Posted on 08/12/2007 3:48:51 PM PDT by hardback
AMES - Rudy Giuliani would be a “total catastrophe.’’
Mitt Romney would be “OK.”
That’s the assessment of the 2008 Republican presidential field by Steve Scheffler, the president of the Iowa Christian Alliance.
Scheffler said his association’s members have not begun to coalesce around any of the candidates seeking the Republican nomination. However, the fact the Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain aren’t in Ames today “is a testimony to the constituency – the largest constituency to participate in the caucuses” – the social conservatives that make up the ICA.
“If they thought they could win the straw poll, they would be here today,’’ he said. In 2004, Scheffler said, 26 percent of those who voted were self-identified evangelical Christians and Catholics. Any Republican who hopes to win the 2008 election needs to carry 75 percent of that bloc, Scheffler argued.
Giuliani has sought to assuage concerns with his pro-choice position by promising tom appoint “strict constructionist” judges. However, the record of the former federal prosecutor and New York mayor on judicial appointments does little to quell the concerns of ICA members, Scheffler said.
Romney, Scheffler said, is starting to “make traction” because he’s talking about the issues important to the alliance – and to most Iowa Republicans.
Although McCain has opposed abortion, he’s on the wrong side of the immigration issue, federal funding for stem cell research, campaign finance reform and was a part of the “Gang of 14” senators who brokered a deal on President Bush’s judicial nominations, Scheffler said.
ICA members also like Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Scheffler said. Brownback, he said, has the organizational strength to do well in the straw poll that continues until 6 p.m. today.
Huckabee is a popular second choice, Scheffler said, but because he didn’t bus supporters to Ames and give away free tickets to the straw poll, it will be hard for him to match Brownback’s numbers.
“For him, it’s a question of whether he can survive today,’’ Scheffler said. “Then, if he can put together an organization, he can get a second breath.’
I’ll take OK.
OK is awesome. There’s a lot of wisdom in OK.
I don’t think I’d be alive today, if not for OK.
I’m serious.
Roe v. Wade was written by a so-called "strict constructionist."
"Catastrophe" doesn't begin to describe this narcissistic power-hungry authoritarian.
one-issue voters don’t count for much in the general, and for good reason. I hope we don’t get stuck with Romney because of some self-righteous, so-called “christians.”
But he is a good speaker, a good American, good husband, father, businessman,and good looking. The only dirt found him comes with “perspective” but facts. I hope I get the chance to vote for him. I don’t believe he is a hilary for a minute.
worse -- you'll get stuck with Hillary
“Too bad he didn’t believe in them until he decided to run for president. Look at his record in Massachusetts, he’s a male Hillary...”
Former pro-life Democrats: Bill Clinton and Al Gore (both also pro-second amendment). Former pro-choice Republican: GHWB until he became Reagan’s (a former Democrat) Veep.
It happens. Politicians change their positions on major issues when moving from state to national campaigns. I think we have to vote for the candidate we believe will most reflect our own views in the office they’re currently seeking. Reality, not a purist’s fantasyland.
The problem with Giuliani is a large chunk of the Republican base will still see him as wrong on abortion, gay rights and immigration. That’s a lot to overlook, probably too much, far more than Romney’s flip-flops to the positions favored by most Republicans.
Rudy is the only GOPer who can beat the beast.
I wonder if Hillary every took a stand on abortion while First Lady of Arkansas? And other controversial issues.
Actually, he’s the only one who can lose. Nominate Giuliani, and you pretty much guarantee a conservative third-party challenger. No other candidate makes that possibility as certain.
I hold the opposite opinion. Rudy is the only GOPer who can lose to the beast.
But he is a good speaker, a good American, good husband, father, businessman,and good looking. The only dirt found him comes with “perspective” but facts. I hope I get the chance to vote for him. I don’t believe he is a hilary for a minute.
I agree. As a Southerner, I can see Southern Republicans backing Romney, but Guiliani is more problematic.
How about a Romney and Rudy ticket?
“How about a Romney and Rudy ticket?”
Two good reasons to lose?
Ron "Studmuffin" Paul:
The ONLY person who can beat the BEAST
Don’t be so certain. Both have appeal in areas that are not normally friendly to Republicans.
“Don’t be so certain. Both have appeal in areas that are not normally friendly to Republicans.”
They are popular in areas full of mostly hard core RATS and there is a reason for that!
Is not the respect of life what gives us our rights? If life has no value, then neither does the constitution because your life is worthless.
“one-issue voters don’t count for much in the general, and for good reason. I hope we don’t get stuck with Romney because of some self-righteous, so-called “christians.””
And which “one” issue would that be?
“Rudy is the only GOPer who can beat the beast.”
On the off chance you aren’t being sarcastic...
Have you seen the networks or papers trumpeting Giuliani’s attempts to kick his wife and children out of the mayoral mansion? Or his moving his girlfriend in and seperating the mansion into wings? Even with all the scrutiny of his new wife, have you heard that particular story harped on anywhere but on Free Republic?
If not, why not?
They’re saving it for the general. Democrats WANT Giuliani to get the nomination, and you guys just can’t see it. 1) They see him as the easiest to knock down, there’s so much dirt on him that most voters don’t realize. 2) They see him as the most liberal of the Republicans, so even if he wins he’s least likely to nominate conservative judges or push conservative legislation 3) They believe that not only will Democrats go along with his liberal policies, but that Republicans will support him too out of party loyalty (this is already happening) 4) They believe a Giuliani presidency would be the last nail in the coffin of Christian influence on the Republican party.
After all, if you think the Republican Party just is NOT liberal enough--and isn't moving to the LEFT fast enough--there IS a Republican candidate out there for you.
