Posted on 04/25/2007 9:37:29 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
When I tell my liberal friends and associates that there are only a handful of Republicans that I would vote for before Hillary Clinton, the response is universally the same. I get a blank stare, followed by the question: "do you really think Rudy Giuliani can win the Republican nomination?"
If you've read about my infatuation with the Giuliani candidacy, you know my answer is YES. While Democrats like to fall in love with a candidate—Howard Dean or Senator Obama, for example—Republicans prefer picking winners.
With notable exceptions, like the 2002 California Gubernatorial race—Republicans recognize that they, like the Democrats, are a minority party. And yes, the Religious Right will vote for Rudy Giuliani just like they voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger in California in 2003 and again in 2006.
While most Republicans would rather support a candidate who opposed abortion rights and supported the Second Amendment, they also realize that, after seven years of George W. Bush's religious-right mobilization efforts, Americans would be hard pressed to elect such a person.
Republicans don't like being losers. Being losers is why people become Democrats.
Rudy Giuliani offers the best and most practical hope to fight off the evil empire of American politics—the Clinton Family—because he remains a national hero and is not tarnished by the Iraq war. What's more, Giuliani's "urban conservative" message of freedom for all evokes the origins of the Grand Old Party—while chipping away at the core voter base of the Democrats.
Giuliani's electability is what will get Religious voters to support him—and some will do so even enthusiastically.
If you don't believe me, then just follow the money. Campaign logic would say that Rudy Giuliani, the more moderate—dare I say liberal—Republican would be sweeping in campaign dollars from urban areas, where Republicans have more libertarian leanings. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney, the born-again religious conservative, should be raking in the dough from suburban, ex-urban and rural areas where like-minded folks call home.
Campaign logic, however, would be wrong.
Romney leads Republicans in fundraising nationwide—but also in Los Angeles and its most liberal zip-codes of Beverly Hills, Hollywood and the Westside. Giuliani, on the other hand, wins the fundraising battle in the neighborhoods West of the 405 of Brentwood and Pacific Palisades with a higher concentration of single-family homes.
This anomaly is more stark when you look at the numbers from across the State. Romney is raising more money in urban areas like Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco. Giuliani is taking in the preponderance of dollars in faraway places like Yolo County, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Napa, Salinas, the Inland Empire and Fresno.
If you looked at a map of fundraising by County in California, Giuliani would win the Red Counties and Romney would take the Blue. It is as if Mitt Romney were the GOP's Phil Angelides.
Look no further than the case of Real Estate Developer/Hotelier C. Frederick Wehba if you need more convincing. The passionately evangelical Christian—who started his own church in Beverly Hills and is a major contributor to George Bush and the RNC. C. Frederick is backing Rudolph Giuliani in 2008, as are Bill Simon and many others in the Christian Community.
Without Ted Haggard to tell them how to vote, Republicans of all stripes seem to be coming to the same conclusion—that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good, especially when the cost of failure is a sequel to President Clinton.
It's a liberal laugh fest! YUK! YUK!
I remember when the savings and loans collapsed. Your post also reminds me of the Keating Five and John McCain’s involvement.
***The Keating Five (or Keating Five Scandal) refers to a Congressional scandal related to the collapse of most of the Savings and Loan institutions in the United States in the late 1980s. McCain was one of five senators who met at least twice in 1987 with Ed Gray, chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, seeking to prevent the government’s seizure of Lincoln Savings and Loan, a subsidiary of Charles H. Keating’s American Continental Corporation. Between 1982–1987, McCain received approximately $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates. In addition, McCain’s wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. McCain, his family and baby-sitter made at least nine trips at Keating’s expense, sometimes aboard the American Continental jet. After learning Keating was in trouble over Lincoln, McCain paid for the air trips totalling $13,433.[47] Federal regulators ultimately filed a $1.1 billion civil racketeering and fraud suit against Keating, accusing him of siphoning Lincoln’s deposits to his family and into political campaigns. McCain received a rebuke from the Ethics Committee for exercising poor judgment for intervening with the federal regulators on behalf of Keating. On his Keating Five experience, McCain said: “The appearance of it was wrong. It’s a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do.”***
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#Keating_Five_controversy
Clintonism redux.....Wehba's got quid pro quo in mind.....hoping to get a pardon.
