Posted on 01/16/2007 8:21:49 AM PST by Reagan Man
Today's deepest division is between those political observers who believe that Rudy Giuliani is a credible contender for the Republican presidential nomination and those who think that his chances are no better than those of California Rep. Duncan Hunter.
~snip~
Giuliani's strong showing in GOP polling reflects his celebrity status and the reputation he earned after the terrorist attacks. But if and when he becomes a candidate, that will change. He will be evaluated on the basis of different things, including his past and current positions and behavior, and he'll be attacked by critics and opponents. A Giuliani nomination would also generate a conservative third-party candidate in the general election and tear the GOP apart, thereby undercutting Giuliani's electability argument.
So, the former mayor might make a terrific general election candidate, but I don't see how he can get there as a Republican.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
When Republicans take a good hard look at what 4 years of Hillary and/or Obama could do to this country, I believe Rudy will become the "favorite". The rats have the media on their side and it is the media who helped them win the last election.
I know what you mean...I could never bring myself to vote for the man. No matter what.
Dear Dog Gone,
"Many social conservatives pose a problem for the GOP..."
Many Republicans who are not social conservatives really demonstrate that they are clueless about social conservatives, and about the possible candidacy of Mr. Giuliani.
I'm a social conservative.
I'm also loyal to the party, and willing to vote for compromise candidates.
In 1980 (my first time voting for a president), I voted for Ronald Reagan. Ditto in 1984.
In 1988, I voted for George HW Bush in the primary and in the general election. Ditto 1992, primary and general election.
In 1996, I voted for Bob Dole, primary and general election. I also donated money to his campaign
In 2000 and 2004, I voted for George W Bush in both primaries and both general elections. I also donated money to his campaign.
As a social conservative, I'm willing to take an imperfect candidate who is electable over a better candidate who isn't. I'll take a half loaf, or even just a slice or two, to get someone elected. I think that my voting record shows this.
However, I'm not willing to go backwards. I'm not willing to vote for a candidate who not only doesn't provide a half-loaf, or even a slice or two, or even some crumbs, but may very well take back what little we've gotten in the past.
Mr. Giuliani is a principled social liberal. I admire him for his forthrightness in this regard (at least in the past - there are some signs he's trying to romneyize his past, now). However, I don't expect him to govern as a social conservative. I don't expect him to view pro-abort jurists as not strict constructionists. Nor jurists who think lots of gun control is just hunky-dory. Nor jurists who think that homosexual rights are also found in the Constitution. MR. GIULIANI doesn't think that Roe was bad constitutional law. MR. GIULIANI doesn't think that lots of gun control is unconstitutional. MR. GIULIANI does believe that homosexuals have special rights that the rest of us don't think they have.
I believe that Mr. Giuliani is a man of principle and will govern from the left on social issues.
He is not a flawed, imperfect candidate to social conservatives. He is a complete disaster, an utter catastrophe, someone with whom we agree, on social issues, a lot closer to 0% than to 100%. Or 80%. Or 50%.
From the perspective of social conservativism, it is difficult to differentiate Mr. Giuliani from Mrs. Clinton.
Mr. Giuliani is NOT a compromise candidate for us. He is a "heads we (country club Republicans) win, tails you (social conservatives) lose" candidate to be forced on us by the country club Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party. If he is nominated, many social conservatives will conclude that we've already lost the election. No matter who wins, a liberal Democrat will have been elected.
Therefore, many social conservatives will do for the first time what I will do for the first time in 2008, if Mr. Giuliani is the Republican nominee. They, and I, will not vote for the Republican candidate.
sitetest
I think you demonstrate what I'm talking about. Social conservatives are not a uniform block, and they do have varying degrees of being able to accept less than a perfect candidate.
But when push comes to shove, they won't choose the lesser of two evils. They'll not vote at all.
Well, liberals aren't going to vote for any Republican anyway, so we are down to Republicans and Independents.
How many of those fall in the "intellectual" category ? I'd like to think FR is typical, but that might be wishful thinking.
