Ann Coulter On Rudy Giuliani : "I Think He's The Only Republican Who Can't Beat Hillary."

Fox News ^ | 1-31-06 | Bill O'Reilly

[TitansAFC]

Ann Coulter analyzes GOP Presidential hopefuls:

---Rudy Giuliani:

"I Think He's The Only Republican Who Can't Beat Hillary."

"I don't see him winning the Primary."

"If you can't get MY vote as a Republican against Hillary....."

---John McCain:

"Not a Conservative, but a patriot."

"A genuine war hero, unlike John Kerry."

"His weaknesses are half of his positions."

---Mitt Romney:

"Red stater in a blue state."

"Has a working knowledge of God."

---Newt Gingrich:

"Absolutely brilliant."

"His closet has certainly been thoroughly investigated already."

"I wish we could bring him in to pinch-hit for all presidential debates."

[Dominic Harr]

Except for Rudy, I don't see that and social conservatives hate him.

Personal guess -- Rudy wins the nomination. The Socials don't have the power they think they have. IMHO, of course.

[Antoninus]

I'm tired of Rep voters that stay home and give the election to Dem's because they're a one issue voter.

Really? Which issue would that be? Rudy's got a whole list of issues which disqualify him for my vote, among them, he's:

-> Anti-2nd Amendment
-> Pro-homosexual
-> Anti-Life
-> Anti-Border-Control
-> Pro-big-government

If I wanted a candidate that believed all that stuff, I'd be a Democrat.

[Spiff]

Giuliani/Clinton/GOP vs. Dem Platform Comparison
Issue	Giuliani	Clinton	Dem Platform	GOP Platform
Abortion on Demand	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Partial Birth Abortion	Supports Opposed NY ban	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Roe v. Wade	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Taxpayer Funded Abortions	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Embryonic Stem Cell Research	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Federal Marriage Amendment	Opposes	Opposes	Opposes Defined at state level	Supports
Gay Domestic Partnership/ Civil Unions	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Openly Gay Military	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Defense of Marriage Act	Opposes	Opposes	Opposes	Supports
Amnesty for Illegal Aliens	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Special Path to Citizenship for Illegal Aliens	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Tough Penalties for Employers of Illegal Aliens	Opposes	Opposes	Opposes	Supports
Sanctuary Cities/ Ignoring Immigration Law	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Protecting 2nd Amendment	Opposes	Opposes	Opposes Supports bans	Supports
Confiscating Guns	Supports Confiscated as mayor. Even bragged.	Supports	Supports Supports bans	Opposes
'Assault' Weapons Ban	Supports	Supports	Supports
Frivolous Lawsuits Against Gun Makers	Supports Filed One Himself	Supports		Opposes
Gun Registration/Licenses	Supports	Supports		Opposes
War in Afghanistan	Supports	Supports Voted for it	Supports	Supports
War in Iraq	Supports	Supports Voted for it	Supports Weak support	Supports
Patriot Act	Supports	Supports Voted for it 2001 & 2006	Opposes	Supports

"Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." - Rudy Giuliani

[PhiKapMom]

I hold the voting laws sacred and I don't care who breaks them, they have lost any credibility with me.

[jimbo123]

Duncan Hunter vs. Hillary in the Electoral College:

Duncan : 134 Electoral Votes
Hillary: 404 Electoral Votes



Rudy Giuliani vs. Hillary in the Electoral College:

Rudy : 337 Electoral Votes
Hillary: 201 Electoral Votes

[PhiKapMom]

It was just the House -- Senate wasn't involved.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The Socials have completelyl lost track of what got them here -- the Contract with America.

Well, this is just one social con talking, but I would ardently welcome a return of the issues/policies highlighted by the CWA.

What no one on the Anybody But Hillary side has yet to adequately explain to me is why the two sides (social/fiscal conservatism) are mutually exclusive.

The GOP wins when the nominee is an electable fiscal/social con (Reagan, Bush II before he lost his veto pen). The GOP loses when the candidate is squishy on fiscal and/or social issues (Ford/Dole/Bush I).

I realize it's just anecdotal, but 90-95% of the social cons I know are also ardent fiscal cons. Again, why must the candidate be mutually exclusive?

I wrote over a year ago that George Allen was the one candidate who could bridge that divide, which was why the 'Rats and the MSM worked so tirelessly to destroy him. Sadly, they succeeded.

Mark Sanford and/or Mike Pence might do the trick, but both have significant obstacles to overcome should they run, and neither has shown the inclination to do so. Haley Barbour is another possibility, but he also shows no desire to get into the ring.

Finally, JMHO, but I think the pro-Rudy/Romney/McCrazy frenzy on FR is generated less by people who want the GOP to win in 2008 and more by people whose personal political preference is to see the social cons kicked to the curb by the party. Sometimes I think there is as much antipithy towards the social con wing in the party as there is outside of the party.

Mark my words - they may be successful in throwing the social cons to the curb in the party, but they will never - NEVER - win a national election without us.

[PhiKapMom]

I agree with that as well. I know here in Oklahoma Rudy is remembered for being here for Gov Keating and Oklahoma after the OKC Bombing. He was immediately there to offer help and Gov Keating returned that help to him after 9-11. I was told by areafiftyone that there is a firetruck that goes through the city on calls that says Spirit of Oklahoma -- that was our donation to NYC along with teddy bears for the children of 9-11 who lost their parents.

Rudy stood with Oklahomans and I firmly believe this total red state will stand with Rudy.

A number of people I have talked with have vowed to never let social conservatives dictate again after 2006. Their message does not sell to the average American we have to reach out to for votes.

I think when the voters hear Rudy in person, they are going to flock to the polls in our primary to vote for him. He unites people with his positive message and his no nonsence approach to the WOT -- we have to win!

