Dear Alex Marko,
I understand your fear of the Democrats taking over in '08. When I asked you earlier where you lived, I was not trying to be flip. I live in the Heartland (Rockford, Illinois), and Rudy resonates with neither Democrats nor Republicans. He certainly does not resonate with rural voters, and in the electoral college, rural voters are VERY important.
So far, we have had your bare assertion that
1. Giuliani would whup any Dem, and
2. That conservatives would certainly vote for him in a 1 on 1 with the Hildebeast.
As to 1, you have offered no arguments, just your opinion, and perhaps mention of a poll, which at this point means very little (e.g. Jimmy Carter was at 1% in 1975, Bill Clinton at maybe 15% in 1991)
As to 2, I know that is not the case for myself. I voted 3rd party rather than for Dole in '96, and do not regret it to this day. That is despite the fact that I myself was running that year for state rep on the same line with Dole.
As for thinking long term, I can vouch that BlackElk ALWAYS thinks long-term. For my part, I will offer a simple matrix of four possibilities in '08. We will assume the Dem nominee to be Ms. Rodham.
The scenarios:
1. Conservative X beats Hildebeast
2. Hildebeast beats Conservative X
3. Rudy beats Hildebeast
4. Hildebeast beats Rudy
SCENARIO 1:
I think we all agree that outcome 1 is the best result. You believe it is not a likely result.
SCENARIO 2:
Now, if Hildebeast beats Conservative X in a split Red-Blue situation. The Republican faithful and social conservatives and right-leaning Libertarians will likely vote more or less Republican in the state races. If the race is at all close, the Republicans will certainly hold the Senate and likely hold the House (barring a dismal 2006). The same Republicans will do their duty and block what they can, to the degree that they have a spine (this problem is the same regardless of the pres). The party platform will stay the same, and the base will be energized to take her down in '12. This is not a pleasant scenario, especially because of SCOTUS, but it does not split the party, or require compromise of issues.
3. Now, if Rudy wins, without making any fundamental shift in his positions, he will try to steer the Republican Party in his direction, and in so doing will alienate the party base. Such a win might even create a new revitalized social conservative wing in the Democratic Party, as large groups of unsatisfied voters will not go uncourted for long. A sizeable conservative 3rd party might develop. Most cabinet posts will be filled with the new breed, leaving good young conservatives uncredentialed. The Party Platform would be gutted. All would be chaos, and that chaos would not just lead into 2012, it would be more or less permanent. Imagine what the Republican Party would be today if Nelson Rockefeller, not Goldwater won the nomination. I maintain there would be no Reagan wing. Gerald Ford would be considered ultra-right, and the USA would be just to the left of Canada, unless a George Wallace type took over the Dems. In any event, a Giuliani win might be quite pyrhhic. It certainly would be divisive. His court nominations might be somewhat better, but would not fix the present SCOTUS problem, as he would seek pro-aborts, and look for justices who are dangerously indifferent to the Bill of Rights protections of law-abiding citizens.
4. Hildebeast beats Rudy. Oddly, that might actually be a better long-term outcome, as the party would not be split. However, if Giuliani fared poorly in the heartland, or simply failed to motivate the base, we lose senators and reps, so it could be a disaster, more of a disaster than a loss by an unspectacular conservative losing, because the base would still come out and vote for the underticket.
I'm from Tampa, Florida to answer your first question. Secondly, assertions that Rudy would steer the GOP into a direction of his choosing are not realistic. Rudy does not have the outright power in the GOP to do that. What rudy does bring to the table is crossover votes that no other GOP member could pull off.
You are wrong about your scenerio 1. I do believe a conservative(anyone really) would beat Hillary. I just do not believe a "heartland-type" conservative like Pence or Tancredo would beat a moderate democratic candidate. I have made that clear.
Hillary cannot win the presidency. She has never polled over 42% in her/bill's political life. The only reason she would win a primary is from the anti-bush, ultra-liberal voters that polorized the the DNC. We(GOP voters) are dangerously close to reliving a 92 election flop where a 3rd party hurt Bush 41 and let Clinton in office. To me, this is possibly the worse scenerio possible. (1)
Buchanan killed Bush 41's re-election and now motivated buchananite types in the GOP will choose a candidate that is just not electable in a national election. The GOP now is doing EXACTLY what the DNC did in 04.
(1) here are polls that show hillary's poor performance and justify my statments about her.
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. May 20-22, 2005. N=453 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 5.
.
"If Hillary Rodham Clinton were to run for president in 2008, how likely would you be to vote for her: very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not at all likely?" Very likely 28% Not at all Likely 40%
http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm
If the 2008 Republican presidential primary were held today, whom would you support if the candidates are [see below]?" N=352 Republicans and Republican leaners who are registered to vote,?
Rudy Giuliani 25%
John McCain 21%
Jeb Bush 7%
"Would you like Hillary Rodham Clinton to run for president in 2008, or not?"
Would: 43% Would Not 50%
Would you like Rudolph Giuliani to run for president in 2008, or not?"
Would 45% Would Not 41%
*Quinnipiac University Poll.