The Rise of the Metro Republicans How McCain, Romney, and Giuliani may redraw the red-blue map.

The Weekly Standard ^ | February 19, 2007 | Noemie Emery

[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,

[Giant Conservative]

So it may be necessary to take chances on a candidate who falls short of the ideal.

Well then, the winning strategy would be to nominate a candidate who opposes the Iraq war, since that is the most unpopular thing associated with the Republican party.

[freedomdefender]

That tells you all you need to know about the ding-dong that wrote this.

The Weekly Standard is a "neo"conservative rag - neoconservative means "new" conservitive - and most of the people who use the title aren't conservative at all in the traditional sense. They're good on national defense, but so were the Democrats they used to work for - Henry Jackson, Hubert Humphrey. On the domestic side, they're big-government liberals. That's why Weekly Standard is pushing a liberal - Rudy - to help squeeze the last measures of conservatism out of the Republican party.

[Luke21]

Gaaaak. The neo-conservative "Weekly Standard" gives its blessing to the Ghastly Trio. I'm shocked I tell ya.

[bilhosty]

You have to realize that not everyone here is a member or relates to Evangelical church's or small town life. Small town and southern values have come to define Conservatism and Republican values. There are plenty of us who are different. Right now we are winning in small towns and the south and starting to lose every place else. some of us are very worried. Even though we didn't agree with the Soc conservatives on all of those issues we went along because they were not important to us and we wanted to win. Now we have to face the point that what is conservative and small town does not have to be the same thing and if we don't make a change we become a minority.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

We know that Giuliani will stand up and do what he believes is right regardless of opposition. His record indicates that he will fight the war on terror and that he has actually cut government spending and red tape while cleaning up New York and making it a much more inviting place to live and do business. His strong support for Supreme Court Nominees like Scalia would make his long term impact on our government positive.

I tend to like Romney and believe that he would be strong in fighting the war on terror but he would probably be like Bush and go along with congress on the budget.

I would never vote for McCain after his taking the lead in ripping the First Amendment out of our Constitution.

Giuliani would draw a broad section of the middle to vote GOP. Romney has the looks and charisma to do the same. McCain might draw the middle but would be abandoned by too many conservatives to have a chance of winning.

[Clintonfatigued]

"Why so?"

Because of Hitlery in the White House and a permanent liberal majority on the Supreme Court.

[Bittersweetmd]

I agree. The Democrats will sweep all parts of the country.
I agree with your agreeing. :)

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Thanks to Bush and his nannystating cronies, the days of social conservatives being the sole voice of the GOP base are numbered. It's time to reach beyond the angry, narrow visions of the minority fringe and start appealing to the mainstream again. Romney and Rudy can do that.

[Beagle8U]

"That's why Weekly Standard is pushing a liberal - Rudy - to help squeeze the last measures of conservatism out of the Republican party."

What they are going to do by pushing Rudi is squeeze 40% of the voters out of the party and the voting booth.

[redgirlinabluestate]

So there they all are--a hawkish war hero who holds Goldwater's seat but who charms independents; a Mormon from Michigan who will run his campaign from North Boston; and a pro-choice New Yorker who thrills southern social conservatives--all trying to be Reagan's heir. And let us recall that Reagan himself was a complex enough figure: a man who was divorced and remarried (as are McCain and Giuliani), a former film star and a recovering Democrat, from Illinois by way of Hollywood, who signed a liberal abortion bill while governor of California, was comfortable with gays in his film making milieu, and once even backed the New Deal.

I think our top tier candidates have much more cross-over appeal than any of the Dems and I see a lot of red and purple in our future. Both Rudy and Mitt offer that hopeful optimism that made Reagan so popular. And we cannot underestimate the appeal of that to women.

Found this old post... Bears repeating:

Reagan always came across as 100% male which elicited a 100% female response in women.

As a woman, I second that emotion...

15 posted on 06/11/2004 1:08:30 AM PDT by KangarooJacqui Link to Reagan article

Amen to that.

[freedomdefender]

if we don't make a change we become a minority.

You need to learn some history. The GOP was the minority party until Reagan "broadened the tent" by adding the (formerly Democratic) evangelicals. He did so by adopting pro-life and pro-family-values planks to the GOP platform. Now you want to undo what Reagan did. If you and the Weekly Standard are successful, the "values" voters will leave the GOP and the GOP will return to minority status.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

What in the hell are these people smokin? I'll bet this moonbat does'nt even know a social conservative.Come to think of it does anybody inside the beltway?

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Bingo!

[TommyDale]

They are trying far too hard to get us to accept Rudy Giuliani. That raises a red flag to me.

[Beagle8U]

" He did so by adopting pro-life and pro-family-values planks to the GOP platform. Now you want to undo what Reagan did."

Most people haven't a clue where the Reagan Dem's came from or why. Now we have the guns and gay issue that brings more to republicans.

The social issues and guns are what the independent voters swing on. Remove those and they go back to the RATS.

[Bittersweetmd]

and a permanent liberal majority on the Supreme Court.
That's a good point. It would sure take the steam out of conservative Republicans for a l o n g time.

[Blackirish]

I agree. The Democrats will sweep all parts of the country.

---

Nonsense....Hillary will be the nominee...she has the money ..the IOU's...the unions.

It will be Romney prolly Rudy,,,I think the GOP suits have the long knives out for McCaine.

Rudy loses no red states to Hillary. Picks up PA...keeps FLA OH...and has a good shot at NJ and CA.


He would crush her ...Rudy by 40 states.

[freedomdefender]

Rudy loses no red states to Hillary.

Rudy will lose a LOT of red states. The voters for whom gun rights and family values are important will stay home. Rudy represents the pre-Reagan GOP - the party of Gerald Ford, which was "fiscally conservative but socially liberal." That GOP was a minority party because the social conservatives didn't vote for it. Reagan added social conservatism to the GOP platform and made the GOP a majority party. Nominating pro-abortion, pro-gun-control, pro-gay-"rights" Rudy will be the equivalent of undoing Reagan's achievement. The GOP will lose the "values" voters who signed up when Reagan came along. They won't go to Hillary, of course, they just won't bother to vote. Mark my words.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

Just get a bit more liberal and the dems will adopt you.
If expedience is more important to you than the rule of law, The Constitution, you are a democrat already. I suppose it should matter to me how Rudy cleaned up crime.I'd be more impressed, however, had he not crapped all over the law to do so.
I've been loyal since 1964. I was the first in my family to ever register as a Republican.For a while I was one of only a few in the entire county. I am not letting the party down, it is exactly the opposite.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

And we just cant seem to find it in our hearts to get behind a real conservative and so the rinos want us to get behind a damn lib from new york. It AINT gonna wash in the south and you know what that means. Rudolph cant win. You need to find a better candidate that the base wants to vote for, not has to.