Skip to comments.27% of Republicans Would Vote for Pro-Life Third Party Instead of Giuliani (Proof Rudy CAN'T Win)
Posted on 10/04/2007 9:38:23 AM PDT by TitansAFC
click here to read article
Then you already have been rebutted. Completely. And I haven't barely begun to list all the betrayals by the phoneys. Which are more than W, of course. Lugar, Spectre, McCain, Martinez, Coleman etc.
And you need to also be aware that I was quoting Steven Sabin...about the RNC, whom I concurred with, in his feelings, to wit:
I am also increasingly feeling as though there is nothing conservative about the RNC in terms of actual practice.Tell me how conservative the 2000 convention was. Friends of mine, revered elder statesmen and women in the Reagan movement, were horrified by the back-of-the-bus treatment they received. All for the "Diversity Train" package...that no one even televised or watched. And let's not talk about the damage he did to the Platform often disengenuously...i.e., duplicitously.
Presidential Election of 1980:
Ronald Wilson Reagan: 50.7%
James Earl Carter, Jr.: 41.0%
John Bayard Anderson: 6.6%
Ed Clark: 1.1%
Barry Commoner: 0.3%
Even if you add all of the other candidates together, you get less than Reagan's total (obviously, since he won a majority of the vote).
So, your statement is incorrect.
So he is also a free traitor, another reason not to vote for his worthless hide.
You are wrong about '92: Perot was not conservative. This time, the blame would go to the RINO's who voted for Rudy in the primaries.
Reagan won California and Florida by 17 points. Try again.
>>So he is also a free traitor [sic-trader], another reason not to vote for his worthless hide.<<
As am I. As was Reagan.
Just the opposite is true. You're FAR more likely to get what you don't want under Giuliani, who has a far better chance of getting liberal legislation passed than Hillary Clinton does.
Meanwhile, electing Giuliani assures Democrats gain seats and control Congress for, probably, a decade. While Hillary would set the stage for Republicans gaining back Congress.
I see little to gain favoring a sure thing that I won’t like versus a possibility I won’t like. Hannity is on the radio now making this exact point.
Blaming the GOP loss on the grass-roots makes no sense to me. I place all the blame squarely upon the GOP "leadership".
That is where the blame belongs.
The voters will vote for a candidate or they will vote against a candidate, depending on the choices offered.
Just who the heck are these "swing voters" anyway?
Why do you think they will swing either direction?
The GOP does not own over 50% of the vote, and probably never has.
We depend on swing voters to make up the majority.
Giuliani isn't merely a less-than-perfect candidate. He is a LIBERAL. And, his record proves it.
And, we know the history of electing such liberal Republicans to office -- from Christie Todd Whitman to Michael Bloomberg to Arnold Schwarzenegger -- has been total failure.
Conservatism can't be advanced by a liberal of either party. And, liberalism is much more likely to be advanced by a liberal Republican.
Literally, you want to create a scenario with Giuliani where both parties are left-of-center, one that assures a move to the left in the country.
It all boils down to core beliefs. If you are pro abortion, anti gun, pro homosexuality, I think you lose most credibility on most other issues. It shows a defect in your core belief system which will most likely fail you in an unknown situation. Having an "R" behind your name doesn't make you a "right thinker".I wouldn't vote for Snowe or Specter just because the have an "R" behind their name.
The bottom line is many, including myself won't vote for Rudy. It's up to other Republicans to deal with that fact. A vote for Rudy gets you Hillary. If you think Rudy will save you from her, ....not going to happen. Instead of settling for Rudy the party better get going on somebody that can win. 300,000,000 people and Rudy is the best we can do? I don't think so. The only way Rudy can win is some Dems may switch just because they can't stomach another Clinton. What are the odds? Repubs won't vote for him. Just the Christians and gun people is enough to dump Rudy. I'll put it as plain as possible... ROOTY WON"T MAKE IT!!! Even if you could change my mind, there are 10's of thousands that won't.
Sometimes when your nation is sick, you just have to take an enema to get rid of the sickness. Hillary may be that medication. Carter was the first one I can remember. Maybe a mushroom cloud, a few child molester rapes, Babies being aborted up until 6 mo. old because their mom changed her mind, Teaching all classes in Spanish or Farsi, suspension of the constitution, arresting Rush Limbaugh, etc will wake people up. Right now, people seem to be asleep.
Oh, but don't you know that when the public hears about Duncan Hunter all will be saved for the Republicans?
The only way to avoid that scenario is to make sure the Republican party nominates someone other than Giuliani. Both Hillary and Giuliani are leftists.
