CAUTION PRECAUCION ATTENTION
VORSICHT ПРЕДУПРЕЖДЕНИЕ
주의 ATTENZIONE 注意
GRAPE
Posted on 11/06/2007 10:42:42 AM PST by logician2u
Paul Weyrich, one of the nation’s most influential conservative leaders, says he is out to prevent Rudy Giuliani from winning the Republican nomination for president — and predicts the religious right will unite behind any GOP candidate except Rudy.
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.com, Weyrich also predicts Republicans face a “disaster” in the Senate in next year’s elections, says Hillary Clinton would be the easiest Democratic candidate to defeat, and charges that the Bush administration’s Iraq policy has been a “mistake” from the beginning.
Weyrich is no stranger to speaking his mind. As Chairman and CEO of the Washington-based Free Congress Foundation, he has long been recognized as one of America’s most thoughtful and principled conservatives.
He was founding president of the Heritage Foundation, one of the largest and most respected public policy research institutes and a major force in advancing conservative policies.
He was also instrumental in the formation of Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority.
Weyrich is a regular guest on radio and television talk shows, a frequent contributor to major U.S. publications, including Newsmax.
Newsmax: Can the Republicans hang on to the White House?
Weyrich: It’s very doubtful. The American people think that Republicans run Washington and so when they are very upset about what’s going on here – they hate the Congress and everything else – they’re going to blame the Republicans and will end up voting against us.
Newsmax: Do you agree with [Focus on the Family founder Dr. James] Dobson — will he bolt the GOP if Giuliani wins the nomination?
Weyrich: I think we have to examine that very carefully. It seems to me that we would want to make sure that we don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. I think it’s too early to make that judgment. I’m not for Giuliani. I want to try to stop him from getting the nomination.
If he does get it, and I’m not sure that he will, it seems to me that we need to negotiate with him and determine whether or not we can pin down a whole series of promises that he would make [and then make] a judgment as to whether those promises are any good.
We need to make that judgment if the opportunity presents itself.
Newsmax: Is there any way the party can support a candidate who supports abortion and gay rights like Giuliani?
Weyrich: If he simply opposes a constitutional amendment but supports the Hyde Amendment [banning use of federal funds for abortion], supports parental notification, parental consent, and a whole number of other things, we can probably live with that.
The gay rights issue is much more complicated. He would have to renounce outright his current position. Unless we could get that from him I don't know that we can support him.
Newsmax: What do you think of Mitt Romney?
Weyrich: I think he is somebody who is rushing toward the movement trying to present himself as a conservative and in some ways it's more useful to have somebody like that. I think he could be supported.
Newsmax: What about Mike Huckabee?
Weyrich: I like him and he certainly is somebody who can give a stemwinder but I have learned so many things about his waffling positions, and conservatives in Arkansas don't like him at all. They say he left the conservative movement in Arkansas in shambles when he left the governorship early this year. There are a whole lot of things – he came out for civil unions, he came out for D.C. statehood - that cause me not to be able to support him.
Newsmax: Who would you consider of all these candidates in the Republican primary race to be the best?
Weyrich: If you mean by that who’s the best campaigner, I think Romney is if you look at his lead in the early states as a result of arduous campaigning. I'd be more comfortable if Fred Thompson were, but he’s a poor campaigner.
Newsmax: According to the New York Times, the religious right is in disarray. Do you agree with that?
Weyrich: No, I don't agree with that. It's not in disarray. The problem is this: I tried for over a year to get people - values voters if you will - to support a single candidate because I thought if we can support a single candidate we would have real clout. I failed in that respect. People went 14 different ways. If you look at every campaign you will find religious right figures involved with it. As a result we are a small fish in a large pond, instead of being a large fish in a smaller pond. It's really unfortunate, but are we in disarray? No.
When a candidate emerges with the nomination, unless it's Giuliani, I think we will end up in pretty good shape in supporting that candidate. With Giuliani we probably will have a problem because some people will want to go the Dobson [third party] route but if it's not Giuliani and it’s one of the other candidates I think you'll see people coalescing behind that candidate.
Newsmax: Who do you think would be the easiest Democratic candidate to beat next year, Obama or Hillary?
Weyrich: Hillary I think would be the easiest because she has a record, number one. Number two she is a polarizing figure - a lot of people don't like her and if you start out with that, that's good. On the other hand, the Clintons will stop at nothing to elect her. They are the most arduous and vicious campaigners on the face of the earth. I think she probably would win but nevertheless the margin would be very, very close. I think that there's a chance at least to defeat her.
Newsmax: What do you think will happen in the elections for the House of Representatives next year? What are the chances of Republicans retaking control of the House?
