Posted on 10/10/2007 11:47:13 AM PDT by TitansAFC
Front-runner Rudy Giuliani increasingly claims the mantle of invincibility -- issues, schmissues, he's the only guy who can beat Hillary.
Judging from my recent cocktail party conversations, it's having an impact. But these same conversations reveal how much wishful thinking goes into the myth of Rudy the Invincible.
"I can't believe the American people will vote for that woman and her husband, a philanderer," one wealthy businessman told me.
"Who are you supporting?" I innocently inquired.
"Rudy," he said.
Can you spell "cognitive dissonance"?
Sean Hannity spends hours every afternoon criticizing those in the GOP coalition (such as Dr. James Dobson) who won't vote for Rudy; sure Giuliani may be wrong on gay marriage and abortion, but he'll be much better than Hillary because he'll appoint "strict constructionist" Supreme Court justices, right?
More self-delusion. Bucking the tide by appointing judges with sufficient intellectual integrity to overturn Roe v. Wade is very hard. Ronald Reagan wanted to do it, and he got it right only once. Even President Bush put appointing his good friend Harriet Miers ahead of appointing a Sam Alito. Only when the base went ballistic did Bush back down, and only because he really is a conservative who cares about what conservatives think.
Rudy? Here's a safe bet: He will appoint a loyalist crony to the bench. When the base erupts, he'll tell the base where it can stick its objections. That's Rudy.
When he's on your side, you admire how fearlessly he will defend your views. When he's not on your side, he ruthlessly steamrolls over you. And on abortion? Don't kid yourself: Rudy is not on our side.
And the Supreme Court is not the only issue of concern to social conservatives. What will Rudy do if and when a resurgent Democrat majority tries to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding for abortion? Or for that matter overturns the federal definition of marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act? Will Rudy spend his political capital on vetoing either of these? He's made us no promises. Instead, he's counting on widespread self-delusion and cognitive dissonance to carry enough social conservatives to win the nomination.
My question is: What is he counting on afterward? Because, frankly, Rudy's electoral prospects don't look that good.
The once-powerful Reagan coalition had three legs -- strong on defense, less government and social conservatism. But the war in Iraq is not the same as the war on communism. It's very unpopular, and Rudy has become as identified with this unpopular war as John McCain. Meanwhile, he has abandoned social conservatism. What's left of the Reagan coalition for Rudy to run on? Naked fiscal conservatism? Conservatives are deluding themselves if they think fiscal conservatism by itself is a winning political coalition. Do they not remember the party of Gerald Ford? It was very fiscally conservative, socially moderate, and a permanent minority party.
The halo of "America's Mayor" is already slipping. For months, polls showed Rudy Giuliani leading Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head matchup, but by June of this year that lead had begun to evaporate. The latest poll, conducted in late September by ABC News and The Washington Post, shows Hillary Clinton beating Rudy Giuliani by eight points. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney trails Clinton in a head-to-head matchup in the latest Rasmussen poll by only nine points. One point better than Romney does not a convincing argument make for abandoning all principles.
And that's before Christian conservative leaders bolt the party, which has abandoned them on abortion, to run a third-party candidate.
A little political realism, please. If you think a candidate who breaks up the Republican Party is the best man to lead the nation, vote for Rudy. But don't imagine, it's going to be easy to elect him.
I’m sure thats the case. Still, he’s making the same mistake Guiliani is, think whats good for a metropolis is good for the other 95% of the nation, that doesn’t live in those huge urban jungles.
Too many New Yorkers believe New York City is the center of the universe. Hannity and Rudy among them....
You have two hours of debate with nine candidates. 30% of the time is taken up by the persons asking the questions. 10% of the time is breaks/commercials. That leaves 60% of the time divided nine ways = 8 minutes per candidate to answer approximately 8-10 questions (not always divided equally between candidates and not counting applause time). I think Huckabee probably had about 2 minutes yesterday to talk about where he was coming from on taxes. These aren’t debates, they are sound bites and attempts at “Gotchas”.
