Pajamas Media: The GOP’s “Rudy Problem”
Indeed, many secular conservatives simply don’t trust Giuliani’s instincts. They are torn between the practical political reality that Giuliani might be the best national candidate to face off against a liberal Democrat in what is shaping up to be a Democratic year at the polls across the board and the fact that Rudy has behaved in a decidedly unconservative manner on occasion, calling into question his bona fides as a man of the right.
Who says? The two hottest issues in the country - the war on terror and immigration - favor the GOP - if the Grand Old Party has the cojones to takes these issues and ride them to victory.
That means demanding more defeats for Islamofascism, and less “negotiations” with people who want nothing more than to murder us and our allies. It also means an immigration policy that includes a physical wall at the border, a no-tolerance policy for illegal immigrants, and reliance on attrition through enforcement of laws already on the books to get a handle on the out-of-control situation we have today.
Rudy Giuliani isn’t going to give us any of that. He’s going to run as Hillary Light. Why would that guarantee a victory? If you want somebody sorta, kinda like Hillary, why not vote for Hillary and get the real deal?
All this whining about it being a Democratic year? Only if the GOP ignores reality, and plays into the hands of Dem strategists and their handmaidens of the media who are - trust me on this - not offering advice designed to help the GOP win in 2008.
And that includes all the wailing from the RINO wing of the GOP, who have their own set of well-sharpened axes on the grindstone.
Can something similar happen in 2008? Given how evenly divided the electorate has shown itself the last two elections, even a small percentage of conservatives who choose to sit this one out could very well make Hillary Clinton President of the United States.
I think I heard this in 2006, too. And how did that work out for you, RINO-boy?
If you want conservative and libertarian votes, why not try nominating somebody conservatives and libertarians want to vote for?
UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
It’s really the strategy of Rove carried to an extreme. He and Bush never went for the big win. They wanted to win and not take a chance on losing. This whole idea the electorate is divided down the middle is bs. In 1992 20% of the electorate went for Perot. Those people are still around waiting for one of the parties to go hard for their vote. As long as they don’t those voters will waffle between the candidates.
Eh, sorta. I was one of those 19%, but I didn’t vote for Perot, I voted against Pappy Silverspoon and the Hick Slimeball.
In fact, that describes most of my 21 years of voting: I vote against people whose stated policies I find repugnant. (I don’t bother to vote for someone on the basis of stated policies. When he states his policies, a politician’s lips are moving.) I vote against someone whose character seems inadequate to the position for which he is campaigning. When all else fails, I vote against the incumbant. (I despise the notion of a career politician.) It’d be interesting to see what percentage of the electorate matches that description.
Much of the money for the GOP comes from big business, which wants the open borders policy.
That’s the trouble with Republicans, rather than being “conservative”, it’s a party that is a coalition of various special interests. On some things they agree, but on others, like immigration, they are diametrically opposed.
That’s the trouble with Democrats, rather than being “liberal”, it’s a party that is a coalition of various special interests.
Let me know how well the black special interest wing agrees with the hispanic special interest wing on the subject of illegal immigration.
JeremyR Much of the money for the GOP comes from big business, which wants the open borders policy.
Yup, and Hillary’s fortune comes from minimum wage earners in Chinatown.
That’s the trouble with Democrats, they’ll beg, borrow, lie, cheat and steal to get and keep power. Nothing else matters except putting on a sweet face in front of the camera.
That’s why the Republicans will win this election - they’re the only ones that seem to have the smallest bit of honor and honesty.
I support an open borders policy because I’ve noticed how hard working immigrants are - more so than native-born Americans in most cases - and like seeing that rewarded.
it seems to me that a vocal minority of immigrant haters have taken over the discussion to the extent that people with other views have gotten sick of the discussion. I know I have, and that has all but driven me off Free Republic, a site I used to love.
So I don’t know if I would count on this as a winning issue, at least not in the long term. Being a nation of immigrants is part of our heritage, and I think we ignore this at our peril.
On a brighter note, I strongly suspect that the war on terror will be in pretty good shape. By this time next year, and that will make the Democrats look pretty stupid.
if that continues, I suspect Republicans will have a winning hand this coming November.
D
Oh, I’m sure “big” business donates a lot to the GOP JeremyR, perhaps a bit more than they do to the DEMs, though I doubt that there’s much of a difference when all is said and done.
