granted the way the Democrat [sic] Party too often takes the African-American community for granted.” This is not a bluff.

NEWSWEEK: So what you are saying, as a bottom line, is that you would be prepared to help Hillary [Clinton] get elected if Giuliani were in the race?

LAND: Well, I personally wouldn’t be saying that… It’s just [that] I’m not willing or able to violate my moral conscience. It would be like asking an African-American to choose between Strom Thurmond and George Wallace or asking Abe Lincoln to vote for a pro-slavery candidate. I personally can’t do it. I am not going to criticize those who choose the lesser-of-two-evils option. [But] I can’t do it, and my guess is somewhere between 25 percent and a third of our people won’t do it.

It’s worth noting that as religious right players go, Land is very much an insider-y, establishment kind of guy. And to hear him tell it, the religious right really will bolt if Giuliani gets the nod.

As for the numbers, there’s data to suggest Land is probably about right. A new LAT/Bloomberg poll, released this morning, found that Giuliani is still the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, but “about one-third of GOP voters said they would consider supporting a third-party candidate in the general election if the party nominee supported abortion and gay rights.”

As for the religious right’s alternative, anti-Giuliani candidate, that remains up in the air.

After the Values Voter Summit this past weekend, a bunch of the movement’s leaders sat down for another chat.

A meeting of some 60 top Christian conservative leaders on Sunday after a two-day Values Voter Summit ended with members of the group on their knees praying to God on behalf of the country.

But it is the discussion in the room for the two hours beforehand that is the subject of intense speculation…. There was general agreement in the room that the summit had at least helped narrow the field of “acceptable” candidates, Mr. Jackson said. That list appears to include Mr. Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Fred D. Thompson.

One trend to keep an eye on is whether there’s a division between the leadership and the rank-and-file religious right activist base. Especially at the weekend’s gathering, the members seemed to be headed to Mike Huckabee, while the big-shots were coalescing around Mitt Romney. It remains to be seen if a) the foot soldiers will follow orders from Dobson & Co.; and b) whether the division will weaken the religious right vote and make it easier for Giuliani to win without evangelicals.

Stay tuned.

But I have been in too many discussions over the last 15 years where evangelical leaders have said, “The one thing we will never allow to happen is for the Republican Party to take us for granted…”

And how has that worked out for you? Let’s see…Abortion for any reason illegal?
Nope. Constitution defaced to “protect marriage?” Nope.

Hmmm. If I wanted to be crass I could say that the Talevan is like a woman who keeps letting random creeps screw her because she’s convinced that this time he really will respect her afterwards.

  • “…one-third of GOP voters said they would consider supporting a third-party candidate in the general election if the party nominee supported abortion and gay rights.”

    Note the key word: Consider.

    Once they see a Democrat emerge, especially if Hillary the Hated is the Dem nominee, they’ll take what they see as the lesser evil of Rudy Giuliani, knowing that he won’t do anything to maintain Roe, and knowing that there is a great liklihood that his SCOTUS picks will overturn it.

    They know Rudy doesn’t get to decide the issue. The SCOTUS does. The only way they see themselves losing is if a Democrat takes the whitehouse.

    They are bluffing.

  • These people will probably bolt if the nominee is a pro choice, pro gay rights person because the only values they share with the republic-thugs are those two. Why would they stay? They have more values in common with the dems because Jesus was pretty specific about feeding the hungry and visiting the sick and the imprisoned, and taking care of the poor. The Christian faith was hijacked years ago and I for one have been waiting for this moment in time. Go Giuliani and may you leave the evangelicals looking for another home.

  • I dunno Racerx, once you play their strategy out that far, you also have to figure that for the figurehead charlatans like Dobson, the best get-rich-quick scheme is to get a Dem in and sent fundraisers about the Supreme Court turning to the left. If Roe ever really does get overturned, the fundraising dries up considerably.

  • I see your point zeitgeist. If they ever really got Roe overturned they would lose a cash cow, but how hard is it to sell their flock new issues? IMO it’s not hard at all. Those people are stupid to the bone. Their leaders will just switch to gay rights, or illegal aliens, or whatever else riles up the neanderthals.

  • How does a third party help the cause of the religious right? Isn’t that just giving these people someone to vote for, but still splitting the vote?

    I think Zeitgeist is right that no matter who the GOP candidate is, he would appoint justices likely to overturn Roe v. Wade – how would that not be enough for them? Isn’t it their #1 priority?

