Posted on 01/23/2007 10:03:35 AM PST by BunnySlippers
"If you can go toe-to-toe with liberals in Massachusetts and New York City and acquit yourself well, you are prepared for D.C.," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.
**
Mead credits Giuliani with mental toughness rare among elected officials. Instead of seeking consensus, Giuliani openly defied many of the city's leading liberals on crime and welfare reform.
"Giuliani confronted not only the bureaucracy, but the community groups and the academics and the journalists and all those who said you couldn't be tough on the poor," Mead said. "He said that you can be — you can demand that they play by the rules. And he got away with it."
**
"It's very difficult for such a person to win Republican primaries," said Jack Pitney, a professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College.
Difficult, but not impossible, Norquist said. As an example, he pointed to Ronald Reagan.
"Reagan passed the most liberal abortion laws in the country and the most liberal divorce laws in the country as governor (of California), and then ran as the pro-life, social-conservative presidential candidate," Norquist said.
**
Giuliani's sharp-edge personality is another wild card. He sometimes rubs people, especially journalists, the wrong way.
On the other hand, his toughness might appeal to like-minded conservatives.
"A nice person couldn't have done what Giuliani did in New York," Mead said. "You needed a pit bull. Giuliani is a pit bull."
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
They seem to forget that the Reason why Bush was chosen and was so attractive to people and won the nomination in 2000 was Because as Governor of Texas he would work with Blue Dog Democrats and moderate Republicans to get the job done. He didn't ostracize them. They seem to have forgotten that one. He had Democrats at his convention in 2000 saying they would vote for him and support him. How quickly they forget!
Amen.
Well, if some big bomb goes off, all other issues will become as the wind.
{Just like bringing up James Byrd helped W.}
James Byrd harmed W. In 2000, W. only received 9% of the black vote. The lowest for a Republican Presidential cnadidate since Barry Goldwater. W. did improve on the black vote in 2004 though.
Je$$e and Sharpton won't rant about Diallo to a general audience. They'll rant about Diallo on media programs targeted for a minortiy audience.
The only politican who can discuss Diallo to a general audience would be Obama. His campaign message is about healing the great divide in America. The media will glorify everything he says.
Exactly! Very well said! I share your sentiments too!
Thank you!
You are right and I am getting more convinced day by day6 the Bush haters of 1999/2000 have morphed into the Rudy haters of today.
What the President failed to realize that today's DemocRATs in power are not the Sam Nunn, David Boren, Sam Rayburn, or Carl Albert DemocRATs to name a few. To them criticism of a sitting President stopped at the water's edge. Pres Boren has been a foreign policy advisor to this President from day one. In fact, I wanted Sam Nunn for SecDef. These were Democrats that you might differ on certain issues but at the end of the day both sides would go out to dinner. This new bunch of socialist, liberal Democrats are a far cry from those folks and others like Zell Miller. Reaching out to the likes of Pelosi and Reid is going to get your arm bit off which the President is finding out since they got back in power. They want to destroy the President, Republicans, and Conservatives any way they can which is why 2008 is so important.
I totally agree. Don't they realize how hard it is going to beat the Democrats? They are vicious, vindictive and are going to make it tough for anybody who runs - that is why we need someone who can handle them and go blow for blow.
" ... he won't carry any of the liberal Northeast states. Not even New York."
What Republican would? Not that I'm convinced of our premise, but the problem would be if he were to lose southern and midwestern/plains states for the GOP. I don't think he would. Let's give credit to people in those heartland states for understanding the Number One issue of our time, terrorism. Some in the NE Liberal states might even understand that one. (not that I'm counting on it)
Any Democrat will be more liberal than Rudy on 'social issues.' The single issue folks may choose to go third party to make a stand and, like they did in 2006 by giving us a Democrat Congress, give us a Democrat president.
The thing to remember is that Bill Clinton only won by splitting the GOP vote. If Rudy causes a third-party candidate, Hillary wins in a "landslide" with 43% of the vote, taking states that she could never otherwise take.
Which ever RINO the Dinosaur Media is pushing off on the GOP base is the guy NOT to vote for!
The way I look at is this. If Rino Rudy or Hitlery win I lose either way. If he is nominated (and I am trying to do everything I can to get someone else nominated) I will go third party. And I figure I will not be alone. If you do not like it work with us to find a conservative who is acceptible to teh base but appeals teh enough of the middle to win. Rino Rudy will not win, he will split the party.
Sorry but No Republican or Social Conservative would be stupid enough to run third party. They know it's a lose lose situation if they do that and would serve no purpose but to nominate a Democrat into office. It just won't happen. Even Ron Paul is running as a Republican. He's not stupid enough to run for third party either. The threat of a third party candidate is an empty threat and will be an empty threat in 2008. The only one thinking of possibly forming a third party is a hollywierd star called Sam Waterston (from Law and Order Fame) who wants to form a liberal third party.
When your choices are dem liberal, rep liberal or third party conservative, why not got third party? I did in several state elections last year. Yes I lost, in both ways, but I am no longer part of the problem of enabling rinos. In many ways tehe differences between the two parties or growing less and less every year. When you vote for the lessor of two evils you still get evil.
Yes they did amke a stand. But the reps are making the smae mistake as they made last year. That they have abondoned so much of conservatism in many races that the threat of vote for us or a dem will win is not scaring some people that much anymore.
Can someone comment on this? (FACTUALLY, please, there have been enough rants around here already!) I am not familiar with Reagan's history as a governor. I am interested in whether or not this statement is correct -- that he passed liberal social policy as a governor and then reversed himself when he achieved the WH.
Yes, but the MSM will protect her like she was their own kid. They will slice and dice her press conferences to make her look as good as possible. Hopefully, she will slip and do something really heinous on LIVE TV, like call someone a n***** or some other racial slur.
" ...the threat of vote for us or a dem will win is not scaring some people that much anymore."
Give this Congress two years. The disappointing Republic Congress will look glorious by comparison.
You know, the great thing about having Rudy as the nominee is that we frankly wouldn't need people like you.
You think you're making some big "statement" by voting third party. In reality, you're just marginalizing yourself even more.
Frankly, I'd love to see a strong Republican party liberated from the clutches of Unappeasables like you.
Well said! Hear, hear!
Um, but what on earth is a Broken Glass Republican?
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.