Gay Patriot Header Image

Will Conservatives Warm to Rudy Despite his Social Liberalism?

It seems that half the time I mention that I favor Rudy Giuliani for the 2008 presidential nomination, centrists and Democrats tell me he can’t win the nomination because he’s too liberal. Despite their pessimism about the chances of the former Mayor of New York, I have yet to hear a conservative express such pessisism. Perhaps that’s because I live in LA where one doesn’t find many conservatives who would oppose Rudy on social issues.

Yet, poll after poll shows that my man Rudy leads the GOP pack for 2008, albeit with less than 50%. A libertarian Republican friend, a fellow supporter of Rudy, agrees with me that our man has a good shot at the party’s nod and takes issue with the theory that a pro-choice Republican couldn’t win the nomination. “That theory hasn’t been tested,” he said.

The former New York Mayor has been doing all the right things to reach out to the GOP’s base, campaigning for candidates to his right across the country — and raising money for state parties in very “red” regions of the nation. In the heartland, GOP faithful seem more interested in his stand on national security than his positions of social issues. According to the New York Times (via Captain Ed):

In August, at a fund-raising dinner in Charleston for South Carolina’s very conservative Republican Party, Mr. Giuliani spoke about port security. When the party faithful had a chance to pose questions, they did not ask him about abortion or gays — only reporters did that.

Sound like reporters are more interested in his differences from the GOP base than are rank-and-file Republicans. And it sounds like these Republicans have priorities not too different from my own.

Indeed, in the Times article, only the pundits seem to think Giuliani’s social liberalism will pose a problem to his 2008 candidacy. By and large, rank-and-file Republicans are enthusiastic about the former New York Mayor. One GOP pollster, Frank Luntz, is more sanguine about Rudy’s chances:

The abortion issue will hurt him in Iowa, the gun control position will hurt him in New Hampshire, but both are less important than the character and the attributes of the man . . . . In a senate race, they want to know where you stand on issues. In a presidential campaign, they want to know who you are.

With North Korea’s apparent test of a nuclear weapon and Iran’s efforts to build such a bomb, conservatives may be willing some of to forgive Rudy’s centrist policies in favor of his proven leadership. As Captain Ed puts it, “Given the terrorist threat and the menace from North Korea and Iran, we clearly need someone with significant toughness in the Oval Office.” While that conservative is not yet “sold on Rudy,” he’s “hard pressed to see anyone on either side of the aisle that has Rudy’s toughness and resolve.

If the test for the 2008 nomination was character and leadership, Rudy Giuliani will have no trouble becoming the next GOP standard-bearer. I have a higher opinion of my party than many and believe that enough social conservatives will overlook Giuliani’s social liberalism and support his bid for the White House. With his record — and his resolve, the former New York Mayor will be able to quiet their conservatives, winning their support, uniting the party and then going on to win the election in the fall of 2008.

UPDATE: Roger links Reliapundit who thinks Lieberman’s lead over Lamont is good news for our man Rudy.

Share

34 Comments

  1. I think social conservatives will overlook the abortion issue, if Rudy is clear that he will appoint strict constructionist/originalist type judges. In general Rudy comes out strong on other conservative issues like security and fiscal conservatism, it is his commitment in the area of judges where he could run well-but he will have to follow through on that promise.

    Rudy spoke highly of Roberts when he was nominated, so I think Rudy could be good on this issue.

    I do think Rudy may have trouble appealing to the GOP base-but I actually think he is conservative enough that he doesn’t have as many bridges to build as other candidates do.

    Comment by just me — October 9, 2006 @ 9:33 pm - October 9, 2006

  2. If the GOP standard-bearer for 2008 is Giuliani who has little legislative-experience dealing with the Hill, then pehaps his running-mate needs to be an insider like Gingrich…rather than returning to the debased-tradtion of putting the runner-up in the Veep-slot…especially with Giuliani.