If you want a more authoritarian, bullying, more intrusive, more controlling, all-powerful, ‘big government knows best’, 'Big Brother' type of government,,,,,
headed by a pro-abortion, pro-amnesty, pro-litigation, gun-grabbing, gay-rights crusading, condescending, arrogant, and narcissistic LIBERAL, New York ‘pit bull’ lawyer who believes in sanctuary cities, global warming, and using our tax money for Federally-funded abortions,,,,
who worked in the Bobby Kennedy campaign, voted for George McGovern, who first ran for mayor as a candidate of the LIBERAL PARTY, who as mayor publicly distanced himself from Ronald Reagan, who vocally supported and proudly endorsed a far-left, liberal, big-government, socialist, democrat like Mario Cuomo over the Republican candidate for governor (because the Republican wanted to cut taxes ‘too much’),,,,
who was SO LIBERAL that he wasn’t even invited to the Republican Convention in ’96--after refusing to endorse (until the last minute) the Republican candidate opposing Clinton,,,,
and a cousin-marrying, Clinton-apologist--whose personal life is an absolute TRAIN WRECK (and whose public cheating on his wife almost makes Bill Clinton look like a decent family man and loving husband--if that is even possible),,,,
a LIBERAL like Rudy JulieAnnie is JUST THE MAN FOR THE JOB!!!!
Ames was a mediocre political event, very poorly ‘attended’ by the way. Attended, is not even the right word as its all about who can buy the most votes.
It exists to make money for the state party and is a monumental waste of time, money and press coverage.
WE accept converts! Hillary is much hairier than Mitt.
Paul is an ISOLATIONIST who sounds just like the crazy Demos when he talks about Iraq. No way!
RUDY = RHINO
________________
and I ain’t goin’ that route again!
I believe that she supported parental notification which Arkansas had or at least DEFENDED IT. No more: the woman is a major, major pro abort notwithstanding her protestations to the contrary. She is a threat to babies and to their moms.
You can’t beat RATS by becoming them.
Where do you guys get this stuff?
I won’t support any ticket that has Mitt Romney on it. Period.
Pro-lifers have had three primary criteria for support of the GOP nominee since Reagan:
1) The Reagan pro-life party platform remains as is, with its recognition of the Fourteenth Amendment personhood of the unborn.
2) A pro-life presidential nominee.
3) A pro-life vice-presidential nominee.
I adhere to this stance.
LOL! You still repeating this canard? You should have been nuked along with all the other Rudybots.
romney not being a Christian it’d be hard for them to weigh him...
Romney’s not running for Christian-anything, rather for the presidency.
Not being logical, it’s hard for you to weigh this.
A Christian group should be looking for Christians. It’s a Christian group mentioned in the article.
Speaking of logic...
His “gay marriage is the American way” is OK with them? I wonder what other “progressive” ideas he has or will have.
Scheffler would support Mitt...??
I am shocked !!
// Sarcasm
This is the same old codger who quite the Christian Coalition too work as a paid staffer for Forbes. The last ubber rich abortionist turned pro life just in time to run for President.
And who does Forbes support AFTER this supposed conversion?
RUDY !!
Go Steves !!
Yer true colors were NEVER so bright...
Quad is correct. RR’s greatest achievement was he could sound like a firebreather while operating like a pragmatist. It was his genius.
Rhetorical hardliners are often very different than operational hardliners. Reagan’s genius was he could successfully turn TR’s dictum on it’s ear...Reagan spoke in a hard and determined manner but used his stick cautiously and sparingly.
Even Romney is smarter than that.
No, he is the LEAST likely to defeat Hillary Clinton. Take a look at how far he and the other RINO frontrunners are already behind in fundraising.
If Giuliani were the nominee, red and swing states like Florida, Missouri and Iowa would go to Hillary. A deflated and unenthusiastic base is the surest way to lose an election.
Further, what does it say about you that you don't believe a conservative can win the 2008 election?
RR was an extremely pragmatic politician who never hesitated to compromise on principle.
While President Reagan was certainly a practical politician, to say that he "never hesitated to compromise on principle" is an out and out lie.
Ronald Reagan was great because he was principled.
You're grossly mistaken if you think the source of Reagan's greatness was in outward show or anything else.
Such comments are nothing but lame apologetics for this current crop of utterly unprincipled politicians.
IOW, mere politicians who will NEVER be great themselves.
I don’t understand your post here. One cannot run as a true Christian and family values advocate and then deny they are using their faith for poltical purposes. Romney is playing both sides of the issues an trims his sails to fit the weather.
Frankly I don’t trust Romney....something glib and false in him.
While quad’s word “principle” may have been a bit too harsh, Reagan did compromise on principle if the circumstances warranted compromise. The abortion issue is a good example. While Reagan was ideologically opposed to abortion it was only to the degree he did not pay a political price for his opposition.His antiabortion stances were rhetorical for the most part and Reagan never undertook any major initiative to halt or limit abortion in eight years. He did ,however employ,stirring rhetorical flourishes. Clearly Reagan would never be a pro-choice advocate but in turn neither would he operationally define his pro-choice principles in amanner that would be politically damaging. In sum Reagan’s abortion position, outside of some occasion rhetoric addressed to the faithful, could best be described as benign neglect.
Comments?... and please...no ad hominem attacks. Thanks.
From the sane guys who helped bring us the ‘raging success,’ Dubya!
Reagan never backed away from supporting a strong national defense and rebuilding the military, tax reform, limits on the welfare state, rolling back federal regulations, or his pro-life agenda. On those issues Reagan was resolute.
If people want to know the real Reagan they should read, Reagan In His Own Hand and The Reagan Diaries. The latter book I've been reading this summer.
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.