No more perverts in the White House!
Posted on 10/09/2007 8:32:07 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
Front-runner Rudy Giuliani increasingly claims the mantle of invincibility -- issues, schmissues, he's the only guy who can beat Hillary.
Judging from my recent cocktail party conversations, it's having an impact. But these same conversations reveal how much wishful thinking goes into the myth of Rudy the Invincible.
"I can't believe the American people will vote for that woman and her husband, a philanderer," one wealthy businessman told me.
"Who are you supporting?" I innocently inquired.
"Rudy," he said.
Can you spell "cognitive dissonance"?
Sean Hannity spends hours every afternoon criticizing those in the GOP coalition (such as Dr. James Dobson) who won't vote for Rudy; sure Giuliani may be wrong on gay marriage and abortion, but he'll be much better than Hillary because he'll appoint "strict constructionist" Supreme Court justices, right?More self-delusion. Bucking the tide by appointing judges with sufficient intellectual integrity to overturn Roe v. Wade is very hard. Ronald Reagan wanted to do it, and he got it right only once. Even President Bush put appointing his good friend Harriet Miers ahead of appointing a Sam Alito. Only when the base went ballistic did Bush back down, and only because he really is a conservative who cares about what conservatives think.
Rudy? Here's a safe bet: He will appoint a loyalist crony to the bench. When the base erupts, he'll tell the base where it can stick its objections. That's Rudy.
When he's on your side, you admire how fearlessly he will defend your views. When he's not on your side, he ruthlessly steamrolls over you. And on abortion? Don't kid yourself: Rudy is not on our side.
And the Supreme Court is not the only issue of concern to social conservatives. What will Rudy do if and when a resurgent Democrat majority tries to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding for abortion? Or for that matter overturns the federal definition of marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act? Will Rudy spend his political capital on vetoing either of these? He's made us no promises. Instead, he's counting on widespread self-delusion and cognitive dissonance to carry enough social conservatives to win the nomination.
My question is: What is he counting on afterward? Because, frankly, Rudy's electoral prospects don't look that good.
The once-powerful Reagan coalition had three legs -- strong on defense, less government and social conservatism. But the war in Iraq is not the same as the war on communism. It's very unpopular, and Rudy has become as identified with this unpopular war as John McCain. Meanwhile, he has abandoned social conservatism. What's left of the Reagan coalition for Rudy to run on? Naked fiscal conservatism? Conservatives are deluding themselves if they think fiscal conservatism by itself is a winning political coalition. Do they not remember the party of Gerald Ford? It was very fiscally conservative, socially moderate, and a permanent minority party.
The halo of "America's Mayor" is already slipping. For months, polls showed Rudy Giuliani leading Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head matchup, but by June of this year that lead had begun to evaporate. The latest poll, conducted in late September by ABC News and The Washington Post, shows Hillary Clinton beating Rudy Giuliani by eight points. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney trails Clinton in a head-to-head matchup in the latest Rasmussen poll by only nine points. One point better than Romney does not a convincing argument make for abandoning all principles.
And that's before Christian conservative leaders bolt the party, which has abandoned them on abortion, to run a third-party candidate.
A little political realism, please. If you think a candidate who breaks up the Republican Party is the best man to lead the nation, vote for Rudy. But don't imagine, it's going to be easy to elect him.
“Although the EITC was signed into law by Ford in 1975, it was substantially increased by Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. Many (Reagan and Milton Friedman among others) have claimed that the EITC lifts people out of poverty and increases work incentives because it is connected to earned income.”
To me, that program has always seemed like a subsidy for low wages, wages that would not be so low if we didn’t allow so many policies that lower them (won’t go into those now). We have many transfer payment subsidies for low wage earners, and if those workers earned more we’d save on all those programs and also allow the workers to make more choices about their purchases of goods and services in the consumer market.
And, there’s definitely MUCH fraud in the EITC program. I worked for a major tax preparation service one year, and declined to go back for more mainly because of not wanting to have any involvement in such obvious fraud.
