March 2, 2007


Giuliani Tries To Sway Wary Conservatives (AP, 3/02/07)

Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani acknowledged on Friday that conservatives don't always agree with him on gun control, abortion and gay rights -- but urged them to look past the differences.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 2, 2007 5:55 PM

Giuliani wants republicans to become democrats.

Posted by: sam at March 2, 2007 8:06 PM

At least he's asking - McCain couldn't be bothered.

Posted by: AWW at March 2, 2007 11:05 PM

No, Rudy is asking conservatives to stretch a little. He wants them to trust that he will govern with their interests on the table.

Is it a risk? Sure - but consider the alternatives. McCain can't be bothered, as AWW noted. He will work with the NYT, the rest of the media, the Democrats, and the elitists to ensure that he is fawned over. He has had several months to make some sort of statement that he wants to be a conservative, and fight the Left. Other than endorsing the surge, he hasn't done it.

Rudy may believe a lot of things, but governing to please the NYT isn't one of them. And as President, he will have lots more latitude (and oomph) to oppose the hive than he did as mayor, now won't he?

Rudy is not Chuck Hagel or Arlen Specter or even John Warner, all of whom love the NYT, the elite cocktail parties, and all the D.C. incest. They want the elephant to bray like a donkey.

And unless the Republican party is prepared to nominate Duncan Hunter or Newt, finding a "sensible" conservative is not possible right now (absent the rumors about Fred Thompson).

Brownback is a loon, Romney (to me) is a much bigger risk than Giuliani, and are we to believe that the 'conservatives' will vote for Buchanan or Tancredo just because they want purity?

Posted by: jim hamlen at March 3, 2007 12:05 AM

Stretch? What's left of a GOP that stretchy?

Posted by: oj at March 3, 2007 12:21 AM

Possibly 60 votes in the Senate.

235 votes in the House.

What more do you want?

Posted by: jim hamlen at March 3, 2007 12:55 AM

If Republicans become Democrats, they will have 100 seats in he Senate and 435 in the House.

Posted by: sam at March 3, 2007 7:52 AM

It's going to be fun to hear the Mayor explain what he was doing at that freak show.

Posted by: oj at March 3, 2007 8:33 AM


The GOP can get that without stretching. Indeed, the reason Rudy doesn't bother me is because the congressional party will discipline him because so much more conservative than he.

Posted by: oj at March 3, 2007 8:51 AM

Conservatives of every stripe will cut The Mayor a little slack based on his past performance.

It's results that count, not intentions.

Posted by: John J. Coupal at March 3, 2007 9:34 AM

The way most Republicans have been acting since Jan. 1, 2005 hasn't exactly been very Republican, now has it? The party needs a leader at the top, someone who can point towards the future and kick behinds (if necessary). Everybody is looking for another Reagan, and then wails because there isn't one out there. So, what to do? How do we reverse the lassitude of 2005/6?

Ask yourselves this question, ye disaffected - is it more likely that there will be a 'protest' vote (or non-vote) if Giuliani is the nominee, or if McCain is the nominee? And if McCain is dumping on conservatives today, what will he be doing in September of 2008?

Posted by: ratbert at March 3, 2007 11:40 AM

There will be a protest vote if Giuliani is the nominee. There are legins of Republican voters who cannot, in good conscience, vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Add the pro-gay and anti-gun liberal positions, and you have the makings of a disaster.

The natural divide in the country is between liberal and conservative agendas. There will be a conservative candidate; whether it is on the Republican ticket or the Independent ticket is the decision in the primaries.

On related note, it is pathetic to see conservatives in such wilderness, where, in their desperation, they want to believe even certified Northeast liberals.

Posted by: sam at March 3, 2007 1:40 PM

Why? The last Congress did yeoman's work on any number of bills. they failed only on those that 41 Senate Democrats can stop and on immigration amnesty.

Posted by: oj at March 3, 2007 2:42 PM

And if McCain is dumping on conservatives today, what will he be doing in September of 2008?

And what will a President Keating-McCain be doing when the first Supreme Court nominee comes up? I may be wary of the Mayor, but I know The Big Ego's nominee will be someone who pleases his buddies in Dem half of the Senate (even if there are only 39 of 'em, including Sanders). Maverick's biggest problem is that he keeps showing loyalty only to his friends, and he's made sure to let a lot of people know they aren't his friends. People he now depends on to get the nomination.

A stupid lack of foresight should not be rewarded, even if "it's his turn."

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at March 3, 2007 7:43 PM

Without Rudi, the GOP implodes and collapses into a purely regional party without any muscle north of the Mason Dixon and hostage to the demands of snake handling fundies.

Posted by: OTR at March 3, 2007 8:37 PM

If the GOP wants to win, then it has to look at states like Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Oregon. In each case, in 2000 and 2004, the results were very close (WI was probably stolen in both 2000 and 2004, with same-day registration in Milwaukee).

Reagan carried states like these because Carter was a foolish mess of a President, and because he was in a strong position running for re-election.

Only Rudy or McCain can possibly carry states like these in 2008. They could probably make CA very competitive as well. Rudy would probably carry NJ, too.

So, why vote for third party candidate Pat ("I hate them all but the Irish") Buchanan? Or third party candidate Pat ("God told me to run") Robertson? Or third party candidate Tom ("they make great landscapers") Tancredo? Who else is going to run as an independent 'conservative' candidate? All the other 'serious' conservative names, like Fred Thompson, Tommy Thompson, Frank Keating, Jeb, Dick Cheney, and even Rick Santorum and George Allen, are going to support whomever the GOP nominates.

