Do Redstaters really want 1992 all over again?
By Charles Bird Posted in 2008 — Comments (89) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
First off, let me say that Rudy Giuliani is not in my top two for presidential candidates. On the plus side, he's a proven leader and I think his positions on the War Against Militant Islamism are the right ones. But I can't get past his positions on other issues, specifically abortion and the Second Amendment. Rudy not only supported (or supports) abortion "rights", but he actually gave his own personal money to Planned Parenthood. I also can't get past his sleazy personal life. To me, there are other better candidates more deserving of being our party's standard-bearer for the 2008 presidential election.
However, if Rudy is nominated, I will support him. Why? For one, there's no way I could favor another Clinton in the White House. Do we really want a person who is more left-wing than Bill Clinton as president? Do we really want Hillary Clinton in charge of appointing Supreme Court justices? Do we really want a return of the Clinton machine, with all the attendant dishonesty and dirty tricks? Do we really want a larger federal nanny state? Do we really want a Democrat such as Hillary controlling our military in a time of war? My answers are no, no, no, no and hell no.
Two, I will support Rudy--albeit not wholeheartedly--because widespread support of a third-party candidate will guarantee that another Clinton will be in the White House. Also, Rudy has made pledges that assuage my concerns. On abortion, he said he would appoint Supreme Court judges in the mold of Roberts and Alito. If Rudy appoints another Souter or O'Connor, then that's a deal-breaker for me. I have differences with Rudy on the Second Amendment, but it's a dead issue. Conservatives won the debate, and Democrats are no longer interested in bringing up gun-control initiatives because it tends to cost them votes.
I can understand why social conservatives are concerned about Giuliani, but I'm more concerned about fellow conservatives wanting to choose a third-party candidate over Rudy, assuming he gets nominated AND assuming conservative Christian leaders decide to back a third-party candidate. According to Rasmussen, 27% of Republicans would pick door #3 under that scenario. If that happens, the upcoming election will be 1992 all over again, and a Clinton will come out on top once again. This is giving me a disturbing case of deja vu.
For those conservatives who consider abortion a paramount issue, I suggest your third-party efforts will move the pro-life movement backward. As it is, there are one or two liberal Supreme Court justices who are trying to stay alive long enough for a Democrat to get elected. With Hillary in charge, there is a 100% chance that she will appoint judges who support Roe v. Wade. Rudy has rejected this litmus test. And what if one (or more) of the four sitting conservative justices dies or is forced to retire during Hillary's one or two terms? To me, you can kiss goodbye the chance of Roe v. Wade being overturned or neutralized for an additional generation to come.
This situation also concerns me because I'm hearing the same things today that I did back in 1992, only back then the medium was talk radio and CNN. No FoxNews, no Internet, but the same tenor. To paraphrase: "If Rudy's elected, go ahead and give the election to Hillary. Our party will come out stronger after a Democrat has ruined things for awhile." To me, that mindset is all wrong.
Let's take a little walk down memory lane. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, we had a president who wasn't very conservative, and he went from 90% approval ratings to an electoral bust. He pledged "read my lips, no new taxes" and he broke it. The savings & loan meltdown sent the budget deficit skyward, and we went into a recession shortly after Saddam was booted out of Kuwait. Bush 41 didn't handle those situations very well, and an unfriendly liberal press helped magnify the mishandlings (proof of liberal bias here).
The GOP faithful was less than happy with Bush 41, then the little guy with the bad haircut entered the scene. Ross Perot had three billion dollars, and he could balance the budget without breaking a sweat. He went on Larry King and pitched the American people and--despite his personality quirks--persuaded enough voters to turn their backs on Bush and pull the lever for Perot. I forever regret to say that I was one of those "protest" voters. There was no way I could vote for Clinton, but I was too disenchanted with Bush 41. I wasn't the only one. The result was a flawed darkhorse Democrat in the White House.
Fortunately, we had a strong economy from 1993 through 2000, but we also had an ineffectual foreign policy and daily dishonesty. We had Blackhawk Down, which inspired a certain terrorist to launch increasingly ambitious attacks, and we had a president who didn't have the stones to take the fight to al Qaeda. We can thank Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America for bringing the GOP a congressional majority, thus preventing Clinton from moving the country more leftward.
