You forget: Ross Perot elected Billy Jeff both times.

silverfox on November 7, 2007 at 10:29 PM

Nah. Ya gotta quit blaming the symptoms and look at the disease.

Bush lost the first time because he was squishy on taxes, after his tough talk. He ran as a fiscal conservative and didn’t stick with it. He let us down just like his son has. KEY: Bush wasn’t conservative enough.

The Repubs lost the second time against a cozily incumbent Clinton because the god-awful “best” we could come up with was an elderly, bumbling RINO. KEY: Dole wasn’t a conservative.

Only a conservative Republican can defeat a liberal Democrat. Every time the Party elites try and smoosh closer to the Left with “moderate” cadidates, a la Dole and Giuliani – they LOSE.

Even the Republican candidates are politicians first and Republicans second… Conservatism MIGHT be third, but unless we use that to our advantage, the Dems will use it to our detriment.

I think Pat Robertson just saw a gap created by James Dobson and decided to fill it while the fillin’ / feelin’ was good.

Allah, I’ve seen this Republican bandwagon effect before. This is a near-perfect replay of how the GOP lined up behind Bob Dole in 1996. And the general-election result will also be a near-perfect replay: Clinton gets elected.

Ali-Bubba on November 7, 2007 at 1:04 PM

You forget: Ross Perot elected Billy Jeff both times.

My mother, a die-hard conservative, but also not very religious, can’t stand listening to Laura. She thinks Laura more and more frequently sounds as fanatical as the fanatics we’re fighting. I wouldn’t go that far, but I just do not want the Clintons back in the White House. I fear for my country should that happen. If Rudy gets the nomination, he’s my guy, and I think he can kick Hillary’s butt.

Tell me your favorite good cause and I’ll send $100 toward it on November 5, 2008 if any Dem for POTUS wins.

Thanks, I’ll do the same if Rudy or Mitt defeat Obama or Edwards. I like your charity and look forward to contributing. Here is one that I’ve given to.

As for not having an impact on teh ghey: how many liberal appealate or state supreme courts are there? I live in California so I know the stupidity of thinking everything starts and ends at SCOTUS.

Good point. Probably most of the SCOTUS talk has revolved around Roe. I thought Laura had adjusted her position regarding gays after her brother came out. The last thing I read of hers related to the topic of gay marriage was focused on judicial restraint. Maybe she and Rudy aren’t too far off on that issue. I haven’t listened to her for a few months so I may not be up on the latest Laura.

My personal opinion on the topic is that the New Jersey court decision that told the legislature to figure it out was probably reasonable.

The reason Dole was “a perpetual trainwreck as a candidate” is because Dole is not a conservative. He’s a hawk and a Republican, but he’s never been a conservative.

I agree that Dole wasn’t a conservative. I don’t think that was his problem though. He was too old, too inside-the-beltway, and too clumsy initially in getting on message. Also, Senators seldom win (Hear that Hillary?).

Ali-Bubba on November 7, 2007 at 4:26 PM

Would you have rather had Bob Dole or 4 more years of the Clinton-borg? Besides, the Clinton-borg had the backing and money from China.

Do you want 4-8 more years of the Clinton-borg? Fine, stay home or vote 3rd party. In the end we all pay and pay we will.

Rudy is no Bob Dole. Bob Dole was a perpetual train wreck as a candidate.

Bob Dole was the GOP sacrificial lamb tossed into the Clinton lion cage.

Sammy316 on November 7, 2007 at 2:09 PM

The reason Dole was “a perpetual trainwreck as a candidate” is because Dole is not a conservative. He’s a hawk and a Republican, but he’s never been a conservative.

And the same is true of Giuliani, who is even less conservative than Dole. Mark my words: November 2008 will be a disaster for the GOP.

Tell me your favorite good cause and I’ll send $100 toward it on November 5, 2008 if any Dem for POTUS wins.

And if my pick is on the money, do the same toward my favorite AIEF.

I’m good for it.

(And it’ll motivate me to campaign against the Hillbot brigades!)

