I'm goin' slooo today...;0)
Posted on 06/09/2007 8:48:50 AM PDT by hardback
Most election years, uninspired voters have little choice but to follow the example of W.C. Fields who said, “I never vote for anyone; I always vote against.”
But not this year, and not in the GOP.
Watching “Rudy McRomney” (as the frontrunners have sometimes been dubbed) debate in New Hampshire, it was hard to believe that as recently as 1996, the major contenders for the Republican nomination were Bob Dole and Pat Buchanan.
If either of them had approached the stage Tuesday night, they would have been tackled by security and dragged from the building.
The GOP field for 2008 is a tough crowd. Tough, and talented.
Take John McCain, for example. He’s a war hero, he won the New Hampshire primary in 2000, he’s one of the most prominent members of the U.S. Senate, he gets more TV time than Paris Hilton and he’s in fourth place in the most recent Rasmussen poll of likely GOP voters.
This is partially due to McCain’s politically suicidal support for the Kennedy/Kyl amnesty plan. Of all the strategies he could have used to woo GOP voters Tuesday night, his ham-fisted inference that his opponents are anti-Hispanic bigots was probably the least productive.
But if McCain could somehow sell his “Illegals Stay, Americans Pay” Z-visa plan, he would still be up against a much tougher field than he faced in 2000. McCain’s only opponent that year was a “legacy” from Texas who couldn’t pronounce the word “nuclear” without the “y.”
If the George W. Bush of 2000 had to run as a candidate today, he’d be fighting Jim Gilmore and Sam Brownback for top spot in the second tier. And the George Bush of 2007 would do even worse.
Democrats know this, and they’re counting on Bush’s lousy numbers to hurt the GOP in 2008. They’re probably right.
But Democrats should remember that Americans vote for individual candidates, not political parties. And how do the Democratic frontrunners compare with the GOP?
Here’s one measure: John McCain has been in the U.S. Senate longer than Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards combined.
Obama has never run for office outside liberal Illinois, and Hillary Clinton had to leave Little Rock for Chappaqua to find a winnable Senate seat. Meanwhile Mitt Romney - a member of both the Republican Party and a religious group best known for its history of polygamy - was elected governor of the bluest state in America.
And then there’s Giuliani.
Set aside Rudy’s two wins in liberal New York City. Set aside his inspiring performance as mayor on and after 9/11. Set aside the fact that he’s literally on a first-name basis with every voter in America.
Set all that aside, and still this fact remains: If there is another serious, successful terrorist attack between now and the national conventions, the only question about 2008 will be whether the Democrats nominate Giuliani, too.
Again and again Tuesday night, Rudy Giuliani showed that on the big issues (not the “creation/abortion” obsessions of Wolf Blitzer), he “gets it.” He knows that America’s top three issues are national security, national security and national security, followed by illegal immigration, which is also a national security issue.
Is he pro-choice? Is he pro-gay? Who cares? He’s pro-kick-terrorist-butt, and he’s tough enough to do it.
Plus Giuliani is smart. Unlike Bush, who seems to take pride in his political ineptitude, Giuliani is a talented pol. When lightning strikes - literally in the case of Tuesday’s debate - Giuliani knows how to seize the political moment.
And if he stumbles, if McCain melts down, if Romney flip-flops into oblivion, what then?
The Republicans always have their movie star.
I'm goin' slooo today...;0)
Bologna.
Life is the most important right of every age, and Rudy vaguely gets it.
Otherwise, he wouldn’t be trumpeting this nonsense about this war being the defining issue...blah, blah, blah.
It’s important because they want to take our LIFE. Without it, of course, we’re dead. :>) Dead men don’t tell tells...nor vote, nor buy homes, nor contribute to society...
Why is blowing up the WTC different than killing 40 million babies since Roe?
“Is he pro-choice? Is he pro-gay? Who cares?”
Idiot. Rudy’s nomination would destroy the GOP.
It would be a lose/lose for conservatives on Nov 2008.
Consider immigration:
“I believe the anti-immigration movement in America is one of our most serious public problems.” — Rudy Giuliani, Oct. 10, 1996.
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/05/23/rudy-the-mayor-of-sanctuary-city/
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002011.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1782954/posts
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/005877.html
Guliani supported the Bush position on immigration. Guliani will be more liberal on immigration than Romney and Thompson and certainly the real hawks like Hunter and tancredo.
HOW CAN RUDY BE GOOD FOR NATIONAL SECURITY WHEN HE’S WEAK ON ENFORCING IMMIGRATION LAW IN THE CITIES?
The War On Terror? What’s that got to do with Paris Hilton?
I dont see why this has a barf alert....odds are Rudy is going to win the nomination
I haven’t made my mind up on whom I am supporting. None of these candidates thrill me but I for the life of me cannot figure out why FR has decided to throw Rudy under the bus at this juncture. If the WOT is the most important issue in 2008, then Rudy is defintiely worthy of consideration.
I may be one of the only Freepers left who will publicly admit to being a Rudy supporter. Obviously I think its foolish to discount a candidate who is at the top of the polls. 2008 is going to be about the WOT, and frankly its my top issue. Social issues are going to be small potatoes.
Giuliani is one of the weakest GOP candidates on Islamofascism. His “solution” is to take us back to 90s police tactics. His three talking points are PATRIOT Act, surveillance, interrogation. He can redefine these as “being on the offense” all he likes, but the reality is that these are defensive tactics primarily designed to fight terrorism here, rather than overseas.
Of course, he doesn’t have a clue about how to fight overseas, because he has absolutely zero foreign policy experience. Here’s Mark Steyn on Giuliani and the GWOT: “The one I find actually rather disappointing is Giuliani . . . when you listen to him speak, what worries me is that he has a sort of airport security approach to the war. And he’s not actually very good when he’s talking about the big foreign policy aspects of it and the big geopolitical thing. He’s very good if you want to hunker down and have a security checkpoint. He’s the guy who’d be good for manning that checkpoint.”
The GWOT and the Constitution are my top issues — that’s why I oppose Giuliani. He’s unqualified on both counts.
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.