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 ...
So stop supporting liberals!
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.
It's very simple for me. If Giuliani is the republican nominee in November, '08, he gets my vote. I don't vote for democrats, no matter who they are, na dwill NEVER vote for a third party if it means a democrat win. Remember '92?
Believe me, I won't, either through action or inaction. Come November after next, I'll be voting for whoever is holding the GOP nomination, and against whoever is holding the DNC nomination, and not sitting at home pouting or voting 3rd party.
If you feel the same way, then we're square.
Hilary will enjoy your support.
"I'll be voting for whoever is holding the GOP nomination..."
That is where we differ. If the GOP wants my vote, they cannot give me a RINO as my choice.
As I've stated elsewhere pixels don't do it me (I don't have a TV, I cannot be swayed by images) I'd like to see substantive statements unfiltered by fans, enemies, and the MSM.
That is where we differ. If the GOP wants my vote, they cannot give me a RINO as my choice.
If you can't grasp the logic in supporting a lesser evil against a greater one, than you really don't have the grasp of the American political process to be giving me advice on how to avoid "supporting liberalism".
Ironically, your idea of punishing the GOP by not voting and allowing the Dems to win is a "support lesser evil against greater evil" strategy, too. You just see RINOs as the greater evil, and support the Democrats (by not voting R) as a lesser evil tool to punish them with. That's all well and good, but it puts you on poor moral footing to be lecturing others.
How much did that non-pixelated computer monitor set you back?
Dear MadIvan,
"He spoke favourably of Ms. Ginsburg, but what he has said is that he would appoint judges in the mould of Alito and Scalia."
Certainly! Once he figured out that praise for Ms. Ginsburg wasn't flying with actual conservatives.
But then I look at his record at appointing judges in New York City, a record that he pointed at with pride. With a process that he controlled almost entirely (it's been sad to see the rudybots spin this one). And his "promises" look like ashes.
"If social conservatives make a deal with him in exchange for their support, the appropriate judges appointment can be made an element of his coalition."
I don't trust him to do what he doesn't want to do. Certainly, his wives found out that there was no margin in that, either. Mr. Giuliani will make what promises he thinks he must make to get elected (or get some sucker to marry him), and will keep those he wants to keep, and break those he would prefer to break.
I see nothing in him that suggests that he will keep promises that he'd rather break.
I don't see the glass half-empty.
I see that the glass has no bottom, and thus, even if you hold it under the faucet, it will never fill.
sitetest
That's why I don't have a TV. I couldn't get it to behave.
Computers, monitors were all free. My son-in-law bought new stuff for his business.
If you can't grasp the logic in supporting a lesser evil against a greater one, than you really don't have the grasp of the American political process to be giving me advice on how to avoid "supporting liberalism".I get it, I just see NO significant difference between an evil in the GOP and an evil in the D party. In fact, since I think Clinton caused the GOP to pull together and clarify it's conservative roots which led to the 1994 GOP Revolution, I think being in the minority now and then is good for us.
You just see RINOs as the greater evil, and support the Democrats (by not voting R) as a lesser evil tool to punish them with.Traitors ARE the greater evil.
"If he does get nominated, will he get the conservative vote"? Let's get real. Do we pout and get a President Clinton or Obama? The primary job of a President is foreign policy and to be Commander in Chief. Social issues are handled by the Congress and the Courts. If Rudy which he said he will, agrees to appoint strict constitutional judges, he has my vote. As far as some of his social opinions are concerned, no President has changed those issues in 60 years despite which side they were on. I am more concerned about the bad guys trying to kill us and taxes.
Dear narses,
As well, for us, we may not choose to do evil to bring about good.
If one's two choices are truly two intrinsic evils from which one must choose the lesser, we may not choose either.
There is a difference between choosing a flawed candidate and a candidate whose candidacy is evil.
There is a difference between compromising with a less-than-perfect candidate, and capitulating to a candidate who whole-heartedly, unreservedly, and fundamentally chooses that which is profoundly intrinsically evil.
I'm okay with compromise. I won't capitulate.
(I know - in addressing this post to you, I'm preaching to the choir. ;-) )
sitetest
You have the Chrysostom ability to say with ease what I would say with volumes. Thanks.
I can resolve that right now.
Lets have a constitutional amendment in order to change the Office of President to Mayor of the United States.
Me too. NO!.
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.