He should pick Rick Perry as his running mate....that should do it (snicker)
“I don’t believe that Rudy can win Texas, among several other red states. So, even if he does pick up a blue state or two, what does it matter? The “but Rudy can win” crowd never seem to take into account the red states that he would lose.”
You are so right.
The whole sales pitch for Giuliani is that, sure conservatives would stay home, but the moderate Republicans would make up for that by winning a lot of moderate Democrat voters.
Sounds to me as though it would be a blood bath for all the offices below President.
Even if we woke up in 2008 with our most liberal Republican President in history, there would be nothing below him but the broken pieces of a once powerful conservative movement.
Democrats would win massive new gains at every level with narrow (and larger) majorities.
Him taking charge of the Republican party would end, and bury the Reagan Revolution.
OK, I will. You asked:
Whenever I see comments like yours, I always ask the poster the same questions: Do you think that Rudy can take Texas? And, if not, how can Rudy win the presidency without Texas?
The only way I can reply is with questions myself:
Do you honestly think that Texas would vote for Hillary instead?
Do you honestly think that Texas would vote for B. Hussein Obama instead?
Does Texas have a primary?
When is it?
If they _do_ have a primary there, let's wait and see how Rudy does in it. Then come back and post your questions again.
- John
My post was in response to what I consider an excellent analysis of the political reality facing us in 2008 in which the possibility of a Guliani war-time candidacy was profferred as an example of a possible Republican strategy.
I wasn’t aware that that made me a member of the “Rudy can win crowd”, or indeed any “crowd” since my opinion of the post was based on my own reflection on the post’s contents.
You ask if I think that Guliani can take Texas, adding the complaint that no one has bothered to respond to this question.
Perhaps the non-responders are like me, lacking the powers of divination that would enable us to predict the outcome of an election almost two years away in Texas or any other State.
I’m not sure where you get the idea that others “assume that red states vote Republican...” Perhaps it is part of your faith-based political acumen that permits you to see into the minds of others, and which apparently compels you to “believe” that Guliani cannot win Texas.
Since no candidates seem to grasp the the fact that we are at war, and though Guliani has stated that we are in a war, he, along with the others in both parties, seem almost blithely ignorant of what our enemies have planned for us, militarily and through the use of our laws and our demented commitment to the “multi-culti” excesses that hasten our doom.
Based on his public record in LE and during his time as mayor of New York City, Guliani seems capable of demonstrating the ruthlessness required to clean out our intelligence services, the DOJ and the State Department — or as they are usually referred to, the enemy within.
Whether or not this translates into votes is up to how informed voters are about the peril we face, and our slap-happy celebrity obsessed media will make certain that the reality of our situation, the imminent surrender of the West to lawless primitives, will not make it past the wall of solid fluff the media moguls have erected.
The red state/blue state split may have no part in the 2008 election as events unfold that shock voters into an awareness that on one thing, and one thing only, we cannot be divided, and that is our survival as a sovereign nation at war with a fanatical enemy.