A very well stated analysis of why a Rudy nomination would cause a huge split in the Republican Party--and change it permanently with a big move to the LEFT!!!! (And your analysis didn't even need to mention the 'train wreck'--aka his personal life.) That is a 'victory' that we do NOT need!
The Gipper makes the same case that you just did,,,,
"So, it was our Republican Party that gave me a political home. When I signed up for duty, I didn't have to check my principles at the door. And I soon found out that the desire for victory did not overcome our devotion to ideals".
--Ronald Reagan Remarks at the Republican National Convention in New Orleans, August 15, 1988.
No thanks, Rudy.
"Ben Stein" ?
I can't get past Stein's attitude toward taxes on high-income earners. He thinks the 68% of all income taxes that the top 10% pay isn't enough -- he wants higher taxes on the high earners !
CINO's.... Conservatives in Name Only.
I stand corrected----Mayor Julie-Annie would make a great Dim candidate.
We have tht one for Catholics such as Evita Piglosi, kerry, kennedy, biden, dodd, leahy, etc.
Be my guest.
That's just it. It's a given that 50% of Americans have below average intelligence. Probably only 1/3rd will care to consider Newt's arguments and some of that 1/3rd will be liberals.
So, he's not starting off with a working majority to say the least.
Republicans Can't Win Without Christian Conservatives (this means 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).
Of course, he would make a great Dim candidate. He worked on Bobby Kennedy's campaign, voted for George McGovern, ran on a "Liberal Party" ticket in NY for mayor, publicly endorsed and voted for Mario Cuomo, and defended Slick by saying and Slick's policies weren't all that different than his,,,and by saying that Slick "....did all that he could do in the WOT" (paraphrasing),,,,yarite, Rudy.
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
Should be a riot when (and if) Rudy debates Hitlery; he'll probably get confused and defend her positions.
Let the primaries commence! Woo-Hoo!
Dear Dog Gone,
"Social conservatives are not a uniform block, and they do have varying degrees of being able to accept less than a perfect candidate."
You're absolutely right. In fact, I've often said that should he be nominated, many social conservatives would hold their noses and vote for Mr. Giuliani. Perhaps even a majority of social conservatives. Lots of us held our noses for George HW Bush and for Mr. Dole, as well. I was one of them.
I don't think that social conservatives generally had a problem with Mr. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Perhaps a few on the fringe, but let's face it, Mr. Rove targeted us to vote, and we voted in droves, especially in 2004. And the loss of many of us in 2006 hurt the party significantly.
But what the country clubbers need to understand is that Mr. Giuliani is going to lose a lot more social conservatives than any Republican nominee since Mr. Reagan cobbled together the current Republican coalition.
If you thought social conservatives abandoned Republicans in large numbers in 2006, you haven't seen anything until you nominate Mr. Giuliani in 2008.
Mr. Giuliani won't lose two or three percent of us, but rather 20%, 30%, or even 50% or more of social conservatives.
I presented my own voting history to show that as social conservatives go, I'm pretty flexible. I have friends who hold me in some suspicion because of that flexibility.
Even this year, when many different types of Republicans abandoned the party, I dutifully went to the polls on Election Day, held my nose, and voted for pro-abort Gov. Robert Ehrlich (R-Country Club) for re-election. As well, I voted for his lame-brained pro-abort running mate, Kristen Cox, whose primary qualification for office was that she was a two-fer - both a woman and a handicapped person (she's legally blind). I voted straight Republican ticket all the way down the ballot. I didn't vote for anyone who didn't have an "R" next to their name.
But I ain't gonna vote for Rudy no way no how.
And if he can't get me, then he's in a world of hurting with social conservatives. It is unlikely that he'll win the nomination, but even less likely that he'll win the general election.
Mr. Giuliani is not a "compromise" candidate for us, but rather a complete defeat for us. Don't make us choose between two major party candidates who are not at all acceptable.
"But when push comes to shove, they won't choose the lesser of two evils. They'll not vote at all."
Oh, plenty of us will vote. But not for Mr. Giuliani.
sitetest
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.