Posted on 04/28/2007 7:59:26 PM PDT by RobFromGa
Actually, I am in favor of Rudy running for president.
... as long as he brings all of his followers with him when he endorses the victorious conservative Republican nominee.
I’m a bit of a pessimist about 2008, but I find it inconceivable that John Cornyn could lose. Democrats haven’t won a statewide race in Texas since 1994, and federal races are even more out of reach for them. There’s no one who can beat him and Texans are unimpressed by big-spending Democrat candidates.
You are right!
I was planning to move to NH (I currently reside in Massholechusetts). Now I figure “why bother”? It’s just more of the same, or at lease it will become more of the same. If Sununu loses next year, NH is lost forever (or at least the next 30+ years). The Massholes have really taken their toll on NH.
Perhaps Giuliani could be Fred Thompson’s running mate. I’m convinced that if Thompson is the nominee, he needs someone from a northern tier state to run with him.
I think the last election showed it's NOT about "actions." It's about rhetoric. The GOP laid down and rolled over for basically five years. No charge was answered; they NEVER went on political offense.
This is PRECISELY where, so far, Rudy is beating all other GOP candidates. He is perceived by a large number of people as being "on offense" against the Dems. We at FR argue issues, but the people out in the "streets" argue perceptions. You'd be astounded at the pro-life, pro-gun people I talk to routinely who are either excited about Rudy or say, "I can live with him. Anybody but Hillary/Obama."
It's too soon to try to figure the impact of a presidential candidate on senate seats. It will all come down to whether the GOP is perceived to be on offense or defense. If the latter, they will lose huge. If the former, they can pick up ground. Remember, we saw things turn 180 degrees in just two years.
Let’s just say Rudy wins the nomination, then wins the general by winning NJ, PA, OH, and possibly even NY. Ask yourself what that would do to those who say that ONLY conservatives in the Reagan mold can win.
If Fred doesn’t get in very soon, the only shot he will have will be as Rudy’s running mate.
Larry, I respect your views, but I think it is a big stretch to call Rudy a Conservative. Tough on crime, tough on terrorists moderate would be my description.
The country is divided at present, there is basically about 30% liberal socialist anti-War types, there are about 30% big C Conservatives- social and fiscal, and about 40% in the middle that vote on who they agree with and like who doesn’t scare them too much. (The Libertarians fall in this middle group— they are fiscal conservative small government believers, but against legislation of personal morality types which puts them at odds with the social conservative agenda on abortion, drugs, and usually gay rights)
In order for a Conservative to win, he needs to pick up a big chunk of the middle. Same for the Liberals. Someone already in the middle like Rudy needs to pick up some from the left and/or the right to win, and that is what he is trying to do— pick up some of the right with fiscal and security issues, and some of the left with some social issues. But that doesn’t make him a big C Conservative.
If we don’t get a big C Conservative in the race that can pick up some of the middle due to likeability and name recognition— like Thompson— that is when Rudy becomes the only option to beat the liberal Democrats. And if he emerges from the primary as the GOP nominee, I will work to get him elected. But we still have a chance to do better IMHO.
On the left, I don’t see Hilllary or Obama drawing in a lot of the middle, unless the candidate is an unlikeable and/or unknown Conservative, which is what the media is going to try to paint any Conservative as, its on page one of their playbook.
Michigan is a tough spot, no doubt. But, we have the MIGOP that is totally ineffectual. Karl Lenin, Bart Stupidak, Debbie Stabemall, Clueless Jenny are target rich environments. On the Monday after Ann Coulter made her alleged horrible statement about the faggot John Edwards, The MIGOP chairman Saul Anuzis appeared on WJR radio which is a 50,000 watt blowtorch listened to all over the Midwest. I can no longer remember the totally asinine statement that Karl Lenin had made over the weekend probably on the democrat t.v. program Meet the Depressed. At any rate, Anuzis gets asked about Coulter’s comment and launches into what a terrible thing it was. I would have, you would have, any politician in his right mind would have said something like, “you know what, I don’t know the details about Coulter, I’m busy focusing on getting Michigan Republicans elected. Did you hear the absolutely idiotic comments that Karl Lenin made on .....?” Nope, can’t do that. Can’t point out that Clueless Jenny is holding the handle on the flusher getting ready to push. Can’t point out that the “conservative democrat” Bart Stupak favors abortion in all its forms, and how reprehensible that is, nope, Coulter bad.
I’m sorry to belabor Michigan, but it angers me a lot. On the issue of the media. The People’s Detroit Free Press, The People’s Detroit News, and the other’s “big” city papers aren’t going to give the Republicans a fair deal. I travel around the state a lot. There are a lot of small local papers that will print almost anything within reason even if they are owned by Stalin Lites. The MIGOP doesn’t even bother to get press out to these organizations.
I'd call both him and Fred T. "personalities" who are essentially apart from issues. Like Arnold in CA (though not with that level of star power), the issues will be largely unimportant: it will be the perception of whether either one will FIGHT the Dems.
Absolutely right on your analysis. I would be hesitant after 2006, however, to wonder how Hillobama "can win." Despite the polls right now, we know there is a solid base of support for any leftie.
perhaps in #46 you meant to say “only Republicans in the Reagan mold can win”
Yeah. Good clarification.
It seems to me, RobFromGa, that you have swung from optimist in 2006 to pessimist in 2008, thinking that Rudy will sink once he gets tagged with Bush’s policies.
