Posted on 03/25/2007 11:44:12 AM PDT by FairOpinion
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani led off with his strongest card, his terrorism-fighting credentials, before touching on healthcare, immigration and energy policy in a speech to a welcoming crowd Saturday.
"Sept. 11, 2001, taught me — and I believe it taught a lot of people, including President Bush — that we have to remain on offense," Giuliani said. "That means that we have to use our military. We can't show weakness."
Giuliani seemed to hit all the right notes Saturday, getting applause when he criticized Democrats' stance on healthcare and advocated vouchers for schools.
On immigration, he told reporters he doesn't support amnesty for illegal immigrants, but he could support a guest worker program if there were adequate border security and tamper-proof ID cards. He said that even if illegal immigrants "can demonstrate that they are lawful, that they are paying taxes [and] that they'll pay penalties," they still shouldn't be put ahead of people who go through legal channels.
"And citizenship here, if it's earned, should be premised on being able to read and write English and understand American history, so we restore assimilation to the process of immigration," he said.
"Nothing will unite the Republicans more than a candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton," Curry said.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailypilot.com ...
In the past forty years, there have only been THREE presidential elections that, barring some sort of disaster for the incumbent, were "in the bag" a few months out of the election: 1972, 1984 and 1996 (call me whatever names you like, but anyone who is honest by September that Dole didn't have a chance). And these fell into this category because they were incumbents. This is going to be the first election since 1952 when neither party will be nominating either an incumbent president or vice president, there will be a lot more undecided voters than usual.
Im not ready to give up those women just because they are percieved as being lost causes for the party.
One by one.
I might just do that.
Thanks. :-)
I haven't seen such blind foolishness since Clinton was elected.
Voters who do not care what the candidate stands for, only that he wins.
Soccer moms become sucker moms.
It's aboit the war on terror, stupid. nothing else.
Doubtful. The only elections with "record turnout" among young people were during Vietnam. The left can compare Iraq to Vietnam all they want, but young people DO NOT have the negative attitude toward Iraq that they did about Vietnam
I want to win those voters to the GOP ticket. Dont you?
If we get liberals to vote GOP by nominating a liberal, all that will happen is that they will bolt the next time we nominate a conservative. And in the process, a lot of conservatives will bolt and we will wind up like the Whigs.
If we had a parliamentary system, it wouldn't matter as much, but if we nominate Rudy the GOP will go the way of the Whigs.
You know, this is the problem. You look at the generation that has 9/11 as their formative event, and instead of saying, "This is a guy who'll keep America safe, and Hillary and Obama have no clue," you decide that you need to bring up pop culture cred. You could say that he busted the biggest ring of corrupt thugs in the history of his state government , or you could say he's making sure they'l be able to work where they want, retire, and live to see it because he'll defend the country and reform the medical system," but instead you figure you need to talk about his TV role. If you brought up acting at all you could bring up the fact that he was cast as himself in a movie about his corruption-busting days because he was so passionate about standing up for the little guy that no actor could protray him properly. But no, you would bring up a dang TV show and not even get that right. Oh, the humanity.
Do you think this election is going to be the status quo? I do not. I think there will be a record turnout and that the these youths will have an huge impact on its outcome.
I started watching the nightly news with my parents back when I was about 6 or 7. I've been a real serious news junkie for over a quarter century now.
Why is that relevant? Because that prediction has been made in every single election that I can remember. That takes us back to somewhere in the early Eighties at least.
First, these people do not vote. Let me repeat that: They do not vote. It doesn't matter what the issues are, how many of them register, what the parties do to appeal to them, they do not vote. You can say I'm an old fuddy duddy who doesn't "get" these kids all you want, but time and again they're supposed to turn the election, and they don't show.
Second, those that do vote cast their votes for Dems overwhelmingly. Once again, you're using people who are not in play to try and tell us where the swing voters are going.
I want to win those voters to the GOP ticket. Dont you?
Two answers:
1. Well, you sure ain't trying very hard. If Rudy gets the nomination, what are you going to say? Based on your answer about Thompson, I'm betting something like "You know, Rudy? I know MTV portrays him as Satan, but you should really vote for him because he's just like Obama, except for being a rich white man. Oh, and when MTV says he sent his cops out to sodomize black immigrants, don't worry about that." I mean, if you can't fight MTV now for a guy who will save their lives, why would you be able to fight MTV in September of '08 for a different guy who'll save their lives?
2. What are we supposed to do to win these voters to the GOP ticket? You say they want a far lefty. Well, should we run one? Heck, Rudy might be WAY too conservative for them. Seriously, why do you think that we should run a person (and platform) for the most important job on the planet who can appeal to people who know nothing about politics except what they see on MTV? How would that NOT turn off everybody to the right of Al Gore who's planning to vote in 2008?
