Values Voters Don't Value Giuliani

The religious right remains a force, of a sort, in the Republican Party that may next year nominate as its candidate for president a man who supports abortion rights and gay rights.

That Christian conservatives are still to be reckoned with was confirmed by the fact that the man in question -- former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani -- went out of his way to appear at the Value Voters Summit, a gathering of Christian conservatives that convened in Washington over the weekend.

Giuliani sought to reassure the crowd, telling them: "I'm not going to pretend to you that I can be all things to all people. I'm just not like that. You know we have some areas of disagreement. Please know this, you have nothing to fear from me."

The fundamentalists opted to vote their fears rather than Giuliani's hopes.

A straw poll of summit participants, including online observers, gave former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a front-runner along with Giuliani, a narrow win over former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who comes off as the most genuine Christian conservative in the race. (Huckabee actually won among those who were in he room for the candidate speeches.)

Giuliani wasn't even a competitor.

The vote went:

Romney - 1,595 votes

Huckabee - 1,565 votes

Texas Congressman Ron Paul - 865 votes

Actor Fred Thompson - 564 votes

California Congressman Duncan Hunter - 140 votes

Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo - 133 votes

Giuliani - 107 votes

Say what you will about Christian conservatives, but at least they know what scares them -- and his name is Rudy.

Indeed, all Giuliani got for his trouble was a better finish than Arizona Senator John McCain, the all-time least favorite Republican of the religious right, who secured 81 votes.

Comments (27)

1. all this fragmentation of the republicans would be great news if it weren't for the fact that the democrats are no better.

   well, maybe 2.44% better.

   i hope.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2007 @ 01:33am

2. "DUST" does not kill.

   "ASBESTOS" kills.

   Isn't it incredible that virtually EVERY article written on this topic uses the word "DUST" as the causative agent (the most benign of all words that could be selected), when if FACT it was inhalation of ASBESTOS FIBERS that is the direct cause of all of the health problems being described?

   How is it that virtually every "journalist" who writes on this topic fails to use the word ASBESTOS in their articles? Do all of these writers just suck at their professions?

   "Dust" my ass...

   Who got to them?

   The New York Port Authority, David Rockefeller, Larry Silverstein, Dick Cheney, Halliburton and thousands of other individuals and organizations knew for a fact that the World Trade Center buildings were constructed using asbestos as the fire-protection coating on all of its steel. Christine Todd Whitman knew it too.

   THE REASON THAT THE TOWERS WERE SELECTED AS THE PRIMARY TARGET OF THIS FALSE FLAG ATTACK WAS THAT IT WOULD HAVE COST BILLIONS TO MITIGATE THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY REPRESENTED BY THE TOWERS, A LIABILITY THAT HALLIBURTON ACQUIRED FROM DRESSER WHEN CHENEY RAN HALLIBURTON.

   ALL of the co-conspirators in the 9/11 operation knew for a fact that the "dust" at ground zero contained Asbestos - and that ASBESTOS KILLS.

   Posted by plunger at 10/22/2007 @ 05:26am

3. Frankly, I'd love to see Romney get it.

   As LVLIBB ranted on another thread, a lot of the fund. X'ians have some REAL trouble with Mormons...more so than just a "back-slider" Catholic like Giuliani.

   Of course Huckabee would be their dream candidate. The guy's Mr Clean Marine, ordained minister, staffer to James Robinson, etc., etc., etc.

   Posted by Mask at 10/22/2007 @ 09:06am

4. We will fight the redneck Christians to the death! They must be stopped before they return to witch burning and Sabbath observance.

   Posted by torquemada at 10/22/2007 @ 09:12am

5. Sabbath observance.

   Posted by TORQUEMADA 10/22/2007 @ 09:12am

   actually, i think it would be great if there were a day of the week when you just couldn't go to the mall.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2007 @ 09:19am

6. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/22/2007 @ 09:19am

   Oh, come on, FZ....given your neo-asceticism, you want EVERY day to be a day we can't go to the mall!