[zbigreddogz]

"And if they told you wolverines would make good house pets, would you believe them?"

-John Candy

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

the question is why if Rudy is so destested is he leading for the GOP nomination

Sounds like an Alan Colmes "gotcha" question.

Polls at this point are a name recognition contest. Nothing more. That's the way it's always been at this stage of the game. When Rudy's 9/11 Hero status expires and the media starts playing hardball, watch what happens to his poll numbers.

[Dominic Harr]

The GOP wins when the nominee is an electable fiscal/social con (Reagan, Bush II before he lost his veto pen).

Um -- please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember Reagan or Bush Sr. ever making any moves to outlaw abortion, or sanction Gays in any way . . .

I'd say the Rs win when the candidate stays away from social issues entirely, and only runs on the issues that unite us.

Unfortunatly, the Social Cs here are very loud about the fact that many, many of them consider Social Cs the only acceptable candidates. If a candidate is pro-choice, he's DoA to them, for example.

[Scotsman will be Free]

Following your statement to it's logical conclusion, then 99.99999999999999% of the populace has no credibility when it comes to criticizing any entrant into the race for president as they have not done so themselves. Further, we have no business criticizing any govt activity unless we've been there, done that ourselves, which once again leaves out the vast majority of the populace.
That's the same sort of mentaility the left espouses when any conservative makes a statement in favor of using the military to further our nation's interests. According to the left, if you haven't been in combat you have no business advocating for it.

[Dominic Harr]

He unites people with his positive message and his no nonsence approach to the WOT -- we have to win!

I think you're speaking serious truth here. I violently agree!

[RobRoy]

What has changed?

I think we are in that period where it is "too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the bas$$$ds".

I believe it strongly.

Who is John Galt?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Um -- please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember Reagan or Bush Sr. ever making any moves to outlaw abortion, or sanction Gays in any way . . .

Well, you are wrong. After a misstep (SDOC), Reagan nominated the man who would have been the deciding vote in overturning RvW - Robert Bork, whose candidacy was then destroyed by...pro-abortion GOP senator Arlen Specter.

If you really question Reagan with regards to pro-life issues, read "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation", written by RWR in 1983.

After rescinding the Mexico City policy at the outset of his presidency, W nominated a very solid SC chief justice (Roberts) and, after another misstep, followed up with another one (Alito) in the face of opposition from both the left and the pro-abort wing of the party.

As far as sanctioning gays in any way, I'm absolutely not interested, nor would I support any politician doing so - with the exception of prohibiting adoptions, since it's their most effective way of passing on their dysfunction to the next generation.

Pray for them? Yes. Sanction them? No.

I'd say the Rs win when the candidate stays away from social issues entirely, and only runs on the issues that unite us.

There is some logic to that train of thought, but only if the candidate is generally accepted to not be hostile to the pro-life movement.

McCain and Giuliani do not qualify, and I have serious doubts that Romney can pull it off.

Unfortunatly, the Social Cs here are very loud about the fact that many, many of them consider Social Cs the only acceptable candidates. If a candidate is pro-choice, he's DoA to them, for example.

Add me to that list...

[PhiKapMom]

I just posted this under bloggers from Red State:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1777501/posts?page=1

[PerConPat]

It was a House scandal; and both Newt and Congressman Cheney had a few questionable checks, nowhere near the level of Hunters' involvement. My point, however, was my willingness to give these sort of problems a chance to sort themselves out in the political process, provided criminal charges are not involved. This is why I will listen to what Rudy etc. might say in the Primary chase. Otherwise, we get into this business of Rudy etc. cheated on his wife, so why wouldn't he cheat on me? I'm not ready to go there.

Personally, I thought LS was right on with post #96.

[TitansAFC]

Well, actually....

Reagan spearheaded one of many attempts to add a Right-to-Life Amendment to the Constitution. He added that request to every one of his eight State-of-the-Union speeches. He openly campaigned on the issue, using it as one of his major issues at that.

He instilled the Mexico City policy, and openly sought the assistance of Gary Bauer, et al, in naming SCOTUS justices, though they failed to get it right. The movement was still young then, and getting the judges right was a little harder. Upon leaving office, Reagan said that his biggest regret of his entire Presidency was not being able to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Bush basically ran an entire campaign in 2004 based on preventing gay marriage and fighting the war. He mentioned gay marriage at every campaign speech. In 2000, his "Christ" moment in the debates is largely credited with much of the unprecedentedly high turnout on the right in the General Election.

We SoCons aren't unreasonable - it's just that Rudy is an unreasonable candidate for us. It's one thing to look past a couple of issues in order to be united (Bush 41, Dole); it's another thing to demand we drop all of our issues altogether for the "greater good" of the party. To give us a perpetual war - like the War on Terror or the Cold War - and then tell us to put our issues on hold because "we're at war" is downright unreasonable. All of my life there have been wars and people out to harm us, and all the rest of my life that will be the case. I will not surrender all of my principles under the guise of security, just as you would not if Rudy announced tomorrow his plans to increase taxes 50%, socialize medicine in the country, and promised to outlaw the teaching of Evolution in schools - but would be damn tough on the terrorist.

[Oct1967]

So when did the front runner for the GOP nomination since 1968 not end up being the nominee??

[Dominic Harr]

Robert Bork, whose candidacy was then destroyed by...pro-abortion GOP senator Arlen Specter.

Actually, Bork wanted to throw the question back to the states, not outlaw abortion. His position was that there's just no 'right to privacy' in the constitution that guarantees abortion.

That's my position, too. I like the 'component architecture' the Constitution set out. States can make it illegal if they choose.

And if you're going to veto any pro-choice candidate even tho he's a political conservative, then that's the end of the R party, in my opinion.