Posted on 11/03/2004 2:51:49 PM PST by BallparkBoys
Ok,
First off, sorry for the Vanity. And this is my first ever new thread. I would be interested in your opinions on this.
Nominating Rudy Guliani in '08 would be almost certain failure for the GOP. Tuesday's election screamed few things to me: CONSERVATISM!!! MORAL VALUES, and ANTI GAY-MARRIAGE. The voting block that delivered the vote most consistently for W was Evangelical Christians. Fully 25% of all Ohio voters put themselves in that category, and they voted 3-1 for Bush. Without that block, Bush loses the election. Evangelicals were driven to the polls by 1. a man of character, 2. the chances for some decent Supreme Court Justices, and 3. the referendums on gay marriage. Having the gay marriage issue on the ballot in Ohio probably won the election for W.
1. People can see that Bush is more a man of his word than Kerry is. He says things that he believes rather things that people want to hear. Kerry is just the opposite.
2. With the weak-kneed RINO's in the Senate, its no telling who we can get in there as judges, but it SHOULD be better than what Kerry would have given us.
3. Bans on gay marriage have ALWAYS gone 60% + (dont know the final results in Oregon) in EVERY state its been voted on. There is WIDESPREAD support for bans even in the most liberal states.
Ok, so can we agree that the electorate showed a swing to the right and did so emphatically. They voted in new Rep Senators, House members and reelected our Conservative President. So the question is: WHY GO BACK TO THE LEFT WHEN THE PEOPLE TELL YOU TO GO RIGHT???
Rudy, while a good executive and a fine politician is PRO ABORTION, PRO GAY MARRIAGE, and cheated on his wife. In 1992 GHW Bush pissed off his base with his tax issue and the conservatives stayed home. BUSH LOST! In 2000, W's drunk driving unfortunately (and wrongly in my opinion) drove the Christian conservatives to stay home, thus losing the popular vote and creating Florida's day in the spotlight. In 2004, Bush runs on a -lower tax, faith based initative, Pro life, pro gay marriage ban, man of virtue and faith- platform and wins by 3.5 MILLION votes.
Why would we want to turn back to the Rockefeller-Republican days of the 70's???
Govern and run on a platform of tax reform, tort reform, SOLID judges, PRO LIFE, PRO GAY MARRIAGE BAN, and watch the people come out in droves. When Hillary tacks to the center, we dont need to follow!!!
Your comments are welcome
Exactly. That's why he'd make a good Gov of NY, or better yet a Senator after ousting Hillary in 2 yrs. His unacceptability to social conservatives would be no different than Dem refusal to accept Sen Nelson of Nebraska or Bayh of Indiana.
Giuliani's problem is that he isn't even a social moderate, as often labeled by the press, but instead is a bonafide liberal on social and cultural issues.
It's no secret that social conservatives/Christian conservatives, do not support pro-choice candidates. And the major reason people supported PresBush, was for his moral stance on the issues and his efforts in the WoT. So I wouldn't consider Rudi Giuliani, or another social liberal, a good candidate for the 2008 GOP nomination.
Your slogan sounds like you HAVE been smokin crack!
I believe that the first black President will be a Republican, and dittos for the first woman President. Republicans will have NO problem voting for a black man, or a woman (or a black woman, for that matter) who holds the majority of their views. That's why race hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will never be President, and women like Geraldine Ferraro couldn't do it, and neither will Hillary. They are lightning rods, and are WAY too liberal and radical feminist for most in this country.
Dr.Rice is a great advisor to PresBush, but has absolutely no political credentials to speak of. No political chops to speak of either.
My posting was meant to be a parody comment.
Actually the first variation I heard of it came from Alan Keyes when he was running for president.
I have long felt the same way, but I'd offer you one caveat to consider. Suppose W. gets his THREE SC nominations confirmed,a nd all of his appellate court hjudges through as well. The court system is then basically in good hands for the next 20 years, so Rudy can't do damage. Under that scenario, especially if there is no other strong GOP candidate to take on Hillary, the conservative right might be willing to go along with Rudy for President, especially with a strong moral values VP choice..
