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 ...
"Rudy can do that."
Reagan DID that, and he didn't run as a rino or pander for votes.
He espoused a conservative philosophy in an attractive way and won a landslide. When the country was much more liberal and there was no alternative media.
Every time the republicans run and govern as conservatives with ideals they win. When they run people just to gain power and squander that power, they lose. History proves that out.
I agree. I think Hillary will implode.
Your analysis is very pragmatic and probably accurate. It's going to come down to either McCain or Giuliani. The media will bust their humps to get McCain the nomination, but if he gets it they'll turn on him in a heartbeat and savage him right up to the election against either Hillary or Hussein Obama. Unfortunately, I just don't see any of the other 'Pub candidates having much of a chance. Romney might crack 40% in the general election against Hillary, maybe 35% against Obama, so it's 1964 all over again. The others? Brownback loses maybe 35-65 against the top two 'Rats. Duncan Hunter? Maybe 30%. Gingrich? The media will dig up so many skeletons from his past that he'd be forced to relinquish the nomination, if he ever got it. I just don't think we have the horses in '08 to make a race of it against either Hillary or Obamalama outside of Giuliani/McCain. I know many here will hate to hear that and want to flame me for saying it, but I'm only offering a preliminary sizing up, and, to be honest, those choices don't make me all that happy either. But faced with the prospect of a Hillary or Obama presidency, I question whether staying home is a good idea, either.
I love it when you & I agree!
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.
BTW, the country was more conservative then ... it keeps getting more liberal. Reagan could not win in CA if he ran today. The state is rife with minorities then. When I grew up in CA in late 40s, early 50s it was mostly white Anglo Saxon.
Me Too! It warms the cockles of my heart! :-D
What Reagan did and had to do to govern a liberal state like California and What Rudy did and had to do to run a liberal city like New York are very similar except for the fact that Rudy DID NOT pass any liberal laws.
It looks as though the Republicans would rather vote for a man that is open about his agenda (liberal as it may be) and a tenacious pit bull on national security and crime than a vindictive, loose cannon whose only real agenda is self promotion.
Once again, national security, (foreign and domestic) trumps social issues. We need to get the security under control before we can worry about the domestic issues.
No, I do not support liberals. No matter what party they are with.
Rino Rudy pretty well crosses all my social issues. I am pro gun, pro marriage, pro controlling our borders, and pro life.
The ones I am worries about are Richardson and or Edwards. Both are liberal, but can play the moderate on TV and can do a conviencing progun. I could see them running to the right on Rino Rudy on guns and maybe another issue or two. This is how many of the rats won in 2006.
Richardson/Hillary is a scary-as-hell proposition. We'd need a strong conservative like Hunter to counter that evil force.
This Republican definitely agrees with that statement.
Ha. Democrats will get atleast 61 million Democrat votes.
How does Rudy get to 62 million or more is the question.
It's absolute fantasy to think the Leftist voters in this country want to vote for a Republican
I think Hitlery will implode this year, she just turns off to many people.
The country needs a "pit bull" not another "islam is a religion of peace and love" whiner.
Investors Daily - Wall Street seems to like him.
"It looks as though the Republicans would rather vote for a man that is open about his agenda (liberal as it may be) and a tenacious pit bull on national security and crime than a vindictive, loose cannon whose only real agenda is self promotion."
Wish I could fit that as my tagline! Most excellent.
Do you think Rudy is a fiscal liberal?
thanks, i largely agree.
I think you oversell how bad we could lose though. Even Bob Dole got 41% against Clinton Saying that a Romney or Brownback would lose 65-35 is a bit much. I'd say more along the lines of 55-45 max, probably a little narrower.
Don't forget, though, it's still all about the electoral map.
We currently hold 286. What states could flip in 2008? I don't really see a Romney or a Brownback flipping any for us. They could hold what we have, but I can't see them adding.
There have been polls and articles showing that Rudy and McCain at least havea chance in states like NJ, NY, PA, RI, MI, WI.
What states could the dems flip. They have way more opportunities in places like CO, MO, OH, VA.
The wild card is CA. I see an outside shot that Arnold's popularity and support could deliver CA to a Rudy or McCain and that would seal the deal for us.
Basically, though, prospects are not good. The Iraq War has virtually ended Bush's Presidency and the Public has tuned out and given up, by and large. If Iraq continues to go south, it won't matter who we run.
That said, given the current circumstances, Rudy and McCain are our two best shots at the moment. Things can change. I just hope that if it comes down to one of them against Hillary, the base types don't decide to prove their point and stay home.
We should picture a pants-suited Hillary giving the SOTU tonight with Pelosi and Obama behind her, Slick taking in the adulation, 3 new liberal SC Justices having replaced Stevens, Scalia and Ginsburg...
Anything is preferable to that nightmare scenario. Even a Pres. McCain. Look at this way, what are the odds he serves out his term? If he picks a solid conservative VP, we could get 2 for the price of 1.
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.