Is Maverick the only man who can save the GOP from Huckamania?
posted at 12:18 pm on January 4, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
A smart, horrifying post from Rich Lowry makes the case. It’s fitting that this should come from the editor of NR since, although they’d never admit it, part of their motive in endorsing Mitt was surely the fact that he used to be the Only Man Who Can Save the GOP from Huckamania. That’s by the boards now and McCain’s poised to finish him off on Tuesday, so who’s left? Like Lowry says, it’s hard to imagine Fred coming all the way back and Rudy’s off the grid entirely until Florida, by which time the Huckabee express may be barreling at him at full speed.
If Huck surprises in Michigan next week, it’s going to throw every non-evangelical in the party into a panic and looking for the anti-Huck to step up and stop him. Giuliani’s too much of a gamble at this point, especially since he can’t unite non-evangelical social cons, so Maverick’s the default choice. Which brings us to two fascinating possibilities: A Rudy resurgence among conservatives starting January 20 if Huck smites McCain in SC, and a call for Fred to get out and start campaigning for McCain if Huckabee wins Michigan and starts to contend seriously for the nomination.
Stay tuned now for both Huck and McCain to tack right and try to stockpile as many non-evangelicals as they can for the coming battle. In the meantime, this much seems certain: The only guy guaranteed to still be in the race on February 5, i.e. Super Ultra Mega Tuesday, is Giuliani. If it does come down to him versus Huck, with Rudy the only thing standing in the way of Huck’s nomination, that’ll be mighty interesting.
Update: Ah, what does it matter?
Update: Slublog notes McCain’s problems in New Hampshire right now with independents, who are likely to split three ways between him, Obama, and Ron Paul. If Romney squeaks past him there, then his status as the Only Man Who Can Save the GOP from Huckamania is restored and he ends up in a death match with Huck in Michigan.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Irrational Fredbot post follows:
The masses will vote for the a democrat before a RINO.
Mitt/McCain/Huck/Rudy have questionable policies regarding guns, abortion or immigration. RINO.
Fred! is labeled lazy. Is this the campaign killer?
I find it interesting when I support a true conservative, on a conservative website, I am labeled (insert derogatory adjective here).
The Republican party will never be the same if we sell out our priciples.
Fred!
infidel on January 4, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Please note: THE MEDIA AND THE ELITE, WALL STREET CROWD ARE PUSHING FOR ANYONE WHO WILL PASS AMNESTY.
THEY WILL STOP AT NOTHING. WE THE PEOPLE HAVE THE POWER ! (I think.)
stenwin77 on January 4, 2008 at 1:08 PM
It’s only obvious…..put your hand on the screen and be heeeeeealed…
DfDeportation on January 4, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Good analysis here
bnelson44 on January 4, 2008 at 1:38 PM
How would he do that, Slu?
BacaDog on January 4, 2008 at 1:39 PM
It’s obvious that all candidates have their guns aimed in at Romney. Divide and conquer to the point that he can’t fight on that many fronts. They have also managed to marginalize Fred. The Dems could not have planned a better scenario. This is basically guaranteeing that a RINO will be the nominee. People should be focused on getting Huckabee and McCain OUT of the race as soon as possible. Then at least the choices are palatable.
davenp35 on January 4, 2008 at 1:40 PM
I’d change the order a bit (e.g. put McCain last), but that’s my approach too. It’s hard for me to appreciate the all-or-nothing POV. I’ll support McCain if he’s more conservative on key issues than his opponent.
petefrt on January 4, 2008 at 1:41 PM
I think the bigger question who in the GOP will be left after the GOP eats it own to go up aginst Obama or Clinton and have a chance TO WIN
KBird on January 4, 2008 at 1:41 PM
David Brooks is an idiot and is in love w/ McCain.
davenp35 on January 4, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Look Mitt doesnt get handed the nomination he has to earn it as does every other candidate. Mitt was front runner and lost that status because that is what you do to front runners. Huck will feel the same thing soon.
Mitt cost Mitt Iowa not anyone else. His negative attacks on Huck backfired.
