Posted on 12/01/2007 5:01:26 PM PST by Jay777
Rudy Panic set in for many Republicans this week, with conservative leaders both nationally and in Iowa concluding they need to settle on a single champion to prevent Rudolph W. Giuliani from winning the GOP presidential nomination.
They fear that victory by the socially liberal former New York mayor could permanently shatter the largely successful coalition of social, religious, economic and national defense conservatives that, more often than not, has worked electoral magic for Republican candidates at all levels.
"The main driving force behind all of that is a belief that Rudy Giuliani is positioned to win the nomination and a belief that, and I describe it this way, the four most central planks in our Republican platform would be sacrificed in the process: life, marriage, guns, border security," said Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican. He said the calls and e-mails in Iowa grew "utterly intense in the last week" as Republicans urged one another to settle on an anti-Rudy candidate.
A new poll showing a statistical tie between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee for the Jan. 3 Iowa first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses is fueling the frenzy.
"What conservatives have to realize is that Giuliani is now relying on Mike Huckabee to take his most viable opponent, Mitt Romney, down in Iowa, and that anyone voting for him there in the caucuses will be inadvertently, and ironically, helping the New Yorker," David A. Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, said earlier this week in a surprise endorsement of Mr. Romney.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Definitely. Question is, do you think that will happen?
Anti-abortion dim who beat Rick Santorum, a stalwart of social conservatism.
It's a sad commentary how he was abandoned by the socons when another anti-abortion candidate came along...
Yes, that was unfortunate.
Any state can be a microcosm of a bigger election. And you are right Massachusetts has not been competitive since 1988 (which was a landslide year), so that is my point. McCain being competitive in Massachusetts is very bad news for Hillary (IF McCain is the nominee).
“That’s a pretty big leap to make from one state.”
Allow me to demonstrate my point:
Florida: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1928497/posts
Massachusetts: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1932892/posts
Kansas: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1930934/posts
New Mexico: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1930336/posts
Oregon: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1928698/posts
Virginia: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1928219/posts
Minnesota: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1927627/posts
Wisconsin: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1927624/posts
Iowa: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1927624/posts
Ohio: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1927615/posts
This misleading statement comes up time and again when someone wants to bash Fred Thompson. There were two articles of impeachment against President William Jefferson Clinton. Senator Fred Thompson voted for one and not the other because of his views on Federalism. Had the votes been there in the Senate, Thompson's vote would have convicted Clinton and made Albert Gore, Jr. president. Don't believe me? Look it up...
Off the wall BS!
Rush had it right in his comments about Fred Thompson following last Tuesdays GOP debate.
RUSH: "It was fascinating to me, as I said, to watch this because it hit me upside the head -- even though, as I say, I instinctively knew this -- that all of the top-tier candidates, because of these questions... See, there's always a silver lining in everything. There's always an upside. Some of you might not think of this as an upside or a silver lining, but the genuine moderate as opposed to conservative aspects of three of the top-tier, four of the top-tier candidates were on full-fledged display last night. There was one candidate who did not display any moderateness or liberalism or have any of his past forays into those areas displayed, and that candidate was Fred Thompson. Now, this is not an endorsement. You know, I don't endorse during primaries. I just point out: These are things I noticed, and I've told you during the course of this one campaign year that one of the things that's bothering me, is I'm a Reagan conservative, and I believe in conservatism. It's in my soul and it's in my heart, and I know it is the best way for us to manage our affairs to ensure the most prosperity for the most, to continue our freedom, to protect our country."
And for the record, I never thought she was. I'd take Laura Ingraham or Michelle Malkin over Ann any day.
I will say I was a bit disappointed that Laura admitted this week she will support whoever gets the nomination. So much for putting principles over party.
Truly amazing. It's now December and the primaries begin next month and it took this long for Rush to finally say the above.
Rush has stated a number of times that he doesn’t endorse GOP candidates in primaries.
I know that. You didn't address what I said. Go back and read again what I said now in bold.
Iowa (correct link): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1927619/posts
Everybody needs to write an editor’s letter to let less informed folks know about the REAL Rudy.
There are good and prudent reasons why an influential media figure may want to keep his preferences to himself. For one thing, if he makes a public endorsement early, then callers will want to waste precious airtime arguing with him, like people do here. It would detract from the program and become boring.
It also would distract the people fom attending to the real threat, the 'rat liberals, and the creatures emerging from their fetid swamp of a party.
So she’d rather take a self proclaimed liberal gun grabber or a flip-flopping abortion supporter over a guy where the worst thing that comes to mind was not getting involved in the impeachemt mess that was the Clinton years?
That does not sound like the Ann Coulter I know. I like Ann but there has to be more to her reasoning than that. I won’t throw her under the bus but if she wants to tear Fred and the other guys down, how about she tell us who she would support? At least then there would be something to debate her over.
“Citizens Crime Comission
Archives of Rudolph W. Giuliani
1095 Avenue of the Americas
March 6, 1997, 8:15 a.m.