In the U.S., for “the right” to win, it must combine social conservatives and economic liberals. Presumably, this pragmatic coalition will progressively build on its majority, making things possible in the future that aren’t possible today so that, eventually, both social conservatives and economic liberals get a lot of what they want but couldn’t possibly achieve on their own.
This agenda fell apart following the invasion of Iraq. The agenda of the Bush administration has, for the last several years, been to try to do something (I frankly don’t know what) in that country. First it was “weapons of mass destruction,” then “we’ll stand down as they stand up,” now it’s “an Iraq that can govern itself.” We are NEVER going to leave Iraq under Bush, and NEVER get back onto a social conservative-economic liberal agenda back home.
While you say that Rudy hasn’t been attacking Bush but has only been attacking Democrats, I would point out that Rudy hasn’t been defending Bush. He has been relatively candid about mistakes being made, saying things such as mistakes are always made in war, and the issue isn’t blaming anybody, but learning from mistakes and moving forward.
I think Rudy would do well to stay independent of Bush, name a running mate who is NOT associated with the Bush Administration (i.e., NOT Condeleeza Rice, but Tom Pawlenty or Fred Thompson sound fine to me), and simply say that NOBODY could interpret his election as a capitualtion to terrorism. He would have a free hand so as to consider all options, including that of saying you guys in Iraq FORGETABOUTIT.
The idea that we’re going to lose in 2008 says what about Iraq? You can’t be saying that we’re going to lose the White House and lose more seats in the Congress, lose ground in state government, turn the Supreme Court over to the liberals, withdraw precipitiously from Iraq, socialize medicine, and regulate our economy in the name of “saving the planet,” and then ... what? ... mount a counter-attack in 2010?
I used to think that the Bush Administration had some political sense, and realized that unless we started to withdraw from Iraq we would lose in 2006 and would certainly lose in 2008. You will remember that I continually laid out hope of an announcement that we were starting to withdraw prior to the 2006 election. But, at this time, I am now convinced that the Bush Administration is oblivious to the political ramifications of Iraq and doesn’t really think it’s important that we have to beat the Democrats and maintain our agenda.
In a democratic country, you have to, simultaneously, wage the war, maintain the economy, and maintain your political base. To paraphras General Schwarzkopf, you have to be a tactician, a strategician, a logistician, an economist and a politician. Doing all of these things involves some constraints on your military options. But, on the other hand, to win - eventually - in Iraq, you need to win in 2008. This would allow us to continue aiding Iraq with intelligence and special ops, etc., but they will have to assume the ground war. So, if the only thing the Bush Administration wants to accomplish is winning in Iraq, and if they were smart (something I no longer presume), they would make it clear we were withdrawing from Iraq either because the surge worked and they can assume the ground war, or because the surge didn’t work and they’ll never be able to.
I am still an optimist re: the Presidency, I think we can win the Presidency with a social and fiscal Conservative— if the right man runs. I hope Fred is that man but it is too soon to tell, and he isn’t in the race.
I think Rudy is already sinking based on his liberal social issues and the fact that a lot of his popularity is 9-11 based and this can and will most likely wear off (see Bush 43).
The Senate however is a different story for the 2008 election, with the 33 seats that are up, there is not a lot of room for any errors. I am not optimistic here. We are going to have a very difficult time taking a 51 seat majority. It is going to require us to win all the seats in the Red states that are currently Dem Senators, while holding some seats in Purple states. It can happen, but it will be an almost perfect effort, which the GOP hasn’t shown the ability to pull off in a while.
And the Senate is almost the same importance as the Presidency as it pertains to the SCOTUS. And Rudy and a Dem Senate do not make me feel good about the chances for more Alito/Scalia/Thomas justices on the Roberts court. A Conservative President and a liberal Senate will also have a VERY hard time getting good Justices seated.
I think it is likely that we will retake the House as all seats are again up for grabs.
I disagree with you on the Iraq War, which was quickly won and which is a necessary battle in the WoT. I think we should still be more decisive and more ruthless in our tactic in this war to get it over with sooner. And since I am not privy to all the intelligence re: Iran, and NK, I will give our President the benefit of the doubt regarding his decisions.
One last thing, when you talk about “economic liberals” like Hillary/Obama or are you using the old definition of that term?
I might be described as an “economic conservative” as, in America, that means economic liberal.
BTW “fiscal conservative” sometimes means favoring higher taxes in order to balance the budget as opposed to lowering taxes in order to balance the budget by spurring economic growth (i.e., it’s the opposite of “supply-sider”).
I’ve never heard the terms fiscal conservative used as the opposite of “supply-sider”. And using liberal in the old definition is just a confusing term to use.
I am a lower taxes, supply-sider myself.
According to wikipedia, you’re right about fiscal conservativism and I’m right about economic liberalism.
According to wikipedia, economic liberalism is strongly associated, among other things, with “liberal conservatism” and with “conservative liberalism.”
As to what distinguishes these two things, gosh, I can only infer that Rudy Guiliani is a “conservative liberal,” whereas I think it is fair to say that most American conservatives are “liberal conservatives” (and only a few are “populist conservatives”).
According to the discussion, and I think this is reasoned, there has been an increasing amalgamation of most (classical) conservatives and (classical) liberals, as conservatives have come to embrace personal autonomy and freedom, and liberals have embraced the a role for tradition, the family and the church, and both have embraced a free-market economy.
Missouri was the biggest bummer of them all, because it didn’t have to be. Talent was an exceptional Senator as compared to that leftist birdbrain they installed.
I'd be very surprised if we retake the Senate in 2008.
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.