If you’ll take some time to do some research though, you’ll find that the GOP is the party of the individual and garners a disproportionate amount of small donations from regular folk as compared to the DEMs — the DEMs don’t like that image much, so propagate the fantasy that the GOP is beholden to “big” business 24/7.
You should be able to discover these facts in a short time, but what the hell, dig on in and report back next week. Be careful with your supporting urls though.
“I support an open borders policy because I’ve noticed how hard working immigrants are - more so than native-born Americans in most cases - and like seeing that rewarded.”
I don’t have a problem with that, either (if it means what I think it means). I want secure borders and a huge guest-worker program and a path to citizenship. I don’t want illegal immigrants exploited by businesses. Apart from the logistical difficulties of keeping tabs, I can’t imagine why this is such a problem.
David H Dennis, I know bricklayers, carpenters and roofers who can’t support their families because the illegal immigrants depress the wages. Just so asshats like you can get substandard unbonded, uninsured work done cheap. Outlets that pull out of the wall when you unplug a lamp, pipes not tightened so that they leak, cabinet doorknobs coming off after a month. Yep real good workers. If they had any idea how to do the job.
Who says? The two hottest issues in the country - the war on terror and immigration - favor the GOP - if the Grand Old Party has the cojones to takes these issues and ride them to victory.
The war on terror as a political wedge issue used to favor the GOP, if you’re thinking back to when Bush had high approval numbers. But now? Bush’s handling of the war on terror has driven his approval numbers into the dirt. Any candidate who can’t distinguish how they would handle the war on terror from what Bush has done with it is not riding a wave that helps the GOP. But none of them really do. It’s an issue that keeps the hard-core right along for the ride, the ones who still think Bush is doing a heckuva job.
And immigration as an issue that favors the GOP??? You can get a good idea of how far that is from being true by looking at the immigration positions of the most poll-driven candidates. Romney in particular is on all sides of that issue, but mostly on the liberal side (just don’t use the word “amnesty”). If it polled well to take a strong stance on immigration he’d be all over that issue, and so would the others.
If you want conservative and libertarian votes, why not try nominating somebody conservatives and libertarians want to vote for?
Any suggestions? Giuliani is Hillary Light. Romney is … who knows? My bet would be that as president he’d end up being sort of a neutered Giuliani. But he’s been so many things to so many people, there’s really no way to know. On the other hand, a Romney vs. Hillary race would be sort of fun to watch, in a sick way. Battle of the chameleonic titans.
Huckabee would appeal to hard-core conservatives but not moderates or libertarians. In his favor, he seems to be the only big name in the race who actually believes what he says.
Thompson’s going to doze off at the podium one of these days. He probably got into the race thinking that maybe all the front runners would be rejected and he might just drift into the oval office. Can you think of any candidate with less “fire in the belly” in the last … ever?
Bushbots are not “hardcore right”, they are RINOs just like Bush. On fighting terror we need a person who will do the job and not use half measures. As to the poll numbers, last I looked the liberal controlled congress was still below Bush.
Maybe a more laid back President is what we need. All these so called go getters we’ve had seem to do is screw things up.
Does anyone really say “fire in the belly” any more? Other than the ones just reeling off last month’s talking points, I mean.
Dennis, you are so right. So many natives think that the world owes them a living and that hard work is beneath them. If you ask a native-born to spend a day in the sun doing lawn care or construction, he’ll look at you like you’re Hitler. And don’t even get me started on childcare. All of my friends who have nannies have had to get immigrants. Americans just want too much money; it’s like you have to bribe them to work or something. And using an immigrant nanny also helps little kids be bilingual because they can learn a non-English language at home with the nanny, then pick up English fast enough when they go into school.
I don’t care for the way you phrased that, Dennis. (How can you have a “war” on “terror”? You can’t have a “war” on an idea. You might as well declare a war on “poverty”.) Nevertheless, I think you’re right. If we open up the borders and allow a lot of people to come in, there won’t be an “us” and a “them” any more. There won’t be any point in attacking the United States any more because there won’t be a “United States” to attack. There’ll just be The Earth and we’ll all live in comparative peace the way it always was before the Cold War and the rise of the Superpowers.
Looking at all of the varied comments here, I’d say the GOP has failed irreparably. As has the Dem party.
Neither has a “center” anymore. There is no gravitational mass in either to truly draw in the voting public. Thus we devolve into a galaxy of little ass-teroids desperately seeking something to revolve around them and lend them the credibility of being able to sustain political life.
I’m gonna call it, The Big Bang of Political Theory and keep my day job.
