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.
Excellent point. Homosexuals, and girls in trouble who would prefer abortions to out-of-wedlock babies, are part and parcel of the human condition, and as long as man draws breath, always WILL be. I have a feeling that when KJO says "genie never going back in the bottle" and "homosexuality is now open," he is A) mistaken except in a most temporary cultural sense and B) doing exactly what you say APF -- accepting the normalization of these two things rather than dealing with them as human failings to be discouraged.
Abortion is one of those thigns that, legal or not, will NEVER be in demand among people of certain values, and which will ALWAYS be in demand among people of more primitive, self-centered values. It is an ongoing struggle that will ALWAYS be part of the human condition.
And it really cracks me up that so many people actually think that homosexuality can ever be "open" for long. Any society in which it is embraced as just another lifestyle choice, a lovable quirk, as it were (which is what the gay agenda pushes for today), either won't progress far or will decay to hedonism because homosexuality weakens men, and the world NEEDS men. No matter what we do to try to convince and brainwash children that homosexuality is only "different," not abnormal, we will fail because children know better. It is normal and healthy for children to snicker at homosexuality and to ridicule it, and it is also as inevitable as the tides.
Whether or not someone is gay should NEVER be on my radar; I don't need to know nor do I want to know. It's none of my business, and none of the other person's business to foist cultural acceptance his or her perversion on me or mine. I think the world is a much better place when homosexuals keep it in the closet where it belongs.
I agree. The GOP is buying “pig in a poke” with Romney or Guiliani, gambling that the South is in their hip pocket. The polls I have seen, one of which (Survey USA)showed Romney dead even with Hillary in Alabama and a recent Rasmussen poll that showed her beating both Romney and Rudy in Tennessee should be big red flags.
Neither of them is going to flip any blue states, no matter what the early polls say. And both are likely to bleed Red states, especially in the south, either because of depressed turnout or a third party or (more likely) both.
Well said, your #28! Well done!
Sounds good to me!
"Don’t need any more legislation, laws, or agencies. But don’t kid yourself if you think Fred! is gonna veto much of anything."
No idea what Fred would do. I don't like the people "behind" Fred, but I could certainly hold my nose as usual and vote for him over Hillary, and I can't say the same if the nominee is Rudy. Rudy v. Hillary = NO CHOICE IMO.
So is Romney. But the more dangerous in that he's convinced many that his "Republican" brand of philosophical big-government progressiveness isn't bad -- and worse, he's got the self-righteous arrogance of a man convinced he has the right to impose his social progressiveness on people because he thinks he's got the endorsement of the Almighty Himself.
When in truth, God is within each one of us and calls for each of us to contend with our own issues as individuals, not as subjects of a benevolent government.
Reality RR! Is Rudy PRO abortion? Of course he is. You don't get to be the darling of NARAL, especially if you run as a Republican, if you aren't PRO ABORTION with no restrictions for no reason, paid for by taxpayers, from conception through 9 mos. of pregnancy until the child is actually delivered. Is Clinton PRO abortion? Of course, BOTH of them are, "personally don't like it" nevertheless think it should occur from conception to birth. All three of them have the NARAL approval stamp for the same reason. They are PRO ABORTION. Try looking at their actions, not what they are saying to try to get the vote of pro-life (sort of) idiots.
Amen. I hope, wish, and pray that the majority of Republican primary voters come to the same place of good sense that you already occupy, and hand Thompson the Republican nomination for President.
To my way of thinking, it affects all of the others significantly, from American morale to the right to defend onself through personal gun ownership should/when the WOT happens on American land again. America is what it is BECAUSE of the relative LACK of government dictatorship -- that we're a free and prosperious nation is the only reason we're in the WOT in the first place. Let's keep the horse where it belongs -- in front of the cart.
Thanks. I think the electorate is beginning to do so, although the MSM polls do not yet reflect it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1920525/posts
Ah, er, excuse me ... I heard with my own ears an audio clip of him saying not very long ago that poor women have a right to tax-funded abortions. Admittedly, I don't like abortion, but I believe Roe should be overturned so it can go back to the states -- the Feds have zero place in it. And I SURE AS HELL think that forcing God-fearing Americans to PAY FOR ABORTIONS with their tax dollars is wicked and destructive. Your guy Rudy thinks taxpayers should pay for abortions for the poor. That's a pretty far cry from "he probably won't have the governbment step in and stop it." Yes, GET REAL.
Well-stated indictment. I would vote for Rudy, but many conservatives would not.
Based on what? From what I've read of Fred's history, he's pretty consistently (some exceptions) stood by his word, actions, and principles of maintaining limited government. Why should I think he'll change after being elected? That is as opposed to other candidates, whose histories indicate wild inconsistencies and lead me to very much expect them to be unpredictable in office and to change greatly from words to actions.
Yep. Since the late 1970s, my very politically wise ol' Pop has been saying China is the country that poses the biggest danger to American freedom. That China has stated its goals with regard to Space technology, means America had better get off her patoot NOW and start pursuing superiority in all things related to aerospace tech, from civilian to military. Americans who prattle that we'd be better off spending that money "solving problems here on Earth first," are FOOLS of the first magnitude. The nation that dominates space, will dominate earth. China knows it.
In 2000, Bush had his right wing secure.
His core audience assumed that he was a social conservative, a tax cutter, and (wrongly) a budget cutter, so he could dabble with "compassionate conservatism" and appeal to moderate swing voters.
Rudy's right wing isn't secure, so he's going to be moving in two directions at once: to reassure conservatives and to win over swing voters.
I don't know if he'll be able to manage such a difficult balancing act.
Also, being known up-front as the neo-cons favorite candidate won't help Rudy.
He's made a mistake in giving Podhoretz, Pipes, and Frum front-row seats in his campaign.
Bush ran in 2000 as the candidate for a "more modest" foreign policy.
That's not an option now, but it did win over voters who aren't going to be voting for Rudy any time soon.
If you do not hold your beliefs any more dear than that, you ain't a conservative.
If you want to sell your soul 'to get along' the option is yours. I won't.
Getting along is not as important as getting it right. Not to me, not to my grandchildren. What part of this being a FIGHT for the future of this country did you not understand?
I am not alone.
I may be only one voter, but there are many like me.
Together, WE ARE THE VOTING PUBLIC.
I couldn't agree more. Guiliani's embrace of the policies of these men should give any conservative pause, and should certainly recognize that a foreign policy based on the ideas of these men will render any candidate unelectable, no matter the party. The general election will not be won by a candidate advocating the expansion of the WOT. And conservatives should be extremely wary of a candidate that can't recognize that the WOT as currently waged is an assault on the very principles and values that conservatives seek to conserve.
right on
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.