Posted on 11/14/2006 11:02:49 AM PST by Dark Skies
Giuliani has been carefully preparing for this moment. He spent the past election season accumulating a reservoir of good will among Republicans, campaigning hard for Republican candidates from Oregon to New Hampshire. He was particularly adept at raising money for those candidates and has established himself as one of few presidential hopefuls capable of raising the $100 million or so that is seen as necessary to win the White House. At the moment, he is getting help from Anne Dickerson, who ran President Bush’s highly successful Pioneer and Ranger fundraising machine in 2004.
Giuliani has allied closely with Bush & Co. He made a high profile speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention and has gone on the road to stump with President Bush. There has also been speculation, started by the Washington Post's Kathleen Parker, that Ken Mehlman, the outgoing Republican National Committee chairman and former Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign manager, will be joining the Giuliani camp.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Not at all. Moderates don't give you wins if you lose one of the big chunks of your base.
Just like Democrats have to get 90% or better of the Black vote. Republicans have to get 90% or better of the conservative vote. All kinds of conservatives.
Agreed. Moreover, let's not forget that the presidency is, first and foremost a managerial position. On one hand, you have Giuliani who ran nation's biggest city, and did it well. On the other hand, you have McCain, who ran nothing, managed nothing. Not even a small business, not even a small city.
Dear Dark Skies,
In Maryland, some folks would like to put slot machines in at the race tracks. Others are against it.
Myself, I don't gamble, except for the occasional raffle ticket or 50 - 50 chance at the Knights of Columbus. I think playing the slots is really, really stupid. I'd probably slap my sons if either of them got into the habit of playing the slots.
Yet, I'm in favor of slots at the race tracks. I won't go into the reasons why, but there it is - I favor slots at Maryland race tracks.
It isn't an insult to call me a pro-slots kind of guy. It isn't an insult to say that I'm pro-gambling.
Even though I don't want to gamble myself, even though I'm never going to play the slots myself, my political position is that slots should be re-legalized in Maryland, at our race tracks.
That's what I think the law should be. And in the short-hand of terms we apply to political debate, in Maryland, I'm definitely pro-slots.
Folks who think the law should permit abortion, in fact, that it is an actual constitutional right, are properly speaking pro-abortion. They are not pro-life, not in terms of the political debate in our country.
If these folks would like to assuage themselves with the "I'm personally opposed but..." type of thing, they certainly may do so in the privacy of their own home.
But it is a perversion of language to say that in the context of the raging 30+ year political debate in our country that these folks are pro-life.
For pete's sake, folks ought to have the courage of their convictions. They believe that the slaughter of innocent children who aren't yet born should be legal. In the case of Mr. Giuliani, he believes it should be legal throughout pregnancy up to and including through nearly the completion of labor and birth. In the case of Mr. Giuliani, he also thinks that it is a constitutional right, and that we the taxpayers should have to pay for the slaughter of the unborn children of the poor.
Folks, if you think that abortion should be legal, have the courage of your convictions! In terms of political debate, you're pro-abortion! Embrace it! Don't hide from it! It doesn't engender any sympathy or anything on the part of actual pro-lifers.
I much prefer a straight-up, honest pro-abort, even when she's telling me that she wouldn't pay to have her own baby murdered, to folks trying to confuse the debate by telling me they're "pro-life" when they think that abortion should generally be legal.
"I am a conservative and an ACTUAL pro-lifer. However, I am also concerned about the war we are in."
As for you, Dark Skies, if you believe that abortion should be illegal, then I'm not saying that you're not a pro-lifer. I spoke to the third person purposely to allow for the fact that you may, yourself, be a pro-lifer. It wasn't apparent from how you defended Mr. Giuliani, but I thought you might be merely offering what might be his point of you rather than your own.
If you're in favor of Mr. Giuliani IN SPITE of the fact that he's a complete pro-abort, I understand that.
I disagree with it entirely, but I understand it.
But I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR THE ARGUMENT that the scumbag Mr. Giuliani is somehow a pro-lifer because his upper lip might tremble a little while he's giving his hypothetical daughter the money to go have her unborn baby murdered. It is an INSULTING argument.
If you want to say, "I'm a pro-lifer, I think Roe should go, but I'll vote for Mr. Giuliani in spite of the fact that he's a scumbag pro-abort, because of the War on Terror," I understand. But it is an INSULT to tell me that the scumbag isn't a pro-abort.
sitetest
I believe your heart is in the right place. We just disagree that Rudy can win. Hopefully, we will find someone who can satisfy both of us.
I do thank you for a civil discussion. It was enjoyable.
Nice to see that someone's been paying attention.
However, he is MUCH, MUCH TOO PRO-BIG GOVERNMENT for me. If you think the govt grew too much under Bush43--I shudder to think of how much bigger, more controlling, more intrusive, more expensive, more regulating, and more intimidating it would be under a Pres Guiliani.
No thanks. He would never get my vote.
If you aren't familiar with kool-aid and tinfoil, it's a reference to liberal moonbats. I hold them and the liberal SCOTUS responsible for Roe vs. Wade. Had that never happened, it wouldn't be nearly as big an issue as it is since the court's decision.
We'll see. I'm not real worried because I doubt that Rudy can win the nomination.
Polls 2 years out don't mean much.
The center elects, so if the GOP swings a bit to the left, the swing vote comes back to them.
PhiKapMom,
If all that you said were true then it would be all over in the news! But it is not. But I guess you believe it because it HAS to be true because MORMANS are EVIL and LIARS!!!!
When the people behind the cameras are on your side you can do no wrong. When they are not, you can do no right.
Did you read the threads before the midterms?
They did not get anyone elected.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking that what you read on this site is indicative of the voters at large.
Also, one of Rudy's greatest strengths is that he explains complex issues in very simple terms. The times we are living in call out for such a communicator.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Newt is also a great communicator, and is a pure ideological conservative. Rudy might explain the WOT in understandable terms but he might have a harder time with partial birth abortion, gay marriage, and weapons bans.
If we end up with Newt and Hillary as the nominees, they'll lecture us all to death.
You can't win by being more Democrat than the Democrats.
Everyone is busy talking about guts, about the Congress, and how the members should have grown spines, and now are falling all over each other to use the traditional party platform planks for a bonfire to try to be more liberal than the Democrats to try to win an election.
I guess " What profiteth a man to gain the whole world, yet lose his soul?" would be pretty well lost on the party faithful right now.
Dammit, people, stand for something. It was not standing for the things which got the Republicans elected that lost them the election!
It was not taking care of the Border, It was not being fiscally conservative, it was not shrinking government, it was NOT ending scandal and abuse of position, it was NOT putting an end to sexual improprieties, and ultimately, it was NOT fulfilling the "Contract with America" that got them NOT elected.
Watch the Dems. What did they do? They had the audacity to co-opt conservative positions on the issues while the Republicans were off swinging to the left. THEY got elected. DUH!
The center elects, so if the GOP swings a bit to the left, the swing vote comes back to them.
Not if the swing takes them off base and their normal support does not show.
I know debate slides into the mud when the tensions are high, but you'll forgive me if I choose a higher standards for arguments about the Presidency of our precious country.
I like Newt also.
Thx to you also. If is a pleasure to argue with a gentleman.
Isn't it the ultimate assininity to nominate candidates you know will alienate a significant portion of the base who are known to vote on principle, and then blame the voters for not turning out to vote for that candidate?
Take a deep breath and think about that.
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.