El Presidente...
Posted on 09/19/2007 4:26:24 AM PDT by IrishMike
Early in my career as a political speechwriter, a young but wise campaign manager explained why candidates from the same party too often tear each other to pieces in the primaries. He told me that when all the candidates of your party are shooting at the probable opponent from the other party, your frontrunner is going to get shot in the back. I thought of that analogy the other day as I read about Rudy Giuliani’s potent political attacks on Hillary Clinton.
Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democrats’ presidential nomination, stuck George Soros’ giant left foot in her mouth attempting to do the bidding of MoveOn.org. For the entire world to see, Hillary decided that a Senate committee hearing would be a good place to call a decorated war hero, Gen. David Petraeus, commander of American forces in Iraq, a liar. Parroting the same extremist nonsense that is rapidly making the folks at MoveOn the leading leftist nutters of the blogosphere, Hillary’s comments landed with a clank in most parts of America, most notably at the Giuliani for President Campaign headquarters.
The previous week, the folks running the nation’s premiere agenda-driven newspaper, The New York Times, embarrassed themselves by substantially discounting the now-infamous, full-page, MoveOn ad calling Gen. Petraeus “Gen. Betray Us.” Apparently, The Times management doesn’t realize that George Soros can afford the full rate.
Adding to their heartburn was former New York City Mayor and Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, who demanded and got the same $65,000 rate for what normally would be $165,000 worth of ad space. (Can you imagine anyone ever again paying the full rate for a full-page ad after this fiasco?) Rudy used the opportunity to excoriate Hillary for her cowardly submission to the anti-war Left and asked America who they trusted more, the senator or the general.
Rather than firing back at his opponents, Rudy is focusing on his likely Democrat challenger. Instead of answering the attacks of Mitt Romney and others in his party who are running behind him in the polls, Giuliani is acting as if he is already the Republican nominee.
Let me say again that even though Giuliani is tough on crime and terrorism, I don’t like his domestic agenda at all. As a pro-life, pro-family, pro-traditional marriage, pro-Second Amendment Republican, I find him far too liberal on most social issues. As my son said to me recently, “Rudy Giuliani is a just Democrat who’s willing to blow stuff up.”
I also find Giuliani’s personal life to be downright offensive. In some ways, he makes Bill Clinton look stable. At least Clinton never had Monica Lewinsky move into the White House and openly live with him like then-Mayor Giuliani did when he had his girlfriend (now his wife) move into Gracie Mansion while he was still married to the mother of his children.
Having said all that, going after Hillary Clinton is a brilliant strategy. It makes Rudy look presidential. It makes his GOP opponents look small when they attack him. And it creates its own momentum. The more Giuliani acts like the heir apparent to the Republican nomination, the more voters will become comfortable with him.
Those of us who were looking to Fred Thompson as the fiscal and social conservative who could wrestle the GOP mantle away from hizzonor are becoming increasingly alarmed by the efficiency of the Giuliani campaign. As I wrote a few months ago, just as Democrats must find a way to turn red states blue, the converse is also true, and Rudy could change the color of the map radically. Consider the electoral vote-rich states that could fall into the GOP column with Giuliani as the nominee: California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and, of course, New York. That’s a strong temptation to many Republicans who simply want to win.
Giuliani is leading in most polls largely due to his record as a tough mayor who cleaned up America’s biggest, dirtiest city and because of his leadership in the aftermath of 9/11. The war against Islamist fanaticism demands an alternative to Hillary Clinton. Rudy Giuliani firmly believes he is that alternative. An alarming number of Republicans seem to agree with him.
“They can send me a signal and vote for me on the liberal line.”
That line, from Giuliani in 1993, can easily be twisted into a negative ad today.
Critics have made the point before, and it’s true that the Liberal Party in New York City was not a “liberal” party per se. It was born out of frustration with corrupt and fallow Republican and Democratic parties in the 1940s, back when “liberal” meant what “classical liberal” means today. Fiorello H. La Guardia and FDR are among its more famous endorsees.
But until it nearly died in 2002, the party platform was fairly indistinguishable from the Democratic Party’s platform: pro-choice; anti-death penalty; pro-universal health care; anti-school vouchers. In its later years, the party was accused of becoming a patronage mill. To some, its endorsement of Republicans like Giuliani and Al D’Amato reflected the personal prerogatives of chairman Ray Harding more than it did any particular political sentiment. Conservatives found that the name of the party confused voters, especially since, as Harding himself would say, it was not a party of liberals. (As a counterweight, actual liberals started their own third party, the “Working Families Party.”)
One long-time Rudy watcher told me: “Rudy ran as a Lib-Rep because “Republican” is a bad word in New York, and it gave Democrats a chance to vote for him.” The New York Times characterized Giuliani’s 1993 appeal as a “non-ideological fusion” candidate. By choosing Giuliani, Harding and his Liberal Party were rewarded.
For the last eight years, the influence of the New York Liberal Party and its leader, Raymond B. Harding — which is considerable — has been almost entirely a function of its friend in City Hall, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. Mr. Harding helped the Republican mayor win election in a Democratic city by awarding him the Liberal Party line in 1993 and 1997. And Mr. Harding has reaped his reward in access, influence and patronage jobs for family (both sons work for City Hall) and friends alike.Giuliani advisers are quick to point out that Giuliani, in fact, was so conservative that New York’s capital-C Conservative Party did not challenge his re-election in 1997.
