I’ve been a registered Republican since college; in my first national election I proudly pulled the Reagan lever to flush the useless Georgian out of the White House and I don’t think I’ve voted for anything but GOP candidates for national office since.
That said, I’m content with the current situation as a matter of policy if not as a matter of law. I’m no fan of Roe v Wade and would prefer that the issue be devolved back to the states but I don’t want a pro-life parrot in the White House; I cringe every time Sam Brownback opens his mouth.
Good estimate, but gotta agree with Paul on the Giuliani-Clinton issues… I am concerned. The Republican Party is very factitious right now… for those of us who understand it is crucial to elect a Republican and who care most about national defense… it is a no brainer…
Clinton is a sharp politician. I don’t think people should buy her, she is a populist and wavered on the Iraq war. The media is hounding Republicans ceaselessly, and apparently, a lot of people not so far left are sick of Republicans in general.
I’ve been a registered Republican since college; in my first national election I proudly pulled the Reagan lever to flush the useless Georgian out of the White House and I don’t think I’ve voted for anything but GOP candidates for national office since.
That said, I’m content with the current situation as a matter of policy if not as a matter of law. I’m no fan of Roe v Wade and would prefer that the issue be devolved back to the states but I don’t want a pro-life parrot in the White House; I cringe every time Sam Brownback opens his mouth.
Are you seriously saying you would vote Democratic or not vote at all if the candidate was pro-life.
Anyway, imo, Republicans better get together, overlook minor differences, and work towards a common objective. GRANTED, to be fair, I am willing to overlook everything but national defense—which all of the Republican candidates persuade me of being strong on.
I’m tired of settling for the Lindsay Grahams of the Republican party. I’m sick of ending up with its John McCains. If the GOP wants my vote this time, the answer is very simple:
I have a quibble with the analysis. It states that Rudy has led all along but that if McCain revives his campaign he might regain his front-runner status. Well, which is it? How “stable” has McCain’s position in the race been?
I am willing to overlook everything but national defense—which all of the Republican candidates persuade me of being strong on.
I couldn’t agree more. Without a strong national defense position all the causes that single issue voters on both sides hold dear become moot.
I would add that,to me, the national security issue includes immigration enforcement. Here in Minnesota we have a welfare system that has made it very profitable for residents of other states to relocate to Minnesota for the public assistance. America has done the same on a worldwide basis. As Milton Friedman said you can have liberal social policy or liberal immigration policy but not both.
I mention immigration because I believe that it may be the key to Republican success in 2008. It is an aspect of national security that almost every American sees everyday. It also has huge appeal to a large segment of the lefts base i.e. labor union rank and file and African-Americans. Additionally anyone working in the health care system knows that it is overburdened with illegals almost to the point of collapse in many places.
Most average Americans aren’t effected by the war on terror and have totally forgotten 9/11 but illegal immigration, on the other hand, stares them in the face everyday. Properly positioned (not the all consuming Tancredo position) I believe it is a winner for the Republicans.
The Democrat party is a collection of special interest groups. The immigration issue has the potential to split them right down the middle.
I’ve been saying much the same thing (although less well) for months now. I think the race for the Democratic nomination is all but over, barring anything unexpected. The race for the Republican nomination is more fluid, and Fred’s numbers don’t really mean much unless and until he actually steps in. The minor candidates on both sides should pack it up now except for those with a realistic shot at the VP slot. The signal to noise level of the “debates” is too low at the moment.
I do not agree with the observations. If Rudy is the Republican nominee that means we will have Hillary Clinton as President it is as simple as that. The Republican base will not enthuastically turn out to vote for Rudy. I also do not believe Rudy will get the nomination. I also think you have cut Thompson to short. I believe when he announces that he will assume the mantle of frontrunner very quickly and barring some unforseen calamity will be the Republican standard bearer. I know that I could not pull the lever for Rudy. There is not an ounce of difference between Rudy and Hillary Clinton on just about all the issues. Rudy means a Hillary Presidency. It would be tragic but we would survive it. But it is amazing that such a corupt woman could get this far in the USA. It does not speak well for a large portion of the population.