Then there's more recent electoral history. There wouldn't have been a 2000 electoral brawl in Florida if Ralph Nader hadn't pulled so many Democrats away from Al Gore.
The bottom line is this. The US political system is a two-party affair when it comes to presidential elections. Taking your ball from the GOP to a third party is a guaranteed recipe for failure. You might get your voices heard, but you lose your ability to do anything legislatively or judicially. What's worse, the other side gets the power, and they control the agenda and the debate. Do we really want to repeat history? I know I've learned my lesson.
Update: You can disagree with Andrew Sullivan every day of the week and twice on Sundays when it comes to the issues (and I do), but there's nothing wrong with his memory, and he remembers the sleaze of Bill Clinton--and his chief enabler--quite well. Just another reminder for wavering conservatives about what another Clinton administration would look like.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Let me just add that the 27 percent figure is as bogus as the 'generic Republican vs generic Democrat' polls. No third party candidate will come close to the mythical perfect 3rd party candidate that polled at 27 percent, first of all because no top-shelf candidate will run as a 3rd party candidate (it guarantees they have no future in the Republican party), and no candidate could ever satisfy all the different people that form that 27 percent.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
as little as 3 percent could well do it, and that of course says nothing about the disenchanted voters who won't show up at all, which is even worse, as it harms downballot candidates as well.
the surest way to reenact 1992 is to nominate Rudy Giuliani, a nomination that would encourage a 3rd party run all by itself. I've reluctantly said I'd vote for Rudy if he was our nominee, but I still find myself wavering, wondering if I could really do it (though I'd still vote in the other races). you don't want 1992? Don't nominate Rudy.
That is old news. There is a simple solution to this problem: don't nominate Rudy! Don't vote for Rudy in the primary.
Ant says->"That is old news. There is a simple solution to this problem: don't nominate Rudy! Don't vote for Rudy in the primary."
In all probability, I think millions of conservatives will do just that. Giuliani will have a very difficult time winning the republican nomination now that Dobson, Perkins, and millions of dollars will start pouring in to defeat him. Giuliani's best hope is that ALL the other candidates stay in the race through February 5th. I seriously doubt that will happen though. Once the field narrows, the conservative block will unite behind one anti-Rudy candidate and the firewall will be too high for Giuliani to get over.
I'm not an agent, I just write books
If we can all see the inevitability of the election outcome should a SoCon third party candidate run...
and if it looks increasingly likely that this possibility is coming to reality given the support of Dobson/Perkins and many more...
then the smart solution for the GOP is for the Rudy bandwagon folks to start climbing back down and do exactly what they have been preaching to all the Social Conservatives...
For the good of the party, of course.
Seems simple to me.
The difference is I am not threatening to scuttle the life raft because I don't like the island on the horizon.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
gladly support a 3rd party candidate it he/she could really win against Hillary. I've already said I'll vote for whoever the GOP candidate is. I just won't waste my vote and help elect her. Her activist agenda offers nothing for this 100% pro-life voter.
===============
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
In response to the title of this diary.
I'd sure take 1980 and 1984 all over again, though. :-)
of Reagan. He probably pulled more votes from Carter.
Maybe we should be lobbying Dobson to put up Nader.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Mr Bird wrote:
On abortion, he said he would appoint Supreme Court judges in the mold of Roberts and Alito. If Rudy appoints another Souter or O'Connor, then that's a deal-breaker for me.
Thing is, he can tell you that he's going to appoint judges like John Roberts and Sam Alito, but saying it's a "deal-breaker" if he appoints judges like Sandra O'Connor or David Souter is meaningless -- because he'll have already had your end of the deal (your vote), and he's free to do whatever he damned well pleases once in office.
...in his first term. You have to go by what they pledge and whether or not you think they'll stand by their promises. I have no reason to believe Giuliani would chump the GOP on this issue.
Look at California. Nobody thought Arnold Schwarzenegger would stab Republicans in the back, but look at him. Just look at the way he pushed to bully Senate Republicans into passing his unconstitutional, illegal budget deal he made with the Democrats.
Republicans like that undermine our party when put into chief executive roles.
Arnold had no track record, no past experience so as to make a valid assumption of how much you can trust him. Rudy, is not known as someone who blatantly breaks campaign promises. He has a long track record, and is considered, even by his critics as a pretty honest politician (now there is an oxymoron for you).
