Posted on 03/02/2007 6:14:30 PM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
I seem to be detecting a trend. There's a current in the MSM that fears a Rudy Giuliani candidacy, perhaps sensing he might be best positioned to defeat the Dem candidate. They console themselves by clinging to the belief that the GOP won't nominate Rudy, or at least won't avidly support him if he is the candidate, given his liberal positions on some issues.
This evening's Hardball offered a perfect example of the phenomenon in the person of Craig Crawford. Time and again, the MSNBC analyst returned to the theme:
View video here.
"Maybe I've just covered these social conservatives and these Republican races for too long to believe they're suddenly going to forget about that stuff, no matter how much they like Giuliani otherwise."All that talking, and you still don't answer my double bind question. If you won't answer my false dilemma, then I won't answer yours.
I'll take Rudy's position for the sake of the argument.
***Must be difficult for you. I will go ahead and treat you as a rudy supporter.
He is a pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-gun Republican
***And this is a pro-life, Pro-RKBA, etc. "As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc". This is a socon site. What are you doing pushing a solib on a socon site?
who wants to put strict constructionists on the court,
***Your candidate is a liar. When he claims to want to put "strict constructionists" on the court, that includes such distinguished souls as Ruth Ginsburg.
Culture of life:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM
ABC clip:
George Will: "Do you think Roe v Wade was good constitutional law?"
Rudy Giuliani: "Yes I believe, I believe it is."
Cnn Clip December 2, 1999:
Announcer: "Giuliani was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial birth abortions, something Bush strongly supports."
Rudy Giuliani : "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing."
keep our streets safe and protect this country. I believe this is called by todays standards a moderate.
***I'm glad rudy wants to keep the streets safe, he's certainly done that for NYC. As far as protecting this country, rudy is soft on illegals. So by today's standards, rudy is a liberal, not a moderate.
His main opposition in my humble opinion is Duncan Hunter & Mitt Romney. Romney governed a state, Hunter is a Congressman. Romney is the more liberal of the two. McCain plays to the public opinion polls which means he is doing what is good for McCain. And Newt hasn't announced anything so we cannot even begin to think about him. But he is a force to be reckoned with in the event he does run. Again in my humble opinion, Newt is the voice of the Republicans.
***That's a relatively astute analysis. Newt's ego is helping to rip the party apart because as socons gather behind Hunter, he has not thrown his support to the socon in the race and has not entered the race. He needs to fish or cut bait. I wish him well in either endeavor.
So we have 5 candidates, Newt, Rudy, McCain, Hunter & Romney. I think you will agree with me Hunter is the most Conservative and therefore should get our vote.
***I agree.
Not Newt? No. Newt is divorced therefore he is with sin and considering him for the Presidency is hypocrisy. Out. McCain? Self absorbed and will sell out to the RATS. Gone. Romney? Pro-abortion until he saw the light. I don't buy nor will I buy a Mass. Republican. Bye-bye. Rudy? We already know he is a liberal. C-ya. Which leaves Hunter.
***Newt has not announced, either. Reasonably good analysis.
Veteran, Conservative and a good person. But he lacks two things. He is not a leader and the moderates from both parties will not vote for him the minute the RAT candidate comes to the middle. And that is the problem.
***I would choose to bicker on the "not a leader" thing. As chairman of the armed services committe, he oversaw a budget of half a $trillion. That's way bigger than rudy's budget. In terms of moderates from both sides, I also disagree. Hunter hits a homerun for middle america with his stance on illegals and fair trade. If the RAT candidate comes to the middle, Hunter can use the RAT's lefty record against her. Rudy would be in a position where Hildebeast would literally run to the right of him. When you couple that with the fact that the MSM will turn on any middle-leaning pubbie in favor of the democrat, he's doomed.
This nation has been taken to the left.
***I don't agree. But it is such a large subject that I don't have time to get into it.
Each cycle the RATS weaken the right just a tad more. The way I see it the nation looks like this:
Conservative = Conservative
Republican = Democrat or moderate.
Democrat = Liberal
Liberal = Marxist
A good chunk of the Republicans who are in office today are Kennedy (John not Ted) Democrats. Liberal on Social issues but believe in a strong defense. Those are todays moderates.
Sorry, got off track. This is about debating Rudy.
***OK, that's better.
We already established that Rudy is a liberal, or moderate. We also established that Hunter is a Conservative.