    While it may be a Republican-win in 2008, I don’t see it being prcatical or desireable to assume that the policies will be tha same. While I would prefer Gingrich as President over Giuliani, in-either-case they shoud have a solid war-cabinet team in-place BEFORE the general election to demonstrate their intentions to make changes. I’d feel a lot more confident voting for Giulaini if I knew his choices of SecDef, Secy. of State, Natl.-Security Advisor and CoS; and while the Treasury and Atty. General are important there are many qualified candidates, they war cabinet positions only have a select few that can radically affect the tenor and style of an Administration’s foreign-policy.

    The more I read of Thomas PM Barnett’s critique where military and foireign-policy paradigms need to relect both war-waging (the Leviathan) and everything-else (Systems Administrartion), the more that I convinced that the traditional structure doesn’t work. And the follow-up to the sucessful 2003 invasion of Iraq vs. the bungled occupation and muddled nation-building in Iraq and Afganistan cries-out for a combination of Rumsfeld’s “transformation” and some serious war-gaming for creative thinking.

    I’d rather have a Gingrich/Lieberman-ticket, but it looks like Lieberman will get re-elected as an independent…and he’s too-valuable in the Senate through the 2008-2012 Presidential-term to loss in 2008 as the Veep. Just as in 1933, Roosevelt and the New Dealers didn’t have a plan but they had a vision; we need an administration to engage in some constructive, pragmatic destruction and experimentation to scape a few barnacles off the Ship of State and navigate the rocks and shoals.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — October 9, 2006 @ 9:42 pm - October 9, 2006

  3. Ted B. – Leiberman is such a total non-starter. what do you see him bringing to a ticket? what voting bloc?

    Comment by J2 — October 9, 2006 @ 10:13 pm - October 9, 2006

  4. Gingrich wouldn’t touch him.

    Comment by J2 — October 9, 2006 @ 10:14 pm - October 9, 2006

  5. Let me first say, I went to school in NYC. I like Giuliani. He did a great job as mayor of NY.

    I also think it would be good for the country if the hold religious conservatives have over the GOP was broken. But I just don’t forsee that happening anytime soon.

    I think there is a very simple explanation as to why Giuliani is the front runner in the primary polls right now. That being, I don’t think most voters probabaly know a whole lot about him apart from his handling of 9/11. Most voters are likely yet unaware of his social liberalism.

    They probabaly are also unaware of the messy divorce he had with wife Donna Hanover, a result of his affair with (current wife) Judith Nathan. That was a drama that played out in the NY tabloids every day during the late 90’s. In a primary, all that would be dredged up.

    That’s not to say he won’t make big waves in the primary. In fact, I think he will be a very formidable candidate, as he will be able to carry the 9/11 mantle unlike any other. But in the end, I don’t think that will be enough to overcome his social liberalism. Opposition to abortion and gay rights form the foundation for why many people are Republicans.

    Look, for all 8 years he was mayor, he hosted a gay pride party at Gracie Mansion. He regularly marched in the annual gay pride parade. He even did drag once for Halloween. As mayor, he pushed for domestic partnership legislation and got it. He also advocated for a ban on sexual orientation discrimination in city employment and got that passed too. When he divorced his wife and moved out of Gracie Mansion, he moved in with a wealthy gay couple on the Upper East Side. He opposes a constititutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He is also pro-choice.

    HOW IN THE WORLD WILL HE WIN OVER RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES WITH THAT LAUNDRY LIST OF SUPPORT FOR THE GAY COMMUNITY?

    The answer is simple. He won’t.

    Comment by Chase — October 9, 2006 @ 10:22 pm - October 9, 2006

  6. However, let me just play devil’s advocate for a second.

    Lets say by some outside chance, Giuliani was able to secure the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008. I think it likely that there would be quite a few social conservatives who would be very unhappy with the prospect of voting for either a pro-choice Democrat or a pro-choice Republican in the general election. I think such a circumstance would make it a near certainty that a pro-life third party candidate would run for President.

