Posted on 04/19/2007 11:04:50 AM PDT by Mia T
What crossover appeal?
Reagan's crossover appeal was largely pro-life and pro-gun Dems. Rudy won't pull those.
And you would have us believe that Rudy, as a pro-war pubbie, can run left to pic up votes even though antiwar sentiment increases dramatically the further left you go in the electorate.
So unless Rudy sells out on the Iraq War, he can't run left. And if he does sell out (and he's given himself an out already for that), then he's just negated your core assertion - that he's the guy to lead the country in a time of war.
Mia T. Bump
You are making an argument with me as to why these people should get out and vote. But I'm not the one suggesting it. That's the way those people are. If you can go convince them, more power to you. Keep in mind though, they don't read FreeRepublic, they don't follow politics and for the most part they don't watch much news.
As for so-called cross over appeal, the only presidential candidate in recent memory to achieve that in a big way was Ronald Reagan. So I'm not sure who is going to be crossing over for pro-abortion, gun grabbing, homo-friendly Rudy, because on those issues the Dmeocrat is always better.
I will vote for whichever R is nominated. I understand the danger of the clintons.
If another R emerges who is a stronger candidate, I will support that R. We will lose only if we, each of us with our own vote, votes for the other guy.
Funny you should ask about GHWBush. He lost because he was a fool and ultimately irresponsible. He understood that the clintons were unfit to lead, he had the goods on clinton, but never used it.
This is not unlike what you would be doing.
It is not your whole point. You are pushing a flawed candidate who would rift the party the way Papa Bush's leftward drift did in 1992.
Funny you should ask about GHWBush. He lost because he was a fool and ultimately irresponsible. He understood that the clintons were unfit to lead, he had the goods on clinton, but never used it.
Oh, yeah, sure. He had the goods on them. That's a good one.
Bush was a fool because he drifted leftwards. But he went nowhere near as far left as Rudy is now, even with his attempts to move rightward.
This is not unlike what you would be doing.
6.2 percent, Mia. That is Rudy's support among Freepers. Pretty pathetic. Shows he has no support among conservatives. You need to drop your support of Rudy and quit trying to redefine the concept of pro-life the way you have here. Our definition of such works just fine.
No. That’s not my point. I think when faced with clinton, the sequel, the survival instinct will kick in with many of those religious folks, as it will with many women normally on the fence.
As for crossover: Giuliani has widened his lead over clinton in New Jersey (50-41).(Quinnipiac University Poll) But it is the recent Keystone Poll that foreshadows the final outcome. Rudy demolishes clinton in PA (53-37).
Did you click the link and listen to what Bush41 said about clinton?
Surely you don’t doubt that Bush had access to documentation of all the nasty clinton stuff.
BTW, just heard an updated Quinnipiac University Poll released today. Rudy would defeat hillary in NJ 49-40.
Are you saying that you really aren’t pro-LIFE, that you are only anti-abortion?
Anti-abortion is pro-life, Mia. Unless you think pro-life is also anti-death-penalty. And anti-war is pro-life. And other left-wing viewpoints in that regard.
My positions aren’t etched in stone. That would be foolish. Conditions change.
The idea is to win so that the defective and dangerous clintons do not retake the White House, not that any particular R becomes president.
We should field the strongest R. To do any less would be irresponsible.
pingaling
Hillary Clinton is a red herring -- if she manages to win the Dem primary, she will lose to any competent opponent.
We should field the strongest R. To do any less would be irresponsible.
Not if that "R" is a complete betrayal of conservatism. We gain NOTHING in that scenario.
Today. The campaign hasn't even started yet. These polls are meaningless.
Thanks you MiaT.
Good video.
I passed it around.
But you are 100 percent correct. Those who would destroy every Republican candidate who has any chance of victory against Hillary don't begin to understand what conservatism means. Conservatism never meant committing political suicide simply because your candidate doesn't get the nomination. Most here have no idea how important the next election is. They seem to forget that in all likelihood 2 vacancies will occur on the USSC.
They seem to forget what is at stake in the war on terror, the major challenges from China and Russia, the growing Marxist movement south of our border. Somehow they cannot fathom having a nominee who will bring together the center and moderate Republicans as well as the conservative Democrats and independents. Somehow they do not understand that Americans shun the extremes of both parties, and sincerely want a leader who will work with both parties to bring about the legislative initiatives promised by the 109th Congress, but that achieved little more than corruption and sleaze.
The party that fails to appeal to the independents and moderates of both sides will lose the next election.
As you so eloquently said, the social values of the right wing are to be prized and respected. But many of those issues are not even on the radar with most Americans with so much more facing this Country.
Thanks for the great post.
Super post Mia, and you didn’t have to resort to name-calling or labeling those that disagree with you a “Treasonous Liberal”.
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, Mia, for your intelligent and analytical approach to the political conundrum we find ourselves involved in at this time. The choice of electing a very strong, fiscally conservative leader who can win the majority of the big electoral college states but who we disagree with in some areas, versus voting for someone who passes all the litmus tests but can't possibly win the election.
What should be a no brainer at this time in our history has become a food fight within some Republican circles. The argument that "I'm more conservative than you are" is so silly when we have an enemy as brutal and unrelenting as the Islamofascists who want to take over the West. I will vote for my party's nominee, no matter who it is, because any Republican in the White House is better than any Liberal Democrat!
I join that.
Rudy is just as liberal as the Clinton's.
So maybe I'll be a man without a party like Zell Miller, but someday I will have to answer to the Boss of the Universe.
Not entirely meaningless. They show a strong, continuing trend. Things could change, but not likely.
(((((PING)))))
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.