Posted on 10/02/2005 9:21:43 AM PDT by wagglebee
Dear Maeve,
"As the Catholic wife of a very practical Catholic Knight of Columbus,..."
Vivat Jesus! to your husband! ;-)
S/K sitetest, PGK
Well, that certainly trumps those exit polls, doesn't it?
There are important issues in the 2008. Abortion is not one of them.
I believe John Kerry (you know, the altar boy who served in Vietnam) said something similar not long ago. I know you and your son's friends voted for him, but those of us who did not (AKA "values voters") actually won that election. Get over it.
There are too many moderates/liberals going to run in 2008 to consolidate that small GOP voting bloc behind one candidate. In short, they will split the vote and lead the way for a single conservative candidate to get the nomination.
What school is "SOHN"?
SOHN: School of Hard Nocks. Many billionaires attended it.
Kerik
Ummm.... yep. that might bite him in the a$$
" And with a conservative, you are in danger of losing the swing states."
Yes, because that a happened in 1980, 1984, and in 1988 when people thought GHWB was actually a conservative.
Things went so well in 1976, 1992 and 1996 when the base was unmotivated for the republican candidate.
You win with your base - the 'swing' voters follow the leader - they don't make you a leader.
Guliani: anti-Gun, pro-abortion, pro-gay.
These are very bad examples to use when trying to make a historical point. The GOP was doomed in 1976 because it was the first election after Watergate -- and Ford couldn't even run as a credible incumbent because he hadn't even been elected as Vice President, let alone President.
If anything, 1992 and 1996 confirm the enduring popularity of conservatism in this country. Bill Clinton would have spent the last 13 years living in a trailer in Arkansas if it hadn't been for Ross Perot's third-party run in 1992 -- and Clinton couldn't even get 50% of the popular vote at the height of his popularity in 1996.
And why did clinton or perot have a chance to knock bush out of it in 1992?
Because bush abandoned his base. Raising taxes, ADA, 89 gun ban, you name it.
He made the power base of the party start to doubt why they were out their volunteering, giving money, and more.
When that happens, you're SOL.
Although I have many beefs on social and gun issues with Rudy, I would vote for him if he got the nomination, most likely. Certainly against Hillary or Kerry.
However, my disagreements with him aside, I'm not so sure he could win in the landslide so many here at FR predict. He'd probably win NY and NJ and most of the normally GOP states in the Midwest. It's the South I worry about. His social stances won't sit well with many Southerners. If the Dems ran Hillary, yeah, he'd win the South. But-if the Dems see that Rudy's a shoo-in for the GOP nomination (itself a long shot) then they may well run a Southern Dem who is socially conservative (or at least plays one on TV) and then we'd be in trouble.
Wonderful news.
There are several other positions I'd rather see Rudy in:
Senator (as in the one that defeats Hillary)
National Security Advisor
Secretary of State
The problem with those unusally fixated on the social issues in 2008 is that since 9-11, part of the GOP's message to liberal dems is that they should cool their engines when it comes to some of their social issue concerns in the face of this serious national security threat.
Now it's the GOP's turn to show that we were not full of it with that prescription. The truth is that Rudy as President doesn't have the authority to take everyone's gun away, make same-sex marriage the law of the land, etc.
The war on terror is the primary issue. Conservatives and Republicans who don't recognize that will be caught flat footed as election returns roll in on election night, 2008.
The issue is: who is better suited to continue the next steps in the war against Islamic terrorism - Hillary or Rudy (provided Hilly & Rudy gets the nominations). It's not an imaginary choice between ideal candidates - if one doesn't win, the other will win. Those of the 'I need to vote and sleep soundly' have a strange definition of sleeping soundly if their lack of voting for the GOP, or a vote on a 3rd party candidate, translates into 8 years of President Hillary in a cruicial, violent time in our history.
Not a sound sleep at all.
Rudy won't beat Hilly for the US Senate Seat - it's hers for as long as she wants it. The opportunity for that was in 2000 and he bowed out of the race. He has a better chance running nationally.
THE issue in 2008 will be who is best suited for the next thrilling chapter on the War against Islamic Terrorism. The social issues are important, but they complement the national security issue and do not trump it.
This will go double should terrorists score a significant hit against the USA on the homeland bbetween now and election day 2008.
Anybody who doesn't see this just doesn't see.
The debate isn't whether abortion shopuld be legal or not in the USA. Conservatives lost that one and are 'stuck on stupid' back in 1973. It won't be the most important issue in 2008. Not even close.
I'd like to see that change but it has to change on a social level first. It hasn't. It won't, not by 2008.
He had prostate cancer back then.
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.