Posted on 03/14/2007 6:47:10 AM PDT by areafiftyone
If pragmatism prevails in the Republican primaries and caucuses next winter—a questionable proposition for a party that once dutifully lined up behind Bob Dole—then Rudy Giuliani will roll to the G.O.P. nomination.
Simply put, the former Mayor would flip to the Republican column several deep, dark blue states that the G.O.P. has barely bothered to contest in recent election, gobbling up territory that is pivotal to any Democrat’s hopes of corralling 270 electoral votes. And he could do this without ceding an inch of safe G.O.P. turf to the Democrats. Sure, they may loathe his social liberalism, but will Mississippians really hand their six electoral votes to Hillary Clinton over Rudy?
As it stands now, Republicans are in grave danger of losing the White House in 2008. There is a pattern to American politics that has prevailed, almost unblemished, since the Second World War: One party controls the Presidency for eight years, then the other party does. It was the Democrats’ turn in 1992 and 1996, the Republicans’ turn in 2000 and 2004, and—well, you see what that means for ’08.
And it’s not as if voters are inclined to buck history: Fatigue with the national G.O.P. is unusually high—and, with every passing, seemingly futile month in Iraq, growing. Against such a backdrop, a Republican Presidential nominee who appeals to the usual G.O.P. cheering sections and antagonizes the familiar Democratic constituencies is going nowhere.
To win next year, Republicans need to nominate a map-changer—a candidate who can attract support in unlikely areas and overcome the significant built-in handicaps.
Enter Rudy. Say what you will about whether he truly deserves them, but his Sept. 11 tough-guy hero credentials position him perfectly to lead election-swinging Reagan Democrats back into the Republican fold.
Consider the electoral map, which has subtly shifted in the Democrats’ favor in the last two years due to Republican bumbling on the national and state levels.
Ohio, for instance, famously put Mr. Bush over the top in 2004. Months later, though, that state’s Republican governor, Bob Taft, pleaded guilty to four criminal misdemeanors in an ethics case, precipitating the total collapse of Ohio’s G.O.P. establishment. Now, early polls show Mrs. Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards poised to turn Ohio blue in ’08.
Against Rudy’s G.O.P. rivals, the Democratic front-runners would have little trouble doing so. John McCain’s fortunes will be tied to public opinion of the war he has so tirelessly promoted. And Mitt Romney’s politics of convenience—now a conservative, he built his political career in liberal Massachusetts by telling wrenching personal stories about his commitment to keeping abortion legal—will only remind Ohioans of the double-talking governor who until recently occupied their own Statehouse.
But Rudy can run as a leader and a hero, the man who stood tall on America’s darkest day—just as the President went into hiding for a few hours. He can call himself a results man too, the mayor who made New York safe for suburbanites again. That appeal frees him from the liabilities of his party or from the kind of single-issue identification that figures to doom Mr. McCain.
And Ohio is only one example.
Look at Mr. Giuliani’s home region. He’d have a hard time, perhaps, in New York itself. But he’d be favored in New Jersey, a state filled with blue-collar, ethnic Catholics who loved him even before 9/11. At the same time, his social liberalism won’t scare off the state’s affluent, educated suburbanites like George W. Bush’s religious rhetoric has. The same is true of Connecticut, another bedroom state that has turned on the national G.O.P. as it has morphed into a party for Christian conservatives from the South.
Between them, Connecticut and New Jersey have 22 electoral votes, and neither has voted Republican since 1988. Before he’s even left his backyard, then, Rudy could produce a 44-vote swing in the electoral math, potentially decisive in itself. And that’s not even touching Pennsylvania, whose blue-collar masses have lined up with the Democrats for four straight elections. And so on.
We’ve been down this road before, of course. In 1996, Lamar Alexander, then a likable and somewhat moderate former Tennessee governor, donned a checkered shirt and told Republicans that his campaign was as simple as ABC: “Alexander Beats Clinton.” No one short of Colin Powell could have defeated Mr. Clinton that year, but surely Mr. Alexander would have fared better than the soporific Mr. Dole, who Republicans nonetheless tapped. Similarly, had the G.O.P. simply nominated Mr. McCain in 2000, it would hardly have taken a Supreme Court decision to hand the White House to the party.
Maybe, given his well-documented history as a social liberal, it’s naïve to think that Mr. Giuliani will be able to count on Republican support in 2008. But if Hillary Clinton ends up defeating Mitt Romney, the G.O.P. will have no one but itself to blame for the Clinton restoration.
Steve Kornacki works as an organizer for Unity08, a group that advocates a bipartisan Presidential ticket in 2008.
Nothing is certain this far out from Nov. '08, but that "assumption" is based upon state-by-state polling by SurveyUSA, and Michael Barone's detailed numbers-crunching. Not only does Rudy (at this point) keep all the red states, he takes the blue states of New Hampshire, New Jersey, Penn., and Oregon.
How many red states does the "The Asterick" keep?
I agree that Rudy has some deplorable views (e.g., partial birth abortion). Keep in mind that he was a Republican in NYC. That takes courage, but he is not so stupid as to run as a social conservative.
I think we will know, as things play out over time, just how conservative/liberal he is now. One thing I know is that he is not a Manchurian candidate. Those guys are in the other party.
In politics we are never going to get the perfect candidate. GWB is a terrific person, but he only gives conservatives half a loaf. His instincts (similar to his father's) are to be a nice guy. We need to have a POTUS that's a tough SOB.
Right now, the only one who seems tough is Rudy. It would be nice if someone more conservative would come to the forefront. Frankly, I don't trust senators and ex-senators, and when was the last time a congressman was nominated for POTUS?
That's why I say it's better to debate in a respectful and open minded manner than to just make ad hominem attacks against some candidates. How are we going to explore all the alternatives if the level of discourse rarely rises above showing Rudy in a dress? (Is that any different than showing GWB as Hitler?)
My argument about candidates not having experience/exposure is you are right they cannot be elected, that is if that is your and others attitude. Maybe it is about time we elect someone who was not a governor with executive experience and elect someone who is a true conservative and let him/her surround themselves with people who know the processed of government.
I want my candidate to be strong on defense and WOT, pro 2nd amendment, in favor of strict immigration and no amnesty, anti homo marriage, pro family free trade ( but on a level plane with foreign businesses ), appoint constructionist judges, will call a spade a spade ( NOT so PC I know a futile dream it seems ), and willing to cut taxes and balance the budget.
My candidate will need to fill most if not all of these requirements: most of all WOT, 2nd amend, immigration and judges. Rudy fails of 3 of these 4 ( and his WOT is only talk for now )and hence does not carry the majority of what I feel is important. I simply cannot vote for him even if he gets the nod and that makes me more mad/frustrated than you or anyone else will ever know. Once you compromise you principles it gets easier to do it the next time.
The polling data you refer to is bases on current standings. There is no way those numbers will continue to hold, especially when the TV commercials hit the airwaves about Rudy's positions on abortion, partial birth abortion, homoisexual agenda, illegal immigration amnesty, gun control, global warming and the latest, his financial connections to Citgo.
Giuliani is no hero. I don't recall him risking anything on 911 to rescue anyone. He also disarmed law abiding NYers and attempted to infringe on the the inalienable rights of the rest of the country through the courts, by judge shopping. He did not make NYC safe, he simply turned it into a police state.
"Fred Thompson will help split it in half."
Fred Thompson is a conservative that supports Freedom. Giuliani does not. Fred can gain the support necessary to gain the office of president. Giuliani can not, because he has no respect for Freedom.
Ain't too proud to beg. THOMPSON/GINGRICH '08 ;)
LOL! Even I have to admit that ticket would be a winner!
I totally agree with you. The Republicans should be running a squeaky clean candidate with no ties to Washington. The contrast with a ticket headed by Hillary would be absolutely clear. Republicans should also nominate a candidate who has shown managerial ability and the capacity to turn around failing organizations. Bush's people and the Republicans are seen as incompetent and corrupt. We need to reverse that perception in order to win in '08.
Not Ross Perot really... It was GHWB.
The "Read My Lips" tax increase and his executive order banning "non-sporting firearms" from import earning him a NRA No Endorsement was what got Perot 20% of the vote.
Rudy is about to do the same thing losing the second amendment and right to life votes.
Let's ask Mr. Giuliani questions about 9/11. Let's start with Tower 7. Let's then ask why the firemen don't want to hear from him this year.
((((((RUDY WRONG))))
And those damned fake moon landings, he should tell us what he knows!
This is an excellent article, thanks.
You'd need to talk to Art Bell about that sort of thing. I'm more interested in the perfect implosion of a smaller tower on a horrible day when Towers fell and Giuliani was mayor.
Boy, you really like to jump, huh?
Giuliani opposes partial-birth abortions and tax-funded abortions and - though Giuliani supports domestic partnerships - he believes marriage is strictly between man and a woman. link
And you probably saw this post posted by Areafiftyone, though the anti-Rudy's are known for their faulty memories I will refresh your memory:
HERE IS SOMETHING INTERESTING THE HOTLINE NEGLECTED TO SAY:
Patrick Oxford, a managing partner at Bracewell & Giuliani, said Giuliani, a Republican presidential hopeful, has no dealings with the Venezuelan-owned oil company. ``He has not seen hide nor hair of Citgo,'' Oxford said.
``Mayor Giuliani has been clear and consistent -- Hugo Chavez is no friend of the United States,'' campaign spokeswoman Katie Levinson said in the statement. ``Chief among the reasons Chavez has so much influence around the world is our ongoing dependence on foreign oil.''
With all due respect, social conservatives don't care if it's called homosexual marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership. They don't accept two homosexual people cohabitating and receiving the same benefits as a married couple.
As far as Bracewell & Giuliani, it is interesting that $250,000 has been paid to the firm by Citgo, and the money was accepted. Rudy has certainly received his pay as a senior partner. He has also not divested himself from the company, so anything they do is still going to be connected to him, whether right or wrong.
As far as Rudy knowing nothing about Citgo, it is interesting that less than 30 days of Rudy buying into the firm, the Citgo contract was signed. A senior partner is well aware of a major client like Citgo.
I agree, but how is this different from GW's: opposing to same sex marriage but leaving open the possibility that states could allow civil unions? That's Rudy's position. Currently, GW isn't a strong opponent of civil unions. Rudy's position on the issue is similar - marriage is between one man and one woman, but is open to the states deciding forms of civil unions. Indeed, strong social conservatives want no accommodation made for gays, but they find themselves in a minority as a majority of people are open to civil unions. What then is the proper role of social conservatives when they are in an minority?
Regarding Citgo, I already posted some info about it and I will try to gather more information tomorrow, but I wouldn't jump at this early negative anti-Rudy stuff in the hopes that it comes true.
Gotta go to bed. Nigthy night.
I've noticed that most of the pro-Rudy posts lately have been of the "Rudy doesn't suck as much as people think" variety. That's not a good sign for you guys. Y'all had better pray that Fred Thompson doesn't jump in.
A lot of Rudy people are jumping on the Thompson bandwagon too. Face it, Fred is the only candidate that can be considered a uniter. I can tell by your posts that he's scaring the hell out of you.
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.