Funny, one of the Rudy boosters mentioned in the article was involved in the S&L scandal.
The Garn - St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 is widely credited with having laid the groundwork for the U.S. Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s.[6]
I suggested no such thing.
Look no further than the case of Real Estate Developer/Hotelier C. Frederick Wehba if you need more convincing. The passionately evangelical Christian—who started his own church in Beverly Hills and is a major contributor to George Bush and the RNC. C. Frederick is backing Rudolph Giuliani in 2008
What were you suggesting with this excerpt from the article?
Yes, I well remember the Keating 5 and Uncle Bob that went on to defend Bill Clinton.
What was the point of your post? Were you praising Thompson for his efforts to avoid the $8.5 House bill in favor of the no-cost Senate bill?
THRIFT UNIT AID BACKED BY SENATE
KENNETH B. NOBLE, Special to the New York Times. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Sep 25, 1982. pg. 1.39
(snip)
The Senate bill, sponsored by Jake Garn, Republican of Utah, chairman of the Banking Committee, would make available Governmentguaranteed promissory notes to bolster the net worth of faltering savings and loan associations and mutual savings banks.
In effect, if a thrift institution’s net worth - the amount by which assets exceed liabilities - fell below a certain level, the Government would add to the institution’s assets by authorizing Federal regulators to provide income-capital certificates, a kind of interest-bearing promissory note already being used by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board to bolster ailing savings and loan associations.
The Senate proposal would require no direct Government appropriations because the certificates are backed by money that already exists in the Federal depository insuring agencies. The House version, on the other hand, would require the appropriation of $8.5 billion to back the notes in case they were cashed.
The need to bolster the assets of thrift institutions results from months of high interest rates that have made the cost of deposits higher than the income the thrift institutions earn from their portfolios, which are dominated by long-term mortgages and bonds with relatively low yields.
The Senate bill, called the Depository Institutions Amendments of 1982, directs Federal regulators, in the form of the Depository Institutions Deregulation Commmittee, to create a new instrument for banks and thrift institutions intended to be competitive with money market funds.
I didn't realize Rudy was a baby killer .....I thought he was just passing that decision off to others to make. Thanks.
It is my understanding that it was not the Garn amendment that did that, but other provisions of the Act.
What were you suggesting with this excerpt from the article?
That Rudy's endorser is a felon.
This guy desperately needs someone to plug him back into reality.
Religious conservatives voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 because he mouthed all the right platitudes. They stayed away in droves in 2006 when they realized it really was all just lip service. Giuliani doesn’t even bother with the lip service.
Once again, for slow learners like Schmidt, Republicans get elected when the uneasy coalition of country-clubbers, libertarians, and social conservatives finds a candidate they don’t viscerally hate. If any one of the three parts of that coalition bails out, the GOP loses. In Giuliani’s case, two of the three parts, the libertarians and the social conservatives, will not come out in the numbers he needs.
I feel quite confident that the Clinton campaign is making nightly burnt offerings to whichever gods they worship in the hope that the GOP is pathetically stupid enough to nominate Giuliani.
This rino want government funded abortions, close enough for many.
That's true. Does that also make President Bush and Giuliana a felon because they accepted his money?
Oh, I've nothing against Thompson, he was just a paid lobbyist, he worked for Tennessee Savings and Loan League.
As a congress critter would he supported it? I have no idea.
If Thompson becomes a candidate for president He'll probably be asked about it.
Christians for killing innocent babies. Christians for perverted sodomy. Christians for adultery. Christians for Rudy.
All equally ahborrent!
"And they'll know we are Christians by our love . . . "
No. And I didn’t imply it did.
All I demonstrated is that this liberal blogger from West Hollywood (thread subject) is touting Rudy’s endorsement by a convicted felon. Nothing more, nothing less.
clapclap
I always did think that the thinnest ice was where I did the best skating. :)
Hold on to your oar, there is some whitewater ahead.
Gets better. I just offered Jimrob two grand to ban Spiff and EternalVigilance.
I don't think you can support abortion and really believe in God. Lot's of folks call themselves 'Christians' but are really agnostics or athiests and use the Church more as a social club or for networking. The Unitarians are a good example. I doubt 5% of those people have actually accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior.
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.