And you're right, if Rudy doesn't get the nomination, it will be because someone stepped up and beat him.
Posted on 02/28/2007 7:54:19 AM PST by Al Simmons
Wedge Issues Posted by: “Common Tator” in FreeRepublic.com April 16, 2002
The one thing that amazes me on this site is the belief by some that the conservative position is the majority position.
Mostly people tend to believe it could be the majority position if the right candidate ran, or if it weren't for the media or RINOs or etc, etc. They really don't have a clue.
Roughly 2/3 of the public has firm views. They have made up their minds and do not change them. This group is nearly equally split between the left and the right.
There are about a 1/3 of the population that is never sure. Sometimes it will go left and sometimes it will go right.
When a party restricts itself to its base it will be in a minority party. The "base only" party will be reduced to crying as the other side works its will. In some nations both the left and right restrict themselves to just their base. That nation then develops five or six parties. And all governments in that nation are coalitions of a major party and some of the minor parties. In that situation the minor party always has more influence than its numbers represent. For the Rino and Dino haters that is the worst of all worlds.
Many of Rino and Dino haters try to make ours a 3 or 4 party system. They never figure out that their splinter right or left party would never get much power in a government based on coalitions. They are too small. It is the centrist parties that have a 1/3 of the public as potential members that get the clout in the Multi Party system. As you can see in a 2 party or a 5 or 6 party system the center tends to prevail.
But in our two party system the center is an instrument the major parties use to enact their goals. In the multiparty system it is the center parties that use the right and left to enact their centrist goals. Such a system like those in Italy and France are RINO and DINO paradise.
This nation now and for all of the last 140 years has been roughly 1/3 left, 1/3 right and 1/3 in the middle. Those in the middle who run for office are what we call RINOs and DINOs.
When Republicans drive RINOs out they leave the party to become DINOs and take their political power with them. The Democrat party gets them by default.
Then the Democrats thanks to its Dino buddies have a veto proof house and senate. It was Barry Goldwater's greatest accomplishment. In my BRAIN I knew Barry would elect a lot of DINOs ... and he did.
If a party with most of the center wins the presidency too, they have a filibuster proof senate. That party then can do anything it wants to do. When the party leadership takes control they implement the parties’ core beliefs. It was what LBJ did after Goldwater drove all the RINOs into LBJ's camp. It let LBJ do the "Great Society." LBJ had to have Barry's help to do it. And Barry did what it took to give LBJ the support he needed... LBJ had all the left. Barry gave him all the center.
To win control a party must keep its base and get over half the middle. If the Republicans have more RINOs than the Democrats have DINOs the Republican agenda prevails. If the Democrats have more DINOs than the Republicans have RINOs the Democrat agenda prevails.
Those that demand the defeat of RINOs are doing all they can to enact the leftist agenda. They are the most valuable asset the left has. One of the most effective tactics in politics in the negative campaign.
Negative campaigns are not about getting votes for your candidate. They are about getting the other side's base to not vote for their candidate. Thus if you can get the right to vote against a Rino or not vote at all, you can elect a very liberal candidate.
If you can force the Republicans to nominate a right wing candidate so right wing he can't get the center voters, you elect the left candidate.
That is really cool! Could you sum up Mark's thoughts on what I posted?
No, but I wouldn't bet my life or my babies life on Duncan Hunter or some other fringe candidate winning the election either. Matter of fact, I'd much sooner gamble on Giuliani appointing good judges then on Hunter winning nationally with my or my babies life.
And when I get ready to vote in the South Carolina primary, my concern for judicial nominations will be one of the things I will look for, though not number one for sure. So at least we can agree on this.
Rudy has strengths but he also has weaknesses that need to be aired.
Absolutely, as do each of the candidates. But surely you don't see what's been happening here on FR as any kind of rational airing?
As for our discussion of conservatism, social conservatism and libertarianism, it's all really pretty moot. The socials have an agenda of issues that are important to them, the conservatives have an almost completely different agenda. That is the basic debate, and it will certainly carry over throughout the primary season, which I suspect will be all but over by Feb 5 of next year. After that, I suspect (at least at this point, the social issues will not be a major factor in the race. But with 11 months left, there are 3 or 4 who can get the nod, though as of now, only one who can win for the Republicans.
I'm a huge Ron Paul fan on domestic issues, but he is a wuss on the WoT.
And that ISN'T a huge red flag?!? Thank you for making me aware of this.
It doesn't bother in the least that a self proclaimed pro-abortion candidate is elected, correct?
I don't think so. Some people might.
Since it concerns you, why?
It doesn't bother (you)....
