Top Conservative Romney Supporter: I'd Support Rudy In General Election
A lot of people are holding out hope that if Rudy wins the GOP nomination social conservatives will organize a third party challenge from the right that will split the Republican Party. Prominent social conservative leaders have been suggesting as much lately in various forums.
Well, this isn't going to give people holding out for this very much hope.
As I noted below, a top conservative backer of Mitt Romney, the prominent conservative attorney James Bopp, told me in an interview that he was outraged that conservative Senator Sam Brownback is dallying with pro-choice Rudy.
But that isn't all Bopp said. He also told me that he thinks that if Rudy wins the nomination, a third-party challenge just isn't a serious possiblitiy -- and even said he himself would back Rudy.
"I think there are people who would consider voting for a minor party candidate rather than Giuliani if he got the nomination," Bopp told me. "Frankly I'm not one of those. I don't think the idea of a third party is being seriously considered by anyone."
Asked how he could bring himself to vote for the pro-choice Rudy in a general election, Bopp said that a Hillary victory is unthinkable.
"I'm not prepared to surrender in the war on terror and have terror attacks on major cities in the U.S.," Bopp said. "Surrendering in the war on terror means the destruction of American civilation. Between the two of them I'm going to support the nominee of the Republican party." He added, however, that he was still working hard for Romney "to prevent us from having that difficult choice."
This is not exactly on message with the Romney campaign, obviously. The Romney camp needs to encourage the idea that a third party challenge is likely in order to make Rudy seem unelectable. To hear a top Romney supporter saying that such a challenge is unlikely and that he could even vote for Rudy in a general election has got to be unwelcome to Romney.
Comments (48)
Jake D. wrote on October 26, 2007 2:02 PM:Just as I thought -- those liberals who post here against Hillary are going to vote for her anyways too -- has anyone other than Greg ever heard of James Bopp? Is he related to the singing group Hanson?
Greg wrote on October 26, 2007 2:05 PM:bopp is an extremely influential figure among social conservatives, he's held up as one of romney's top supporters...
audit the polls wrote on October 26, 2007 2:08 PM:Yes, I'll admit it in an election between Satan and Hillary, I'll take Hillary.
BTW What are the prominent social liberals saying?
RobbyLove wrote on October 26, 2007 2:29 PM:Ummmm...duh? The Clinton hatred on the right is just as rabid as the Bush haters on the left. They'd sacrifice their "morals" (and probably 1st born son) to defeat Hillary. No way they'd cast a vote for a 3rd party. No way.
Brianm0122 wrote on October 26, 2007 2:32 PM:This just goes to show that the right-wing, social conservative, pro-life bloc really isn't committed to the the anti-abortion issue. It's all about power and cronyism. Influence and kick-backs. They are willing to look the other way, as long as their palms are greased.
Not surprising. No morals, no principles, no backbone. Bullies never have them.
They are beginning to understand that they are losing influence, and are trying to keep the appearance of influence, at least.
CT Voter wrote on October 26, 2007 2:33 PM:The news: a prominent pro-lifer admits that the very issue that has shaped his professional life will be set aside so he can make sure that a Republican gets elected. We don't need no steenking principles! Values voters, moral values, family values...all just a charade to lure people into voting for them. When push comes to shove, all those values and principles are getting the shove in favor of pure political expediency.
But political expediency just isn't as catchy as "values voters".
And besides, people who write comments on TPM Election Central DO THE VERY SAME THING AS WHAT BOPP IS DESCRIBING, so what's the big deal?
Truly funny.
mike wrote on October 26, 2007 2:45 PM:I'd hate to see Guiliani get nominated, as he'd have a real chance at winning, and his 'so called' foreign policy is totally insane (and he was a fiscal wreck in NYC).
However, the upside is that it would declare the end of the culture war. Dobson's right, if Guiliani is backed by the base, his movement has 0 power.
I'd welcome a Guiliani nomination though to just end this silly culture war. No way any GOPer will be able to point fingers at the Dems and accuse them of any "immorality."
Bopp's an idiot, does he have to look up the word 'principles' in the dictionary?
Me_again wrote on October 26, 2007 2:55 PM:"the prominent conservative attorney James Bopp"
WHO, never heard of him, until now, Bopp??? Does he work with Baker the III?
Sorry, doesn't ring a bell.
Anyway, since when does lawyer on the street represent redneck Meria?
audit the polls wrote on October 26, 2007 2:57 PM:I agree, abortion, gay marriage, are things conservatives talk about when the word 'issues' comes up. They don't want to talk about Iraq, Iran, spying, torture, mercenaries, budgets, or anything that actually effects the average voter. Thes 2 subjects are distractions.
