Replies

So are you saying conservative ideals don’t have a snowballs chance in hell.

It will be very difficult to win this presidential election cycle with a candidate perceived as "hard conservative".

We _might_ have had that chance, IF we could win exactly the same states that Bush won in 2004. But we can't, because Ohio is going to be a problem. As someone wrote in another thread recently, the Republican party is in deep doo-doo in that state. It may be impossible for ANY Republican presidential candidate of ANY persuasion to capture Ohio in 2008.

There is also a problem with the [formerly] "reliably red" states "turning purple". Cases in point would be:
- New Hampshire: seems like the Democrats have been winning this once-conservative state with increasing frequency lately
- Arizona: didn't they just VOTE DOWN a gay-marriage ban? What the heck is going on there?
- New Mexico: another once-reliable state that is slipping from the Republican grasp.
Hard conservatives aren't guaranteed these states any more, because the states themselves are no longer hard conservative.

On the other hand, there are blue states that Giulianni could actually WIN. Cases in point would be:
- New Jersey: Rudy is doing VERY well there. I think he could take it (even though he probably doesn't have a chance of winning New York across the Hudson; it's just too damned blue to hope Republicans can ever win there again).
- Pennsylvania: Although Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are 'rat cities, the heartland of PA is red. It's a battleground state and Rudy can probably take it easily.
- Florida: Rudy could cut through the purple haze to win there, too.

If we can take NJ, PA, and FL, we can sustain the loss of Ohio and win. But there is only one Republican I can see, capable of winning in New Jersey.

Political fortunes ebb and flow, like the tides. I think it's safe to say that at the moment, the fortunes of the Republican party in general, and of the hard-right in particular, are on the ebb. The war in Iraq is going to be a BIG problem, better not kid ourselves on this. Any candidate we put up is going to have to be perceived by the mushy middle to have "credentials" in regard to "terrorism" (remember that the American public, by and large, still _thinks_ it is supposed to be a "war on terror", regardless of what this struggle REALLY is about). Rudy has those credentials. What does Fred Thompson have?

There's no denying that we took significant losses in 2006. How might the loss of BOTH houses of Congress otherwise be seen?

We cannot afford to lose the Presidency in '08. We have to be pragmatic, shift tactics if necessary, and DO what is necessary to hold that office.

2008 will be a "defensive" election for Republicans. We must hold the line, try to minimize losses in the Congress (even pick up a few seats), and hold the Presidency (which gives us an edge for judicial picks for the next 4 years, in which Stevens and Ginsburg will have to be replaced on the Supreme Court).

Of course, one can stand hard on principles - NO COMPROMISE. And lose.

Or we can be pragmatic, compromise, and win.

Which is better?

Really?

- John

“Are you espousing the “anybody but Hillary” campaign. What if the dem candidate happens to be Obama...then is it anybody but Obama.”

It isn’t “anybody but Hillary”. It is what happens if OUR CONSERVATIVE candidate doesn’t beat Rudy in the primaries? This is a poll question that needs to be asked because this can happen and we need to address this.

First off, who is our candidate? Is it Thompson, Gingrich, Hunter, Tancredo or Romney? Let’s get that established first.

Now we can go after Rudy. At this point in time, Hillary, Obama and the Breck Gal are irrelevant.

WHO DO WE WANT?