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 ...
I have no idea how this will play out. We're lacking the heavyweight conservative in the GOP race so far.
And no, I don't think Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, or Ron Paul will win a single primary election. Each has their following here, but that's not going to translate into a heavyweight organization or enough money to mount anything approaching a serious campaign.
We really have the big three, Guiliani, McCain, and Romney, with Gingrich still playing his cards close to his vest.
All have their flaws. I'd take any of them over whoever the Democrats put up, but I'd really have to hold my nose to vote for McCain.
....but he wants to eliminate the second amendment. (red flag alert)
Newt. His contract with America was a huge success. He could run on it again, and it'll fly.
The liberal press will attack him to no end, but his message is truth. They'll only bring more attention to it. The negative media will actually be a benefit to him. He could use it to it's full advantage.
Dear Ethrane,
"Rudy has said he's in favor of strict constructionists."
Well, I guess it depends on what one thinks is in the Constitution that determines who one believes are strict constructionists. Mr. Giuliani believes that Roe was rightly decided, that there is a "right" to abortion in the Constitution. Mr. Giuliani obviously believes that significant gun control is constitutional (either that, or he believes that it is acceptable to pass unconstitutional laws).
This raises the question of just who would be acceptable to him as a Supreme Court nominee.
Folks here often quote from an interview with Alan Colmes where Mr. Giuliani praises Justice Roberts as an excellent choice for the Court. What folks often leave out is that in the same interview, Mr. Giuliani also praises RUTH BADER GINSBURG as a good choice for the Court.
Why shouldn't he? From his perspective, her support for Roe and other liberal shibboleths must seem to fall under the rubric of "strict constructionism." How could it be otherwise?
Sorry, I wouldn't trust Mr. Giuliani with Supreme Court and other judicial nominations anymore than I would trust Mrs. Clinton.
If Mr. Giuliani is nominated, I won't vote for him. If he is nominated, then no matter who wins the general election, the country will have elected a liberal Democrat.
sitetest
If they have to ask, the answer is probably "neither."
Newt is actually my favorite at the moment, but he has two major problems.
There is a fickle segment of social conservatives who will not forgive him for his personal life and failed marriages. It doesn't matter whether they agree with him on 100% of the issues and his agenda. They will punish him for his personal past.
The other problem is that he's been very vocal and visible. As a commentator on television, he's built up a huge library of stuff he has said. It doesn't matter that he's been 98% correct on everything he's said. He's been outspoken and it's on the record. His opponents have a vast resource to pick through to find statements that, in hindsight, look bad.
So, like I said, I don't know how it will play out.
I couldn't vote for him. He's 5 foot nothin! And weighs a hundred nothin!
Using Duncan Hunter as the personification of hopeless.
The MSM is pushing the BIG 3, with conservative Newt bringing up the rear. I don't believe the party activist conservatives will go for Rudy in the primaries. With Romney and McCain not being much better then Giuliani, looks like the choices for Republicans in 2008 are extremely limited. Right now, I'd consider voting for Newt, Mitt or even JohnnyMac. The liberal Rudy isn't a viable choice for any conservative. Conservatives have to get behind a candidate that both major contingents of social and fiscal conservatives can agree on. Maybe we'll get lucky and a soild conservative candidate will step forward soon. Otherwise, a Democrat could be sitting in the WH come January 2009. An ugly prospect for sure.
The abortion battles make interesting headlines, but I think these are merely skirmishes after the main battle has been fought and lost.
Conservatives can continue to nibble around the edges, but a watershed overturning of Roe v. Wade would only result in each state being free to make their own laws as to the legality of abortion. It wouldn't outlaw abortions.
All the blue states, and even a large portion of the red ones would probably keep abortion legal with varying restrictions. And that's the best case scenario.
We have a whole generation of women in child-bearing age that never knew a time when abortions were illegal. A great many of them have the attitude that "I'd never get an abortion, but I wouldn't want it to be illegal!"
So, I'm not quite as fired up about the issue as I used to be, because abortion is never going to be outlawed as a whole in the US. Not even close. That doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to nibble around the edges and try to make it is as rare as possible. That's a fight worth fighting.
Oh, I hear you loud and clear....
Rudy is not in my top choices either...but I'm responding to the posters that insist they'll stay at home rather than vote for Rudy IF he is the nominee.
The issue of USSC justice appointments is too important in my view...at least with Rudy you have a chance at a Roberts or Alito, which you are not going to get with ANY Dem candidate.