If conservatives really cared about abortion, they would have done something about it when they controlled the presidency, congress, and the Supreme Court. If they outlawed it, what would they talk about?
Me_again wrote on October 26, 2007 3:07 PM:Bopp said that a Hillary victory is unthinkable.
Since when? Since Sen. Larry Craig had his bathroom episode?
Perhaps Mitt Romney's campaign guy isn't the one to ask, after all,\he has got to be so partisan that he is crossed-eyed.
Marc wrote on October 26, 2007 3:18 PM:Does this guy really believe the stuff he's peddling?
"I'm not prepared to surrender in the war on terror and have terror attacks on major cities in the U.S.," Bopp said. "Surrendering in the war on terror means the destruction of American civilation. Between the two of them I'm going to support the nominee of the Republican party."
The Republican Party has used different variations on the same shameless smear tactics to win elections for decades. Has any Democratic presidential candidate even come near to challenging a candidate's patriotism and love of country in this way? It's outrageous what these thugs will say.
CT Voter wrote on October 26, 2007 3:30 PM:One other thing, courtesy of the polling data presented at the top. When will the election pundits highlight the fact that in the states that know Rudy best (NY, CT, NJ), Rudy isn't this wildly popular presidential candidate??????????
It continues to gall me that voters of South Carolina, for instance, are hot about Rudy the terrorist fighter while voters who actually know his record and who actually experienced firsthand the events of 9/11 think that he's a giant turd.
audit the polls wrote on October 26, 2007 3:37 PM:Yeah Rudy's the only one I can think of that would be worse than Bush.
After 9/11, he was the one who oversaw the destruction of the evidence.
bob wrote on October 26, 2007 3:39 PM:No wonder he would vote for Rudy, given that he is, you know, absolutely massively delusional:
"Surrendering in the war on terror means the destruction of American civilation."
I'm surprised he's not for Giuliani in the primary with that kind of crackpottery. Bomb Iran today or America ends tomorrow.
Vilify Me wrote on October 26, 2007 3:46 PM:Asked how he could bring himself to vote for the pro-choice Rudy in a general election, Bopp said that a Hillary victory is unthinkable.
I don't see how any of this is surprising. This “party over principle” philosophy is espoused in the comments at Election Central every day, by Democrats. Those, (like me) who will not vote for Hillary in the general election, are routinely vilified for having moral positions that we're willing to back up with our votes, or lack thereof. We’re told we need to shut up and support her anyway simply to defeat the Republicans. We’re even told we shouldn’t criticize her at all because it might help the Republicans defeat her in the general election.
Now these same Dems who attack the Anybody-But-Clinton crowd and call us names for refusing to blindly support Hillary are going to make the complete opposite argument - that Republicans who are willing to support Rudy don't actually stand for anything. They have no principles. They’re morally bankrupt. What losers they are for trying to defeat the nominee of the other party above all else.
So which is it? Should I stay true to my principles and not vote for Hillary in the general election, possibly helping a Republican get elected? Or should I be like those morally bankrupt Republicans who will vote for any nominee their party props up in front of them?
If I was running the Democratic Party, I would have a full blown blitz in the media saying exactly what brianm0122 said above. Hammer and hammer the point that the Christian Right leaders only care about abortion and gay marriage to raise funds and are really all about the power and low tax rates. Drive a wedge between the leaders and their followers.
714Day wrote on October 26, 2007 3:47 PM:audit the polls wrote on October 26, 2007 2:08 PM:
Yes, I'll admit it in an election between Satan and Hillary, I'll take Hillary.
butBrianm0122 says on October 26, 2007 2:32 PM:
This just goes to show that the right-wing, social conservative, pro-life bloc really isn't committed to the the anti-abortion issue. It's all about power and cronyism. Influence and kick-backs. They are willing to look the other way, as long as their palms are greased.
Not surprising. No morals, no principles, no backbone. Bullies never have them.
Really, this is what we all do. Stay in our ideological camps when push comes to shove, n'est pas, Brian? Or did you vote for Nader?
Politicians are shitheads all, if they've going to make it to the the top.
"I'm not prepared to surrender in the war on terror and have terror attacks on major cities in the U.S.," Bopp said.
Huh? Do these people really think this will happen if Hillary or another Dem wins the presidency?
It absolutely boggles the mind.
Ebu wrote on October 26, 2007 4:06 PM:Why are Christians getting so worked up? Rudy is Catholic and Hillary is Protestant. I doubt either of them attend church regularly. If they are both pro-abortion, then does it really matter who Christians vote for? These moral issues are dumb, people should just vote for whoever they think is going to benefit themselves the most and not listen to super rich elites telling them who to vote for.
