Posted on 01/05/2007 9:01:39 AM PST by Brian_Baldwin
The “line in the sand” difference between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani in regards to issues, both admired as two top contenders for the Republican nomination for President in 2008, is in regard to the issue of illegal aliens. It doesn’t matter what the old media says will be the “issue” of 2008 – yes, there will be many issues during that campaign, but I will absolutely guarantee you that at the top of the mind for the base of the Republican Party will be this issue as is with myself and countless others. We have grave concerns about this issue, and we realize that once certain measures are made (under the pretext of “reform”), in particular amnesty which we are against, that the results and the impact of such a mistake will be irreversible. The damage will be irreversible, and will not be something that we will be able to “change our minds” about later – the long term damage to our country will be permanent and is as vital an issue to this nation as is the war on terrorism.
I will absolutely guarantee that I am not alone on this opinion among the base of Republicans, and I don’t care what the old media claims, I know for a fact that this issue was a factor in the 2006 results, negative to Republicans due to President Bush’s wrong stand in every regard on this issue.
This one issue alone, with Mitt Romney on the correct side of the argument, can win the primary elections for him in 2008. Bank on it.
Mitt Romney is against amnesty for illegal aliens. He wants to actually secure the borders, which is a security issue as well, and he seems to be on the right side of this issue.
Giuliani is not.
I admire Rudy very much, but this is a defining issue. I also admire Mitt a lot, and his stand on this issue only confirms to me that he is a preferred candidate for the Presidency.
Do not be fooled. The gay agenda, abortion, and other “social issues”, are in no way as important as this issue of illegal aliens in the minds of the base – and it is important in the minds of all Americans and poll after poll demonstrates that the American people do NOT want amnesty, and they DO want the borders controlled, and they want to STOP this illegal invasion from Mexico. It doesn’t matter if they are Republican or Democrat, the majority of Americans in their opinion on this matter are like minded regarding this issue. And yet, neither party will listen to the American people – the Republican leadership in Bush has shown a tin-ear to the American people, Senate Republican leaders, and of course the Democrats as well simply do not LISTEN to the American people in this regard, and it is insulting.
Americans are insulted when they are not listened to.
The party which brings forth candidates who campaign on the theme that they will LISTEN to the American people, that is the winning candidates in 2008. Such candidates will need to demonstrate that they are LISTENING to the American people on this issue, a “line in the sand” issue that can, and will be, the “line in the sand” in 2008.
Politicians can “change their mind” – I suspect that some of them will do so into the 2008 campaign. Being on the “right side” of this issue will make the difference in 2008, and Mitt Romney, as long as he remains on the right side in this regard, has my support.
Duncan Hunter is a good choice.
Rudy when he announces will elucidate with more detail his positions on issues and why, and do it with skill and panache. Some folks here just hate the idea however that I guy who is more laid back on social issues is doing so well in the GOP polls. It drives them nuts. These folks somehow think that they are, or should be, the center of the universe, and catered to by the rest of us, who are merely peripheral detritus. They hector and threaten even though they make up only a quarter of the electorate. Take about hubris!
BINGO!!
I gotta control myself! I'm a Bad Freeper! Bad Freeper! ;-)
I agree that employers and illegal immigrants should obey the law, but is the issue we want to stand on in 2008? Through Prop 187, Pete Wilson turned California from a reliably Republican state since its admission to the Union in 1850 to a certain 55 electoral votes for the Democrats. Bush won the 2004 Presidential election in part because he polled 44% of the Hispanic vote. If he had polled Dole's abysmal 21% (in 1996), he would have lost.
Republicans have just had their clocks cleaned at the polls. Basically, we can run on social issues which divide us and lose, or we can run on the economic and national security issues that unite us, and have a reasonable chance to win.
After every election loss, the tendency is for idealogues to take over the party, transforming a single loss into a generation out of power. I don't want Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi to set the nation's agenda. I want to win. As a party, we've written off women, Catholics, African-Americans, Jews, and Muslims. If we allow Democrats to poll 80% of the Hispanic vote, we'll go the way of the Federalists and Whigs.
