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.
Yeah....right
Before that, he was the New York version of Mayor Daley.
So, a pro-life second amendment supporter is unelectable? Sorry but I don't buy that for a second. At worst the abortion issue splits right down the middle. Further, since the VT shootings it seems to be the the big dems who are avoiding launching another anti-gun crusade, in fact they seem scared to death of the issue. I think a hard core anti-gun, pro-abortion position would be much more damaging to a pol than the opposite.
Not this one.
The author comes right out and says in the first sentence that he would vote for Hillary.
Still pushing the stupid polls, I see.
As a Christians, his social ideas as well as policies are questionable. I’m not an one issue voter but his wishy-washiness on abortion makes me question him in “all” areas.
Christians for Rino Rudy = Jews for Hitler
Both incredible dumb moves.
No kidding.
Sorry Rooty. The Clintons already have those kind of "Christians" in the bag.
You interpreted that incorrectly. It simply means that Rudy was not involved in the Iraq War Resolution nor any decision to go to war such as Hillary, or McCain.
This is a huge distortion of the facts, although I see you use weasle words to couch your accusation. Rudy was asked to stay because New Yorkers said they wanted him too. He said he would do what was needed to ease the transition.
Oh my.
You admire Obama the socialist?
They got stuck with Kerry after the "scream."
It goes without saying, it would be a sin to vote for a man whose beliefs are hostile to Biblical morality.
What he means is that Rudy is so much of a liberal, that the difference between him and Hillabama, with the exception of one or two issues, is nonexistent.
Not a big motivator for conservative voters, that.
See, when you say things like that you loose all credibility.
I think JulieAnnie would get the Log Cabin Republican vote with no problem.
Well stated!
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.