THE TRUE CONSERVATIVE.... WHO IS ELECTABLE!
FRED VETS, SIGN UP TODAY AT:
Posted on 11/03/2007 5:12:27 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Most Republican presidential candidates can brag about attracting followers with their valiant stances on important issues.
Rudy Giuliani's followers support him because they think he can beat Hillary Clinton.
In and by itself, the reasoning of Giuliani's supporters is not illogical. Many people do take into account electability when voting for a primary candidate (although most will not sacrifice their basic principles in the name of an election victory).
The problem is, this perceived electability is the only thing going for Giuliani.
But here is the real kicker: Giuliani is not electable.
In fact, he is far less electable than the only other Republican frontrunners understood to be capable of beating Hillary, namely Fred Thompson and John McCain.
To this, Giuliani's people inevitably shout the following talking points: First, Giuliani's moderate standpoint will attract unaffiliated voters, and can help Republicans make up for the unpopularity they have inherited from the George W. Bush years. Second, Giuliani has a lot of conservative accomplishments going for him – just look at how he handled 9/11, reduced crime in New York City, and how he reduced crime in New York City while handling 9/11!
They fail on both points.
First, Giuliani is a liberal. He supports abortion, and welcomes illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities. He opposes gun rights. He supported a Democratic candidate for governor in New York, and among his 75 judicial appointments, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than eight to one.
Though he attempted to knock Thompson on tort reform in the last presidential debate, he failed to mention his own poor record on the matter. Only a few years ago he sued two dozen gun manufacturers and distributors for essentially being functioning gun manufacturers and distributors, calling them "an industry which profits from the suffering of innocent people."
Giuliani's supporters will concede that he is not that conservative on social issues, but that really it is a good thing because we don't want extremist evangelical Christians taking over the GOP. But opposing abortion, illegal immigration, gun control and liberal judges does not make you an extremist. It merely makes you conservative.
Knowing they lose on the social issues, the Giuliani team holds on tight to fiscal matters allegedly showing that the man is really conservative. Since economic questions are often not as black and white as social topics, the Giuliani team knows that critics will have a harder time debunking the myth of Giuliani's economic conservatism.
But it can be done, and briefly so.
Giuliani tenaciously battled the line-item veto, which allows the executive to cut waste from legislative bills, taking the fight as far as he could in the courts. Giuliani also defied the promise of free trade – perhaps the only concept economists virtually unanimously support – through his ardent opposition to NAFTA.
These facts might explain why Giuliani indiscriminately answers "crime" and "George Will said I'm conservative" during the presidential debates as many times as Ron Paul brings up "foreign policy" in response to completely unrelated questions. Giuliani has nothing else to run on in order to win over conservatives. Unlike the other candidates, he cannot brag about his primary strength – the perception that he is electable.
But the fact is, the general election will be no head-to-head match up if Giuliani is the Republican nominee. In 2004, the Constitution Party ran Michael Peroutka against President Bush, now widely considered to have pandered to social conservatives in extreme fashion. You bet these social conservatives would run a candidate against nominee Giuliani. You bet the Libertarian Party would eat away more Republican votes. And you bet Clinton would win.
Giuliani is a liberal. And if nominated by the GOP, he would be a liberal running against someone who is better at being liberal. He would have to compete just as hard for conservative votes as for liberal and moderate votes, and he will lose.
Giuliani is not conservative. Giuliani is not electable. A thorough look at his record, the polls and the political reality cannot lead to any other conclusion. He's got the worst of both worlds.
Rudy is a cross dressing, publically funded abortion loving, 9-11 profiteer.
Regards
Rudy is a tax cutting, tough on crime liberal. Simple.
I certainly don’t agree with Rudy G on everything, but fact is the abortion genie is never going back in the bottle. Homosexuality is now open, that’s not going to change either. Some level of gun control is gonna happen. Deal with these things.
Rudy is smart, tough, and ready to defend this country. He is the terrorists’ worse nightmare. He cleaned up NYC when many said it was lost to crime. He’s a prosecutor’s prosecutor. I think he might be another Teddy Roosevelt.
And he sure is better than Hitlery.
All the paid and unpaid pundits like Bill Bennett and other radio talk show hosts are really keeping their eggs in one basket on this one...And they know its a crap shoot in ‘08...