But try explaining all of the above in 30 seconds.
LMAO!
The tagline is from one of Reagan’s greatest speeches. It’s when he told CONSERVATIVES that they were better off without liberals in the GOP.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1735897/posts
El Presidente...
......Giuliani is leading in most polls largely due to his record as a tough mayor who cleaned up America’s biggest, dirtiest city ........
FReepers should read this and chew on it. The potential gains of the fat middle off sets the loss of the extreme right.
There is a great possibility that the far right will be marginalized.
Disclaimer....... not supporting anyone at preent
I don’t know, but if you are promoting a known gun grabbing, abortion “rights” supporting, gay “rights” supporting, sanctuary city creating liberal, you’re definitely placing your conservative credentials in grave jeopardy.
Yes, the VP does not pick Supreme Court nominees. But the VP can influence policy alot. If Guiliani gets the nomination, his VP choice will be an opportunity to solidify himself with the Republican base. I hope he sees it that way.
B/S.
Flame away-but it is one of the few times I've seen government work.
A vice president ONLY influences policy to the extent that the president allows it. It’s really only been in the past thirty years that VP’s have had any role other than attending funerals. Mondale was the first VP to attend cabinet meetings. Rooty Toot, if given the chance, would lock a conservative VP away in a closet somewhere.
LOL! Well, yes...he's a JFK Democrat (as are the majority of voters).
But George W. Bush is, too, and a Texas accent doesn't change that.
The emergence of Thompson will have an interesting effect on the campaign for the nomination. Until now, conservative voters have had little choice.
Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the frontrunner for the nomination, is quite contrary to his party. As the pro-choice, pro-gay rights and anti-gun rights candidate, he’s not exactly the average Republican’s dream.
Former Gov. Mitt Romney has positioned himself as the conservative candidate, which is exactly his problem: he’s positioned himself. Many of his beliefs have changed between 2002 and 2007.
As any Democrat could tell you, a politician from Massachusetts that flip-flops does not perform well in presidential politics. Just ask not-President Dukakis and not-President Kerry.
Meanwhile, Sen. McCain has fallen so low in the polls he barely warrants mention.
With Thompson in the race, conservatives who may have voted for Romney or McCain as an alternative to Giuliani now have another viable option. This means a further split of the conservative vote, ending in two possible results.
First, Thompson could absorb some or all of Romney and McCain’s support making it a two-way race. In such an event, it would be anybody’s guess what could happen. Thompson’s conservatism might save him, or Giuliani’s support among independent voters could destroy Thompson.
Alternatively, Giuliani could capitalize on the three-way split and cinch the nomination by winning a slew of states come Feb. 5, when 20 states will hold primaries or caucus’. Granted, Giuliani probably won’t earn anywhere near 50 percent of the vote, but with three other quality candidates, he won’t need it.
A Giuliani nomination could have repercussions in South Dakota when he searches for a running mate.
Giuliani, as a pro-choice candidate will need a strong pro-life running mate to appease the conservative wing of the party. Gov. Rounds has just the credentials a Giuliani running mate needs. His support of last years abortion ban gives him unassailable pro-life credentials.
It’s difficult to pinpoint any effect Thompson will have on the highly fluid Republican race this early.
Common wisdom says Thompson will turn the nomination into a two-man race, but the same common wisdom says Giuliani could never be the Republican frontrunner.
Either way, one thing is clear: this whole thing has started too freaking early!
If he is wrong for the conservative elemnt of the GOP and can still win against fatso then he’s my guy. ANYONE who can beat fatso is my guy.
No, some will embrace Hillary just to show the republicans it their way or the highway.
Are you going to sit here and tell us you actually suppport this abortionist creep?
Funny thing happened on the way to FR. Has it dawned on you yet that this is a conservative forum, not a RINO forum?
duh?
The Clintons
Oops, I failed to see the date. But nonetheless it is true today in our Party just as it was then in what was his Party.
Gidday, Jim. You write:
> Sorry pal. We won’t be promoting Rudy on FR. He’ll never win the White House anyway. He’s probably the only Republican guaranteed to lose to the dems. You’re wasting your time.
It would be instructional and helpful to know whom FR will endore and promote and advocate and back. That way we can all get behind the plan and move it forward.
So far — and I really hesitate to say it — of the Conservative candidates available only Rudy is electable.
The left has a very, very strong stable. So far, Fred does not have the legs to get past HillBilly, who for sure will be elected unless something miraculous happens. Once Billary is POTUS she will be in for two terms. Crikey!...
...can you give us guidance? Please??
*DieHard*
Staunch ally to America
No flames here. As Newt Gingrich said: "You need either a strong common culture, or a strong central government." A mutilcultural city like New York needs a certain authoritarian streak in policing policy to remain livable, and for all the "fascist" attacks on Giuliani, he understood that. When you choose to live in a place like New York, you have to accept certain restrictions on your behavior - like not barbecuing pigs and shooting SKS rifles in Central Park. ;)
But one of the great divides in American politics comes about when liberal city dwellers try to export that authoritarianism to suburban and rural areas (as in gun control legislation - which may be Giuliani's Achilles Heel) where it is wholly inappropriate. In West Texas, if people want to barbecue pigs and shoot SKS rifles, so what? No Federal law should have anything to say on the subject. So the big open question about Giuliani is: does he understand the difference, as a conservative would? Or is he like most Northeastern liberals in thinking that what works in his city is good for the whole country?
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.