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'm in good company with many at FR who are like minded, the webmaster included.
There was a day when most folks understood the absolute wrongness of aborting a baby....it was a given.
Jim Robinson has stated very clearly what this site is about...
..and no amount of obfuscation/spinning/ word twisting is going to change this.
Your promotion of Guiliani is tiresome to me.....and many others, I'm sure.
I will never vote for a pro-abortion candidate....bottom line.
And, FWIW to you and yours, I think many of you are breaking Jim Robinson's heart.
I, for one, never expected some Freepers-( of whom I once esteemed)- to make such unconscionable choices and spit out such hurting, damning words.
It might stop a few, or at least cause a few women to consider the decision to abort a pregnancy, but in general, I agree with what you're saying here.
"Getting rid of abortion" will require legislation in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the territories - and without a massive and unprecedented change in public opinion, it will never happen.
I completely agree with this. You could say the same thing regarding gay marriage. Neither abortion nor homosexuality are issues that will be solved by legislation or court rulings. I believe that neither should be made more accessible or legitimized by new or changed laws or court rulings, and would love to hear a candidate with a similar opinion.
That leaves us with the rest of Guliani's positions - gun control, CFR, open borders, etc., which I consider to be substantially different from traditional conservative positions. I think it is still too early to subscribe to the "he's the only one with a chance to defeat Hillary" point of view.
IF he runs on an agressive WoT and reforming the Federal Government, then MAYBE I'll vote for him. But he ain't runnin' that way, so I ain't votin' for him.
I resent your assuming that I did either of those things, and if you do re-read it, you will see that I called for all of us to be civil.
(As the mother of 5 children, my bone fides for being pro-life is obvious, and my 12 grandchildren are proof that my children also share that belief.)
Wow. So you believe that Hillary as a CinC, in this time of war, would be worth it because Republicans could win back Congress?
Regardless, a vote for Rudy is a vote for pro-abortion.
Explain how, if Rudy is nominated he will help put fatso in the WH? What is your basis for this claim? Polling? Can't be because Rudy beats Hillary in blue States and kills her among independents. Why won't whatever votes he loses among the crybaby purists be more then made up for by Dem, and Ind voters?
Argue your positions all you want but don't tell others they can't and/or twist their positions.
Me: "You said I called you intolerant. I did not."
In rereading my earlier post I see I did call you intolerant.
I apologize for that. I must have misunderstood your earlier post asking me to leave FR to say such a hurtful thing.
You are tolerant and for that I am grateful.
Are you calling women and blacks stupid?
My question is will you vote for Giulliani if he is the nominee.
***Below is my standard response to that standard false dilemma question. I find myself wondering why there are a lot of freepers pushing for a solib candidate on this socon website. Not that you're one of them, if you're willing to vote for Hunter in the primaries. If a rudy supporter answers my false dilemma, I'll answer theirs.
Hypothetical to answer your hypothetical. Both sides losing to Hillary.
The solib republican splits the base. The MSM turns on him the moment he is nominated. Hillary wins. Republican party is split.
The socon republican wins the nomination, loses to hildebeast in a tough fight. Republicans are united against the hillary presidency.
Which candidate is best for the republican party?
So there is the Lose-lose false dilemma, and now there's even a new win-win false dilemma hypothetical introduced by freeper joesbucks.
What if Duncan should win pres by (obviously) relying on the socon base? What if Rudy should win pres by ignoring the socon base? Which is better for the republican party?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1794672/posts
To: LS
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.
171 posted on 03/03/2007 8:49:50 PM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
"Are you calling women and blacks stupid?"
I debated whether or not to even respond to your ridiculous question. There was no such comment made by me, nor was it implied. You asking me a question like that only reveals the way you think, so don't assume everyone else here does as well.
I stand amazed at the man's patience!
So am I. At what point does that patience become unhealthy for Free Republic or the republican party?
It really isn't about advancing conservatism with a lot of these clowns-- they just want to *feel* angrier-than-thou.
***That's an amazing statement with quite a bit of gall in it. We have a candidate who comes within 1% of the super-duper-electable RINO in Spartanburg, beats the other RINO in his own home state of Arizona in another straw poll, has 10 months to gain primary votes and name recognition, and that's what we're doing. It really is interesting to see a solib candidate being pushed onto socons on a socon website. Methinks the clown doth protest too much.
And, FWIW to you and yours, I think many of you are breaking Jim Robinson's heart. I, for one, never expected some Freepers-( of whom I once esteemed)- to make such unconscionable choices and spit out such hurting, damning words.
***I didn't see it coming either. I will be praying for JimRob, Free Republic, and my candidate. God has blessed us and this is an interesting time of testing.
Regardless of who is nominated, Republicans and conservatives will unite against a hildebeast presidency should she win. BTW, she has amazingly high negatives so what makes you so sure she even gets the nomination? What is the liberal media going to turn on Rudy about? Will they attack him for being too liberal? Not tough enough on gays? Certainly not his opposition to sealing the borders (I haven't actually heard anything like this but have seen it here.) Being tough on terror? What? The fact is the media will attack whomever the Rep nominee is. Rudy is a harder target to pin down.
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.