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
During the special recall election there were two republicans running - Arnold and conservative Tom McClintock. McClintock was running well in the polls and told everyone who would listen that Arnold was NOT a true conservative. Unfortunately, the republican establishment wanted Arnold, thinking he would be the best chance to win, even though Arnold had made comments before the election that should have raised red flags for conservatives as to his true agenda.
The point is, Arnold was, and is, no conservative. And based on his prior record, Rudy Giuliani's candidacy should be raising the same red flags as did Arnold's during the recall election. But, if winning is all you guys care about, then by all means vote for Giuliani. But don't come back here in 2009 claiming that you were fooled by Giuliani during the campaign.
I'm not an agent, I just write books
Would you call Stephen Moore, founder of Club for Growth, an establishment Republican? He was all for Arnold, and was definitely fooled.
The club for growth has been around long enough that they should have known about Tom McClintock's long career as a fiscal conservative. So the question then becomes, why didn't Stephen Moore and the club for growth support McClintock ?
I'll tell you why. Because they were more concerned about winning than standing on their principles. Arnold had gone on TV and radio all across California, as did McClintock, and anyone who paid attention to the recall campaign knew that Arnold wasn't the real deal. If Stephen Moore is now coming out and stating he was "fooled", then perhaps Stephen Moore's political opinions or judgement isn't as desirable as one might think.
I'm not an agent, I just write books
But if you read what he wrote about Schwarzenegger (there's an article in NRO's archives), the Governor he writes about has no relation to the one we got stuck with.
Neil, I understand what you saying. And I'm not trying to pick on you personally. But the fact remains, for those who paid close attention to what Arnold was saying during the recall, there should have been some serious doubt about his commitment to the conservative republican cause.
And now, with respect to Giulaini, I have the same serious doubts about his true convictions - particulary with respect to picking judges.
I'm not an agent, I just write books
He's already left himself weasel room by saying strict constructionists could support Roe. So, no matter who he nominates to the Supreme Court, no one can say he broke his promise.
We would see a cacophonous repeat of that tactic if Rudy goes against his word and he would be a one term POTUS. The entire sordid affair would make his tenure a ridiculous footnote.
Any potential election of Rudy would be probative with a large section of the base and he knows it.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
If Giuliani is to win the nomination, it will be not be because of the base, but because of independents and moderates in northeastern states and California.
And if Giuliani were to go on and win the general, he will have done so with support of indies and Reagan democrats - many of which are pro-choice.
The point is, don't think that Giuliani will be beholden to the conservative base if he wins. If anything, he will claim that he has been liberated from it.
I'm not an agent, I just write books
1992 gave us 1994. And boy could we use another one of those.
Besides, I endorse the 8-for-Rudy, 4-for-Clinton point...if we get President Giuliani, then unless he is primaried out in 2012, we go eight years without a pro-life Presidential candidate. Yes, I trust Giuliani slightly more on judges, but the only justice likely to go in the next four years is John Paul Stevens, a diehard liberal. I'd rather leave the option open for a pro-lifer in the four years following.
he's now over 70 and due for a heart attack anytime, i am very sorry to say.
ginsburg has had health problems.
stevens isn't the only one likely to retire or die in the next presidential term.
plus, 1994 didn't stop - perhaps couldn't have stopped - clinton's awful foreign policy. nor did the republicans have it in them to stop clinton's evisceration of the military.
The case Charles Bird makes is a mature one.
You might not get your ideal candidate, but in the end you have to decide which of the two would make a better President. I didn't like Bush Sr., but I certainly would have preferred him to two terms of Bill Clinton.
In 1992, conservatives cut their nose off to spite their face, and we lost the Supreme Court to liberals. We would have had a lopsided conservative Supreme Court right now had Bush won that election, but I guess it was worth it for some Conservatives to stick it to Bush. I hope it felt good! Just think, we would have had a Supreme Court that oppossed Roe vs. Wade, oppossed racial quotas, supported property rights, school prayer, and the list goes on. Are you willing to give this up, just to prove a point?
I certainly haven't gotten my first picks for Republican Presidential nominees, but in the end I can be an adult and see which candidate is better to lead this country. If you would like to see Hillary in the White House just to prove your point, well I think it might just be a good time for these people to just leave the Republican Party, they were never really conservatives to begin with if they have no problem with Hillary in th White House.