William Amos on January 4, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Another good analysis
bnelson44 on January 4, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Only because the actual negative attacks from Huckabee and McCain were not called such by the media. Candidates should be out comparing their records as Mitt did.
davenp35 on January 4, 2008 at 1:48 PM
I don’t think Mitt, the East Coast CEO, understands Iowans. He figured if he built a company and marketed it in Iowa he would win politically. That didn’t happen. It might work elsewhere though.
bnelson44 on January 4, 2008 at 1:49 PM
David Brooks is deathly afraid that he might have to hire actual citizens, or (gasp!), legal immigrants to keep his lawn well manicured. This is almost as terrifying as the prospect of Karl Rove’s teenage son having to wash dishes for a summer job!!!!
The horror …. the horror.
thirteen28 on January 4, 2008 at 1:49 PM
That is such a depressing question.
If Teddy Kennedy had to vote for a Republican, who would he vote for? I’d say probably McCain. Nuff said.
MT on January 4, 2008 at 1:50 PM
McCain will NEVER get my vote.
He is anti first amendment.
He is anti Border Control.
He is FOR big government and more control (McCain Feingold).
He will NOT do what needs to be done to protect our country in a time of war.
Huck scares the BeJesus out of me. I really don’t want a Preacher in charge of what our enemies believe to be a religious war… especialy as I’m NOT a Christian. The religious overtones of his campaign scares me. His lack of foreign policy knowledge apalls me.
Rudi I can’t vote for because I don’t trust him. He’s in it for the power. He’s Rudi first, principles and good of America Second.
Romney, slick politician at a time we DON’T need a slick politician… he’s trying to buy the election folks because of the way McCain wrote his stupid bill. I “could” hold my nose and vote for him if I had too though…
I like what Fred says, but he won’t get the nod unless other candidates start throwing support his way (hmmm Thompson / McCain?).
Dam this is depressing.
Romeo13 on January 4, 2008 at 1:51 PM
A Hard Loss for Romney
bnelson44 on January 4, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Between Huckabee, Rudy and McCain, McCain’s the only one that might be able to preserve the Republican Party, sort of, only because of his status as a war hero, (the only thing he has going for him). The problem I see is that if McCain is the nominee the Republican Party still won’t be worth saving.
Fred and Mitt, (even though I don’t support him), are the only two I think can preserve the Republican Party, and in Mitt’s case his new-found conservative values are only going to last as long as political expediency allows, so while he may be able to get himself elected, (doubtful), I don’t think he will be good for the Republican Party over time.
That’s why I support Fred in spite of his minor faults, such as the fact that he only wears his own hats. As horrendous as the hat thing might seem to some, through several hours of counseling I’ve been able to come to terms with it.
As for National Review, I laugh at them. They recommend Mitt Romney and after the first caucus switch to McCain. Who’s next, I wonder. Will they support Huckabee to prevent the rise of Fred? What a joke. Now you can see why people who think for themselves don’t take National Review’s and Tancredo’s recommendations seriously, AllahPundit.
FloatingRock on January 4, 2008 at 1:52 PM
You should be paid by some campaign for the efforts you put into degrading Mitt every chance you get.
davenp35 on January 4, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Because Romney’s an awful candidate
Allahpundit on January 4, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Sad. Not even true.
MarkB on January 4, 2008 at 1:55 PM
No, it is true. Mitt is a weak candidate. It doesn’t mean he is a bad person. He just is a weak candidate in 2007.
bnelson44 on January 4, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Mitt’s an awful candidate. That should be quite clear by now.
HebrewToYou on January 4, 2008 at 1:59 PM
You’re right that Huckabee didn’t win Iowa via a plethora od cash but you’re wrong that he didn’t have plenty of currency. Huckabee was able to milk his Christian identify for everything it was worth, and it’s value was comparable to a lot of cold hard cash in Iowa.
However, from a historical analysis standpoint, (based on what I’ve read), Mitt is sitting pretty with his 2nd place win. Historically speaking a 1st place win in Iowa is usually a candidates Death Nell. It’s way too early to write off Mitt and Fred.
FloatingRock on January 4, 2008 at 2:02 PM
So, for the first time in history the Republican candidate with the most money who also came in 2nd in Iowa is a bad candidate. I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one that doesn’t understand your “logic”.
davenp35 on January 4, 2008 at 2:04 PM
…Not to mention is leading again in NH and is polling very well nationally.
davenp35 on January 4, 2008 at 2:11 PM
However you slice it, this is mounting up to be a Bob Dole candidancy. The GOP is a f’ng joke right now. Voting for people who don’t even hold the party platform. HAHAHAHA!! I love it. The Democrats are going to get to claim either the first woman or first black president for the next 3 or 4 decades. What a bunch of GOP Schmucks.
