Posted on 04/02/2007 12:28:27 AM PDT by RWR8189
Although the presidential election is 19 months away, the Republican Party has a real and growing problem in Ohio that could cost it the White House in 2008.
Simply put, the GOP brand is in trouble in Ohio, more so than it is nationally. That matters because in 2004 Ohio was the key to an Electoral College majority, and could well be the same in 2008.
Since the 2004 election in which President Bush narrowly defeated John Kerry, the undercurrent in Democratic thinking for 2008 has been to hold the states Kerry won and to turn Ohio from red to blue.
If Ohio's 20 electoral votes were to go to the Democrats, assuming that no other states switch allegiance, that would give them the White House.
And as simplistic as that strategy sounds, it could turn out to be successful because of the woes that are besetting the Republicans in the Buckeye State, more than in any other key battleground.
In fact, polls of Ohio voters are finding them less inclined to support GOP candidates, less likely to consider themselves Republican than in the recent past, and giving higher ratings to potential Democratic candidates with a consistency that should set off alarm bells at the Republican National Committee.
Ohio has historically has been slightly more Republican than one of the other big Electoral College battlegrounds, Pennsylvania. In recent presidential elections it has been roughly as GOP as Florida, the other major swing state.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
But they may nominate SCOTUS who would work in that direction, whereas Rudy would work the opposite direction.
Some fights may not be immediately winnable, but you still shouldn't support the opposition. We may never rid the world of homosexuls, but I don't think that means we should go and support the gay agenda and help educate 5th graders about proper lubrication techniques for fisting.
Depends on the general state of Republicans, now, doesn't it?
What if most Republicans in a future Congress are just as wishy-washy as the ones we have now? (Given, we have a few good ones.)
Just how on earth do you think any good legislation would occur then?
But he was chief archictect and his subordinates carried out his policies. The result was unprecedented.
Again, no. Bratton and Kelly and Maple knew more about the available law enforcement technology and concepts than Rudy, who basically said, "Okay try it."
Again, crack itself helped wipe out some crime. Cops called the phenom "self cleaning ovens."
I'm not sure that I 100% agree with your premise......
You are suggesting that republicans are somehow different than rudy, taft, voinovich, etc.
It is entirely possible, in fact probable, that the republican party as a whole actually is epitomized by rudy and the others you consider "rinos."
The republican party perpetrated a cruel hoax on conservative leaning intelligent people. They misrepresented themselves as the party of smaller more fiscally responsible government; as the party of putting Americans and America first, as the party that puts the responsibility of protecting OUR soil and OUR citizens above all else, the party of simplification, minimizing government, and common sense.
What we have seen in Ohio is the true face of the republican party and their goals; massive taxation, waste and over-regulation, corruption and cover-up, a party that exists to blame everyone but themselves and lives on the notion that "we're better than the rats, and that should be good enough!"
What has taken place here in Ohio over the past 11 or 12 years was an organized and purposeful effort on the part of the republican controlled State Government and those of us who were stupid and naive enough to believe them are also to blame.
We should never trust any politician and do everything possible to reduce their influence, power and ability to use their power against US.
JMHO
I'm sure you're right. After all, the United States was never going to ban slavery, so it was best to just "contain" it; the United States couldn't win the Cold War, so it was best to just have "detente" with the Soviets.
Liberal Socialist is as Liberal Socialist does, that's what my momma always says.
And zoning laws can be "steered and engineered".
Here's a story on the NYC crime reduction that puts the lie to the "Rudy did it" myth.
http://www.govtech.net/magazine/story.php?id=94847&issue=8:1999
Instead of spending all your waking hours publicly defending Rudy, ask yourself two simple questions.
"Why does the liberal media want Rudy to win the primary? Why are they pushing SO hard for him (even going as far as to skew polls in his favor right now)?"
The simple answer is this. They know they can turn his negatives into a huge win for Hitlary or Obama.
You either are working for Rudy's campaign or are completely drunk on the kool-aid.
Paul
"Again, no. Bratton and Kelly and Maple knew more about the available law enforcement technology and concepts than Rudy, who basically said, 'Okay try it.'"
If you mean that as Mayor Rudy failed to micromanage the policies he set, then I'd agree. But that's not what good executives do. What they do is empower the right people. Rudy set the goals and lit the fires under the right people to achieve results. Reread my rundown. It was his overarching vision that shaped his administration. His success was not accidental--it wss the result of extraordinary leadership.
He hired some smart guys -- with proven track records -- and let them do their jobs. There really wasn't an "overarching vision" because nobody knew if alot of this stuff would even work effectively.
Then, when Bratton starting getting too much credit and appeared on Time magazine's cover, Rudy fired him.
I understand you're a Rudy partisan, which is fine, but you have to get the history right.
"Here's a story on the NYC crime reduction that puts the lie to the 'Rudy did it' myth."
The real myth is that Rudy didn't do it.
The real myth is that Rudy didn't do it.
Okay, what did he do, precisely? And none of that "he got tough on crime" stuff. What policy did he imagine and then implement?
"Why does the liberal media want Rudy to win the primary? Why are they pushing SO hard for him (even going as far as to skew polls in his favor right now)?"