We need legal immigration, quite simply because the American-born population is not replacing itself. If Congress is unwilling to create a guest worker program, we're going to have illegal immigration program -- if the U.S. economy remains strong.
If so, let's run on taxes and getting Osama, not divisive social issues.
How many states are you willing to write off? If we lose Ohio, as we did in '06, we're gonna lose.
If Guiliani could goose the Catholic vote from the high 40s to the low 50s, states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota would be in reach.
Maybe the party should consider why it didn't carry a single Northeastern or West Coast state in 2004, regions which were once reliably Republican. Perhaps we should listen to voters for a change, rather than try to impose our social agenda on them. Whatever their faults, people like Schwarzenegger, Romney and Guiliani managed to win in strongly Democrat electorates. Maybe we could learn someting from them. Clearly, if we repeat our 2006 performance, the 2008 election will be a Democrat sweep.
I like Tommy Franks, but Tommy isn't running. Realistically, the nominee is going to be McCain or Giuliani, with Romney a dark horse. The reason is a successful candidate is going to have to raise $50MM by New Hampshire and $250-500MM by November (depending on how competitive the race is). If a candidate can't raise the money, he doesn't have a chance.
The election returns. We lost six seats.
I don't know squat about Romney, except that we won two landslides in the second most Democrat state in the nation and he is a refreshing change stylistically from Bush.
We lost six seats because the Senate didn't do anything...
Turning the '08 general election into a second Democrat primary is not going to be a winner...
What we should be asking ourselves is who can win 270 electoral votes on November 4, 2008? In the popular mind, Republicans are exclusively a White Anglo-Saxon Southern Evangelical Protestant male party. That's wonderful, but it's only 10% of the electorate. Rudy may not be the world's best Catholic, but he is a Catholic, a voter bloc Ronald Reagan (a lapsed Irish Catholic) carried, but 41, Dole, and 43 did not. Also, he's not British, which is a positive electorally. Certainly, it's easier to imagine a Hispanic or a woman voting for a guy named Rudy Giuliani than a guy named Duncan Hunter, for example. In particular, single women don't like WASP candidates because their boss is probably named Duncan Hunter. They've got a boss lording it over them from 8-5, and then they listen to George Walker Bush lording it over them during prime time. We got our clock cleaned with Dennis Hastert at the helm. Why not try an ethnic?
I'm not for amnesty. I oppose it vehemently.
My position in regards to this article is that by the next election it will have happened and can't be undone. Reports are that the Pres and the dems, who are now in control, are set to move it forward. By the next election it will be over, they will be amnestitized, is that a word? ;)
Many of them may be voting and the playing field will have changed to a degree. To attempt to base a campaign on no amnesty after the fact is ridiculous.
That said until it's a done deal I am still emailing and calling my congressmen and senators to attempt to stop it, but truthfully I haven't much hope.
I agree with you regarding amnesty. It's a repudiation that we are a nation of laws. And I support your right to present this position to your elected representatives.
For me, our electoral loss is an open wound. I'm concerned about our ability to hold the White House in 2008. While you certainly did not do it, I'm opposed to making support for amnesty a litus test. I want a candidate who will reduce taxes and support the War of Terrorism, the Get-Osama strain rather than the Stay-Bogged-Down-in_Iraq strain and who can win. With support for Republicans hovering around 30%, divisive social issues will have to remain in the background.
Basically, I agree. The Senate did support earmarks and the Iraq boondoggle, both of which proved to be toxic. Frist's non-leadership didn't help. Voters in the handful of competitive states and districts were in a throw-the-bums-out mood.
I agree. Let's stick to issues on which we agree that are important to voters: limiting taxes and defending the nation. Let's soft-peddle social issues in 2008, because they are losers.
Wow, great link. Thanks much for posting it - I'm saving it for future reference.
You are so cute posting those little Hunter buttons in every Rudy thread. I understand that children love to play whenever they have the urge. I've been thinking to create my own Rudy presidential button and post it on your Hunter threads so that we can play together – I love children, and I love playing with them.
I also love your tagline (very clever for a little guy). Nothing like a cute little tagline to identify yourself... you can easily get lost in a place as big as FR. ;-)
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.