We Have to Win

In order for the Republicans to win the 2008 Presidential election we are going to have to get some crossover votes. The Evangelical Right is too immersed in the righteousness of social issues to deal with the hard facts of financial and international issues. In other words they will vote for a loser if he or she supports their social beliefs.

I like Newt Gingrich. I do not believe he is electable because of his baggage…the media will use this baggage to destroy him. They did it before. He is liked by Conservatives but loathed by moderate Democrats and some moderate Republicans. He cannot covert blue states.

I like Mitt Romney. I do not believe he is electable because he is a “suit”. I don’t believe he has the charisma to draw moderate Democrats and many Evangelicals will shun him because of his religion. He cannot convert blue states.

Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter and the others are at noise level in the national polls. These people may be desirable because they are closer to being the Conservative we would like to have. But ask yourself. Can they win? Can they convert blue states? I don’t think so. The previous two presidential elections were extraordinarily close. The entitlement crowd and blue urban states are becoming juggernauts. Remember, it is the electoral vote which decides elections. Not our “favorite guy”. We have to get someone who can convert a few blue states to red while holding the red states.

I like Rudy Giuliani. I believe he is electable. He is known. He is respected by many moderate Democrats. He has demonstrated political competency. The Evangelicals he loses will be more than made up for by crossover Democrats. He is weak on some social issues, notably abortion, guns and same sex marriage. These things don’t bother me because they are decided in the courts, not in the White House and he has said he will nominate originalist judges. He has the potential to win some blue states. He is tough and ruthless. He is articulate. He knows how to maneuver politically. All of these are missing in President Bush. Enough of this compassionate conservative crap. We need a Pattenesque approach to politics and we want that person on our side.

We have to get real. As Conservatives we are at a genuine crisis point. If a Democrat is elected as President in 2008 and if the Democrat majorities hold in congress we have lost it all. We are getting a small taste of the future with the Democrat-controlled Senate and House which were lost by our people not showing up to vote. Look what that got us.

Having a Republican President is all that stands between us and a grim future. If we don’t win the presidency (and the House and Senate remain Democrat) the Bush tax cuts will be rescinded, we will get real tax increases, nationalized health care (which once enacted will never be overturned because the dependencies created will make political suicide to deal with), we will lose in the Middle East, there will be an increased risk of terrorism on US soil because of our perceived weakness, open borders, amnesty for all illegal aliens, statehood for Washington, DC (another two Senate seats for Democrats), government spending beyond our imagination, and the list goes on.

Before you take your principled stance on abortion, gay rights and gun rights and flush the Country down the liberal toilet consider the future if we let principles blind us to reality. President Bush is a principled man but look what that has gotten us. He is neither tough enough, articulate enough nor is he politically savvy enough. Reagan isn’t coming back. He died. Wake up. We have to hold the White House. Get real! Winning is what is important.

Newt does have baggage. Agreed. Tell me, which of the Dems have no baggage? Newt is a statesman. He knows how to speak and inspire. We have 12 yrs of a Republican Congress to thank him for, a congress we KEPT until we sold our souls down the big government spending RINO-bricked road.

And at least Newt's baggage isn't being a RINO!

I'll take my chances with Newt's baggage vs the baggage of the big 3 dems and vs the sellout of my party any day!

I'd rather lose than sell out my principles (which I believe to be more in-line with the actual voting electorate than not). Or rather, given the choice of losing to a liberal, or losing with a liberal, what's the difference?

Maybe you think he'd give us a bone and nominate conservatives to the Supreme Cabal? So, I am encouraged to vote for RUDY because he says that, on the most important counts, he will side with MY beliefs over HIS? If that's the case, tell me, why does he support beliefs he know are on the wrong side of what's most important in the first place?

I could vote for Fred. I don't appreciate his UnConstitutional CFR vote, but I could be convinced to listen to his explanation. I like Newt. He has espoused some neo-mercantilistic views (like adoration for FDR) but in the main, I believe him to be on the right side of liberty.

