Let's Make a Deal - Social conservatives, Rudy Giuliani, and the end of the litmus test.

The Weekly Standard ^ | March 12, 2007 | Noemie Emery

[gpapa]

Next year may see the party of the Sunbelt and Reagan, based in the South and in Protestant churches, nominate its first presidential candidate who is Catholic, urban, and ethnic--and socially liberal on a cluster of issues that set him at odds with the party's base. As a result, it may also see the end of the social issues litmus test in the Republican party, done in not by the party's left wing, which is shrunken and powerless, but by a fairly large cadre of social conservatives convinced that, in a time of national peril, the test is a luxury they cannot afford.

[FairOpinion]

Hillary is leading in all the polls and even Newt Gingrich warned that Republican underestimate the Clinton machine at their peril.

In poll after poll, Hillary trounces every Republican candidate, except Rudy, who beats her.

IGNORING REALITY DOESN'T MAKE IT GO AWAY, IT ONLY GETS HIKKARY ELECTED.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

McCain beats her in several polls, too. And the base hates McCain more than they hate Giuliani.

Gingrich was trailing HIllary by a mere 7 points in a Rassmussen poll last week, and he hasn't even declared yet.

Your reality is a myth. A myth that conveniently works to your left-of-center candidate's advantage.

[FairOpinion]

"McCain beats her in several polls, too"

Name one!

[Politicalmom]

Why do you Rudyphiles keep saying that? It is more like he is against 90% of what I believe. I won't vote for that.

[flashbunny]

"Do you want someone who is 80% with you"

I'd take someone who is 80% with me instead of 80% with the democrats, like rudy is.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

Name one!

My pleasure.

McCain 47%
Clinton 39%
Zogby(2/26/07)

McCain 46%
Clinton 44%
Quinnipiac (2/21/07)

McCain 45%
Clinton 44%
Rasmussen(1/30/07)

Newsweek and Time have The Behemoth beating Loathsome John by a whopping 1% each in their most recent polls (3/1 and 2/26, respectively). Marist has them tied as of 2/15.

Yeah, she's invincible alright.

[youngjim]

I've skimmed your posts that you've left here and I'd like to comment.

As you know SoA I've been taking the pro-Rudy side in this debate throughout. At some points I've taken to even using quoting the Book of Proverbs and the the Pauline letters to make my point. I understand you are man of Faith and I have no doubt you argue in good faith. That you were able to laugh at some of my posts before indicate a merry heart and for that I'm thankful.

I'll defer to your judgment that you cannot in good conscience vote for Rudy. Understand that this point is well made. I respect your opinion and that of the majority of the individuals here (including JR) that you find Rudy odious and will never vote for him. However, I would ask in return that some respect be given for the holders of the antithesis of your argument. I believe that your opponents here are also people of good faith, and that they would listen to your position if you would frame your argument in non-Manichean terms, AND provide an alternative.

The point of the matter for me and the minority of pro-Rudy's is that the 2008 election is a temporal matter--not a spiritual one. The abortion fight will have to be won individually; even in a state like South Dakota, the pro-life amendment lost. Attempting to "persuade" your allies on this forum that we must vote in your candidate (I'm guessing Hunter since I've not seen anyone else proffered); is simply arguing (not singing) with the choir. Spitting into the winds of politics is hardly a loving act; and to my mind a colossal waste of time for you and the pro-Rudy's. The problem as I see it, is that as you spit, the backlash hits me and my Party. I'm not (and I daresay most Republicans are not) going to join you in your temporal march to marginalization.

For a Biblical illustration of my point please see Matthew 15:22.

20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

2006 was a bad year for we Republicans. Allen, Santorum, Talent, Heyworth, all good men, were defeated. At some point, the minority here believes that we must face reality (render unto Caesar) and choose a standard bearer that can win this fight against whatever Democrat the lefties throw up. Good men, Republicans, pro-lifers, and conservatives like Ted Olsen, Pete Sessions, George Will, etc. have seen fit to endorse him.

I don't doubt you will find my argument lacking. However, can we civilly discuss this matter with you, knowing we have a tough row to hoe, or must we continue to form the circular firing squad which will only drive this forum into the madness that our opponents seem to thrive upon?

I must say that many of the responses to on this thread were quite funny. The pros and antis are natural allies, and I'll wager that much of the passion here is frustration with the way things are going for conservatives in the US. I'd like to think that we could all share a beer together (or soda for the teetotalers) as even with all the acrimony shown I'd still rather have a drink with any anti-Rudy, than any demoncrat.

see tagline . . .

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

As long as you're buying, I'll have a Chimay Red.

Seriously, no hard feelings Jim. I enjoy the hell out of this stuff.