They say they are giving equal time and access to all the candidates, but in their idle banter its all about Rudy...
Don’t get me wrong I like the Morning in America program he puts on...Its low-key and pleasant to listen too, but it bothers me about the constant pushing of a liberal for the Republican party nomination...
Why is it so hard for the leadership and pundits to realize this???
Personally, I believe its part of that big plan that is the real bi-partisan workings behind the scenes...
And most of us are not buying into the BS it is producing anymore...
Yep, ‘08 is going to be a turning point for all of us...
As much as it's anathema to many folks here to acknowledge it, this process is exactly what's going on in the Ron Paul campaign. Paul's constitutionalist standpoint is attracting unaffiliated voters who had given up on either major party following the Constitution years ago, and his opposition to the continued occupation of Iraq is making up for the unpopularity the GOP has inherited from the George W. Bush years.
Seems to me that IF the point is to defeat Hillry the GOP could at least provide a candidate that is more than just running a positive campaign.
I strongly disagree that McCain is more electable than Rudy.
Rudy Giuliani is a short, bald, effeminate, weird New York City lawyer who speaks with a lisp and has probably never made a fist in his life.
He couldn't lead anyone out of a burning house, let alone lead a nation.
And there is nothing wrong in using electability as a means to evaluate a candidate.. That's what politics is all about.
On the other hand, there is something very wrong {shameful?} with selling your own core beliefs up front for a chance to "win".
Exactly. New York Republicans must think that just calling yourself a Republican will automatically draw all the conservative voters like a magnet.
WRONG!!
Are you actually asking us to deal with these things, or accept them?
If it's the latter, then I'll start wondering how you managed to keep your account alive for two years.
APf
But...but...I thought he personally led thousands to safety on 9-11... (/sarcasm)
THE TRUE CONSERVATIVE.... WHO IS ELECTABLE!
FRED VETS, SIGN UP TODAY AT:
"..the continued occupation of Iraq.." Are you sure you belong at this website? Yes, yes, I see that you signed up all the way back in 2000. Good for you. But do you really believe that America is "occupying" Iraq? Sounds a lot like the drivel that proceedeth from the pie holes of Michael Moore, John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Cindy Sheehan, John Edwards, Jane Fonda, Dennis Kucinich and that crowd. Perhaps you Paulestinians should start your own "conservative" website?
However, because Giuliani is a LIBERAL--he is stuck where he is--already TO THE LEFT OF CENTER!
Hillary will attempt to move to the right to expand her electability (because she will have her base secure).
Rudy CANNOT move to the LEFT--since he has NOT (and never will have) secured the base. Any attempts to move further LEFT to expand his appeal--will help erode what little support he has left in the base.
Giuliani would be a disaster for the Republican Party.
That is what I have been saying.
Rudy will not beat Hillary neither will John Mc Cain.
All a Ridy or a John Mc Cain candidatecy will do is ensure that Hillary wins.
I don’t think that John Mc Cain has a chance [except in his dreams and those of his worshippers] of getting the Republican nomination.
Unfortunately,for real Conservatives, Rudy does. He has the tatic if not open approval of the Republican National Committee. He has the financial backing he has a support base. And he has,at this point in time, in a left handed support of the main stream media.
Should he be the nominee, the last one will fast disappear.
They are some things that are said about Rudy that is true.
He is a fighter. He fought a legal industry tooth and toenail. He sued the gun manufacturers.
If one puts Rudy’s policy statements next to Hillary’s and Bill’s policy statements, one will discover that they agree far more that they differ. If one has any intelligence, this should indicate to one the direction that Rudy’s fight will focus.
I have always considered Mr. Giuliani to be the only force who could give this election to Mrs. Bill.
Whomever we nominate, it cannot be somebody who will have a third-party candidate drawing votes from our side. Hillary is counting on a third-party draining our votes. Soros will finance that candidate. Hillary needs a Republican vote-draining candidate to win. No clinton has ever been elected president by a majority of votes cast.
He may be better than Mrs. Bill but he cannot win against Mrs. bill. He is the one guy the Republican party has who will guarantee a Mrs. Clinton victory.