Merryll wrote on October 26, 2007 4:12 PM:I expect to see a story soon about the top liberal Kucinich supporters. Is this a conservative blog?
wendy wrote on October 26, 2007 4:18 PM:All their pronouncements about so-called morals and so-called "biblical values" -- abortion, gay marriage, and "family values" -- are really about wanting to control women. Hating the idea of women controlling themselves, or men choosing a life that doesnt include ownership of a woman. No wonder they hate Hillary with such passion.
Merryll wrote on October 26, 2007 4:33 PM:"biblical values" -- abortion, gay marriage, and "family values" are distractions. They are not things the president has much control over. It's his job to balance the budget, start or end wars, protect the country, and a million other things. When conservative candidates talk and [don't do anything] about these narrow issues, they keep the press [which they mostly control] from talking about the real issues. The ones that they do have some controll over.
Jake D. wrote on October 26, 2007 4:39 PM:Ebu:
Some of us unselfishly consider the millions of unborn lives we could save when we cast our votes -- I understand both of them are pro-choice -- but, even if there's only a 1% chance Rudy will appoint a John Roberts clone, that's a hell of a lot better than the ZERO% chance we've got with Hillary. There is NO other more important domestic issue today.
CT Voter wrote on October 26, 2007 4:41 PM:I don't see how any of this is surprising. This “party over principle” philosophy is espoused in the comments at Election Central every day, by Democrats. True. But how are posters at TPM Election Central equivalent to a major leader in the "pro-life" movement? I thought the sanctity of life trumped everything. I thought that because Republicans have made it a defining issue. And yet, that defining issue is being kicked to the curb in order to elect someone who is on record as not sharing the same beliefs about the sanctity of life.Jake D. wrote on October 26, 2007 4:43 PM:Which means that it's not about the sanctity of life, it's about votes. And it's always been about votes. If you don't want to vote for Senator Clinton in the general election then I, for one, applaud you for sticking to your principles. I'm all about the votes, however, so I will be voting for her, even though I don't like her. But I don't go around lecturing others about how important it is to vote for the right candidate, or enact legislation that makes people vote for the right candidate, ot try to nominate judges that will make rulings that force people to vote for my canidate, only to say, metaphorically, "Whoops, all of that doesn't really matter and I'm willing to vote for this completely different other candidate".
I still have no idea who this major leader in the "pro-life" movement is.
CT Voter wrote on October 26, 2007 4:46 PM:sorry about the missing html tag on that last comment.
Merryll wrote on October 26, 2007 4:52 PM:Jack D,
What about the millions of born lives that will end when Rudy starts World War 3?
Some of us unselfishly consider the millions of unborn lives we could save when we cast our votes
Oh, dear Lord, you're so "unselfish" that I might have a fainting spell.
Go peddle it somewhere else, hypocrite.
Jake D. wrote on October 26, 2007 4:59 PM:Merryll:
Millions died during WWII -- should we not have fought that war either?
Captain Goto:
No thanks. I'm staying right here until the election.
CT Voter wrote on October 26, 2007 5:05 PM:Jake D:
Here's what the Mittster said about him
And:
And here's what the Politico had to say....
He's not prominent to you. That doesn't make him an insignificant nobody, though.
Merryll wrote on October 26, 2007 5:10 PM:No we shouldn't have fought WW2 We should have stop Hitler in the 30's instead of allowing our bankers inluding Bush's grandfathers to put Hitler in power. You sound like you're ready to go to war AGAIN. Will we ever stop?
Jake D. wrote on October 26, 2007 5:20 PM:Some day, Merryll. Until then, you sound like Sheryl "The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies" Crow.
CT Voter: thanks for the info.
Sam wrote on October 26, 2007 5:31 PM:I would support a syphilitic donkey for president over any republican.
Does that make me unprincipled?
Absolutely not, it makes me a patriot.
Merryll wrote on October 26, 2007 5:48 PM:Someday? Is that a yes? You're ready to go to war AGAIN? Stop calling yourself Right-to-Life.
dajafi wrote on October 26, 2007 6:50 PM:I fear Rudy Giuliani like no one else in public life. I lived in NYC for most of his mayoralty; I suffered his antics, his authoritarianism, his truly elephantine ego, his fiscal mismanagement, his terrible judgment of character (Kerik, Russell Harding, many others), his utter lack of preparation for a terror attack. And I walked home from Lower Manhattan that morning through the pulverized remains of the Towers and the human victims.
I can't stress enough how unfit he is for the most powerful job in the world, and how much of a disaster he'd be in that position.
At some level, though, I do find it amusing that the Christatollah crowd would consider supporting him. Put aside his departures from right-wing orthodoxy on sex-related issues; his own personal life is hands-down scuzzier than that of Bill Clinton, the devil incarnate (unless it's Hillary) to these people. Bill's had just one marriage; his daughter still thinks he's okay; he never announced on camera that he was done with Hillary. All the things he did do, Rudy did worse, and more (Monica Lewinsky was an intern; Chrstyne Lategano was a city official).