    I don’t think there’s any doubt such a three way race would be a distinct advantage for the Democrats, especially if the Democratic nominee’s name is Hillary Clinton. We all know three way races have served the Clinton’s well.

    But GPW, that’s the problem with your Giuliani for President argument. Too many Americans would be unhappy with 2 pro-choice candidate in the general election. A Pro-life candidate would run as an Independant and that would likely tilt the race in Hillary Clinton’s favor.

    Comment by Chase — October 9, 2006 @ 10:44 pm - October 9, 2006

  7. Chase, your misguided opinion is that appealing to the religious conservatives is the be-all and end-all of any GOP nomination.

    Allow me to disabuse you of that theory:

    1. Here in Texas, Bush (as governor) was considered the LEAST favorably disposed towards social conservatives. In fact, many radio talk-show callers in 1995-96 were bemoaning the fact that Bush was not a “real” conservative. It was the national media that transformed him from a compassionate conservative to some kind of Dobsonesque fascist.

    2. When you have the likes of Iran, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela wanting to disrupt life as we know it, I think that abortions, gay issues and other social items take a BIG backseat to human survival.

    3. If you read the article above, it was the REPORTERS who were asking about Rudy’s social positions, not the average voters. Think about that for a minute. Who actually votes? Not the reporters. (But if they do, we know which lever they pull. According to a research survey cited in Bill O’Reilly’s book “Culture Warrior,” a staggering 90% of newsroom personnel consider themselves “democrat” or “liberal.”

    Match, set, game. Go hit the showers.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 9, 2006 @ 10:45 pm - October 9, 2006

  8. I don’t generally pay attention, Chase, and I knew about those things, at least in general terms.

    One reason that I think his social liberalism will matter less than people think it will is that conservatives, by and large, aren’t accustomed any longer (if they ever were) to give over their causes to national leadership. Consider that conservative activism of the right-religious sort really didn’t start until Clinton was elected. There just isn’t the feeling that all is lost if the President isn’t on board with certain domestic issues. Particularly if those issues seem to be State issues or not at risk. The gains made by the pro-life lobby are made by local efforts, not national ones. Same with other issues.

    Republicans have always been foreign politicy voters.

    Plus, the Republicans have a strong history of endorsing moderate candidates. Bush was definately a moderate candidate in 2000.

    Comment by Synova — October 9, 2006 @ 10:48 pm - October 9, 2006

  9. So GPW, here is how a timeline of a Giuliani nomination would look.

    • Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination.

    • Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination.

    • Unnamed pro-life social conservative, seeing opportunity, announces a third party candidacy for the Presidency of the United States.

    • A three way race for the presidency ensues.

    • On Novemeber 4th, 2008, Hillary Clinton becomes the President-elect of the United States.

    Comment by Chase — October 9, 2006 @ 10:54 pm - October 9, 2006

  10. #9 – Chase, again you are laboring under the assumption that a third-party candidate will “steal” some base voters from either party but will allow the DNC nominee (probably Shrillary, but that remains to be seen) to still garner 270 electoral votes and therefore win the presidency.

    Go back and study the elections of 1940, 1968 and 1980 and let us know what you think about the probability of that happening.

    Checkmate.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 9, 2006 @ 10:57 pm - October 9, 2006

  11. People vote for 3rd party candidates when they really don’t care who wins and want to take the opportunity to send a message. Conservatives, in a Hillary vs. Rudy scenario, would have to not-care if Hillary won.

    How likely is that?

    Comment by Synova — October 9, 2006 @ 11:00 pm - October 9, 2006

  12. Synova, about as likely as me to NOT sing along to the soundtrack from “Victor/Victoria.”

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    “Won’t you play me that jazz hot, baby…”

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 9, 2006 @ 11:07 pm - October 9, 2006

  13. To many social conservatives, a Giuliani-Clinton match-up would look like this:

    New York liberal vs. New York liberal

    That’s why social conservatives would back a third party candidate.

