Posted on 11/11/2007 5:24:07 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
No to Rudy on the ticket. We need two principled Conservatives on the ticket. Watts, Steele or Blackwell.
also for taking on Jesse jackson and Al sharpton and for cutting taxes and government. Also for throwing yassir Arafat off of public property, Banning porn from times Square. also for taking on the MSM and doing other things that simple liberals do not do. He also did things that George Will referred to as the most successful example of conservative governance in the past 50 years. You know by the company they keep George Will, Bill Simon Pat Robertson and others. As far as undermining what we stand for Rudy widens it. In the past dozen years conservatism has excessively put on a southern and small town face. We are losing everyplace else. We need to restore that with new breed of urban-suburban coastel conservatism. One that will mesh well with the other varieties.
But there’s a flaw in your argument. Rudy’s NOT a Conservative (for heaven’s sake, he was the NY Liberal Party nominee in his runs !). A liberal could reduce the crime rate if they let the police do their jobs.
BTW, if Rudy wants to run for Mayor in 2009 again, I’ll support him, but not for President. Not ever.
Although I’m not convinced that Giuliani would be the best GOP candidate, I can see your point about his being more competitive vs. Her Royal Thighness in some of the states in the Northeast. That might hold true for Florida as well, where a good segment of the electorate are emigrees from urban areas in the Northeast and Midwest.
You can definitely add Illinois to that list.
Rudy SHOULD be competitive on paper, but he isn’t in the reality. There’s no state which leans Democrat Presidentially that shows him being remotely close to winning. That is the entire argument the Rudybots have made all along, he can “win” Democrat states, and it’s not happening. I mean, if you have two liberals running, why would a liberal Democrat voter support a Republican ? And why in a solid GOP state would a Conservative support a liberal Republican ?
Both Sabato and Zogby lean to the 'Rats, so none of this is surprising at all.
Or are the people in New Jersey sooooooooo damn dumb they would elect this corrupt cadaver??
Actually, the game plan for the 'Rats in NJ might be to let Lautenberg (provided he is still above room temperature) have their position on the ballot to test the waters, perhaps at least until a few weeks before Election Day. If at that point, there seems to a problem with his age or physical condition amongst the voters (i. e., if polls indicate that he may be in trouble), they will have him resign because of health, and replace him with another candidate. They actually took the corrupt Toricelli off the ballot beyond the legal deadline in '02, replaced him with Lautenberg illegally, and got away with it because the 'Rats control the state Supreme Court so the law means nothing.
Incidentally, it's ironic that the web site from which the posted article was taken has Toricelli himself as a columnist. That might give you an idea as to their bias.
Heck, Sen Bryd makes more sense when giving a speech on the senate floor then Laut does
Again, let me preface this by saying that I'm not committed to Giuliani for the GOP nomination.
However, it's much too early to do state-by-state polling for potential presidential match-ups next November. That is, state-by-state-polling now is hardly predictive of what the outcome next year may be. A year minus a week is an eternity in politics.
As for the (hypothetical) Giuliani vs. Clinton match-up, one factor is that the Clinton vote has pretty much maxed out, since she is so much more of known quantity around the country. She hasn't been cracking 50% nationally, so she's got to be in trouble. Plus there are signs within the past few weeks that her campaign is stumbling badly (justifiably so, in our opinion).
Most of the country still does not really know Giuliani as a fixture on their TV screens yet, and almost no one has seen the two of them face-to-face in confrontation. When and if these things sort themselves out, I would venture a guess that most of the undicideds would prefer a man who is generally closer to them on the issues, seems relatively cool under media scrutiny, and is much much stronger on national security and defense to a woman who is way out in left field, has a criminal history, and has a multitude of personality flaws.
Remember that polling has shown that about 50% of the electorate would never vote for Her Royal Thighness. Granted that that number may be closer to 40% in some of those "blue" states. But there are enough undecideds breaking strongly in Giuliani's favor when push comes to shove, so he will be very competitive in the bulk of the Northeast and in Florida.
As for conservative Republicans (like almost all of us here), our choice would be either Giuliani or staying home. I should hope that almost all of us would recognize under such a scenario what the better of those two alternatives would be. We cannot let The Witch change the US into a Stalinist dictatorship.
