Giuliani Has No Real Chance With GOP Voters . . . or Does He?

The Washington Post ^ | March 4, 2007 | Dan Balz

[dmw]

The statement speaks for itself. It makes no sense to define "which women or blacks I'm speaking of", except in your mind of course.

This is history in the making, the first woman to ever run for president and the first black person to ever run for president. Black people are going to be thrilled to vote for Obama, yes, including what few black republicans there are out there. Women of every stripe will be excited to vote for Hillary. Certainly not as many republicans would vote for her, but some will cross over for the mere satisfaction of seeing a woman become president--for the first time ever.

Sorry, I have no intention of changing the way I post something here. I suggest you stop trying to read something into someone's post that isn't there. You know what they say about people who assume don't you?

[trisham]

I'm not making any promises.

[dmw]

You said: "I don't believe, I KNOW that Rudy, if nominated will get way more Ind and Democrat votes then Gingrich or McCain. The sad thing is that those like you will (seemingly) hand the presidency to the libs merely to stand on a principle which in normal times is admirable but in these times is simply suicidal."

I say: I don't believe, I KNOW that Rudy, if nominated will get far less socon votes than Hunter (or another potential conservative candidate that has not yet announced). The sad thing is that those like you will (seemingly) hand the presidency to the libs merely to compromise on your principles (assuming you have any) which is not admirable at any time, but in these times is simply suicidal.

Seems we have two different perspectives of why Hillary is gonna to potentially become POTUS. You can prevent this from happening by getting behind a conservative candidate that believes in the conservative principles that are espoused here by Jim Robinson and the majority of us here on FR.

My suggestion is we agree to disagree and recognize neither one of us is gonna change the other one's mind.

[LS]

And I think there is an entirely different phenomena at work---Rush spoke about it today. It has nothing to do with access and everything to do with electing someone---ANYONE---who is perceived as "fighting for" or "standing up for" Conservatives. And that doesn't mean ALL conservative values: Rush's point is that people are sick of no one fighting back, and Rudy is perceived (whether you admit it or not, that's the perception) as a fighter, someone who defeats his enemies, whether it was the civil rights movement vs. the NYPD, or the mob, or Yassir Arafat, or the city council. The perception is that he doesn't take a "new tone," but rather that he will aggressively fight.

My assessment is that there are enough people across the spectrum---so-called "socons" and RINOs and everyone else---who are fed up with leaders not FIGHTING, and that anyone, whether it's Rudy, or Mitt, or whoever, who will fight for SOME values will get a pass on ALL of them.

Now, we obviously disagree, so just let some time pass and see if this perception isn't born out.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Yes, it is a bit early for Mr. Giuliani's concrete specifics.

I look forward to them. I like his style -- but I need more than he "understands" the Second Amendment.

[Man50D]

The fact of the matter is, creating a third party only does one thing.

The biggest misconception is there are already two distinct parties because people focus on the party labels. That couldn't be further from the truth. The socialists in the Republican and Democrat parties think alike. They are essentially one party. A Conservative party would be the second party.

[Kevmo]

So.. Rudy's a fighter. And Duncan Hunter is a fighter.
We end up with a fighter. I like that part. Which fighter is better for the republican party?


My assessment is that there are enough people across the spectrum---so-called "socons" and RINOs and everyone else---who are fed up with leaders not FIGHTING, and that anyone, whether it's Rudy, or Mitt, or whoever, who will fight for SOME values will get a pass on ALL of them.
***What does that mean? Someone who fights for some values gets a free pass on All of them? Maybe you mean that someone who fights for some of the values gets a pass for the rest that he doesn't fight for? If that's the case, then it's a matter of which values the guy chooses to fight for. In Rudy's case, he ain't fighting for socon values and he's not getting much traction on this socon website. In Hunter's case, he STARTS with socon values and proceeds to fight even better than Rudy on some of the issues that rudy is supposedly so great on. Like the WOT.

[dervish]

good point.

[Kevmo]

I see that you didn't answer the false dilemma. Maybe now you can see how difficult it is to be put on the spot like that. And this is a socon forum asking another member a false dilemma that favors the socon. If I were to take that false dilemma and paste it all over a solib republican website, I would be accused of incredibly bad manners. When I see people pushing a solib candidate onto this socon forum using false dilemmas like "which would you vote for, Hillary or rudy", I think it is bad manners. And the response I get is "look at this piece of work".




http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1794672/posts?page=291#279

---

To: Kevmo; areafiftyone; My2Cents; Peach; Al Simmons
However, there's a certain point where some rudybots are going over the line and are simply showing incredibly bad manners. Since this is a socon site and they're trying to put lipstick on the pig of their solib candidate, they're running into a buzzsaw. It is the height of imposition when they pose the false dilemma of "who would you vote for, Hillary or Rudy" while at the same time showing crickets to many questions on rudy threads.
This is why I'm ignoring you. You're just stalking threads trying to bait others. You don't need to ping me anymore and I'll return the courtesy.

areafiftyone please put me on the rudy ping list--and take a look at this piece of work above.


