There are some cold hard facts we must face. Don’t get mad at the messanger for bringing this up.
Like Jimmy Carter in 1980, the country today sees George W. Bush as incompotent. With Carter it was Iran and the economy. With Bush it’s Iraq and Katrina. So any GOP nominee who’s closely associated with Bush will be a loser in 2008. That’s why I don’t think Fred Thompson has a chance.
It’s moderates who determine who wins the presidency. W. NEEDED Rudy (and Arnold) to win the election in 2004. In this election, Hillary’s going to appeal to those moderates, by reminding them of how wonderful things were under her husband’s administration. Now you and I know that’s BS, but I’m afraid moderates will disagree - simply because they’re fed up with Bush.
Fred Thompson has charisma and reflects the core values of his party’s base. So does Barak Obama. But the Dems won’t nominate him because they’re afraid he won’t appeal to moderates. Hillary Clinton’s entire schtick as a Senator has been to ‘appear’ to be a moderate. She’s despised our presence in Iraq as much as any Left Wing kook out there. But she voted for it, because she knows her party is seen as weak on defense.
Hillary’s weakness, as we all know, is that she’s not well-liked. She’s polarizing. Those are big negatives to moderates. I think Rudy is the best candidate to exploit that weakness. Rudy has a chance to win big states like Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Fred has no chance.
I’m going to vote for Rudy, even if I don’t agree with a lot of his social positions. I do believe Rudy is committed to carrying on the War on Terror. I do believe he’ll cut taxes.
The Dems are going to hold on the House next year, and probably pick up a few more Congressional seats. If they win the WH too, the War on Terror will be a memory, taxes will go up. They’ll care out their Left Wing agenda, and do as much damage to this country as Jimmy Carter did. In other words, we conservatives simply can’t afford to sit this election out.
Remember, in 1976, Gerald Ford was far more to the left than Rudy was. Would you have sat out that election, and allowed Jimmy Carter to win?
Whether people on this site want to believe it or not, the middle of the roaders will control this election, and I think Rudy fits the bill the best.
In 2000 there is no way in h*ll I would have considered Rudy, but today is a whole different ball game. Although the country may have soured on Iraq (although if push came to shove I think they would still prefer President Bushs approach over the surrender approach of the Dems), I think we as a country still know that the war against Islamic Fascism is the issue of the day. I think Rudy is the best, so far, on that subject. Fred may change my mind, but as of today I am frankly unimpressed with his approach. And I don't see him as the "change" the country is looking for.
Your sobering post on the wisdom of going with a moderate is distressing. Not because I don't agree -- you may very well be right -- but if you're right, we're screwed for the forseeable future.
Is "It is written ..." real?
Conservatives will not vote for a gun grabbing, and especially a “sanctuary city” Republican. Rudy would lose,
period.