I can analyze races off the top of my head and probably get it right better than 85% of the time, and I’ve just seen far too many examples of the GOP trying to pander to the left with liberal candidates to get votes and it promptly blows up in our faces. The presumption always is, “Well, the Conservatives will stay with us because they’ll never allow (fill-in-the-blank Democrat) to win such and such an election.” The thing is, they often won’t do that at all. What’s in it for a Conservative to support a liberal RINO ? Absolutely nothing. All you get, if they do manage to get elected, and this happens almost every time, is a divisive incumbent who enacts a liberal agenda, causes massive splits within the party, and substantial losses for our party at the next election, and always when the seat comes open, promptly falls to the Democrats. This is what happens, for instance, every time we elect a RINO Governor. Electing a RINO President would have horrible consequences for the party from a national standpoint, and again, only the Democrats stand to benefit from it.
I mean, which would you prefer, a Democrat President enacting a liberal agenda or a Republican one ? At least with the former we can stand united against them and make gains at the next election — not with a Republican, and they then smear the ENTIRE party with the unpopularity of their liberalism. Again, a thorough and complete fiasco.
As for 50% of the population not voting for Hillary, 50% won’t have to. Her husband never cracked 50% either time (43% in ‘92, 49% in ‘96). She could end up getting somewhere between 43-45% and still win the election facing Rudy, because Rudy may end up in the high 30s with a 3rd party Conservative that will come forward getting another 15% or so. Conservatives just won’t turn out for Rudy. This Conservative will vote 3rd party. I’m sorry, but I cannot in good conscience vote for a liberal Republican and have us end up with a damaged national party that will make it impossible for us to regain Congress for the next 20 years (if not longer). We’d be better off with Hillary, since at least we’d swiftly win back Congress by 2010.
Of course, we can also all support Fred and keep those awful scenarios from coming to pass.
Rudy is an urban conservative who masqueraded as a liberal in NYC. he is an activist, he is creative and is outstanding at guerrilla politics (all of these things are things we need desperately in the GOP). You are forgetting that politics is a coalition and unlike the “conservative†presidents in the past you will be the squeaky wheel in the coalition and that is what gets the grease. I hope you don’t blow it. since you (and I) control whether he gets the nomination again if he does not make good.
(1) Giuliani is not a RINO (in contrast to the likes of some of the Republican senators and ex-senators or governors and ex-governors) and you are mistaken if you lump him with them. On the most important issues - defense, national security, crime, the economy, even health care - he is definitely conservative . Although he has his flaws on some social issues, those things are more likely to be settled by courts than to be dictated by the executive branch. And Giuliani has talked about appointing "strict constructionist" judges. He will certainly be able to distinguish himself from the ultraleftist Clinton if and when they meet head to head. This will not be a contest of Tweedle Dum vs. Tweedle Dee.
(2) This is the presidency we are dealing with, the future of the whole country. Drifting off to a third party candidate would be cutting off your nose to spite your face, letting a tragedy happen. Have some people not learned the lesson from the past?
(3) If the disaster of an HRC presidency should occur, we couldn't even count on honest congressional elections, if any at all, in 2010. Were there any real elections in Germany after Hitler became chancellor? (BTW, he and the Nazis never got anywhere near a majority of the vote; the opposition, instead of being unified, was split.) And even if there were real congressional elections in 2010, HRC would still control the executive branch, and fast-tracked illegal immigrants might prevent us from having honest presidential elections in the future. In other words, the American republic might be gone forever.
Any conservative thinking of staying home or voting third party against Giuliani should think long and hard about the tremendous risk involved.
The US Supreme Court declined to get involved.
(Also note that since CFR, there can be no ads from non-candidates within 30 days of an election, therefore, Lautenberg was virtually guaranteed to be free from criticism in "his election campaign".)
BTW, I was kind of surprised when I looked it up and found out that the Lautenberg "election" had occurred five years ago. Time really flies.
Interesting question: If the NJ Dems had to replace Lautenberg in the Senate or on the ballot, who do you think would be his successor?