Fortunately, this rumored 3rd party is just a bluff. They have no candidate, no party, and no funding. They just want to scare Republicans into voting their way.
If these extremists eventually want to rally around some tele-eveangelist candidate that ends up getting as many votes as Pat Buchanan, go for it. Just don't come crawling back asking for forgiveness.
. . . between a Democrat and a Democrat, they'll choose the Democrat every time -- stolen from Harry Truman.
Mr Giuliani is, I'm sorry to say, a RINO. Other than the war, can you tell me how a Giuliani presidency would be notably distinguiishable from a Clinton term?
His skill at appointments includes guys like Bernard Kerik. The man's own children don't support him. His public humiliation of his second wife, and the mother of his children, makes Bill Clinton's treatment of Monica Lewinsky look classy. I'm sorry, but the fact that he might be able to beat Senatrix Clinton does not mean that he is a man worthy of our votes.
In 2004, I had the luxury of being able to vote for the Constitution Party candidate for the Senate: Arlen Specter was a shoo-in, so my vote, individually, didn't mean that teh Democrat would win. In 2008, odds are that the Democratic nominee will be so far ahead in Pennsylvania that I can vote my conscience rather than have to hold my nose to vote for a RINO like Mr Giuliani.
I've got some high hopes for Fred Thompson, though I haven't really made up my miond yet. But, other than Mr Thompson, the GOP field looks as inspiring as it did in 1996.
"Other than the war, can you tell me how a Giuliani presidency would be notably distinguiishable from a Clinton term?"
First of all, you act as if war isn't a very important duty for the president of the United States. I would argue it's THE most important role for the commander-in-chief. If you've conceded that Giuliani would be a better war commander than Hillary, you already have reason enough to vote for Rudy.
Second of all, Rudy WOULD appoint better judges than Hillary. In my eyes, judicial appointments are the second most important role of the President. I can't see anyone arguing with a straight face that Hillary would appoint better judges than Rudy.
So there you have it. Rudy be better on the two most important roles for President. Better foreign policy, better judges.
I understand voting against Giuliani in the primary, but in the general election, it's obvious Giuliani is better for conservatives than Hillary.
Mr Giuliani is, I'm sorry to say, a RINO. Other than the war, can you tell me how a Giuliani presidency would be notably distinguiishable from a Clinton term?
"But other than than, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the show at the Ford Theatre last night?"
Tranlation (because I know it's kinda early) - well, if you're going to be right on one issue and one issue alone, that's a pretty darn good one to be right about, no?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
If that happens, the upcoming election will be 1992 all over again, and a Clinton will come out on top once again. This is giving me a disturbing case of deja vu.
But otherwise, very good analysis.
Sorry, this republican will not be voting for Rudy under any circumstances.
Forget about it, I would rather have Hillary and be screaming about her then put my stamp of approval on Rudy.
would it actually make it more likely that the gop will nominate a social conservative in 2012?
would it make it more likely that conservative policies will be implemented over the next 8 years (because hillary would have a good chance of being a two-termer once elected)?
what would be the benefit, exactly, besides self-satisfaction?
Look, you only get one shot to tell your government what you want. If I vote for Rudy for the sole reason that he is not Hillary, then I put a stamp of approval on everything he stands for, I effectively say to my government, conservative values don't matter to me.
I can't do that, and a lot of people feel the same way it seems.
The best solution is not to nominate Rudy!
Vote for Huckabee, Hunter, Tancredo, or my suggestion Paul. All of them (if we want to admit it or not) have a truly conservative message that the base can get behind, and yes I might even vote for Huckabee over Hillary though I don't like him now much.. I think the compromise between all of them is Tancredo who is a decent guy that the entire base could vote for.
... considering how similar their rhetoric and mental state is. But then we have to recognize the considerable overlap between their pathologies.
to look at a Hillary presidency, and believe that those saying they'll reject Giuliani have really counted the cost.
But we have.
Yes, that means bad things for our foreign policy and economy. Yes, that means Ginsberg judges instead of more Kennedys.
But it does mean there's still a decent chance of getting a 5th Roe vs. Wade vote. The window for pro-Roe judges to get recycled is 4 years, not 8 or more. (And likely "or more", considering the Republican party will have been confirmed in sacrificing the abortion issue for electoral success.)
