Posted on 02/11/2007 5:15:12 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
Here are the three leading candidates for president in the Republican party, a party based in the South and in the interior, rural in nature, and backed in large part by social conservatives: the senior senator from Arizona, a congenital maverick with friends in the press and a habit of dissing the base of his party; the former governor of deep-blue Massachusetts, son of a Michigan governor, a Mormon who looks, sounds, and comes across as a city boy; and the former mayor of New York, the Big Apple itself, ethnic and Catholic, pro-choice and pro-gun control, married three times, and a man who--Neil Simon, where are you?--moved in with a gay friend and his partner when he was thrown out of Gracie Mansion by his estranged and enraged second wife.
None hails from the South, none looks or sounds country, none is conspicuous for traditional piety, and none is linked closely to social conservatives. At the same time, none is exactly at odds with social conservatives either. None is a moderate, in the sense of being a centrist on anything or wary of conservatives; rather, each is a strong conservative on many key issues, while having a dissident streak on a few. Each has a way of presenting conservative views that centrists don't find threatening, and projecting fairly traditional values in a language that secular voters don't fear. In a country that has been ferociously split into two near-equal camps of voters for at least the past decade, this is no small accomplishment, as it suggests the potential to cross cultural barriers, and therefore extend one's own reach. If one of these men wins, it may mark a return to broader, national parties. And the iconic map of the recent elections,
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
In the south, I think this is true.
However, elsewhere the "Reagan Democrat" is something of a myth.
Take a look at Pennsylvania. In 1980, Reagan actually lost Allegheny and Beaver Counties (blue collar Democrat Pittsburgh area) by slightly larger margins than Ford did in 1976.
In other metro Pittsburgh counties, he did somewhat better than Ford, but not much.
On a percentage basis, Reagan's best turnaround compared to Ford were Fulton (South Central) and Pike (northeast), but Ford won those as well -- Reagan just carried them by larger margins. In raw numbers though the collar counties of Philly were much of the turnaround.
Bucks Reagan carried by 41K, Ford by just 6K
Montgomery Reagan carried by 72K, Ford by 42K
Delaware Reagan carried by 55K, Ford by 31K.
In those days though the Philly collar was Republican. Today that is no longer true...Kerry won those counties, although Bush carried much of the metro Pittsburgh area.
I am not necessarily advocating dumping the social conservative message -- indeed, Reagan could appeal to social conservatives and social libertarians.
More inside the beltway analysis
I want Tony Snow to run.
I read on Eagle Forum that there is a move to vote out the electoral college state by state.
The Iraq War is incredibly unpopular across the country, and is the #1 reason why the Republican party lost the Senate and House in 2006.
You're absolutely right. The swing region is now the Great Lakes states. To folks in that region, Bush and Kerry are the same thing. That is, those folks aren't any more attracted to a southern evangelical than they are to a northeastern aristocrat. I know. I grew up there. If the Dems run Hillary (NY liberal) and we run Rudy (northern ethnic), we'll sweep that region. The Democrats won't be able to pick up enough electoral votes elsewhere to make up for the loss. Even if a few voters in the south and west stay home, those states are so red that they'll still go Republican.
And surrender to the Islamists? No way. I'd take a pro-war heathen first. Anything less than the utmost dedication to the war on terror leads to defeat. Just look at "Eurabia" for proof of that. This is an expansionist enemy we're facing. If the so-cons aren't on board for this, it's time to find other voters who are. Like I said, South Park Cons like Dennis Miller.
There is a possibility Romney or Giuliani might lose New Mexico (5 electoral votes) since it has been teetering on the fence between Dem and Republican. Gore won New Mexico in 2000 and Bush won it in 2004 but by only 0.8% over Kerry in the popular vote. I see a good chance for Rudy or Mitt to win Michigan in 2008 (17 electoral votes) for a net gain of 12 electoral votes. Mitt has a good chance in Michigan, his native state, and where his father, George Romney, was a very popular Governor elected three times and is still remembered fondly.
