Ezra Klein: Larry, Curly, Moe... Newt?

« If It Makes Everyone Mad, It's Not Really A Compromise | Main | Family Issues Aren't Primary »

May 19, 2007

Larry, Curly, Moe... Newt?

James Dobson's threat not to vote for Rudy Giuliani in a general election seems a little suspect. Even though Giuliani reversed his commitment to appoint judges who will overturn Roe, the hope that he'll occasionally nominate an anti-Roe judge or two will be better than Dobson can expect from any Democrat. Still, Rudy is liberal enough on the issue that bluffing doesn't seem like bad strategy from Dobson's position, and I can imagine a nontrivial percentage of anti-abortion voters actually staying home.

It's amazing how unsatisfying the top-tier GOP candidates are to the base. Romney and Giuliani are completely untrustworthy on social issues, while McCain's support for immigration reform is causing all manner of grief. Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich is roaming the hinterlands, attacking "radical secularists" in his commencement speech at Liberty University and opposing the immigration bill at the Georgia Republican convention. If support for each of the top three GOP options is as soft as I imagine it is, and if Fred Thompson's 1994 support for keeping abortion legal in the 1st trimester disqualifies him from being the base candidate, I could see major Gingrich support emerging. He'll need a less lame-sounding answer than "I think that abortion should not be legal, and I think that how you would implement that I’m not sure," but at least it leaves open the possibility of a more fiery and flip-flop-free anti-abortion position later.

May 19, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

I don't know why people think it's "amazing" that the "top tier" moderate Republicans don't enthuse the base - that dog has been barking for months, well before any of them officially declared. Gingrich, too, is saddled with a host of personal issues - his affairs and divorce history is really more colorful than Rudy's and just as problematic - and if Thompson's really said that about abortion,... oh well. I said to my Mom - and will say on my blog, shortly - that people should pay attention to Sam Brownback. He's got what those base people want, and he's couching his "pro-life" rhetoric in a concern for soldiers that may well reach moderate suburban Dems (that "David Brooks"-ian voter we all can't stand but we know is out there). Outside of that, I think the GOP nomination process is shaping up to be hilarious, a serious self-immolation that will deliver some pretty damaged goods... to Hillary Clinton. At least this will be entertaining.

Posted by: weboy | May 19, 2007 4:21:06 PM

It's no sudden surprise, weboy. But I'm continually amazed that things turned out this way.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 19, 2007 4:23:18 PM

I like the image of Newt "roaming the hinterlands." I can imagine a young couple cuddling in front of a campfire under the night sky, when suddenly a deep-throated, husky Newt Gingrich-shaped werewolf jumps out of the bushes, spitting and screaming about liberal secularists, Hillary Clinton and progressive taxation. And this story probably would lift him up in the Republican primary polls.

Posted by: Media Glutton | May 19, 2007 4:38:18 PM

Even though Giuliani reversed his commitment to appoint judges who will overturn Roe

No reversal. He never favored a litmus test, and he's said from the beginning he would appoint strict constructionist justices.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 19, 2007 4:48:05 PM

What I fear:
GOP settles on McCain because he's "electable" and the front runner. Edwards and Obama weaken Hillary so much that they form a ticket and beat her. In a battle of McCain and Obama, McCain wins because the general public is a decade behind -- still thinking he's some maverick -- and Obama can't carry any Southern states.

So, it doesn't really matter how disenchanted the GOP activists are. I just have a feeling McCain will win, despite everything going against him (age, Iraq, Bush, voter discontent). Ugh.

Posted by: yep | May 19, 2007 5:09:31 PM

Oh yeah, and Hillary loses because no one really wants the GOP unified again. Hillary is best antidote for the current GOP disarray.

Posted by: yep | May 19, 2007 5:11:52 PM

RUN NEWT RUN!!!

Posted by: Allen Knutson | May 19, 2007 5:18:13 PM

If Huckabee ever got a real organization rolling, he'd be a threat for the nomination.

Really, though, there are several decent Governors and Senators in the field. I'm not sure if the tepid response to the candidates is because they are all fatally deficient, because there is an unresolved fight over which wing will be be blamed and shunned for the Bush era, or if everyone is just frustrated about the dark clouds on the horizon.

The Republicans nominated Bob Dole (campaign slogan:it's my turn)not that long ago, so it's not like you have to be Mr. Incredible to get the nod. If the candidates are all inadequate, you have to wonder is the bench that thin or does no one who would have a chance willing to play Quixote?

The blame game is going on now. The Defense, Wall Street and Libertarian Republicans are anxious to frag the Christian Conservatives and have been sniping for a while now, but I'm guessing electoral reality will set in and an all out assault will be avoided until after 08. Guliani makes it to the convention and it could be ugly though.

