Posted on 08/30/2006 9:09:02 AM PDT by Reagan Man
Okey dokey
Oh Liz - now come on - it's not all that bad....
"the sky is falling"
Your comments are all wet. The very idea put forward that Rudy is for the "the most radical, left-wing approach" is laughable.
Thanks for the laughs though.
Get it in you head that the past is not prologue to this coming election.
Republicans are unpopular with an unpopular war hanging as an albatross. Maybe, just maybe, if there was an outstandingly singular Conservative candidate of renown and accomplishment he/she could overcome that handicap. There isn't anyone even close. There isn't one that has a chance period.
The problem true believers of any stripe have is that they come to believe that the majority feels as they do. For every social Conservative who runs away from Giuliani, ten Independents and four Democrats would vote for him. If he is the nominee, he wins.
He also causes a realignment of Jews and large segments of Catholic Democrats in Democrat States.
If the dogmatic social conservatives feel they can't participate any longer as Republicans in a time of war, and they insist on leaving what the country considers the legitimate mainstream, let them form a Party and we will be able to judge their purity and their strength.
I think if the hardcore fiscal conservatives were to look at Giulaini's governing record as mayor of liberal NYCity, they'd see that while Rudy had some success halting the advance of far out socialism in his first term, his second term was a different story. Rudy left NYCity with a $2-billion dificit and a $42-billion debt. Conservatives need to get all the facts on Giuliani before they jump on his liberal bandwagon.
Dear Sabramerican,
"Republicans are unpopular with an unpopular war hanging as an albatross."
I actually agree with this. However, your conclusions from this fact contradict the fact itself.
The folks who most strongly support the War on Terror, as well as the Iraq War are conservatives and Republicans.
Other than possibly Jews, the folks LEAST likely to vote for Mr. Giuliani because he supports Mr. Bush's prosecution of both the wider war and the Iraq War are liberals and Democrats (and independents, as well, since the majority of these folks are dubious on the Iraq War, at the very least, as well).
There is no liberal constituency for a perceived hawk on the wider war and the Iraq War.
Mr. Giuliani's natural constituency for his hawkish position is the base of the Republican coalition.
However, in being nearly a complete liberal, Mr. Giuliani alienates a significant portion of this base.
"...Catholic Democrats in Democrat States."
I have very bad news for you - Catholic Democrats are among the folks least likely to vote for Mr. Giuliani. These folks are mostly against Mr. Bush's prosecution of the War on Terror, and they're mostly against the Iraq War. These folks will have no problem voting for Mrs. Clinton, just as they had no problem voting for Mr. Clinton, Mr. Kerry, or Mr. Gore.
But the news gets worse. Mr. Giuliani will lose a considerable portion of even Catholics who often vote for Republicans. These are the Catholics most likely to support Mr. Bush's prosecution of the War on Terror, and to support the Iraq War. These are also the voters most likely to refuse to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Although I don't see many of them voting for a Democrat, I do foresee a significant percentage refusing to vote for Mr. Giuliani.
God forbid that he should be the Republican nominee, that would be fatal to his general election campaign.
sitetest
Here's a good analysis of the religious vote.
MAJOR STUDY BY THE PEW FORUM ON RELIGION AND PUBLIC LIFE:
Republicans Can't Win Without Christian Conservatives (this means you, Rudy)
SOURCE: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:QS6fK2c8AP0J:pewforum.org/events/index.php%3FEventID%3D115
Americans who regularly attend worship services and hold traditional Christian religious views increasingly vote Republican, while those who are less connected to religious institutions and more secular in their outlook tend to vote Democratic, according to a major study by the Pew Forum.
Some of the conclusions of this report were already evident in 2004 exit polling data. For example, voters who attend church more than once a week (16 percent of all voters) chose Bush over Kerry by a margin of 64 – 35 percent.
Likewise, those who attend Christian denominational Churches on a weekly basis (26 percent of voters) supported the President by a 58 – 41 percent margin. Also very telling, those who never attend Church (15 percent of voters) overwhelmingly supported Kerry 62 – 36 percent.
The study further found that traditionalist elements within each religion tended to vote Republican, while modernist groups within the religions trended towards the Democrats. A multiple regression analysis of exit poll and public opinion survey data from 2000 and 2004 enabled the Pew Research Center to assign a relative weight to various demographic markers.
Interestingly, church attendance was tied with race as the most significant factor. But even that number is deceiving; in that race is only an important factor due to the high level of support the Democrats receive from black voters.
These trends represent a major shift over the past forty-five years. White Christian Evangelicals in 1960 favored Democrats by a two-to-one margin; now they are Republican by a 56 – 27 percent margin. Seventy-eight percent of them voted for President Bush in 2004.
In 1960, 71 percent of Catholics were Democrats and now Democrats have only a slight edge among Catholics (44 – 41 percent) and Catholics voted for President Bush (52 – 47 percent) in 2004. These trends have also brought an increased acceptance of religion in the public square.
While Americans do tend to favor the separation of church and state, 70 percent of voters want their President to have strong Christian religious beliefs. Likewise, the study reveals that 52 percent of Americans believe that Christian churches should express political views. Surprisingly, support for political involvement of churches is strongest among younger voters age 18 to 29 (59 percent).
