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.
He accurately stated that he can't guarantee what a judge will do. History backs him up.
Irrelevant. The title of the article is "Christians for Giuliani". The article did not address the fundamentals of Chistianity, which are priciples that are flat out rejected by Giuliani. Christians are concerned about principles, not beating the Clintons, or winning. In the old days, Christians flat out refused to reject their principles in the face of death. The Roman's and jihadists referred to them in terms that equate to losers. It's no different today, when the theats are less ominous.
No, he said a lot more than that. He allowed a strict constructionist to uphold Roe.
However, if a judge upheld Roe, he would no longer be a strict constructionist.
Rudy redifined the term to have no meaning.
Does Rudy-Aid impact your reading comprehension? This stuff has been gone over ad naseum, yet you keep spewing the same completely-discredit talking points. Is that all you have left?
No, not godless heathens. Just a healthy disrespect for conservative principles and the GOP platform.
I repeat.:
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.
Hunter
Who is your candidate?
What does hydroshock's candidate have to do with Rudy's
Or is that just your way of dodging yet another inconvient fact about Rudy?
Do you have a link for that? I am a Duncan Hunter person myself, but I want to keep onto of all of the Rep. candidates.
You can repeat all you want, but a true tax-cutter will take any opportunity to cut taxes.
You have a lack of understanding. Relax a bit and do some thinking.
A blog from West Hollywood.
Interesting.
You may not see a difference but our brave Armed Forces will. America needs a strong Commander in Chief, you sitting home going 3rd party and allowing Hillary in is an absolute insult to these brave people and a disservice.
I've thought plenty. Do you believe a judge who would uphold Roe is a strict constructionist?
He has had no national security or foriegn policy experience, so what the heck makes you think this liberal will be goo on defense?
That's really losing it. Sounds like a disruptor.
Maybe some in california but there is no way I will hold my nose and vote for Rudy..
IOW, the writer is a liberal who would vote for Hillary.
But if the Republicans put up a lib like Rudy, he might consider voting for him.
Do you see this as a pro Rudy article?
Same here.
Why?
Just can't stand Rudy the socialist/progressive/liberal. Obama/Giuliani 2008. dream team
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.