    Look, if the choice were between Clinton or Giuliani, i’d be happy either way the day after election day, no matter who won. In that scenario, I wouldn’t know who to vote for. I’d want to vote for them both.

    And that’s the problem. If i’d be happy either way, then there is going to be a sizeable portion of the elEctorate who won’t be happy AT ALL.

    Comment by Chase — October 9, 2006 @ 11:16 pm - October 9, 2006

  14. Chase, dear, here’s a little tip for you:

    The world doesn’t revolve around New York, much as you (and the rest of the elite media) think it does.

    Your people call US people “flyover country.” How conceited.

    So get a grip. Rudy vs Shrillary? The choice is so obvious that even Helen Keller could see it.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 9, 2006 @ 11:30 pm - October 9, 2006

  15. Peter, your last post doesn’t make sense. How does “the world doesn’t revolve around New York” pertain to what I just said? Both Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani are New York politicians. If they are the only choices for President in the 2008 general election, one might think the world does revolve around NY, lol.

    But that doesn’t change my previous point. Two socially liberal New York politicians in the general election in 2008 would ensure a socially conservative third party candidate.

    I mean Peter, you don’t think Giuliani is liberal?

    He is pro-choice, pro-gay rights and pro-gun control.

    Giuliani told the Boston Globe in 2000:
    My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun.

    That’s going to be the Republican candidate for President in 2008?

    I’d say AMEN to that. That’d be great.

    Comment by Chase — October 9, 2006 @ 11:46 pm - October 9, 2006

  16. Perhaps that’s because I live in LA where one doesn’t find many conservatives who would oppose Rudy on social issues

    Same in Illinois. GOP voters here have the gay friendly Judy Baar Topinka on the ballot for governor.

    Does anyone know what % of GOP voters are strictly “social issue” voters?

    Comment by John in IL — October 9, 2006 @ 11:49 pm - October 9, 2006

  17. Yes, Chase, on certain issues, Rudy is not exactly along the lines of what some would consider a “conservative” Republican.

    That being said, so is McCain. Yet you hear the MSM praise him as a “maverick” in his own party. Quite the opposite of Lieberman, who is excoriated when he deviates from the DNC party line. But I digress.

    As John in IL points out above, just because a GOP candidate is not in the so-called “social conservative” mold doesn’t make them less palatable to GOP voters.

    GOP voters aren’t old country-club type Rockefellers as one would think. Also, the younger GOP voters who make up a sizeable voting demographic tend to be more libertarian in their outlook.

    Voter’s aren’t stupid. If the choice were a Rudy Giuliani who has proven his mettle on 9/11 versus some liberal who has similar views on guns, gays and abortion but weak on defense issues, they’d go with the guy who has the pair. And that would be Rudy.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 10, 2006 @ 12:00 am - October 10, 2006

  18. But Peter, you just described the problem. “If the choice were a Rudy Giuliani who has proven his mettle on 9/11 versus some liberal who has similar views on guns, gays and abortion…

    The War On Terror isn’t the only war America is fighting right now. We are also in the midst of a Culture War. And if both candidates for president were to have similiar, pro-viewpoints on gays, gun control and abortion, that would be a problem for many voters. It may not be a problem for you. It certainly wouldn’t be a problem for me. But it would be a problem for a lot of people.

    There would be nobody carrying the banner for the traditionalists.

    Peter, do you think the traditionalists are just going to fold up shop and let the Culture War disappear sometime in the next 18 months?

    Comment by Chase — October 10, 2006 @ 12:16 am - October 10, 2006

  19. Chase, the answer to your question can be answered this November 7. Will the Foley situation be enough to deter any “traditionalists” from voting with the GOP? The outcome may be enough to determine what 2008 will hold.

