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.
What pubbie candidate doesn't?
Because he supports lower taxes.
He opposed the repeal of the NYC commuter tax.
Because he supports educational choice.
He's square on that one - but again, so are most pubbies.
Because he is a strong capitalist.
Yeah, he and Bernie Kerik were partners in one company, and he's partners in a lobbying company as well.
Because he will appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court.
If you can define a conservative as someone who would uphold Roe as precedent, which Rudy said a strict constructionist could do.
Because he believes in state’s rights on life.
He's praised Roe, for cryin' out loud.
Because he is a law and order guy as he’s shown in NYC.
Yep, he banned ferrets and the sale of box-cutters to 20-year-olds. However, if you were acquitted of drunk driving, Rudy still wanted to seize your car.
Because he believes in personal responsiblity.
For everyone but himself.
Because he truly is a uniter and not a divider.
Ya could have fooled me, seeing the rifts Rudy is causing in the party.
Man, who the heck scooped out the conservative side of your brain with a rusty melonballer? Or is that just a side effect of drinking too much Rudy-Aid? Almost none of your talking points stands up to the slightest scrutiny.
I guess he's going to get more than he needs.
I don’t think he’s lying.
I do. After all he is a politican, they are good at that.
That is the hope of Rino-haters on FR and of MSM LIBERAL supporters but it's beginning to look like his support is across the board.
If you can’t keep a marriage vow, in my experience your word is meaningless.
I don’t hate Rudy and I don’t hate people who support him.
Yet this statement simply cannot go unchalleneged:
“Because he truly is a uniter and not a divider.”
I’ve watched The Thread with interest, shock and real sorrow in the last several days. From that and from just normal conversations out in the real world with regular people, I’m seeing a definite division in the GOP over Rudy.
What that means as far as the nomination process has yet to play out...but I must disagree with the statement that Rudy is a uniter.
His own words betray him - after saying he would appoint strict constructionists, he re-defined the term to allow a strict constructionist to uphold Roe as precedent.
Check the poll on this site, about 50% say they will go third party if someone like him is nominated. Yes this site is not the rest of America, but I think you will see 10% to 15% of the 35% of base that walk rather then vote for this lying rino.
Were his lips moving?
I have been keeping my eye on the bumper stickers on cars in my mostly conservative church parking lot. I have seen Fred Thompson, Brownback, Romney, and Tancredo in that order, But NO Rudy and NO McCain.
On my car? Fred
He'd have to be strong on illegal immigration. And being for a secure border. A "virtual fence" and a guest worker program - along with his defiance of federal law and the SCOTUS when he refused to change NYC's sanctuary city status - does not scream "strong on national defense". If anything, he's 50/50 on this issue.
Because he supports lower taxes.
He lowered taxes at first...but he criticized Pataki's proposed tax cuts and proceeded to endorse Mario Cuomo. He opposed the repeal of the commuter tax, and has said before that ruling out tax raises is not out of the picture. His strength here is marred by some rather odd moves.
Because he supports educational choice.
Don't really have anything to complain about here. But I do recall something being said about this...maybe someone can help me out here.
Because he is a strong capitalist.
His strength here is marred by his criticism of removing immigrants, legal and illegal, from state and federal welfare due to welfore reform legislation. Spending increased dramatically in the last half of his mayoral term - after he had done so well too - and left NYC with a big deficit. Here, his strength/weakness ratio is 65/35.
Because he will appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court.
Ah yes, the "strict constructionist" angle. Do you honestly think a man who believes that abortion should be publicly-funded for poor women, while simultaneously believing that it's okay to call for the national regulation of our 2nd Amendment RKBA, will live up to his word (his record of appointing liberal judges notwithstanding).
Because he believes in state’s rights on life.
Which contradicts everything he's said and advocated since...well, ever. This is a man who's rated 100% by NARAL. So either you haven't been reading up on all of the information on Rudy's pro-abortion record, or you're being willfully ignorant.
Because he is a law and order guy as he’s shown in NYC.
Brought down crime, but called for national gun control after a shooting at the Empire State Building, defied federal law (even after the SCOTUS turned his lawsuit down) by keeping NYC a sanctuary city, defied state law when he offered welfare benefits for immigrants, defied the 1st Amendment when he sued a newspaper that paid for advertisements mocking him on a bus, etcetera, continue ad nauseum.
Because he believes in personal responsiblity.
I snorted here. Mr. Three Wives? Mr. "Announce My Divorce at a Press Conference Without Telling My Wife or My Children?" Sure. Right.
Because he truly is a uniter and not a divider.
Then you haven't been paying attention to what's been going on here at FR. Also note from above his endorsement of Democrat Cuomo over Republican Pataki, and his support for Clinton's assault weapons ban despite overwhelming Republican dissent against it.
Some uniter.
If you do some research you'll understand that he was doing his job as Mayor of NYC. The state government in Albany sprung this on him just as he was about to cut taxes in the city. So think about it. They were going to take away revenue from the area he governed. It was a political battle between the city and the state and does not reflect his opposition to tax cuts but rather his advocacy for the people he represents.
Who is your candidate?
If he was truly into cutting taxes, he would have gone along with it. You just undermined your entire position.
I have heard him many times in support of the Iraq War and that it's the right thing to do. He fully supports staying on the offensive. He's been quite clear about that.
Rudy has very few strengths. His biggest asset is his celebrity. If not for 911, he’d have as much chance as his soulmate Bloomberg in the GOP primary.
Same here.
But then according to the self-appointed Pharisees of Free Republic, you and I are really just godless heathens.
I even saw someone on here yesterday saying that Jesus would be ok with calling Giuliani an "asshole." LOL.
He's also said it would not be catastrophic if we lose the war. He's left himself an out.
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.