  • I wish you would quit reporting on it. It’s like under the guise of reporting you are getting notoriety for being one of a few who are predicting this while making the GOP more aware of this danger that would split the vote and what they can do to prevent this from happening. Let them ignore each other and pretend that what the party is doing to cut their own throats is a good strategy and not to take these people too seriously, they’ll come around on Guiliani, and really they are just bluffing like “everyone else says”. Stop helping these thugs out.

    Besides, Guilani will never stand up to scrutiny if the press ever applies it. Romney will be least embarrassing to the party and will end up being the candidate. Either one will never be president, unless you cheat or steal the election it takes more than a bigmouth 30% to win.

  • And how has that worked out for you? Let’s see…Abortion for any reason illegal?
    Nope. Constitution defaced to “protect marriage?” Nope.

    Millions in federal dollars flowing to your churches tithing tray? YES. As zeitgeist and recerx have noted, killing your biggest cash cow leaves you with second-rate hatreds for fund-raising, and IMO that doesn’t cut it. Abortion is the hot button issue for evangelicals.

    As for Rudymania, I have cheered him on since the day he threw his hat in the ring. “America’s Mayor” is the ripe embodiment of everything wrong with the current Administration and its brownshirt knuckledragger supporters, and I long for his nomination. Split the Right and usher in a Dem majority in Congress and a Dem in the White House! Run, Rudy, run!

  • Anne #6 writes:

    I think Zeitgeist is right that no matter who the GOP candidate is, he would appoint justices likely to overturn Roe v. Wade – how would that not be enough for them? Isn’t it their #1 priority?

    Because they aren’t rational–or rather, they’re even more irrational than the typical voter. It’s not enough that any Republican candidate would follow orders from the KulturKampf Krew; they have to believe. Bush probably spoiled them for this. Old Man Bush took orders, but it was pretty clear he thought they were screwy. Dole too. And such would be the case with Rudito. Romney’s a weird case, because he’s so ardent in his pandering… but he’s also a Mormon.

    That said, I agree that if The Demon Queen of The Great Fornicator is the Dem nominee, they’ll line up behind whoever. If the Dems really wanted to split the Republicans, they’d put up someone, anyone, less viscerally hated.

  • My guess: Rudy’s social policies make it easier for him to pick off a few borderline blue states and he wins the red states anyway, some of which voted for Bush by gigantic margins.

  • Besides, Guilani will never stand up to scrutiny if the press ever applies it.

    The press WON’T apply it, though OneNewsNow or WorldNetDaily might.

    The press lurves Rudy – they want to give him a big, wet sloppy kiss (or something else). He’s everything that the hivemind of the media loves – a right-wing figure who has a counter-political stance on certain hotbutton issues and who is both authoritarian and tough. He fits the narrative of what a “Good Republican Politician” should be – bi-partisan on issues that “don’t matter” and Daddy-like authoritarian on the issues that “matter.”

    Sure some reporters will report stories that are counter-narrative, but they’ll be mostly ignored. Not because there’s any “conspiracy” to bury them, but because they don’t fit the narrative. And the narrative is what matters. Rudy’s personal life doesn’t matter to the press because, well, Daddy-figures should get to have their fun and we shouldn’t talk about it. (Clinton, on the other hand, got raked across the coals because he WASN’T a Daddy-figure. He was “feel your pain” guy, and so he deserved to have his dirty laundry aired because of it.)

    So don’t count on the press to scrutinize Rudy. The Fundamentalist Evangelical “press” might – OneNewsNow or WorldNetDaily might go nuclear on his personal life – but the mainstream press loves the whole narrative that Rudy brings to the table. Much like they liked the Reagan narrative and the Bush the Lesser narrative. They hated the Bush the Elder narrative (he wasn’t a tough authority figure, he was a “wimp” and even going to war in the Middle East didn’t change that because he “didn’t finish the job”) and they loathed the Clinton narrative (underpriveleged kid from a working class family rises up to become President SHOULD be a great narrative, but it was never really reported that way. Instead, the narrative was always “corrupt hilbilly bumpkin lucks into the Presidency and trashes the place” – that was the Clinton narrative from Day One and it never changed).

  • The one thing I can think of is that maybe some of the religious right’s bigwigs would like a turn at the presidency, and one way to get there might be through a third party. And if/when they fail, well that’s actually a win, because they will have “taught the Republicans a lesson”. No, it’s not terribly logical, but maybe that’s what they’re thinking.

