Note: Updates at the end
**
On Monday, 10/8/07, Hannity & Colmes interviewed Dr. James Dobson on their TV show. I consider the interview (transcript here) highly significant. In it Dobson tells why he will not support Rudy Guiliani or Fred Thompson for president.
I must confess that before seeing this interview, I thought Dobson was wrong. I had been persuaded by Tony Blankley's article inwhich he took Dobson to task for not being willing to support Guiliani. But the H & C interview helped me see Dobson's point more clearly. In the end, Dobson has won me over. For one thing, I doubt Giuliani can defeat Hillary, but these words of James Dobson's, in particular, gave me something new to think about:
. . . if Rudy Giuliani wins, I'm telling you the pro-life, the pro-family movement is gone. If it's Hillary, as bad as she is, there will be a mobilization to fight what she's trying to do. If he is put in office by conservatives and by those who are pro-life and pro-marriage, pro-family, I'm afraid that we will not recover from it.
Maggie Gallagher also lays out reasons why Guiliani doesn't deserve the support of conservatives. She recognizes the problems related to
conservative issues but also notes:
The halo of "America's Mayor" is already slipping. For months, polls showed Rudy Giuliani leading Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head matchup, but by June of this year that lead had begun to evaporate. The latest poll, conducted in late September by ABC News and The Washington Post, shows Hillary Clinton beating Rudy Giuliani by eight points. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney trails Clinton in a head-to-head matchup in the latest Rasmussen poll by only nine points. One point better than Romney does not a convincing argument make for abandoning all principles.
And that's before Christian conservative leaders bolt the party, which has abandoned them on abortion, to run a third-party candidate.
A little political realism, please. If you think a candidate who breaks up the Republican Party is the best man to lead the nation, vote for Rudy. But don't imagine, it's going to be easy to elect him. [my emphases]
Update 10/12/07 -This will continue to be a highly debated subject. For an opposite view, more in line with Tony Blankley's article mentioned above, cf. Hugh Hewitt's interview with Former Solicitor General Ted Olsen:
HH: Jim Dobson penned a New York Times editorial. I’m sure you’re familiar with it, that if it’s Rudy Giuliani, he’s just sitting it out. What’s your response to that, and to the idea that you can’t trust Rudy with Supreme Court nominees?
TO: Well, A) you can trust Rudy with Supreme Court nominees. He’s the person in America that I trust the most in connection with this. If someone wants to sit out the election because they’re not satisfied with some aspect of Rudy’s background or Rudy’s policy, then he might as well just vote for Hillary Clinton, because that’s what’s going to happen. I think it’s exceedingly important for Republicans and conservatives and moderates alike to take a deep breath, if there’s a high likelihood, as I think there may be, of an even greater Democratic control of both houses of Congress. A Democratic president is going to appoint Supreme Court justices, appellate court judges, and other federal judges, and increase taxes, and increase the federal spending, and doing lots of things that only a Republican president can prevent. And Rudy Giuliani, in my judgment, is the most qualified and the most electable Republican. And anybody on the conservative side that thinks they’re going to sit that out, they might as well contribute to the Democratic victory, and then take responsibility for what happens, because it will be their fault.
Elsewhere, in a later post, Ramesh Ponnuru asks for the evidence that Ted Olsen is a social conservative.
Update 10/16/07 Ponnuru says (astutely, I think) "If he [Giuliani] wins, I think it will cause the party to become less pro-life; but if he wins, it won't be because the party has become less pro-life."