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.
The SOB campaigned for months, spending millions of dollars. The GOP poured tens of thousands of dollars into campaign materials to support him. When his personal and city scandals were exposed and he was flaming out in the polls (showing that he would be soundly defeated by Hillary) he suddenly came down with cancer--treatment for which doctors said should not keep him from running. Despite that, Rudy dropped out just 11 days before the convention in which he was to be nominated as the GOP candidate for Senate. Lazio was the only alternative at the time.
Why folks think this scandal-ridden liberal has any chance of beating Hillary is beyond me. She was trouncing him before and she would again.
No, Rush stated that Republicans would get the wrong message from the 2006 election results. Rather than understanding it lost because it strayed from conservatism, he stated the GOP would assume it lost because it was conservative.
The GOP will self-destruct if Giuliani gets the nomination. If somehow became President, the clock would be turned back to the Nixon years where a liberal Republican presides over a shrinking Republican minority in Congress.
Precisely!
If Rooty Toot’s cancer was so serious, he should have also relinquished his mayoral duties (these are arguably far more stressful than running for senate).
And why didn’t he run against her last year? Because the BS excuse that he was getting ready to run for president has never stopped any other politician in history.
It sure wasn't when he was cheating on his wife while mayor of New York.
Why on earth couldn't he be? Hillary Clinton has the most unfavorable rating of any candidate that has come along in some time.
Are you stating someone espousing Reaganism can't be elected?
Giuliani isn't a conservative and fails that criterion.
As far as the Rooty Rooters are concerned, ONLY Rooty can stop Hitlery. Never mind the fact that Hitlery is probably the single most polarizing person in political history, they are convinced it’s Rooty or her.
The reality is that most of the Rooty Rooters SUPPORT his liberal agenda and would be delighted to see conservatism destroyed.
Why wouldn’t they like this article? If anything it would please them that a Fred fan doesn’t think it’s a slam dunk.
I believe he is the one most likely to win and the only one almost guaranteed to lose red/swing states like Florida, Kentucky, Iowa, Colorado.
You can't lose millions of the base and win elections. It's not possible for a Northeastern social liberal to hold the south.
And, I will also predict the only blue state he'd have a chance in is New Jersey.
Winning the WAR is my #1 issue.
Fighting the Dims is an important part of it.
RUDY FIGHTS! His MASTERFUL handling of the Petraeus brouhaha has convinced me. He is the ONLY one who jumped on the opportunity to expose the Dims’ treachery on this, and named names. We have had 8 years of ‘new tone.’ I want to see someone TOUGH in there.
His communication skills are great, obviously he has a great PR team. And you guys are criticizing him for a show of STRENGTH. It doesn’t make sense.
Two months ago I was for Hunter. Now I am for Rudy.
Oh, to paraphrase another poster: Is FR willing to embrace Socialism (through a Hillary presidency) in order to oppose Rudy?
Not to mention all of his LIBERAL buddies that Rudy would fill the bureaucracy with. He'll have lots of 'bi-partisan' support in that area. /s
Oooops, never mind. I forgot. Rudy and his apologists have repeatedly promised us that Rudy will only appoint personnel and implement policies to PROTECT US FROM LIBERALS LIKE HIMSELF!!! /S
So who's your candidate, then? It can't be Fred Thompson since you claim that Bob Dole was a moderate. Their lifetime ACU ratings are only 3 points apart (Thompson, 86 and Dole, 83) - an insignificant difference.
The mood of the electorate doesn't always stay constant. The pendulum often swings back and forth. In the six elections from 1952 to 1972 saw 4 elections go to moderate Republicans (3 by landslide), one narrow loss by a moderate Republican, and one landslide loss by a conservative Republican. I think that the mood of the electorate has drifted away from conservatism in the last 20 years. I think that Karl Rove read this trend awhile ago, hence the Dubya campaign as a "compassionate" conservative. By 2000, the label of "pure" conservative was becoming a handicap in the general election. The pendulum may be swinging back to the middle which would make your analysis fairly irrelevant.
Or libertarians, although one think even those types would be turned off by gun-grabbing, big-spending, illegal-immigrant coddling Rudy.
What issues that Giuliani is liberal on aren't likely to come up? Good grief, the Democrats will go out of their to bring them up.
On the campaign trial, Giuliani has backed the notion of man-made global warming, tried to redefine what a strict constructional judge is and been promoting a path to citizenship for illegals. So, these issues are already coming up.
His actions with the New York Times played right into Hitlery's hand. IT TOOK THE HSU SCANDAL RIGHT OFF THE FRONT PAGE.
Spoken like a liberal...
And, that mentality really worked in the last election, didn't it, when Democrats began taking back seats in the south and other red states by running social conservatives for Congress.
And, recent Harris poll indicated up to 40% of Republicans wouldn't vote for Giuliani based on his position on abortion. I guarantee you he won't have the support of prominent Christian leaders like James Dobson or from the NRA.
But, if he wins the nomination, I'll relish seeing the GOP meltdown and clearing it out of liberal RINOs like yourself as it is rebuilt in the Reagan mold.
One word for that mentality -- DUMB!
RINOs do far more damage because Republicans won't stop liberal legislation pushed for by a RINO.
And, let's not forget the damage done in Congress. The party in the White House almost always loses seats in Congress. Just think how much worse that trend will be with a social liberal driving Southern conservatives and Catholics back to the Democratic party.
At least with Hillary in office, Republicans will start gaining seats in Congress. And, the Republicans are far more likely to oppose liberal legislation from her than from Giuliani.
I was personally hoping for a Haley Barbour candidacy.
It can't be Fred Thompson since you claim that Bob Dole was a moderate. Their lifetime ACU ratings are only 3 points apart (Thompson, 86 and Dole, 83) - an insignificant difference.
But still higher than Rudy or Mitt.
I think that the mood of the electorate has drifted away from conservatism in the last 20 years.
I would be interested in any data you have to support that thought. Until you can produce said data however, I reiterate my statement: In the past 30 years, moderate Republicans get beat, conservative Republicans win.
The pendulum may be swinging back to the middle which would make your analysis fairly irrelevant.
That may be. But the data that I see doesn't seem to support that. Have any data to support your theory?
How is it that you think yu know better than Rudy about judges. Very unlikely, in my book.
Huh? You obviously have only been reading "Rudy News" then. Hunter was first to take on MoveOn.org... Thompson second. Giuliani exploited it for his own purpose a couple days later.
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.