Sorry, but I think you've probably made the weakest case for a primary candidate in the history of FR.
Oh, I'm not saying it's in the bag for either party. In fact, I'm not even certain that we'll win even if we get the best possible GOP candidate, or that Hallary or Obama can win even if we put up our worst candidate. I'm just saying that the "I talked to people" method means exactly squat.
" The left can compare Iraq to Vietnam all they want, but young people DO NOT have the negative attitude toward Iraq that they did about Vietnam"
I disagree with that. I think they do, and I think the MSM will tap into (and exploit) those feelings (read attitude) the closer and closer the election comes.
"If we get liberals to vote GOP"
Im not trying to get liberals to vote GOP. Im trying to turn Democrats into Republicans. Right now there is such a gap between those ideologies that building a bridge is quite the task.
I want to put up a candidate that makes that task a little less daunting. Someone who will pull from both sides of the isle.
If we do not find a moderate that can bridge the gap, the GOP may indeed go the way of the Whigs.
You are pushing a candidate that is too far right to win the general election. He may be the best candidate for FR, but he will not be percieved as a moderate, and the majority of Americans will be voting moderate. We saw this with 06 elections.
But what if that person, after talking to me and many other pro-abort youth, had said, "Listen, we can't nominate Geroge H. W. Bush for the presidency! He's a pro-lifer, he'll drive all these kids away!" Would they have been right? What if that same person, four years before had said "We're going to lose our butts! Geraldine Ferraro is a pro-choicer and Reagan will never be able to win running as a pro-lifer against a ticket with a woman on it! I've talked to a bunch of young people and I know this beyond doubt!"
That's the case you're making here, and you're just as wrong.
Lastly, I don't have my underwear in a bunch, but it really is insulting for you to assume that "Don't judge a presidential candidate by what a young girl tells you because she's not a swing voter" is my way of saying "screw those kids, they aren't worth anything." You really come off as thinking you're the only one who knows about or cares about any of this stuff, and it's somewhat belittling.
************
Yes. It's absurd. There's a story about that I can't quite recall, but it had to do with a group of voters asking how a Republican (GWB?) was elected, because "no one they knew voted for him".
You will never get a candidate that can pull from both sides of the aisle. It will not happen with Rudy. It will happen with a positive Reagan conservative. A pro America candidate that shares the best of American values and is able to give Americans hope instead of fear. The fear does not encompass the WOT only. People hate moderates, many moderate do not care, because they have no opinion. Either will do.
"You really come off as thinking you're the only one who knows about or cares about any of this stuff, and it's somewhat belittling."
I aplogize as it wasnt my intention.
You could be right and I could be wrong. Maybe the country has shifted further right than myself and I am just out of the loop. I do live in Los Angeles, maybe Im jaded and have lost hope that a staunch conservative can beat out a moderate.
I remember back during the recall, a lot of conservatives were pushing heavy for Mc Clintock. They kept saying he was the "ideal" conservative, and from their stand point he was. Similar to the way people push Thompson and Hunter. But it was Arnold who pulled demographics from all walks of lives on all sides of the issues.
I know I know I know this Cali ..and we are the exception.... I have heard it all before.
Absolutely. I will vote for the GOP ticket.
You're showing your ignorance again. What about the New Blue Dogs? Conservatism (or, rather, the perception of it) is what won the election for the Dems. They ran pro-gun, pro-life, fiscal conservatives in crucial districts and the voters picked them. In some cases the Congresscritter who lost was also a conservative, but his opponent was able to point to left-leaning things he had done. In other words, when the Dem was able to successfully portray himself as a conservative running against a mushy moderate, he won. Then there's the fact that the sixth year of a Presidential term is a bloodbath for the President's party.
As for Thompson, he is (as I understand it) a bit to the left of Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan won two landlsides, one of which ranks as one of the most lopsided elections in the history of democracy. Also, when one brings in the corruption factor (another big problem for the GOP last year) he is as pure as the driven snow and was not in the Senate for the main spending spree. Hillary, on the other hand, gets most of her experience cred from the most corrupt administration since Harding.
"You will never get a candidate that can pull from both sides of the aisle."
It happened here in California with Arnold.
"People hate moderates, many moderate do not care, because they have no opinion."
Really? Cause Im pretty sure that the House and Senate were taken control of in 06 by the democratic party on the backs of those who voted for "moderates".
The science writer Marianna Gosnell says she had a college professor who used to illustrate bad science by challenging his class to prove North Dakota exists. His main piece of evidence was that none of them knew anyone from North Dakota, and class after class, there wasn't a person in the room who knew anyone from North Dakota.
Look, dont come at me with things like I feel belittled by your tone and turn around and call me ignornant a couple of posts later.
It shuts me down and then I get witchy.
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.