Posted on 12/01/2007 5:01:26 PM PST by Jay777
Rudy Panic set in for many Republicans this week, with conservative leaders both nationally and in Iowa concluding they need to settle on a single champion to prevent Rudolph W. Giuliani from winning the GOP presidential nomination.
They fear that victory by the socially liberal former New York mayor could permanently shatter the largely successful coalition of social, religious, economic and national defense conservatives that, more often than not, has worked electoral magic for Republican candidates at all levels.
"The main driving force behind all of that is a belief that Rudy Giuliani is positioned to win the nomination and a belief that, and I describe it this way, the four most central planks in our Republican platform would be sacrificed in the process: life, marriage, guns, border security," said Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican. He said the calls and e-mails in Iowa grew "utterly intense in the last week" as Republicans urged one another to settle on an anti-Rudy candidate.
A new poll showing a statistical tie between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee for the Jan. 3 Iowa first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses is fueling the frenzy.
"What conservatives have to realize is that Giuliani is now relying on Mike Huckabee to take his most viable opponent, Mitt Romney, down in Iowa, and that anyone voting for him there in the caucuses will be inadvertently, and ironically, helping the New Yorker," David A. Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, said earlier this week in a surprise endorsement of Mr. Romney.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
What did Rush say that sounded like a Thompson endorsement?
He did not endorse Thompson. I heard exactly what he said and it was basically that Thompson is a nice guy. No endorsement but FREDHEADS love to embellish.
FTFY
You have a tag-line that claims to support Hunter and you post that obvious silly slam on hunter?
Who are you shilling for n00b? Rooty? Mutt? Or are you just a DUck plant?
There are good and prudent reasons why an influential media figure may want to keep his preferences to himself. For one thing, if he makes a public endorsement early,...
What?
I didn't say Rush should "endorse"... I did say that Rush should say which candidates are conservative. And it took Rush a long time to finally say it.
You do understand the difference between endorsing a candidate and pointing out which candidates are the conservative candidates, don't you? After all, the topic of Rush's show is conservatism, is it not.
And I believe Rep. Hunter is competent enough not to get booted aside in such a role...at least I can hope.
Rudy supporters are under the impression that voters in the mindless-middle will vote for Rudy. They are sadly mistaken. Those voters are instead ripe for Hillary's propaganda machine.
And yes at the same time they split the Republican party wide open.
It wasn't just the Socons...it was the fact that he supported Specter against Toomey. Many conservatives believed that the support to a fellow conservative should have overruled loyalty to a long-time Republican (and President Bush's request).
I am no huge fan of Senator Specter, but I do recall that when it came to judicial nominees, etc., he has been instrumental in fighting for fairness and helping the Republican nominees get through. His seniority has been very helpful. So I can understand the reasoning behind Sen. Santorum's support of Sen. Specter, but I understand those who stayed home rather than vote for him.
What are you saying?
I played football from the time I was 5 and on into college. I've been following politics closely for about 25 years. And yet I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm telling you that neither Huckabee nor Giuliani can attract the votes to win against the dempcrat nominee. That's my opinion.
As for Rudy, I wouldn't vote for him for dogcatcher which allows me to look in the mirror in the morning and not see a hypocritical ahole.
Fred Thompson needs to challenge Rudy on terrorism. He needs to present his expert credentials on terrorism, through his chairmanship of the International Security Advisory Board at the State Department.
He needs to say Rudy lacks the knowledge to deal with terrorism, that there is a lot more to know about terrorism than what you could learn on 9/11, and the terrorists have a much more complex agenda than simply not loving New York.
Even if Fred takes some hits from such an exchange, it will still place him as a viable alternative to Rudy for Security Moms, something that so far does not exist in the race.
Fred has a lot of experience he could be using to sell his qualification for the job, but he isn’t. He needs to do more than just say “I’ve been conservative longer than you have.”
Mariner, you are mistaken. Over the years, the Catholic vote has gone from about 95% Democrat to 50-50, and that is due almost entirely to the abortion scandal and other moral questions.
Evangelicals, too, who are mostly in the south but can be found all over the country, mostly used to vote Democrat but now vote majority Republican. Moreover, a lot of Evangelicals formerly didn’t bother to vote, because they thought their true home was in heaven and the government was a lost cause. Now, tens of millions of those people are also voting—mainly because of abortion, family, and marriage issues.