Sultry Beauty on January 4, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Rudy is the only GOP candidate with a chance in the general election. That is the point of the exercise – to stop Clinton’s third (and likely fourth) term, and avoid handing the Commander-in-Chief’s job to a pro-surrender appeaser.
In the past eight years, it has often come down to President Bush’s refusal to accept defeat, even when it would have been the politically easy thing to do. Rudy is the only candidate (from either party) with the brass to do the same.
Rudy was the third-ranking official in Reagan’s justice department. He worked with Roberts there, and will appoint judges in the same mold as Scalia, Alito and Thomas. He strongly supports the Second Amendment and promises to veto new restrictions on gun ownership. He supports reasonable restrictions on abortion, including partial-birth abortion. (Unlike McCain) Rudy supports the Bush tax cuts too. He has a solid record of executive leadership in one of the toughest offices in the country.
For those who haven’t noticed, this is not a particularly favorable election cycle for the GOP. The fact that we have a legitimate center-right candidate who will stay on offense against the terrorists, keep taxes low, appoint strict constructionist judges AND has an excellent chance of keeping the Clinton crime family out of the White House if he is the nominee is an opportunity for us.
Many of the other GOP candidates are fine individuals, but wishful thinking and short-sighted litmus tests will not win the general election. Looking at electoral realities, the choice comes down to Rudy Giuliani or Hillary Clinton in the White House for the next 4-8 years, and for me, as a conservative, that’s a very easy choice.
LagunaDave on January 4, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Not sure it is the first time in history, but yes, Mitt is a very weak candidate.
bnelson44 on January 4, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Sorry, his past ACTIONS make lies of his present rhetoric.
He appointed 80% Democrat Judges, when HE controlled the appointed board who made reccomendations.
He has STAUNCHLY stood against the Second Amendment, and even sued other states and gun manufacturers for things which were LEGAL.
He,in order to get more money for New York, helped get the Line Item Veto overturned… talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Rudi is nothing more than a power hungry politician with NO moral compass.
Romeo13 on January 4, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Now I think you’re just posting things like that to get my blood pressure up. LOL
davenp35 on January 4, 2008 at 2:32 PM
McCain could also stop the Dems. There are 2 strong candidates the GOP who are currently running: McCain and Rudy. Fred is an unknown at this point.
bnelson44 on January 4, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Sorry.
bnelson44 on January 4, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Heh. Beats me. Emphasizing his strengths on national security, limited government. That’s where he’s good.
Slublog on January 4, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Wow, I can’t believe someone is still pushing this absurd talking point even after it’s long been apparent that Rudy would be a weak candidate.
Maybe you should invent a time machine and go back 6 months when your contention would’ve been at least a little believeable.
Hollowpoint on January 4, 2008 at 2:45 PM
I think insulting evangelicals is what got us here. Evangelicals have every right to base their vote on moral issues dictated by their faith as any of you do to vote on fiscal issues or the war on terror.
I always said that we need each other to win. The libertarian types, the religious folk, and all in between. We had to find an acceptable candidate we both could agree on. Rudy was unacceptable to the religious. I think Huck was a reaction to that.
No one is perfect. Mitt is a flip flopper and many evangelicals are uncomfortable with his Mormonism. Fred agreed with McCain Feingold and didn’t seem to have the passion for the Presidency. I don’t have to tell you the problems with McCain. But the difference is that once you put aside the problems you have with all the candidates, what are you left with? McCain is a hero, a military man with a son in Iraq. He gets it. He has experience and charm. But most importantly, he is acceptable to religious folk for his commitment to pro-life. Just because the media never reports on this issue doesn’t mean it isn’t still very important to so many of us.
McCain brings us together. Rudy couldn’t. Fred could have, but didn’t. Mitt did a bit, and Huck just makes the religious happy.
It’s got to be McCain.
Rightwingsparkle on January 4, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Wow. Devistating and accurate with regards to Mitt’s weaknesses. Romney will probably do a bit better than he suggests, but otherwise spot on.
Hollowpoint on January 4, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Speak for yourself, John.
