to: MadIvan** Get lost. **
WTG Jim!!
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 ...
"Guiliani is a good 2 out of 3 for America. He'll be for a strong military and GWOT prosecution, and fiscally conservative."
George Bush is pro-military, he's fighting the war on terror and he's fiscally conservative...well, okay that last one is open to debate
If these three qualities make up the nucleus of good presidential candidate that people support, why aren't President Bush's approval numbers sky high?
Did it champion your candidate or did the article give an overview of the state of the GOP party?
Rudy-phobes, like libertarians, seem to think the way to advance their cause is to insult the intelligence of those they need to convert. A peculiar strategy which has never worked yet, but they are persistent little pests.
Interesting. I believe it will be a huge turnout for both parties.
This is the second time I have seen you refer to the electorate in terms of a natural phenomenon. A few days ago you referred to it as "ever-changing winds that blow" (or something close to that). You make a seemingly-plausible and emotionally persuasive argument, but your premise is fundamentally flawed.
The "electorate" is not a natural phenomenon, composed of inanimate non-sentient objects, and totally subject to forces of which they are unaware. It is living, conscious human beings, who THINK about things, however flawed such thinking may be. You even alluded to this "thinking" in your own post, yet you persist in treating them as non-sentient objects such as tides and winds.
And because the "electorate" is composed of people, who think, they vote the way they do because they have been "persuaded" - some by logical argument and examination of facts, some by emotional appeal, some via dint of the constant MSM barrage of soundbites, etc. I would agree that the current attitudes you describe and ascribe to the electorate are pretty much correct, but they didn't arrive at those attitudes through random or cyclical natural events, they were persuaded into them, and perhaps could be persuaded otherwise. They definitely won't be, however, if we preclude a thorough discussion of the facts and don't make the attempt.
However they may choose to vote, therefore, is not a natural phemomenon, beyond human control. It is a choice, and choices can be influenced and altered. What is arousing the ire of many here are the arrogant, heavy-handed attempts of some to short-circuit that process and DEMAND that everyone else jump on their bandwagon RIGHT NOW, before we even know where the parade is going.
Both sides need to chill out. If you've made your choice, fine. Post your argument and reasoning, respectfully, then back-off and allow others to do the same. If they don't respond respectfully, ignore them. Don't dive into the mud with them. Don't respond to intimidation, and don't be guilty of it yourself.
the mayor may get the nomination--and the Republican party as we know it will have died.
..but it's only March...
9/11 has changed everything. Do you believe that? I do and if it changed everything it changed Giullianis' view in certain areas.
What's more important? An abortion law the president can't repeal or change anyway, or staying alive? If a strong Republican majority is put in the Congress then I believe abortion and illegal immigration will be dealt with. The best we can ever hope for anyway is for abortion to become solely a States issue. That said, if we are all dead or living in terror daily, none of this matters to begin with.
Seems to be more and more as his campaign progresses progressivly..
That's not the important question. Does he click with women? Does he click with the Archie Bunker democrat who votes union on everything but the Presidential election? Those 2 groups election republican presidents.
The republican ticket to 2008 Pres victory doesn't exist today. Every candidate is fatally flawed. Gingrich should have taken better care of his spousal and religious duties and he would be the frontrunner. But he's no Bush. Bush's love of the man upstairs keeps him in the game smiling when his enemies are slinging poo. I love that about the man. Not oblivious, rather forgiving.
As a Roman Catholic, how do you feel about electing a flagrant violator of Roman Catholic dogmas and disciplines? Rudy is apparently living in sin with wife number three. He attended Mass with her on 911 while still married to wife number two. He advocates for abortion providers and takes their blood money. Does that mean nothing to you?
As long as my account still works, I will! Thanks.
In so far as the election is concerned, as my concern is the defense of Western Civilisation, I back what I believe to be the best bet to defend it against its enemies, so that I have the capacity to live according to the precepts of my faith and my beliefs in liberty. No, he is not perfect - but then again, even Ronald Reagan was divorced.
Ivan
Sad. Ronald wasn't a Catholic. Guiliani will do as much harm to the faith as Kennedy and Pelosi have. And as much damage to our country. You mention being British. Unlike your system, we can't get rid of a liar we elect with relative ease. No "deal" with a liar will ever work. Sorry, Rudy will never get my vote.
I don't agree with you. But it would be preferable to see you build up your candidate than to tear someone else's down. In the end, votes need to gravitate towards something other than a vacuum.
No "deal" with a liar will ever work. Sorry, Rudy will never get my vote.
I don't accept that he is a liar. I have long accepted that he would not get your vote. The purpose of arguing with you is not to turn your vote, but to show both sides of the argument to anyone undecided who is reading.
Ivan
to: MadIvan** Get lost. **
WTG Jim!!
I have no candidate at this time. Nor do FACTS 'tear down' anything but ignorance.
"I don't accept that he is a liar."
Did he lie to NARAL when he took their money and supported their agenda? Or did he lie to his supporters when he didn't quite say he'd appoint judges that would get rid of Roe - v - Wade?
He lied. Time and again. He breaks laws, time and again.
Angry archivists and historians denounced the unprecedented hijacking of public property to private hands. Tom Connors, of the Society of American Archivists, said the transfer seemed part of a movement to "create barriers to the American citizen's right to know what their governments are doing."
The families of the police and fire rescuers who died in the attack balked at Giuliani's plan to take up to a year to dole out the money, with his new organization billing $2.2 million in anticipated administrative expenses (including six-figure salaries for friends he appointed as officers). The families argued that the fire union had far more quickly distributed $111 million with an estimated administrative cost of just $30,000.
Under embarrassing pressure from the victims' families, unions and state Attorney General Elliot Spitzer, Giuliani backed down. He promised to distribute the money within 60 days and fund his overhead from new donations. The families of the deceased rescuers, the real heroes of the September 11 attacks, received a one-time benefit of about $230,000 each from the Giuliani-privatized fund in 2002. That year, the former mayor earned some $8 million in speaking fees alone, more than $650,000 per month.
New York conveniently forgot the 1996 federal ban on sanctuary laws until a gang of five Mexicans—four of them illegal—abducted and brutally raped a 42-year-old mother of two near some railroad tracks in Queens. The NYPD had already arrested three of the illegal aliens numerous times for such crimes as assault, attempted robbery, criminal trespass, illegal gun possession, and drug offenses. The department had never notified the INS.
"Now, today and for the discernible future, what we are facing is a threat to our very way of life and in fact our very lives."
Yes. It is called LIBERALISM. Rudy reeks of it. We need a conservative with real strength, not a corrupt and dishonest liar who pretends.
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.