I Probably Cannot Do It: Rudy 2008 (The author means not vote for Rudy and tells you why)

CaliforniaRepublic.org ^ | 2/13/07 | John Mark Reynolds

[meg88]

Voting for perfection in a candidate will get you Hillary Clinton.

I think Rudy's impulses on 'new' issues of statecraft will be just fine

[Atlas Sneezed]

You need to be in a third party.

---

No, Republicans need to start acting conservative.

Maybe you need to help support candidates that can get my vote, if it's so important to you that the White is in the "R" column.

Rudy isn't a RINO, he's a mislabeled DEMOCRAT!

[M. Dodge Thomas]

President Giuliani would be the end of a certain sort of American "exceptionalism"; the end of a long era of a "City on a Hill" view of Presidential purpose, if we choose Giuliani we would be opting for a very "European" sort of leader, chosen with little concern for his personal life on pragmatic and perhaps even cynical grounds.

[George W. Bush]

Mitt Romney is a Republican who has often taken “wrong positions” on important issues. . . changed his mind . . . and grown as all statesmen do. I don’t agree with him on all the “issues.” This I know about Romney: he has friends who are very conservative, family who is very conservative, and is a traditionalist in his religious view of the world. His deepest and first impulse will be to understand the American tradition . . . not to innovate.

This is why, after first deciding I could vote for Mitt, then deciding he was way too liberal, I've returned to a more neutral stance. I simply cannot vote for Giuliani. But I could see myself voting for Mitt. But he has to be a lot more sincere in drawing back from previous liberal policy and make it so convincing that he can't back away from it. OTOH, once in the White House, he wouldn't be running scared of the wildly liberal MA legislature and courts.

Rudy Giuliani would be the first open culture-of-death candidate to receive the Republican nomination since the Reagan Revolution. He would shatter the pro-life Republican presidential monolith that provided key margins in so many states.

Not only could he lose his run at the WH by shattering the pro-life/pro-family/pro-gun GOP coalition, he would do terrible harm to conservative candidates downticket from him. With Rudy as the nominee, we could have losses as great as 2006 again in Congress. And I think he doesn't care one bit whether he destroys the rest of the party. It's all about Rudy, Rudy, Rudy.

I think the writer is correct about McStain too. And it seems hard to picture the three most conservative candidates, the congressmen, getting the money or support to make a run that will cost $350 million minimum. Mitt and Rudi can both raise it. McStain could but it won't do him any good.

[meg88]

Rudy just said that Ronald Reagan was his hero 6-7 times in his speech yesterday, I severly doubt that.

[phillyfanatic]

A fine reasoned but flawed analysis. Romney is a nice guy with NE roots. Which means his draw is limited. Rudy G is not the Biola type Christian conserv that I ordinarily would want. I thought Bush as a Christian would follow conserv views too! Still, in a race where the Dem candidates are far worse than any Pub running, I just cannot see Mitt winning the primaries. That is enough to win at the Convention. Rudy G will do that and could defeat the two empty leftist socialist pacifists who will win the Dem primaries and nomination. Mitt,unfortunately will not.

[phillyfanatic]

A fine reasoned but flawed analysis. Romney is a nice guy with NE roots. Which means his draw is limited. Rudy G is not the Biola type Christian conserv that I ordinarily would want. I thought Bush as a Christian would follow conserv views too! Still, in a race where the Dem candidates are far worse than any Pub running, I just cannot see Mitt winning the primaries. That is enough to win at the Convention. Rudy G will do that and could defeat the two empty leftist socialist pacifists who will win the Dem primaries and nomination. Mitt,unfortunately will not.

[Reagan Man]

Good article, thanks for posting it.

I especially enjoyed this part.

First, New York City is not the United States . . . as shocking as this news might be to my friends who live in the Big Apple.

NYCity had lots of problems that were unique to the Big Apple alone. But they weren't major social issues that effect the entire nation. 70% of NYCity voters are registered Democrats. They don't give a rats arse about the key social issues. They don't care about stopping abortion, allowing more gun rights, less gay rights or stopping illegals from entering the US. And neither does Rudy.

Rudy did a good job as Mayor by NYCity standards, but cleaning up Times Square, eliminating the squeegee-men, arresting public urinators and catching turnstile jumpers are not the issues that conservative activists will be judging candidates on in the GOP primaries.

Rudy`s political positions on the major social issues will be what conservative activists will be judging him on. And Rudy`s stances on the social issues remain in lockstep with liberal Democrats like Hillary Clitnon, Algore, John Kerry, John Edwards and Ted Kennedy.

If people want to ignore Rudy`s liberal record and his lifetime of support for liberal causes, they're free to do so. But it won't stop me from speaking out about how wrong Rudy is for America. In the end, I'm confident conservatives wil reject Rudy as the GOP nominee.

[Mygirlsmom]

we will also 'survive' the Clinton II administration.

IMHO the jury is still out as to whether or not we'll survive the damage done in the first 8 yrs. that a Clinton held the Presidency.

[Reagan Man]

Though you might enjoy this article.

