Posted on 10/09/2007 8:32:07 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
Front-runner Rudy Giuliani increasingly claims the mantle of invincibility -- issues, schmissues, he's the only guy who can beat Hillary.
Judging from my recent cocktail party conversations, it's having an impact. But these same conversations reveal how much wishful thinking goes into the myth of Rudy the Invincible.
"I can't believe the American people will vote for that woman and her husband, a philanderer," one wealthy businessman told me.
"Who are you supporting?" I innocently inquired.
"Rudy," he said.
Can you spell "cognitive dissonance"?
Sean Hannity spends hours every afternoon criticizing those in the GOP coalition (such as Dr. James Dobson) who won't vote for Rudy; sure Giuliani may be wrong on gay marriage and abortion, but he'll be much better than Hillary because he'll appoint "strict constructionist" Supreme Court justices, right?More self-delusion. Bucking the tide by appointing judges with sufficient intellectual integrity to overturn Roe v. Wade is very hard. Ronald Reagan wanted to do it, and he got it right only once. Even President Bush put appointing his good friend Harriet Miers ahead of appointing a Sam Alito. Only when the base went ballistic did Bush back down, and only because he really is a conservative who cares about what conservatives think.
Rudy? Here's a safe bet: He will appoint a loyalist crony to the bench. When the base erupts, he'll tell the base where it can stick its objections. That's Rudy.
When he's on your side, you admire how fearlessly he will defend your views. When he's not on your side, he ruthlessly steamrolls over you. And on abortion? Don't kid yourself: Rudy is not on our side.
And the Supreme Court is not the only issue of concern to social conservatives. What will Rudy do if and when a resurgent Democrat majority tries to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding for abortion? Or for that matter overturns the federal definition of marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act? Will Rudy spend his political capital on vetoing either of these? He's made us no promises. Instead, he's counting on widespread self-delusion and cognitive dissonance to carry enough social conservatives to win the nomination.
My question is: What is he counting on afterward? Because, frankly, Rudy's electoral prospects don't look that good.
The once-powerful Reagan coalition had three legs -- strong on defense, less government and social conservatism. But the war in Iraq is not the same as the war on communism. It's very unpopular, and Rudy has become as identified with this unpopular war as John McCain. Meanwhile, he has abandoned social conservatism. What's left of the Reagan coalition for Rudy to run on? Naked fiscal conservatism? Conservatives are deluding themselves if they think fiscal conservatism by itself is a winning political coalition. Do they not remember the party of Gerald Ford? It was very fiscally conservative, socially moderate, and a permanent minority party.
The halo of "America's Mayor" is already slipping. For months, polls showed Rudy Giuliani leading Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head matchup, but by June of this year that lead had begun to evaporate. The latest poll, conducted in late September by ABC News and The Washington Post, shows Hillary Clinton beating Rudy Giuliani by eight points. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney trails Clinton in a head-to-head matchup in the latest Rasmussen poll by only nine points. One point better than Romney does not a convincing argument make for abandoning all principles.
And that's before Christian conservative leaders bolt the party, which has abandoned them on abortion, to run a third-party candidate.
A little political realism, please. If you think a candidate who breaks up the Republican Party is the best man to lead the nation, vote for Rudy. But don't imagine, it's going to be easy to elect him.
Duncan Hunter did excellent in the debate today (as he always does). But after the fact, all the pundits did was mention the Thompson, Rudy, McCain, Romney and Huckabee. It’s like Hunter, Brownback, Paul and Tancredo have already been ruled out by the media, so they won’t be discussed.
The media is basically choosing our candidates for us! This is so sad, especially because Hunter has a much better grasp on ALL of the issues. If he was called on during these debates, and discussed afterward, as much as the others, he’d be our nominee without question.
Hunter did do well
Or 2006!!!
Its called FBI files..and its why Rudy did’nt go for the Senate in 2000....Rudy should go govern Newyork State for a while ..and show us all the conservative judges he appoints..and them come back for the big one...until then...
Second, nobody is going to be putting any Scalia/Thomas/Alito types on the Supreme Court while Harry Reid and co. run the Senate. They won’t even get confirmation hearings. The Rats will let the seats stay vacant rather than confirm a 5th solid conservative.
I will NOT accept a scenario where the White is occupied by a liberal for eight years and one that will doom the GOP to minority status in Congress for a decade, which is exactly what electing Giuliani would do.
I like Sean a lot, but his rooting for liberal Rudy is driving me crazy.
I may have to tune Sean out until Nov 2008.
Although the EITC was signed into law by Ford in 1975, it was substantially increased by Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. Many (Reagan and Milton Friedman among others) have claimed that the EITC lifts people out of poverty and increases work incentives because it is connected to earned income.
I have serious doubts about these claims. The EITC has become another large welfare program with lots of fraud. The other forms of welfare have not been reduced with the expansion of the EITC. Receipt of the EITC does not reduce other forms of welfare. The EITC is now another large entitlement supporting the vote buying schemes of our wonderful politicians.
FDT can also articulate a complete declarative sentence, even though he uses uh and um as a crutch too often.
I already have...I'll do the same with Rush if he starts pimping for Rudy.
And someone better get a pair soon.
:’) Of course, when the vote splits, Hillary will win anyway.
Paul and Tancredo hint at not supporting GOP nominee
The Hill | 10/09/2007 | Klaus Marre
Posted on 10/09/2007 8:04:07 PM PDT by advance_copy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1909003/posts
Who will be the VP nominee (irrespective of who winds up getting the nomination for President)?
If that's the case, then we will bow down to her thighness. If conservatives are truly that shallow then do we deserve what we get?
Unfortunately, many conservatives actually are fighting FOR a Hillary Presidency under the premise that America must be taught a lesson. I'm not on board with that yet.
Fred has been a bit homespun so far and not clear.
He is beginning to clarify now.
I think he can do it.
Rudy and Mitt sound like lawyers, Fred sounds like Grampa
Huckabee is doing well in my estimation as well, not that he is my man
SHE will do unrepairable damage on judges, health care, entitlements, energy, unions, and many other areas. If the choice is Rudy or HER, my vote is clear. Although I will not support Rudy in the primary, I will support the nominee after the primary. A non vote is a vote for HER disastrous policies.
I quit watching Hannity several months ago. I’m sick of him supporting a liberal like Rudy.
Lib verses lib lite= conservatives stay home.
Bad idea
Teaching a lesson is nonsense. SHE will inflict permanent damage. I will never be on board with the “teaching a lesson” crowd.
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.