The Empire State Building is such an important landmark... such an important symbol of America that, like so many other places in New York City, when a tragedy happens there, it receives a great deal of attention in the media.
snip
Because of this transformation of perception, when this latest tragedy occurred, instead of having to defend New York City, we were able to focus national attention on the real problem, which is GUN CONTROL (emphasis mine).”
excerpt http://www.nyc.gov/html/rwg/html/97a/ccc.html
Rudy used this tragedy to push his gun CONTROL agenda.
I will take Rush Limbaugh’s support over coulter’s any day of the week.
Thanks for the correction.
This guy should have been top tier from day one, and he can’t get out of the basement. To me that says his campaign is poorly organized.
############################################################
You’re right about that. He didn’t even have a web site for a couple of months after he announced. He never went to Richard Vigurie for help and support. He never got the mailing lists from groups like the NRA, The National Conservative Political Action Committee, ACU PAC, Focus on the Family, Gun Owners of America, JPFO, and the national right to life groups.
All these groups are natural constituencies for him and have a history of raising money as well as a natural source of volunteers for the campaign.
He didn’t seem aware that the MSM and the Republican Party insiders were going to ignore him and that he had to go around them like Reagan had to do. Some of the same Republican insiders who opposed Reagan are still in positions of power in the party and don’t want a conservative nominated.
Donald Rumsfeld’s May 1976 memo to Ford’s Chief of Staff, Dick Cheney, regarding Reagan’s growing popularity and poll numbers states:
“THE MEMBERSHIP
— Many of the members of these groups are not loyal Republicans or Democrats. They are alienated from both parties because neither takes a sympathetic view toward their issues. Particularly those groups controlled by Vigurie hold a “rule or ruin” attitude toward the GOP. They are deeply interested in their particular issues, they will work to support their positions, they will turn out to vote in larger numbers than party regulars.
THE POLITICAL OPERATION
— The fund raising capability and the mailing lists enable these groups to carry out effective political operations in the primary cross-over states and in the caucus states through the use of three techniques:
a. Independent advertising. Being well funded, they can afford to conduct independent advertising campaigns on behalf of Reagan. Such expenditures are not chargeable to Reagan’s campaign.
b. Direct mail. They can target an effective direct mail campaign based on responses to fund raising mail using outrageous literature designed to motivate people interested in a right wing cause.
c. Voter turnout. The mailing lists can be turned into telephone lists and door-to-door canvassing lists and used to turn the vote out. These lists can be given to Reagan county chairmen or to the active organization members in an area for use in the voter turnout program. In a state where the GOP vote is traditionally small such an effort can be devastating. In caucus states where a few people attend the county caucuses such an effort can control the state conventions.
CONCLUSION
We are in real danger of being out-organized by a small number of highly motivated right wing nuts, who are using funds outside of the Reagan campaign expenditure limits. This fact explains the Reagan position on the FEC. If he can keep the FEC immobilized, this assistance to his campaign will not come to light. He is thus able to operate a relatively moderate campaign to capitalize on his natural support and obtain the winning margin from the right wingers support.”
Reagan lost to Ford and the elites in 1976, and Ford lost to Carter. But in 1980, Reagan and his “right wing nuts” went around the Party elites, and the media, got their message out early, won the nomination, and won the general election in a landslide. Hunter could have done the same thing Reagan did in 1980 if he had managed his campaign better at the start.
It was like he and his team weren’t around in 1976 and 1980 or weren’t paying attention back then. Whatever the case, he and every other conservative candidate, should study the Reagan/Ford battles and understand that they are fighting the Rockefeller Republicans who run the party as well as the MSM in the primaries.
Hunter could win in a Reagan sized landslide, but he’ll never get nominated now.
Exactly. I keep asking the Rudy-Apologists what would Rudy do different than President Bush (or any other Republican)?
Push more gun control?
Sue gun manufacturers?
Expand sanctuary cities?
Encourage more illegal immigration by telling illegals that they are not really illegal?
Allow gays to openly serve in the military?
Make solid appointments to important positions like his recommendation to President Bush of Bernie Kerik to head Homeland Security?
Put an emergency command centers in the most likely targets (like he did in NY)?
It's absolutely outrageous to think that we need a LIBERAL to aggressively and successfully fight the WOT.
“He said the calls and e-mails in Iowa grew “utterly intense in the last week” as Republicans urged one another to settle on an anti-Rudy candidate.”
Nice try.
“Hunter could win in a Reagan sized landslide, but he’ll never get nominated now.”
That is ridiculous, after 26 years those of us that vote for him barely know who he is, he isn’t even well known in California.
He is retiring and is running this race to boost his son to take over the seat, while the district is a safe seat for any conservative, there are a number of local conservatives that are going to challenge the Hunter dynasty.
This race adds a dimension to the Hunter family claim on this congressional seat that is all.
Do you think that after 26 years in a sleepy right wing comfort zone, that in the year of his retirement that Duncan Hunter really expected to throw himself into the national scene and be transformed from a wall flower, work horse congressman, into a charismatic “New Reagan” that was going to sweep into the White House in a wave of newly born celebrity?
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.