The only way I can explain it is that he reliably expresses the insane hatred they share--not for terrorists, mind you, but for liberals. The real enemy they see is us. This is what our politics have come to.
Ben Rosengart wrote on October 26, 2007 6:57 PM:Hillary Clinton will eat Rudy Giuliani alive in a general election. Despite my reservations about Ms. Clinton, I'd enjoy the spectacle immensely. Go, Rudy, go.
audit the polls wrote on October 26, 2007 7:02 PM:Here, here. I lived there during his term. Rudy was the worst.
Ebu wrote on October 26, 2007 7:03 PM:Its so funny that some people are so anti-Hillary that they would vote for someone that is not even a Republican. Guiliani was a Democrat who switched to Republican when it was politically beneficial. He is about as Republican as Lieberman is a Democrat. There is this word I heard floating around ... neoconservative.
Jake D. wrote on October 26, 2007 7:15 PM:Edu:
According to the Senate website, Lieberman is an Independent-DEMOCRAT.
Merryll:
I said we will stop someday -- when Jesus Christ returns in all His Glory -- in the meantime, war is the last resort, but sometimes the only choice.
cd wrote on October 26, 2007 7:18 PM:
"Jake D."- good luck attempting to a USSC nominee like that through the 55+ Democratic seat Senate. Not going to happen.
On issue polling numbers there is just is no Republican mandate on any policies. Only on 'handling terrorism' is there a status quo, on everything else it's >55% Democratic support. (Ethics, social, economic, foreign relations, war conduct.) And even on the 'handling terrorism' status quo, Republicans are down 47-52. Plus, with Republican policy implemented in all areas, Republicans will continue to take the hits as they fail. One more big bloody Al Qaeda attack in Europe or the US and even the 'handling terrorism' support falls under 40%, and Republicans are unelectable nationally.
The only way Giuliani wins against Clinton given the numbers is if (a) a woman President is still unacceptable to a majority (not seen in polling) and (b) there is no terrible Al Qaeda attack between now and Election Day (an unknown).
Jake D. wrote on October 26, 2007 7:25 PM:Wait a minute, cd -- one Al Qaeda attack between now and Election Day and (a) even the 'handling terrorism' support falls under 40%, and Republicans are unelectable nationally, OR (b) it's the only way Giuliani wins against Clinton? Pick one, please, and then we can discuss.
Jake D. wrote on October 26, 2007 7:32 PM:In addition, cd, only five Senators on the Committee (Ted Kennedy, Richard Durbin, Charles Schumer, Joe Biden and Dianne Feinstein) voted against Roberts' nomination, which passed by a vote of 13-5, and he was confirmed by the full Senate with only 22 Democrats against. Assuming Rudy actually finds a Roberts clone, why do you think more than 22 Democrats would vote against?
Merryll wrote on October 26, 2007 8:39 PM:Another 911 would only help the Republicans if they can appoint the investigators and hide the evidence again.
AJM wrote on October 26, 2007 9:54 PM:To confuse the life of a fertilized egg with the life of a human being is to elevated symbolism over reality.
Over 50% of fertilized eggs spontaneously abort -- possibly because something is wrong with their genetic combination or because something is physically wrong with the womb at that time.
When a beloved child dies you may donate any or all of his organs. When a fertilized egg is doomed, RTL has proclaimed that it is a major sin to use even a single cell for life-saving research.
This elevation of the single cell to the status of an idol over the needs of existing human beings has been revealed in all its cruelty by the debate over stem cell research. It is a large part of why the appeal of RTL has been diminishing.
Jake D. wrote on October 27, 2007 7:48 PM:100% of born humans die eventually too -- you could say we are all "doomed" then -- I don't support experimenting on born humans either.
phil james wrote on October 28, 2007 3:01 PM:I have to again side with Jake D on the abortion issue. I agree we need to keep having babies rather than supporting abortion rights. Women simply shouldn't be allowed to choose not to have a baby when America needs to keep reproducing to ensure we have enough cannon fodder to wage the next round of republican wars of choice. In fact, the more we keep reproducing, the more republican wars we can wage AND the more future taxpayers we'll have to pay bigtime when the bill for this latest round of wars-on-credit comes due. Kudos to Jake for his brilliant foresight!
Jake D. wrote on October 28, 2007 11:35 PM:Thank you.
RuthieM wrote on October 29, 2007 2:11 PM:ORomney is really pro-choice, he said he was. Oh yeah, that was before he said he was pro-life. Oh, and that was right before he declared his candidacy to the Republican party. Where're the rest of his wives, in the closet?