I would argue that the people who are willing to sell their core beliefs never had them.
When you throw over your values so that someone ostensibly on your side can “win” you will find out soon after the victory that he was never on your side. We already see that with too many politicians who say all the right things and sound ever so much like they are the embodiment of the values of our side. Then they get elected and they aren’t on our side any more. Why on earth would we nominate someone who is most empnhatically NOT on our side in the first place?
John Mc Cain could but Rudy has a much better opportunity.
Hi is NOT better than “Hitlery”. He will give the country to “Hitlery” if he is the nominee.
“I certainly don’t agree with Rudy G on everything, but fact is the abortion genie is never going back in the bottle. Homosexuality is now open, that’s not going to change either. Some level of gun control is gonna happen. Deal with these things.”
I don’t think you get it. The gay activists are not all about ensuring that they are tolerated. They are all about forcing you and everyone else positively to approve of their behavior. As long as anyone anywhere continues to say that their acts are disordered or immoral, that there’s something disordered about the inclination, that person has to be silenced. Actually it goes farther than that, that person must be made to affirm them in their behavior as perfectly normal. They will not stop short of that. They will first try to convince people who don’t care much one way or the other (like you, perhaps) that it’s “no big deal.” They’ve pretty much managed that already. Then they go after the hold-outs—the “social conservatives,” nearly all of them religiously conservative. These people are now the object of hate crime legislation and the sort of regulations (enforced by bureaucrats unaccountable to the voters) being passed in California that forbid you and me to refer to “mom and dad” families as if they were the norm.
Don’t you get it? This is not a matter of indifference. It will come around to bite all of us sooner or later and the bite has begun. Unless you positively affirm that Heather’s having two mommies is just as normal as Ozzie and Harriet, you are a criminal. That’s where it’s headed. And you tell us to “deal with it.” Get your head out of the sand and wake up.
And abortion likewise will come to bite you in the butt. Already a Northwestern University law professor has argued that, since it’s foolish to claim that the unborn child, even at the earliest stages, is not a human being, one has to admit that it has interests that conflict with the mother’s interests IF the mother didn’t want to be pregnant. It then becomes not an innocent but a guilty human being invading her privacy because she did not want it. By the right of self-defense, she may kill it. Moreover, because the state is obligated to help all of us defend ourselves, if the woman needs help from the state to kill the unwanted unborn child, she has a right to state help (state-funding). Notice that the only thing that turns an innocent human baby (a wanted pregnancy) into a guilty privacy-invading human baby is the woman’s sheer will to be pregnant or not to be pregnant. By that reasoning, my will alone can turn a person who’s “in my space” into a guilty offender whom I may legitimately kill, not because of some specific criminal act he may have done (breaking and entering) but just because I don’t like him, don’t want him in my space. Sort of in the way Hitler didn’t want Jews “in his space.”
Particularly the claim that state-funded abortion is a woman’s right by virtue of self-defense means that you can’t just sit idly by and think of abortion as “out there” for those who want to choose it. No, sooner or later you will be paying for it via your taxes, if the Julieannies and the Hillaries take power.
Finally, gun-grabbing is not just an indifferent thing out there that you can tell everyone to “deal with it.” When the hold-outs on homosexuality and abortion become small enough in number and have moved to relatively remote places to get away from the forced indoctrination and criminalization of their beliefs by schools and bureaucrats and governments, then the gay-green-choice choice fascists will surround them and crush them without a whimper because their guns have all been grabbed long ago.
Not that there’s anyway that we could defend ourselves over the long haul with the weapons available to us even if gun-grabbing laws were not on the books. But at least we could go down manfully. But no, the gun-grabbing laws Rudy loves will have long ago castrated us. All that will be left is to lie down and let the tanks roll over us.
Unless, of course, we don’t “just deal with it” but announce loud and long now, while there’s still time to avert a Julieannie nomination, that we won’t “just deal with it” but will oppose RudyGee and that he is unelectable because he is so out of touch with the base, because he “won’t just deal with” the fact that the grass-roots activism that created all of the Republican electoral victories of the past 30 years is pro-life, pro-heterosexual, and pro-gun-freedom.
No, Rudy’s the one who needs to “deal with it,” deal with us. So far all he’s done is jabbed his thumb in our eye to show how tough he is, tough especially in fishnets and high heals and lipstick.