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 10/22/2007 @ 09:26am

7. Posted by MASK 10/22/2007 @ 09:26am

   one of the most beautiful things i've seen in recent years was the blackout of august, 2003.

   families were talking to each other.

   families were playing together.

   neighbours were talking to neighbours.

   all of a sudden, with nothing to "do", people discovered there were other people!

   alas, the power came back on here at 9:30 pm and everybody returned to their personal little "x-boxes".

   i barely got to see some stars.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2007 @ 09:59am

8. "VALUES VOTERS DON'T VALUE GIULIANI..."

   Great title....I feel the same about the entire crop of dems...

   Posted by JoMa at 10/22/2007 @ 10:05am

9. Posted by JOMA 10/22/2007 @ 10:05am

   mornin', JM

   hey, are there any candidates you "value"?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2007 @ 10:26am

10. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/22/2007 @ 09:59am

    T hat's not what happens in a blackout, it's The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street! [en.wikipedia.org]

    Posted by Mask at 10/22/2007 @ 10:31am

11. The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout.

    There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men.

    For the record: prejudices can kill, and suspicion can destroy, and the thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own, for the children and the children yet unborn.

    And the pity of it is that such things cannot be confined... to The Twilight Zone.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2007 @ 10:34am

12. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15000144/page/2/

    olbermann knows, too.

    And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight: "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men.

    "For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own -- for the children, and the children yet unborn."

    When those who dissent are told time and time again -- as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus -- that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American...When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"... look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:

    Who has left this hole in the ground?

    We have not forgotten, Mr. President.

    You have.

    May this country forgive you.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2007 @ 10:41am

13. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/22/2007 @ 10:34am

    Ol' Rod was pretty good, huh?....maybe a little prescient, too?

    Posted by Mask at 10/22/2007 @ 10:45am

14. Posted by MASK 10/22/2007 @ 10:45am

    oh yeah

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2007 @ 10:48am

15. NICHOLS: ....but at least they know what scares them -- and his name is Rudy.

    Fair enough....among all the GOP-hopefuls for the Religious Right!

    What about Rudy as compared to the Triplets: Queenie, Magic and Pretty Boy? Didn't I see a Zogby Poll that showed Queenie having the highest (at 50%) "Won't vote for under any circumstance"....that sounds pretty scary....maybe it's just Halloween!

    Posted by Happy at 10/22/2007 @ 11:29am

16. A premonition by one of The Nation's writer? (Go to TN's Homepage for full articl)e.....

    The New GOP Means Business

    Bob Moser

    While the blogosphere and the mainstream pundits obsessed in unison--and don't they always obsess in unison?--...

    .....the message from Orlando is that the Republicans -- even with Giuliani or Romney bearing the standard -- are likely to be a lot more formidable than Democrats want to believe....

    Posted by Happy at 10/22/2007 @ 11:58am

17. Uh, HAPP...you SURE you want to quote Zogby polls?!??!?

    www.zogby.com

    v. McCain v. Giuliani v. Romney v. Thompson

    Clinton (7/14/2007)

    Clinton vs McCain----45%–43%

    Clinton vs Giuliani-----46%–41%

    Clinton vs Romney-----48%–38%

    Clinton vs Thompson-----47%–41%

    Posted by Mask at 10/22/2007 @ 12:50pm

18. Posted by MASK 10/22/2007 @ 12:50pm

    I like what you posted! 2% to 10% `gap'.....better than I expect at this point!

    Posted by Happy at 10/22/2007 @ 2:06pm

19. Well, HAPP, it has Clinton beating Giuliani by 5%.

    Now, since Hillary gets 50% "never vote for her" and Giuliani gets 43% "never vote for him"....that SEEMS to give Rudy a 2% lead over Hillary, as his 43 minus her 50 leaves 7% who would vote for him that would never vote for her....right?

    Ahh, but the problem comes in WHO says they will "never vote for ****". Hillary draws mostly from the Right, a little bit from the Left who will never vote for her. Guiliani draws partially from the Left, but ALSO a good number of the Right.

    So...in other words, those that will "never vote for Hillary" mostly come from the Right, who would never vote for her anyway so are meaningless. Those who will "never vote for Rudy" ALSO come (to a degree) from the Right who are....

    who Giuliani NEEDS to get elected!

    Hillary can afford to lose the Right....Rudy can't.