The Republican coalition depends on social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and those libertarian who don’t actually vote Democrat because they want free sex without consequences. Unless these factions can work together, they don’t have a prayer of winning a national election.
Republican victory also depends on the big money operators and country clubbers. If those guys try to stuff a liberal pro-abort like Rudy down the throats of the voters, they will LOSE. If they want lower taxes and other good things for themselves, they are going to have do cooperate with the base on the issues of life and family, or they will lose. You can’t win an election without money and influence, and you can’t win an election without voters. So they MUST work together or hang separately.
40% of the American public would ban abortion except to save the mother's life. I think that's a good, though not perfect, litmus test for "social conservative". The GOP is composed of 56% of those who think that way...and the Dims are 34% (wow).
Still, there could be some who would ban abortion but don't care about gay marriage, or are on the other side of the gay marriage issue.
http://www.ibis-birthdefects.org/start/news_2006_abortion.htm
If it means Hillary is denied a real vote or vote by default, yes. And it’s our own fault that we have such an imperfect spectrum of candidates. If it had not been for one lousy word, George Allen might be the leader right now. It was George Allen whom Rush promoted for two years. Even the leftovers of 2000 look good right now. We have to be active and play the hand we’re dealt. Putting the cards down and walking away is a guaranteed loss—and why stay home and hand Hillary a crown? Another eight years of Clinton would do more damage than four of Rudy or Mitt.
“Only two sitting Senators have EVER been elected President (1920 and 1960) and no sitting Member EVER has”
Senator Benjamin Harrison was elected President in 1888.
Congressman James A. Garfield was elected President in 1880.
“What did Rush say that sounded like a Thompson endorsement?”
Rush said that among the leading candidates at the debate, Fred Thompson is the only conservative.
Senator Harrison's single term ended on March 4, 1887. He was nominated and elected in 1888.
However, we don’t have to make that choice.
And I am not sure Rudy would be better than Hillary. What liberal ideas can Rudy float under the guise of having the R after his name that we would otherwise protest if they came from Hillary...
Right up until 2006, the momentum was on the Republican side. In each of the three previous elections, more and more people came out to vote for Bush. The first midterm election was a remarkable Republican victory.
Much of that was due to grass roots get-out-the-vote organizations. Not one of the candidates NARAL supported in 2002 won, and every one of the candidates that Emily’s List supported won.
Frankly, all of that fell apart in 2006, and the chief reason was growing disillusionment with the Republicans in congress and with the president. It was lose-lose, because the party lost and many of those same organizations started to bleed financial support, as new members pulled back, disillusioned by the failure of that long effort.
Now, I think everyone is pulling himself together again, but the earlier confidence is pretty much gone. We need to do some serious rebuilding, we need to get the various parts of the coalition working together again, and we need—somehow or other—to select a strong candidate whom everyone can support.
I think the best available candidate to do that is Fred Thompson, but I’m not at all sure whether the party understands that at this moment. This could easily go either way.
Post #118 - excellent post!
I would suggest that conservatives write editor’s letters about Rudy’s very left positions, because some voters can’t get past 9/11 and Rudy’s “charisma.”
They think that Rudy would be great on fighting the WOT, but he would not, when he is pro-ILLEGAL immigration.
Border security = National security
The people who say it doesn’t matter if Rudy is pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-McCain/Feingold, etc. because all that matters is national security are so wrong. For one thing those things DO matter. Will God continue to bless our country is we keep killing one million unborn children each year?
But the pro-ILLEGAL immigration Rudy won’t protect us from our enemies, EITHER. KNOWN terrorists have been seen crossing the Mexican border.
Again, Border security = National security, and that’s what I’m going to include in my editor’s letter about Rudy.
Hopefully any of the potential Republican nominees would work to continue the extension of the Bush tax cuts—income tax rates, capital gains and dividend exclusions, and the continuance of the estate tax suspension. Similarly, a Republican President would recognize the importance of our presence in the Mid-East and fight the entrenchment of Islamo-fascism within our borders. Immigration is a problem because, thanks to Karl Rove, the Republicans have convinced themselves that Latinos are the next demographic group whose numbers will determine elections. This is a critical issue that requires serious specificity and the lead players don’t seem to recognize its importance as much as the second-tier guys.
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.