279 posted on 03/04/2007 6:07:09 PM PST by youngjim (Attn: Ironically-challenged individuals should ignore this poster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[LS]

If you're serious about your question, then you already know the answer: Hunter doesn't have the national standing to be a serious candidate. He doesn't have the national organization, and doesn't come close to having the money.

So the issue that was under discussion was, which of the truly viable candidates will be a fighter. That was the issue.

[Kevmo]

If you're serious about your question, then you already know the answer: Hunter doesn't have the national standing to be a serious candidate.
***Then how is it that Hunter beats McCain on his own territory in a straw poll, and comes within 1% of the supposedly unbeatable rudy (who LOST) in Spartanburg? If rudy represents a viable candidate and Duncan comes within 1% of him, I maintain that he's viable as well.


He doesn't have the national organization, and doesn't come close to having the money.
***He's building the national organization, and doesn't need it in place for 9 months. The money thing will be handled in a 3 pronged attack. 1) He's building a grassroots organization on the part with Dean's money raking capabilities. 2) He's rubbed shoulders for years with some very big kingmakers when he oversaw a $530BILLION budget for the armed services, which makes rudy's money men look like lemonade stand owners. 3) Once he starts winning primaries, he attracts bandwagon jumpers in the republican party and the republican party itself, which has lotsa dough.


So the issue that was under discussion was, which of the truly viable candidates will be a fighter. That was the issue.
***The issue under discussion is invalid during this primary season. If we're all stuck with the winner of the latest poll, then we all have to jump on McCain's bandwagon, and I don't see that happening.

[Man50D]

Hunter doesn't have the national standing to be a serious candidate. He doesn't have the national organization, and doesn't come close to having the money.

You should look at your calendar. It's only March 2007. The Presidential election isn't until November 2008! Twenty months is more than enough time for a candidate achieve national standing, build a national organization and raise enough money.

[tomnbeverly]

Exactly the Progressive Liberals if given the chance will remove God from every fiber of this country.
1. Open Door to cloning. Harvesting Organs from living clones.
2. Federal Government research grants and money for embryo murder and stem cell harvesting.
3. Abortion on demand, any trimester even in some cases post birth abortions.
4. Gay marriage, Gay tolerance, the Gay civil rights movement starts with a March from San Fran.

[LS]

You're joking about straw polls, right?

How many campaigns have you been involved in? The money thing is huge, and the big bucks just are not going to jump to a congressman with no national presence.

[LS]

Not any more. Bush and Bill Clinton BOTH began heavy work two years out, and both had already essentially lined up all the big donors and the important state organizations by the previous summer, one year out. That's the nature of modern campaigning. For example, I was stunned at the level of organization Romney had at C-PAC already. I didn't expect any from Rudy, because I think he added C-PAC at the last minute. But there was zero from McCain or Newt. Hunter's was minimal.

The state organization factor is huge. About one year from the primaries the state organizations begin "choosing up," and you don't just walk in at the last minute and sweep them off their feet.

[airborne]

Oh,come on!

He's got name recognition! RUDY!!! RUDY!!! RUDY!!!

He's got money! $$$$$ And rich friends! $$$$$

And best of all, he's the only one who can beat Hillary!

The only one!! Just ask the drive by media!!

Nobody cares about his liberal policies!

They only care about winning!!!

(sarcasm)

[Eagles Talon IV]

"My suggestion is we agree to disagree"

Done.

[Eagles Talon IV]

"I see that you didn't answer the false dilemma."

But I did answer. I said that these tangential issues of abortion, gun control and gay rights need to be put into perspective. Today, NOW in this time and place we need a rock solid leader who is unequivocal in his determination to defeat the savages that want us all dead. When that is done then we can move on to the pursuit of the other issues that are important, but nowhere near AS important as winning this war.

[Kevmo]

Your crystal ball needs some polishing. I think I'll stick to my own rather than a defeatist hued crystal ball, thank you. Hunter is building the national organization, and doesn't need it in place for 9 months. The money thing will be handled in a 3 pronged attack. 1) He's building a grassroots organization on the part with Dean's money raking capabilities. 2) He's rubbed shoulders for years with some very big kingmakers when he oversaw a $530BILLION budget for the armed services, which makes rudy's money men look like lemonade stand owners. 3) Once he starts winning primaries, he attracts bandwagon jumpers in the republican party and the republican party itself, which has lotsa dough.

[Kevmo]

"I see that you didn't answer the false dilemma." ... But I did answer.
***Sigh... no you didn't. The answer is either side A or side B. When I see lotsa words and blah-blah-blah, it means you didn't answer. If rudy supporters don't like answering false dilemmas, then my suggestion is to stop asking them -- it's especially bad manners to be pushing false dilemmas in favor of a solib candidate onto socons on a socon website.



Hypothetical to answer your hypothetical. Both sides losing to Hillary.
Side A: The solib republican splits the base. The MSM turns on him the moment he is nominated. Hillary wins. Republican party is split.
Side B: 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, Side A or Side B?



Win-Win false dilemma:
Side A: Solib wins presidency by ignoring the socon base and permanently splitting the republican party.
Side B: SoCon wins presidency by (obviously) relying on the socon base.

Which candidate is best for the republican party, Side A or Side B?