Posted on 11/03/2007 5:12:27 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Most Republican presidential candidates can brag about attracting followers with their valiant stances on important issues.
Rudy Giuliani's followers support him because they think he can beat Hillary Clinton.
In and by itself, the reasoning of Giuliani's supporters is not illogical. Many people do take into account electability when voting for a primary candidate (although most will not sacrifice their basic principles in the name of an election victory).
The problem is, this perceived electability is the only thing going for Giuliani.
But here is the real kicker: Giuliani is not electable.
In fact, he is far less electable than the only other Republican frontrunners understood to be capable of beating Hillary, namely Fred Thompson and John McCain.
To this, Giuliani's people inevitably shout the following talking points: First, Giuliani's moderate standpoint will attract unaffiliated voters, and can help Republicans make up for the unpopularity they have inherited from the George W. Bush years. Second, Giuliani has a lot of conservative accomplishments going for him – just look at how he handled 9/11, reduced crime in New York City, and how he reduced crime in New York City while handling 9/11!
They fail on both points.
First, Giuliani is a liberal. He supports abortion, and welcomes illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities. He opposes gun rights. He supported a Democratic candidate for governor in New York, and among his 75 judicial appointments, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than eight to one.
Though he attempted to knock Thompson on tort reform in the last presidential debate, he failed to mention his own poor record on the matter. Only a few years ago he sued two dozen gun manufacturers and distributors for essentially being functioning gun manufacturers and distributors, calling them "an industry which profits from the suffering of innocent people."
Giuliani's supporters will concede that he is not that conservative on social issues, but that really it is a good thing because we don't want extremist evangelical Christians taking over the GOP. But opposing abortion, illegal immigration, gun control and liberal judges does not make you an extremist. It merely makes you conservative.
Knowing they lose on the social issues, the Giuliani team holds on tight to fiscal matters allegedly showing that the man is really conservative. Since economic questions are often not as black and white as social topics, the Giuliani team knows that critics will have a harder time debunking the myth of Giuliani's economic conservatism.
But it can be done, and briefly so.
Giuliani tenaciously battled the line-item veto, which allows the executive to cut waste from legislative bills, taking the fight as far as he could in the courts. Giuliani also defied the promise of free trade – perhaps the only concept economists virtually unanimously support – through his ardent opposition to NAFTA.
These facts might explain why Giuliani indiscriminately answers "crime" and "George Will said I'm conservative" during the presidential debates as many times as Ron Paul brings up "foreign policy" in response to completely unrelated questions. Giuliani has nothing else to run on in order to win over conservatives. Unlike the other candidates, he cannot brag about his primary strength – the perception that he is electable.
But the fact is, the general election will be no head-to-head match up if Giuliani is the Republican nominee. In 2004, the Constitution Party ran Michael Peroutka against President Bush, now widely considered to have pandered to social conservatives in extreme fashion. You bet these social conservatives would run a candidate against nominee Giuliani. You bet the Libertarian Party would eat away more Republican votes. And you bet Clinton would win.
Giuliani is a liberal. And if nominated by the GOP, he would be a liberal running against someone who is better at being liberal. He would have to compete just as hard for conservative votes as for liberal and moderate votes, and he will lose.
Giuliani is not conservative. Giuliani is not electable. A thorough look at his record, the polls and the political reality cannot lead to any other conclusion. He's got the worst of both worlds.
The top issue facing America is:
Statism, as envisioned by RUDYHILLARYREID.
Get a constitutional clue.
I hope you aren't operating under the illusion that Rudy, given a Democrat Congress, would veto any kind of liberal (read Socialist) legislation sent to his desk. Look at his record; not what he says to get your vote.
To the extent that the Iraqi government is not the sock puppet of American influence and has a working government, yes, you're right, the US is not "occupying" Iraq with about 160,000 troops in place there, a few tens of thousands lower than the number of troops occupying Germany a year or two after surrender.
In Germany, "[t]hese soldiers ... manned border crossings, maintained checkpoints at road junctions, and conducted patrols throughout the sector."
But if you think that this understanding of the situation is widespread in the American mindset, that "continued occupation" is not a phrase being drilled into the heads of the general public, then you're kidding yourself. You have to fight battles, and political battles, based on what the situation is, not what you'd like it to be.
But is the defeat of Radical Islam the top issue facing America?
It is hard to win a general election with only a solid sliver of the Republican base (in this case, the people for whom the Wat on Terror is uber alles) energized. If you are trying to persuade the rest of the Reagan coalition (Right to Life, Gun Owners, anti-illegal immigration, etc.)to vote for you when the general election campaign begins, you have probably lost the election by Labor Day.