And that includes all the wailing from the RINO wing of the GOP
Dunno, I see a lot of wailing from the social conservatives. The RINOS seem pretty happy
There isn’t a frontrunner who doesn’t have some RINO tendancy.
But that’s okay, because a lot of us here have tendancies that the Dobson wing–and a lot of conservatives– would call ‘RINO’.
I think a lot of us would actively work against a candidate that was wholly acceptable to Dobsons and his ilk.
All you clowns showing up and stating that opposition to amnesty/open borders is just a niche issue are clueless. Instead of paying for next month’s internet charges and continuing to waste bandwidth, why not take that money and see of you can’t get that loose screw fixed.
All you clowns showing up and stating that opposition to amnesty/open borders is just a niche issue are clueless.
Again, if it were a popular issue then a poll-driven candidate like Romney would be all over it. Not just because he’s poll-driven, but because he’d love to be any on the high-polling side of a key issue if only to get his supporters to forget how he’s flipflopped on so many other issues.
But Romney obviously isn’t staking out a strong position in opposition to amnesty/open borders. In fact he comes pretty close to doing the exact opposite, opposing “amnesty” by name but proposing something that amounts to essentially the same thing. Why? Because that’s the most popular position by such a large margin that he’d rather risk alienating some of the hard-core right.
If you think amnesty/open borders is only a “hard core right” issue, then you continue to prove your clown status. Romney is a RINO; he isn’t anywhere near the “right”. It doesn’t matter anyway since amnesty/open borders doesn’t split along left/right issues. There are bleeding hearts and big businesses dependent upon low wage labor that support amnesty/open borders. There are those that believe in the sovereignty of the border and those that are from lower socioeconomic strata that are being displaced by the illegal immigrants that are against amnesty/open borders.
Do some reading and report back how amnesty keeps being defeated in Congress by this niche group.
Because that’s the most popular position by such a large margin…
Among the pols, maybe.
Ding it, Steve, as good ol’ Ronny used to say, “There you go again…”…you’d oughtta be ashamed, trying to pull that sneaky stuff again…
Reading the original post (way, way up at the top, there…) and some of the comments caused me to think about this possibility - is it possible that the ‘Publicans could be falling into the same sort of problem that Bill pointed out prior to the last Presidential run-for-the-power? That being: Whichever candidate can successfully achieve the Party’s nomination, will be someone who will, in practical terms, be unelectable.
I think it’s just possible that both major Parties have now evolved/devolved into such a “big tent” nature that, unless they can successfully be deeply deceptive at the right time, a candidate for either Party nomination who can garner enough support to be the nominee, will be unacceptable to enough of the electorate that they cannot win - unless, of course, the other Party’s nominee is even worse.
If so…what a really rotten Hobson’s choice we will have next year -
BTW - To Mr. Dennis and Mr. Peschel: If you think that an “open borders/amnesty policy” will somehow result in fewer illegal immigrants, a never-ending supply of “hard-working immigrants”, less abuse of immigrant/migrant labor by employers or, in fact, any other net-positive effect for this country, you are truly dwelling in some sort of mental la-la land - any version of such a “policy” that has so far been proposed or even contemplated can be easily demonstrated to result in far, far worse end effects than we have already seen. Illegal immigration depresses wages, increases crime and other infrastructure costs, intensifies an economic and social stratification that is unhealthy at best and produces unwarranted political pressures that distort and complicate our legislative and judicial processes. Immigration is a traditional basis for the U.S. population, true; ILLEGAL immigration has never been favorable to this country, is never going to be, and cannot be usefully addressed via “open borders” or “amnesty” policies. Too bad, but that’s not the way it works…
Oh, and Mr. Peschel - anent Fred Thompson: In case you think Thompson’s “asleep at the switch”, I suggest you go back a few posts and read all about his proposed policy on immigration and illegals.
Besides - these days, I’ll take “clarity and focus in the brain” over “fire in the belly” every time - fr’instance, for The HillyBilly, “fire in the belly” would just mean a bad bowl of hot chili…
If you think amnesty/open borders is only a “hard core right” issue, then you continue to prove your clown status. Romney is a RINO; he isn’t anywhere near the “right”.
Romny is a RINO. But you missed the point entirely.
Romney is also a weathervane. His positions tell you which way the wind is blowing, nothing more and nothing less. And it doesn’t even matter what he may have said or done about an issue in the past because he’s completely willing to flip flop if necessary.