With due respect, it is far too early to know whom could win for the Pubbies ... if another strike kills several thousand Americans here at home between now and primaries day, and there is a heated race between perhaps Rudy and Gingrich or Rudy and Hunter (it could happen, if sufficient funds come on line to air Hunter's strong points), the most protective image will get the nod. Personally, I feel there is about to be a major slaughter within the next six months. But then I see the Iranians launching a missle to space as a means to test whether they can detonate an EMP weapon when they want to institute major troop movements toward taking Iraq so they control the well for their mahdi's appearance.
: sigh :
No, I didn't say that. I'm not supporting Rudy. I'm undecided.
And yes, it actually WOULD bother me. If he were pro-life (and less squishy on guns, I don't really care about the other issues people don't like about him), I would not be undecided, I would be an unabashed Rudy supporter.
I'm merely pointing out that the pro-life movement has made almost 0 progress in it's 30 some years of existence, because of it's inability to see the forest for the trees.
There is 0 chance that Hillary or Edwards or Obama will appoint a pro-life judge. That I am absolutely sure of. Given this fact, I am at least thinking about voting for Giuliani, and would certainly support him in the general.
I know there probably isn't any amount of facts that will change your mind, no matter, this is something that I think refutes your fantasy that Rudy will appoint good judges.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1793537/posts
By the way, not too many Rudy fans have commented on this thread...I wonder why?
Let's say this forum is successful in knocking out the Republican frontrunner. I don't think we're powerful enough to do that, but let's just assume that we are.
What's the plan after that?
McCain?
Or does the fact that we don't have a socially conservative heavyweight contending this cycle not matter?
Is it more important to shoot each other while claiming the mantle of conservatism than it is to defeat Democrats?
Is that what these fights are about? We are doing a damn good job of that. We can destroy this forum as we know it, and turn the White House over to someone who will do far more damage than we probably can imagine.
I was hoping that the Bush Presidency would ensure a conservative Supreme Court for the next 30 years. Unfortunately, it's only been able to move it a half step right and ensure that for maybe 10 more years. Good, but not what I was hoping for.
If we continue this circular firing squad, Hillary, Obama, or the Breck Girl will get the chance to replace Stevens and Ginsburg.
Opportunity lost.
Oh well, we shot ourselves in the foot, but dammit, it felt good at the time.
None of THAT is important, doncha know.
What's the plan after that?
McCain?
Or does the fact that we don't have a socially conservative heavyweight contending this cycle not matter?
There's a type around here on FR that seems to think that means that lightweights become heavyweights. Just look at all the Duncan Hunter threads around here.
Is it more important to shoot each other while claiming the mantle of conservatism than it is to defeat Democrats?
Is that what these fights are about? We are doing a damn good job of that. We can destroy this forum as we know it, and turn the White House over to someone who will do far more damage than we probably can imagine.
I was hoping that the Bush Presidency would ensure a conservative Supreme Court for the next 30 years. Unfortunately, it's only been able to move it a half step right and ensure that for maybe 10 more years. Good, but not what I was hoping for.
If we continue this circular firing squad, Hillary, Obama, or the Breck Girl will get the chance to replace Stevens and Ginsburg.
Opportunity lost.
Oh well, we shot ourselves in the foot, but dammit, it felt good at the time.
Applause!
I don't know. We had a President and a Congress wanting to give Terri Schiavo another chance and you were against it, correct? I reckon that was too socially conservative for you. So in a few words, your opinion means very little I'm afraid. After that, I don't see how anyone could trust you with the abortion issue either.
Explain to me how Bush is irrelevant, when Rudy is saying he'd support judges like Alito and Roberts, which are judges that Bush appointed?
Clearly, Bush's appointments at a federal level have been different then his appointments at state level. Why? Same reason as I think Rudy's are likely to be, because the politics of the situation were different. Matter of fact, Bush's lack of good appointments in Texas are much less forgivable then Rudy's, as Texas was a swing state at the time (at least in terms of who it elected to Senate/Governor) while NY was a hardcore D city.
Sorry, you just can't ignore the politics of the situation. Both people did what they needed to do to survive in local politics, Rudy much more so then Bush. That's life. You can ignore it or curse it or whatever, but you won't change it.
Do I know Rudy would appoint good judges? No, but I think it's very highly likely, especially during his first term. He's smart enough to realize he wouldn't get a second term if he didn't appoint a decent judge.
And again, I know one thing for 100% certainty: Hillary, Edwards or Obama will not appoint good judges.
And you're right, if Rudy doesn't get the nomination, it will be because someone stepped up and beat him.
Polls say he would beat Hillary. I think by a wide margin because he would carry, NY, NJ, Penn, Michigan and possibly California, in addition to the South and West.
John
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.