I could support a conservative. It's that simple. If you want to win, the CHOICE is yours. Rudy is NOT the choice of enough of your party mates so as to lose the election you say cannot be won without him.

You have presented a false choice. It's not, "Rudy is better than nothing." In reality, for enough conservatives to change the outcome of the election, "Rudy IS nothing".

Or, haven't the real lessons of '06 sunk in? You can't out-liberal a liberal. That's like saying only the government can spend us into prosperity. . .

~faith.

Clinton won two terms and remains a wildly popular president with more Americans than not, despite his pro choice posture.

A winning president need not necessarily be pro life. A dem proved it handily, maybe a GOPer can prove it, too.

I'm pro life, but I don't believe first trimester abortions would be illegal in the USA regardless of who is president. As I see it, that's the only rational conclusion to draw based on the political landscape right now.

"We Have to Win"

"Before you take your principled stance on abortion, gay rights and gun rights and flush the Country down the liberal toilet consider the future if we let principles blind us to reality"

Based on the second quote above, I think we differ on the meaning of the first. Let me try that second quote again, and see if it comes any clearer...

"Before you take your principled stance on insert any core principle here consider the future if we let principles blind us to reality"

Nope, still can't reconcile it. Sorry, and this has nothing to do with Rudy, but I can't consider a future where we abandon our principles.

I appreciate your pasionate presentation of your beliefs.

I think the situation is a bit simpler than you suggest, however.

It really doesn't matter who the republicans select as their candidate. The '08 election will be a reflection of the country's satisfaction or lack thereof with president bush.

This barometer will hinge on one or two issues, overall feeling about the direction of the war in iraq, and his handling of the immigration crisis.

It's just my opinion, of course, but based on the last election here in Ohio, I'd say that if the cheif executive pisses off the citizens, his party is toast.

Clinton didn't get 50% of the vote, in either election. And he had the entire pro-abortion democrat vote on his side.

So, what you're saying is, the only way for a pro-abortion Republican to be 'wildly popular' is if his views are such that the democrat party will vote for him in order to support their core beliefs.

Sounds like a great argument in support of a democrat candidate. That, fortunately for me and by the grace of God to grant me an ounce of wisdom, is NOT my concern.

No thanks.

I'll pass.

"maybe a GOPer can prove it,"

LOL! That's funny. Sure, a Democrat can run as a baby killer because the Democrat platform supports that position.

However, the Republican party is not the Democrat party no matter how much you may wish otherwise.

2004 R Platform

we support protecting the rights of families in international programs and oppose funding organizations involved in abortion.
And while the vast majority of Americans support a ban on partial birth abortion, this brutal and violent practice will likely continue by judicial fiat. We believe that the self-proclaimed supremacy of these judicial activists is antithetical to the democratic ideals on which our nation was founded.
We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for contraception and abortion.
We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.

Clinton didn't get 50% of the vote, in either election. And he had the entire pro-abortion democrat vote on his side.

Who ever said that he got 50% of the vote or better? I didn't. I just said he won twice, which he did. In his second victory, he got a greater percentage of the vote (49.2%) than Dubya did in his first victory in 2000 (47.9%).

Clinton does remain very popular among the electorate. If he could have run against Dubya in 2000, odds are he would have won. If he could run in 2008, odds are he would win. For better or worse, enough americans have great affection for Clinton.

I don't, but that doesn't make it any less true.

What I am saying, to be clear, is that a successful GOP candidate needs to win enough independent, not very political voters in order to win. In 2006, voters aligned 55%-45% in favor of the dems. They won big in 2006, because they appealed to independents who were anxious to tell the president and the GOP where to stick it.

I am pro life, but as a practical matter I can't see building future victories if the electorate grows more pro abortion. Address that issue in the electorate first. Of course, that's hard, so I can see why some pro lifers have little interest in that.

I have no problem with anything you typed or copied & pasted.

My only problem is what does the GOP do when aspects of its platform lose popular support?