So now either you need to believe that Romney is convinced by the polls that a strong anti-amnesty/anti-open boarders stance would be a loser, and that because of this he’s distanced himself from that position in order to try to maximize his chances in the election.
Or, you need to believe that Romny the flip flopper knows that a strong anti-amnesty/anti-open boarders stance would be a winner for the GOP, but out of deep convictions and against the counsel of his advisors he’s staked out a semi-amnesty, semi-open boarders policy because some positions are just too precious to him to sacrifice them for the sake of electability.
I’m sticking with the weathervane theory.
Besides - these days, I’ll take “clarity and focus in the brain” over “fire in the belly” every time -
Hilarious. You’re saying this about Thompson? He brings neither to the table. You can say that the lack of fire is just his phlegmatic disposition. But on the issues he’s muddled and ignorant to an embarrassing degree. He barely seems to learn his lines well enough to get the right soundbites out correctly.
I think if the Demos were making up a list of major GOP candidates they’d really, really like to run against, Thompson would have to be at or near the top of the list. Any Demo candidate would appear dazzlingly charming and charismatic next to Thompson’s typical stump appearance. And he can’t hold his own in an unscripted debate. He’s only polling as well as he is (which isn’t all that well lately) because the other choices are so disappointing.
Which of the 4 categories that I originally listed do you think Romney falls into? He falls into one or both of the categories that support amnesty/open borders. It is the same for Giuliani. McCain, when forced to show his amnesty/open borders stance, cost him any chance of being nominated as the Republican candidate much less the POTUS. Romney wants to support open borders, but he keeps his weather vane pointed otherwise because he knows he will get it blown off if he points it toward amnesty/open borders.
I will stick with the position that amnesty/open borders is not a niche issue. It is however an issue that RINOs want to embrace but dare not point toward.
Can you back that with anything but bullshit, dumbass? Here, read a winning campaign on illegal immigration: Link.
So, anyway, genius, what do you think a GOP candidate should look like?
Hillary Clinton, is my guess.
Here, read a winning campaign on illegal immigration: Link.
That’s a link to a Thompson position, and if you think it would be the basis for a “winning campaign” you’re a pushover for cheap rhetoric. Contrast it with his actual record (via wikipedia, where you can find the links):
Actually it’s worse than just taking a position paper more seriously than the record of his actions. Consider that Romney “opposes amnesty” also, meaning that (as Fred also says) illegal aliens shouldn’t be given legal status automatically. But deportation? Romney is openly against it. Fred just talks about “self deportation” (yes, you read that right). Not deportation, but “many of those illegally in the country now likely will return home” on their own, voluntarily. And you find this convincing? This is a tough policy?
It’s really kind of funny. He tacks slightly to the right of Romney, talks about a few band-aids to put on the problem, leaves himself plenty of wiggle room to use if he gets the nomination, and that’s all it takes for him to be the strongest candidate on this issue.
So, anyway, genius, what do you think a GOP candidate should look like?
Hillary Clinton, is my guess.
You’d be wrong, of course. But if there were a Demo candidate I liked, I’d contribute to Phlegmatic Fred’s primary campaign and help you hand out leaflets if I thought it would help him get the GOP nomination.
That explains it. He’s a Kossack.
Lame dodge. Who’s yer boy? Ron Paul? He’s the only one on the right side of the fence inspiring a level of batshit support comparable to that on the Dem’s side.
Coffee, I don’t know if we’re saying the same thing or not here. Romney, for example, opposes the *word* amnesty, and if you read Fred’s position carefully you’ll see that he doesn’t actually get around to saying anything stronger than that. (I’m still chuckling over the idea that voluntary self-deportation is anything but a throwaway line to avoid having to explain why he doesn’t actually want to do anything to make them leave.)
It’s an issue on which a hard-line stance is political suicide on a national basis (certainly it can play well to some smaller audiences). So you’ve got Romney playing both sides already, but Thompson trying to appear more of a hard-liner while not pinning himself down really any more than Romney if you read what Fred actually says. The GOP candidate, whatever they say in the primaries, will be just a shade tougher on immigration than the Demo candidate, with little substance in the differences. If they want to have a chance of winning, anyway.
Don’t just look at the summary that was linked before, look at the full thing:
http://www.fred08.com/virtual/Immigration.aspx
And this has some useful links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Fred_Thompson
on the issue, if you’re trying to figure out whether Thompson is really all that much different from Romney for example.
If it gets too irritating, you can block incoming links by checking the referrer, you know. Bet Charles would be happy to tell you how to do it.