Comments?

[truth_seeker]

"Nor is it impossible to have a Republican nominee who can win who isn't a leftist in so many important ways."

Then trot him out. He will by now have the money, name recognition and poll numbers to prove how numerous and powerful conservatives are.

Or could it be conservative sentiments are spread all around, a little here and a little there?

[M. Dodge Thomas]

"Rudy just said that Ronald Reagan was his hero 6-7 times in his speech yesterday, I severely doubt that."

Not trying to a smart-aleck - I honestly don't know how to read that.

Do you mean:

1) Rudy is lying, Reagan is not his hero.

2) My view in the post you are responding to in incorrect: Reagan is Rudy's hero, and Rudy will try to be another Reagan.

3) Something else?

[jjw]

I think this guy's gonna turn out just like Arnold.

[RockinRight]

I have to say, economically, I'd rather spend the first few years of my upcoming marriage and probable future children under Rudy than Hillary. I'd rather have a solid job and decent economy to support my family under, than a bunch of tax increases and Marxism threatening our well-being as Hillary tries to make us her dependent subjects.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Interesting CHOICE of words...

Visiting New York City was a trip to a third-world country that had become so by choice.

Times-Square was disgusting . . . full of the sort of raunchy shops that the morally stunted think are adult.

In ancient times, when Rome was in a mess, they would call in a strong man . . . a Roman dictator to straighten out the problems before sending him home. New York City was rotting in the 1970’s and it need someone like Rudy Giuliani, a Roman patrician and strong man, to save it. America is not so badly off . . . the economy is sound and the War is still winnable.

BUT what destroyed Rome from within is destroying America from within, sound economy secularist Mammon-based criteria notwithstanding.

If you cannot carry Hope’s vote, then you cannot win!

---

Job 5:16
So the poor have hope, and injustice shuts its mouth.

Psalm 25:3
No one whose hope is in you will ever be put to shame, but they will be put to shame who are treacherous without excuse.

Psalm 25:21
May integrity and uprightness protect me, because my hope is in you.

Psalm 37:9
For evil men will be cut off, but those who hope in the LORD will inherit the land.

Psalm 43:5
Why are you downcast, O my soul? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Savior and my God.

Psalm 52:9
I will praise you forever for what you have done; in your name I will hope, for your name is good. I will praise you in the presence of your saints.

Psalm 71:14
But as for me, I will always have hope; I will praise you more and more.

Psalm 119:43
Do not snatch the word of truth from my mouth, for I have put my hope in your laws.

And the inspiration for the old hymn "Great Is Thy Faithfulness"
Lamentations 3:21-24
This I recall to my mind, therefore have I hope.
It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.
They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness.
The LORD is my portion, saith my soul; therefore will I hope in him.


http://www.biblegateway.com/

[GSWarrior]

The brash and by-the-throat style that worked well in the tabloid consuming subways is not the proper style for the White House

Ah, yes...that's what we need...a leader with more nuance.

In the 1970’s and it need someone like Rudy Giuliani, a Roman patrician and strong man, to save it. America is not so badly off.

Better we elect a wimp with no spine.

He wants to be president too openly . . . to much. Rudy Giuliani does not have the personality to lead the whole nation.

Can't have a president with too much ambiion either. Much better to elect a "can't we just all get along" candidate.

I'm not saying I will vote for Rudy, but some of the author's reasoning is lame.

[upsdriver]

So if I don't vote for Hillary Clinton, is that the same as a vote for Rudy? Even though I would never vote for either?

[ZULU]

Interesting this liberal Republican is so enamored of Romney - another politician who is more than willing to believe anything he thinks will make him more electable rather than Giuliani.

He's right about McCain.

Hopefully he will be right about Giuliani and wrong about Romney.

All three of these "leaders" have been picked by the leftwing media as the candidates of choice and supported by the Mehlmans and Roves and Eisenbergs and other leftists who created the 2006 catastrophe.

I'm sorry his wife finds Gingrich so repugnant. I'm not impressed by his geneology. Nor does his position as a university professor move me - they live in their own worlds separate from the realtiy of mere mortals.

Unless someone is nominated who will appeal to the Republican core - someone who opposes the invasion of America by illegal aliens, someone who recognizes Constitutional rights - including the Second Amendment, someone who believes killing unborn babies is unacceptabel in a civilized society, someone who adheres to traditional American values of right and wrong, someone who knows that the way to fight a war is to win it, kill the enemy and then get out, the Republican base will do what it did so well in 2006 - sit home or vote third party.

Only Hunter or Gingrich can possibly move the masses of Republicans and just patriotic independent Americans to vote for a Republican.

[GBA]

"Against...Hilary...perhaps Rudy Giuliani would get my vote as the lesser of two evils, but without enthusiasm and with little support. Or I might stay at home, waste my vote on a protest candidate, and wait for better days."

My thoughts exactly.

[presidio9]

In a two party system, a failure to vote for one party's candidate is the same thing as voting for the other party's. Grasping this concept requires a firm concept of second grade arithmetic.