These facts might explain why Giuliani indiscriminately answers "crime" and "George Will said I'm conservative" during the presidential debates...
Not to mention "Reagan" and "9-11".
But Rooty's "George Will said I'm conservative" is the real laugher. That is the most insipid thing thing I've ever heard. It reminds me of a kid saying "But Johnny's mommy let's him do it".
tough in high heels . . .
You don’t quite get it yourself. The drive is for the recognition of homosexual arrangements as superior not as normal.
Now that the Kaizer Times is against him, I guess Rudy should just throw in the towel.
Agreed. Probably the nicest thing we could say is that their beliefs aren’t “well grounded”.
Exactly. How can we possibly hope that Rudy would respect our core beliefs if we think so little of our own values?
Rudy is every vile thing everyone can say about him...
And it doesn’t matter. Every president is only as good as his veto. Bush has only recently found his.
It’s congress that worries me.
Yep; and I have to agree with Joe Biden when he said, in the last Dem Debate: “The only thing Rudy Giuliani ever says is a noun, a vowel and 9ll.”
Hillary would “out liberal” him in the General Election and it would be a landslide for the Dems not only in the Presidential race but down the line to the House and Senate.
Good response!
“Some level of gun control is gonna happen. Deal with these things.”
“I think he might be another Teddy Roosevelt.”
I find it incredible that you made these comments in the same post. Your grasp of history and historical personalities is laughable.
On another note. All other issues aside. There will be a shooting war if they ratchet up gun control. Put it in the bank.
Rudy is a rare specimen of a managerially competent social progressive.
Balony!!!!!!!!!!
Giuliani is a cross-dressing liberal running as a conservative. He masks his abortion, gay and RINO agenda using fear as boob bait for the bubbas. “Only I can protect you”.
When he had his chance on the 9/11 Commission, he cut and ran. When he had a chance to nominate a Homeland Protector, he chose his business partner, Kerik, now facing criminal charges.
“Giuliani is a liberal.”
This is true and we all know it. And that is WHY he CAN beat Hillary.
Like it not, there are a LOT of Republicans that are not as conservative as a lot of people around here think that they should be. Many of them are pro-choice and (gasp!) even gay.
I like Fred and will vote for him. But I think that Rudy will get more votes because a lot of pro-choice voters will prefer him to Hillary. They won’t vote at all for Fred.
I've heard this argument time and time again. WRONG! 1. We are in much more danger of a leftist/socialist (Rudy/Mitt or the Dems) takeover than we are of an Islamic takeover. 2. How does being the victim of the worst terror attack in U.S. history make you a terror warrior? 3. If we abort our own citizens, what need have we of jihadists to kill them with car bombs or beheadings? 4. He may be your mayor, but he's not mine! 5. Without our guns, how will we defend ourselves from Islamic terrorists OR statist tyrants? 6. Do you think jihadists will fear a man in women's clothing?
I keep asking the 20%ers (aka the Rudy apologists) exactly what Guiliani would do different than President Bush in the WOT?
Push for more gun control?
Sue gun manufacturers?
Expand sanctuary cities?
Encourage more illegal aliens by telling them that they are NOT really illegal?
Allow gays to openly serve in the military?
Locate emergency command centers to the most likely target (like he did in NY)?
Make quality appointments to important positions like his recommendation to President Bush of Bernie Kerik to head Homeland Security?
It's outrageous to think that we need a LIBERAL to successfully fight the WOT.
Don't worry. Take your meds. You will be protected.
No, his campaign is attracting conspiracy nuts who yell and scream about the Constitution, but couldn’t tell you a thing about whats in it. And those are his better followers. Don’t get me started on the Stormfront bigots.
LOL! He is going to fight terror via sanctuary cities and open borders..?
You Rudyphiles just don't get it. Rudy is a horrible candidate in every way a candidate can be horrible.
Do you folks agree that the defeat of Radical Islam is the top issue facing America?
His marginal tax cuts were swallowed up by more city spending
tough on crime liberal.
America isn't NYC and we don't want Rudy's authoritarian, police state tactics everywhere else.
Rudy's nominated = 3rd party
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.