I'd guess that the biggest problem is that many of the candidates might be adequate in a normal election, but this is nothing of the sort. The Republican will be starting in his own end zone, will have a godawful case of Saddam's revenge, and will have no almost no blocking (a lot of the team will be busy saving their own skin), and the other team is pumped, hungry, and has a hell of a grudge. Anyone want to win one for the Gipper?

Posted by: Don | May 19, 2007 5:42:36 PM

Media Glutton, that's marvelous.

Posted by: Dan S. | May 19, 2007 6:57:36 PM

James Dobson's threat not to vote for Rudy Giuliani in a general election seems a little suspect.

No, it's real, and people will listen to him. They'll suddenly find out that Mitt's Mormonism is not much of a problem for them before they vote for Giuliani.

I said to my Mom - and will say on my blog, shortly - that people should pay attention to Sam Brownback. He's got what those base people want, and he's couching his "pro-life" rhetoric in a concern for soldiers that may well reach moderate suburban Dems (that "David Brooks"-ian voter we all can't stand but we know is out there).

weboy, that is a stunningly brilliant statement, showing marvelous insight into a complex situation. I applaud you for it. Plus, I've been saying the same thing.

Posted by: Stephen | May 19, 2007 9:51:33 PM

No reversal. He never favored a litmus test, and he's said from the beginning he would appoint strict constructionist justices.

I think everybody took the "strict constructionist" line to be a euphemism for judges that would overturn Roe.

James Dobson's threat not to vote for Rudy Giuliani in a general election seems a little suspect.

If the religious right is smart, they'll do exactly what Dobson is suggesting. Their influence is beginning to wane, and the only real chance they have if Rudy is nominated is to sit things out (or vote third party) and hope the GOP loses and chalks it up to losing the Dobson vote. If that happens, it will be twenty years before we see another pro-choice Republican nominee.

However, if Rudy runs and wins, it's possible that reproductive freedom gets cemented as the default position for both parties, and the anti-choice crowd becomes increasingly marginalized.

Dobson et al. ought to be perfectly willing to take a few Hillary/Obama/Edwards nominated judges if it means retaining their political clout. A Giuliani victory might just be the worst thing that ever happened to them.

Posted by: Jason | May 20, 2007 3:05:09 AM

Go Newt! It is hard to imagine a better candidate from the Dems perspective. But I don't think that the powers that be in the Republican party are that stupid.

Posted by: ikl | May 20, 2007 4:14:37 AM

I think everybody took the "strict constructionist" line to be a euphemism for judges that would overturn Roe.

He still promises to appoint strict constructionist justices.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 20, 2007 5:00:38 AM

Newt Gingrich was on Meet the Press this morning. He was preaching his World War IV stuff again.

Posted by: stm177 | May 20, 2007 9:38:56 AM

"It's amazing how unsatisfying the top-tier GOP candidates are to the base. Romney and Giuliani are completely untrustworthy on social issues,"

You can say much the same for the Democratic top-tier. You survey the field and it is clear that there is one combination of candidates who would offer a clear choice of which direction this country should be going: Gore v. Hagel and interestingly neither has ruled himself categorically out, indeed Hagel is hovering. If the Republican base crumbles on Bush over immigration, which is likely, and in the process abandon him on Iraq, (because at this point backing Bush on Iraq has to be a product of blind loyalty) Hagel has a clear shot at taking out Rudy McMitt and the Seven Dwarves. Likewise if Gore bags the Peace Prize he could close the fund-raising gap in a flash, it is not like he has a name recognition problem going.

Gore v. Hagel. Now that is a heavyweight battle. Two anti-war Vietnam war vets. Brownback v. Clinton? That's undercard territory.

Posted by: Bruce Webb | May 20, 2007 10:55:30 AM

He still promises to appoint strict constructionist justices.

Yeah, but now he's made it clear that when he makes that promise, he's not promising to appoint anti-Roe justices.

I'm not quite sure if he ever explicitly said that before, but the new Rudy 2.0 (or is it 3.0?) is being up front about it in a way he wasn't before. His original strategy seemed to be: yeah, I'm pro-choice, but I'll support wink-wink strict constructionist judges. Now it's the "same," but without the wink wink.

Posted by: Jason | May 20, 2007 11:09:47 AM

I'm not quite sure if he ever explicitly said that before

He didn't. You're right about the slight change in strategy, I think, but it doesn't include any change in what he's promising.

Posted by: Sanpete | May 20, 2007 3:08:26 PM

托盘
 托盘
 钢托盘
 钢制托盘
 塑料托盘
 木托盘
 木制托盘
 纸托盘
 木塑托盘