Weyrich. Fairly poor. The NRCC [National Republican Congressional Committee] chairman points to the fact that there are 61 districts in which Democrats hold seats that were carried by George Bush. (There are only eight districts that Republicans hold that were carried by John Kerry.) So they are targeting 18 or 20 of those districts very heavily and they're going to point out that the promises that were made by the candidates in those districts simply were not fulfilled. Do the voters care about that? I'm not sure.
We'll see. That's going to be a very tight situation in my opinion. My former colleague Stu Rothenberg feels that there could be a swing of five to 10 seats either way. That still wouldn’t be enough if the swing were towards the Republicans – it would not be enough to carry the House. On the other hand if you get that close you might be able to have party switchers - that's a possibility.
Newsmax: What about the Senate?
Weyrich: The Senate is going to be a disaster. I think we could lose six seats. Right now with 49 seats they can stop virtually anything. For example, I think they'll be able to defeat the Law of the Sea Treaty. If they lose six seats they’d be down to 43. With that number, considering that some of those would be liberals, you’re not going to be able to stop much.
The chairman of the Senatorial Committee was at my recent lunch and he was very candid. He didn't say anything about every seat being won. He basically [predicted] a net [loss] of two seats — he thinks they're going to lose three but pick up Louisiana. If they only lost two seats and they have 47 that would be good.
Newsmax: Given the situation with Bush, his low popularity, how can the Republican Party differentiate itself from his policies?
Weyrich: The only way they can do it is by voting no on various programs and propositions. That’s the only way possible.
Newsmax: Do you still support the President on Iraq?
Weyrich: No, I don't. I never have. I felt that it was a mistake to go in there in the first place. We should not be taking initiatives like that with NATO. We're only supposed to defend if attacked. We should not be making initiatives when not attacked. Yes, you can say that on the periphery we were attacked, but we weren’t attacked in the way that is traditionally understood.
One thing for sure, if we were going to go we should have very carefully examined the Baath party people to determine which ones were there because they were really Saddam's Murder Inc., and which ones were there because they were competent people who knew how to run a country. We made the mistake of throwing them all out. As a result there has been utter chaos there for a long period of time — lots of unnecessary deaths, going on 100,000. It's been very chaotic for the people. I just felt that it was a mistake from the beginning.
Newsmax: Would you favor bombing Iran?
Weyrich: I hope we don't have to. My feeling is that we ought to be working more assiduously with the young people there. In the countryside there is no support for the current regime. The only people that support that regime are the ayatollahs. The young people who are a majority of the country absolutely do not support Ahmadinejad so we ought to be finding ways to funnel funds and faxes and computers and every means of communication even to the point of arming some of them, which would be much preferable to our bombing them. Bombing would turn the population against us whereas now in Iran they are probably more pro-American than any other place on earth.
As one of the nation's leading social conservatives, one might be tempted to think Paul Weyrich falls into line with the so-called religious right on matters of war and peace and kicking a$$ in the mideast.
Not the case. Sorry to disappoint you.
Read it and weep.
more reasons to forget about the top tier...the RudyMcRomney liberal wing of the Republican Party.
Weyrich has always been a little defeatist. He’s got a little of the Buchanan/Spengler “decline of western civilization” streak.
I agree with Weyrich on Rudy. I disagree with Weyrich on Iraq.
Do you think Western Civilization isn’t declining? No attacking. Just wondering.
Did you read the interview to the point where Weyrich explains the disarray of the religious right? And how he tried without success to get everybody behind the same candidate? I doubt that your man was involved in those discussions, but he might have been.
Weyrich's endorsement will be worth quite a few votes for Romney, but his opposition to Gouliani is unlikely to change any minds, IMHO. His constituency does not overlap with Weyrich's to a large extent.
So, apparently, do most of the religious right, if the polls are accurate.
However, a solid majority of Americans are coming around. If things don't improve substantially by next November, Republicans who cling to the current policy could take some serious losses.
He endorsed Steve Forbes on 2000.
only time will tell.....and yes I did read to the point asked.
I agree. We should use "the creme de la scum"... /grin
Nice Sept 10th mentality.
Our civilization is sick, but unless we can envision a better future, it won’t happen. We conservatives are the ones who have to fix it and I’m not interested in “re-deployment.” Some think this century will be dominated by China, but not me. I’m looking forward to a New American Century. My motto is not “the West is doomed,” but rather “Reclaim America for Christ.”
Using this logic the U.S. should not have entered WWI.
How is it defeatist to recognize what's what? Even if Weyrich has a 'decline of western civilization' streak in him it doesn't mean that he is just sitting around waiting for it to happen.
Weyrich has done so much to support the conservative cause and the USA, that if he were to go into retirement tomorrow, he would still be considered one of the top ten most truly influential conservatives in modern American history.
