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.
Can you give us a single reason why we should believe that a LIBERAL would knowingly appoint a non-liberal judge?
I trusted GHWB a hell of a lot more than I will ever trust Rooty Toot and look how "Read my lips: no new taxes" turned out.
Rooty Toot jumped on the bandwagon just in time to distract attention from Hsu.
I wonder if any of the “My Way or the Highway” Rudy haters know that the current VP is more pro-gay than Giuliani on his worst day.
Not a liberal, but an analyzer of the Rudy phenomenon and a realist.
The middle is crucial to a win, like it or not. The candidate who can influence those who don’t pay attention and make up their minds late will elect the President. Many of these ae women. They will vote for personal security above all. For them, guns and abortion are not high on the list of important issues.
Rudy is the only executive, the only true leader in the pack.
Disclaimer: I’m not for Rudy but will not wait till the last minute
To whom are you referring?
I don't know anyone that "hates" Rudy... they just detest liberalism and Rudy's stance on a host of issues
(gun control, santuary cities and 'path to citizenship', freedom, abortion, etc.)
***************
Many seem to be against the social conservative section of the Party, and have stated so.
If a POS liberal is going to destroy this nation over the next 4 to 8 years, I’d just as sonn it not have an R after it’s name.
“What about turning red-states blue when the Republican base takes a walk?”
Well then it becomes OUR fault that Cankles won, not the fault of the ptb in the party that annointed that effemenate little creep from NYC!
Which is why we have primaries to expose the frauds like Guiliani. It is also why he and his team have pushed to have primaries as fast as possible.
The more people know what kind of left wing anti-second amendment, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual advocate he is the less likely people will vote for him.
Yeah, I remember reading something about how we've "had our foot on their neck for too long."
You’re saying that Giuliani ran for the Senate over a 5 year period? Somehow I doubt that, particularly since Moynihan was the incumbent at that time.
****************
LOL! Yeah, I remember that. Back in late April, wasn't it? Good times. Good times.
From what I’ve seen on this thread, it might be time to invest in a new bug zapper, or at least borrow a Taser from one of John sKerry’s rent-a-cops.
***************
Nov '08 is a long way away. It's going to be brutal between now and then.
I hear that over and over with the Guiliani supporters. It is NOT that they support Guiliani, it is that they see him as an anti-religious candidate. A hedonist to pull the party away from a moral compass and more ambigious in line with the democrats.
Those people want two parties that stand for the same thing with only colors and cliques to differentiate.
The numbers cover the entire election cycle for that senate seat and are listed this way for every seat.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/alsorun.asp?CID=N00009908&cycle=2000
Moynihan announced his retirement in the Fall of 1998, so the amount that Rooty took in and spent certainly makes sense.
Yep, they want to prove that the 'Rats aren't the only ones who can elect a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-illegal alien, anti-gun leftist serial-adulterer.
Mayor Rooty was infamous for staffing govt with radical Liberals and Dems (while telling Repub conservatives to get lost).
2008 Rooty and his backers would turn the entire US govt over to liberals in both parties.
They would erase the system of checks and balances our Founders wisely wrote into our system of govt.
Do I have hard data? No. I base this on my observations. If conservatism is so attractive to the voters, why are no Democrats campaigning as conservative Democrats? That was common in the 1980s. In my own congressional district in 2006, I saw Jim Ryun disparaged for being, gasp, a conservative. Shockingly, this worked in Kansas, of all places.
Do you have hard data other than your analysis of the last eight elections? Frankly, I don't find that very compelling.
The 1976 election was the post-Watergate election. The moderate Republican lost but I would be reluctant to make too much of it given the unusual circumstances.
The 1980 and 1984 elections confirm your theory.
The 1988 election doesn't fit your conclusion. The moderate Republican won.
The 1992 election is difficult to determine. Was Bush beaten because he was moderate or because of his weak, incompetent leadership?
The 1996 election doesn't support your conclusion. Bob Dole while not a hyper-conservative was not a moderate as shown by his lifetime ACU rating of 83. He ran on his conservatism and was definitely more conservative than his opponent.
The elections of 2000 and 2004 are hard to interpret. In 2000, George W. Bush advertised himself as a "new kind" of conservative. That is hardly embracing a hard-line conservative banner. By 2004, Dubya has shown himself not to be a conservative. His policies were by this time much more Nixon than Reagan.
I'm not convinced that your analysis supports a dogmatic statement like conservative Republicans always win and moderate Republicans always lose.
Why should we assume that 2008 is like 1980? The political environment can change in the matter of days, why should we be surprised that it has changed in 28 years? What worked in 1980 is not guaranteed to work in 2008.
No, that is the way they report it.
I'm saying he was in the race for 2000, even though the shunned adulterer pulled out 11 days before being nominated.
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.