Ray Malone's Commentary

The one constant thread that runs through arguments made by Giuliani supporters is the need to defeat Hillary for President. Rudy supporters present their candidate with the admonition that Hillary MUST be defeated and the likable Rudy can do just that.

I have written this before. But I am writing it again, because it is a lesson learned the hard way. Today the very liberal Ted Strickland is governor of Ohio. It bothers me, because his political career could have ended with his defeat in his race for reelection to Congress in 1998. Ted had defeated a conservative, pro gun anti abortion candidate in 1996 by a handful of votes. The defeated Republican was Bob McEwen who had been involved in a banking scandal in congress. But McEwen even with the scandal in the headlines only lost by a handful of votes. Bill Clinton in 1996 won his race in Ohio by a much larger margin than Ted was won his race against a quite damaged conservative.

With a conservative candidate not tainted by scandal many of us felt that Strickland was ripe for an easy defeat in 1998. But George Voinovich, the moderate Republican Senator, did all he could to get the nomination for his friend and fellow moderate Republican, Nancy Hollister. Nancy was pro choice and Voinovich assured everyone she would do better in Southeastern Ohio than would a died in the wool full blown far out pro-life conservative.

As the campaign started I tried reaching out to the religious right, to get the same support we had gotten for the tainted but very conservative candidate in 1996. Had we gotten that support and with the regular Republican base no longer turned off by corruption, Ted Strickland could have been defeated. I Without Clinton pulling Democrats to the polls, and McEwen facing scandal charges, Ted would have been defeated by a real conservative. He had been defeated three times before and we were certain it could be done again. Four defeats and Ted would have been history. But Ted won a massive victory thanks to the moderate George Voinovich and his fellow moderate Nancy Hollister. Need I add that Michael DeWine found out what turning moderate does for a candidate in Ohio. Yes it elects a very very liberal Democratic Senator Brown. Of course the right was so busy trashing "REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR Taft. that they did not notice until election day that they had convinced all moderates that Republicans were all crooks and they should vote Democratic. But that is another column.

Back in 1998 the religious right refused to vote for pro abortion moderate Republican Nancy Hollister. Why? The Religious right believes that by supporting a pro abortion candidate, they are committing a sin that can send them to Hell for eternity. Their alternative to an eternity in Hell was to allow Ted Strickland to go back to congress. They did not care that Ted had further political ambitions that he might very well achieve. They did not want eternity in Hell.

From their standpoint it was a no brainer. And from a political standpoint it is easier to get them to become Atheists than it is to vote for a pro abortion candidate. It will be the same thing in 2008. They will see their choice as an eternity in Hell as opposed to Hillary being president. If you think you can convince them that Hillary is worse than an eternity in Hell you are not quite right ... are you?

Today there are those that say ... Rudy can win. He can pick up enough moderates to overcome the loss of the Religious right and then some. That is not the case in Southeastern Ohio and I doubt if it is anywhere in the USA.

Anyone who studies Nancy's attempt to defeat Ted and George Bush's attempt to defeat Kerry in Ohio, can clearly see my point.

Can we agree that if Rudy loses the Religious right, to win he will have to replace them? To replace them he will have to get the votes of some of those who voted for Kerry in 2004. Today's voter research shows that people who are pro choice and tend to vote Democratic, do so on three other issues. They are anti war, pro socialist programs, and for taxing the rich. Rudy will only have none of those issues and Hillary will have all three. One out of four ain't gonna do it for Rudy.

Hillary will be doing lots of promises for the "What will you do for me moderates." She is quite happy to allow Rudy to win the "I Like Him" moderate votes... just as Bush did in 2004. That is what is behind Hillary 5 grand for every kid ploy. She only needs to win her half of the moderate voters and have Rudy as her opponent. Rudy must win a very large majority of all the moderate votes. Not just the half that Bush won. That cannot be done against Hillary or any Democrat. Hillary is creating the view that she will do things for the moderates that no Republican will do.

