Posted on 04/25/2007 9:37:29 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
When I tell my liberal friends and associates that there are only a handful of Republicans that I would vote for before Hillary Clinton, the response is universally the same. I get a blank stare, followed by the question: "do you really think Rudy Giuliani can win the Republican nomination?"
If you've read about my infatuation with the Giuliani candidacy, you know my answer is YES. While Democrats like to fall in love with a candidate—Howard Dean or Senator Obama, for example—Republicans prefer picking winners.
With notable exceptions, like the 2002 California Gubernatorial race—Republicans recognize that they, like the Democrats, are a minority party. And yes, the Religious Right will vote for Rudy Giuliani just like they voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger in California in 2003 and again in 2006.
While most Republicans would rather support a candidate who opposed abortion rights and supported the Second Amendment, they also realize that, after seven years of George W. Bush's religious-right mobilization efforts, Americans would be hard pressed to elect such a person.
Republicans don't like being losers. Being losers is why people become Democrats.
Rudy Giuliani offers the best and most practical hope to fight off the evil empire of American politics—the Clinton Family—because he remains a national hero and is not tarnished by the Iraq war. What's more, Giuliani's "urban conservative" message of freedom for all evokes the origins of the Grand Old Party—while chipping away at the core voter base of the Democrats.
Giuliani's electability is what will get Religious voters to support him—and some will do so even enthusiastically.
If you don't believe me, then just follow the money. Campaign logic would say that Rudy Giuliani, the more moderate—dare I say liberal—Republican would be sweeping in campaign dollars from urban areas, where Republicans have more libertarian leanings. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney, the born-again religious conservative, should be raking in the dough from suburban, ex-urban and rural areas where like-minded folks call home.
Campaign logic, however, would be wrong.
Romney leads Republicans in fundraising nationwide—but also in Los Angeles and its most liberal zip-codes of Beverly Hills, Hollywood and the Westside. Giuliani, on the other hand, wins the fundraising battle in the neighborhoods West of the 405 of Brentwood and Pacific Palisades with a higher concentration of single-family homes.
This anomaly is more stark when you look at the numbers from across the State. Romney is raising more money in urban areas like Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco. Giuliani is taking in the preponderance of dollars in faraway places like Yolo County, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Napa, Salinas, the Inland Empire and Fresno.
If you looked at a map of fundraising by County in California, Giuliani would win the Red Counties and Romney would take the Blue. It is as if Mitt Romney were the GOP's Phil Angelides.
Look no further than the case of Real Estate Developer/Hotelier C. Frederick Wehba if you need more convincing. The passionately evangelical Christian—who started his own church in Beverly Hills and is a major contributor to George Bush and the RNC. C. Frederick is backing Rudolph Giuliani in 2008, as are Bill Simon and many others in the Christian Community.
Without Ted Haggard to tell them how to vote, Republicans of all stripes seem to be coming to the same conclusion—that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good, especially when the cost of failure is a sequel to President Clinton.
Where do we start with this? First of all, Rudy couldn't even outpoll Hillary in the 2000 NY Senate race when he was sitting mayor of NYC and she was a carpetbagger. And second, what is this "tainted" by the Iraq War routine? Does that mean that Rudy is gonna turn on the war if he wins the nomination so he can run leftwards against the war? Is that what the GOP really wants in a candidate?
What's more, Giuliani's "urban conservative" message of freedom for all evokes the origins of the Grand Old Party—while chipping away at the core voter base of the Democrats.
Rudy's Giuliani's message of freedom is that your guns are the government's for taking if it wants them. But you have a claim on the taxpayers if you want to exercise your "freedom" to kill your unborn child and can't pay for it.
But don't exercise your First Amendment freedom to criticize Rudy on the sides of a New York bus - he'll try to yank the ads off.
Well guess what people.. Hillary hasn,t been nominated and I refuse to vote for a baby killer based on something that has not happened no matter how probable.
In any case I will have to stand before my Maker and explain this and, well... I just couldn't!
Chistians for Thompson. Ping.
Right on. Giuliani’s claim to fame is he made a speech after the WTC collapse.