    And so far, if you believe the NY Times, the “evangelicals” (how I detest that word) believe the fault lies with the individual, not the party:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/us/politics/09conservatives.html?ei=5090&en=c1f50470c9270cce&ex=1318046400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

    That being said, it looks like GOP “values voters” are neither stupid nor bigoted homophobes. At least according to this bible of the DNC…

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 10, 2006 @ 12:30 am - October 10, 2006

  20. Those aren’t comparable situations, Peter. In this election, the traditionalists will still have candidates backing traditional values on the ballot. It’d be quite different if there weren’t any at all, which would be the scenario in a Giuliani-Clinton match-up.

    Still, unless the traditionalists raise the white flag sometime in the next 18-24 months, there will be a candidate backing “traditional values” on the ballot for president in November 2008. Even if that means somebody has to run as an Independent.

    Comment by Chase — October 10, 2006 @ 12:46 am - October 10, 2006

  21. So, that’s my position. No matter what, there will be a candidate backing “traditional values” on the ballot for President in November 2008, be it a Republican, Independent or (by some outside chance) a conservative Democrat.

    But somebody will be the “traditional values” candidate. And I can tell you it won’t be Rudolph Giuliani, even if he is the Republican nominee.

    Comment by Chase — October 10, 2006 @ 12:54 am - October 10, 2006

  22. Well said, just me in #1, I think Rudy could overcome potential antipathy from social conservatives if he makes clear he will appoint strict constructionists to the federal bench.

    And Chase, a pro-life social conservative wouldn’t get much traction if Rudy reached out to the conservative side of the party for his running mate. And many conservatives would vote for Rudy if it meant preventing Hillary from becoming president. You don’t sound like much of a social conservative yourself, so how do you know how they will vote in ’08?

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 10, 2006 @ 1:36 am - October 10, 2006

  23. I’m conservative. Catholic. Not-out gay (which I guess makes me “in”). I usually vote for hardcore economic conservatives, when I can.

    I am 100 percent behind Rudy G. The War Against Islamo-Fascism is the only issue in 06 07 08 and beyond. Rudy is the only candidate I trust. I can live with the social liberalism. I don’t think he’d be as liberal presidentially as he had to be to remain viable in New York. But if he veers left … hey, we could do worse than a Harry Truman liberal in these times.

    Conservatives of all stripes — social conservatives, economic conservatives, war hawks — all will willingly vote for Rudy because we know that if we don’t win this war, no other issue matters. Marginal tax rates. School vouchers. Social security reform. It doesn’t matter if suitcase nukes are exploding in our major cities.

    Rudy can get 50+1% support in the Republican primary. He’ll have trouble picking up the hardcore Protestant-Christian right, but that group has no candidate right now in the Republican field. George Allen would’ve gotten their support, but he’s imploded. Frist and McCain are ideologically suspect. Newt’s personal life is just as colorful as Rudy’s. And Mitt’s a Mormon. Unless Sam Brownback rises above the current 1% level of support he’s enjoying, the Christian right have no favorite son. And if Rudy’s the Republican nominee, who’s going to take the Christian conservative (or, as some like to say, the “religious right”) vote from him? Church-going Hillary? God-quoting Barack Obama? Howard The Scream? John Effin’ Kerry? A lefty trial lawyer like John Edwards? Whoever the Dems put up in ’08 will drive Christian conservatives back into the Republican flock, even if the flock is being shepherded by Rudy. Or, perhaps, ESPECIALLY if the flock is being shepherded by Rudy G.

    Comment by Rhodium Heart — October 10, 2006 @ 1:39 am - October 10, 2006

  24. Rudy’s views on gun control and abortion are too extreme for me. And when it comes to winning the war on terror, no Republicans are against that. Losing the war is a Democrat position.

    Rudy’s main advantage is that he isn’t John “Terrorist Bill of Rights” McCain, who seems to be the choice of the Republican establishment despite stabbing Republicans in the back at every opportunity. Anti-McCain Republicans who have a mindset that only a Marquee name can beat Hillary will be drawn to Rudy.

    If Rudy does win the nomination, he will probably have to pick a social conservative to balance the ticket as a running mate. Hello, Mitt Romney.

