Posted on 03/18/2006 9:38:27 AM PST by UncleSamUSA
And by the way, on healthcare, there is a stealth issue that may decimate Republicans even this November- although Congress has real advantage of incumbency and we can hope Republicans are strong enough to hold their seats.
The elderly, a Republican constituency in recent years, are very upset about the mess that is the forced Medicare drug benefit which Bush continues to push.
Number four in the poll? That issue went to Kerry.
KERRY BUSH
Iraq (15%) 73% 26%
Or are you saying Giuliani will run on an anti-Iraq platform?
What I'm saying is that Iraq, terrorism, other foreign issues, will be the dominant political issue of the 2008 election and Giuliani or McCain would be the ONLY Republicans trusted to finish and clean up.
Fine, run Giuliani on healthcare. Try to chip away at that 77% that goes to Democrats on that issue.
A large bloc of Republicans will sit home and watch.
By throwing out moral values such as marriage and life, Giuliani loses 18%-20% support that normally is a lock for the GOP.
It would be political suicide for the party to back such a candidate.
Giuliani can't run on Iraq. That issue was a loser for Republicans in 2004, and even more so now.
No Republican can win the presidency without the 18%-20% of voters who care about moral values. This is true now more than ever. Most Americans oppose gay marriage, and Americans increasingly want more abortion restrictions.
Like it or not, this is the political reality.
Considering that a President is still elected by the Electoral College and that McCain or Giuliani will win States that are a must for any Democrat, they still win.
Giuliani can chip away on many Democrat issues. He can do so because he runs under a cloak of proven competence- someone who can fix problems.
And on a side note, as you keep on mentioning marriage, can you point me to any reference where either McCain or Giuliani support gay marriage?
If that is true then our argument changes. You are saying NO Republican can win in 2008 and I say there are two that can.
One of two things occur on that issue between now and election 2008.
Roberts and Alito show that they will make no drastic change to Roe and the issue fades Nationally because Roe becomes entrenched.
Or they vote to drastically change Roe and you will find out just how wrong you are on the reaction Nationally.
My point is, why pin our hopes to such a long-shot, unlikely outcome, when running a candidate who is strong on moral values assures at least a solid 18-20% of voters? Why take the risk?
Giuliani can chip away on many Democrat issues.
If running on Democrat issues is vital for Giuliani, he is in the wrong party.
And on a side note, as you keep on mentioning marriage, can you point me to any reference where either McCain or Giuliani support gay marriage?
Both McCain and Giuliani oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment and Giuliani in particular is well-known as someone who standing squarely on the side of the gay agenda.
Rudi Giuilani will never get my vote for POTUS. Period. I don't vote for liberals, even if they have an "R" next to their name on the ballot. Could never vote for the liberal Republican Governor of Kalifornia either. I seriously doubt RudiG would get the GOP nomination. If he did, conservatives would leave the GOP in droves. In my book, there is little difference between a GOP liberal and a liberal Democrat. In that regard, party affillation has nothing to do with political philosophy. Some consider RudiG to be a Scoop Jackson/JFK Democrat. From my POV, all three men fall into the liberal catagory. None fall into the catagory of being a Reagan conservative.
I was pointing you to the 2004 poll results, which indicate that moral issues, not Iraq, gave Bush the victory.
Also recent poll numbers--which let's hope change--indicate that most Americans feel going to Iraq was a mistake.
How Republicans handle this delicate matter in 2006 and 2008 is an open question.
There are many solid Republicans who do not support such amendment to the US Constitution. I asked you where either man supports gay marriage.
Sorry, but I believe it is a great thing when a Republican has the ability to chip away at "Democrat" issues. Democrat issues are not issues that concern only Democrats. They are issues of concern to all and where we hope that the solutions are Republican- and not Liberal. The only way that will happen is if there is a Republican in office.
I'm done with this for today except to leave you with one question if you care to answer.
Suppose you come to believe in mid 2008 that no Republican can win except for Giuliani or McCain (you can answer for each separately): do you prefer them or whoever is the Democrat?
I'm referring to the RKBA, and Rudy isn't getting my vote, no way, no how, end of story.
McCain helped do to the First Amendment what Rudy would do to the Second.
I am not voting for anyone who would trash fundamental rights, and make a platform issue of it.
Frankly, I do not understand how anyone could call themselves a conservative and vote for them either.
C'mon. You and I both know that neither man has banning gay marriage as part of their agenda.
Regardless of how one feels about the Federal Marriage Amendment, the larger concern to the public is judicial appointments. Given that the courts run roughshod over states' rights, Americans want a president who will appoint pro-traditional marriage judges and justices to the bench.
Giuliani and McCain will be a hard sell to the public on that one.
Republicans might as well go with someone who is trustworthy on that issue. Play it safe. Why take a risk?
Sorry, but I believe it is a great thing when a Republican has the ability to chip away at "Democrat" issues.
Triangulation is not a winning strategy for Republicans.
Bush thought he could triangulate with education and the prescription drug plan. Big-time losers. Some states even repudiated his No Child Left Behind Act, with Republicans taking the lead against it.
When you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one.
McCain and Giuliani could just as easily run in the other party.
Thus, given the choice between a Democrat, a Democrat, and a Democrat, I would stay home.
Sorry. We're (at least) one vote short. Alito and Roberts are still unproven, but we assume they will vote correctly. We've only begun to turn the tide with judgeships. The next decade is critical.
Republicans are not about to back a pro-choicer for president. Giuliani might as well save his money, particularly when it comes to campaigning in Iowa.
As for gay marriage 4 all the perils facing this country where a candidate stands on this issue will have NO traction one way or another.
It has already been proven that this issue gave Bush victory in 2004. In states with gay marriage bans on the ballot, voter turnout was 7% higher than in states without it, and Bush was the beneficiary. Without the ballot measure, Bush would have lost Ohio for certain.
With polls showing overwhelming opposition to gay marriage, Republicans would be foolish to drop the ball and run a candidate so out of the mainstream as Giuliani.
OK, Einstein, answer this:
Why did Al Sharpton hate Rudy? Not just regular hate - foaming at the mouth, crazed hate.
Why did he lead marchers chanting, "Giuliani, have you heard/This is not Johannesburg"?
Why did he do that if Rudy is to the left of Hillary?
If you are right, I'm sure Rev. Al is supporting Rudy now.
Is he?
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.