For a shot at reducing abortion, I'm willing to suffer through 4 years of Clinton. I'd much rather not, of course, but that depends on our picking a unity candidate. I don't see why the latter is such a terrible burden.
you want to make the following fool bets;
1) Guiliani is not sincere that he would appoint a strict constructionist (an argument out of bad faith)
2) Hillary, after gaining power will not be able to hold on for eight years (I remember people saying the same about Bill)
3) No conservatives on the court will suddenly die while she is in office.
Well I guess you have your principles, hope that compensates for lunacy.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
When Giuliani says 'strict constructionist,' he doesn't mean what most of us think it means. He thinks it is a form of Constitutional jurisprudence in which Roe v. Wade was a reasonably decided case.
That to me is a big honking problem.
Ronald Reagan and every Republican President after him repudiated the idea of a litmus test of overturning Roe for judicial appointments.
Giuliani said he would appoint "strict constructionists" like Scalia to the Supreme Court, and he didn't know if those strict constructionists would overturn Roe. Going beyond that would impose the litmus test that Reagan rejected.
Giuliani said he wants to leave abortion laws to the states. It's silly to doubt his sincerity about that. He's running for President of the United States, and he's going to have a lot of demands on his time and energy. The Commander in Chief in the middle of a war doesn't doesn't need the distraction of endless arguments about abortion.
I didn't say anything about litmus tests. I'm just holding up his *definition of strict constructionism* as evidence of a problem his reasoning.
I believe that Giuliani is sincere in appointing what he calls a strict constructionist. IIRC, that includes Ginsberg, and certainly doesn't mandate opposition to Roe vs. Wade.
I also note he's well situated to nominate a conservative, watch the Democratic Senate reject him, and then throw up his hands and nominate a Kennedy. Getting a 5th vote against Roe vs. Wade is going to be a legendary fight. Why exactly is Giuliani going to do what it takes to win? Not only are his principles opposed, but he's PROMISED not to be effectively pro-life.
Given that, the rest falls apart. Whether conservatives die or not, they're not going to be replaced by anti-Roe votes. If Hillary lasts for 8 years, that still may be an improvement compared to the damage Rudy would wreak. Nor is it as certain as Rudy being pro-choice.
IIRC, that includes Ginsberg
What on earth is the basis for that? (And don't give me that quote where Rudy tries to sell Roberts by saying he's a smart, qualified judge like Ginsburg - we all know his job was to sell Roberts to the general public then).
Rudy has said repeatedly he'd pick judges like Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Either you believe him or you do not; there's no middle ground.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I always hear Roberts, Alito, and Scalia. The fact that he usually omits Thomas is rather interesting to me.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
From JoinRudy2008
The Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee today unveiled the members of Rudy Giuliani’s Justice Advisory Committee. Former Solicitor General of the United States Ted Olson will serve as Chairman.The Committee is comprised of some of America’s leading conservative scholars and practicing attorneys, many of whom Rudy Giuliani has known since his time serving as Associate Attorney General in Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department. Members include former Assistant to the Solicitor General Miguel Estrada, Co-founder of the Federalist Society Steven Calabresi and former Deputy Attorney General of the United States Larry Thompson.
“Rudy Giuliani believes in limited government, individual liberty and interpreting the Constitution the way its framers intended,” said Ted Olson, former Solicitor General of the United States and Chairman of the Justice Advisory Committee. “He understands that we need judges who interpret the Constitution, not legislate from the bench. Rudy Giuliani will appoint strict constructionist judges who share that philosophy.”
“Unelected judges legislating from the bench threaten the Federalist philosophy that is the foundation of our Constitutional system,” said Federalist Society co-founder Steven Calabresi. “Judges are meant to judge — not make laws. Under Rudy Giuliani, it will stay that way.”
Members will advise Rudy Giuliani on a wide range of legal and policy issues including judicial appointments, tort reform and reducing frivolous lawsuits in our country.
You may not trust Rudy, but men on this advisory committee are above reproach in their reputations. These are the guys who will be vetting the nominees. No other candidate has produced such a committee.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
years and get beat is just silly. Bill survived bimbo eruptions galore, finance scandals in the 8 figures, selling military technology to China, the health care debacle and got reelected. She'd win in a walk.
She will also make the mexico accords a really distant memory, allow abortions at military hospitals and will appoint judges that make RBG look like Clarence Thomas.
