Road to 2008 considers a recent piece by Frank Rich in the NY Times & David Kirkpatrick in the NY Times magazine to wonder if the values voters influence isn’t waning.

I personally find it somewhat difficult to come to a conclusion on this issue. I do believe the far flanks of the party are waning in their influence. A year ago the conventional wisdom was that the anti-war wing of the Democrats would put their hold over the election. So far that has been anything but true. Meanwhile the conventional wisdom about the right was that religious conservatives would halt the chances of Giuliani, McCain & Romney and yet two of those three are in the top-tier and McCain is slowly putting his campaign back together.

It might be true that evangelical christians are willing to accept someone who will defend them and fight Clinton and put their “values” aside. In that case Giuliani seems the likely choice. He is a moderate who can speak to independents and aging Democrats who want fiscal conservation along with a strong defense, but not see their liberal social ideology imfringed upon.

He has experience as the mayor of NYC a city whose economy and infrastructure is like that of a small country. He was a federal prosecutor who showed he could maneuver inside of Washington. He is now a businessman who travels in very powerful circles and could well understand the right balance of fiscal responsibility and government oversight needed to create business, stay competitive in the world and build back the middle and upper classes.

It is somewhat ironic. If Giuliani stays a centrist as president, his presidency might not be unlike that of Bill Clinton. Yes there is the obvious family problems to compare it to but I am talking ideology. Clinton was never an ideologue with the far left and Giuliani try as he might will never truly be an ideologue of the far right. Like Clinton we will see welfare reform but probably not a complete destruction of the system. We will see deregulation, but not a rapid and destructive slide toward a complete lack of government oversight.

We will undoubtedly see small steps toward the environment, several powerful governors will have the ear of Giuliani and they will tell him it is what the states need. We will see a strong justice department that focuses on taking down criminals and enforcing the law, hopefully instead of using the resources for political and ideological gain as some can argue the Bush administration has used it.

Giuliani, especially if there is the Democratic Congress most expect him to have, will undoubtedly be more like Clinton than Bush.

See why conservatives might not want to back him?

These “values voters” already feel slighted by a Bush administration and a Republican congress that did not deliver a slew of campaign promises for the social right. With a Democratic Congress they are all but assured their agenda won’t be forwarded for some time, even with a Republican candidate. So why pick a Republican candidate that will all but guarentee their agenda won’t be on the calendar?

With no legislative agenda readily available and a presidency that from day one will face the kind of oversight that was lacking with a Bush administration, there is only one last power play for a Republican president to make. Picking the next Supreme Court nominee. There could well be as many as three vacancies on the court and they come from the more liberal side. Putting a young die-hard conservative in their place could shift the judicial branch for the next thirty to fifty years.

Giuliani has said he would support “strict constructionists” which is often a way of saying those who don’t support abortion and a host of other things. Yet as president any Republican for at least the first two years would face a Democratic Congress. After that they could well shift both Houses back. Which means a Republican could get another Roberts and Alito to the bench.

Can conservatives truly trust that Giuliani would do that? Is “strict constructionist” enough to nominate a pro-gun control, pro-gay rights, abortion funding New Yorker? Do values voters put aside ideology for pragmatism? Do they even see the election that way or is it a media concoction?

I think the jury is still in session. The fear of Hillary hasn’t played too well up until this point. However now that we get closer and now that the candidates have put her front and center, basically telling voters “ignore everything I ever said and did, just focus on her”, there could be a shift.

My guess though is this. We are probably looking at an election where many values voters either stay home, abstain from voting for the presidency or chose a third party candidate. If there is a strong third party candidate who appeals to libertarians AND social conservatives and isn’t Ron Paul, we could be looking at another Ralph Nader/Ross Perot year.

I just find it hard to think that these values voters will go over and support Rudy. Especially after eight years of George Bush. But then again, I am not one of them so who knows.