[the Real fifi]

I'll drink to that.

[Al Simmons]

Exactly. Those of us who unhesitatingly back Rudy do so because

a. He is a proven LEADER (funny how us Vets seem to see that from the git go)

b. He is the only Republican who can (reliably) be expected to win in 2008

c. I don't want to spend 4-8 years singing: "Ve HEIL! HEIL! Right in ze Fuehrer's FACE!"

[joesbucks]

The socons are in a unique situation. It does appear Rudy may be able to be elected without 100% of their support. Some of the wise ones are making sure they will have access in his administration. For the others, the Bat Phone currently between the White House and their chapels/offices will be disconnected if Rudy takes up residence.

Rudy basically doesn't even acknowledge them, despite the sabre rattling. I sort of wonder if he'll even ask to sit down with some of the more vocal of them. As long as his support remains strong, I doubt he will. And Dobson et al will start finding themselves more isolated than if Maddy O'Hare got elected.

[William Terrell]

. . .a fairly large cadre of social conservatives convinced that, in a time of national peril, the test is a luxury they cannot afford.

Dammit, there is no national peril worse than abandoning social conservatism. There are ways and rules of social interaction that are time tested, where the presence of them make a society firm and stable and the absence makes a society crumble right along the fissures of human lusts and fears.

So you rescue a crumbling civilization which will weaken so there will be no rescue available? So what?

Abandoning these ways is the national peril. That "fairly large cadre of social conservatives" is one IQ point away from cardiac arrest.

[youngjim]

On a campus long long ago:

youngjim: It's not gonna be an orgy! It's a Freeper thread.
youngjims girl: Honestly, jim, you're 21 years old. In six months you're going to graduate, and tonight you're going to wrap yourself in a bed sheet and pour grain alcohol all over your head. It's cute, but I think I'll pass this time.
yj: Want me to go alone?
yjg: Baby, I don't want you to go at all.
yj: It's a *freeper* thread, I'm in the freepternity. How can I miss it?
yjg: I'll write you a note. I'll say you're too well to attend.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Rudy must love all the attention he's getting. If he were in the democratic party where he belongs I doubt he'd have a prayer at winning the nomination or the presidency.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

He is the only Republican who can (reliably) be expected to win in 2008

As I recall it was said in 1980 Reagan would never win and only a more moderate candidate like Bush could. It wasn't true then and it isn't now. You put a conservative such as Duncan Hunter up against a socialist democrat and he'll win. But first he has to get through the primaries.

[Howlin]

The new slogan on FR: Failure in 2008.

[Kevmo]

you have to understand that not a single candidate who meets your moral standards and shares your every view will ever be elected president in 2008.
***Hyperbole. We have a candidate who matches a great deal with the socon viewpoint and is VERY tough on the WOT (and his family put their money where their mouth is, son is in Iraq), plus the candidate happens to be right on immigration and RKBA, all 3 issues of which are linked to WOT. Rudy only gets 1/3 right, which is about average for his score on socon issues and conservatism in general.

[FairOpinion]

Let's hope people wise up and realize that the worst thing for all of us, and that includes all the American people, IS a Dem president -- especially the current crop, and especially Hillary -- with a Dem Congress, which is what we are going to get, unless we have a Republican candidate who can stop them.

The ONLY such candidate on the scene IS Rudy.

NO real conservative would want to help Hillary take over the US.

Just look at the damage the Democrats have done to the country throughout history and today is the time we can least afford them.

97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=247450843953666

We're in a war. Something always goes wrong in a war, and our military leaders have made mistakes in Iraq. But quitting and leaving would amount to defeat for the U.S. in the global war on terrorism and create chaos. Quitters never win.

Here's the problem: America needs two strong, sound political parties. As far as domestic policy is concerned, it really doesn't make much difference if Democrats or Republicans are in power. Ours is a free, entrepreneurial society where anyone can do anything he or she wants if they have a positive attitude and the desire to work, learn and achieve. Ambitious people come from all over the world to take advantage of this tremendous opportunity. This is one reason our economy is so resilient, continually bouncing back from periodic setbacks, driven by new inventions and achievements.

However, (97) when it comes to which party has proved more capable in acting to defend and protect Americans from foreign enemies, there is only one choice. From Johnson to Carter to Clinton, virtually all the defense policies and decisions made by Democratic administrations have been unsuccessful. And in many cases, they have unintentionally but materially increased the danger to our national security and the safety of all Americans.

[oceanview]

or how about "Victory through Defeat".

[FairOpinion]

Please explain what good is a candidate (Duncan Hunter) who can't win the R nomination to start with and if by some miracle, he would, he would be trounced by Hillary, giving her 100% of the electoral votes and 80% of the popular vote.