I do not know whether a conventional Republican or metro Republican such as Guiliani/Romney would best win and hold the Western states teetering blue (NM, NV and CO). I do not think that a Guiliani/Romney would be at any particular disadvantage.
I doubt Goldwater would be for partial birth abortion though. Anyone who condones such 'murder most foul' falls foul with me. For the record, I'm agnostic about early or first trimester abortions when the embryo hasn't developed enough to suffuse with a 'soul' yet perhaps. But late trimester abortions, I know, I am dead against.
Vote against him? No. But they won't rally around him as a brother Catholic either.
Uh, no.
It's the Wall Street Wing's turn to "take risks".
Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush. Okay, that's enough. Our turn.
Oh, and when the Wall Streeters "took a risk" with Ronnie Reagan (after fighting him from 1968 until 1980, and stabbing Barry Goldwater in the back in 1964 and 1960 and Bob Taft in 1952), they hedged by blackmailing Reagan and his people into putting Bush 41 on the ticket. Who then took over the staff positions and spent the next eight years painting Ronnie into a corner with "Option 'C'" gimmicks, most of which Reagan was able to fight off.
And in the meantime, Bush's people in the Reagan Administration gave us the infamous "pigs at the trough" -- the same pigs that are alleged to be living in Dick Cheney's office today.
No, it's time the Wall Street Wing of the GOP supported the conservatives -- for once, unhedged.
Discussion?
Oh, I am so grateful to receive our Acceptable Candidates for the Nomination! </sarc>
There it is, nomination by Anointment and Showing Forth to the People. Let us fall down on our faces, as these great men are transfigured before us, their urim and thummim affixed to their breasts, and the phylacteries of their Ascendedness bound to their foreheads, and grovel in gratitude and transports of humbly grateful humility.
You caught my emphasis on humility and gratitude. The right attitude for us rubes, marks, drones, churls.
That message has been subjected to unremitting negative advance and bracketing gimmicks since 1994 by the (liberal, hate our guts) media.
If I speak in favor of original intent and RKBA, I am a backwoods knuckledragger, and if the sound man can't get a damaging quote from me, the political reporter or syndicated polemicist will put words in my mouth, to convince suburban mothers that I want to own a .50-cal. Barrett rifle, the kind snipers use in Afghanistan, and shoot it off around schoolyards as I practice for my chance to assassinate somebody.
If I speak against affirmative action and quote Martin Luther King on colorblindness, that gets twisted to mean that I'm really a closet racist and ethnocentrist fanatic who is mean to South Asian women. (Again, the pitch will be to women, as a swing constituency -- like the Newt divorce stories.)
If I favor a strong defense, I want a war.
If I favor adoption over abortion, I'm an American mullah, an abortion-clinic mad bomber, a Holy Joe inquisitor lusting to burn abortion doctors and expectant mothers at the stake.
And on and on it goes. It's Dresden School destructive propaganda, and it never ends.
That's the main problem the social-conservative agenda has politically. It's the inability to articulate itself without reporters using their offices to do "negative advance" and polemicize for the other side.
That's the East Coast liberals trying to chump the small-state voters again.
It won't work. There is no small or rural State in the Union stupid enough to go along with that. And it would have to pass by amendment to the Constitution, since it's the Constitution that sets the method of electing a President and Vice President.
Don't confuse a few alledged social conservatives being at at odds with Rudy with Rudy being at odds with social conservatives. They are in NO way the same contrary to your fantasies.
The media has annoited the frontrunners solely through name recognition.
But conservatives will start paying attention when it gets closer to the time they will enter the polls.
When conservatives who initially support Rudy are informed of his stances on social issues, many change their minds. That is a harbinger of what will happen to both McVain and Rudy. Romney at least is smart enough to have started running right well before this started, but even that might be enough. After all, who are we supposed to believe? A candidate's words or his record?
It's like a half-hour infomercial. Rudy slices! Dices! Makes Giuliani Fries!
Yeah, "Rudy is a hero! Rudy is a hero!" What the heck did he do to qualify? I don't recall him even getting his hands dirty on 9-11.
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.