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 ...
It would be perfect--as he'd draw large numbers of votes from BOTH parties.
Then we could see if the Rudy sycophants would still be willing to vote for Rudy (even though their vote would be wasted--just like they keep telling us conservatives our vote would be, if we voted Third Party, INSTEAD of Rudy)--thus helping to elect the Democrat.
The irony would be priceless.
I won't argue with you because you're expressing your opinion and the reasons for it. And you write well.
I don't doubt that Guiliani will have trouble securing the vast majority of voters who identify themselves as social conservatives. That's kind of the point I was making myself.
If it comes down to a choice between Hillary or Obama vs. Guiliani, you'll probably cast a protest vote for someone with no chance whatsoever. I think that would be an error, but I also know that there's no chance of persuading you otherwise. It's the same as not voting, in my opinion, but we probably differ on that.
I'm not here stumping for Guiliani. I tend to favor Newt, but I don't know what my choices will be when I finally get into the primary polling booth.
From my perspective, defeating the Democrat candidate is the most important thing. I don't think the candidate I will vote for in November 2008 is going to be my ideal candidate. But I literally will vote for anyone who stands a chance of beating the Democrat.
It's entirely possible that we'll be facing a situation where we'll be displeased with the outcome of the election no matter what. I believe in cutting my losses and voting for least objectionable candidate, if that's what it takes.
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=166;results=1
I have very little use for Rothenberg, but he's mostly right on this one. If Giuliani should somehow get the Republican nomination, there will be a 3rd party, conservative, presidential candidate, and he will get more votes than he gets attention leading up to the election, more than enough to keep Giuliani from winning, and more than enough to finish off the Whig, I mean Republican, party as a national party permanently. Can you say President Rodham? Obama will be lucky to be the VP, and I wouldn't hold my breath for that since Jesse and Al don't seem to be particularly keen on him.
Thanks for the link. What is interesting is that Rudy only managed 30% of that caucus poll. More telling is that the comments below sound much like FR.
hmmmm back to the drawing board ~LOL~
LOL.
(((((PING)))))
They can rant all they want about a party split and about staying home but the American people ARE NOT the same people that voted in 2000 and they will not vote for a social conservative for president this time around. If the Rudy haters didn't see it in 2006 they will see it in 2008. 2006 left a bad taste in the American People's mouth as far as social conservatism is concerned. Social Conservative politicians turned out to be the biggest hypocrites in 2006 and that is why they lost. The American people will not forget that as easliy because the MSM will keep reminding them. If they want that they might as well stay home because a Social Conservative will not get elected in 2008. Maybe in 2012 but NOT in 2008!
I think when Roe is overturned you'll see the R's driven further into minority status, for a generation. The sheeple, educated in public schools, will be told that the big bad Republicans have taken away a "fundamental right". That it is the work of "right wing judges". That we are in danger of becoming like Iran, a theocracy. That the men who voted "hate women". It will make the out-of-Iraq 7x24 all-network telethon seem like a commerical break. And it will succeed.
The problem may not be people leaving the Republicans to vote for a third party if Giuliani is nominated, but Rudy leaving to run or support a third party candidate. If he runs as an independent, or Bloomberg does and Rudy backs him, that could take a lot of votes from the Republican nominee.
Dear Dog Gone,
"I won't argue with you because you're expressing your opinion and the reasons for it. And you write well."
Gee, thanks! Flattery will get you everywhere (at least, this is what I tell my wife). ;-)
"I don't doubt that Guiliani will have trouble securing the vast majority of voters who identify themselves as social conservatives. That's kind of the point I was making myself."
Okay. That's all us social conservatives are trying to say. Don't rip up the Republican coalition by nominating someone antithetical to an important part of the coalition.
"If it comes down to a choice between Hillary or Obama vs. Guiliani, you'll probably cast a protest vote for someone with no chance whatsoever."
Well, I wouldn't call it a protest vote, but rather a re-building vote. If the party abandons social conservatives, kicks us to the curb, throws us out of the "big tent" (that is, unless we're willing to vote for folks who entirely oppose our agenda), then we're going to have to figure out alternatives.
I don't know what those alternatives will be. But we'll have to try some new things.
"I think that would be an error, but I also know that there's no chance of persuading you otherwise."
I understand that you think it's an error. For us, the error would have been in nominating Mr. Giuliani. Our refusal to vote for him is just a foregone conclusion necessitated by the real error.
"It's the same as not voting, in my opinion, but we probably differ on that."
No, I don't think so. If we don't vote at all, then we're invisible, and the country clubbers can laugh at us. If even a modest percentage of us coalesced around a single alternative, say the Constitution Party, and gave that third party alternative something like 3% or 5%, or even a bit more, the country clubbers would be mad as hell at us, but they'd understand why they lost.
"From my perspective, defeating the Democrat candidate is the most important thing."
I'm not willing to vote for one liberal to avoid another.
"It's entirely possible that we'll be facing a situation where we'll be displeased with the outcome of the election no matter what. I believe in cutting my losses and voting for least objectionable candidate, if that's what it takes."
I believe that many social conservatives will also cut their losses by voting third party, or staying home. For us, a Giuliani candidacy means we've already lost.
sitetest
after reading all these comments, I am preparing myself for a Democratic president in 08.
It appears so many won't vote unless the "perfect" canidate comes along.
If you want the perfect canidate then run yourself, but don't be surprised if not everyone on FR agrees with you 100%.
I should have been more clear. I was talking about Romney's status up until about two weeks ago, when he was still in office on the state level.
I wouldn't be quite so pessimistic. FR, although it is the premier conservative website for active participation, is hardly a demographic slice of the typical voter who might vote conservative.
This forum is a magnet for both social conservatives and for special interest third party types. Both are overrepresented in proportion to the general electorate. I'll stress that I have nothing against either group and suspect that we often end up casting identical ballots in November, but you get a lot of griping from both groups prior to then.
We have a few unappeasables, but what are you gonna do?
I also don't know anyone who is going to vote for a candidate who is conservative on about 15% of the issues just because he's "better" than a candidate who is conservative on 5% of the issues.
But YOU would rather have Hillary or Obama or Edwards or some Dem to be named later, elected president, "to teach the GOP a lesson" and have any one of them destroy this nation and keep Dems in power for the rest of your life and then some, because you are nothing but a masochistic UNAPEASEABLE, with NO political knowledge nor understanding.
Tell me, HOW did eight years of the Bill Clinton presidency give us a completely "CONSERVATIVE" aftermath? "Teaching the GOP/Bush 41 a lesson" really worked out sooooooooooooooooooooooo well, didn't it? /s
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.