McCain might run as an independent if he doesn't win the nomination, but no conservative is going to support him when he will split the electorate and guarantee a Democratic win.

Are the "serious" conservatives waiting for Gary Bauer? Alan Keyes? Tom McClintock? Jesse Helms? Harold Stassen? I'm confused.

Posted by: jim hamlen at March 3, 2007 9:05 PM

McCain's Gang saved the President's nominations.

Posted by: oj at March 3, 2007 9:15 PM


Whoever the Rep nominee is, he is going to have a very difficult time wining the general election. It is a misconception that states like MN, WI and PA will turn red. They will not, the Repblican party in those states has been wiped out.

Add to this the fact that states such as Ohio and Kentucky will be very hard to hold. Because of corruption issues, both states's republican parties are down in the dumps. Plus, other erstwhile red states are really blue right now (these include Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada).

A liberal Republican has no chance of holding on to these states, as the conservative base is just not going to turn out in droves to provide the edge.

Posted by: sam at March 3, 2007 9:16 PM

To continue my point about about conservative voters, Bush's margin in Ohio in 2004 was provided by the small county voters, overwhelmingly conservative (including a large number of Amish voters in Central Ohio). There is no way these voters are coming out for somebody like Giuliani or Romney.

Posted by: sam at March 3, 2007 9:20 PM


Yes, the GOP in MN has tanked since 2002. Not so much in PA, although Santorum was hammered. But the Presidential election is different than voting for the state house, and different than the mid-terms. Remember, Reagan carried MA and NY twice. And the Democratic 'surge' in the West is over-hyped, especially for a Presidential race. People will be voting for Commander-in-Chief, not Conrad Burns.

Are you advocating surrender? Guest-worker status in all blue and purple states? Dhimmitude?

Posted by: jim hamlen at March 3, 2007 9:48 PM


I am not advocating anything, just pointing out the facts. And the facts are pretty grim for the party.

Sure, Reagan carried MA and NY twice. Also CA, maybe MI. Doesn't change the fact that no Republican is going to carry any of these states any time soon.

Posted by: sam at March 3, 2007 10:06 PM


The Democrats are going to have to defend an outright surrender candidate in 2008, whether it is Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Gore, or anyone else.

Their situation is not so pleasant, either.

In 1972, 1980, and in 1984, the GOP won landslides, but did not have a real chance to control the House. In 2008, if the Dems keep on mucking around with stab-in-the-back motions, and keep on 'embracing the culture of corruption' (and with their loony union vote of this past week), they could lose the House (again) and the Senate as well. The GOP is not standing very tall right now, but we have a better hand than the Dems, don't you think?

Posted by: jim hamlen at March 3, 2007 10:38 PM


That is a saving grace.

However, it wouldn't be prudent to count on the enemy's problems to make ourselves feel good about our situation. Remember, in time of war, the moron traitor Kerry got 58 million-plus votes.

Posted by: sam at March 3, 2007 10:50 PM

Given that the governor and a senator are Republicans, let's hope the GOP tanks in other Blue states.

Posted by: oj at March 4, 2007 12:32 AM

We have to stop prefacing everything with "in a time of war". More than half the nation doesn't believe it, and probably 30% are hostile to the idea (ironic, but nonetheless true).

Kerry got 48+% because their base came out strong, too (plus the 5% or so boost from the media). And Bush, for all his emotional strengths, is not someone who is going to win over fence-sitters. It was not a pro-Kerry vote.


The GOP has lost about 40 seats in the MN state house since 2002. Pawlenty barely beat a bitter old career hack for the DFL. And the party couldn't even win Mark Dayton's seat. Your comment is baloney.

Posted by: jim hamlen at March 4, 2007 10:04 PM

I should have said, "even in time of war". Also,
who cares if it was a pro-Kerry vote or not. The fact is, a no-talent hack with no redeeming features and no natural base of his own won over 58 million votes. Why would Clinton not get a similar percent of the vote?

Second, any candidate who fractures the coalition of base voters is not going to win. Giuliani fits the bill to a T. Without doubt, he is going to lose a percerntage of Republican base (what percent, no one can say). A large number of evangelicals and church-goers, a solid base for the GOP, are never going to pull the lever for a rabid pro-abortion candidate. Add the ardent pro-gay marriage and gun-grabbing, and his candidacy is a recipe for disaster in the general election.

Posted by: sam at March 4, 2007 10:41 PM

OJ - I was intemperate, and I apologize. I should merely have asked if Arnold's victory in CA proves that the GOP is in fine shape there.


the question is pretty simple: will you vote for Rudy in the general (if he is nominated)? Some Republicans won't, for sure. But my guess is that the number of lost votes for Rudy is less than that for McCain and probably even Mitt. And there is NO Republican "conservative purist" candidate who can hope to win even 42% of the vote, now is there? Fred Thompson could jump in, but he has shown no interest.

Some 'independents' will vote for Rudy or McCain (as opposed to those who voted against Bush). Will it be a wash versus the lost conservative votes? That's the $64,000 question.

But Hillary has negatives even Kerry didn't have. So does Edwards. So does Gore. Obama is different, but it is doubtful he can last. And just today, he was praising Israel and saying that military action is on the table regarding Iran. The Dems are all going to have whiplash by November. So will McCain, in all likelihood.

Posted by: jim hamlen at March 4, 2007 11:58 PM

Not in fine shape, but either McCain or Rudy could carry it, particularly against Obama.

Posted by: oj at March 5, 2007 7:45 AM

Pawlenty won in a cycle where his party got thrashed.

Posted by: oj at March 5, 2007 7:49 AM