Whoooooooopee.
Election 2008: Giuliani (R) 46% Obama (D) 43%
April 25, 2007
Democrat Barack Obama The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) clinging to a narrow lead over Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) in an early 2008 Presidential trial heat. Obama, however, enjoys a ten-point lead over former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson (R).
Giuliani, the GOP frontrunner, leads Obama 46% to 43%. A month ago, Giuliani led the Illinois Senator by just a single point. Back-to-back months in toss-up status represents a significant improvement for Obama—in December he trailed Giuliani by 11.
Since last month, Obama has slightly increased his advantage with women. He now leads by 11 points among that group. But Giuliani’s advantage with men has meanwhile increased to 20 points. Obama enjoys a 14-point edge with unaffiliated voters in the current poll, but loses a fourth of Democrats to Giuliani
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/April%202007/Giulianivs.ObamaThompson20070425.htm
LMFAO!
The author is basically saying that he would prefer to vote for Hillary, but he likes Rudy better. The assumption is that if Rudy isn't the nominee, he will vote for Hillary. Which is probably who a lot of the other Rudy Rooters will be voting for (though they will NEVER admit it here), because Hillary's beliefs are totally consistent with the Rudy Rooters.
“Republicans don’t like being losers. Being losers is why people become Democrats.”
I buy that but I don’t buy the rest of it.
Thompson/Daniels 08!
Christians for Rudy? That is a oxymoron if I ever heard of one.
***....Mr Giuliani’s comments were similar to arguments used by President George W. Bush and other Republicans during the 2004 and 2006 elections.
Mr Obama and Sen Clinton said Americans had moved beyond Republican rhetoric about September 11th.
“Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low and I believe Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics,” Mr Obama, an Illinois senator, said in a statement.
“The threat we face is real, and deserves better than to be the punch line of another political attack,” he said.
Hillary Clinton, a New York senator, said the last six years of the Bush administration have showed “political rhetoric won’t do anything to quell those threats. And that America is ready for a change.” ....*
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/0425/breaking66.htm
“...cost of failure is a sequel to President Clinton.”
This is the platform of the rudeebotts.
It (the sequel) is also the the very real risk and likelyhood of a rudee persidency.....
Wanna bet?
I'd die first.
“I LOVE how the best argument for Julie is that he can beat Hillary. “
The irony is I don’t see a GOP candidate that can’t beat Hillary Clinton.
Let's not forget that after 9/11, Rudy also contemplated using it as an excuse to delay elections and possibly change the term limit law so that he could remain in power. This type of "we can't possibly have an election during a crisis" scheme has been used by dictators throughout history and Rudy is no different.
“When Fred Thompson is mentioned as the GOP candidate, Obama’s vote total inches up to 47%. Thompson is ten-points behind at 37%. That’s little changed from a month ago when Obama led 49% to 37%.”
Hmm.
The title says “Christians for Rudy Giuliani”...yet these are the only reasons I could find in the article for a Christian to support Rudy Giuliani:
1) He’s a “winner” and is the only one who can beat Hillary.
2) He’s raising more money from family-oriented people (people who most likely only know by his 9/11 connection) than Mitt Romney.
3) Republicans don’t like to lose.
4) Other renowned Christians are supporting him.
Hmm. And no mention is made of Rudy Giuliani’s exact positions on the issues and all of his flip-flopping on them in recent weeks.
Sure, I’m convinced. Throw all my principles away! It’ll get me a candidate who’s totally opposed to most of my principles, but at least I’ll win!
“But what would you win?”
Pipe down conscience, I don’t need to listen to you.
*sigh*
Giuliani is such a loser that even this empty-suited leftist Obama can make him look like a lightweight.
While Democrats like to fall in love with a candidate—Howard Dean or Senator Obama, for example—Republicans prefer picking winners.
The Democrats did not pick Howard Dean -- they picked John Kerry, who they considered the most electable.
Barack Obama is more electable than the widely disliked Hillary.
These Christians for Rudy also support Democrats and believe it's "Christian" to support global warming and pay equality too.
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.