  • This guy doesn’t care about shit beyond his pocketbook. He’s a once-a-week Christian, like Santorum.

    He’ll huff and puff and then endorse whoever puts more treasure in chest.

  • Racerx @ 14
    I voted third party in 2000 because I didn’t like the way the DLC had been undermining progressive causes for 8 years and Gore showed no sign at the time that he felt there was anything wrong with the approach. (No big shakes living in bluer-than-blue Maryland, though.)

    6 years after the Bush victory, the Dems are singing all our favorite tunes (even if they do it while grabbing their ankles for the GOP minority)

    If the GOP sees a loss as a result of abandonment by the religious loons, they might well kowtow big time. I suspect it won’t prove as successful a formula for them. There are a heckuva lot more progressives than Bible loons.

    As an aside… this Land character says Dems ignore the black voters?
    Um, mind offering some proof? A black man is in second place for the presidential nomination, hot on the heels of the very well financed wife of a two term president. Democrats made Doug Wilder the governor of Virginia, thank you.

    I also respect the religious accomplishments the GOP has delivered. They’ve rivaled Bill Clinton’s Defense of Marriage and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell acts when it comes to crippling the first and fourteenth amendments.

  • The trouble with attaching any significance to Land’s comments is that even if the religious right is bluffing, they have to say they are not.

    So for a member of the religious right establishment to say they are not bluffing tells us nothing really, one way or the other.

    For the record, I fully agree with CB’s analysis. I don’t think they’re bluffing at all.

    I just don’t think Land’s comments can be treated as any kind of confirmation.

  • Mitt Romney is LESS likely than Giuliani to put a Supreme Court Justice that will overturn Roe v. Wade. Rudy is a craven opportunist who will do or say anything to get elected or reelected.

    But Mitt, on the other hand, may actually believe the government shouldn’t be making these kinds of laws… No one is pro abortion… we’re pro choice. He had a close relative who was killed from an illegal abortion. He might actually believe…

    Hmmm… makes you wonder what those religious folks really want.

  • It would be like asking an African-American to choose between Strom Thurmond and George Wallace

    I know repubs have trouble with the known liberal bias of history, but George Wallace and Strom Thurmond both ended up courting and relying on African-American voters to stay in power. During Wallace’s last campaign, he was the liberal candidate. I know liberal has a whole other meaning here, but you’d think a SOUTHERN Baptist would have a clue.

    Which, I guess, all goes to say, the religious right could easily vote for Rudy, if the Wallace/Thurmond analogy is the one they want to stick with.

  • Rudy will choose Huckabee as veep and send him out to talk to the fundamentalists. Enough will get on board, especially with all the WW IV plans. Why that could bring on the Rapture!

  • I’ll say what I’ve said before: they have more to gain than to loose. If the Religious Right forms a coherent third party, they’ll wield power to affect elections at least, and maybe win some local ones.

    They pretty much can be sure the Republicans can’t kowtow to them all the way, and it’s fairly obvious as well that there’s a large contingency of Republican leadership who isn’t, shall we say, “intimately acceptable” to them – and some are honestly out and out sex criminals to judge by the stories.

    The other factor is, again, I think Dobson and company would rather rule a third party than be just the footsoldiers for another. Better to reign in hell, after all . . .

  • its to late, you can’t undo what these so call christians have done.when they jumped in bed with the republikkkans,the christians took on all the shit the g.o.p. has to offer. i’ll make it simple to understand,when you mix sugar with shit you still have shit.christians you are that shit now. And to all the other true christians out there you need to speak up and tell people that you are not part of the republikkkan christian right.

  • This is scary.

    All that Ghouliani needs to do to get christo-fascist votes, is to come out with a strong anti-abortion statement (the guy is cathollic after all), and maybe do some gay bashing. Oh, and stick his tongue up the ass of Dobson and Land and that crew.

    But what really scares me is the California-steal-this-election ballot initiative. If that goes through, Ghouliani’s positions on abortion and gays could net him more than enough electoral votes to pick up gerrymandered chunks of KUHLEFURNIA, especially if musclehead comes to his aid and campaigns for him.

    The Repug party will have pivoted away from fundamentalists and towards muscleheaded, macho assholes. Well, they’ve always been about muscleheaded, macho assholes, but they needed to be CHRISTIAN muscleheaded, macho assholes in order to get elected. What scares me is that they find a way to pick up enough fascist votes without the christo-fascists.

    • Comments are closed.