Posted on 10/11/2007 4:32:09 AM PDT by Josh Painter
When Fred did his event in Washington the end of January, Jeri and their kids were there, and Daniel and grandchildren [from the first marriage]. Most of his family was there when he had the Lawrenceberg event including children from the first marriage. Tony from the first marriage did a newspaper interview supportive of his father a few months ago. Sarah, the first wife has given interviews that support Fred and has said she is willing to campaign for him. Fred speaks of the children from the first marriage often on the campaign trail, says his children are a blessing both from his first family and his second. He has spoken of Betsey in Lawrenceberg and an event in Texas [might have been San Antonio]. Betsey lived in Texas for a few years. He often speaks of her with love, and his grandchildren which would be from his first marriage. His grandchildren were there at the Lawrenceberg event [from the first marriage of course].
You obviously don’t support Fred, that is fine but your facts are completely wrong.
Okie Dokie.
Rudy’s ‘heroism’ hasn’t been dashed yet. You haven’t seen anything like what will be coming.
I hope Fred changes it too, for all of our sake. I really don’t want to see Hillary win, especially when it’s so unnecessary.
She is playing the same game that Dobson is.
Yes, but think about what this would look like — two Northeast politicians and both from NY. It’s like a West Coast World Series. No one will watch it. Will the country care to vote if the choice for president is between two New Yorkers? If it is Guiliani/Clinton then the VP choice may decide the election.
Total BS. Giuliani has NEVER called Ginsberg a “strict constructionist” and you know it.
When’s the last time a northeastern liberal won the presidency? I said 4 years ago Kerry couldn’t win for that very reason. Even though the LSM is enamored with them, they just don’t sell in Peoria. The only dims that have won in recent memory have been southern dims who could in some fashion be sold to the rest of the country. The majority of the voting public may not all be politcal hounds, but they can smell an elitist. The LSM desperately wants Rudy to win the nomination so no differentiation can be made in the general. It becomes a heads I win tails you lose situation for them.
No way Rudy wins the pubbie nomination. He’s a pro-abort, gun-grabbing, gun-maker suing, cross dressing northeastern liberal lawyer. The socons and RKBA crowd comprise a huge portion of the pubbie base and they’re not going to buy it. WAit till the NRA starts sending out emails later on detailing Rudy’s past actions, his #’s will drop like a rock. He’s running on 9/11 and name recognition now, once the issues later on are more clearly framed he’s toast.
‘She is playing the same game that Dobson is. If the candidate is not perfect, then run away.’
The difference being a helluva lot more people know who she is than they do Dobson.
At a certain point, you have to let go of 1997 and 1998 and get on with it. And if Ann Coulter wants to ‘blame’ somebody for Clinton not being removed from the Whitehouse, she needs to focus on Trent ‘Spineless’ Lott’s handling of the matter as Senate Majority Leader.
Liberals have Bush Derangement Syndrome, we see it every single day in this and countless other forums.
Conservatives have ‘Clinton Got Away Syndrome’ and its just as counterproductive, if not as prevailent as BDS.
Bill Clinton never won a majority of votes cast folks. It was a unique, almost historical accident furthered by 48 months because of Bob ‘Its My Turn, Damnit!’ Dole.
I can understand those who despise the Clinton administration, I had no use for them - understanding what he was beginning with the infamous 60 Minutes Super Bowl interview in 92.
But to cling to this to the point you rant about a meaningless vote under the circumstances as they existed, against a guy that just might be the best hope for the GOP come 2008, a decade later is counterproductive, and a waste of time.
Further, it doesn’t do a thing to increase the GOP’s chances next year.
Just my opinion.
I don’t think Rudy will win the nomination. The Republican establishment is pushing him as hard as it can, but it’s far from a done deal, especially in the south.
But there are many, many plausible scenarios where Rudy could squeak through with the nomination, without getting a majority of the primary votes, in which case he’s toast in the general. When you’ve got, say, eight names on the ballot, one name will win the plurality of votes, but usually not the majority. There are many states where Rudy could win the plurality, and social conservative votes could be split among two or three different social conservative candidates, causing them all to lose. But if you were to count up the total number of votes, the “social conservative” vote won over the “Rudy” vote.
For instance, the “not Bill Clinton” vote won over the “for Bill Clinton” vote in 1992, and yet Bill became the President. That happened because there were three names on the ballot. And it’s more likely to happen in primary elections because of so many names being on the ballot.
We know from history that Republicans are more likely to vote their conscience than Democrats. In the general, even those Dems who don’t like Hillary will switch their vote to her, since they do not answer to a Higher Power. Not having a real God, political power is their god, and they will do anything to get it. Many social conservative Republicans, on the other hand, will not switch to Rudy regardless of the consequences. We can scream at each other on this forum all we want about the dire consequences of that choice, but it won’t change anything.
In a country pretty much split 50-50 Dem/Republican, Republicans cannot afford to forfeit hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million of their potential votes (if you include the 2nd Amendment advocates who can’t stand him either) by pushing Rudy on us.
There are 180 million gun owners in the U.S., not to mention those of us who won’t vote for a guy who marched in a parade with child molesters.
Giuliani can’t win.
Less than 30% is NOT “most”.
All I'm saying is the electorate is fluid. Just because a portion of Republicans will not vote for Rudy, does not mean he can make up the votes elsewhere. And to say that Dems will only vote for Dems is decidedly short-sighted. At times, Dems do vote Republican. 1980 and 1984 are two cases that come to mind. (And no, I'm not comparing Guiliani with Reagan).
You may not vote for him. Good for you. You and 10 of your closest friends may not vote for him. Good for you. But, Rudy's defeat in the general election is not guaranteed because you sit home. PS those 180 million gun owners all don't vote. LOL!
Because Reagan provided a bridge to conservative Democrats that transcended partisan boundaries. Giuliani has no such cross-party appeal.
It does NOT show strength unless some of the lower tier candidates drop out.
And nasty condescension is not attractive. I am not stupid.
I know you will disagree, but Rudy looked good in the debate, even though I think Fred won it.
Of course he does. That’s what everyone has been shouting about since he announced his candidacy. If there is no difference between Rudy and Hillary... why doesn’t he have cross-over appeal? He has it by the tons. He’s likeable. She isn’t.
Fine... take me off your Fred ping list. I’m sick and tired of your hysterics.
The electorate was not nearly as polarized in 1980 and 1984 as it is now. In 1980 the economy was in a shambles and people were desperate for a change, any change. By 1984 they realized they had a gem in the White House, and weren’t about to let him get away. But like you said, we don’t have a Reagan on the horizon. The circumstances this time around couldn’t be more different from 1980 and 1984.
Sure there could and would be a number of crossover votes for Rudy. Hillary on her best day is unpalateable to plenty of people on the left, too. But I don’t see nearly enough crossovers to make up for the social conservatives and the gun owners who find Rudy anathema.
Huh? I thought Fred voted to remove, not on all counts, but he did vote to remove. How many times could he have been removed from office? Only once, right? He was already impeached.
I just checked, he did vote guilty on obstruction. To criticise his Clinton vote is just silly.
I have no problem with anything Fred says here:
http://australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/thompson.shtml
What's worse for Giuliani is how shallow the support he does have is -- when third party runs are considered, he's hurt the hardest
I stick with my position that (except Paul), Giuliani is the only GOP candidate certain to lose to Clinton in the general election.
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.