Lame dodge. Who’s yer boy? Ron Paul? He’s the only one on the right side of the fence inspiring a level of batshit support comparable to that on the Dem’s side.
For GOP nomination? Huckabee is the only big name that I have any respect for. He’s consistent, rather than a flip flopper, i.e. he really believes what he says. He can explain his views intelligently (himself, in person) not just toss around sound bites or rely on position papers the candidates don’t even write themselves. I disagree with him on a lot of things, but I can respect him.
Ron Paul is too far out for my taste, although I’d agree with him on some points. Romney is the biggest phony of all. I have no idea what a Giuliani presidency would look like, but it probably resembles something you’d get if you put Hillary and Cheney in a blender. Not appetizing.
So why should I have a “boy” in this race, if they’re all dogs?
But if I liked a Demo for president, then Phlegmatic Fred would be my first choice for a GOP opponent. Not only would he be a weak campaigner, you and others like you would lose your enthusiasm for him once he starts filling in the gaps in policies like that immigration paper you found so impressive.
OK, what happened to the original post 29?
But I thought you just said you liked Huckabee? Stop flip-flopping, for gawd’s sakes!
Whatever. I’ll still be working as hard as I can to make sure your nightmare of a Thompson candidacy comes true.
Though I think it will be anything but a nightmare for the GOP.
But I thought you just said you liked Huckabee? Stop flip-flopping, for gawd’s sakes!
The recurring theme seems to be that you don’t read carefully.
I said some specific things that I liked about Huckabee. I mentioned that I didn’t particularly agree with him, but could respect him much more than the other frontrunners. I didn’t give some generic “I like Huckabee” endorsement.
Similarly, Phlegmatic Fred’s web site has a position paper on immigration, which you seem to have taken to say a lot more than it really says, when it fact it leaves him more than enough wiggle room to move back to the Romneyesque muddled middle on the issue and support an amnesty-that-we-don’t-call-amnesty sort of solution just like weathervane Romney. I doubt that wiggle room is unintentional.
The part about relying on voluntary self-deportation is frickin hilarious. You can’t parody something that lame!
Whatever. I’ll still be working as hard as I can to make sure your nightmare of a Thompson candidacy comes true.
The only nightmare that comes to mind is if the Demos run Hillary, and Phlegmatic Fred lets her run away with the race in a landslide. Otherwise I think he’s kind of amusing, like a grampa who tells stories that nobody can quite make sense of and sometimes dozes off at the dinner table.
By the way, if you really think that the immigration issue is a winner, why don’t you support Tancredo? Unlike Fred, Tancredo is and has been consistently strong on the issue. Unlike Fred, Tancredo isn’t afraid to talk about deportation. Unlike Fred, Tancredo doesn’t talk about relying on voluntary “self-deportation.” Unlike Fred, Tancredo doesn’t base his policies on “welcoming legal immigrants” and wanting to “streamline the process for immigrants” and “simplify and expedite the application processes for temporary visas” and increase the caps on temporary work visas and so on.
Thompson gets a career grade of C from Americans for Better Immigration. Tancredo gets a career score of 100% and a career grade of A+. Even Ron Paul gets a B. Even Al Gore has a better immigration rating than Fred Thompson.
Al Gore has a better immigration rating than Fred Thompson!!
Fred’s lowest category grade? He gets a “D” in the “Amnesties” category. But what they’re doing that makes him look bad is defining “amnesty” not just to mean automatic legal status, but also a pathway to legal status, thus in effect rewarding illegal immigration. And as I’ve been pointing out, Fred’s official position doesn’t even try to close that loophole. He just doesn’t want you to think of it as “amnesty.” That’s fine if all you need to satisfy you are word games.
Anyway, good luck with your support for Phlegmatic Fred. How could he possibly let you down? I mean, what could possibly go wrong with a policy based on voluntary self-deportation?
b, I first started talking up Tancredo here, long before you even knew he existed.
But Tancredo cannot win the nomination. Fred can. The race is between Giuliani and Thompson.
You know nothing about this site, its history, or me. And your ignorance shows.
But hey! Get out there and work your ass off for Huckabee. I prefer to expend my efforts on a candidate I find acceptable, whom I also think has an excellent chance to win not just the nomination, but the election.
And whatever you think about Thompson’s past on immigration, he’ll be judged on his present positions. And even his past is certainly more presentable on the issue that Rudy’s. The fact that you think attrition won’t work only underlines how ignorant you are about things other than me or this site.