What specifically is the pro life movement's plan if a country increasingly accepts legal first trimester abortions, for example? The answer has to be practical - losing political power doesn't advance any agenda in a meaningful way for conservatives.

Mitt Romney...He cannot convert blue states.

Huh? He was elected Governor in the bluest state! Does that count for anything?

That fact raises the hackles of many conservative purists, but it's still a fact. He's got a lot going for him, and popularity across a wide political spectrum is one of his strong suits.

The good news is that I don't have to have you vote for me. I can vote with my own conscience.

There will be no pro-choicer getting my vote.

I don't even for a person if I don't know their views on abortion, and I never will.

The abortion record is enough to keep me from voting for Rudy, but his belief that the public needs to demonstrate their need for a handgun is another issue he'd have lost my vote on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emeu2KRt2Vg

"Who ever said that he got 50% of the vote or better?"

It goes to credibility. You said that he is 'wildly popular'.

In the media, to be sure. Where it counts, I don't call 49.2% of the voting electorate to be 'wildly popular'. And HE had the lockstep vote of his base.

What do WE have, when we sell out our base?

The fundamental proposition in favor of Rudy is that, once he wins the nomination, where else do the base have to go? That goes completely against the grain of the last few elections: the party that most motivates their base, wins.

If you want to take the chance that magical math will prevail, you are free to use your vote at will. Reality is considerably less fungible.

~faith.

We can do better than Rudy McRomney...

"As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc." --Jim Robinson

Freepmail me to join/leave the **high volume** Duncan Hunter Pinglist

Freepmail seanmerc to join the Veterans for Hunter Pinglist

Contribute to Duncan Hunter's Presidential Campaign -- http://www.gohunter08.com

"My only problem is what does the GOP do when aspects of its platform lose popular support?"

I don't agree with you that the abortion issue is swinging more towards the Dems, but I'll answer as a theoretical.

In such a case, the Republicans can make a strategic shift towards the Center/Left in the hope of picking up enough swing votes to cover the loss from the right.

I don't think it will work, but they can try.

What I suspect will happen is such a situation will be another Bush Sr. "Where will they go?" -> Ross Perot moment, giving us once more a nightmare Clinton presidency.

It goes to credibility. You said that he is 'wildly popular'.

Sorry, someone can be wildly popular now even if they got about 50% of the vote 10+ years ago. They are not in any way mutually exclusive - someone could have won 40% of the vote and be wildly popular a decade later, or 60% of the vote and be wildly unpopular a decade later.

Or someone can win 52% of the vote two or so years ago and be widely unpopular today.

I don't see why you think this has to do with credibility since it's clear the two things you attempt to link are not necessarily and inexorably linked.

Before you take your principled stance on abortion, gay rights and gun rights and flush the Country down the liberal toilet consider the future if we let principles blind us to reality.

No thanks. Take your liberal blather elsewhere.

I will not vote for Rudy Giuliani under ANY circumstances. None. Do you hear? He's a lying liberal crpyto-Democrat media-created candidate and no conservative should EVER vote for him in either the primary or the general election.

A liberal with an "R" by his name is still a liberal.

No he isn't. A "liberal" who is tough on defense and tax cuts is FAR preferable to a liberal who is soft on defense and wants to raise taxes.

As the author points out - it isn't the President who decides the law on abortion, gun control and gay marriage - the Congress and the courts do that. All the president can do is to appoint federal judges that will decide cases from a conservative viewpoint.

It's much more important to make sure that someone who will do that will also be able to win.

As much as you may not like Rudy - he has promised to appoint the right judges to the courts.

Hillary won't nor will Barak Hussein Obama.

Those who insist that there is no difference between Rudy or Condi and Hitlery and Hussein have blinders on and cannot see reality. The reality is the democrats are going to be MUCH worse than any RINO, and anyone who helps them win is a traitor to the conservative cause.

Playing "more conservative than thou" games will only help the Left destroy this nation.

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.