Spirit of 1776 on January 4, 2008 at 2:53 PM
This from a guy who would vote for Ted Kennedy if he had an R next to his name rather than a D.
samuelrylander on January 4, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Fred is one McCain endorsement away from the presidency. It’s more logical for McCain to throw in the towel than Fred. McCain can read the polls: he knows how unpopular he is with the Repubs. Fred! as a candidate, has a realistic chance against any Democrat, is not antithetical to any portion of the Republican Party, and Fred has been his friend and more or less ideological buddy all along without the amnesty and back-stabbing baggage.
I doubt that this will happen — it’s too logical and too self-sacrificing for McCain, but he should do it for the good of the country. I wish people would call him on it and ask him about it in interviews.
Aardvark on January 4, 2008 at 2:57 PM
McCain brings us together??? Are you friggen kidding me? It would be hard to name a more devisive figure to the Republican base. Have you missed all the comments by those who would hold their nose to vote for Romney if they had to, but would stay home if McCain were nominated?
If McVain won the nomination, the debate in conservative circles wouldn’t be about the best way to ensure a win, but whether we even wanted him to win.
Hollowpoint on January 4, 2008 at 2:58 PM
uh, yep.
Rich is a very smart man
Opinionnation on January 4, 2008 at 2:58 PM
SECOND LOOK AT BLIMP BOY APPLEWHITE!
NOT.
Fred Fred Fred. Must…get past….MSM blockage.
NickTx on January 4, 2008 at 2:58 PM
If the Republican party nominates either Huckabee or McCain, it deserves to go the way of the Whig party.
MB4 on January 4, 2008 at 3:00 PM
How McCain can win the Presidency
bnelson44 on January 4, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Ditto.
thirteen28 on January 4, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Truly, the highlight of last night was Broker’s HA updates on the comments on the Ronulan’s site.
NickTx on January 4, 2008 at 3:02 PM
In what sense?
To all habla Espanol?
MB4 on January 4, 2008 at 3:04 PM
BTW, glad you admitted that.
I’ll leave that comment out there to stand on it’s own.
thirteen28 on January 4, 2008 at 3:05 PM
I will NEVER accept McShamnesty.
NickTx on January 4, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Will Ron Paul be a factor as Wolf Blitzer says here?
bnelson44 on January 4, 2008 at 3:06 PM
If any factor, IMO it would be the Ross Perot effect.
NickTx on January 4, 2008 at 3:07 PM
How does he bring us together? Simply put, He’s acceptable to you guys on the most important issue of the day, the war on terror, and he’s acceptable to the relgious folk for his conservative votes on social issues. At least acceptable enough.
That’s how.
Rightwingsparkle on January 4, 2008 at 3:08 PM
I posted this on another thread, but it warrants repeating…
Fred’s best chance isn’t to have Huckabee and McCain take alternating states, because Mitt has tons of money and won’t go anywhere. His best chance is to get McCain and Huckabee out of the race and then be THE alternative to Mitt. I would love to see that race.
davenp35 on January 4, 2008 at 3:10 PM
The only way the GOP will win the presidential election in 2008 is if we fully back John McCain. NOW! (Here’s lookin at you MM)
I’ve been trying to point it out for a long time… but as realty sets in, I’m hoping the big dogs start seeing it. -We will LOSE if they don’t
Opinionnation on January 4, 2008 at 3:11 PM
One more thing. McCain learned his lesson on the illegal immigration thing. All he talks about now is border enforcement and that he was never for amnesty.
That may be an issue that unites as well. Other than Fred, I don’t think any of the others have a good record on this either btw.
Rightwingsparkle on January 4, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Kerry, Gore, Mondale, Dole, Jackson(Jesse), Sharpton, Edwards, and McCain.
Some of the above have learned from their previous attempts at POTUS, and some should learn.
Fred!
infidel on January 4, 2008 at 3:14 PM
No compromises for me.
I support my #1 until he’s no longer a candidate, then I support my #2 until he’s out, etc. I am willing to switch if the chances are truly dismal (bordering on 0%).
A true objective decision would be based on likelihood winning times the quality of the candidate as president (hard to quantify, but it’s essential to estimate). That’s why I refuse to just support McCain as the anti-Huck. He may be twice as likely to win as my favorite, but I think he’d be no better than half as good a president.
By the way, McCain is still on my list, and yes, I would still vote for him over any of the democrats.
viking999 on January 4, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Rudy strongly supports the Second Amendment and right of law-abiding citizens to own guns. He strongly supports the recent Parker decision, overturning Washington D.C.’s unreasonable restriction of Second Amendment rights. Rudy does not support new federal gun control legislation, period.
