Too many here think there is something noble about casting their lot with a candidate who has absolutely NO chance of winning ... a la Keyes.
Posted on 01/25/2007 8:32:31 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Rudy Giuliani's star has hardly dimmed in the five years since terrorists attacked his city on Sept. 11, 2001, and he became a national hero _ the face of U.S. resolve at a time of tragedy.
The Republican dubbed "America's Mayor" hopes to ride that celebrity and his record at City Hall to the White House by emphasizing his leadership skills and embracing the strong-on-security, limited-government tenets of the GOP.
"If he can handle the scrutiny, and if events break his way, sure, he can win," said Fred Siegel, who wrote a Giuliani biography, "The Prince of the City."
Giuliani's quest to capture his party's presidential nomination won't be easy.
He's a moderate Republican from New York City, on the wrong side of social issues in the eyes of hard-core conservatives who are a crucial voting bloc in the primaries. His mayoral tenure was marked by criticism of an overzealous police force. He's linked to the city's scandal-plagued ex-police chief Bernard Kerik. His thicket of business interests could pose conflicts. He's been divorced twice.
"I sure have strengths and weaknesses," Giuliani said recently. "I think that sort of puts me in the same category as just about everybody else that's running. Are my strengths greater or my weaknesses worse? I don't know. You have to sort of examine that. That won't be the issue."
His challenge will be to remind voters of his take-charge attitude on Sept. 11 and his two-term mayoral reign, at the same time his main rivals _ Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney _ no doubt will try to exploit his background and record. For now, both are trying to gauge how much of a threat he may be.
Giuliani, who formed a presidential exploratory committee last year, is betting that the Republican rank-and-file will look past his liabilities. His aides dismiss skeptics who say he has too many flaws to win over primary voters a year from now.
"I believe they'll look at the picture as a whole," said Tony Carbonetti, Giuliani's longtime political adviser. "This (New York) was an unmanageable city, and I think what people want today is a manager, someone to lead in difficult times and to lead in not-difficult times.
"We're going to continue to tell that story," he said.
Before Sept. 11, Giuliani was known as the hard-charging prosecutor-turned-politician who cleaned up Times Square, led the city out of fiscal despair and brought Republican rule back to the liberal mecca.
Giuliani, of course, made enemies in the process, but on Sept. 11 even his chronic critics were muted when he took charge amid the rubble of the World Trade Center's twin towers. To many, he became a picture of strength, a reminder of the resilience of the American spirit.
"He has a connection to that. He is unique. On the other hand you look at the politics and you say this is a problem," said Alex Vogel, a Republican strategist in Washington who is not affiliated with any presidential candidate.
"The question is: Can you win a Republican primary a different way? History keeps saying no. But history has never presented us with someone whose favorability numbers are as high as Rudy's."
Indeed, national polls have consistently shown him leading for the GOP nomination, and early surveys in key states show him ahead or competitive. He travels to one important state, New Hampshire, this weekend where he will give the keynote address at the state GOP's annual meeting.
For all the hype since 2001, Giuliani didn't start preparing for a presidential run in earnest until after November's elections. Thus, he has lagged behind McCain and Romney in courting fundraisers, setting up a national organization and hiring ground operatives in key states, although he has made progress on all fronts recently.
Giuliani's aides insist they're making strides toward filling out his campaign. They say he can raise the $80 million to $100 million necessary this year for a serious run. Name recognition, obviously, isn't an issue.
Neither, his supporters argue, is likability. They say he appeals to people across the political spectrum and in every region of the country, meaning he could expand the general election playing field. That, his backers say, makes him the Republican most likely to beat the presumptive Democratic front-runner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
Perhaps.
But first he has to capture the GOP nomination _ and the big question is whether he can win over enough Republicans in states like Iowa and South Carolina, among the first nominating contests where voters are solid conservatives and could be turned off by his stance on social issues.
"Giuliani is going to have to convince people that he's more conservative than his record otherwise would suggest," said Peverill Squire, who teaches politics at the University of Iowa.
The former mayor's support for abortion rights, gay rights and gun control conflict with the hard-line positions of the GOP's right. His supporters say he's not as liberal on those issues as he's made out to be. Still, he's from New York _ and that alone rankles the party's conservative wing.
Despite that, Giuliani's backers contend _ and some Republican strategists agree _ that he could get support from fiscal conservatives because of his record of cutting taxes, curbing spending and promoting small government, particularly now when the base is smarting over the soaring federal deficit under Republicans.
And, with the country still at war, his link to Sept. 11 _ the brand of a strong leader _ could trump the base's concerns about his background and stand on social issues.
"Giuliani's national security credentials will allow him to span ideological divides in the Republican Party and win conservative votes," said Greg Strimple, a GOP strategist in New York who is neutral in the race.
Unknown is whether Giuliani can woo enough of those base Republican voters to win the nomination and, if not, whether he can make up the difference by attracting independents and Democrats.
"His opening could come if people really think that somebody like Hillary is running away with it, and if there's a perception that only Giuliani can beat her," said John Truscott, an unaffiliated Republican strategist in Michigan.
Another factor that could help Giuliani is how the primary calendar shakes out.
New Hampshire and Michigan hold early contests, and New Jersey, California, Illinois, Florida and other states viewed as more hospitable to a moderate may schedule their votes earlier in the year, perhaps lessening the importance of a strong showing for Giuliani in Iowa and South Carolina.
