Posted on 02/20/2007 7:25:29 PM PST by dirtboy
Political observers are falling over themselves trying to determine the cladistics of a newly-emergent population of political animal, the Rudy booster. This appears to be the first new species of Republican to emerge in over two decades in the Family Republicanae (the last being Conservatisi reagani), and displays a particularly odd range of behaviors that call into question the long-term political viability of the new species, as well as that of Republicanae in general if they assume a position of dominance.
Some observers have proposed classifying the new population as a subspecies of Rinous rockefelleri, whereas others have made a fairly convincing case that the new species properly belongs within the Family Democratus and the genus/species of Scoopjacksonae liebermani - an endangered group of pro-war liberals with otherwise no conservative positions, hunted nearly to extinction by the more rabid Friedhippybrainous deaniaci. But for now, they will will treated as a separate species within Rinous.
In this field guide, we will discuss the observed talking points to date of the Rudy boosters as a means to understanding their behavior in the wild, whether those are calls of alarm, anger, deception or delusion, and what those mean for making a proper and clinical determination of whether this is just a subspecies displaying new liberal tendencies is truly an emergent new species, perhaps due to geographic isolation in the liberal Northeast.
For example, take the now-commonly-heard talking point that Rudy can beat Hillary. This talking point does display anger and deception tendencies at times (especially when the Rudy booster is getting hammered on other subjects), but should properly be placed into the delusion category, given that Giuliani never outpolled Hillary during the 2000 NY Senate race even though he was the sitting mayor and she was a carpetbagger with cankles that would send Godzilla screaming back into the ocean, never to return.
And this talking point shows the precarious nature of the Rudy booster's existence - namely, that they believe that their candidate can hold together the GOP despite the lessons of 1992. That Rudy can pull in key pro-life Catholic Dem swing voters despite getting awards from NARAL. And that a pro-war candidate can survive if he strikes out leftward in search of votes into regions that are increasingly antiwar.
Interested observers are encouraged to post their observations of talking points and opinions as to the proper cladistics for Rudy boosters. This field guide will initially be organized topically and also by electoral strategy, although that could change if the behavior of Rudy boosters continues to grow more irrational and erratic.
Next chapter - how to get Rudy boosters shrieking like howler monkeys - bring up the 2nd Amendment
I had plenty of specifics in my post. Liberals just don't like them, whether they have a (D) or an (R) next to their name.
but just so you don't go away and sulk, here is a specific answer from a Democrat:
Which means your post is suspect to begin with, but I'll humor you.
35k% of the Democrat males abhor Clinton and you'd better believe every male Democrat Senator will publically support HRC after February and then promptly vote for anyone else. Those of us to the left on social issues and hard right on national defense will vote for Giuliani or McCain.
Except that the center and left are getting more anti-Iraq War with every passing week.
The fringe right which you represent will get no one from the Democrat middle...none...nada...ziltch...zero.
Funny, pro-life Catholic Dems were a key swing vote in Ohio in 2004. In other words, my "fringe right" views on abortion were the key for Bush winning that key swing state ... and the White House.
Why do you keep coming back for this kind of punishment? You must be some kind of masochist.
Actually they weren't even though that spin makes you feel good. President Bush almost lost Ohio because of government incompetence and corruption in the Republican ranks...and they all lost in 2006. Conservative Democrats didn't vote for President Bush in Ohio or anywhere else because of the abortion issue. Conservative Democrats couldn't stand mophead could not gag long enough to vote for mophead and mopheadless.
Wrong. For whatever reason the state GOP made the election there close - the pro-life Dem swing voters carried the day.
No, they did not and the internals are very clear on that point. The Democrats want you to believe what you cherry picked from the 'exit polls' but it is hogwash.
When it comes to a conservative Democrat who has some feelings for the right to choose or strong national defense, he will always choose national defense over choice.
Freedom of choice and right to life supporters on both sides of the question do not appeal to anyone in the middle, period because the middle is basically not interested in whatever a private person does. The middle minds it own business and that is 80% of the voter base. You and Al Sharpton get to divide up the rest.
Please back up your assertion, then. NR had a very compelling article to the contrary, so what have YOU got?
When it comes to a conservative Democrat who has some feelings for the right to choose or strong national defense, he will always choose national defense over choice.
Unless, of course, the drumbeat of the MSM over Iraq continues to erode support for the war. In the very demo Rudy would need to run into as a pro-war pubbie in order to make up votes lost from the GOP splintering.
It ain't happening. The Dem candidate will move rightwards far enough to keep the pro-security Dems on the rez, and Rudy won't be able to pull over pro-life and pro-gun Dems and Indies. Game over.
LOL. Very funny article. Love it!
I'll add you to the ping list for the continuing series. Should have Chapter 2 out within a day or two.
Conservative Democrats are practical folks just like their Republican counterparts.
Hillary knows she has a problem with them both just because she is a woman who happens to be a bitch.
Conservative Democrats on the other hand can't abide the evangelical right that you seem to represent. You can't have any of them...none.
Get over it...
I guess that's why Santorum got so many of their votes twice, and finally lost them when the Dems ran a pro-life candidate. /sarcasm
And I see you failed to back up the internals that you claimed you had regarding the 2004 Ohio vote.
You're pwned and don't know it.
Strength on defense will trump personal behavior beliefs when it comes to the CiC.
He doesn't like the fact that I have better sources than National Review.
The radical fringe of both parties are so consumed by hate, bigotry and ignorance that they haven't a clue what goes on in the minds of the middle ground voter of either party or persuasion, libertarian or no party affiliation whatsoever.
The Democrats finally learned that in 2004 and almost fixed it and by 2006 they owned it. If the Republican Party has a candidate holding those fringe views they will lose.
The sad thing is that these same right wing zealots will vote for one of their favorite nuthatches like Keyes, Buchanan, Tancredo, Paul who will run as the third party hiccup.
Meanwhile the Democrats will cheerfully allow Nader to take his greens out for the Lincoln Day dinner and they'll all meet back at the union hall and laugh their asses off at dirtboy and his juvenile screaming Deany loons.
It has come to your attention has it not that our loon is silent? Know why? Discipline. Consequences.
The Republican Party needs some backbone alright. They need to tell their fringe to go back to shack in the trailer park.
You still have failed to back this up. Whereas NR did an article supporting my position.
You're right, I didn't. Let me correct that for you:
"He doesn't like the fact that I have better sources than National Review [has in the DNC].
NR relies on DNC sources. Gotcha.
So, after dispensing of that little bit of absurdity, once again, where are your internals proving your assertions?
You are truly one dim bulb. Good thing Wal-mart is switching to fluorescent.
For those watching, NR couldn't get into the DNC with a pass from Joe Lieberman.
Now, I shall resist responding to anymore of your silliness and bravada. It is your thread after all and I don't wish to make you look any more inept than your original parody implied...not that there is anything wrong with that.
...you are so consumed by hate, bigotry and ignorance that they haven't a clue what goes on in the minds of the middle ground voter of either party or persuasion, libertarian or no party affiliation whatsoever.
My gawd, you really need to wait until later in the day to start consuming whatever it is you are consuming. You are becoming more incoherent with each passing post.
Do me a favor and wait until tomorrow morning to resume posting in the outside chance you can start making sense then. Unless, of course, whatever it is you are on hasn't worn off by then. Later.
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.