Rudy took tough, and necessary, steps to get guns out of the hands of criminals in NYC. The result was a 72% drop in shootings and a 66% reduction of the murder rate, which all law-abiding gun owners should applaud.
Do you think Hillary will be more inclined to protect Second Amendment rights?
On judges, you over-simplify the appointment process. First, NYC residents are overwhelmingly registered Democrats. Second, the process (which he inherited) is designed to insulate the selection of judges from politics. Prospective judges apply to the panel, which nominates three, and the mayor chooses one of those. According to Politico, which is hardly a pro-Rudy media outlet:
We also have the assurance of Rudy’s advisor Ted Olsen (Assistant Attorney General for Reagan, Solicitor General for Bush), whose credentials as a conservative legal mind should be above reproach. According to Olsen, Giuliani will appoint:
Do you think Hillary will appoint more strict constructionist judges?
LagunaDave on January 4, 2008 at 3:15 PM
People who line up behind McCain for border enforcement are even more trusting then those that believe Huck’s soul believes in border enforcement.
Spirit of 1776 on January 4, 2008 at 3:19 PM
WifeBeater: “Aw c’mon back to honey … I’ve learned my lesson, this time will be different, not like all the other times … I promise.”
BatteredWife: “Ok honey, you won’t break your promise and beat me like you did all the other times, right?”
A short while later:
WifeBeater: POW!!! SOCK!!! SMACK!! BAM!!!
thirteen28 on January 4, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Here is the Romney campaign’s weekend theme:
McCain = Ted Kennedy.
Money will be no object. When you’re already down for $20 million, what’s another five? Whichever Republican finally gets Huckabee one-on-one wins. It’s the longest of long shots now for Mitt, but what’s he got to lose except Tagg’s inheritance?
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1064532
bnelson44 on January 4, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Fred isn’t out yet. Put your faith into FRED!
msipes on January 4, 2008 at 3:25 PM
He was never for amnesty? I guess if he says that he is for aggressive interrogation techniques you would believe him eh? Every one else flip flops and cant be trusted but McCain says he has seen the light and OMG we have our man!
broker1 on January 4, 2008 at 3:25 PM
He was never for amnesty only in the sense that he doesn’t think his amnesty bill really was amnesty. But the fact remains that he was and is in favor of amnesty. If anything, he deserves credit for sticking to unpopular positions.
Even Huckster is talking tough about border enforcement- doesn’t mean we believe him though. Nor should we believe McCain, who is and always has been an open borders, amnesty supporting politician.
Hollowpoint on January 4, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Sorry LagunaDave, but you’re not credible.
FloatingRock on January 4, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Unless Fred or Rudy stages a McCain-like return from the politically dead, Rightwingsparkle is right, but there’s no need to panic – yet. The front-loaded primary process should, if does in fact produce a decision, leave plenty of time for intra-party healing. If McCain does happen to get the nomination, his age potentially boosts the significance of his VP choice – though an ideal candidate who both mollifies intraparty factions AND attacks Democratic weaknesses may be very difficult to identify.
In the meantime, musing about letting the Republicans “go the way of the Whig party” might be entertaining, in a masturbatory kind of way, but the reality would be a lot less pleasant – unless you’re hoping for a job in the 1,000-year liberal Reich, or are the type of citizen who thinks holing up in the hills with your guns and your purity is a reasonable lifestyle choice. Those who possess some modicum of impulse control and political maturity might want to begin dialing back on the inflammatory rhetoric, character assassination, and political blackmail.
CK MacLeod on January 4, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Think of McCain as less of the wife beater and more like the boyfriend that cheated on you.
Forgiveness my friends.
Find it in your hearts.
;-)
Rightwingsparkle on January 4, 2008 at 3:29 PM
I want to have faith, but the realist in me keeps reminding me that if he doesn’t win South Carolina, he’s done and I become a non-participant when it comes to voting in November thanks to the unacceptability of the remaining candidates.
Doesn’t much matter if I vote anyways; Mitt and Huck can’t win, and McCain doesn’t deserve to.
