Posted on 11/11/2007 5:24:07 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
Hey, I don't give a damn, and it was funny, but it's not going to play well with enough people out in the sticks. Rudy is as popular as a canker sore in the most Republican states in the south. He can't win them.
"Well, then we just have to disagree."
I don't know where we're going to disagree on polling data, because again, Rudy DOESN'T LEAD IN A SINGLE DEMOCRAT LEANING STATE. Since when has running to the left earned Republicans MORE votes ? It doesn't, it earns us less. Reagan didn't water down his message and he won 49 states in 1984 (and in the state he lost, MN, he still won 5 out of 8 Congressional districts). We need to stop with this pandering to the left crap, it has been a disaster of epic proportions. We've been shut out of entire states because of this tack thanks to buffoonish liberal RINO Governors (like Romney) who have laid to waste our ability to compete in those places. When are folks going to wake up and smell the FAILURE ? It's time for the tried and true method that has worked and running a solid Conservative candidate who will turn out voters, not turn them away.
In a general level, I 100% agree with you. On the other hand, we don’t have Reagan (and Carter) now. The country is very different. Take California for example. Do you seriously believe that Reagan/Santorum/Allen/Thompson/Huckabee/Hunter could win CA today? It is not going to happen.
“Rudy is as popular as a canker sore in the most Republican states in the south. He can’t win them.”
Well, Rudy is leading Thompson in SC so clearly Rudy is popular even among SC republicans.
Anyway, I certainly agree that we must stop pandering to the left and I think Rudy’s past positions on illegals are outright dangerous (but so is the history of other top tier candidates, including Romney and Thompson).
Huckster isn't a Conservative. He's a pro-life liberal. I already explained why many states CURRENTLY will not vote for ANY Republican at the Presidential level, and that's entirely due to the fact that open RINO sabotage of these states with liberal RINO leadership has had ghastly consequences for the party. Ah-nold failed to help us out there, and a recent list put out by a UK newspaper had him listed as the 8th most influential LIBERAL in the United States. He won't help anyone other than himself. The only thing Fred has to do is win all the states Bush did and maybe pick off a few more if possible. We don't need to look for a landslide, we just need to win.
"Well, Rudy is leading Thompson in SC so clearly Rudy is popular even among SC republicans."
Rudy is at 19%, so is Fred. And that assumes those polls are even correct, and I don't believe that they are. Romney's been pouring money into the state and he hasn't gotten anywhere, still stuck in 3rd or 4th place.
"Anyway, I certainly agree that we must stop pandering to the left and I think Rudy’s past positions on illegals are outright dangerous (but so is the history of other top tier candidates, including Romney and Thompson)."
I don't buy that his "past" position. He intends on lining his administration with establishment RINOs and liberals that believe in legalizing the invasion. We can't afford that, period. I have to live next door to the consequences of our current President failing to do the right thing, and you think I'd trust a man who made NYC a sanctuary city who is well to the LEFT of him on most everything else ? No f'ing way. Neither will have the Conservative base or more. They put up this guy and it will be an electoral fiasco.
“Romney’s been pouring money into the state and he hasn’t gotten anywhere, still stuck in 3rd or 4th”
Romney is first in SC (not third or fourth) according to RCP averages. Maybe you meant that in national polls..
Anyway, I just disagree with electoral disaster with Rudy. I would not vote for him in primaries, but according to polls I have seen he is the strongest republican in general election. It is not just ultraconservatives who are voting (and many of them are voting for Rudy). So called moderates/independents are more and more important.
I agree that we don’t need a landslide (that would be impossible anyway, given that CA is now very liberal and full of illegals). Basically, as long as we win OH and FL we will win. Losing OH can be compensated by winning MI, MN, NJ or PA. Rudy is very competitive in those states. Conservative (like Santorum or Allen)would barely reach 35% in those states (I think Santorum got 34% in 2006).
LOL! New Jersey? Of course it is.
New Jersey would elect Pee Wee Herman if he promised them more "free stuff".
No, I said South Carolina. See, this demonstrates precisely what I mean, the polls are all over the place. You're seeing polling data with Romney in 1st and I'm seeing him in 3rd or 4th in the same state. A lot of this stuff is highly unreliable. Let me ask you something, have you ever been polled ? I haven't, and I have a landline, not a cell phone. They're not polling people on cell phones.
"Anyway, I just disagree with electoral disaster with Rudy. I would not vote for him in primaries, but according to polls I have seen he is the strongest republican in general election. It is not just ultraconservatives who are voting (and many of them are voting for Rudy). So called moderates/independents are more and more important."
Actually, he isn't. Those same all-over-the-map polls have actually maintained that the strongest candidate is... *drum roll*... McCain ! But he's senile, unstable, and completely unreliable. But again, even he fails to best Hillary in a single rodent-leaning Presidential state. BTW, I don't ever use "ultraconservative", because there is no such thing, that's a media phrase used by liberals to describe the mainstream Conservative base. Most of those so-called "moderate/independents" are just liberals too disingenuous to call themselves what they are. They're the only ones who bitch and moan about being "labelled." It's a pointless exercise to pander to the left. It gets you nowhere. They already have a candidate, and her name is Hillary.