    Posted by Mask at 10/22/2007 @ 3:03pm

20. Hillary can afford to lose the Right....Rudy can't.

    Posted by MASK 10/22/2007 @ 3:03pm

    I still think Rudy will pick up more moderate votes than he'll lose on the very-religious right! One thing I'm pretty sure, some of the Religious Right may well choose NOT to vote for Rudy, but they won't be voting for Queenie!

    Now, can HRC afford to lose the conservative Dems or informed Indies who are NOT infatuated with being forced to buy health insurance or to pay higher taxes to pay for asset and business-rich families like the Frosts who, curiously, reported very modest incomes?

    Posted by Happy at 10/22/2007 @ 8:09pm

21. "Posted by JOMA 10/22/2007 @ 10:05am

    mornin', JM

    hey, are there any candidates you "value"?

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/22/2007 @ 10:26am

    Not yet...still waiting.

    Posted by JoMa at 10/22/2007 @ 8:22pm

22. I look it this way:

    Say there is 33% Dems, 33% Reps, and 33% Inds. The "not vote for" will be simplistically 33% (which are) Dems not voting for Rudy and 33% Reps not voting for HRC. Still there is 17% Inds not voting for HRC and 10% not voting for Rudy. So HRC has a theoretical maximum of 33+16=49 that might CONSIDER VOTING FOR HER, while Rudy has 57%. Both are "might consider" (not necessarily voting).

    Otherwise, from what the polls posted by MASK are saying Reps are topping to a max of 43% with McCain and 38% with Romney while Guiliani gets 41%. This means that from the 57% that would consider voting for Rudy, actually 41% are doing it. 41-33=8 that is 25% of the Inds will actually do it. Whereas from the 49% considering voting for HRC, finally 45% will finally do it. (She gets only 3/8 of the Inds!)

    My conclusions: -Out of the Reps, it is McCain that has more Inds that could actually support him, while Romney has the least. This is logical since Inds are not that to the right and while McCain is pro war still he is not that right politics inclined as the rest. -Hillary if nominated, is giving the Reps too much advantage because she tops only 49% and will only gather 3/8 of Inds, she jeopardizes a Dem win. - Finally this makes it clear that only about 60% of the population will vote against the war.

    That is what the numbers say....

    Posted by Frank42 at 10/22/2007 @ 10:28pm

23. Posted by HAPPY 10/22/2007 @ 8:09pm

    How did Rudy fair in the voting (not HAPPY theory of voting...but actual votes) at the "Family Values" conference, HAPP?

    Posted by Mask at 10/22/2007 @ 10:30pm

24. at the "Family Values" conference, HAPPY?

    Posted by MASK 10/22/2007 @ 10:30pm

    No.1, from the bottom up! But that's like saying how will HRC poll at a Peace Now conference with the full slate of Dem candidates there! What would be a really wild `conference' would be just having Rudy and Queenie there at the Family Values conference and everybody HAS to choose one of the two....what do you think?

    Posted by Happy at 10/22/2007 @ 11:03pm

25. Posted by HAPPY 10/22/2007 @ 11:03pm

    well, she's never been divorced.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2007 @ 11:09pm

26. well, she's never been divorced.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/22/2007 @ 11:09pm

    Good point....but Bill had given her ample opportunities for several wives' worth of divorces.....are you sue it's that much of a positive for Queenie?

    For MASK, FROSTY raised another UN-"more of the same" when compared to Bush or any other GOP Nominee in my memory!

    Posted by Happy at 10/22/2007 @ 11:15pm

27. What about Rudy as compared to the Triplets: Queenie, Magic and Pretty Boy? Didn't I see a Zogby Poll that showed Queenie having the highest (at 50%) "Won't vote for under any circumstance"....that sounds pretty scary....maybe it's just Halloween!

    Posted by HAPPY 10/22/2007 @ 11:29am

    CAREFUL WHOM YOU'RE CALLING "QUEENIE"...

    Huffpost (finally) posted a great lead photo of Rudia, which is to say, Rudy Giuliani as drag queen, beaming away in a blond wig and too much lipstick. Looks like Rudia is finally about to go mainstream, something I've been recommendin for some time. Then we'll see how those "values voters" react to the hero of 9/11....

    Posted by w_m_bear at 10/22/2007 @ 11:36pm