My doberman pinscher (Grace) says "hi" to Trixie, Ginger and Mustang Sally. Being a conservative (which I assume you are) with three dogs gets you extra points with me. And a teacher yet! Perhaps there is some hope for academia after all.
Make no mistake, as Huckster was rightly labelled as a pro-life liberal, Rudy is a law & order liberal, nothing more. But even that belies the fact that he was pro-illegals (ditto with Huckster), and I will not support any candidate that has championed their cause, because that does away with any credibility the candidate claims to have for protecting our national security. The people that support him (such as Bratton) are pro-illegals. He will not be getting my vote under any circumstances for President, it’s that simple.
I stand 100% on what I said. In the end, most of my theories tend to pan out.
"(1) Giuliani is not a RINO (in contrast to the likes of some of the Republican senators and ex-senators or governors and ex-governors) and you are mistaken if you lump him with them."
That's where we profoundly disagree. Profoundly. The only thing "Republican" about Rudy is his having reduced the crime rate in NYC, but that's it. Any liberal Dem could do that in allowing law enforcement to do their jobs... and there's no excuse for them not to.
"On the most important issues - defense, national security, crime, the economy, even health care - he is definitely conservative."
The defense and national security are dubious, solely because of his stance with championing the cause of illegals' rights. You support them, you don't support national security. As for the economy or health care, those are two issues we'd have to take his word on, but I've never seen a liberal Republican averse to screwing around with both.
"Although he has his flaws on some social issues, those things are more likely to be settled by courts than to be dictated by the executive branch."
Some ? He's 180 degrees from Conservative positions on issues of conscience. I've had Democrat politicos representing me that weren't as liberal. He refused to come out against partial birth abortion. That is a basic character issue, if he can't condemn brutal murder, then what can I tell you ?
"And Giuliani has talked about appointing "strict constructionist" judges. He will certainly be able to distinguish himself from the ultraleftist Clinton if and when they meet head to head. This will not be a contest of Tweedle Dum vs. Tweedle Dee."
When a liberal tells me he or she will appoint individuals that believe the polar opposite of their viewpoints, I have one word to say to them -- bull$hit.
"(2) This is the presidency we are dealing with, the future of the whole country. Drifting off to a third party candidate would be cutting off your nose to spite your face, letting a tragedy happen. Have some people not learned the lesson from the past?"
The RINO Establishment insists on forcing down our throats a candidate offensive to the Conservative base, they are asking us to vote for somebody we disagree with. In other words, we have no choice, but an echo. I'll vote for Mickey Mouse before I vote again for a RINO liberal. The Republican party has no reason to exist if it decides it wants to become America's 2nd liberal party. Thanks to the leadership of liberal RINOs, we've seen what their magic did to many formerly preeminent GOP states. The party no longer exists or is unviable.
"(3) If the disaster of an HRC presidency should occur, we couldn't even count on honest congressional elections, if any at all, in 2010. Were there any real elections in Germany after Hitler became chancellor? (BTW, he and the Nazis never got anywhere near a majority of the vote; the opposition, instead of being unified, was split.) And even if there were real congressional elections in 2010, HRC would still control the executive branch, and fast-tracked illegal immigrants might prevent us from having honest presidential elections in the future. In other words, the American republic might be gone forever."
We're letting the hysteria over Hillary blind us to reason and oh-so-willing to accept lowering the bar to below ground level in order to beat her. If Rudy beats her (or Romney, or Huckster), you've scored nothing but a pyrhhic victory. We can survive 4 years of a disastrous liberal rodent Presidency, because it will force us as a party to get our act together and stand firm like a rock against her. We cannot survive 4 years of a disastrous liberal RINO Presidency, causing massive splits in the party, shrinking our numbers at the next election, and the end result being by 2012, we're left with 30-some members of the Senate, only 1/3rd of the House, a dozen Governors, and a clear shot for Hillary or Obama to have absolute power once they win in a landslide on our backs. Sorry, I won't be a party to that. If we can't back Fred now, this party is gonna have to bite the bullet for the short run to smack itself back to reality that it needs to stop backing and pandering to liberals.
"Any conservative thinking of staying home or voting third party against Giuliani should think long and hard about the tremendous risk involved."
As you can see, I have.
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.