"I agree that we don’t need a landslide (that would be impossible anyway, given that CA is now very liberal and full of illegals). Basically, as long as we win OH and FL we will win. Losing OH can be compensated by winning MI, MN, NJ or PA. Rudy is very competitive in those states. Conservative (like Santorum or Allen)would barely reach 35% in those states (I think Santorum got 34% in 2006)."
If we lose Ohio, we won't win ANY of those states. OH is a Republican state, those others are (at least Presidentially) aren't. And, again, I challenge you to produce any polling data that shows Rudy winning any of those states. He isn't, and he won't. And Santorum got 41% in last year's election (but in raw numbers, he only got 50,000 fewer votes than he got in his first election in 1994), and his loss had more to do with several factors, the national rodent tide, a strong rodent Gubernatorial candidate, and bonafide anger at Santorum from the Conservative base for endorsing the treacherous liberal Arloon Specter in '04. A lot of seniors in PA also believed Bob Casey, SENIOR was running for office, and that produced confusion. The late Casey, Sr. is revered in the state and has a lot of Republican admirers for being one of the most unapologetic pro-lifers in the past 30 years in politics. Junior couldn't hold his father's jockeys. BTW, even Bob Dole got 40% of the vote in PA. Dubya got 48% and carried the overwhelming number of counties, but it is very hard to overcome the factor of massive voter fraud to the tune of over 100k votes in Philadelphia.
No, I don’t but nor do I have evidence to the contrary.
Damn. Just damn.
Do you know why Santorum got trounced?
Do you remember his endorsement of Arlen Specter?
That was a betrayal that real conservatives could not abide and they refused to vote for him again. Pro life dems voted for Casey (who claimed to be pro life).
Furthermore, his ‘pro gun’ record was spotty at best at 64%. When I was in school, 64% was a failing grade.
He also loved to support big government compassion here and around the world.
That will be the test of whether the voters in New Jersey are coming out of their coma and ending their love of the rat, or BVS ( Battered Voter Syndrome) wins out.
I don’t know if NJ freepers have heard, but the Lautenberg Turnpike Exit to No Where and Train Station with No Parking is getting a cricket court installed, WITH PARKING.
Does anyone have any Republican names that could possibly successfully challenge Lautenberg?
lousenberg the gun grabber-just what America needs
That's kind of the point.
If he dies in office, the (most likely) Democrat governor will appoint a younger, relatively unknown party hack in his place - giving that younger, unknown party hack a perfect platform to become known and win the next election, creating another multi-term Democrat seat in the Senate.
“*cough*Steve Lonegan for Senate*cough*”
He’d be good, but so could some other guys. Congressman Saxton just announced his retirement from the House (after, what, 22 years?), and could get enough Dem votes in South Jersey to win statewide-—he also has a social conservative/environmentalist voting record that should be popular with both rock-ribbed conservatives and moderates.
And I’d be interesting in finding out why Assemblyman Pennacchio is described as “Reaganesque.” If they mean that he’s a solid conservative who is able to communicate to voters how they actually agree with him on the most important issues, then he should certainly be a candidate for statewide office, either for the Senate next year or the governorship in 2009. Running against Lautenberg, I can just see the ads:
“Remember, this Pennacchio tells the truth, and it is Lautenberg’s nose that keeps growing with every lie he tells us.” (Cut to an image of Lautenberg’s wooden nose growing, with little twigs and leaves cropping up here and there.)
(BTW, they’d have to run those ads early on, or else the Democrats will run “lying Pennacchio” ads first.)
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
NJ is one of the “tease me” states which always seems “winnable” until the votes come in.
Saxton is retiring because of his health.
The one thing I give Rudy credit for is reducing the crime rate, but the problem remains with him that he is a policy liberal Democrat on virtually everything else. He’s not even as Conservative as Democrats that have represented me in Congress have been. He can take certain positions, but they are ludicrous given his record. He made NYC a sanctuary city for illegals, he was, along with Huckster, one of the most passionate defenders for them. I’m sorry, but I’ve got to live next door to a whole gaggle of illegal criminals that their “open-door” policy favored, and I will NEVER vote for a Republican who has championed their cause. Their switch of position now is nothing but rank opportunism.
Never trust a liberal, from EITHER party, especially from ours. They undermine what WE stand for from within.
I admire Rudy Giuliani’s public record, but we have to deal in reality, and it looks like he could spawn a third-party candidacy. And that would destroy GOP chances in 2008. IMHO, the Fred Thompson will be the nominee, though his campaign is going through growing pains right now. A better idea would be for Giuliani to be Thompson’s Vice Presidential running mate.
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.