I Have Seen the Future: It Is Giuliani (Red State.com)

Red State.com ^ | 3/5/07 | Eric Erkickson

[meg88]

Today I have seen the future and that future is President Rudy.

It's not that I'm voting for Rudy, but the vacuum to be filled has been filled.

Consider this:

Rudy Giuliani and Tony Snow are the only guys who have had to have fire marshals bar people from entering due to overcapacity in a very big room.

In the green room, Giuliani's speech was the only one to cause everyone to sit down, shut up and watch.

More and more, the conservatives at CPAC are realigning. You have the Brownback folks, the Mitt folks, and the people who are headed quickly to Rudy. And you know what? They are more or less cheerful in doing it.

They've found the guy who knows he needs them to get in the door. They know the calculus Rudy has made -- the conservatives aren't selling out their principles; Rudy is telling them he won't impose his social view on them, but he'll keep them safe.

After all, abortion is not an issue when a terrorist has killed you.

Look for all guns to turn on Rudy now. He's been the frontrunner all along and now the rest of the pack realizes it.

The reception he got at CPAC should worry them.

[NeoCaveman]

I've seen the future, and it sux.

[kenth]

What amazes me is the absolute disdain some here on FR have when they utter the word "conservative". They use it as if it were a dirty word.

[NeoCaveman]

Was this at the same CPAC that voted for Romney in the straw?

Yes. It was the very same CPAC where Mitt Romney won the straw poll.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Free Republic poll question "who would you vote for if the candidates are Rudy vs Hillary?" FReepers now support Rudy 69.3% against her. A president has not polled so highly since FDR.

Now it is true that the Left will be doing ALL it can to convince the foolish shortsighted and gullible to bolt the GOP to chase the Will-o-the-Wisp of a "third" party. Fortunately, their tactics will fail since conservatives saw the disastrous result of that nonsense in 92 and 96.

[Dog Gone]

Electing a Republican Governor is not the same as electing a Republican president in a year when the country is divided. Your trying to compare apples and oranges.

Give me a break. We've always been divided. If New Yorkers are capable of pulling most of the levers for George Pataki, they are certainly capable of pulling that lever for the most successful New York City mayor in a hundred years.

He may not be the best choice. Let's talk about it civilly.

[mwl1]

I'm for Rudy because the GOP would clearly be competing in blue states -- playing on the opponent's turf is a sure route to victory.

Rudy might not carry NY, NJ or CT, but Hillary would go broke defending them.

[rwfromkansas]

I still have to ask...who would vote for a President Hunter.

Only the fringes.

His very name cuts him out of the running with many people.

[dirtboy]

"His very name cuts him out of the running with many people."

Now I've seen everything.

[Dog Gone]

I'm for Rudy because the GOP would clearly be competing in blue states -- playing on the opponent's turf is a sure route to victory.

I'm not sold on him yet, although what you say is true. If another more conservative candidate can win, we'd be better off with him.

On the other hand, losing pays no dividends and those here who argue otherwise are not very smart.

[rwfromkansas]

His name is perfect late night fodder.

[garv]

Keep up the lies you only weaken your persuasiveness

That's funny. What in my post was a lie?

[Thorin]

The nomination of Giuliani by the GOP would be definitive proof that the party leaders were never serious about opposing abortion, stopping gay marriage, and controlling illegal immigration, but were merely using those issues to fire up conservative voters whenever an election rolls around. And, if Giuliani is nominated, these issues won't even get lip service in the future.

[rwfromkansas]

He is a great guy. I just don't see him winning or even having a chance in hell.

[Dog Gone]

The nomination of Giuliani by the GOP would be definitive proof that the party leaders were never serious about opposing abortion, stopping gay marriage, and controlling illegal immigration, but were merely using those issues to fire up conservative voters whenever an election rolls around.

The party leaders quit giving us a nominee before you were born.

You choose him.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It is such insanity which shows me that Rudy has nothing to worry about.

Rational analysis is something you want to avoid it appears.

Once again I ask the simple question: "Who is going to beat Rudy in the big states North of the Mason-Dixon line?" Like or dislike of the guy has nothing with being able to analyze the situation.

[wolfcreek]

"Who could possibly beat him in the primaries North of the Mason-Dixon line?"



A TRUE Conservative

[Lexinom]

Yep. Clinton II.

[PerConPat]

But I am appalled at the venom at this forum for those who have jumped on a bandwagon. It's ugly and it's harmful.

I, too, have marveled at the dark side of the candidate handicapping this far out in front of the Primaries. What a fascinating Primary season this will be. In fact, there might even be a slim chance for a brokered convention.

I am most interested to learn if we are actually in the midst of an uprising of pro-abortion, fiscally conservative Pubs who now see in Rudy a chance to take over the Pub party. If that be the case, one can wonder what might constitute that which would remain. On a more sinister level, perhaps the Dims are shrewdly throwing some early support behind Giuliani in an attempt to fish in troubled waters. We live in interesting times.

At any rate, if the hard right is not able to produce a champion, the Rudy faction will have earned their spoils. I say these things as a Hunter supporter.

[Continental Soldier]

Conservatives need to understand that Rudy is the most likely to defend America in this war against determined killers. Yes, there are other issues, but none so important as the war against terrorists and terrorist states. On those other issues, conservatives can oppose him as needed, but on the survival of America, conservatives need to put parochial concerns aside for a while and face the biggest challenge that our country has faced in a very long time.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

I consider myself to be waaaaay to the outside (I did not say "left") of many freepers, but if Guiliani is the candidate, I will, simply, stay home. I don't want to mimic some of the rants against the man I see here, as they represent what I consider to be the WORST aspect of FR. Most of the criticisms I have against him are already discussed on FR. Suffice it to say that I can't bring myself to support him.

That said, I don't think he will be the candidate. If he is, I will say "have fun, guys. Talk to you from Belize, and it's been fun."