Posted on 05/01/2007 1:41:21 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Rudy Giuliani could be the death knell of the Reagan Coalition, that successful alliance of economic, defense, and social conservatives forged in the 1976 Republican primary.
In his insurgent campaign against President Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan built the architecture for a durable political coalition of supply-siders, budget hawks, Cold Warriors, law-and-order advocates, welfare reformers, pro-lifers, defenders of the Second Amendment, and others. He integrated these main elements of the post-war conservative intellectual movement into a successful, winning political juggernaut that was, until recently, the Republican Party.
In recent years the social component of the coalition has been augmented by pro-family and pro-marriage advocates, opponents of affirmative action, and the proponents of secure borders and legal immigration.
Giuliani's radical social positions are an affront to most elements of this arm of the GOP and the conservative movement.
Some conservatives claim that Giuliani's vague and vaporous statements on the appointment of conservative judges, and his barely audible support of the ban on partial birth abortion, offer evidence of sound instincts sufficient to palliate the concerns of the traditionalist wing of the party.
On abortion, the integrity of marriage, and the Second Amendment, Giuliani puts a stick in the eye of social conservatives. As revealed on YouTube, he is a passionate supporter of the expenditure of taxpayer dollars to destroy unborn children. And he deserves very little credit for summoning the energy to oppose infanticide, which is what the partial birth abortion issue is really about. Even Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the late Democratic Senator from New York, maintained that minimalist position with respect to the right to life.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Ping
Now that’s what I’ve been trying to say. Great post!
Well, we would probably SURVIVE a Rudy Presidency.... I consider any of the Democrats (And John McCain) a knife to the throat, a gun to the head and a grenade with the pin pulled.
We should be able to do much better than Giuliani... But I’ll have to vote for him if he gets the nomination. I won’t like it; I’m so sick of having to vote for the ‘lesser of two evils’, but I’ll do it. I’ll definitely work against him in the primaries though.
Rudy is more of a slow poison than a knife to the throat IMHO
Right on. (Also trapped in liberal Seattle.)
Combined with a Dim congress and House, he could institute policies the would seriously damage the conservative way of life for years.
“To put it another way, some economic and national defense conservatives may be able to make the calculation that Rudy is their man and standard-bearer. Indeed, Giuliani has some claim to their loyalties based on his record.
But this is not an option for social conservatives. It would be a Faustian bargain without even the assurance of any quid pro quo. If they are shut out of the GOP, they are finished as a force in American politics. This is not a parliamentary democracy. No splinter party or rump organization, centered in traditional values, will have any influence on the nation’s two parties.”
“Faustian bargain”.. No thanks.
Good find.
Yeah, keep on saying this, it is exactly what the RINOs want to hear!
You won’t hear it from me!
$cr*w Giuliani and the horse he rode in on.
So, If Guiliani gets the nomination, Who ya gonna vote for? Hillary? Obama? Stay home and let Hillary or Obama win?
Let 2006 happen all over again?
I don’t see any third party potential candidates I’d want to vote for. Maybe you do.
Look, I don’t WANT Guiliani... We have to make sure he doesn’t win the primary... But if by some mischance he does, at least he won’t immediately surrender to the Jihadists.
While there's a chance that Rudy can "healthily" hang on into a second term as President, his Conservative running mate could be sling-shot into the following eight years.
Let's not even consider enduring four—or eight—years of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Don't make me come back to say, "I told you so"!
Followed by four or eight years of Barack Obama.
The phrase "Reagan Coalition" has been around since 1980 -- over a quarter of a century, in other words -- and has been of common usage in conservative circles all that time. (Simply Googling the phrase comes up with 13,5000+ citations, alone.)
As to why you "have never heard of it" before now: I really couldn't say.
Were Giuliani to get the Republican nomination, I would support him.
Until then, I will fight like hell to keep him from being the nominee.
I agree with this article, and if Rino Rudy is nominated I will go third party. I can not ever vote for this liberal.
ALL:
Nominating Giuliani opens the door for other RINOs to lead the GOP in the future.
Stopping Giuliani today in the primaries cements the conservative dominance of the Republican Party. It sends a message to all RINOs that principles matter to the rank and file.
