Rudy's '08 Hint In Iowa

New York Post ^ | March 18, 2006 | Deborah Orin

[denydenydeny]

In other words, it's assumed that McCain or Giuliani are liberal enough to garner Democrat votes in 2008. Which begs the question. Why would a Democrat cross over in 2008, when their own candidate would suffice?

False choice. Independents love Rudy and McCain. Either of them would leave Hillary or Warner with only their hardcore kook base.

[Sabramerican]

Guiliani, usually forgotten, served as the #3 in the Reagan Justice Dept.

He, Roberts and Alito are cut from the same legal cloth.

[Beagle8U]

Allen was also a Governor, and did quite well at that.

[Blackirish]

The liberals can forget about Rudy or McLame running for anything, they are toast.

---

What do you think Rudy is going to Iowa for the weather ?

he's running alright

and he's gonna win.

[Beagle8U]

Sure, and the Easter bunny will visit soon.

[Gelato]

...having Libertarian Conservative leanings myself, I can understand his point.

It's a mistake to judge the rest of the party based on your own political leanings. What is apparently a non-issue to you is actually the prime mover for many active voters.

The political reality is that no social liberal has a chance to either win the GOP nomination in 2008, or can knock of the Democrat.

Have we forgotten the cause of Bush's wins in 2004?

When surveyed, 22 percent of voters in 2004 said "moral values" was the primary issue to drive them to the polls, even more than the economy and the Iraq war. A whopping 79 percent of such voters went for Bush. Without a certain social issue, marriage, Bush might not have won. He benefited greatly from the marriage amendments on ballots in twelve states.

It is foolish to believe the party can survive or win without that support. The party is becoming more conservative. Just ask Jim Jeffords.

[Old_Mil]

He and McCain are the only Republicans who transcend the base. Which is why he or McCain can be elected President in 2008 and no other Republican currently stands a chance. And not just against Hillary.

Translated into English, what you've just said is that to win an election, we have to nominate someone as much like a Democrat as we can. Understand, this isn't about winning elections. It's about doing what is good for America, and slowing our rate of descent isn't enough. If it means that Republicans have to be exiled from power for a while and things need to get worse so that the country turns to true conservatism like it did in the 70s, so be it. I've had enough of Ds in R clothing.

[Gelato]

He, Roberts and Alito are cut from the same legal cloth.

I repeat: Giuliani will not appoint anyone to the bench who would overturn Roe vs. Wade. He has categorically stated his support for legalized abortion, with the same fervor as any Democrat.

To claim otherwise is delusional. The public record is clear and undeniable. Giuliani is as pro-choice as Hillary Clinton.

[Blackirish]

Your right.
The cultural right has no varsity players.

As a South Park conservative I'm much less concerned with gay marriage{who cares?} and abortion than the WOT the borders and the budget.Since the SCOTUS is gonna decide the social stuff anyway....

Watch Rudy slap around the B-team in the debates ...he'll win the nomination

[Gelato]

False choice. Independents love Rudy and McCain. Either of them would leave Hillary or Warner with only their hardcore kook base.

Even if what you say is true, enough Republicans would stay home to cost any RINO the election.

[Sabramerican]

You're not reading what I am writing.

I never wrote that I believe Guiliani will get the Republican nomination. He very well may not on some misguided believe that a President has to say the right- even meaningless- words on abortion.

What I am writing is that only he or McCain can be elected President as the Republican nominee in 2008.

Allen, Frist, Romney, others, will not win.

[Gelato]

I'm much less concerned with gay marriage{who cares?} and abortion than the WOT the borders and the budget

Count yourself in the minority of voters, who, in 2004, cited social issues as more important to them than the economy and war.

Pragmatically, it would be foolish to disgard the very issues that have proven a winner to Republicans for years.

That, and it's wrong.

[Gelato]

disgard = discard

[Sabramerican]

Kerry is/was a clown and worse, with even a stange wife that should have cost him a huge number of votes, and yet came within 100000 votes in Ohio of beating a sitting President in time of war.

Against Kerry, Bush should have had a Reagan type 1984 landslide

So much for the social issues that concerned the voters. Don't believe the hype.

[Gelato]

You're not reading what I've said repeatedly on this thread. Even if a liberal could win the GOP nomination (a longshot greater than Gary Bauer's ability to run for office and flip pancakes at the same time), that person would not be able to beat the Democrat in 2008.

The reason is simple. Social issues drive voters to the polls. Give bed-rock Americans a pro-choicer like Giuliani, and you give them no reason to vote.

Further, Republicans would see no difference between Giuliani and the Democrat. Might as well stay home.

[Beagle8U]

"Pragmatically, it would be foolish to disgard the very issues that have proven a winner to Republicans for years."

EXACTLY !

The big ones are Queer marriage, Abortion, and Gun Control.

Both Rudy and McCain have that stench all over themselves, and it wont wash off.

[Blackirish]

Not this time around.
With Breyer turning 86 and Ginsburg falling asleep I think W gets another pick.
Roe V Wade may well be overturned before 08.

Taking that off the table...good. With the disaster a cultural conservative has created in regards to the budget and the borders voters will demand competence as the issue. The way Rudy handled the worst attack on this country ever proves he has that in spades.
Cultural conservatives will be stiff armed.

[Gelato]

Kerry is/was a clown and worse, with even a stange wife that should have cost him a huge number of votes, and yet came within 100000 votes in Ohio of beating a sitting President in time of war.

Take a closer look at Ohio, and the reason for Bush's win there. Without the pro-marriage ballot measure in Ohio, Bush would have lost. Ohioans voted 62% in favor of banning same-sex marriage, and the overwhelming majority of those voting for the measure also went for Bush.

The facts belie your wishful thinking.

[Sabramerican]

Unlike many endless debates here, although the next two plus years of similar debates will seem endless, we will know who is right in Nov of 2008.

I'll repeat for the record. Unless the Republican nominee is either Guiliani or McCain who would each be elected, the next President of the US is a Democrat.

[Gelato]

The way Rudy handled the worst attack on this country ever proves he has that in spades.

Yet his record on illegal immigration shoots him down as someone we could trust on border security.

You are aware of his support for illegals, I assume?