Hollowpoint on January 4, 2008 at 3:33 PM
RWS, I love how polite you are and the way you stick with your candidate is so impressive. But McCain’s only redeeming feature is his steadfastness on the war, and by the time the election rolls around that not even be particularly relevant. His non-redeeming features however, are a distain for the base and far more importantly he shows an either willful dismissal, or a lack of understanding of what our founding documents really mean. John McCain may just be a bad boyfriend, but if he comes by to pick up my daughter again it won’t be a handshake he’ll get from me.
Spirit of 1776 on January 4, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Nothing to forgive with Fred! ;)
Fred!
infidel on January 4, 2008 at 3:36 PM
From last May:
Giuliani blasts immigration bill
Rudy’s immigration position:
1) Legal immigration is essential to America’s competitiveness.
2) No amnesty for those here illegally. Those here illegally must pay all back taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line in applying for citizenship. Any illegal alien who commits a felony to be deported immediately.
3) Border security is the first priority in dealing with illegal immigration, including increased Border Patrol and surveillance technology.
4) Tamper-proof biometric ID card for every foreign worker and student in the US. “We cannot be secure when we don’t know who is here.”
5) Institute accountability measures similar to the CompStat system he used to slash crime in NYC, to track performance and allow resources to be shifted where they are needed.
6) Immigration should be reconnected to Americanization. New citizens should know how to speak, write and read English, and know the basics of American civics history, to promote the fundamental values we share as Americans.
Rudy recognizes that defending America’s borders is vital to our national security.
LagunaDave on January 4, 2008 at 3:39 PM
The best response to the girlfriend that cheated on you is to get revenge by sleeping with her sister then dumping her (unless she agrees to a three-way including her sister, of course). If you take her back, she’ll just cheat on you again and end up giving you the clap.
If we take McCain back after backstabbing conservatives and the Republican party, it’s a sure bet he’ll do it again if elected. Not a matter of if, but when and how often. I’d rather not find out.
Hollowpoint on January 4, 2008 at 3:40 PM
If you truly believe his RHETORIC and flipping on this issue over the MANY years he tried to take ALL guns out of the hands of New Yorkers… I can’t help you… you drank the cool aid.
He is a politician. All politicians LIE. But you CAN’T lie about your past ACTIONS without at least being fact checked. His past actions demonstrate that he tried to sneak around the Second Amendment on a NUMBER of occasions.
You try to spin it as he was doing somthing neccesary… but a right is NOT a right if someone can take it away… even for what at the time could be considered a “good reason” (reason which is flawed by every serious study on gun control by the way).
Add in his dubious moral choices… add in Bernie… add in the way he ran New York? (like a mafioso don)…
Sorry… don’t trust him as President.
Romeo13 on January 4, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Preferred to McCain. Though that says little.
Spirit of 1776 on January 4, 2008 at 3:41 PM
At least until next time he does the same thing, right?
Forgiveness is one thing.
Giving someone power to disappoint you again is quite another. I’ve seen enough with McVain that I am no longer willing to take that risk (with the possible exception of a prospective Hillary presidency – but then it won’t be McVain that is uniting us).
thirteen28 on January 4, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Once again his RHETORIC changes from his past ACTIONS.
He ran a Sanctuary city… spin it any way you want… but he did.
Hmmm… Actions vs. Politicians WORDS…
Guess what I’m going to give more weight too?
Romeo13 on January 4, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Hey Fredheads, go vote for Fred on Hannity’s poll.
NickTx on January 4, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Before 9/11 who was really focused on ill immigration? Border states, maybe?
Spirit of 1776 on January 4, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Rudy was. Aiding and abetting and facilitating it to the max.
MB4 on January 4, 2008 at 3:54 PM
To some extent the Federal Government was- Rudy sued (and lost) in order to try and keep his sanctuary city policy… yet continued the policy after losing in court. Even after 9/11 he defended it- he still does.
During the debate about the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, his only criticism was to nitpick the ID and recordkeeping provisions. The most objectionable part- amnesty? Not a word.
Rudy is incredibly weak on illegal immigration; there’s no spinning around that fact. His current stance is no more believeable than Huckabee’s new stance.
Hollowpoint on January 4, 2008 at 3:55 PM
There are a few things that I agree with Huckabee supporters on.
1 – the 2nd amendment is not only for hunting.
2 – Rudy is done, as has been amply demonstrated by Huckabee’s supporters.
I also have something in common with Rudy supporters, though.
