Posted on 09/22/2007 12:23:06 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
One GOP campaigner reminds me that a Jan. 10, 1980 Gallup Poll had Reagan trailing Carter 63 percent to 32 percent.
March 1980 analysis from a columnist at the Globe and Mail:
THE PRESIDENT of the United States from 1980 to 1984 will be one of the following three people: Jimmy Carter, Howard Baker or Gerald Ford.
It's rather early in the election season for such pointed speculation. But a look at the situation reveals that the prediction is not all that chancy.
It is now almost certain that Mr. Carter is going to be the Democratic nominee. Ronald Reagan is the most likely choice for the Republican nomination, but he could not beat Jimmy Carter in the fall. Nor could George Bush.
Mr. Baker and Mr. Ford are the only two Republicans with a shot at the nomination who could defeat the incumbent President.
Republican candidate John Anderson, a dark horse, said the other day that if the Republicans nominate Mr. Reagan it's political suicide. He's right. Most polls show that, going head-to-head against Mr. Carter, Mr. Reagan would lose by 2-1. The former California governor would be the Barry Goldwater of 1980. He is too right-wing to appeal to enough moderates to win and he is too prone to incredible gaffes.
LOLOL - You still shilling for this metrosexual lisping gun-grabbing authoritarian? Get real. Rudy is a joke. I bet that was probably one of his homosexual friends on the other line from that phone call he took at the NRA.
Good analysis!
Finny, though Rudy and Arnold are socially liberal, what I’ve noticed is that Arnold would rather give in to his opponents than confront them. He’s definitely a Hollywood actor in that he has a strong desire to be universally loved. I honestly believe Rudy’s much different in that regard. People forget that before 9/11, New Yorkers hated Mayor Rudy - because of his tough stance on crime, his insistence that welfare recipients go to work. And I remember his very vocal opposition to using public funds to show the ‘Piss Christ’ exhibit at a NY public museum. (Hillary challenged him on that one when they were running for the Senate - she wouldn’t dare do that today.)
Rudy has said he’s against Roe v. Wade because he believes the states should decide the abortion issue. He’s promised to appoint SCOTUS justices who will overturn it. Is he lying to get elected? I don’t know. What I do know is that even the ‘Democrat Rudy’ of your nightmares will be a much better president than Hillary Clinton. The idea of Hillary Clinton as Commander in Chief is galling. And the Democrats controlling all three branches of government would simply be horrific for this country. They would have free reign to impose their failed social experiments on us all.
Conservatives will not vote for a gun grabbing, and especially a “sanctuary city” Republican. Rudy would lose,
period.
“I doubt if he will win the nomination, but if he does, the GOP will once again deserve the moniker “the Stupid Party” because Rudy will take the party down to a crashing defeat. It is so obvious that I cannot believe there are people who do not see it.”
Neither can I.
Correction - Ford didn’t lose to Carter because he was a moderate. He lost MODERATE VOTERS because he pardoned Nixon -plain and simple. And even then he lost by a narrow margin.
George Bush 41 lost because of the downturn in the economy and Ross Perot - not because of his moderate views. He lost moderates in 1992. But he had them in 1988, when he won by a landslide. That’s because compared to Michael Dukakis, 41 looked like a conservative.
Hillary Clinton will make Michael Dukakis look like a conservative, I promise you that. She hasn’t changed an iota since her radical days back in the 1960’s....she’s only repackaged herself to appeal to moderates.
In 2008, the country is going to choose a moderate president.
LOL! Like the comments to the vid too.
You are wrong. Rudy never said he was against Roe v. Wade. And he never promised to appoint SCOTUS justices who will overturn it. He promised to appoint “strict constructionists” and went on to say that a strict constructionist Justice could either overturn Roe or retain it as a precedent and he would consider either course to be a “strict constructionist” result. That is exactly what he said.
“Conservatives will not vote for a gun grabbing, and especially a “sanctuary city” Republican. Rudy would lose, period.”