And BTW, preemptive wars in foreign countries are not conservative in any way, shape, or form.
Also, there is a problem identifying evangelicals too closely with conservatism: conservatism is a political philosophy that doesn't always agree with Christian principles. If you are a true believer, then you can't always do the conservative thing. Invading Iraq was a "true believer" activity which doesn't jibe with conservative principles.
Oh, then this would be your site. <G>
What’s not conservative about Steve Forbes? As far as I’m concerned, Forbes is more conservative than W.
So, how do we turn the clock back?
When Weyrich said a few years back that the culture was lost, and to concentrate on our families, I have to admit I thought he was premature, although I certainly have frequently had the same sinking feeling.
I can remember several years ago, I was in Geneva, working for a pro-family NGO, watching the lefties at the UN try to set up a system of laws to punish traditional Christians. I called home, and asked my youngest child — 16 and the only one left at home — whether she was studying her scriptures and praying regularly, because it was the only thing that would save her. I still think that may well be true.
What is your plan for recapturing the culture?
Weyrich: No, I don't. I never have. I felt that it was a mistake to go in there in the first place. We should not be taking initiatives like that with NATO. We're only supposed to defend if attacked. We should not be making initiatives when not attacked. Yes, you can say that on the periphery we were attacked, but we weren’t attacked in the way that is traditionally understood.
What a ninny.
You'll find many learned people in agreement on that point.
A typical well-though-out reply from the resident warmonger.
Absolutely. I don’t want to America to retreat from the world, stick our heads in the sand and wait for western civilization’s impending doom. I want America to dominate the whole world forever. Should I want someone else to dominate the world? Which one of our enemies should I prefer to be the most powerful nation in the world?
Being called a warmonger by the likes of you is a badge of honor.
You got that right, unless you're of the "neo" persuasion.
Maybe as of today.
I certianly didn’t think so in 2000.
GRAPE
I don't hate Romney, but just think he is a person who says what you want to hear. Furthermore, all of our candidates are superior to Hillary.
Jeez I thought Weyrich was practically dead. Nice to see him still kickin’.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.There are costs associated with empire, costs few who "want" to dominate the whole world forever even so much as think about.
“We’re only supposed to defend if attacked.”
—
Like sheep led to the slaughterhouse. very baaaaad policy
And embellishing your non-message with another non-message.
You're pathetic.
It’s grape? Holy moly I didn’t realize it was that series.
And hugh!
Very intelligent response. The Bush presidency has been an unmitigated disaster for conservatives, and if the GOP stubbornly clings to Bush’s policy on Iraq, the party will suffer an even worse defeat than it did in 2006.
Sounds very Ron Paul...
It was the Joooooooooos!
‘Weyrich has always been a little defeatist’
Yep.
It was not a response. Just a call out to some friends who enjoy a good laugh.
‘Read it and weep.’
I’m beginning to suspect that will be the sumation of a lot of threads here after the GOP primaries are concluded.
yeah let’s all be like democrats and maybe they’ll vote for us
Some people are now trying to justify the retreat of certain Presidential candidates from the battle to end abortion, by insisting that the battle is lost, so we should give up. Never! They say that we'll never pass an amendment to protect unborn human life, and that Roe V. Wade will never be overturned. Whether it takes 40 years or 400 years, we will bring an end to the killing of the unborn in this country, just like the Republican Party brought an end to 400 years of slavery.
Conservatives must know not just what we're fighting, but what we believe in. The reason conservatives have lost so much ground is that we have been "standing athwart history, yelling stop." Instead we must seize the reins of history and advance!
We must defend our Christian heritage. Too many have conceded the ground of the education of America's youth to the enemy. Getting rid of public schools is a great idea, but Americans just don't want that. Therefore, we must take over the schools ourselves. We must put God back into the schools and use them to teach our own ideals and values to the next generation.
Enough of this libertarian idea that all government is bad. That's why libertarians have never been elected to anything. They don't have any program of what they want to do when elected. Instead of hiding out from the government in the woods in our camo fatigues, we must take over the government and use it for our own purposes!
i think you are right. illegal immigration is really the big story but noone
will touch it except tancredo. weyrich is as oblivious as the rest
of the inside the beltway types. he is totally off the mark.
WIFE-O-BUCKHEAD
I’m always a little skeptical when a back room, mover and Party shaker comes out strongly for or against candidate(s). Who knows - maybe he tried to get all the candidates to endorse his own private platform and one or more told him to stick it where the sun don’t shine.
Only “true believers” round these parts live in their momma’s basement and vote Ron Paul...
The rest of us understand that we must have something to conserve, like a country, to be conservatives...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.