"So, the former mayor might make a terrific general election candidate, but I don't see how he can get there as a Republican."
By doing what all prez candidates do...modify his positions.
The implication here is that Rudy is a de facto Democrat, which is why I've never been able to understand all the adulation he's gotten here on FreeRepublic.
Rudy's positive attributes (no-nonsense guy, very strong executive type) are far outweighed by his negatives (his unabashed liberalism on some very critical issues, his questionable dealings with some sordid characters, his "intangible" attributes that weigh strongly against him).
The Iowa Caucus usually goes to the candidate with the best organization. That's probably going to be one of the Big 3. Newt isn't even planning on making an announcement until Septemeber, so that all but rules him out in Iowa. He's giving all the others a HUGE headstart.
New Hampshire is likely to be a contest between Romney and Guiliani, because they're from that region. Both have a record on social issues to overcome, and Romney has the added burden of overcoming the "Mormon stigma." South Carolina was McCain's undoing in 2000, but Lindsey Graham will be pushing hard for him this time.
I have no clue how any of those candidates would do in a delegate rich state like Texas. I think Newt would do well, but I'm skeptical whether he'd still be in the race at that point.
MegaDittos!!!
And in his next breath he held up that avowed communist Ruth Bader Ginsberg as a fine Supreme Court justice, so I would tend to ignore this bit of political pandering on his part.
Dear Dog Gone,
"Conservatives can continue to nibble around the edges, but a watershed overturning of Roe v. Wade would only result in each state being free to make their own laws as to the legality of abortion. It wouldn't outlaw abortions."
I agree that overturning Roe wouldn't directly outlaw any abortions.
I've often said here on Free Republic that overturning Roe would be merely the beginning of the fight against legalized abortion.
But we can't begin until Roe is gone.
"All the blue states, and even a large portion of the red ones would probably keep abortion legal with varying restrictions. And that's the best case scenario."
I've looked into this before, and something like 20 states would have laws go into effect that would severely restrict abortion. The number of legal abortions would begin to decline nearly immediately. And significantly. That's not too bad a start.
However, I look to the period immediately before Roe. In the late 1960s, the push was on in state after state to liberalize abortion laws. The pro-aborts won many victories - around 20 states significantly liberalized their abortion laws up until 1970. But then the pro-life folks started to get going. After 1970, about 30 states tried to modify their abortion laws, generally to liberalize them. The effort to liberalize abortion laws failed in each of the states after 1970 where it was attempted. Even New York's legislature REPEALED its liberal abortion law just two years after putting it in place. It was only Gov. Rockefeller's veto of the repeal that left it in place.
The pro-aborts went to the courts because it was turning out that in the long run, most folks didn't want abortion on demand.
Even now, even in the defeat in South Dakota, we can see what a lot of folks think. That law was a complete and total ban on abortion - no exceptions. And it still got in the mid-40%s. Wow! What would have happened if the ban had permitted exceptions for the life of the mother and for rape and incest? I bet it would have passed.
And I think that that general model would pass in a lot of states.
In the mid-term, I think that a lot of states would retain fairly liberal abortion laws, but I think in the long-term, the states with more restrictive abortion laws would demonstrate to folks in other states that restrictive abortion laws can work. And I think that what was happening in the period immediately prior to Roe - accelerating momentum in favor of protecting unborn children in law - would reoccur.
Even today, with Roe intact, majorities of folks would ban abortions generally, as long as the exceptions for life of the mother, rape, incest, and severe genetic deformity were left intact. These exceptions represent less than 4% of abortions. Although many, perhaps even most folks think that most abortions actually fall into these exception categories, the fact is that most folks, perhaps unwittingly, favor abortion laws that would make illegal approximately 96% of abortions.
In the meanwhile, in the mid-term where many states would retain liberal abortion laws, I think the incidence of abortion in the United States would be reduced significantly. Even before we got to the point where abortion would be generally illegal throughout the country, many millions of lives would be saved.
However, as long as Roe is in place, none of that can happen.
sitetest
He's not only been right - he's been bold enough to be right in public. People want a leader, not just a nosy neighbor.
He's been put through the ringer by the left. He knows how far they'll go. Experience matters.
This time, we need someone who is NOT shy. The left is rabid, and they'll stop at nothing. We need a fighter like Newt who'll be strong enough to take them on.
They fear him. They've chosen the liberals for us instead. It's a win/win for them.
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.