With ignorance like this, who needs enemies?
Agreed. Great post!
Part of my thinking is if the Republican party allows liberal Rudy to win the nomination, they must be penalized. Electing Rudy would set a precedent that would destroy conservatism for the foreseeable future.
The Republican party needs to change the rules to prevent a RINO from winning the nomination. Here in CA, an equal number of delegates will be awarded to each congressional district. So Duncan Hunter's district gets the same number of Republican delegates as Nancy Pelosi's district. Absurd.
And, even closer to no chance when we're talking about a liberal Republican that will be presiding over a shrinking Republican minority.
This same argument was advanced with regards to W on a number of his clearly liberal pet projects. Notice, that those inhibitory factors not only failed to stop him from steam-rolling ahead on them, he risked splitting the Party asunder ("I'm a Uniter, not a Divider"... notice we haven't heard that drivel for some time from him, heh.), plus, he has interfered with the State grass-roots selections of their own representatives, trying to "Top-Down" direct selections...and hence we get Norm Colemans and other phoneys who are not conservative. But democrats to the core, who wanted power now, and were willing to mouth whatever the Prez said, to get his backing. At least for a while.
You've got some imagination!
RUN ON TINFOIL, aisle 5!!!
You think you have problems, my wife refuses to vote for Rudy or Mitt, no way no how.
Liberals do not protect America.
No President Rudy.
The only proof that this shows is that the Republican Party continues to be stupid.
If they desert their conservative base (which they have) then I will not weep at their funeral.
They can get it right or go away.
We already have one liberal party, we don’t need another one.
Yes, it would be difficult for a conservative to slip anything past a Senate with less than 40 Republicans, not to mention that most of those are RINOs in tune with the Democrats and a liberal President wanting to appoint a Stevens clone, or worse, to the court.
So, in order “show the GOP who’s boss”, you’ll allow a more-liberal-than-Guliani to be elected?
I won’t abandon our troops to CinC Hillary. You can turn your back on them if you want.
“Part of my thinking is if the Republican party allows liberal Rudy to win the nomination, they must be penalized. Electing Rudy would set a precedent that would destroy conservatism for the foreseeable future.”
Exactly... Conservative influence in the party destroyed for years.
What I don’t understand is that the RNC knows they’re ALREADY on a slippery slope. No one is sending them money until they change their positions, and yet they’re pushing on... It’s almost like they WANT to be the minority party. And not just for now, they don’t seem to WANT to re-energize conservatives... I’m starting to think they’d be happy with permanent minority status.
Which is exactly what Giuliani would give us.
As I said before, if you’re buying what Rudy is selling (that he will appoint to the S.C. Justices OPPOSED to his beliefs,) then perhaps we could discuss that bridge I have for sale.
Actually his version of free trade differs from the current Administration and the Xlinton's rather dramatically. The Bush's while trying to claim they are merely following in his footsteps, would, if he was still available to commment, condemn hims as merely a fair trader, because he explicitly declared that our being open, while the other side wasn't, or cheated...was not free trade. He also never believed in an international organization to decide our trade disputes...abdicating our rights to the WTO. This also has become a lynchpin of the last two administrations. Note, we have never formally executed a Treaty to become a part of this. This was merely done by legislation enacting the "Agreement" of NAFTA, appended as an 8-page addendum thereto. Congress cannot by simple legislation elevate something to Treaty status, and usurp our own Constitutionally-structured system so cavalierly. And it cannot also enact excess delegations of authority to the executive branch of functions fundamentally reserved to it alone.
If I’m on the roof of my burning house, I’ll take my chances jumping off (and breaking bones) rather than the sure thing of incinerating...
Rudy supporters are idiots. Instead of facing the reality that Rudy can’t win, that people with principles will NOT vote for him, they continue to insist we all vote for the Rino SOB. The Rudy supporters are the ones splitting the party. We need Thompson as our nominee, NOT RUDY. Thompson has everything Rudy doesn’t, including honesty. Anyone who can still support Rudy after his silence on the Rush smear is just blind to the facts. Rudy is NOT a conservative, he is anti-conservative and not a viable candidate for President. Dump him and support a candidate that can win.
But as I said, the most current polls show that Hillary is beating him. It's only going to be worse if he gets the nomination. Better for him to bow out and throw his support to a more conservative candidate.
If you really cared about conservatism, youd at least be open to supporting the candidate most likely to defeat HC
Nope, sorry - can't support a candidate who doesn't see anything wrong with the legalized murder of 1 million babies a year and who wants taxpayer funding of same.