1 – Huckabee is done, as has been amply demonstrated by the Rudy supporters that haven’t jumped ship yet upon realizing the import of Huck’s rise.
McCain? I supported him in ’99 and ’00 against Bush, mainly because I thought Bush was, well, dumb, but after shamnesty I will NEVER vote for McCain.
FloatingRock on January 4, 2008 at 3:58 PM
First, there is ZERO evidence that Giuliani is some kind of closet Ted Kennedy, a liberal activist just waiting to be elected so he can lead some kind of crusade against guns.
Every reasonable person realizes that there are no absolute rights, be they First Amendment, Second Amendment, or whatever. The Second Amendment does not give you the right to own an ICBM or a tank, right? If you are absolutist that thinks otherwise, then I’m sorry, but there has to be a balance between legitimate individual rights and an orderly society, and leadership means striking the right balance.
Giuliani inherited a city where crime was totally out of control, and law-abiding people were afraid to walk the streets. It was akin, in many ways, to a wartime, emergency situation, specific to that city at that time. The right of habeus corpus is no less essential to our liberties, but Lincoln suspended that when it was necessary to save the country.
I believe the Second Amendment is vital to preserving our liberties, but that does not mean that we have to give criminals easy access to guns, or tolerate a situation like the one Rudy inherited (and fixed) in NYC, where law-abiding citizens lived in terror on their own streets.
LagunaDave on January 4, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Friday, January 04, 2008
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that Senator Barack Obama has opened a ten-percentage point victory [lead] over former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, 47% to 37% The survey also found Obama with a six-point lead over Mitt Romney, 45% to 39%.
MB4 on January 4, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Yeah, he probably thought it was in NYC’s best interests as a sort of global city.
Right. They are all late to the table except Hunter and Tanc. That is Fred’s advantage of being on TV at the time, he can come in and stake at the position most desired at the moment.
Spirit of 1776 on January 4, 2008 at 4:05 PM
You are not a criminal until you do something criminal. Everyone should be intitled to defend themselves. The second amendment is pretty clear to me. Cars are deadlier that doesnt mean we should keep them garaged. I should be able to carry a gun period. If I illegally shoot something, only then should I be punished.
infidel on January 4, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Time makes people forget. Here is what McCain did to Sen. Cornyn.
I love this “bipartisanshipt”. Dont you mean bend over for more votes?
broker1 on January 4, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Let’s see… he joined with the rabidly anti-gun Brady foundation to sue lawful gun manufactuers- something that would have national impact. He favored taking guns out of the hands of the law abiding in NYC. He went on his radio show and advocated for sticter national gun control laws. And when it came to endorse a candidate for governor, he campaigned for the liberal Democrat instead of the Republican.
I’d say that there’s plenty of evidence. Not that it matters; his candidacy is done. He rode the NYC-9/11 wave as far as he could, but the ride is over.
Hollowpoint on January 4, 2008 at 4:14 PM
rights are not absulute, but you need to have a VERY strong reason to limit them…
Taking the guns out of law abiding citizens hands is not limiting it, but taking that right away.
That is EXACTLY what Rudy was trying to do. It wasn’t about M1 Tanks, it was about the RIGHT to protect youself that the founding fathers wrote into the Constitution.
Rudy did not become pro gun until he was running for President…. how… convenient…
Romeo13 on January 4, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Rudy is forthright that he was wrong on illegal immigration in the past (pre-9/11).
Anybody who think that he does not want to defend the borders, now that we are a nation at war, isn’t paying attention though.
There is a different, conflicting poll every day. Obama will not be the Democratic nominee, and he has not had to face any national scrutiny of his (lack-of) competence. He is also getting a bounce from the overwhelmingly favorable press coverage.
The polls right now are pretty meaningless. The general election has to be about national security and pro-growth economic policies, or we will lose big-time. Rudy is in the best position to focus the general election on the Democratic nominee’s lack of executive experience, love for high taxes and nanny-statism, and above all dangerous weakness on national security.
LagunaDave on January 4, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Fred! was just on Cavuto on Fox…
And amazing… Cavuto actualy let Fred! talk about a couple of issues.
Thompson / McCain 08!
Romeo13 on January 4, 2008 at 4:23 PM
I accidentally saw it. GO FRED
NickTx on January 4, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Very late to the thread, but thirteen28 said everything that crossed my mind after reading the post.
