A Knife to the Throat (Nominating Giuliani Would Be "The Death Knell of the Reagan Coalition")

American Spectator ^ | 05/01/2007 | G. Tracy Mehan III

[commonguymd]

Hard to be a Republican when you are a conservative. The GOP is ramming a liberal down our throats and in the last 6-10 years has capitulated to the left and what did it get them? The left in this country united in hatred for this country and drove the party more to the left. It worked in uniting them. We can do the same by uniting the party in love for this country, our freedoms, our values, and our principles. Just my opinion. Move it right back to family, freedom, patriotism, and God.

[LegendHasIt]

And you STILL can’t give me a specific alternative.

Well, if you can figure out how to get “NORUDY” on the ballot, Fine and dandy. I’ll check that one off if the only choices are “Rudy” and “NORUDY” and whoever the Dem and Green candidates are.

I’ve always been a proponent of having a “None of the above” on the ballots, requiring a ‘do-over’ if that gets more votes than any candidate. But It ‘ain’t happened yet’ and I don’t think the FEC is going to allow it in 2008.

So, pardon me if I don’t hold my breath waiting for a ballot with “NORUDY” on it.

[since 1854]

I have principles too, and they include preferring Rudy Giuliani for President over Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

[since 1854]

Agreed, as my book is entitled Back to Basics for the Republican Party. See http://grandoldpartisan.typepad.com

Cheers,

[WorkerbeeCitizen]

OldFriend, I will worry about Rudy, it is the only prudent action. I ignore no facts.

I see see no President as flawless, Reagan just had fewer flaws then slick Willie and compared to Rudy, he was darn near perfect.

I should make perfectly clear my position. If Rudy receives the Republican nomination, I vote third party. I will not just settle for what the party offeres this go around.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Here's my perspective, as a BC04 County Chairman in a highly contested county in a battleground state: We won in 2004 because of the ground organization in the swing states. While the Democrats had the unions and the rest of the "usual suspect" organizations, all fueled by Soros' money, we had the social conservative element of the base, and were able to engage many, many evangelical Christians and Catholics, largely over the abortion issue. We will not have that kind of strength on the ground without their help.

As a County Coordinator here in my own state, I couldn't agree with you more! ;) It's the social conservatives -- many of them from working or middle class backgrounds; most of them religious -- who cheefully do all the essential, baseline "grunt" work, year after year after election year: door to door canvassing; stuffing envelopes; manning the phone banks; etc., etc.

Without these selefless, tireless (and absolutely essential) ground troops...? The 'rats outnumber us, boots-on-the-ground-wise, twelve, maybe even fifteen-to-one.

[commonguymd]

We have time to change the nominee. There are other options, but the MSM and GOP are pushing their preferred candidates upon us. The match this early in the game is too early to be determined even though the pundits want a Rudy Hillary matchup. Unfortunately for the conservative base of the Republican party the choice doesn’t leave much to be desired. We must push at the grass roots level to make sure the candidate is a good one. What a great opportunity it will be because if Hillary does win the democratic nomination, she will have the highest negatives ever. Why waste this great opportunity on someone that leaves the conservatives out in the cold, and out in the cold for decades. It will destroy the movement.

[L,TOWM]

On abortion, the integrity of marriage, and the Second Amendment, Giuliani puts a stick in the eye of social conservatives.

Just asked an R'bot I've been chatting with on the bug zapper thread how they feel about these exact three issues, about 10 minutes before I read this post-LOL.
Yes, this is a good post.

[commonguymd]

Thanks for the link. Is your book published - didn’t see anything on your website. I love history!

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

And you STILL can’t give me a specific alternative.

Lather, rinse, repeat. From posting #50:

Both of these idiotic Rudyphile talking points have long since been meticulously and thoroughly demolished on these very boards, over the past weeks, by any number of sensible, intelligent fellow FReepers taking pains to speak very slowly, and using very small words. There's no point whatsoever in sighing wearily and patiently reconstructing said arguments for yet the 5,000,001st time, at this juncture; nor even the need to do so, since all of said threads still exist, and can be (re-)read at anyone's convenience. Click on "Giuliani," under Popular Keywords, and start anywhere.

