Posted on 02/12/2007 6:43:36 AM PST by areafiftyone
That's my point. I SUPPORT Gingrich. I was pointing out that he, too has personal life/marriage issues but their no worse than Rudy's and Newt's other positions are FAR better.
In fact, I'm leaning towards Newt right now out of all of them, I still worry if he could beat Her Heinous or the Halfrican Candidate Osama-Obama.
Selective excerpting by a Hunterbot...how typical. You totally omitted the fact that Rudy is tapping into Papa Bush's network, i.e. more than just southern business interests.
And if you think Hunter has a chance of being the GOP nominee, you better put down the crack pipe and check yourself into rehab.
YOU ARE THE ONE who made the claim. Not me.
And Rudy tapping into Bush 41's network? The same Bush 41 who was a one-term president who ran left and lost the White House to a nondescript governor who was DOA earlier in the year? Boy, that makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
The Rudy boosters are clutching at straws now.
You do understand that the profile of a Reagan Democrat is a socially conservative Democrat right?
Nonetheless, you always make me laugh. I'm sure a lot of Reagan Democrats crossed over because Reagan was once a Democrat, 30 years before he ran.
This is the kind of Rudy Two-Step we've come to expect from you guys.
Make some kind of claim that proves how strong Rudy is - that does the opposite.
And then insult those supporting a principled conservative because we haven't sold out like you have.
I haven't committed to voting for Rudy (I will in the general election if he is the GOP nominee).
Clutch at straws? You're funny. This coming from someone who calls himself "dirtboy" and thinks Hunter stands a chance.
The nominee cannot afford to lose ANY of the party. It will be very difficult to pick up votes in the middle.
Dear Peach,
The Gallup poll quoted in another thread shows 18% definitely not voting for him, and another 25% with a reduced likelihood of voting for him.
One can conclude that Mr. Giuliani would easily lose 20% (or perhaps much more) of the folks who nearly always vote Republican, in the general election.
That translates to somewhere around 10,000,000 votes.
Of course, even your 16% translates to roughly 8 million votes.
If anyone thinks that Mr. Giuliani can win the general election while losing 8 - 10 million votes from the base, that individual is self-deluded.
sitetest
Ah, and now the last refuge of scoundrels. Making an issue of my screen name. Lame, lame, lame.
"Do you remember the Reagan Democrats? Reagan got a lot of votes from Democrats (probably because he was a Democrat for a time) and he got a lot of votes from moderates."
Reagan got a lot of support from people who felt that the Democratic party had left them. (Just like it left Reagan)
He won their support by expressing CONSERVATIVE values. With Republican leading candidates trying to move the GOP to the left, how is that going to attract conservatives?
Wrong. the thing about Newt is his misadventures can be more easily summarized in a very damaging way among women in a beauty salon.
"You hear that Newt Gingrich guy divorced the wife that put him through graduate school while she was recovering from cancer?"
"Damn Girl, that's Wrong!"
Of course, the salient difference is that most of the country actively hates Gingrich, and they don't hate Giuliani.
Start polling a little North and West of MA and ME, you'll find the 2nd Amendment is alive and well. They know Rudy is a gun grabber... Remember Porter-Shay from the eastern boarder, full blown commie, got elected over a conservative.
Link please.
Rudy has been polling well in southern states right now. That is for now
First Buchanan...then Hunter. You probably supported Perot too.
Anyone who passes your ideological purity test garners 1% of the vote unless he's got Perot's bankroll.
And to repeat, since you're intentionally ignoring it, I am not supporting Rudy right now.
You sure have a lot of nerve. First you spend weeks trying to trash Reagan's legacy. And now you raise the specter of Reagan Democrats to make a case for RUDY?
Hint: Reagan did not win over those Democrats by being pro-choice and pro-gun-control.
Social Conservatism as it's understood today was hardly a focus of his campaigns. I'm sure you can produce a huge number of speech statements and written material with Reagan supporting an assortment of Social Con views, but it really wasn't what he was campaigning on, which was:
1) Strong Defense and opposition to Communism
2) Lower taxes
3) Reducing the size of the welfare state and government handouts.
Of course the nominee cannot afford to lose any of the party.
That's why Giuliani is not the wise choice to really win in 2008.
Due to an influx of Mass liberals NH has been moving to the blue for a while now.
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.