If YOU really cared about conservatism, you'd stop trying to foist a liberal on us and get behind a more conservative candidate.
Bloomberg is a less masculine version of Hillary. If anything, he was the Republican "perot", since he's take more votes from the Democrat.
Ron Paul is the RP from Texas in this race.
I'm sure that made sense in your mind before you typed it.
1. Hillary does not need Pro-life forces so they are expendible to her.
2. Guiliani Can’t win without pro-life voters UNLESS he replaces them with pro-abortion voters which is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
3. A pro-life based candidate pushed by religious conservatives simply can not win. They do not have the numbers. They MIGHT be able to raise the money but that money will eventually end up in the coffers of the respective charitable groups after the election.
the political reality is we have four top tier viable candidates. Guiliani, Romney, Thompson and bringing up the tail McCain.
McCain is just about done and will be out.
Guiliani is not going to be electable period on any number of formulas.
That leaves us with Romney and Thompson.
With months to the first primary.
“The truth is out there....if you weed through the lies from the Rudy911 campaign”
And then we should write an editor’s letter to get the facts out.
I just listened to Rudy’s spin on Hannity’s radio show saying he would pick judges like Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and I think he included Thomas.
But since when do politicians keep all of their campaign promises??
I’m afraid many voters will fall for this, even though Rudy said:
“Presidents, going back to the beginning of the republic, generally appoint people on the Supreme Court that they believe agree with them.”
He doesn’t have to go “hard pro life”, just more so than he is now... which is infinitely more than Guiliani. That’s all he needs to do.
And he will absolutely ease off the anti-war stuff, as to not alienate the disenfranchised pro-life conservatives he’ll be courting.
Assuming that the purpose of Pro-life party is to demonstrate that a pro-choice Republican can never be elected, then it looks like it is nearlty certain to be successful, with a good candidate.
Let me know when you’re ready to discuss the bridge sale.
This is ridiculous. Giuliani could promise to appoint J. Michael Luttig to the Supreme Court and it STILL wouldn’t be enough. Prepare yourself for President Hillary.
Well, there is Fred and he is pro life, so I dont think we will have to worry about Rudy.
Nonsense. I commented on the good progress by conservatives in getting a large tax cut thru, which has been extremely instrumental in growing our economy.
Your response? No elimination of the income tax...thus, it's not conservative.
This type of response is typical of idealogues who are found both on the left and right. Pie in the sky types don't get things done in the here and now.
There's plenty of them out there, but they're not really worth debating.
Right, all that money is coming from regular people. You betcha.
I’ll tell you what... I’ll let you borrow some of my tinfoil. Make yourself a pipe and knock yourself out.
Yes, for two reasons:
Most of the current polls show Hillary farther ahead of Rudy than just 2 points.
There are a number of social conservatives who just can't bring themselves to vote for someone who is so liberal on the social issues. I'm one of them.
Exactly...he’ll be like Senator Joe Lieberman but in reverse. Lieberman was elected by lots of Republicans...
Will it defeat Rudy in the general? Probably. It would probably ENSURE Hillary is the next president.
It will also ensure that the other 70+% of the party never forgets, and will start them down the path of forming a new majority...more easily done without social conservatives than with them.
The DOJ lawyers a person can trust are VERY few and VERY far between.
Guiliani is just a typical promise them anything former DOJ lawyer turned politician. I have met a few I could say are trustworthy but they left the DOJ to go into the PRIVATE BUSINESS/PRACTICE world.
Hillary Clinton is now running as “the incumbant” and she has all that advantage.
Also if we wanted to prevent fraud, we should have been watching the voting machines from day before yesterday. (so to speak)
Well, then you should have posted one of them rather than the one you posted which shows Hitlery only 2 points ahead with no third party.
Saying someone can't win when their only 2 point behind more than a year before an election is ridiculous.
Torie is now wideawake, although his account is active.
I find it hard to swallow that people in the GOP would be so stupid to support and nominate the liberal Giuliani when all evidence points to guaranteed disaster.
>>>I am rather disgusted the the attitudes of people who are so blinded by their hatred of Rudy that they obviously don't give a rat's patoot that their arrogance is in Hillary's favor.
I am rather disgusted with the attitudes of people who are so blinded by adulation and celebrity that they refuse to acknowledge that Rudy is nothing more than a RAT with an (R) next to his name.
>>>She's banking on the Useful Idiots of the Republican Party to push her over the top. Looks like she outsmarted them again.
Rudy is banking on the Useful Idiots of the Republican Party to support him based on his mythical celebrity legacy and not on his record of liberalism well founded in his public career.
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.