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 ...
Amen!
If I were a lawyer, I wouldn't go into court and try to make a case with data that without doubt means absolutely nothing.
I don't think I quite said that.
What I said was, a candidate who runs on a practical and potentially effective program to end abortions by direct, executive action would lose.
This being so, I personally find the degree of a candidate's rhetorical pro-life commitment less important than most around here.
Mike Huckabee could sink Fred, or he could turn out to help Fred. If Mr. Huckabee ends up dropping out, Mr. Thompson would regain most of the voters he lost to Mr. Huckabee. Voters Mr. Huckabee chips off from Mr. Romney and Mr. Giuliani by pointing out their records, however, would not return to them.
Fred Thompson is hardly perfect, but he is certainly much better than Giuliani, and probably much better than Romney (Romney's latest positions are reasonable, but since they don't match his earlier actions I'm loath to trust them).
I wish those who indicate a dislike for Fred would suggest who they prefer and, if the answer is Duncan Hunter, suggest how they think he could possibly achieve a meaningful portion of the vote. Fred, for all his flaws, is the by far the best hope I can see for the Republicans.
How about Fred Thompson?
I don't think so. The Democrats need them too badly to let that happen.
The data is meaningful. As I said, McCain and Hillary are entirely known entities and the numbers are not going to have large fluctuations (like Dean, Kerry, Romney, Huckabee, etc.). And further, as Iraq improves so will McCain’s numbers. If you disagree - fine - but I don’t see any reason to carry our arguments any further.
Since the Democrats are almost certainly going to nominate a Senator, why would it be disadvantageous for the Republicans to do likewise?
As you note, though, there would be broad support for restrictions significantly beyond what exist now. So how do you think someone like Fred Thompson would fit in?
If Rudy gets the nomination it is going to be a temporary blow to the conservative coalition.
If he wins the presidency, then conservatism will die on the vine.
He must not be given the nomination. If he gets the nomination, then he must not win the presidency.
There is a symbiotic relationship between RINOs and Democrats. The Democrats can't afford to have RINOs do too badly, while RINOs can't afford to have conservatives do too well. I would expect that the RINOs would be perfectly happy to have the GOP shattered into a million pieces, because their piece would be protected by the Democrats while their opponents were scattered to the winds.
As far as "socon" and right-to-life (not in response to you so much as others here)... my opposition, and many others', to abortion is based on simple logic rather than some radical right-wing nut religious zealotry: life as a continuum is an indivisible whole existing in time from conception to death. Insofar as the D of I and the 14th Amendment both mention it, and insofar as it is prior to all other rights we may enjoy, I believe it is also prior to federalism for the same reasons as slavery.
My perspectives tend to be cold and logical; rooted in logic rather than religious prescription as is often assumed, and disregarding trends or popularity.
Huckabee scares me a little because many appear to be supporting him ONLY for his stance on abortion. He IS the true single-issue candidate for pro-lifers, but is questionable on other matters. I could support him, however.
If Fred Thompson is the nominee, I would support him. Until that time, I need to support the candidate I believe is the best on all the issues, from life to defense to trade. My opinion, given my state's late primary and my limited sphere of influence, is pretty much restricted to what money I can send. Until then, I am convicted of the obligation to do what is right, regardless of what others are doing, and let the chips fall where they may. You do likewise, friend.
OK, keep living in that dream world where polls that have not gotten anywhere near the real-world results before are the basis for a strategy.
I thought we had a gracious, civil debate going on. I was wrong.
I am concerned about FDT's unusual approach to campaigning. Assuming that Hillary is the nominee, and assuming no change in FDT's public persona, I think the middle would break her way.
But who knows? I've been very impressed with FDT's statements on abortion. In the Constitution/Society bag of issues, reversing Roe v. Wade is my #1. If he somehow gets nominated, I'll be an enthusiastic supporter.
But my #1 attribute I'm looking for in a candidate is the ability to rip Hillary to shreds while staying two steps ahead of the MSM.
FDT's not that guy.
“I am concerned about FDT’s unusual approach to campaigning”
Classic understatement there....
Yes, Democrat support for RINOs is an additional complication. But it’s not something that RINOs should be complacent about. The Democrats use them, and praise them through the media, for as long as they are useful. But if they lose their use, as they would if the Dems get a filibuster proof minority, then they will soon find themselves abandoned by these friends.
Jim Jeffords found that out the hard way.
The Republican party is headed for a major imbroglio. Might as well support the best conservative in the race.
.
.
.
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
Posted on 11/15/2007 3:43:17 AM PST by Kevmo
We did, and nothing I said departed from that. Don't whine, whining is for liberals.
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.