My brother lived in NY during the Rudy years, and he (who votes democrat) is a total fan of Rudys.
This is a good take on the Catholic vote.
DEMOCRATIC STRATEGISTS ISSUE MEMO ON LOSS OF CATHOLICS
Washington, DC, Apr. 13, 2005 (Culture of Life Foundation/CWNews.com) - A memo authored by a prominent Democratic strategy organization calls the decline in support of white Catholics for Democrats "striking" and "a big part of the 2004 election story." One of the analysis' key findings is that Catholic voters are becoming more pro-life, which the authors called "a factor in the recent losses and one of the blockages for Democrats, at least in the Midwest."
The data also reveals that young Catholics are more pro-life than their parents and that bishops who speak out against pro-abortion politicians help bolster the pro-life vote.
The abortion issue is particularly potent for a group called "Democratic defectors" who either identified themselves as Democrats or voted for Bill Clinton in 1996 but voted for President Bush in the last election. Among this group, "26 percent believe that abortion should be illegal in all cases, nearly three times the number for all Catholic Democrats."
The memo was issued by Democracy Corps, a research and tactical advice organization founded by Democrat strategy virtuosos James Carville, Stanley Greenberg and Bob Shrum. Titled "Reclaiming the White Catholic Vote," it is based on data from a nationwide survey of more than 1,000 white Catholic voters.
The decline in the white Catholic vote has been steady over the last decade. Clinton won it by seven percentage points; Al Gore lost it by seven points; and Sen. John Kerry lost it by 14 points. The data provided in the report provides a fascinating window into the much discussed Catholic vote and makes it clear Democrats are losing ground because of their stance on a range of cultural issues.
It turns out that one of the most contentious and visible issues in the 2004 election, the denial of the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians, did not hurt the pro-life side as many said it would.
The poll found that when white Catholics were asked whether or not they were more or less likely to vote for a Democrat that "is denied Communion by the area's bishop for voting to support abortion rights" 49 percent said they were less likely while 33 percent said they were more likely.
The memo also made it clear that the abortion issue is not going away. "Although the pro-life position is strongest among seniors, Catholics' current pro-life position does not appear likely to lessen with time.
While middle-age Catholics lean toward keeping abortion legal, voters under 30 are more pro-life: 53 percent believe abortion should be illegal in most cases." The pro-life position could be a winning one for Democrats according to the study.
Fifty-nine percent of white Catholics say they are more likely to support a Democratic candidate who is pro-life and 35 percent say they are less likely, giving a pro-life Democrat a 24 point advantage. Even on the East Coast where Catholics are less pro-life, a pro-life Democrat has a 12 point advantage over a pro-abortion candidate.
The memo advises Democrat candidates to get around the issue by presenting themselves as one who "[b]elieves in a woman's right to choose but believes all sides should come together around the common goal of preventing and reducing the number of abortions, with more sex ed, including abstinence, access to contraception and more adoption."
This common ground approach is reminiscent of a recent speech given by New York Senator and likely presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, in which she softened her approach to abortion by calling it a "tragic choice." In the speech she said faith-based abstinence should be embraced but also called on increased funding for "family planning services," a euphemism for contraception, abortifacients, and abortions.
SOURCE http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=36492
You build a straw man re Giuliani and then you knock him down.
This is the challenge to you and anyone who believes as you do. Polls say Giuliani can win.
But forget the polls. Make me laugh.
Name a single American politician- who Social Conservatives would readily accept- who has a chance of being elected President in 2008. Ironically it will have to be someone I have never heard of because ALL the mentionables are unelectable.
Maybe we can wait for a Deus Ex Machine political savior to appear in the next few months.
I will get no pleasure out of saying I told you so post election day.
I hate to be the one to burst your little dream bubble, Jake-----but your thought stream is entirely alien to conservatives.
Who knew the conservative learning curve was that steep, eh, reaganman?
If you want democrat policies, why don't you just vote for a democrat?
Every new poll with Rudy at the top gives these kooks heartburn. :)
I will. :)
I understand that politics change with each election cycle. This will be my eleventh Presidential election campaign. Sorry. I don't buy into your contention that Rudy Giuliani is the right candidate for 2008, and the best the GOP can offer to its primary voters. We'll see what happens and who the candidtaes are in November 2008.
I've been fighting for conservative principles and against liberalism for the better part of the last four decades. That includes a solid Republican voting record. 100% of the time. Right now no one in the GOP has announced their intentions for 2008. Jumping on the Giuliani bandwagon this early shows you have a case of misplaced political priorities. As far as I can tell, Giuliani would be a disaster for the future of conservatism and the GOP.
Rudy's foray into Southern territory (was supposed to serve as the proving ground to show he could rally conservatives) was a big flop. Georgia's Ralph Reed lost amid pics of Rudy campaigning and glad-handing Southern voters.
Onward to South Carolina and another Rudy flop.
BTW, even ultra-liberal Democrat NY Governor Mario Cuomo lost after being endorsed by Mayor Rudy.
Maybe Rudy'd have better luck endorsing candidates for dog-catcher.
“The attack on life doesn't begin in the womb. It begins in the minds of people.”
--Ron Galloy
Pro-Life PING
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
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.