You must be joking. The media HATES Rudy. The NYTimes loathes him--so do the alphabet networks. But his career successes are undeniable--even they must acknowledge the obvious. As for the polls--most Republican polls show exactly the same results. Your thinking otherwise doesn't make it so.
"He hired some smart guys -- with proven track records -- and let them do their jobs. There really wasn't an 'overarching vision' because nobody knew if alot of this stuff would even work effectively."
This is false. You might get away with such nonsense writing that about any other politician, but it won't work with Guiliani because he spent a lifetime fighting crime and finding out where the levers of power are. He is also incredibly articulate and was able to express exactly the kind of administration he wanted. He has stated unequivocally that "government exists above all to keep people safe in their homes and in the streets, not to redistribute income, run a welfare state, or perform social engineering." That is quintissentially a conservative vision.
His persona was dreamed up by "uncle Al"
You're really backing a losing horse in this race. There are people who won't vote for him simply because he's a "New Yorker."
"And those of us who favor fiscal discipline are supposed to vote for the same pack of whores who wasted money at a rate beyond Bill Clinton's *wildest* fantasies?" - Wormwood
Three points:
First, the Clinton proposal for socialized medicine would have dwarfed the GOP spending to which you object.
Second, by all fiscal measures, the votes and bills of Democrat congress members were far worse than those of contemporaneous Republican congress members.
Third, congressional pork tends to be one-off projects and therefore limited in scope and more easily reformable than are ongoing programs. The most disastrous spending recently passed, expanded education and drug subsidies, are wholly attributable to the Bush administration which bludgeoned GOP congress members into partial acquiescence - Dems needed no such encouragement to vote overwhelmingly for those Bush programs.
"Okay, what did he do, precisely? And none of that "he got tough on crime" stuff. What policy did he imagine and then implement?"
How many times must I summarize his record? I responded to this at some length earlier--and most of you never bothered reading what I wrote and remain clueless about his accomplishments. Here it is again in a nutshell:
Crime in NYC plummeted to around 64% as a result of Rudy's executive genius in appointing qualified officials to carry out his programs-- the murder rate alone declined 67%. That was not due to new technologies or an economic upswing as some of you claim, but was the result of aggressive new strategies and the hiring of the best talents to carry them out. He set the tone by moving against sleaziness and corruption everywhere--not just against the overt criminal classes.
He shut down porn shops throughout the downtown tourist areas, for instance, not just in Times Square, but he kicked them out of all tourist areas and residential neighborhoods. He went after drug dealers--something unheard of previously in NYC. No other mayor had the gonads to tackle such a huge problem. They said it couldn't be done, but he ignored this reasoning and went after the thugs preying on users. He went after the welfare cheats, removing illegal recipients, cutting the outlay for welfare by 20%. Over 600,000 recipients were dropped from the roles. At the same time he began a work requirement program for remaining recipients.
He ended the set-aside program for minority contractors as well, refused to meet with Al Sharpton, and otherwise would not allow himself to be cowed by racial politics. That had nothing to do with technologies or economics. Neither had his refusal to lower job requirements for minorities and women. He pushed to reform the city's schools by firing ineffectual officials and supported school vouchers--both of which went against the liberal grain. Ditto his fight against using public money for anti-religious art displays. And on and on it goes.
He saved hundreds of millions of dollars by reorganizing the police force and transit authority and trash collection agencies. He cut taxes and levies over and over, saving billions for taxpayers. He cut NYC's top income-tax rate by 20.6%. Local city taxes on a family of four dropped 23.7%. He cut the commercial-rent tax. He cut sales taxes, including taxes on clothing. He cut the marriage penalty tax. He cut taxes on commercial rents and on small businesses and self-employed New Yorkers. He privatized municipal assets, selling city-owned radio and television stations and divested the City from the New York Coliseum adding $345 million to erase the City's red ink. He cut NYC's hotel tax from 6% to 5%. Tourism increased 50% in the city per year during Rudy's tenure. Personal income increased 50%. Unemployment in the city went form 10.3% to 5.1%.
In all of this he was fought by the liberal media, beginning with the NYTimes, every step of the way. But he fought back and won over public opinion time and time again. Nor was he just successful as mayor. As a U.S. Attorney in the Reagan administration, Rudy amassed more than 4,000 convictions, including the five family heads of NY's notorious Mob. He went after Wall Street white collar criminals. He also prosecuted terrorists and illegal immigrants.
So his success was indeed chiefly because of his own remarkable abilities and not the result of luck or an improved economy or new technologies. He was a pro-active mayor who operated according to a clearly conservative philosophy of law-and-order and fiscal responsibility.
The problem in Ohio was named TAFT. I don't know why everyone is busy bashing Giuliani, because he has nothing to do with the Republican meltdown in Ohio.
The first thing that needs to be done is to rebuilt the Republican organization in Ohio after Taft dumped all over it. There's a real stench there that needs to be cleaned up.
What is a "downtown tourist area" in NYC?
Look, you're backing a losing horse with Rudy. A lot of voters won't even look at your "got tough on crime" stuff. They'll see:
A) New Yorker
B) Three marriages
C) A New Yorker
D) A father who was a jailbird
E) An estranged son.
F) A New Yorker
G) A guy who lived with a couple of gay guys during a divorce
H) A "gay friend" and "abortion friendly" track record
I) A New Yorker
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.