Principles matter. Electing RINO Rudy is not my idea of electing a Republican, it’s my idea of destroying the Republican Party.
God help us all, if Rudy or the Beast wins.
Again, I have to ask: Which third party candidate can you reasonably vote for? If you can tell me one who isn’t a complete nutcase AND has a snowball’s chance in Hades, I might be willing to go along with the idea.
I’m probably more conservative overall than 99% of the people here, but at least I’m sane enough to chose the lesser of the possible evils than pin my hopes on someone that hasn’t a prayer.
(Well, I’m just as anti-McCain as you are anti-Guiliani, so I can’t claim to be totally realistic about this, but I’m going to try to stop short of ‘cutting off my nose to spite my face’, and pray that neither one of them gets crowned the GOP candidate.)
There is no quicker, more certain way to ensure another electoral loss of 2006 proportions (or, more likely, worse) than to nominate a candidate so profoundly hostile to baseline conservative values in 2008:
Now, more than ever -- and most particularly in the South and Midwest -- we social conservatives ARE "The Base": period, end of sentence, full stop.
No political party has ever -- E-V-E-R -- gained the Presidency in this country by showing their base the back of its hand.
Period. End of sentence. Full stop.
This is exactly what I’ve tried to say - except it’s done with better pinache.
Yet some less-than-astute will still be unabled to comprehend what longterm damaging effect supporting Giuliani could have beyond this election.
What is with you people?
I fully agree that we can’t afford to let a RINO win the primary.
What I want to know is who is a sensible, rational alternative if a RINO does win the GOP nomination.
Give me a REASONABLE, RATIONAL third party alternative, and I’d probably be willing to go along with it rather than voting for a RINO.
I’m a Conservative, not a Republican, but I haven’t seen even a slightly electible third party candidate since Ron Paul left the Libertarian Party to run as a Republican again.
I find it impossible to vote for someone as liberal as Rino Rudy. I will be supporting the Constitution Party if he is nominated.
"You people."
Says it all right there, really.
AMEN!!!
Boastful calling one's self "conservative" is akin to boastful calling one's self "righteous"; how you see yourself may be a stark contrast to how others see you.
"The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican."
“He integrated these main elements of the post-war conservative intellectual movement into a successful, winning political juggernaut...”
Herein lies the problem of some conservative thought. Ronald Reagan was, indeed, a great man, but did he consciously put together this coalition or was it a case of all these people looking for someplace to run, after years of wandering in the political wilderness? Did he build them or did they build him?
I have seen on many threads, that we as conservatives are in trouble because we have no Reagan. Why we do we simply, not build (or elevate)one? It would be somewhat refreshing to have leaders who were beholden to their supporters instead of the other way around.
We do not need a leader as much as we need a hundred thousand leaders. We surely do not need an “annointed” leader, but rather one who fits our criteria. WE need to lead the people back to some sort of sanity because no one is going to do it for us.
Actually, I think Bush junior was the death knell of the coalition. Economic conservatives have fled from this administration as quickly as possible. There’s a reason why he stands at only 28% approval in the polls.
RUN FRED RUN!
What does it say, exactly??
"You people" can't or won't give specific alternatives, you just say you will take your toys and go home if you don't get your way.
That's what really annoys me. I support you in not wanting to see Guiliani getting the nomination, but you seem to hate me as much for asking for an indication of what a RATIONAL person would do if he does get the nod, as you hate him.
Oh, never mind... If 'you people' can't see that I agree with your basic principles but would rather compromise, if NECESSARY, to have the nation survive another 4 years, it just isn't worth the effort.
If you will not vote for the Republican nominee, you’re even less than a RINO.
Any conservative who does not vote for the Republican nominee is not part of the Republican base.
Blaming Rudy for their failures, instead of looking the wussie mirror?
I am a conservative before I am a Republican (a distinction I am honored to share with this site's host). Any "Republican" who willingly supports, shills or votes for a RINO and/or social liberal is not part of the conservative base -- the "you people," in other words, without whose support no Republican has attained the White House over more than a quarter-century's worth of time, nor can they.
"Republican" is just a political party. Conservative is an intellectual, ethical and moral belief system, with underpinnings and a purpose. Never, ever mistake one for the other.
