We Have to Win

Vanity | gesully

[gesully]

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.

[dforest]

NO to Rudy. I am voting conservative.


NO

[HitmanLV]

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.

In 2006, the party that most motivated the independents won. In 2006, independents wanted to kick Dubya in the gonads and run his friends out of town on a rail, They did, as the GOP lost by 55% to 45%. That wasn't all strong liberals in that 55%, just like that 45% wasn't all strong conservatives either.

[RetiredArmy]

Whine all you want about Rudy as your man. You can have him. You vote for Rudy, you vote for LIBERALISM. Period.

[dukakis kerry the dream team]

I think Fred wants to be the VP in a ticket headed by Romney or Rudy.

I don't see Fred as the kind of person who would be bothered with such a chore. He's too old to use it as a step toward presidency. Why would he want it?

[Tokra]

Remember, it's not VOLUME of voters, it's ACTUAL voters and Christian conservatives will crawl through broken glass to get out their vote.

Oh really? You mean like they did in 2006?

The "more conservative than thou" crowd handed control of the Congress to the Leftists by their "teaching the GOP a lesson".

That hurts the country much more than it hurts the GOP.

[HitmanLV]

I posed my question as a hypothetical. I do happen to believe that the pro life movement has pretty much lost the first trimester abortion issue, but that's not necessary to my point.

I agree with your analysis, though. A political party that consistently appeals to a shrinking segment of the population isn;t going anywhere worth getting to, in this world anyway.

[trisham]

Winning is what is important.

************

Then I guess it doesn't matter which party/candidate you choose.

I'll be voting for a conservative.

[OldPossum]

and he [Guiliani] has said he will nominate originalist judges.

And you probably believe in the Easter Bunny too.

[HitmanLV]

Being VP has much of the upside of being president without much of the responsibility. He gets a cool office, his own plane, a staff, and gets to schmooze. I think he likes all those things.

He also gets influence on policy, without being the lightning rod that the presidency brings.

I figure Fred as basically a guy who doesn't want to work very hard. Dick Cheney notwithstanding, that's a great fit for the traditional VP slot.

[Old_Mil]

Can they win? Can they convert blue states? I don’t think so...The entitlement crowd and blue urban states are becoming juggernauts.

This statement totally refutes the title insofar that it already presumes that we have lost, and is merely seeking the most graceful way in which to surrender.

Blue states are blue for two reasons: (1) the pro-gay, pro-abortion, affirmative-action crowd and (2) the working class crowd. Reagan successfully pulled the second group - the Reagan democrats - from the dem fold. Rockafeller Republican economic policies are driving them back. Nominating someone to try and draw group #1 above is no way to try and win an election.

[OldPossum]

No, we don't. We're here trying to defend the conservative integrity of Free Republic from you misguided people who really belong on a liberal website. You just won't go away.

[JenB]

I'd like to say sure, I can vote for the lesser of two evils. Maybe Rudy would sign a partial-birth abortion ban and Hillary wouldn't. Maybe Rudy would make me register my guns and Hillary would try taking them away. I don't know if Rudy has a position on homeschooling, my "other" issue but if he doesn't respect life or the right to defend it then I don't know if he would support other rights either.

So it coems down to whether he'd be tougher on the war on terror, and I'm sure he would be. But I still don't know that I can vote for him. That'd be actively supporting someone who supports the murder of babies, and I'm thinking that might just be a sin...

Anyway, what profit it a man to gain the world and lose his soul? Or to keep the country safe from outside threats - but wake up and discover it's not our country any more...

[Enosh]

"A political party that consistently appeals to a shrinking segment of the population"

And this is the core of where we must agree to disagree. I don't believe the pro-life segment is shrinking.

[Enosh]

Frisslefrazzletagline!

[ziravan]

Ronald Reagan 1984: nearly 60% of the national vote and 525 electoral votes.

THAT is "wildly popular".

Perhaps best of all, he didn't need to sell out his principles to get there.

Republicans should learn the lessons of their own history.

~faith.

[OldPossum]

I suppose that you are just being jocular (if that's the adverb) with your comment: "I think Fred wants to be the VP in a ticket headed by Romney or Rudy." But if not, please realize that Mr. Thompson would not want to give up those millions he would get anchoring the Paul Harvey show and the money made on Law and Order just so he can sit in on Cabinet meetings and be quiet.

Damn, I am acting like Captain Obvious.

[wolfpat]

The leftist failures that would come with "winning" with a RINO will only bury the conservative cause for a generation. The commies and their MSM lackeys will only point to those failures and convince those non-thinking voters that this is what comes from the conservative politicians.

[HitmanLV]

California can't pass a parental notification (not permission, just notification) law. The 2006 North Dakota abortion ban was soundly rejected by the fairly conservative people of that fairly conservative state, 55-45.

People tend to be a lot more open to getting new rights than they are giving up rights they have been given. Just human nature. 30+ years of legal abortion in the USA now means there is a generation of women who have only known legal nationwide abortion. Enough of them just aren't going to roll over and play dead when Roe is overturned - they will fight their battle in every state and win much more often than they lose.

Another thing, 40,000,000+ abortions in the last 30+ years weren't all done to liberal women. There are many self-identified conservatives in there. Many churchgoers. I know a pro-life woman who aborted her child, with her pro-life mom's help and support, because it looked like the developing fetus would have problems and they didn't want an abnormal child on their hands.

Were they wrong to do it? I think so. Do they think they are phonies for behaving this way? No, not at all. They are self identified as pro life, but it wouldn't stop them from doing it again, hate to break the news to you. And they aren't alone.

Also don't forget that stats show about 50% of married men and 33% of married women have had a romantic affair. Now and then, this situation will result in an unwanted, undesired, and sometimes 'unexplainble' pregnancy. And yes, there are some Republicans in those ranks, and some churchgoers. $hit happens, and people sometimes do he wrong thing. Sometimes even good people do the wrong thing. So the young wife who finds herself with an 'unexplainable' pregnancy has a choice: destroy her status quo and the life she values with her husband, or quietly make the problem go away via an abortion.

I believe the reason for my cynicism is that I know that otherwise good people sometimes do the wrong thing, and that good people often leave themselves wiggle room to do the wrong thing in the case of getting dealt a bad hand. Is this wrong? Yes. Is it any less real? No, not at all.

I just can't see a 30-year 'right' granted for admittedly the wrong reasons just suddenly vanishing.

I hope I'm wrong, but I am cynical about this issue, and this goes regardless of what people tell pollsters. about a million abortions a year can't possibly be to just the politically pro abortion women.

[HitmanLV]

Strangely, your observation still has nothing much to do with what I wrote.

[Retired COB]

I like Rudy Giuliani. I believe he is electable.

I'm not willing to vote for one liberal to avoid another.