    Comment by V the K — October 10, 2006 @ 5:37 am - October 10, 2006

  25. • Unnamed pro-life social conservative, seeing opportunity, announces a third party candidacy for the Presidency of the United States.

    I don’t think there is a guy like this who could run and garner enough votes for support. Essentially I don’t think this unnamed guy exists, and I don’t see anyone voting for him in large numbers.

    Chase you are selling social conservatives short on one point-and that is that you think they don’t care about any other issues. Given the choice between voting for Guliani and almost any democrat who would get the nomination, they are going to vote for Guliani. Social conservatives will most likely line up behind Guliani in a general, especially if he makes a promise to appoint conservative/strict constructionist type judges. There is a possibility they may stay home, but given the climate we are currently in, I think that would be more wishful thinking on the part of the dems than a reality. They may hold their nose and pull the lever, but I don’t think they will stay home.

    Where Guliani is going to have a fight is at the primary level, and from the looks of it, it looks like the social conservatives may be lining up behind Romney, but the rest of the party doesn’t seem to be there yet, and I am not super keen on Romney myself. I tend to lean toward Newt and Guliani at the moment.

    McCain I don’t think has a chance in Hell of getting the nomination in the general election-he has played the maverick way too often.

    Comment by just me — October 10, 2006 @ 6:53 am - October 10, 2006

  26. My favorite dream team – Rudy and Condi in ’08. One is an experienced, hardened street fighter who mobilized NYC, and the other is a pragmatic, savvy Washington insider who has both domestic and foreign relation experience.

    Needless to say, they also embrace opposite points of view in the GOP big tent and can reach out to all constituents as a unified team.

    This is the team that will win.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 10, 2006 @ 11:19 am - October 10, 2006

  27. While Chase lectures GOP conservatives about the correct choice for 08 and how Rudi will fracture the GOP base, I’m reminded of Edmund Muskie in 1980 telling the press that if the GOP regulars are smart, they’ll select Jeanne Kirkpatrick over RR or GHWB for the GOP prez candidate. Something STILL smells afoul in CryinEddie’s advice to GOP voters. Same with Chase.

    Independent candidates and voters rarely make a difference –they are people who are disaffected to begin with and wouldn’t make it to the polls on Election Day if it weren’t for their “chosen” leader of the hour. John Anderson, the grandfather of independent prez campaigns, once said he drew off only one real GOP vote on Election Day in his ’80 run… his own vote for RR.

    Perot didn’t “give” the election to Clinton –Bush lost it and Clinton won it. The Perot people were momentary pimples on the body politic. Same for Nader. Gore lost, Bush won (or per GayLeftBorg revisionism: Gore didn’t lose, Bush stole it). Bush won, Kerry lost.

    While modern Independent candidates are great for the press, in the end they matter not. Momentary pimples on the body politic. Or scapegoats for campaign incompetence, if needed.

    I’d like to see Barbara Bush and Lynne Cheney be the #1 & 2 nominees. Two strong GOP women in the WH could finally retask America and the GOP toward a constructive, positive path.

    Bush 44… has a nice ring to it. Yeah, that would send the GayLeftBorg into the alternate universe and it’d be worth it.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 10, 2006 @ 2:11 pm - October 10, 2006

  28. Nice speech matt, but Barbara Bush?
    That WOULD be interesting….
    if you want to see a Dem in office, run with Rudy. Either way the democrats win.
    Gun control, pro-gay, pro-choice, fiscally moderate and I bet he would get on board with some type of health care system.
    Sounds a lot like a Clinton to me.

    Comment by keogh — October 10, 2006 @ 2:50 pm - October 10, 2006

  29. Look, I like Rudy Giuliani, but I think the same reasons I like him will be the reasons he won’t win the GOP nomination.