Yes they would. By nominating someone who can’t win the general election or by sitting out of the general election, those conservatives you speak of will be handing the election to Hillary Clinton.
He said he would appoint justices to the Supreme Court “in the mold of current justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.”
I could live with that. You know, Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’ Conner, and SHE was no friend of the pro-life movement. Why is Reagan so beloved by all of us? Probably because of what he did to end the Cold War, to lower taxes.
In 2008, the country is going to choose a conservative President or a liberal President. If Rudy is the nominee, it will be Hillary Clinton. If, as I contend, Rudy is not the nominee and Fred Thompson faces Hillary, he will defeat her handily.
Ford was a terrible candidate. He lost because he forgot that the Soviet Union ruled Poland and because he was not a conservative. He inspired no one, most especially the base. And what is his legacy? John Paul Stevens, 30 years of liberal activism on the Supreme Court. Stevens is more liberal than Breyer. No thanks to a moderate.
So Bush 41 lost because the economy turned down? Why do you think the economy turned down? Because of the TAX HIKE. Let me give you a little economics lesson since you are new here. Tax increases cause and deepen recessions. Bush swore up and down that he would never raise taxes (”Read my lips..”) He did, and he was toast.
When the Republicans nominate moderates, they wind up either losing to liberals or governing like liberals. In 1988, the top marginal tax rate was 28%. After 20 years of Bush- Clinton, it is 35%. I rest my case.
This is a conservative country, not a moderate one. What happened with the Immigration bill and with the state constitutional amendments on marriage make that very clear. It is not the country that has become less conservative over the last 20 years, it is the leadership, especially the Republican leadership that has become more “moderate” as you put it, with disastrous results.
If the Republicans nominate a liberal like Rudy, declaring war on their base, the blame for Hillary’s election will lie with the GOP, not with conservatives. Conservatives do not vote for liberals, as Jim Robinson himself says.
If you signed up here to pump Rudy, you will be profoundly disappointed.
No. In 2008 the country is going to choose what they believe is a moderate candidate. The difference is, Rudy will be the only moderate. Hillary is trying to repackage herself as one, just as her husband did in 1992. And as much as I despise the woman, the Clintons are masters at altering perception.
Fred Thompson can not beat Hillary. There simply aren’t enough conservatives to give him the presidency. Look at how many people now identify themselves as Republican as compared to Democrats. Where did Democrats get their gains - from conservatives disgusted with the GOP? No! From moderates.
This is a moderate country. Rudy’s views on abortion are closer in line to the majority’s opinion than Fred Thompson’s are. The biggest issue in 2008 will be an unpopular war in Iraq.
I agree the GOP doesn’t fare well when they run moderate candidates. But this year, they won’t have a choice. The country wants change. If the GOP doesn’t go along with that, they’ll be out in November 2008.
You have your view and I have mine. You favor the moderate Bush-Ford Republican, in spite of the historical evidence against such a course. I favor the Reagan paradigm because it works (landslides in 1980 and 1984). Being too conservative is not what brought the Republicans to their current low estate. It was being too “moderate”. The last thing the GOP needs is a good dose of liberalism (Rudy). Time will prove where wisdom lies.
Actually my political views are probably very similiar to yours. No, I don’t favor a Bush-Ford moderate Republican. I’m saying that in 2008, voters want change, and anyone percieved to be close to George W. Bush won’t win. That said, I’ll vote for Fred if he’s the nominee.
Actually my political views are probably very similiar to yours. No, I don’t favor a Bush-Ford moderate Republican. I’m saying that in 2008, voters want change, and anyone percieved to be close to George W. Bush won’t win. That said, I’ll vote for Fred if he’s the nominee.
There’s nothing middle of the road about Rudy, He has always been left of center.
Sure, I bet that is why he ran away from the last chance he had to beat her. Remember the NY Senate election?
You are wrong concerning Bush 41. He lost because of his “Read my Lips” episode. He raised taxes which is where the moderate problem comes in.
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.