Bopp Warns Of Rudy Win Unless Social Conservatives Rally Around Romney

The Atlantic ^ | 18 October 2007 | Marc Ambinder

[Spiff]

Values Voters: Bopp Warns Of Rudy Win Unless Social Conservatives Rally Around Romney

Marc Ambinder
The Atlantic Online
18 Oct 2007 09:06 am

James Bopp Jr., the legendary pro-life activist and attorney, has turned into one of the more effective surrogates for Mitt Romney and his pro-life conversion.

In a letter Bopp sent to hundreds of social conservatives this week, he agrees with fellow Romney adviser Mark DeMoss that unless social conservatives coalesce around Mr. Romney, the nomination is Rudy Giuliani's to lose. With 100 days to go, Bopp writes with a sense of urgency. His e-mail was obtained from a Romney supporter.

Writes Bopp, "While several of the other candidates are certainly fine social conservatives, none has established his viability as a serious presidential contender. Only Mitt Romney has the resources to compete with Rudy Giuliani for the nomination."

[Spiff]

Here's the full letter:

Prominent evangelical Mark DeMoss recently circulated a letter to leaders of evangelical organizations urging support for Governor Mitt Romney. His point: the Republican Party will likely pick a Presidential nominee in the next 100 days (by February 5th) and, unless social conservatives rally behind Mitt Romney, the nominee will be Rudy Giuliani.

I share Mark's choice of Mitt Romney and the urgency of Mark's call. While several of the other candidates are certainly fine social conservatives, none has established his viability as a serious presidential contender. Only Mitt Romney has the resources to compete with Rudy Giuliani for the nomination.

In January, I argued that Mitt Romney was an acceptable choice for social conservatives. Since then, Massachusetts Citizens for Life has given Mitt Romney an award for his consistent and courageous defense of life as Governor, and prominent Massachusetts pro-life activist and philanthropist, Ray Ruddy, has endorsed him.

Other evangelical leaders have weighed in on the acceptability of the leading Republican candidates. Dr. James Dobson, America's most influential evangelical leader, has expressed his opinion that Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Fred Thompson are not acceptable, based on their positions on various important conservative issues. I have explained Fred Thompson's adamant support of McCain-Feingold, while in the Senate and when it was before the U.S. Supreme Court in the McConnell case.

Two other prominent evangelical leaders, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, have recently expressed their view that Mitt Romney is an acceptable choice for social conservatives.

So it does come down to two things: (1) the viability of the candidate, which only Mitt Romney has demonstrated among the socially conservative candidates, and (2) whether social conservatives will have the courage to rally around the only viable social conservative alternative to Rudy Giuliani. A divided field means that Giuliani is likely to win the nomination. This is our choice to make, and we don't have long to make it.

James Bopp, Jr.

P.S. One final point, while much attention has been focused on Mitt Romney's conversion to the pro-life cause while Governor, resulting in his vetoes of pro-abortion bills and earning him an award from the Massachusetts Citizens for Life, on other issues he has been a remarkably consistent conservative. Read for yourself this 1994 candidate comparison piece:

[Spiff]

• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List •

[zerosix]

I just love getting “warned”.

[highball]

I just love getting “warned”.

So do I.

First it was the Ruddites, warning us that a primary vote for anyone but Rudy was a vote for Hillary. Now it's a Romney supporter making silly claims.

Lots of scare tactics trying to convince us that we can't possibly just vote for, you know, a real conservative.

[trisham]

I’m Catholic, and I’m voting for Fred Thompson.

[zerosix]

"Lots of scare tactics trying to convince us that we can't possibly just vote for, you know, a real conservative."

Makes one think that they know their "guy" (whichever RINO supporter speaks)does NOT have the proverbial snowball's chance in Hell to win unless ALL real conservatives get behind him.

If you're confident in your position, you don't have to go around "warning" people.

Once these "front runners" get old and some of the fresh conservative voices in the back of the pack can get some of the press time, these RINOs fear that conservatives will realize that they do have a REAL choice and THEY AREN'T IT!

I remember being threatened and warned by the Bob Dole supporters in the 90s and going along with them. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice --- well you get the idea.

NO MORE RINOS!

[1Old Pro]

I’m Catholic, and I’m voting for Fred Thompson.

Out of the "top 3", as I have dismissed McLame, I prefer Fred. However at this point it seems possible that unless Fred makes a good early primary showing it's Rudy v. Mitt.....given that match-up I prefer Mitt.

[org.whodat]

You mittwitt bots out early today. I will put it in plan language, I’ll vote for mitt the day hell freezes over, never going to vote for a liberal.

[trisham]

I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it. :)

[Dante3]

What nonsense to declare that Rudy is a conservative.

I cannot understand how Rudy can possibly lead among the GOP candidates with his pro abortion, pro amnesty, pro gun control, anti marriage agenda. The judges he appointed speaks for itself. Then are the several scandals. Rudy sounds like Hillary. Could Democrats be pretending to be Republicans in the polls?

[Grig]

I think Mitt is going to the the nomination. All you conservatives who gnash your teeth at that idea better come to grips with it being a choice between Mitt and Hilary in ‘08.

[Spiff]

I think Mitt is going to the the nomination. All you conservatives who gnash your teeth at that idea better come to grips with it being a choice between Mitt and Hilary in ‘08.

If it isn't Mitt, then it will be Giuliani and in that case we will LOSE the general election. With a third party made up of the Ron Paulites and the fourth party made up of the evangelicals and other social conservatives who can't, in good conscience, vote for Giuliani you've got a recipe for disaster. Disaster not only in 2008 but for the future of the Republican Party. Either we get everyone else out of the way to put Romney up there against Giuliani or we're doomed to a Giuliani nomination which would literally destroy the Republican Party and lose the election. That is what is at stake.

[Spiff]

What nonsense to declare that Rudy is a conservative.

True. But who said that Giuliani was a conservative? I must have missed something.

[mission9]

I have come to the same conclusion. I have watched both Rudy and Romney campaign in person. Thompson is a no-show. Romney has presidential charisma, he has the resources and I agree with him on virtually every issue.

[Dante3]

I have read this not once or twice but several times, but no longer recall where it was posted. IIRC, even Rudy's camp has declared him a "conservative."

Although Mitt is not my top choice, I believe he will win the nomination. He has a number of things going for him, including among the lacking Rudy's baggage and appearing presidential. At the moment, I am at a loss to explain why Rudy should be at the top of polls considering he sounds like Hillary. In any case, Mitt is far better than Hillary, Rudy, or McCain.

[Spiff]

At the moment, I am at a loss to explain why Rudy should be at the top of polls considering he sounds like Hillary.

Simple explanation: Name recognition. Big money and a pack of lies. Widescale ignorance of his liberal views and record.

[darkangel82]

Mitt and Hillary? That’s like a choice between vinegar and prune juice.

[finnman69]

With a third party made up of the Ron Paulites and the fourth party made up of the evangelicals and other social conservatives who can't, in good conscience, vote for Giuliani you've got a recipe for disaster.

The nutjobs who vote for Ron Paul will constitute less thana 1/10th of a percent. A pro-life third party might do even worse.

Hillary would crush Romney. BTW.

[Dante3]

My top choices are Tancredo/Hunter/Thompson. However Mitt is far better than Rudy or Hillary that there is no comparison. I would take Mitt any time over Hillary.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Hillary beats every R candidate in the latest Rasmussen polling matchups. Rudy and Mitt lose by the least and nearly identical margin.