Posted on 03/04/2007 2:13:52 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
The 2008 presidential campaign is just weeks old, but already an article of faith within the Republican Party -- the belief that no politician who favors abortion rights and gay rights can win the GOP nomination -- is being challenged by the candidacy of former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.
...."This is the first Republican presidential primary since Sept. 11," said Ed Gillespie, ... "Rudy Giuliani is a candidate who can clearly test the proposition that a Republican who is more moderate on social issues can capture the nomination. He's testing it now."
....Whit Ayres, a Georgia-based Republican pollster, said he has been struck by the number of conservatives he has encountered who disagree with Giuliani on abortion or gay rights but are still attracted to him as a possible Republican nominee. ....
"It truly is the question in Republican presidential politics at the moment," Ayres said. "There are a lot of people with a more traditional view who think that his leading in the polls is just a mirage and that he has no real chance. I don't believe that. I think there's more to this than simply name ID. "
...A veteran Republican strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly assess the situation, said he is among those who long believed that a Republican with Giuliani's profile would have no chance. He still believes the former mayor faces significant obstacles but said the odds of Giuliani winning the nomination are not as remote as they once seemed.
He gave three reasons: the absence of a strong, traditional conservative in the GOP field; continuing antipathy among many social and religious conservatives toward McCain; and the prospect of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) becoming the next president.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I've resolved the "Rudy question". Under NO condition would I vote for him.
Do you understand the implications of the message sent to members of Congress and the world as a whole if Rudy is elected under the guise of a "Conservative" and how long it will take to over that?
Maybe the true colors of "Republicans" are shining through. If so, maybe it's time REAL Conservatives consider parting ways with the GOP.
Thank God, there are still some who honor God and Country in that order and won't sell out for a falsely perceived sense of winning.
Regards, Ivan
The last time there was such blind loyalty to a left winger was during and after BJ Clinton until Rudy.
WHY?
Ivan
Do conservatives in California vote for Ahnold? Do conservatives in Pennsylvania vote for Specter? If they don't, then it does not seem to matter much. They both won in landslides, and so will Rudy if he gets the nomination.
The WaPo will always write a complementary piece or two when it comes to a anti-gun, pro-abortion, open-borders politician.
"I keep asking the same question but get no response. If he does win the nomination, will Conservatives come out to vote for him?"
And I'll answer this question like I answered a similar one on another thread .... NO!
The GOP will have left its base, not us conservative voters leaving the party.
I will vote GOP locally, but not for pres.
"The WaPo will always write a complementary piece or two when it comes to a anti-gun, pro-abortion, open-borders politician."
Perhaps the one in the Washington Times would please you more.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070304-120048-6857r.htm
I know of 4 GOP voters that WILL be voting for RUDY.....
I concede that I agree with Hunter on many more issues than Giuliani. Perhaps you could answer a few questions for me. If George Allen could not win in Virginia, how will Duncan Hunter? If Rick Santorum could not win in PA, how will Duncan Hunter? If Jim Talent could not take MO in an off year election when fewer Dems vote, how will Duncan Hunter? I know Giuliani will take PA because Specter does. I want to back a winner more than I want to support an ideology. For a few years there, the most important conversations were taking place within the party. We need to get back to that point. Once we shut out Nancy Pelosi, then I'll be happy to fight within the party. Until then, winning must take precedence over ideology.
Really?
Given the fact (see post #5) that a vote for Rudy is virtually a vote for Hillary and the DNC platform, how can there be any actual harm in voting one's conscience for a conservative, 3rd party candidate instead of Rudy.
Now a party hack will consider a "D" in the White House instead of an "R" in the White House actual harm to the party and the country. (in that order)
I would humbly suggest that the actual harm to the country and party (in that order)is running a "D" as an "R" against a "D" in the general election and telling the Republican voters to suck it up and vote against the other party with scary tales of what will happen if the democratic candidate wins the white house all the while ignoring the fact that regardless of which candidate wins a demoncratic candidate will win the white house. So, one must ask are during this election am I putting party in front of principle.
Doing so is definately causing actual harm to the country and party. (in that order)
There's a lot of that going around. People aren't in a mood to think about their position quite yet, vis a vis the average American voter.
Guiliani is a good 2 out of 3 for America. He'll be for a strong military and GWOT prosecution, and fiscally conservative. If he's not a strong cultural conservative, well, that's all part of being a leader for your times. The average American is very tired of President Bush's religious vibe. (Although that vibe played quite well after years of Clinton).
Like tides that rise and fall, so goes the whims of the electorate. The art of winning elections is to understand those tides, and ride them as best as possible. Many conservatives still fail to grasp that the Bush Administration has been disastrous in it's handling of Iraq. Years of inarticulate fearmongering to shore up support for an incompetently lead endeavor has burnt out a lot of centerists on what they see as conservatism. The average voter is simply not going to support someone as conservative or more than President Bush. That idea might not make sense to your average echo chamber denizen, but in the real world, that's the situation.
Like it or not, the 2 out of 3 compromise is the best we can probably pull this cycle. If the cultural consevatives don't like it, then they can stay home, while the fiscal conservatives and the GWOT conservatives do the heavy lifting. The mood of the electorate isn't going to change because of petulance on the part of the religious right.
If the Left wants to ever be trusted again, they're going to have to disown charlatans like Gore.
Regards, Ivan
I entirely agree with your sentiments...however it'll never happen...they have too many charlatans in the dem party...and, perhaps much like Islam, the dem party is pretty much incapable of introspection and objective analysis.
I can't speak for anyone but myself. The answer is not just NO, but h--- NO!
Good idea. Mr. Bernard Kerik ran the Mexcio City project I see. Of course we all remember Homeland Security Secretary and those pesky disclosures about Mr. Kerik.
There's quite a bit about the dynamic duo, Giuliani-Kerik LLC, beyond Mexico City.
Much confirmed what I'd already learned about the "Mexico City project;" to wit, what the hell does NYC have in common with a police force that pays $350 / month and "[the policemen] have to buy their own uniforms, pay for repairs to their patrol cars, and rely on bribes to get by."
Found a neat new word, shambolic. Disorderly, chaotic. . . the stuff of shambles. Prophetic?
Months past due the project was pronounced completed by the Mexico City police even though no one from the team was there.
Mr. Giuliani's company received $4 million one report said. I'd seen other reports that said that Carlos Slim and Carlos Hank González paid the money, not Mexico City. That's why I ask about them, over and over.
Seems that there's a lot of interest in Mr. Giuliani's "close ties with intensely corrupt individuals" and a growing list of "failed, messy business disputes" that "pose some very serious problems for his candidacy."
I think the word in the business world is "complex." :)
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.