Posted on 03/29/2007 9:21:46 AM PDT by 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.
Lots of perks to being VP, and he can make his millions after his tenure if he wanted.
Math.
A pro-abortion "Republican" will alienate too much conservative base to win the White House.
A pro-abortion "Republican" will alienate too much conservative base to win the PRIMARY. There - fixed it!
Pictures of Rudy in drag...on several occasions. Nuf said.
No, it;s not on point. Typing out a fact of the 1984 election results isn't an argument, it's just a fact.
Like I said earlier, someone can win or lose an election by any margin and be wildly unpopular or popular at a later date. One doesn't have much to do with the other, necessarily.
The second amendment vote is seven to ten million, the right to life/evangelical is about the same. Rudy would have to pull 14 to 20 million base Dem votes to even that out... ain't happening.
A Rudy nomination puts Hellory in the Whitehouse.
I think that polling data is valuable to discerning popularity. While any one or two polls may be suspect, any 10 or 12 polls usually reflect a basic truth.
So when ten polls show Dubya with approval ratings between 35% and 40%, it's safe to believe that his approval among the electorate is between those figures. When ten polls show Bill Clinton's approval between 55% and 65%, you can be assured that the truth is between those figures and reflects a basic truth.
Freepers really have a problem swallowing polls, I'm afraid. Freeper Poll Denial Syndrome, I call it. It should have been vanquished in 2006, but I'm afraid even those that predicted a smashing victory for Katherine Harris have gone back to their oold denying ways.
Clarity first, everything else follows. Anyone who looks at Dubya's approval ratings and slaps on an extra 15-20 points because of some imagined bias (and this is really just the flip side of the liberal victimhood coin) to make them feel better is crawling onto a dangerous perch. Indeed, Dubya's timidity since election 2006 does demonstrate that he himself seems to now accept that he doesn't have significant public support.
As for imagining ahead to 2012, I see no utility in such presumptuousness. As it stands, conservatives are about to get 'thumped' again in the House and Senate races, and most else being equal to 2004 (and they aren't, the climate is now fairly hostile to conservatives and GOPers), all a dem nominee has to do is keep all the Kerry 2004 states and win Oho (at this point it seems likely that Ohio is going blue in 2008 no matter what), and they win.
Any GOPer who figures defense will win in 2008 is figuring wrong. Wait and see.
"WIN"?? With RUDY??
You're as short-sighted as a jackass in blinders if you consider "winning" the 2008 presidency with a RINO on a Conservative ticket because you can't see beyond the lust of a ticker-tape celebration what it would do.
Maybe YOU don't care. I do. You'll get your "cross-over" supporters alright - but ignorant YOU can't see they are DEMOCRATS.
Not voting for gun grabbers under any party flag. If you want to win, run an acceptable candidate. If you think you can win without pro-Constitution votes, then proceed as planned.
You're justifying liberalism. This isn't the forum for that.
MY NUMBER ONE ISSUE: Will the next POTUS of the United States appoint Judges to the Federal Bench and to the SCOTUS who will interpret the Constitution, not rewrite it?
That's the biggie for me. And, I DO NOT TRUST RUDY JULIE ANNIE TO DO THAT.
Mr. Thompson will turn 65 in August. If he were to run and be elected VP he would be 66 then; serving 8 years he would be 74 when his term ended. Now, just what energy level (not to mention basic health) do you think he might be enjoying then? Sure, it would be possible that all would be OK and peachy but what if not?
No, no reasonable man would walk away from what he can potentially enjoy now, what with TV acting (at a rate of $100,000 per show filming, I've read) and a radio show with more listeners than Rush's.
I didn;t say he would run for president after his run as VP. Cheney's not, and nobody thinks any less of him because of it.
He could also be on the ticket for one term, and not two.
I agree though that there are much easier ways to earn a buck than be president or VP, and I can see Fred thinking that way also.
Promises made are promises kept only according to the perception one holds of abiding by that vow. We have Rudy's record of judicial appointees, members of gay and lesbian orgs, members of ACLU, and none appear "strict constructionists" by anyone's measure but New York's. Rudy most likely thinks his appointments are strict constructionist judges. Many New Yorkers most likely think Rudy is a conservative.
In relative terms, probably - but that isn't total reality.
I won't be voting for Rudy just to say I voted against Hillary. If the GOP can't offer better than that to vote FOR, it'll have to go it without me.
And before you leap - some astutely look beyond a false sense of "winning" to see the damage a liberal such as Rudy on the Republican ticket would do to Conservative ideals within the whole Legislative body for longer than a four-year term. You, commendably, look at winning the skirmish at hand, but you don't even realize you're being lead to and are willing to sell out on the whole war.
If Giuliani wins the election the Conservative Movement is dead. Not bruised. Dead. If he loses to Mrs. Clinton, the Republican party suffers a "setback." Mrs. Clinton will provoke a Republican conservative House and possibly even Senate in 2010. With a Giuliani win, conservatives cease to be a force in national politics.
With a Giuliani loss to any Democrat other than Mrs. Clinton, we will probably have a Democrat Congress after 08 but for '10, anything is possible and it is most likely that it will not be nearly so left as the Congress will be under Giuliani, especially after 2010.
Conservatism can survive Romney but it will be a long 4 years because he will have that Democrat Congress his whole 4. Conservatism will not survive a Giuliani election.
If Giuliani is elected POTUS, with a dim senate and house, radical pro abortion legislation will be enacted along with radical gun control.
Unfortunately, the Rudy supporters join in on every thread in which "presidential candidate" appears. They're like a bad cough that won't go away, though we fervently pray that they will.
That would not attract my vote any better than a Giuliani/McCain ticket would.I might vote a Thompson/Giuliani ticket, though, so long as I am pretty sure Thompson is in good health.
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.