That Fred Thompson campaign really took off didn’t it?

Hilts on November 7, 2007 at 3:17 PM

Yeah, kind of spun its tires off the line didn’t it. Oh well I hope he gets it together because I like him. I even donated to the guy. I wrote letter yesterday asking if I am wasting my time and money, no answer as of yet.

As for Laura, yes it is so-con sour grapes, one issue voters seem to be that way though. I said it before I’ll say it again.

The war.
Our borders.
The SCOTUS.

These are my main issues.

dedalus on November 7, 2007 at 3:14 PM

Yes. An omen that Laura Ingraham gets. Which is why I agree with her. This isn’t something new for her to say. She’s been saying it. Like the poll that says Rudy’s the most influential conservative? Based on what?

As for not having an impact on teh ghey: how many liberal appealate or state supreme courts are there? I live in California so I know the stupidity of thinking everything starts and ends at SCOTUS. If some liberal court decides it wants to shove its policies down our throat, don’t be surprised when you go to the White House and they have an Out To Lunch sign on the door. He won’t be advocating for any of us either.

I’ll wager a few bucks donated toward a favorite charity on it.

I admire someone who goes out on a limb. That said, I think the odds are long on that scenario, and I’d happily wager a couple of bucks for charity against it.

And Robertson having zero effect.

I’ll wager a few bucks donated toward a favorite charity on it.

What I want to know is why someone who rants about teh ghey would endorse someone who’d probably sign a law or two cementing teh ghey weddings.

Robertson probably knows that Rudy won’t push gay marriage. Even Hillary wouldn’t. My guess is that Robertson thinks highly of Rudy personally and agrees with him on many but not all issues. I do think Team Rudy was willing to pay a premium for an evangelical endorsement this early on and that Robertson will be compensated with “access” if there is ever a Rudy administration.

Rudy is following the Nixon axiom of “run to the right in the primaries and run as hard as you can to the center in the general election”.

I think the evangelical endorsements this week are really bad omens for Fred and Huck.

Oh is there ever going to be a hangover in the Republican party in the morning if he gets the nomination.

Why the accusation of bad faith?

Allahpundit on November 7, 2007 at 12:27 PM

This is as much a slam on Giuliani as it is a slam on Robertson.

What Robertson believes is one thing. But the real issue is all the republican/evangelical voters worried about Giuliani will throwing us off the train.

I’m sorry, but Giuliani isn’t doing much to gain my trust.

Maybe Robertson simply thinks Giuliani will be better on the war than any other candidate and has chosen to endorse accordingly. Why the accusation of bad faith?

Allahpundit on November 7, 2007 at 12:27 PM

Why would Rudy be “better on the war”? Because he has a big “brave” mouth? He has no military experience. He has no foreign policy experience.The way he choose cronies in NYC, my God what would he do in his selection of Generals? If he wanted someone who was “better on the war”, not to even go into abortion here, he would have endorsed McCain.

I guess an Italian, ghey wedding, Menu Catholic beats a Mormon.

Rudy, can I get an Amen?

dedalus on November 7, 2007 at 12:47 PM

This is really an interesting discussion. Does Pat Robertson’s endorsement make Rudy more conservative on social issues? No. This is the Primary. He’s not going to change any true conservatives minds. The decision in the Primary is merely: 1. Do you go with someone who you agree with over 70% of the issues? 2. or someone you agree with less but you think has a better chance to win against Hillary?

Pat’s endorsement only helps the MSM portray to Lefties that Rudy is a nut right-winger social con for the General. And if Rudy were to get nominated they’ll use it to constantly tell us how much of a fascist neo-con he is.

What I want to know is why someone who rants about teh ghey would endorse someone who’d probably sign a law or two cementing teh ghey weddings.

I’m not even going to vote for Rudy in the primary, but this intense focus on Pro-Life and Gay Marriage seems a bit misplaced. What exactly has Bush done regarding abortion and gay marriage? Name one bill passed, one program enacted that had any real impact on either of these issues. Beyond nominating SCOTUS members, the president has exactly zero input into these things.