Oh come on - while I'm not particular fan of pro-choice pro-gun control candidates, Guiliani would crush the opposition.
You want to rally the republicans? Hillary Clinton people. We could run a chimp against her and the republican base would come flying out against her.
Not only that, Guiliani isn't a liberal-republican... his more of a libertarian-republican. People like Olympia Snowe are liberal republicans... they puss out on tax relief, on any strong international stances, they compromise and they moderate their views.
Guiliani and those like him are HARD CORE people, no compromise, extremism, but they do have some stances that are not conservative. That will completely take out the liberal northeast, BIG TIME, not just NY. He may lose a couple southern states, but certainly not enough to lose, and CERTAINLY he would pick off several states (including CA I believe) that would make up for any small loss.
It would be a landslide in the GE people.
Perhaps he won't make it out of the primary, but still, I think he should be strongly considered. Very strong republican, with a couple non-conservative stances.
But if he doesn't get it, I am a Romney man.
Matt
I resent your vanity posting. It's stupid.
Why post this now? Let us enjoy winning yesterday and forget about 2008 for awhile. I was part of a group of people that the 2000 campaign never ended and I sure could care less right now who we nominate in 2008 -- it is too far away and a lot can change.
Do you think that everyone can cut the crap on who we nominate in 2008 for awhile?
It's a shame that he's so liberal because otherwise he would make an excellent candidate. He's certainly a top-notch executive.
I'm already planning "Duke/Powell '08" bumper stickers.
(That's David Duke and Colin Powell.)
Seriously, not a Rudy fan myself- hey, I'm from (upstate) NY- I know how far left you have to run to get elected in this state- take a look at JFKerry and Chucky Schumer's margins of victory here. I really can't see the RNC going with Giuliani. Even with him on the ticket, having been a popular and successful NYC mayor, the Libs downstate are never going to go republican in numbers significant enough to make NY a red state.
If we can get the constitution amended in time, how about:
"Schwarzenegger/Rice '08"
I also think, when Dick Cheney retires due to ill health in the next year or two, Bush should appoint either Condi or Colin as VP. That would immediately tear a huge, bleeding hole in the democrat base, and expose the rest of the "black community" as the socialist demagogues they truly are.
The Republican party needs to get rid of the RINOs and the Neo-cons.
We've all seen what happens when you say that character doesn't matter. You get the like of Clinton and his ilk. If Hillary decides to run in 2008 how about a GOP candidate who's every bit as smart as she is. What about Condoleeza Rice?
John Kasich...good Ohio republican. socially and economically conservative with roots in blue collar Pennsylvania.
Thanks, don't know much about him but will try to find out what I can. I still like Condi though!
I can DEFINITELY agree with that.....I just wanted to "nip this Rudy thing in the bud" as Barn' would say.. :)
You're both right....It IS too early to post this, but I just kept seeing his name posted over and over and started getting frustrated with that and wanted to keep the momentum that we established last night.
Last night was WONDERFUL, and we should bask in that right now....
"Under that scenario, especially if there is no other strong GOP candidate to take on Hillary, the conservative right might be willing to go along with Rudy for President, especially with a strong moral values VP choice.."
I see your point, but the primaries simply have too many 'uncomprimisers' that would prevent him from clinching a nomination. There attitude would be if the GOP can't get an electable true blue conservative on the ticket, that's God's will...
Trying to 'adjust' the ticket simply to defeat Hillary would never be an option. Besides, remember that from one perspective, Bill Clinton's election was the best thing that ever happenend to the GOP ... we got both houses b/c of him. Can you imagine what would be the benefits to the GOP if Hillary actually acquired power and then began to swing it around??? After, she was holding the wooden stick below the dummys head all along anyway...
Just a suggestion; next time use the" /sarcasm" comment at the end of the post, so no one will mis-interpret. ;o)
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.