The "alternative"...? N-O R-U-D-Y... period. Any other Republican nominee -- even (*shudder*) McCain is a comparatively viable alternative.

As is plainly visible: you aren't being asked to write "NORUDY" onto a ballot, and pretending otherwise merely makes you look (alternately) petulant and foolish. The sentences say what they say -- no more, no less.

Which words are the ones giving you the most trouble in the excerpt, above? I've given adult instruction in ESL, prior to this; possible I can help you out, as well.

[since 1854]

Yes, there’s a link to it in the final paragraph of each blog item. See http://www.republicanbasics.com for more information.

[commonguymd]

Nevermind, followed a link to another website and there was an amazon link. I ordered a copy.

[dmw]

“I have principles too, and they include preferring Rudy Giuliani for President over Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.”

I respect that. However, we still have nine months to go before we need to commit to anyone. Why back a liberal when we have conservative candidates in the race? What if Fred Thompson gets in? Wouldn't he be a better choice than Rudy?

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

"[W]e still have nine months to go before we need to commit to anyone. Why back a liberal when we have conservative candidates in the race?"

E-X-A-C-T-L-Y. ;)

[Iwo Jima]

Been living in a cave the last week, have you?

[since 1854]

Fred is a very impressive guy. We shall see.

[sergeantdave]

We also need to assess the possibility that if Rudy wins the nomination, many social conservatives will stay home and not vote. If this were to happpen, the entire south may come into play for the rats as the republican vote decreases by 5 to 10%.

Perhaps this is why liberals support Rudy, so winning the south will become a viable possibility in the ‘08 election.

And should the rats wins the south, they will consider that a mandate to impose the most radical Marxist agenda they believe they can get away with.

[MindBender26]

Jim,

I think this is all mental masturbation. We are 12 months from the time the general public even begins to think about who will be the next president. Anyone with any interest now is firmly in the R or D camp, a C or a L.

The middle of the roaders, the ones who actually decide a election, are far too busy working, etc. to be interested 16 months out.

The current “race” is a bit like the Miss World contest. It’s a media-driven hype fest bent on driving viewers to their sets for a short time, increasing rating so they can sell more soap, then quickly forgotten as the viewer-voters quickly tire of the contenders who have demonstrated themselves without real talent beyond hiring a chest-inflating plastic surgeon or rah-rah spouting political poll-taker/script writer.

This all began as an attempt by the Ds to try to make GB look irrelevant and a further attempt by TV to boost tanking ratings.

I think the nominees will be people not now seriously considered. They will be fresh faces if you will. The R will be someone who will be a strong white man to lead us “out of this mess” while the D candidate will be someone preaching the D mantra of “it takes a village.... and a huge government” to run your lives.

[rightwingextremist1776]

bump for later

[Jim Noble]

We won in 2004 because of the ground organization in the swing states. While the Democrats had the unions and the rest of the "usual suspect" organizations, all fueled by Soros' money, we had the social conservative element of the base, and were able to engage many, many evangelical Christians and Catholics, largely over the abortion issue. We will not have that kind of strength on the ground without their help.

Yours is a very important post.

Your analogy with the unions and other, unnamed RAT organizations is apt.

But it doesn't prove your point, in some respects, it undermines your point.

The left has been engaged in a hundred year war to overturn the culture and seize what Lenin called "the commanding heights of power". Their approach has been incremental, and they are relentless.

But they are greater than each of their constituent groups, and the constituent groups know it.

Let's look at unions.

The unions have been failing, politically, since at least the 1950s, as the country moves rightward. Their basic ideology, socialism, has been proven false over and over again. The revolutionary social ideologies of the left are anathema to most union members.

And yet...

Every election day, there they are, shutting up and soldiering, and as a result, bit by bit, inch by inch, they are getting their hands on the levers of power, confident that WHEN (not if) a leftist government comes to power BY WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY, they will be rewarded.

They did not make any RAT candidate promise to repeal the secret union ballot last time around. They knew that, for many candidates, such a test of purity would be suicidal.

But today, the secret ballot is a goner, and blind voting loyalty is the reason.

The comparison with the Presidential debates around here is, I hope, instructive.