Keep in mind that if she gets elected, she will likely get a much bigger majority in the Senate and will empower the far left in the House. We'll have nationalized heath care in her first year - for the children, of course - and you can plan on watching the US military be destroyed by Hillary and her friends.
It's obvious you haven't even thought seriously about the cost let alone begun to count it.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
is the sillier thing. Bill was a charismatic southerner. That goes along way. I think there is a very good chance Hillary would be a one term president president. I don't know what the exact figures are, but I think America has had roughly the same number of one termers as two termers. The fact is with Rudy we allmost have definitely have four years of pro - choice, with Hillary there is a definte better chance at getting a pro -lifer in four years - I would put at about 50%.
BTW, Don't start going off on telling us how terrible Hillary would be, when you willing to have Hillary over Huckabee, or McCain, and I think maybe Romney.
Given that Huckabee has no chance, that's the equivalent of yelling into a rain barrel. I would absolutely hold my nose and vote for Romney over Hillary.
I wouldn't vote for McCain, but it's not a one issue thing with me, I've been down that road more than once and I won't turn this post into a McCain threadjack. I'm also almost as sure he won't be the nominee as I am Huckabee.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
This is exactly how I feel, all of my somewhat-rational and occasionally impertinent comments to Dan McLaughlin today notwithstanding. I'll fight for Rudy if he's the nominee. I'll be the guy standing at my polling booth in Western Massachusetts wearing the only Rudy Giuliani t-shirt in the room, for Pete's sake. But if it should come to that, I will probably include a little Mitt Romney campaign button on the shirt, just as a remembrance.
If only there was a way to ban people who left the party from ever coming back, no moral person can think enabling the Clintons is justifiable. Look at Rudys leagal team, a couple of months ago many of these conservatives were willing to go to the matresses (to borrow a phrase) for Olsen as Attorney General......
Anyone who can't support Rudy if he is nominee should read a little dailykos. Hillary says she helped create it and moveon.org. Read it for 10 min and come back here and tell me who would do more damage to this country.
Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite
The thing that kills me is their hilarious laziness. Are they mounting any challange to Rudy so it doesnt come to a split, nah, there just going to wait and see what happens....
I really do think they may walk as well, hell these are the same people who gave us the first Clinton, they must have liked what they saw, their about to give us another
First, he isn't going to pull anything apart. Second, let the socons do what they want. Rudy is a paradigm and he can win with or without their votes.
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
With Bush in the 30s we need every vote. Enough of them walk away and goodbye a long list of states including Ohio and Florida.....The people toying with leaving dont see the damage its going to inflict...
let the socons do what they want. Rudy is a paradigm and he can win with or without their votes.
To win the general election, Giuliani will need a lot of social conservatives' votes. That's not a problem. He will get most of the votes based on social conservative concerns in the general election, because few social conservatives are silly enough to think Clinton packing the Court with more Ginsburgs is preferable to electing Clinton.
There is a small "Code Pink" type faction among social conservatives that would rather elect Clinton than Giuliani, but not enough of them to swing any states in the general election.
Yes there have been significant third party showings in several elections, but 2000 is the only one I credit with affecting the outcome since World War II. I suspect looking further back wouldn't turn up many changed elections either.
Clinton would have won both times without Perot in the race. Bush 41's reelection campaign was largely a referendum on his performance, so it's highly unlikely he would have gotten anywhere close to half of Perot's votes in a one on one with Clinton. In 1994 Clinton got over 49% of the vote even with Perot in the race; just a tiny fraction of Perot's vote would have given him a popular vote majority too big to realistically coexist with an electoral college loss. The same is true of Reagan's 1980 majority. Wallace took far more votes from Nixon than from Humphrey.
I think that 1992 was radically different because of Perot. Yes, Clinton may have won, but that is far from a foregone conclusion. Given a guy pulling 19% nationally, people were much more quick to cast a "protest vote." Yes, Clinton may have gotten more of Perot's votes than Bush on the whole - but that isn't necessarily true of every state.
Clinton won only Arkansas and DC with more than 50% of the vote. He won Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Georgia - all states that could very well have gone Republican absent Perot (do you think the majority of Perot voters in say Montana would have opted for Clinton in a head-to-head?). Ohio and Kentucky wound up with Bush and Clinton within 3 points of each other.