For all the obstacles, even folks with ties to Giuliani's opponents can't deny that the New Yorker has a shot.
Said Ken Khachigian of California, who served as a strategist for President Reagan and was with McCain in 2000: "I would never sell Giuliani short."
So, retread, what was your previous screen name?
Yes...As I noted I got a wonderful and lengthy email from a Freeper who gave me detailed explanation of lots of FR terminology,lore,inside jokes and history. Freepers are remarkably witty but they do use a great deal of hip jargon and it is easy to get lost in the language. But I'm getting up to speed. Ran into " Are you series?" yesterday. I corrected the poster and then felt like a real dumb ass when the joke was shared with me.
Don't think so. I didn't key this thread.
Must be some other Hoodlum. Identity theft!!!! :-)
You're right. Nixon said it best.. " Your label means nothing if you don't win". Going down to defeat in glorious and righteous manner seems silly to me when the option of winning in measured and effective way is at hand.
Santorum went down to defeat in a magnificent way with all banners flying and guns ablazing. He slipped beneath the waves and there is not even a ripple now. Defeat is still defeat and their is NOTHING glorious in it. Win...let Hillary go down to defeat gloriously. How you win is secondary to winning. Ugly or Pretty...You gotta win above all.
I suppose I will judge the level of the vitriol pointed at me ... and in the Rudy threads it's significant.
I love the complaints last night that the Rudy people come after them! It's only because they descend like locusts on each one that comes out.
Yet, turnabout is NOT fair play in their worlds!
The worst Republican is better than the best Democrat by a mile.
I'm not one of those crazy conservatives who might be faced with Guiliani/Hillary choice next year and decide to write in Ron Paul, instead.
But I'm not a one-issue voter. Some at this forum clearly are.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm always voting for the lesser of two evils because I've never found a candidate, who speaks out on the record on all issues, that I agree with 100%.
But if I wanted a candidate that I always agreed with, I'd run for office myself.
Too many here think there is something noble about casting their lot with a candidate who has absolutely NO chance of winning ... a la Keyes.
Please keep in mind that this is a conservative forum. Take a look at the FR mission statement. Hunter embodies it, Rudy is antithetical to it. Why do people act surprised when Rudy bashing takes place?
Apparently the word 'viability' is heresy to the Hunterites and Keyesters. They seem to believe that crystalline ideological purity as yet untouched by pragmatism is the way to go.
That way defeat lies.... (see Rick Santorum )
And why are Rudy bashers surprised when faced with his supporters? One can avoid it by avoiding the thread.
Even the Keyes supporters had to come down from their lofty perches and vote for the dreaded Gorge Bush.
Wrong...Giuliani is antithetical to YOUR BRAND of conservatism. You don't own the definition of conservatism. And not everyone who disagrees with your brand name is a heretic.
One of the reasons many conseravtives are moving away from the firebreathers is the fact that anyone who disagrees with them is labelled a RINO or Heretic. It is patently offensive. Many of them were conseravtives before you were born.
Usually I think of Democrats when I think of irrational, unrealistic idealists. I guess we have our share.
Actually, we are more often called Liberals. But they AIM to be offensive.
It's partly a question of time.
For instance, I felt comfortable criticizing Bush and the Republicans for offending their base when they did stupid things after the 2004 election, because even if I planned to vote for them anyway, I knew there would be many who would not. But for a month before the 2006 election I pointed out that, with the possible exception of Lincoln Chaffee, the only real choice was to get out and vote Republican.
So, I think we can discuss the strong and weak points of the candidates now, or say that McCain is simply unacceptable to us, or that we'd rather have Duncan Hunter.
But a year from now, the situation will be very different. If Giuliani is nominated, I would likely vote for him unless he repeats his really egregious support of stuff like partial birth abortion. Yet he needs to bring in that part of the base, because even if he doesn't lose my vote, he still will lose millions of other social conservative votes. For years, lots of Evangelicals thought that in this sinful world there wasn't much point in voting at all. They came out in force in 2004, but I think some stayed home in 2006, along with the libertarian discontents.
I honestly can't say at this point whether I would vote for Hillary or McCain if that's the choice we are given, because those two would be almost the worst choices possible. Hillary is evil and McCain is insane. But I can say that we should sort out the candidates without being overly influenced by what the left wing press says about them.
Exactly! Are you a sports fan? My son and I were talking about this on the phone a short while ago. Winning counts -- moral victories do not!
I'm not surprised at all. Disappointed, but not surprised. :-(
Those who refuse to deal with the truth generally are offended by truth.
OK, let's pull out the ol' FR mission statement...
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America.I happen to agree with Jim on his definition of "conservative". Would you mind briefly summing up what you feel "conservatism" is.
I was mentioning to another freeper last week that a discussion on what conservatism actually is is LONG overdue here on FR.
I don't know your beliefs enough to make a determination about you, but this tomcorn guy is at least honest enough to admit that he is pro-abortion and anti-gun. I can comfortably say that he, like Rudy, is at least reasonably liberal.
That's fine for the general election, but so many freepers have been saying for years to "vote for the most conservative candidate in the primaries, but then vote for whomever the nominee is in the general". Being that Hunter is unarguably more conservative and that Rudy, Mitt and McCain really aren't that different, why are these SAME EXACT people going against what they've been saying for years? Why aren't they supporting the most conservative candidate?
I really suspect that many of these people were lying all of those times.
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.