Posted on 03/07/2007 4:32:54 AM PST by Verax
Sure he can.
I don't like Rudy and, as it stands right now, I'm not going to vote for him - not in Primary, not in the General. I'm a conservative, not a Republican. If the GOP is no longer a conservative party, it can do without my vote.
But if he runs as a War Leader and a Reformer, I am willing to vote for him. I see destroying the enemy and curbing the gub'mints outrageous expenditures as THE major issues. Somebody willing to tackle these items, no holds barred, will have my support.
So far, I don't see this, though. However, we're still nearly two years away from the General election.
You, on the other hand, can stand in the back holding *all* of your principles clutched tightly in your fist.
Hey, nominate a candidate that's a 50% conservative and I'd be glad to vote for him. There's a difference between compromising and bending over.
If it was up to me alone I'd nominate a candidate that was 100% conservative but that's not the way it works. It's a group effort and I am just a member of the group, as are you, unless you take your football and go home.
If it was up to me alone I'd nominate a candidate that was 100% conservative but that's not the way it works. It's a group effort and I am just a member of the group, as are you, unless you take your football and go home.
The football belongs to the GOP. If they want to bench me for the entire game that's their decision. If a candidate chooses to court votes from group A as opposed to courting votes from group B, it's no disgrace for group B to not vote for him. The individual candidates and the party elite decide whose votes they are going after. Each party tries to position themselves so they can draw as many votes from the middle as they can without losing the base. They may decide that it's worth losing some of the base if they can pick up more votes elsewhere. If they choose to move so far left that I can no longer give them my vote, fine. I don't take it personally and neither should they, it's their decision. If the candidate makes a bad decision he may alienate his base without gaining enough votes elsewhere to make up for it resulting in his loss. Again, it's not the voters' fault. Like you said,politics is the art of compromise. If a candidate isn't a very good artist, he has noone to blame but himself. When you run a candidate as far left as Rudy is in the GOP, you're very foolish to assume that you'll hang on to all the conservative votes.
The primaries are all that count. The general election is one or lost depending on the wisdom of the primaries.
If this moron gets the primaries we all lose.
"There are now four conservatives in the race for the Republican nomination; Rep. Ron Paul, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Governor Jim Gilmore, and Rep. Tom Tancredo. Any one of these gentlemen could beat Hillary or Obama in the general election. Giuliani can’t do it."
There might be a genuine fiscal and social conservative, in the Reagan mold, that could be a well known democrat.
But none of those four is that person.
Writers like this spray around words of political analysis, as if they are competent. And then reach an illogical conclusion, as he did.
Common sense judgement is not his strong suit. Had he concluded Gingrich or Thompson could win, I might be convinced.
It takes money and name recognition, some charm and humor, and a good platform.
The WOT trumps all, stupid! /sarc
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.