Certainly Nader affected the outcome - but that was on a fluke - nobody would have predicted how close that was going to be. Even a few days before election day the story was how Bush was likely to win the popular but it looked like Gore might win the Electoral College. It also assumes a 1-to-1 transfer of Nader votes to Gore - I think that's false. Nader never had the support Perot did - and was never considered a serious candidate (debate included etc.) like Perot was. I think many of the Nader voters would have found some other nutter minor party candidate to vote for or would have skipped the election altogether.
As far as the argument that Giuliani supporters should just give up on him now for the good of the party... that's absurd.
Giuliani backers aren't the ones threatening not to support the eventual Republican nominee. And there is no more reason for Giuliani supporters to give up on him in the primaries than there is for supporters of any other candidate to do so. Support your guy in the primaries and rally around whoever wins, unless you want to see a Democrat in the White House, period. That's what will happen with a 3rd party candidate and we all know it.
Do you want to win, or be right? We who refuse to vote for Giuliani are more concerned with the latter.
If you're more concerned with the former though, why do you insist on trying to pin blame, rather than just CHANGING YOUR VOTE IN ORDER TO MAKE VICTORY MORE LIKELY?
Because the other candidates probably can't win, Rudy with the spliter factor is probably more likely to win than Thompson and surly Romney.....
And Mitt won't win MA. Neither will win CA. Tell me how a pro-GWOT, pro-choice candidate will run stronger in the South and Midwest than a pro-GWOT, pro-life candidate? Rudy has name recognition in the polls now. In 13 months that won't mean much.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
You are going to have to tell me how its right, to allow a small segment of the party thats not even 50% of the people concerned about a particular issue, short circuit the primary system and take defacto control of the party.
Speaking for myself only, winning is important, so is being right. If I toss out my beliefs because of a threat I won't win and I won't be right either.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
"build a better mousetrap, and people will beat a path to your door"
The GOP and the Dems are offering mousetraps, and right now the smart money would bet on the Dems'
And we HAVE been assured that the country will survive a Hillary presidency. Which is correct.
You have fought the good fight, man. So chill and enjoy life!
If you can do without our votes, then quit your whining about not getting our votes.
If you can't, then alter your strategy and move on.
Either way, railing against the people who won't vote for Giuliani GAINS YOU NOTHING.
I assume 'customers' here you use in reference to my new RS status. Use the contact form if you have complaints about me. My behavior here with respect that status is between me and the higher ups, and I'm not going to debate it here.
They don't write (normally) letters to Macy's board.
Anyway, this isn't about you, personally, but a developing trend on RS that is becoming worrisome as it shifts into High School Mode.
I brought it up here because this was the point of origin of this particular manifestation of the trend.
So don't take it personally- you lend a lot of energy to the site, which is a good thing. Besides, I don't write cretinous letters behind people's backs.
I am upset about them making implied threats.
You want to vote for Brand X vote for Brand X. Don't hold it over my head like a knife.
Its like a scene from a bad movie. You have the villian activating his lairs self destruct so he can take out the hero, never mind he is right next to reactor/bomb/voclanic vent.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Look at it like a company that has to choose between selling Brand X and Brand (Y,Z, etc)
A faction within management says that if the co goes with X, they will bolt. And Brand (Y,Z, etc) is so much better.
In the end management (Republican electorate) has to decide if Brand X is so superior that it's worth going for it and risk having the Brand (Y, Z, etc) supporters bolt.
Of course, they could bolt. Then again, maybe not.
If they do bolt, the could offer (Brand Y, Z. etc.), or trash Brand X, or encourage people not to buy anything.
Then Competing Brand C wins the market share battle. Life is risky.
The risk assessment of this election is complicated.
Giuliani because you think he's the best choice for America - because you admire his accomplishments and endorse his positions - then by all means support him. Who am I to tell someone not to vote his values?
If you're supporting Giuliani because you think he's electable, then it pays to consider he can't unify the party behind him. If you still think he's electable despite that, again, supporting him at least makes some sense.
If your concern is that it's somehow not "right" to impact the primary process this way - check your definition of rightness. I'd argue it's not right to attempt bullying people into voting against their values. (Party loyalty does not trump opposing mass murder.) Further, it's not right to attack them for warning you of the potential conflict when something can still be done about it. Shooting the messenger never helps.