That isn’t boasting. It is a statement of fact.
Now, if I called myself ‘righteous’, That would be a lie. I try to be righteous, but way too often I fail.
If I said I was smarter, better looking and more rational than 99% of the people here, THAT would be boasting.
We all have our negative opinions about the various GOPCandidates that may seem irrational to others. Mine is McCain, Yours is Giuliani. I’m fine with that. I’d like to see us do better than either one.
You use bible quotes to insult me based on a couple of posts on one thread without any understanding of what my overall philosophy is. I’ll not insult you by calling you a hypocrite because of your one post to me on this thread. I at least had the common decency to check your FR profile... And guess what.... I’m in 99% agreement with what you say there.
But Rudy did NOT oppose infanticie. Rudy is still a proponent of extracting kids and sucking out their brains. Rudy just supported the right of congress to pass the law.
The only appropriate word for this, really, is "lie." "We people" most assuredly have and do lay out what must be done, in this election; many, in fact, have done so right here, in this very thread, in postings addressed to you. You simply don't happen to LIKE said declarations, for whatever reason(s).
If you have not, in fact, read the article at the top of this page, I suggest that you take the time to do so. If you have, then RE-read it, please.
It is the Rudy online apologia choir which has failed to make its case, not conservatives. The non-stop drumbeat hereabouts -- until Jim finally did some long overdue housecleaning -- has been patent codswallop to the effect that "A vote for anyone who isn't Rudy is a vote for Hillary!," and "No other Republican has a chance, doomed, we's all DOOMED, I tells ya!"
Both of these idiotic Rudyphile talking points have long since been meticulously and thoroughly demolished on these very boards, over the past weeks, by any number of sensible, intelligent fellow FReepers taking pains to speak very slowly, and using very small words. There's no point whatsoever in sighing wearily and patiently reconstructing said arguments for yet the 5,000,001st time, at this juncture; nor even the need to do so, since all of said threads still exist, and can be (re-)read at anyone's convenience. Click on "Giuliani," under Popular Keywords, and start anywhere.
The "alternative"...? N-O R-U-D-Y... period. Any other Republican nominee -- even (*shudder*) McCain is a comparatively viable alternative. Lather, rinse, repeat.
However, an even bigger concern is the loss of the motivated grass roots volunteers. Half of our volunteers in 2004 were people I would define as social conservatives. If it comes down to it, they may hold their nose and vote for a pro-abortion Republican, but they won't work for him, and absent their organizing strength on the ground, I don't know if we can win.
Fine, but don’t claim to be part of the Republican base if you will not vote for the Republican nominee.
You allowed slick willie to alter your lifestyle?
Frankly, only Reagan’s blanket amnesty for illegals altered our lifestyle. And truth be told, his precipitous escape from Lebanon after our Marines were killed probably altered our future as well.
You keep worrying about Rudy and ignoring the facts....
Good point about reasons not to support Guiliani in the primaries, but if the nominee he will get my vote and support.
Give me a REASONABLE, RATIONAL
vote hillery ....
better an enemy in front then an enemy behind ... and yes I mean it.
Can you even tell me who the Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party is with out 'Googling' or going to their website???
If you can, then my apologies and admiration for your knowledge.
But heck, a couple of months ago, I researched it because I was dissatisfied with the potential GOP nominees (well, I really like Hunter, but I don't think he is electible, yet.). And even though I looked it up, I can't remember who it was or even if they had a candidate.
If I, someone who really cares about that sort of thing, can't remember anything about it, how are the 70% of the Nation's voters who pay no attention beyond the names that CBSABCNBC mention repeatedly going to think to vote for the Constitution Party Presidential Candidate.
You're still not grasping the essential point, for whatever reason. Conservatives ARE "the Republican base" now, and have been for more than a quarter century.
We're not threatening to turn our backs on the Republican party. Instead, the libertarian/social libera; fringe of said party is threatening (increasingly noisily) to turn its back on THE BASE.
Which is certainly your/their right to do, of course.
It's just more than a little bit silly -- absurd, even -- to continually threaten to commit the political equivalent of suicide, all the while blaming that one guy way over on the other side of the room, minding his own business, for (somehow) "making" you do so.
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.