Hillary can garner no more than a plurality. Any Republican candidate who is acceptable to the Republican coalition can beat her. For me, of the top tier candidates, Thompson is the most acceptable. He alienates no portions of the Republican coalition. Rudy alienates most of the Republican coalition. Huckabee alienates economic conservatives and has a track record in Arkansas of softness on crime and ethical lapses that would cripple him further. Romney has taken most of the right issue positions, but his recent conversions on these issues, coupled with his indecisiveness in the debates (e.g.- ask the lawyers if I need to get Congressional approval to bomb Iran) will cause him real problems. McCain has stuck every finger of both hands into the eyes of the Republican base for years. He would have the electoral energy of a dead battery on election day 2008.
Further, Romney and Guiliani have another weakness. They are eastern establishment candidates in a party whose electoral base is now western and Southern. The Republican party has not nominated a candidate from the Northeast since 1948, the “sure fire winner”, governor of New York, Tom Dewey, (Remember the Chicago Trib headline, “Dewey Defeats Truman”) who couldn’t even beat a crippled President with a divided Democrat Party. I don’t know the methodology of the PEW poll, but last week it showed Hillary with an 11 point lead over Guiliani IN THE SOUTH.
I also watched focus group conducted by Peter Hart last night of Virginia GOP primary voters and was surprised to see such a high proportion of them express reservations about Romney because of his religion. His religion does not concern me, but his flip flops, and his apparent willingness to say anything (which is the antithesis of leadership) to get elected, do concern me. Nevertheless, if he alienates a substantial portion of Republican voters for this reason, it has to be taken into account in judging his electability, particularly since he will be trying to sell himself in a region with which he has no other ties (the South) and which region delivers the lion’s share of the electoral votes necessary for victory.
Which brings me back to Thompson. I like him for many of the same reasons I, and others have expressed many times ( e.g.- his adherence to bedrock principles, as opposed to cherry picked issues such as federalism and constitutionalism which, applied to policy, yield conservative governance on a host of issues of importance, including Right to Life, the Second Amendment, National Security, Fiscal policy and the growth of government). But for those who are not affirmative supporters of Thompson at this juncture, I submit that he alienates fewer numbers of the base, while giving the GOP the greatest potential to grow among Independents and Democrats who are persuadable (especially those who are horrified by the open borders ideology of the Democrat party). I submit that none of the top tier Republican candidates would bring a similar dynamic to the electoral table in 2008.
Well obviously, civility is an issue facing America but certainly not the top one. The increasing power of the state is a concern but not higher than all the others, IMO.
For the top tier, Fred first, Mitt second, then open borders Rudy/McCain tie.
There isn't a dang thang about Rudy that gives me comfort over the other pubbie candidates with respect to the WOT (excepting Ron Paul). The WOT doesn't separate out the pubbies, the other issues do. The WOT is all Rudy GOT and that is enough NOT!
Sure. That's why Rudy is a big fan of Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsburg, because he opposes liberal judges. That's why Rudy's record of appointing NYC Judges is 8+ Democrats for every Republican. LOL! If his lips are moving...he's saying what you want to hear to get your vote, and sadly, it appears you've fallen for it.
I DON"T THINK SO,Buddy!
No.
If it ends up being Rudy, Hillary and Ron Paul on a third ticket, where do conservatives vote? For many it is none of the above and that puts Hillary in the White House. The GOP needs a conservative to win the White House, it is as simply as that!
Agrre w/ kjo, people on this forum have no understanding of the balances one must present to the voting public, its a one way highway on here and I am as conservative as the next but I’m also a realist and want what is best for ALL peoples not just my own party, faction, ideology and so on..... relax people, you are making every effort to get Hillary elected that I can think of.
P.S. the fabrication in these articles about Rudy is also no better than the lame media that mis informs us on his beliefs and actions daily. Example, “Rusy is PRO abortion”.... no he is not pro-abortion, he doesn’t believe in abortion yet he probably won’t have the government step in and stop it. Reality people. Did GWB the huge Christian stop it. Get real. It will be up to the populous to enact an outlawing of that procedure, no one man or woman is going to put a swooping hand moratorium on it. GET REAL!
It's not an acute problem, it's a chronic problem, one that we'll always have to deal with.
Right now, our top problems are border security, sovereignty, & big government spending. Rudy has zero credibility on all three.
Typical Rudybot misinterpretation. The author's statement was an example of what Rudy's supporters would say.
Well, Rudy may snuggle up to every liberal ideal there is and sign away everything that crosses his desk...sent to him by a liberal congress. OTOH, Bush has signed everything sent to him by a liberal congress with the willing compliance of the RINOS, too.
In the end, I’d love to see a truly Conservative congress sending whatever legislation to the POTUS for eventual veto. Gridlock on EVERYTHING except national security.
Don’t need any more legislation, laws, or agencies. But don’t kid yourself if you think Fred! is gonna veto much of anything.
Once Fred takes office he will be known as the Veto Bandito.....Fred doesn't do big gov.
Go Fred go!
Nope.
The most dangerous threat to America are policies of the Leftists , Socialists, and the Main Stream Media [to wit] the Democrat Party.
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.