Your point about the party platform is one I hadn’t thought of before and is a good one. How can the GOP, which has a pro-life, pro-2A platform, nominate a candidate with a proven track record of being an abortion supporter and gun control supporter, even if he talks a good game about it now? That makes no sense.
Look, I’ve been one of those that’s said that I’d vote for Rudy if he ended up being the nominee, just because as bad as he might be, he wouldn’t be nearly as bad as Hillary or Obama. I still think that. (This means that Reagan Man will probably go Pharisee on me and start screaming “unclean! unclean!” any second now.) But now I’m not so sure. I really believe that a Rudy nomination WILL shear the right wing off of the GOP. If you thought people stupidly stayed home to “teach the GOP a lesson” in 2006, just wait if Rudy gets nominated. Even if I do end up voting for him (and that’s not a 100% given right now), I wouldn’t begrudge those people who choose not to.
Giuliani cannot gain enough votes from the squishy center to compensate for the loss of the bedrock right wing of the party. It’s that simple. I don’t see how they expect to out-moderate Hillary when she’s proven that she’s very good at juking toward the center to hide her radical-left views.
The Republican leadership frustrates the hell out of me right now. They have completely forgotten how to win an election. You don’t do it by pretending to be Democrats. You do it by selecting a conservative and then putting your heart and soul behind the candidate to convince the American people that your way is the best one. It’s worked in the past and it will work again.
}:-)4
They have completely forgotten how to win an election. You don’t do it by pretending to be Democrats.-—
That’s the thing. If there’s nothing to show you are different, if you don’t offer them anything as an alternative, why should they vote for you? All this moving to the left isn’t going to do anything.
—Giuliani cannot gain enough votes from the squishy center to compensate for the loss of the bedrock right wing of the party. It’s that simple.-—
Well said
My opinion is that the Rockefeller wing of the party has always resented that Reagan showed them how to win. They seemed content to be the perpetual minority party, and now seem driven to go back to that status - they would rather tell socons to pound sand than remain allied with them.
Except that pro-lifers transcend party. Pro-life Dems were a key component of the Reagan coalition. They got Santorum elected twice in a Dem state until the Dems finally ran a pro-lifer. And they were a key swing block for Bush in Ohio in 2004. Pro-life is probably the most potent and driven block in modern politics.
But the liberal pubbies see pro-lifers and pro-gunners as having a foot on their necks. They'd rather have it their way and be the minority party from what I can see.
Good post Moose4!
BTTT
By George, I think you’ve got it! :-)
Zing me, ping me. Thanks
You know my politics. A vote for Rudy is a vote for liberalism ---- yesterday, today and tomorrow. I've been a Republican my entire life. Republicanism is the political vehicle that drives conservatism. If the GOP decides a liberalism is the best bet for the future of the GOP, then I will choose to take a different route for the 2008 general election.
In 1952 and 1956, Ronald Reagan was a Democrat who voted for Eisenhower. In 1960 Reagan was a Democrat who voted for Nixon. By 1962 Reagan was a Republican. In 1976 Reagan fought Pres Ford tooth and nail for the nomination and lost in the closet nomination campaign in history. There is nothing etched in stone that says a life long conservative Republican must vote for a liberal candidate running on the GOP ticket. Its still a free country and political choice is a founding principle of America.
Maybe its time conservatives seriously considered finding our conservative agenda a new home. Maybe in its own party. The "Conservative Party" has a nice ring to it.