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.
More BS, that is silly. Leftism has been around a long, long time. So has conservatism. It exists right here and in many places all over this country and others.
A statement like yours is preposterous.
Also, polling from Massachusetts shows Romney losing to both Hillary and Obama by 20+ points.
No one - not even Rudy - expects that he can win either New York or Massachusetts. Those states will never vote for a Republican presidential candidate again. They are simply "too far gone", tipped over to the left forever. Conservatism has no future in such places, and conservatives who even dream of changing that are wasting their time, and their dreams.
But - unlike any of the other candidates - I think Rudy has a shot at taking New Jersey, and he has the best chance of keeping Ohio and Florida in our column.
The latter two are the KEY states in '08. We CANNOT win without them. And the 'rats cannot win without all of their blue states. Our best shot is to pick a candidate who can turn blue to the color purple in a few key states.
The "solid red" states are NOT going to vote for Hillary, even if the die-hard Rudy-haters sit on their hands. There are enough "party-commited" Republicans in those states to hold them comfortably.
This race will be won by courting the "waving wheat" voters: those who are normally so uncommitted and unconnected that they make their voting choice based on the way the prevailing political winds seem to be blowing. Rudy will appeal to them _precisely_ because he is not a hard-liner on social issues, but still strong on defense and the struggle with Islam.
Let's see what things look like after the dust clears after the first super-primary, which is heavily weighted towards the larger "purplish" states.
Having said that, I am commited to supporting the Republican candidate in '08.
- John
And then there's the SCOTUS nominees. Is there ANY difference between a RINO and a Rat nominee? Rudy approves of Ginsburg and would nominate her kind. Pro-life and RKBA will fall into the ash heap of history.
Why would any conservative go out special on a cold day in November to select that kind of outcome?
Right now, Republican prospects in the Senate are looking gloomy. Warner will win for the 'rats in Virginia. Bob Kerry will emerge from retirement, a la Lautenberg, and reclaim a seat for the 'rats in conservative Kansas. It looks like the 'rats will end up with a solid working majority in the Senate in 2009.
What this means is that if Hillary is elected, her programs, and her court nominees, will SAIL through the Senate. And I predict that if any Republican has the timerity to oppose a Supreme Court nomination with a fillibuster, watch the Dems impose the "nuclear option" on _Republicans_ that they railed against only a few years' previously.
Even with a "Rudy RINO" in the office of the presidency, that would at least slow down the 'rats in the Senate somewhat. Rudy is by nature so combative (he seems to relish public "fights") that it might just stop them altogether.
And I don't for one moment believe that Rudy's court picks would be "the same as Hillary's". Not for one moment - give that spiel to someone else.
I don't think Rudy will have very long coattails in 2008. But if he can just turn one or two Senate elections for us, that alone will be worth his victory.
- John
Richard Nixon:
Against Humphrey in 1968
Against McGovern in 1972 (49 states)
And before you retort, "Nixon wasn't moderate", what would you call ANY president who proposed and imposed wage and price controls on the country?
- John
Because that's what it would take to get a Giuliani presidential vote out of me.
Oh, and PS: I've been to Manhattan. It ain't happenin'.
YIPES! CORRECTION! I should have written:
"Bob Kerry will emerge from retirement, a la Lautenberg, and reclaim a seat for the 'rats in conservative Nebraska."
My apologies to Kansans!
- John
With my own eyes and ears I witnessed Rudy Giuliani approving of the choice of Ginsburg. So don’t tell me he’d be any better than Hillary Clinton at picking SCOTUS nominees.
As for combative, I would suggest that you look at his record and see how he picks his battles. You will also notice that in the course of his career he got very warm and cozy with liberals, though he started out with a cold, tough and combative persona. If he ran true to form he’d be dancing in tights with the liberal Dems in Congress.
Not that he’ll get that far. He can’t win the election and I very much doubt he can win the nomination.
You’ve got a point there but I don’t think he cheated with the dress on?
I’m in my evaluation phase right now and will probably wait until January to post my support right before the Iowa caucuses.
The big guys will only be brought down by some sort of tactical voting to keep this thing in knots so a real conservative candidate can emerge.
I have my doubts about Fred Thompson and I see him as all Washington and no hometown America.
He spent 18 years as a lobbyist in DC, then hopped on a pickup truck in 1994 to campaign for Senate and craft a new image.
He has “insider” pasted all over him from his Howard Baker-Lamar Alexander associations.
I’ll support whomever is up against Clinton.
She has to be stopped.
I’ll support whomever is up against Clinton.
She has to be stopped.
.......................................
Yep !!!
No, Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter were the two worst Presidents ever elected.
Under Clinton, our nation signed welfare reform, balanced the Federal budget and continue Reagan era of prosperity. That isn't because of Clinton's policies but because the Republicans took over congress.
If Hillary takes over, Republicans will retake Congress and another conservative revolution will occur. That sure bets a RINO presiding over a shrinking Republican minority and working with Democrats to advance liberal legislation.
And, you have a lot of gall condemning Clinton morally while trying to pass RINO Rudy off as being morally acceptable. Giuliani is an open adulterer. He has defended PBA, supported taxpayer-funding of abortion, spoken before NARAL and marched in every single gay pride parade as mayor of New York, including one with NAMBLA in it. Giuliani is every bit as morally depraved as Slick Willie.
The country is far more conservative than it was when Reagan was running for the Presidency. All it takes is for someone to articulate his ideas again to revive the ideas he espoused.
And, keep in mind, the Democratically-controlled congress has an 11 percent approval rating. So, the country hasn't become more liberal. It hungers for conservatism.
> And, you have a lot of gall condemning Clinton morally while trying to pass RINO Rudy off as being morally acceptable.
I have said nothing about Giuliani’s moral acceptability. You have alot of gall putting words in my mouth.
> No, Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter were the two worst Presidents ever elected.
I don’t agree that these two were worse than Clinton. They were clowns, sure — but Clinton was in a league all of his own. And, unless the GOP gets its act together quick-smart, you are going to see even more of him.
So, there is no comparison between Slick Willie and those two.
> So, there is no comparison between Slick Willie and those two.
No, as I said, Clinton was in a class all of his own. It takes a certain... style... to be serviced by an intern in the White House, while munching pizza and discussing by telephone the deployment of American soldiers in the former Jugoslavia. And then to lie about it. How many squillions has the War on Terror cost? To apportion blame look no further than Mr Clinton: he did nothing to prevent al Qaeda, back at a time when it would have been relatively easy to put a few bullets into bin Laden.
Clinton is in a league of his own. No doubt about it.
Political domination? Don't know how you define that but I've not seen it here. Politics, at least as practiced in a democracy such as ours, is not about domination. Neither is it about staying home on election day in a fit of pique because your perfect candidate is not the nominee. What does that gain?
A bit hypocritical of you to cry "political domination" while it is in fact what you want...but only on your terms by your candidate.
Conservatives would be considerably happier (and correspondingly less prone to wander off the reservation) if Republicans would throw us even the occasional bone...but we haven't even seen that.
It's been just business-as-usual. I apologize if you're offended, but that's just not acceptable.
To be honest, none of the current slate of Republican candidates excite me. But the thought of staying home and handing Hillary the oval office--the vary same oval office that she and Bill did so much to discredit--is out of the question.
Rudy on his worst day would be preferable to Hillary on any day.
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.