Ping!
I'm with you. I think Romney polls lousy in the South because nobody ever heard of him, or at least a lot of folks don't know him. Once he starts winning some early primaries he'll jump into first.
We banded together back in 2006 to keep control of Congress, and we all see how well that worked out.
If we were talking about supporting a decent Republican and easily defeating Hilary, then yes I’d be on board. But you can’t just toss up a pro-choice leader soft on gun control and gay rights, and expect the Bible belt to go along with it. This is literally the lesser of two evils.
I don’t want Hilary to win any more than you. But God a-mighty, I don’t want to spend the next four years defending someone I can’t stand. I voted for Bush in 2004 because I thought he would be more aggressive on convservative issues, and he has done about zero to help the religious right.
I’m not saying I won’t support any Republican. I’m saying don’t dress up a liberal in an elephant costume and tell me to vote for him or else.
When the going gets tough, Rudy bows to liberal pressure. He always has. I agree with some of the others on here: we can’t be sure he’ll do us proud once elected anyway.
I'd rather have Hillary and a rightious and vehement oppositional Republican Party than Rudy and the Rinocrats rolling over again and again. I like gridlock.
You haven’t done your homework if you like Romney. He is a “tell them what I think they want to hear guy”. Go back to his campaigns for the Senate against Ted (which he lost) and his campaign for Governor. He has one set of values for Mass. voters and another set for the country. He is a lot slicker and polished than John Edwards of the Democrat party, but he is his equal when it comes to being a hypocrit.
If Rudy gets the GOP nod...Bloomberg is going to cut him to shreds with some of his chump change.... bet on it
Gridlock IS the best we could hope for, but you has better do a State by State analysis of what is probably going to happen in the Senate and the House with a Hillary win. There wont be enough votes to create gridlock and Hillary will get her way on everything. Check the math.
Don't know where Maggie Gallagher lives, but Rudy's past almost always comes up when talking about him. In fact, it came up almost immediately when I attended a GOP happy hour on the hill last Friday.
That also includes any of the above, whether they have a "D" OR an "R" after their names.
In other words, I WOULD rather vote for Homer Simpson than either Hillary, Obama, RINO-rudy, etc.
Can I be any more clear on this?
“He has one set of values for Mass. voters and another set for the country. He is a lot slicker and polished than John Edwards of the Democrat party, but he is his equal when it comes to being a hypocrit.”
Amen old pro, I second and third and fourth it all! Mitt is a flip-flopper worse than John Kerry. He’d say Martians waged war on Jupiter if it won a Republican vote.
Yes, the math stinks. My answer is to pray and pray hard, very hard to our Creator to preserve our freedom.
I’m not voting for Rudy under any circumstances. There is absolutely nothing that Rudy or the rinos running the RNC can do or say to change my mind.
Was it just me, or did anyone else notice the NYer love fest between Rudy and Christopher Matthews at the GOP debate???
Well my advice to you if you feel that strongly is start now to create either a new Conservative Party or challenge the Rino’s in the Republican Party. It is too late to do much about 08, but every movement had to start somewhere. It may take 12 or even 20 years and it will be an evolving process requiring a lot a patience, hard work and fund raising. I am too old for that stuff, so I will take my chances with what we have. I wish you well if you and other YOUNG conservatives want to take on this challenge. From an old Army guy may I give you a little hint of what will be the biggest foreign affairs issue in those future years... CHINA.
You may as well if Rudy gets the GOP nod......
This is the point I’m trying to get across. Folks like Hannity are trying to portray Guiliani as a good Republican choice.
If the election comes down to Hilary vs Rudy, it won’t be a simple case of blue vs. red. It’ll be blue vs purple.
So they fall back on saying, “well, yeah, he’s bad, but he’s not that bad,” I don’t want to vote for someone just because they’re not as bad a Hilary. That’s like eating pizza for dinner because it’s not as bad as McDonald’s....not the point!
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.