If you want to argue that Rudy and the pro-life cause are compatible, fine. I still disagree, but I respect the attempt as a legitimate effort to solve the problem. Posts making wild references to Nehemiah Scudder? Not so much.
The Nehemia Scudder reference is to letting a small portion of the electorate effectively control the election.
Supporting Guiliani is about supporting the best candidate.
Back to the main topic. Tell me how these are different.
Don't vote for X vote for Y.
If you vote for X I and others like me will wreck his chances at winning and put someone we both feel is much worse than Y in.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Scroll down just a bit, and see what Neil's saying about long-term consequences. That's the concern. Not what's going to happen for 4 years, but for the many years yet to come.
I believe that Clinton is actually better than Giuliani, when the long term consequences are included. Granted, it's like comparing polio and prostate cancer. But the decision is made with the health of the country (and party) in mind.
So the last statement of your analogy falls flat. I also note that there's no particular Y we're trying to drum up support for. The comparison is strictly between Rudy and Clinton.
No matter who wins the nomination, it's better to vote for the nominee than Hillary or throwing your vote away, particularly since door #3 is in effect a vote for Hillary. Pulling the lever for Giuliani may not be right to you, but it's righter than a Hillary administration. In the meantime, you can still work within the party on it "being right" during the primary season.
If this were the only time I intended to vote, then yes, I could easily vote for any Republican over Clinton.
This isn't though. I plan to be voting again in future elections, and my vote in *this* election affects the strategies of other Republicans in future primary contests.
I have to take that into account, and to me Giuliani and Clinton aren't different enough for their differences to outweight the effects on future elections.
So yeah, for me, being right in the sense of trying to guide this party in the right direction, is incompatible with winning, if Giuliani wins the nomination this time.
"Mr Giuliani is, I'm sorry to say, a RINO. Other than the war, can you tell me how a Giuliani presidency would be notably distinguiishable from a Clinton term?"
Everything except for two issues, abortion and gay marriage, that no Republican candidate has any proposals on!
Did everyone suddenly forget about small government, cutting taxes, reducing spending, and economic conservatism? The number one job of the President is to defend the country. The number two job on the President is to manage the Executive Branch! He is in charge of spending and has the power to veto all spending in a $3 trillion government budget. Are the $3 trillion dollar budget and the War on Terror important to you? Then the difference between a Giuliani and Clinton presidency would be NIGHT and DAY.
But you aren't interested in protecting that freedom, so it probably doesn't mean anything to you.
Look, I most certainly hope that, if elected, Rudy does a good job on the small government end. He may well, although tax-payer funded abortions don't really involve a budget cut. I haven't ruled out voting for him in the general yet. We'll just have to wait and see what happens in the next year.
Vote for the outcome you want, not the candidate you want.
Islamo-facism is the most important thing facing the United States for the next four years.
Rudy is the one candidate running who I think has the stones to take this war all the way to the mat and win it.
Do I want tax reform? Hell yeah, I get killed by the AMT.
Do I want another Scalia on the Court? Damn skippy, I am a proud member of the Federalist Society.
But when push comes to shove, I want every Islamic militant in the world DEAD. I want every country in the world afraid of tangling with the United States because we won't think twice about wrecking havoc on our enemies. I want a world that will be safer for my children to grow up in.
So, while the vast conservative agenda is important to me, I will overlook Rudy's failing because he will keep us in Iraq and Afghanistan to finish the job and deal with Iran the way they need to be dealt with. And, to me anyway, that carries more wait than the type of judge he puts on the Supreme Court. (And I would take another Kennedy over Stevens any day)
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE BUT THE U.S. MARINE CORPS WILL PAY MOST OF THE SHARE.
you cant always be the pampered baby who has the candidate that suits your every want and need. In the primaries vote your heart,Im a Rudy supporter personally, but vote against him in the primary all you like, but once the party makes its decision and it doesnt go your way to run away crying is absolutly shameful, Im with you all the way, Islmo Terror is the biggest threat to us, Hillary thinks its our economy, in the general election, you vote for the candidate closet to your views, and Rudy is certainly that agianst any Dem
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
If we assume party strategists are rational, then that lesson should have been learned on all sides. The Presidential nomination adn election game is not a one shot deal. It's repeated indefinitely, which means the strategies we ALL choose must account for that.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters