hey if this guy could do it Thompson can too
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.
Go to flashbunny's about me page to learn about Rudy in his OWN words.
He is a Liberal!
With Hillary or Obama heading the ticket, probably none.
Go to flashbunny's about me page to learn about Rudy in his OWN words.
He is a Liberal!
If Lincoln Chaffee wrote a pro-Rudy, anti-Republican Right Wing article in the NY Observer (or any other paper), Giuliani supporters would gleefully post it with the following comments:
(((RUDY PING!!!!)))
Rudy 2008!
GetOnTheRudyTrain!!!
BUMP! (Another Big Endorsement)
Giuliani- The Only One Who Can Protect Us!
Nonsense. This is the primary season. We are supposed to separate the wheat from the Chafee's.
It is NOT trashing Rudy to call him a liberal, it is a fact. It is not trashing him to point out his myriad words/deeds/actions/history that demonstrate utter contempt for conservative positions many of us hold dear. It is not trashing him to demonstrate that he comes nowhere near the philosophy of the GOP platform. It is not trashing him to use his very own statements to kill his primary bid in its tracks.
You have yet to fathom that he IS a liberal on many, many issues. This is not the case of overlooking one or two wild hairs. If he was JUST pro gay--fine. If he was just pro global warming - fine. If he was repentent about his gun grabbing - fine. If he was just pro "hate crimes" legislation - fine. If the only leap of faith was to trust him on "strict constructionists" judges, maybe. But it isn't. It is all of this and MORE, much more.
I posted an article yesterday that his chief of staff in 2000 was trumpeting his "judge shopping" when it came to suing the gun manufacturers. He shopped it to the most liberal, activist judge in NY. How does that grab you? If suing the gun manufacturers is not enough to give you pause, shopping for this POS activist judge should be.
I posted an article yesterday. Rudy was the leader in NY state in going after the tobacco companies, but folded his lawsuit in with the State later, then complained about not getting enough of the cash. And threatened to go back after the companies if he did not get his way. What kind of man does this crap and yet tries to pass himself off to the masses as a conservative?
Rudy would be a fine upper bureacrat. He is not, and never will be, conservative presidential material. The notion that he is more qualified to be CIC than all the others is laughable.
I do NOT say the same things about Mitt Romney, Gingrich, Brownback, Huckabee, etc. And do not support those guys either.
Every frickin day here, it's something new you have to hold your nose over regarding Rudy. Aren't you sick of that? I mean, he really is a disaster, but yet you (plural) still stick up for him. Doesn't it get really tiring fighting for a really bad cause?
It's like a ten year old boy trying to cover for his alcoholic dad.
Precisely. The argument that he would capture some blue states is a head scratcher. Under that argument the GOP should run Hillary, then they could capture ALL the blue states.
Lamar was weakish and fairly unknown, but Dole was old,old,old news and fairly impolitic for a career politician. The pragmatic choice would have been Lamar, IMO.
Exactly right. I'm only interested in defeating the Clintons, not winning FR popularity contests. Those here trying to tear down our front-runner over purity is mind-bogglingly stupid.
These people are our servants, not our masters. We would all do well to remember that.
Man, ya'll have the manure spreaders going full-tilt today. Fred is dull and unknown? He's a well-known, charismatic actor and an experienced public servant and politician with a great sense of humor. And what is with the white guy slam?
All I got left is, Amen.
Which red state would Guliani lose? (Especially if he picks a mainstream Pubbie VP)
Please give me one example of a Red State that Rudy wouldn't hold against Hillary or Obama. I can't think of any.
A Hunter/Thompson ticket would also generate much fear and loathing, particularly in Las Vegas.
On a side note, I agree that the WOT is the most important single issue in the '08 campaign. We cannot trust the Dems to fight for America. Many of them want to see America destroyed for it's "sins".
Whoever wins the GOP nomination will be the person I vote for, including McCain, for whom I have strong personal dislike. I have different views on abortion and the 2nd amendment than Rudy, but I trust him as a leader. He will get my vote if he is the nominee.
hey if this guy could do it Thompson can too
Louisiana & Arkansas
I guess Rudy would be the 2nd black president?
Florida. North Carolina. Mississippi. Louisiana. Georgia.
South Carolina. Several others in the Midwest.
As she trashes Fred Thompson. Pure political mendacity from the Rudy boosters on this one.
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.