***That's a lotta yappin to establish that Rudy is a liberal. This video is so much more effective.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM
One other thing we know about Rudy is he is a leader and no one can debate that.
***I don't feel like debating that. I will only say that I'll take that one on later if it's necessary. Yes, rudy is a leader, good enough for a democratic candidate for pres, but not good enough for pubbie.
How much does leadership count in a post 9/11 world? What is more important to America? Worrying about abortion, gay marriage and gun control legislation that belongs at the state level or protecting this country from the next 9/11?
***With abortion, there are ~40 Million dead americans. With WOT, about 7 or 8 thousand, 4 orders of magnitude less. The fact that rudy is wrong on gun control is a security issue -- on that fateful day of Sept 11, it was our own militia and not our military who brought down the plane aiming for the White House. Leaving our militia unarmed is a poor security decision, and shows that rudy is the wrong candidate and that Hunter is the right candidate.
Locally we are winning every pro-life and anti gay marriage legislative battle.
***Then by your own words we must put up a pro-life/anti gay marriage candidate in order to continue the trend rather than demoralize the base (or worse, threaten a party split).
Those are the wins we must have. Hunter nor Rudy will have any impact on it. On the National level, we know Hunter will promote it, but it will not go anywhere. Same as with Rudy promoting the other side. It will not go anywhere.
***Baloney. That's what coattails are all about.
Ok, 3:00 a.m. and why I am up is beyond me. Let me close with this. Leadership is for everyone, ideology is for a portion of the country.
***Good enough analysis. But a man who stands for nothing will fall for anything, and rudy will blow with the wind whereas Hunter is a rock-ribbed republican.
And the question should be asked this way, can Duncan Hunter win the nomination and can the Republicans convince enough moderates to vote for him?
***Yes.
Or if Rudy wins the nomination, will his leadership abilities and promise to nominate strict constructionists be enough to convince the Conservatives to leave ideology at the state level and come on board?
***I would challenge any socon to view this video and answer that question for him/herself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM
and then post comments here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1793570/posts
where we are getting nothing but crickets from rudy's team.
I am choosing Hunter, but if Rudy wins the nomination I will vote for him based on those two qualities. The question is, will you? Or you, or you?
***So now I gather you're no longer talking as a rudy supporter but as a genuine republican and I challenge you to answer my question before you expect me to answer yours.
Did Mr. Robinson already post this question?
***I dunno.
"All that talking, and you still don't answer my double bind question. If you won't answer my false dilemma, then I won't answer yours."
What is a false dilemma by the way and what is a double bind question.
Here's one of the most famous false dilemmas:
Have you stopped beating your wife? It puts you in a bind (known as a double bind -- damned if you do, damned if you don't). If you say, NO, it means you're still beating your wife. If you say YES, it means you once did beat your wife.
It's a classic fallacy. There are plenty of references on the web for learning about avoiding fallacies and sound rhetorical reasoning.
http://www.forceofdestiny.co.uk/Fallacies.html
Those are two acknowledged hurdles for Hunter. The name recognition thing is interesting. This week in Spartanburg he came within 1% of beating rudy, who also lost within about 1% to McCain. For someone with no name recognition, he shouldn't even have come close. The money thing will be handled by a 3-pronged approach: 1) He has grassroots support similar to the level Dean had. 2) He has been rubbing elbows with some VERY big money men as head of the armed services committee, overseeing a $530B budget that makes rudy's budget look like my checkbook. 3) republican party has a lot of money. It will pour in if he starts winning.
This article shows that the Rats are going to use the 2006 playbook in 2008. They'll run their candidates while trying to spread discord in the GOP by convincing conservatives that their Republicans aren't conservative enough, throwing the election to the more liberal Rats. There has to actually be some discord for this tactic to work, but I expect a whole buncha new signups leading up to the election complaining that they're sitting home because they can't vote for a liberal Republican. Some of them will be sincere, but some of them will be moles.
That doesn't make sense at all. Bush squeaked by this last time over Kerry - and I assume that all of these firemen, cops, etc. - were voting for Bush. Seeing as Bush was seen as just as strong against the WOT as Guiliani at the time. IN ADDITION - Bush had the votes of the uber conservatives that you say won't be missed.
How does this result in a net increase - if we probably had those moderate dims and independents before?
I could see a Romney/Hunter ticket in the future. I would rather it be the other way around - but sometimes you have to take what you can get.
Either way it would be a winning ticket.
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.