Giuliani the ONLY sure bet for Republicans in 2008
Giuliani the only sure bet for Republicans in 2008? I think so and let me tell you why.
Ok you Romney supporters, and McCain supporters I know I'm going to get flamed for this post, but wake up and smell the coffee. I love Mitt and donated heavily for his run for Governor, but the RR will simply not allow him to become president. They would rather see a liberal Democrat that they can bash and raise money against, then allow some “Mormon” to occupy the White house.
Ok you Romney supporters, and McCain supporters I know I'm going to get flamed for this post, but wake up and smell the coffee. I love Mitt and donated heavily for his run for Governor, but the RR will simply not allow him to become president. They would rather see a liberal Democrat that they can bash and raise money against, then allow some “Mormon” to occupy the White house.
And McCain’s problem is McCain. He has a long and divisive voting record in the Senate, and the last President elected from Congress was Kennedy.
What does Rudy offer that NO other Republican can even come close to deliver? New York, and California’s electoral votes. Rudy’s stand on abortion and Gay rights appeal to America’s moderate unaffiliated voters, you know the ones needed to get elected.
I realize we are a long way from the nomination, but the numbers back me up. A slam dunk ticket would be Rudy Rice, but I'm not sure how much longer Rice wants to stay in the game.
Here are the latest poll numbers.
What does Rudy offer that NO other Republican can even come close to deliver? New York, and California’s electoral votes. Rudy’s stand on abortion and Gay rights appeal to America’s moderate unaffiliated voters, you know the ones needed to get elected.
I realize we are a long way from the nomination, but the numbers back me up. A slam dunk ticket would be Rudy Rice, but I'm not sure how much longer Rice wants to stay in the game.
Here are the latest poll numbers.
4 comments:
Mark,
You may be correct but if the Republican Party nominates someone for the top post who opposes the Party Platform in both abortion and gay rights then the Republican Party will loose.
The federal level Republicans have already turned their back on fiscal conservatism and now we are talking about turning our backs on moral conservatism. If this does happen then are we really the Republican Party?
It may win the election but it will loose a good chunk of party faithful, it will loose credibility as the party of family values and it will loose me.
Here is to hoping you’re wrong.
Anonymous,
"It may win the election but it will loose a good chunk of party faithful, it will loose credibility as the party of family values and it will loose me."
Why do you say this? This is exactly the problem in our party right now. "It's my way or the Highway"
Have you always lived in Utah? I come from Seattle and Alaska and even the most conservative Republicans there are not as black and white on these issues. Mitt's flip-flop on these two issues may well be the "They Brainwashed Me" remarks that doomed his dad's Presidential campaign.
Just you watch on Your Tube, the Dems will do to Romney what GOP did to Kerry.
How's this sound, I supported gay rights, before I didn’t support gay rights, or I supported abortion rights, before I didn’t support abortion rights.
Sound familiar?
The answer is no, I can trump your Seattle with a Portland.
You may be miss-reading what I said. I am not saying vote Mitt. I am saying that if the party nominates someone who does not support the party platform than it is not the party anymore.
"My way or the highway" is a little antagonistic of you. I was not trying to bait you or argue. If people who support the party platform are “exactly the problem in our party right now” then we definitely see the party’s role differently.
I believe that the party’s role is to gather together “like minded” individuals in order to support and get elected persons who have the same “basic” beliefs. The “basic” beliefs are articulated in the Republican Party Platform.
To clarify, I do not expect every republican to believe or act the same exact way. I do expect every republican to uphold the very few positions listed in the party platform.
So how is expecting the party to nominate someone who at least agrees with the “basic” party beliefs a bad thing?
Exactly. So when before I've asked all of my Republican-voting friends why exactly they are Republicans, nearly all say the same things: abortion, gay rights, and guns. Only one or two for "small government" or "lower taxes." An occasional one for national security.
But these one issue voters will then strain at a gnat (not voting for conservative local LDS Democrats who are pro-life, pro-gun, and not in any way pro-gay) but swallow a camel (voting for Guiliani who is none of these things). This I love to see- hypocrisy and blatant partisanshop in its purest form laid bare.
Post a Comment