One more time...the conservatives Rudy loses he makes up with Moderate Dems...if you don’t think there are more moderates than social conservatives, you’re wrong.
I agree with you . Fred has had an immense amount of pressure put upon him and I think he took it in stride .
I really enjoyed his subtle smackdown of Christopher Fatthews ...it’s about time
You should write a book about your experiences. The EITC has this halo of virtue. In reality, it is a cesspool of fraud, gaming, and entitlement.
Really wild rationalizations!
One more time ... Thompson can appeal to the middle/moderates just as well as Rudy can , and he can bring the Conservatives while he does it . Rudy can’t .
One more time ... I will also say that I think Thompson will have coat tails ... Rudy won’t .
Giuliani would do far more damage to the country than Hillary Clinton would ever be allowed to do. Only liberal Republicans can most liberal legislation passed. A Giuliani Presidency guarantees a shrinking Republican minority while a Hillary Presidency likely means a Republican majority again.”
I agree, just as two years of Slick Willie with a Democrat controlled Congress was the impetus to the Republicans winning control of both houses for the first time in forty years.
A Giuliani presidency would be four years like this past summer and the immigration internal fight, a RINO president trying to pass liberal policies in cahoots with the Democrats in Congress.
“You should write a book about your experiences. The EITC has this halo of virtue. In reality, it is a cesspool of fraud, gaming, and entitlement.”
I probably don’t have enough for a book, but at least where I worked (and it’s probably this way most everywhere) we prepared the returns based upon the information provided by the client. Use your imagination. But often they’d provide the wrong relatives (ineligible) and have to rethink who they were providing support for.
Of course, many knew the score and walked in with an acceptable list of people they provided qualifying support for. Some were probably legitimate.
Thanks for at least being honest about who you'll support. Got your Hillary bumper stickers on yet?
Wise words.
Prepare to duck.
Nor will I. That is a perversion of the function of one’s vote, which is, in fact, solely to be used to elect one of the viable (i.e., major party) candidates.
“I can’t believe the American people will vote for that woman and her husband, a philanderer,””
Right, instead they will choose Rootie the serial philanderer who put his office in the WTC against his security adviser’s advice so he could have a convenient love shack from which to cheat on his wife
I'd vote for neither because I am smarter to realize voting for a liberal is detrimental to conservatism.
I would certainly be pulling for Hillary Clinton to win, though. Her election would pave the way for another conservative revolution while Giuliani would turn both parties into liberal ones.
You mean except on social issues and gun control, issues he if far more liberal on than Bush. That means, he wwould be a big-government, pro-amnesty, gun-grabbing social liberal in office. How is that any different than electing Bill Clinton to office?
Literally, Giuliani's character and liberal record in office are almost identical to Bill Clinton.
I honestly believe in Bill Clinton were running for the first time for President as a Republican against Hillary Rodham (who had married someone else), we’d have the same people supporting Giuliani supporting him.
However her cackling could be the secret weapon to drive/prove UBL dead/outta his cave! Let the cackels over Tora Bora begin!
Now why in the world would we want the Republican party to move further to the left? The Republican party is a conservative pro-life, pro-family, pro-liberty party and should remain as such. No thanks to the abortionist liberals! The dems can keep their trash. We’ll run and win on our conservative principles.
Thakyouverymuch.
Same thing that Alan Keyes went through.
I like Hunter because he gets to the point.
I don’t have the ability to listen to someone talking trying to hit all the points and with alot of words in between.
To hard to discern.
Republicans have a big problem in the presidential race. Romney looks too contrived to be believed. Thompson looks like he’s going to fall over any minute. Rudy’s too liberal to get the nomination. Huckabee is just a too “aw, gee, schucks” kinda guy. Hunter scowls way too much even if he has reason to. Ron Paul’s a looney toon. Brownback looks polished but I don’t trust his past positions. Lastly Tancredo is a little too spastic.
No more perverts in the White House!
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.