Once again, a poll, a news story, a caucus result and what happens… Republican voters start running from candidate to candidate, switching their support here and there.
What does all this say? People are not voting for something, but against something.
This also tells me that the Republican base is no longer Conservative. Because Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter are the only Conservatives in the race. It’s really quite an easy choice. The fact that people are running back and forth from RINO to RINO, shifting their allegiances due to every change in the political wind, tells me that the GOP base must no longer be conservative. If it were, they would be rallying around Thompson, not figuring out which RINO to rally around.
Disappointing, to say the least.
Michael in MI on January 4, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Rudy Giuliani announces lawsuit against gun companies
FloatingRock on January 4, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Musical candidates.
FloatingRock on January 4, 2008 at 4:42 PM
What some Fred Thompson supporters mean when they say that is conservatism or bust, basically. Those who are bashing Fred Thompson supporters as worshiping Fred Thompson are missing the point. Most of us are not worshipping the man, we are staying true to conservative principles. No one can deny that Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter are the only Conservatives running. The rest are RINOs. That is not deifying Hunter and Thompson, that is just a fact.
So when some Thompson supporters say they will vote for him or no one, they are saying they will vote for a Conservative and will not vote for a RINO or a liberal or socialist Democrat.
People may deem that politically impractical, but it is not “Fred or no one”, it is “conservatism or nothing”.
If the GOP base were Conservative still, Fred Thompson would have all the support. But my take is that since he doesn’t have good support, the base must no longer be conservative. I don’t buy the meme that conservatives are supporting RINOs, because the conservative in the race lacks “fire in the belly” and is “lazy”. That’s a copout.
I think the sad reality is that the GOP base is no longer conservative.
Michael in MI on January 4, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Actually, when Rudy took over as Mayor, there were several times more gun-related deaths than traffic fatalities in NYC. Even in 1996, three years into his crime-fighting campaign, there were 414 fatalities caused by automobiles, and 987 deaths from shootings in NYC.
In the first place, what, exactly, did Giuliani do to “take guns out of law abiding citizens’ hands”? In this video from 1993, when he was Mayor-Elect, he talks about training law-abiding citizens to use their guns safely (and other common sense measures to reduce the illegal trafficking in firearms).
Second, if you are interested in being safe, do you place no value in a 75% percent reduction in shootings and a 66% reduction in homicides? In other words, does freedom from any kind of restriction on gun ownership trump the thousands of lives saved by reducing crime and reducing the need to carry a weapon to defend yourself?
I support Second Amendment rights, like all others guaranteed by the Constitution, but isn’t it clear that in a city wracked by violent crime, the public interest required strong steps to reduce the number of illegal handguns on the streets?
It seems to me a bit like airport security in the post-9/11 world. We are all subjected to unpleasant and burdensome searches, which means giving up some of our Fourth Amendment rights, because it is necessary for the security and safety of everyone. Law-abiding travelers must submit to searches to prevent the lawless from committing criminal acts of terror. We accept it because we recognize that it is necessary to avoid far worse threats to our liberty and safety.
LagunaDave on January 4, 2008 at 5:01 PM
There should be no such thing as an illegal handgun or firearm. Unrestricted access was granted to me by our countries founders. If someone broke the law, then take away their right to gun ownership by incarceration. Erosion of rights start slowly. The biggest problem I have is that Rudy and others would, and have, placed limits against my constitutional rights. Communists love a disarmed populace.
infidel on January 4, 2008 at 5:16 PM
IF he won (God, please, no! ) wouldn’t he be the OLDEST Pres candidate ever?
stenwin77 on January 4, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Did they also grant you unrestricted access to nuclear weapons?
Does the Fourth Amendment allow terrorists the unrestricted right to board airplanes with bombs in their unsearched carry-on luggage? After all, if they break the law we can just arrest them later, right?
LagunaDave on January 4, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Sorry, nuclear weapons and explosive vests are not rights afforded in the constitution. Guns are. Big distinction.
infidel on January 4, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Where does the constitution mention guns? It says “arms”. Nuclear weapons are arms. Explosive vests are arms. “Communists” would have a harder time taking over a population armed with either, I think.
Obviously I don’t think that the constitution guarantees “unrestricted access” (your choice of words) to nuclear arms or terror weapons. The fact that you agree means you accept that reasonable restrictions are acceptable.
LagunaDave on January 4, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »