How deep are the GOP’s schisms?

October 10, 2007

For all the talk, here and elsewhere, about the religious-right activists who bolt from the Republican Party if Rudy Giuliani is the presidential nominee, it’s worth considering whether there are other schisms — and how deep they run.

The question came up during yesterday’s debate for the GOP presidential candidates.

MATTHEWS: Congressman Paul, do you promise to support the nominee of the Republican Party next year?

PAUL: Not right now I don’t, not unless they’re willing to end the war and bring our troops home, not unless they’re willing to look at excessive spending. [..]

MATTHEWS: Okay. Let me try that by a couple of gentlemen on the right over here. Mr. Tancredo, would you pledge now to support the nominee of your party?

TANCREDO: You know, I’ve said I don’t know how many times that I am absolutely tired and sick and tired of being forced to go to the polls and say I’m going to make this choice between the lesser of two evils. I really don’t intend to do that again. I am hoping, of course, that whoever we nominate will be the principal flag carrier for the Republican Party, but if that is not the case, no, then I will not.

Even Sen. Sam Brownback, a party loyalist, hedged on the question. He said he’d support the nominee of the party, assuming he’s “somebody that is pro-growth and pro- life.” Matthews followed, “But if not, if they are not, would you still support them?” Brownback didn’t say.

So, for those keeping score at home, if Rudy Giuliani is the Republican nominee for president, James Dobson and the theocons, Ron Paul and his throng of supporters, Tom Tancredo and the xenophobes, and even cultural conservative Sam Brownback all plan to withhold their political support.

Hmm.

Now, I think we can chalk some of this up to primary-season bravado — there were plenty of Howard Dean fans who vowed to stay home if John Kerry won the nomination, and there’s no evidence of that actually happening. After the convention(s), parties have a history of coming together, even if that means a lot of nose-holding.

But I can’t help but think, if Romney (or McCain, or Thompson) really wanted to make an issue of this, the extent of this opposition seriously undermines Giuliani’s campaign pitch. His basic stump speech has almost nothing to do with his policy positions or ideas for the future, and everything to do with a) constant references to 9/11; and b) an argument that he can win the general election. The argument is predicated on the idea that Giuliani, and only Giuliani, can keep the right together while appealing to independents and some Dems.

But isn’t this pitch a much tougher sell when various parts of the party keep saying that under no circumstances will they support a Giuliani candidacy?

If I were a speechwriter for any of the other competitive Republican hopefuls, I’d start emphasizing this like crazy: “In 2008, we need a leader who can unite the party, then unite the nation. The former mayor of New York thinks he can do both, when in fact he’ll do neither. We can’t take the chance of facing a unified Democrat [sic] machine with a Republican Party that’s tearing itself apart.”

Something to look out for.

“somebody that is pro-growth and pro- life.”

WTF does that even mean? Can you name a candidate who is “anti-growth and anti-life”?

I mean, Giulianni does remind me a little bit of Darkseid visually, so maybe I could see “anti-life” on him, but not really anyone else. And “pro-growth”? What the heck does that even mean? Are there candidates out there who say “well, personally I think that the economy shouldn’t be growing – we should have a stagnant economy or maybe a recession – that’ll be GREAT!”

I know these are code words, but still – can’t they come up with a better set of codes?

  • It has been said, in all forms imaginable between the extremes of brute-like and eloquent, that if you tell a lie loud enough—and often enough—and to enough people—then that lie will, indeed, become a fact that people will pin their very lives upon.

    Herein lies the silver lining of that particular cloud. Each of these “candidates” (as if pompous little hucksters could be considered “candidates”) has moved into their “not-unless” mode. Rudi won’t support the candidate “unless.” Neither will Paul, Romney, Huckabee, McCain—all of them have their own “pettiness” clause. As the followers of each “candidate” (insert canned laughter track of your choice here) internalize these mini-mandates, the GOP will go down like a child’s sandcastle under a tsunami.

    And may they take their infernal noise machine with them! I so hate having to take out someone else’s trash….

  • “I think we can chalk some of this up to primary-season bravado…”

    Let’s be real, I think you should change the word “some” to “much”

  • I liked this gem from Ghouliani.

    Well, we’ve had third party options. I think our two-party system has served us well. I think that generally is the way our democracy operates. […]

    Talk about aloof. Talk about a shill.

    The fact that this guy is propped up there as a candidate speaks volumes about how the NeoCons are only in it for the power. Their only guiding principle seems to be global domination at any cost.

    I’m very glad that Dr. Paul told those NeoCons to piss off in no uncertain terms like he did.

  • I have a feeling they’ll come together. When it’s Hillary. She is the only thing that can keep the republicans in power. Pro growth = TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH. Pro-life = VOTE FOR JESUS

  • Re: Steve @ #2

    Wow, I didn’t realize that ending the U.S. Military Occupation of Iraq was petty mini-mandate. I guess that I should get on board with more important things like a 401(k) giveaway and skip that national anti-war demonstration on Oct. 27.

  • Sometimes you do more to promote a republican agenda than the republicans do. Wish you would stop trying to save them from themselves. They deserve to pour gas over themselves and set themselves aflame as penance for what they have done to our nation. Just throw them a match not a fire extinguisher. The king of “Phony-Baloney”, Mitt Romney, will be the nominee because he is the least embarrassing.

  • Steve,

    Idealogues and one-cause advocates tend to insist on “not unless.” It’s what killed the Democratic party for a while. If the Republicans want to go down that barren street, they are welcome to it.

  • With every gut-shot Iraqi child, limp in a grieving parent’s arms, we see a bullet that is sold. And a profit that is made. With every suffering, limbless soldier, the military-industrial complex sees a reason to persist. And finds more profits to be made. With every tank that’s ripped-apart, with every screaming, dying civilian, the White House imagines a “surge” that is working. And sees a profit for a friend.
    A government that endorses mass murder for profit, and calls it war, deserves no latitude. It deserves a cage.
    And so do we, if we stand by in passive assent. Every American deserves what he tolerates. The time for tolerance is over.
    There’s only one candidate for President of the United States in 2008 who has the depth of understanding, and the character, necessary to place meaningful restraints upon our profit-centered system of cowardly warmongering – Ron Paul.
    Positions of Dr. Paul’s that would help achieve this objective include:
    Getting rid of the Federal Reserve, which functions as the financial enabler of war, as well as its head-coach.
    Forcing politicians in favor of war to make a formal declaration of war, as specified in the Constitution.
    To which I would add:
    Patriotism requires that the profit-motive be put-aside in time of war. Therefore, financially profiting from a soldier’s courage, and, possibly, from the sacrifice of a soldier’s life, should be forbidden by law.
    By law, every elected representative espousing war must either personally ship-off to battle, or, send a close family member in his stead.
    The Ron Paul Revolution is, among other things, a revolution to reclaim our original American spirit, a spirit mangled, at least since the time of Lincoln, by the passive acceptance, and tacit encouragement, of state-sponsored mass-murder for profit.
    With God’s help, it is a revolution that will come to pass

  • I heartily encourage the various factions of the GOP to be as steadfast as possible in support of their particular issues, and to eschew compromise at all costs. They should be sick and tired of supporting anyone who isn’t exactly the candidate they want! Absolutely!

    Please, honor your positions, and stay away from the polls next November. You owe it to yourselves and our beloved country.

  • I’m a Republican, and I’m seeing the schism up close. The support for Ron Paul – and I’m not trying to sell him here – is quite substantial, though you wouldn’t know it from the evening news. I think that the wing of the party that is positive on the war would hold their noses and get behind a Paul ticket if it came to that. I don’t believe the reverse is true.

    My prediction is that if Paul doesn’t get the nomination, it won’t matter who else gets the nod because, Hillary or no Hillary, the Republican Party will go down in flames.

  • JKap,

    Each of the GOP candidates is espousing a plank that can only be described as a “mini-mandate” from their political base. One wants to close the borders a la “Berlin Wall”—because his clique wants that. Another wants to pretend he’s changed religions because his old religion allows for a gay bishop—because his “adopted clique” wants that. Yet another thinks we should embrace uber-Libertarian values that come acros as being custom-designed by the John Birch Society—because they WERE designed by the John Birch Society—again, because his “clique wants it.” A fourth avoids controversy by being simply “unaware”—and he’s backed by the unaware portion of Homo Neocon.

    Each candidate—each clique—has their own little “mini-mandate.” Just like Dobson does. They’re all transforming into little mini-ideologies; fragmenting the whole and establishing their own unique little serfdoms.

    So tell me, JKap—where in Post #2 did I employ the word “Iraq?” Or are you just practicing your Bill O’Reilly routine for a Halloween party?

