Giuliani To Appear At Schwarzenegger Conference

NY Post ^ | March 3, 2007 | MAGGIE HABERMAN

[FairOpinion]

Rudy Giuliani will appear at a high-profile press conference with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Monday during a two-day jaunt to raise campaign cash on the West Coast.

The former mayor and The Governator are scheduled to discuss gang violence and crime.

[Jim Robinson]

Rudy is running on an abortionist, gay rights, gun control ticket so he can capture the leftist vote. Problem is, the left is antiwar. Why would they vote for Rudy when they can have Hillary?

[nj26]

Great analysis.

Rudy will set the GOP back by 30 years. We will be back to the days of Gerald Ford. Two liberals on the ballot, albeit with the Republican slightly to the right on national security.

The NY Times and Newsweek are promoting Rudy because they want to ensure that the Eastern establishment regains control of both parties (we already know that Soros and the Wall Street money funds the Dems.)

As that conservative heroine Phyllis Schlafly noted in 1964 (as she fought to prevent the MSM from annointing Rockefeller as nominee), we need "a choice, not an echo." The Republican party needs to listen to grass-roots conservatives across America, and nominate a conservative. I can barely distinguish Rudy from Hillary on the issues.

[nopardons]

At the least, it would make a Dem have to spend, money in many states that they usually don't have to and THAT is a very good thing.

[My GOP]

I believe Rudy will win the CA primary but I honestly don't see him winning CA in the general. I could be wrong but I still see CA as being very tough for any GOP Presidential nominee. But he will pick up many other states like NH, NJ, PA to name a few.

[samadams2000]

This is great for Rudy because we love Arnold out here.......zzzzzzz

[migraines]

This guy is finished with conservatives-- 80% of the base is adios with this liberal. Get over him and let's move on.

[FairOpinion]

For the same reason they voted for Arnold, instead of Angelides.

Speaking of which, I came across a post from a very wise person:

---

Well, there is the Republican party with some conservative members and some not so conservative and then there's the evil Marxist liberal socialist Democrat Party. I'd rather have a conservative Republican in office, but I'll take a not so conservative Republican over any evil Marxist liberal socialist Democrat any day of the week. And I might express my unhappiness with some of his policies but I think I've learned my lesson about irreversibly trashing the Republican office holder or the Republican base or the party itself (at least not too much trashing). As they say, the alternative is unthinkable.


34 posted on 03/02/2006 12:15:02 AM PST by Jim Robinson

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1588228/posts?page=34#34

---

Arnold may not be perfect, but he was THE right choice -- if we had Angelides, we would now have legal homosexual marriage in CA (which Arnold vetoed), government run socialized medicine, drivers licenses for illegals, higher taxes, a bankrupt CA, just for starters.

Rudy may not be perfect either, but he is a leader, strong on the War on Terror, he did say he considers marriage to be between a man and a woman, so he isn't going to push any homosexual marriage bills, and he did say and Ted Olson confirmed that he will nominate judges like Scalia and Alito. AND he can beat Hillary or any of the other Dems.
Another thing to consider, is that if he gets elected, he will have coattails, and we may recapture Congress. With a Republican Congress, I don't think we need to fear any homosexual marriage bills, or activist judges.

BUT if Hillary gets in with coattails, we will have a Marxist dictator for president with a Democrat Congress -- and what do you think that will mean to issues near and dear to conservatives' heart, everything from the War on Terror, to homosexual marriage, to the main thing: JUDGES.

[Howlin]

How can you advance anything when you lose and hand over power to the very people who are out to destroy you?

[PhiKapMom]

I think Rudy stands a chance to take the State or at least put it in play. We have a lot of Republicans out there that are recognizing we have a candidate that could possibly win and expect to see one of the largest GOTV drives ever.

Told some people I know if there is a large GOTV drive, count me in because I will go spend some time there with old friends from when we lived in CA and help out.

[GSlob]

'Why would it be a defeat for the dems if most of them vote for Rudy?"
Well, there are dems and then there are dems. There are, or could be, Rudy dems, just like earlier there were Reagan dems - and then there are hillary dems, moveon dems. The latter are to be defeated at all costs. The former are, or could be, a proper part of civilized body politic.

[NormsRevenge]

Is the horse race over already, Howlin? Has the Fat Lady sung?

[My GOP]

Well, if he can at least put it in play and make the Democrats put money and effort into defending it instead of trying to win a battle groundstate that would be a good thing. Its never good in an election when you have to defend what is suppose to be your home turf. And if he can be competitive, that would be a positive for Republicans down the ticket as well.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Arnold is every bit as non-republican but strong as Rudy is, and he had absolutely NO republican coat-tails.

[NormsRevenge]

It's a little early to play that card, isn't it, TWirP!?!

would you like to just skip the primary as well, like the Gub did with his party's acquiescence,, you could care less who you kick in the head,, you're just a Progressive shill, and a pathetic one at that.

[Howlin]

You're mocking people who want to win to hold onto the power in the White House; I just figured you were ready to capitulate.

[nopardons]

Ct. has far more registered Indies, than Dems and GOPers. Many of those living in the Southwestern part of the state work in N.C.Y., which gives Rudy a good base there, right off the bat.

More than any other GOP candidate, Rudy has the possibility to take a lot of blue states; or, at the very least, place them in play, making the Dem candidate have to spread him/herself very thin.

[Jim Robinson]

B/S. Rudy has zero chance in California.

[Blackirish]

In my book, Rudy carrying CA would be a defeat for conservatives

---

A sure sign of full blown RDS (Rudy Derangement Syndrome)

[nopardons]

Is that WHY the 2000 election was such an overwhelming landslide for President Bush? /s

[CharlesWayneCT]

But that could drive more donations, and more democrat spending, and therefore drive up democrat turnout, electing even MORE democrats since the typical Rudy supporter won't support the conservative republicans.

Don't see that much here on FR, but out on the regular blogs you can see people talking about how they haven't voted Republican for years but will make "an exception" for Rudy. Those voters, who might have stayed home, will show up, vote for Rudy, and then vote down-ticket democrat.

In 2006, Allen was hurt by the Marriage Amendment in Virginia. Turns out we sold it well, and there were a lot of black democrats who were religiously opposed to gay marriage. They showed up, voted NO on the amendment, and then voted for James Webb because he was a fellow democrat, when they in fact had little interest in showing up for him otherwise.

It is quite possible that without the big push for our marriage amendment, Allen might have pulled out the vote, given he only lost by 10,000 votes.