I wont be at all surprised if the Democrat ticket is Clinton-Obama. I’ve been saying this for months.
I believe (with regret) that most of the people in this country want socialism, cradle to grave nanny government. That’s what we’ll get with Hillary and Obama in the WH and a Democrat controlled Congress.
But I’m not sure why conservatives are so enamored with Rudy. I thought we wanted another Reagan. Well, a man like Reagan only comes along once in a lifetime.
Maybe Rudy is better than nothing, but as far as I’m concerned, Rudy is just Hilary lite.
There is not an ounce of difference between Rudy and Hillary Clinton on just about all the issues.
To some extent I agree, however I believe there is one huge difference. Hillary has an all consuming desire to be elected President not once but twice. If she is elected her campaign for 2012 will begin by the end of Jan 2009. That means that every move she makes for 4 years is going to be based on her desire to shore up her base no matter the consequences to the country. Every policy statement Hillary makes needs to carry a disclaimer, “unless the polls tell me differently”. (If someone can tell me what Hillary’s core beliefs are I would really like to know!)
In contrast, while I totally disagree with most of Rudy’s positions on social issues, I do believe that we know where Rudy stands. If, and yes I know it is a big if, he keeps his promise on Judges many of his social positions won’t matter. With Hillary we KNOW we will get liberal Judges.
Assuming the the older liberals on the SCOTUS hang on until after the election that means the next President will appoint at least 2 maybe 3 Justices. Can the country stand 4 years of Hillary? Probably. The problem is, when it comes to social policy we aren’t talking 4 years, it is more like 20 at the least.
Is casting a vote for Rudy something I would look forward to? Absolutely not! If it comes November 2008 and it is Rudy Vs. Hillary and maybe a third candidate with no chance whatsoever I will vote for Rudy. I am not about to throw my vote away on a third party candidate in an election this important. Hillary Vs. Rudy should be put in the dictionary as the definition of “the lesser of two evils”
Rudy is not a mainstream Republican because he does not appeal to the base which is conservative. That’s why he will not be elected president. There are only two possible results for Rudy at this point. Win the the Republican nomination and lose the race to Hillary. Or, lose the Republican nomination now and campaign to be appointed attorney general in the Fred Thompson administration.
Rudy’s chance to become President was lost when he withdrew from the Senate race with Hillary. He could have become a national hero by slaying the Clinton beast then. Now, the beast will slay him.
Mainstream Republicans instinctively know this. That’s why they will not waste their nomination on Rudy.
The Republican party is not fractious now. It is waiting for the proper choice. Revisit these issues in November when most normal folks start to care about Presidential politics.
I agree with Jack Hamilton. National Defense is high on my list, along with immigration. But there are other things too - it’s not an either/or situation. I WILL NOT support any candidate who is pro-abortion. We’ve killed something like 40 million Americans since 73. Is that good national security? We’re worried about Al Queda, when we have abortion mills doing AL Queda’s work right now?
Yes, defend the country, AND defend the defenseless too. I would very much like to see abortion be relegated to the states too, but that wont happen. It has been at a federal level and will remain there as long as the democrats use it to maintain office.
If my not voting for Rudy gets Hillary-Obama elected, then so be it.
I WILL NOT support any candidate who is pro-abortion. We’ve killed something like 40 million Americans since 73. If my not voting for Rudy gets Hillary-Obama elected, then so be it.
Throwing out the baby with the bath water. That makes you a baby-killer too.
I seriously doubt that Rudy will, 1) get the nomination, or 2) if he somehow does, that he will pull the votes needed to beat Clinton.
The majority of Conservative voters don’t want a half-conservative democrat-lite candidate, and they simply won’t vote for one - even if the result will be seeing the Clintons back in the White House.
If the GOP is stupid enough to run Rudy - this failed national party will get nothing but my derisive laughter well into the future.
