Posted on 02/01/2007 8:08:22 AM PST by meg88
2008: Republicans: Giuliani
"The question is this: Can the thrice-married New Yorker — a supporter of abortion rights, gay rights and gun control — win the nomination of a Republican Party that has become increasingly dependent on and influenced by conservative Christians?," poses Susan Page of USA Today in her front page look at the conundrum Giuliani faces in his battle for the White House.
Note that Family Research Council's Tony Perkins finds Giuliani "unacceptable," and plans to take him out if he shows strength.
Note also Page marshalling data suggesting that Giuliani's liberal views are not well known within the party.
Jonathan Tamari of the Asbury Park Press reports that former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY) has lined up an army of Garden State GOP supporters including nearly 300 legislators, chairmen, and mayors, and failed U.S. Senate candidate Tom Kean, Jr. New Jersey's presidential primary may be held as early as Feb. 5, 2008
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Phonies?
Posers?
Actors?
I love Rudy...for intel chief or FBI. He's an asset.
People wanting to 'rub him out' :)
Sickening isn't it. We can wait for a whole year yet before putting a serious candidate forward, and it's only the last 4 months of an election that means anything anyways. The average Americans attention span and memory doesn't seem to go much beyond that anyways. Democrats wear themselves out before the final stretch every time, and because the democrat has been campaigning so long and told so many lies, they start triping all over themselves.
I have and like him.
Maybe informing those posters that it was a charity event and is in no way an indicator of Rino Rudys perferred clothing preference is working.
There are real facts showing he's a Rino, the drag photos don't.
I think Rudy is attractive as a candidate because he has appeared to tough on protecting America from attack.
For those who will vote more on social issues, he will not get their vote.
For those who vote more on constitutional issues, he will probably lose some votes because of gun control. This is just me, but I believe in another 10 years, we will be fighting here on this soil, and I wouldn't want to be denied the right to bear arms. And we'll need more than concealed hand guns.
I don't know his track record on smaller government.
I think that if you want the Federal government to get out of the way, and let the states define for themselves what they want to do on abortion and homosexual marriage, so be it. Whether you are for or against it gay rights, I'm going to look ascance at someone who thinks that to show his support he has to participate even marginally in their lifestyle. I'm sorry, but during his campaign, we are going to be treated to Rudy in Drag clips, and I just don't find that very presidential.
Would you rather have stale cheese or dog poop for lunch? Because those are the only choices I'm giving you even though you have a refrigerator full of nice things to eat.
I've heard the "only a moderate can win" argument all my life, yet amazingly "moderates" are still very scarce on the political scene.
People who like abortion, killing babies, and who want to take away guns already have a party. Moreover those issues have exactly ZERO to do with the war.
I'm voting for Rudi.
Great point regarding Reagan's background prior to the election of 1980. This FRC statement is a perfect example of the far right further marginalizing themselves and ensuring a second President Clinton. Hillary will have the full backing of the media and the far left because they realize the importance of moving to the middle for the election. Conservatives need to to understand the politics of wooing moderates, rather than alienating them. You don't have to sell out to do so as in Reagan's case. Remember how he was endorsed by many unions and other normally left wing groups? If not, welcome to the permanent minority status again and a spectator's view as the country is destroyed by mindless liberals.
Agree. Plus he's all around a better candidate than McPain. And certainly isn't any more liberal than McPain. There is lots of time for someone else to toss their hat in the ring. Maybe we'll get suprised.
Well while the family research council may have legitimate concerns about Guliani, they should take some responsibility for their probable accomplishments via this initiative.
i.e. it will be on their heads if a state-child-rearing rape-enabler gets elected instead as NYS' other offering this election cycle.
I think that the base is confused about the lesson of the 2006 election. In the middle of an unpopular war, and with a president who is more and more a divisive figure, we are not going to win by going more conservative and banging the "Guns, God, and Gays" drum. Voters are going to be looking for high-profile, moderate, Washington outsiders who can bridge the partisan gap. So far the base has been shouting for more conservative (Hunter!), single-issue (Tancredo!), or just plain silly (Newt!) candidates who aren't going to be able to win given the current look of the political landscape.
Unless there's a dramatic turnaround in Iraq (which we all hope for) and Prez Bush is able to bring the greater portion of our troops home, I think we're going to get our skis waxed come '08.
See post 46
>>>Family Research Council Vows to Take Out Rudy If He Shows Electability>>>
Family Research Council Vows to see Hillary Clinton as President of the United States of America in 2008
Something we should consider:
Look at how the moderate Republicans are backing down from the war in Iraq, and the War on Terror in general.
Rudy was hot on defense two years ago, as were a lot of others. Where does he stand now?
Who's to say that Rudy is going to be any more hawkish than Hillary? What about Supreme Court nominees? Who do you think he will appoint? He's pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay. When he was mayor of New York, he ordered his own law enforcement officers not to cooperate with INS. What is the difference between electing him and electing Hillary?I'd like to hear it.
The FRC is just continuing the Republican tradition of eating their own. We're doomed to have Hillary Clinton as the next President if this non sense doesn't stop.
I'd rather have 60% of our agenda and goals advanced than 5% of our goals and agenda advanced. This relatively straightforward math seems to escape some of people.
Maybe they are railing against arithmetic at Brother Love's Traveling Salvation Show.
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.