It will be in 2008, exactly like Karl Rove predicted for the 2004 election. It would he said, come down to Ohio. Rove said there was no chance of getting enough so called moderate votes to over come the loss of the social conservatives that even a NEUTRAL stance on abortion and gun control would cost. Bush had to openly support GUNS and the LIFE OF THE UNBORN in order to win Ohio.. By 2004 even the media understood this was a pro Bush situation.

The original Kerry position was to ignore both issues. In a close race even pro abortion Democrats don't do well in Ohio. In desperation, late in the campaign, Kerry bought a hunting license and went hunting in the Ohio woods.. It was a desperation move to try to get pro gun votes. That move did not help him. It just reminded people that Kerry had always been pro gun control.

What Rove did was determine all the issues that could work together to elect a candidate. Fortunately for the Republican party, Bush was on the right side of all the important issues of 2004.

There are issues that win votes and issues that cost votes. There are some issues that cost some votes and gain some votes. For Democrats pro abortion and anti gun are issues that both cost Democrats and gain Democrats votes. The problem for Democrats is they cost them more votes than they gain. So they try to avoid the issues, or they try to straddle the issue. Remember Bill Clinton's 1992 position that abortion had to be LEGAL AND RARE..... RARE but LEGAL.. Remember that? Even Bill Clinton was not dumb enough to try to win with Rudy's position on abortion. Clinton knew that it would cost him the election.

A Democrat can straddle abortion, but no Republican dares do so.. It takes an open and honest opposition to abortion to win as a Republican. And to win Ohio Democrats have to waffle the issue. The trend is in the pro life direction. It was a contributing issue in 1980. It is a very very important issue in 2008.

For Republicans in every election since 1976 a pro life stance has been a positive issue. It gains votes for Republican candidates with out costing any other votes. Just as a Pro Gun stance for Republican candidates gains votes with out costing them any.

Sadly for Rudy, anti gun and pro abortion cost votes while gaining nothing.

I covered the Reagan Campaign in 1980. Reagan's stump speech mentioned the value of unborn life. He mentioned his pro life stance in every speech. My fellow media members thought Reagan was an idiot to do so. Back in 1980 pro abortion was polling as the majority public opinion. Reagan knew is was the minority position at that time, but still included it in his stump speech. Today Pro Life is in the public majority.

Reagan's polling had determined one other fact. Reagan knew that pro life voters were single issue Voters. They will not vote for any pro abortion candidate. But pro abortion voters are not single issue voters. Thus an anti abortion candidate who can appeal on economic and foreign policy issues can get pro abortion votes.

That is what confuses the Rudy supporters today. They could vote for a pro life candidate and they could vote for a pro abortion candidate. They don't understand why others are not as flexible on the issue as they are. I would ask them if they could support a surrender now candidate? If they can't the only difference between them and the Religious Right is the single issue they must have their way.

Bush won Ohio by 120 thousand votes in 2004. He got over 300 thousand votes of the Religious right. Bush won 1/2 of the moderate voters. That left those whose leanings are to the left of center to vote for Kerry.. His supporters will tell you Rudy can win those votes. What would Rudy have to do to get those left of center moderate votes? He would have to give them on more of what they want than Hillary will. He would have to come out in support of surrender in the war on TERROR and be for Tax Increases on the Rich and favor SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.

But if he does that he will get next to zero votes from the Republican base including most of those who support him today.

It is just like Karl Rove said in 2004. To win a vote that is to the left of center, costs 2 votes to the right of center. Two in the hand is never worth one in the bush.

Rudy is telling us he can win more of the left while losing a few on the right. If you believe that and vote that way, you find out you were wrong on election evening 2008.

Don't fail to learn the lessons that every successful Republican candidate from 1980 on has known.

Pro Abortion for a Republican candidate is PRO DEFEAT in the states a Republican must WIN. Hillary to get a majority of votes will be quietly for legal but loudly for VERY VERY RARE.

Think about it before you vote.