  • Re: Steve @ #12

    Good one on the O’Reilly crack –no one in my lifetime has ever said that I compare to B.O. Let me try my best impression: “Put that pipe down, and get my pipe up!”

    I don’t disagree with your overall premise. Now, in your post #2, you said:

    […] Each of these “candidates” (as if pompous little hucksters could be considered “candidates”) has moved into their “not-unless” mode. Rudi won’t support the candidate “unless.” Neither will Paul, Romney, Huckabee, McCain—all of them have their own “pettiness” clause. As the followers of each “candidate” (insert canned laughter track of your choice here) internalize these mini-mandates, the GOP will go down like a child’s sandcastle under a tsunami.

    Aren’t you implying that Ron Paul has a petty mini-mandate? And what was Ron Paul’s response to supporting the GOP, if he does not win the nomination? …not unless they’re willing to end the war and bring our troops home…

    Therefore, I tried to sarcastically respond that ending the U.S. Military Occupation of Iraq was, as you put it, a petty mini-mandate.

    On the contrary, I believe that ending the U.S. Military Occupation of Iraq is a HUGE mandate of probably 70% of the American People and I could care less if John Birchers agree with that or not.

  • Paul’s mini-mandate, JKap, is the John Birch agenda. He’s playing the balancing act by adopting the two extremes of the curve—placating the antiwar movement whilst coddling the antifederalists of the uber-extreme right (the John Birch folks). I’m beginning to see some rather nasty groups—Daughters of the Confederacy, Sons of the South, etc., fall in behind this clown’s campaign. I’m surprised he hasn’t accidentally shown up at a debate wearing full CSA regalia, a Bobby Lee poster, and a full-blown Rebel yell!

    Ron Paul is, in my opinion, the Manchurian-esque Candidate….

  • If the Dim-Dems nominate Hillary, which is likely, she will pull the Rethugs together like no force the physicists have ever discovered. The Rethugs may not be enthusiastic about Guiliani, but they definitely will have someone to vote against. If Guiliani is the their candidate, he will split the Dim-Dems and could very easily win with help of election shenanigans. That’s his strategy, and I think it’s a winner.

    He would, of course, be a disaster on top of a catastrophe, and he needs to be taken seriously not written off as if he can’t possibly get the nomination or win. Lots of people, including me, said in 2000 that Bush couldn’t possibly get the nomination. Or win.

  • Re: Steve @ #14

    Ah, I see that you’re speaking on behalf of Ron Paul now.

    I can personally tell you that I have met many Ron Paul supporters from around the United States and none of them match your banal attempt to denigrate them.

    But hey brother, onward to Iran! I’m sure that this tired-ass system (a two party system that Rudolf “Hess” Giuliani tells us “has served us well”) of complete media manipulation to prolong this plutocracy will produce the best results for America.

    The “long” war has a nice ring to it, don’t it? Yawohl!

  • I get a kick out of the fact that some of the same people in this thread saying “gee I love it when the Repubs are so dumb” are the ones who in other threads say they wont vote for HRC if she is the Dem nominee. I would expect those folks to be defending any Republican’s right to vote their conscience, and explaining how progressive Tancredo is to put principles above party.

    I guess some traits we can only recognize in others.

  • I love to see Ghouliani reduced do doing the same weak, pathetic, “Vote for me! I’m electable!” fairy-tale that Democratic candidates have been doing for decades.

    Anyone who stands for something, who is competent, who has a vision for the future of this country that resonates with a majority of Americans, is “electable”.

    The Repugs don’t have anyone even remotely like that. Luckily, we Democrats have quite a few to choose from.

  • Keep in mind that, to a religious conservative, Giuliani is the same as Hillary. They both support abortion, gun control, preemptive war, “Patriot” Act, and illegal immigration.

    If Giuliani beats Hillary in the general election, we don’t consider that a “win.”

  • It is not just the religious right vs Giuliani’s liberal social image. It is Patriots vs One World Government. Giuliani, Romney, McCain and Thompson are all members of or affiliated with the Council on Foreign Relations. So are Hillary, Obama, Dodd, Edwards and Biden. It will not matter.

    You who are gonna vote for the Republican candidate no matter who because they promise lower taxes, or the Democrat candidate because they promise you more stuff from the taxpayers will be voting to give away the sovereignty of this blessed Republic. Look it up before you start arguing with me. Then vote for Tom Tancredo.

  • Pingback: Ron Paul open to a fourth-party campaign? « Federation of Conservative Republicans

    • Comments are closed.