    I think the likely 2008 GOP nominee is somewhere among these 4:
    Mitt Romney
    George Allen
    Newt Gingrich
    Haley Barbour

    Comment by Chase — October 10, 2006 @ 5:10 pm - October 10, 2006

  30. I think Allen is toast.

    Romney seems to be the soc con pick.

    Newt and Rudy seem to be the conservative picks.

    Barbour doesn’t have much name recognition-although that could change as the ’07 pre NH primary season warms up.

    I think by the time we get to the SC primary Newt, Rudy, and Romney will be fighting it out for the top spot.

    Comment by just me — October 10, 2006 @ 6:43 pm - October 10, 2006

  31. Just me, ten days ago, I thought Allen was toast, but now he leads in all polls, some by substantial margins. If he wins a convincing victory this fall, he catapults himself into serious consideration for the White House for the sole reason that he survived despite his blunders — and the meanness of his opposition.

    To do that, he’ll have to beat the President’s margin of victory (54-45) over John Kerry. Even with such a victory, he won’t make himself stronger than Rudy, but he will position himself well to be Rudy’s running mate–as Rudy will have to go right and south to hold the party together.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 10, 2006 @ 7:08 pm - October 10, 2006

  32. Heh. I voted for Perot. It was a punitive vote. I figured that he would be just punishment for everyone else in Washington.

    Anyhow, I thought I’d add one more bit of data to consider to the GOP nomination pile.

    Those religious right social conservatives everyone is so concerned about? There is another element common to their belief structure besides fornication and abortion or even their God given right to bear arms.

    They take Islam seriously. This conflict is a spiritual conflict with spiritual consequences. It’s good vs. evil in a heaven vs. molten burning depths of hell way.

    Those voters, pro-life, social conservatives, evangelical hell and brimstone, are going to want to know one thing… does the candidate truely take the Islamist threat seriously. All the rest of it they can do themselves.

    Comment by Synova — October 10, 2006 @ 7:48 pm - October 10, 2006

  33. They take Islam seriously. This conflict is a spiritual conflict with spiritual consequences.

    Which is why we’re better equipped to fight this war than liberals are. Libs don’t understand Islamists. They think they can win them over by building day care centers and singing ‘Kum Ba Yah.’ (Who’s seen the David Zucker ‘Too Hot for GOP TV’ ad featuring Madeleine Notallbright?’). Or selling Israel down the river. But we get them.

    As Christians, we are also better positioned to build bridges with moderate Muslims, who understand us because we share values of faith. Muslims have much more respect and understanding for sincere Christians than for the atheist elites of the Western world, who are constantly trying to shove their hedonism and materialism down the world’s throat through TV, movies, and other cultural exports.

    Comment by V the K — October 10, 2006 @ 8:23 pm - October 10, 2006

  34. Love this talk of ’08 cause it’s so wide open. Firstly, to get the base fired up the Republicans are going to have to push spending limits and be serious about it. Who fits that bill? Newt. He could be the most powerful debater. He’s the most brilliant. I worry about his personal issues but geez, Rudy’s got a messier personal life than any of em. Rudy’s a great guy and I’d vote for him in the general willingly because of his character. He says what he means. Yeah he’s pro choice, I’m not, he’s pro gun control, I’m not. Romneys attractive as hell. Can he gain name recognition? Love Condi. It’s a major shame we don’t have a strong woman who’s been elected to something. Or a black American to run for VP or Prez by now. My strongest thoughts are ABM. Anyone but McCAIN. He’s 70 now…geez. Plus he’s not a team player.
    My list:
    Gingrich
    Rudy
    Romney
    Condi
    Any combo of those. You can add Jeb but only as a VP candidate.
    Chase is right about a Rudy HRC matchup generating a 3rd party right to life candidate. It happens almost every election here in Pennsylvania, if there’s a threat to have 2 pro abortionists on the Governors ballot. Then Hillary would win the way Willie did. With 46% of the vote. Could the Republicans demand half the chairmanships if that happened?

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — October 10, 2006 @ 10:07 pm - October 10, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.