Remember the “swing state” of Colorado? The one that gave Bush a meager 5-point victory in 2004, and that elected a Democratic senator the same year, following that up with the election of a Democratic governor last year? Ah, Colorado. If only we had a Republican who could overperform Bush in the southwest and hold its 9 precious electoral votes for the GOP next year.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has a ten-point lead over New York Senator Hillary Clinton in race for Colorado’s nine Electoral Votes. It’s Giuliani 50%, Clinton 40%.
Arizona Senator John McCain leads Clinton by just three points while the former First Lady is essentially even with former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
In short, Colorado is a swing state no more…but only if Rudy leads the ticket.
Meanwhile, Hillary overperforms Kerry in New Hampshire and Florida while Rudy and Hillary emulate the Bush/Kerry matchup in Ohio. All of these states remain within a 5-point spread though, just like in 2004. Colorado, though, is taken out of play in the event of a Rudy nomination. More proof that a Rudy nomination will yield a template change from 2004. Rudy will do better than Bush in the southwest due to his South Park Republicanism, which will take a few light red states out of play, while at the same time keeping purple states like Ohio and New Hampshire in play and bringing medium blue states like New Jersey into play.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The GOP needs Rudy in 2008. Now more than ever.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
I think 10% of the voting population in CO is LDS. 90% of them at conservative.
But this is all very useless polling prior to any sort of major national campaigning coupled with Iraq beginning to resolve itself and a economy in flux. It’s angels on pinhead.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
The big news here is that Romney’s famed “inability to win” seems to disappear when he faces voters who know him fairly well. He runs virtually dead-even with Rudy in New Hampshire (5 points down instead of 4). Imagine that. Gosh, I can’t remember if that was an argument Romney supporters have brought up since the beginning of the campaign. If it wasn’t, it should be. Voters who get substantial exposure to Romney, seem to like him (or at least like him more then one would expect given ideological breakdowns).
August 14th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
[...] post by DaveG and software by Elliott [...]
August 14th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
What about McCain? He’s electible. RCP has him within 2.2 percent of Hillary and Giuliani withing 1. Plus i think people know where McCain is on more issues than Giuliani.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Also, Hillary leads Mitt by 12 in Ohio and 22! in Florida. Not exactly competitive.
I’ll say it right now that if the GOP loses FL they won’t win and someone who trails Hillary by 22 at this point doesn’t inspire much confidence.
Clinton won FL in 1996 and then Bush “won” in 2000 with his brother as the Governer and won in again in 2004, also with his brother as a popular Governor.
The more state polls that show how various Republicans do, the better.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Not the best logic at this point. As I have said before, over 80% of voters decide who they will vote for 2-3 weeks before voting day. There’s a lot of time between now and feb %th.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
JUST REMEMBAH RUDYBOTZ … WHEN THEY FIND OUT HE’S PRO-CHOICE, ROMNEY WILL GO TO 78% IN THE POLLS AND RUDY WILL GO TO 5%!!!!
August 14th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
finally. some people actually are starting to fear and respect Hillary. She’ll crush a cream puff GOPer.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Giuliani came out for amnesty today.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
thomas alan,
that’s consistent with Rudy’s entire time in office. this kind of stuff happens when we allow rudy to get away with saying stuff like the immigration reform bill has “no unifying purpose”. The heck does that mean? does that mean anything to anyone? certainly not to me.
no one should be surprised when he articulates somthing consistent with his entire time as mayor.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
So you think Huckabee, presuming a nomination, would have no chance against Hillary?
August 14th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Thomas how is that amnesty?
I was definitely opposed to Bush amnesty, but that plan doesn’t bother me…what more do you want?
August 14th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
#12:
How is it different from Bush’s amnesty? Illegals get to stay and apply for citizenship as long as they come forward and identify themselves. The only difference I can see is the lack of a small fine and silly “touchback” provision.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
the GOP is warming to Huckabee, but at a snail’s pace. I just don’t seem him getting enough moderate/independant support by Nov 08.
If the election were today, he’d get crushed. he’d have to work miricles to pull off a clinton upset within the next 12 months.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
UGADawg
that was the bill that was debated in the Senate. plus it had more provisions making legalization MORE difficult than Rudy’s plan. like the several thousand dollar fine for the zvisa, and the legalization process could only be iniciated once the homeland security deemed the border secure.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
I am a registered republican living in Mead Colorado. I have asked a few people if they know Rudy’s position on abortion. Most of them seemed shocked when I told them he is pro-choice. Personally it’s not an issue I care about, but I can tell you that the general public does not know. They don’t all follow politics.
I will be voting for Romney myself, he seems to be fiscally intelligent. I dont care if Rudy has a “better shot” at Hillary.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
If we give up our principles and make Rudy the nominee, we may as well elect Hillary. The only difference
is that one will complete the war and one won’t, they both will give us the wrong solution on
Health Care, and pretty much everything else they agree on. Guns are bad, killing babies is fine, gay marriage is a good thing, and so on. I am not voting for Rudy, and I think that once people start paying more attention they won’t vote for him either.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:06 am
As a Coloradoan myself, I do think that Rudy has a strong shot in Colorado in the general election. While I’m sure many will probably be shocked to hear about Rudy’s abortion stance, they will take him over Hillary. It’s also worth noting that CO republicans tend to lean more towards a take-no-prisoners, no-compromise style of leadership that Rudy exemplified in NY…as proof I would note that all 3 sittting GOP congressmen in our state are known as uncompromising conservative firebrands (Tom Tancredo, Marilyn Musgrave, Doug Lamborn). Rudy also has a pretty strong pan for securing the border (BorderStat), and that’s a much bigger issue in the Southwest than in some other areas.
That said, remember that the Dem national convention will be in Denver and that CO will probably have the tightest Senate race in the country in 2008 (Bob Schaffer v. Mark Udall). The Dems will be pumping money into this state like nobody’s business, so the GOP will need to campaign hard to maintain the edge.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:11 am
18:
See my previous post on Rudy’s border plan.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:41 am
“That said, remember that the Dem national convention will be in Denver and that CO will probably have the tightest Senate race in the country in 2008 (Bob Schaffer v. Mark Udall).”
Good points, all, but don’t forget that if Rudy can open up a solid high single digit lead over Hillary in the national polls (ie 6 to 9 points), Hillary will Rudy will have her on the defensive and force her campaign to spend time and money defending “home” turf like New York, Pennsylvania and Oregon. If Rudy is able to do this (and he is the only Republican candidate that could do this) Hillary won’t have the time or resources to campaign in Colorado.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:01 am
Can we stop using poills to prove that Rudy is most electable? Polls change, they are a snapshot but the snapshot changes as the race progresses.
Come January it will look quite different. How different? Who knows… Rudy may still be top, McCain may make a comeback, Romney may continue to rise, FDT might come in and knock everyone about with sterling debate performances. WE DON’T KNOW.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:37 am
“CO will probably have the tightest Senate race in the country in 2008 (Bob Schaffer v. Mark Udall).—
Hard to knock a guy for trying to be optimistic, but it should be noted that the CW on this race is not that it will be all the tight. At least it doesnt look that way now.
“…as proof I would note that all 3 sittting GOP congressmen in our state are known as uncompromising conservative firebrands”
No one doubts that Rudy could win the red areas of CO. The rest of the state however, is different, and has been electing Dems.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:54 am
Tano,
I usually don;t make a habit of responding to you, but I’m in a decent mood tonight, so:
It’s not me saying that the CO Senate race will be the tightest in the country, I’ve read that in just about every analysis of the 2008 races that I have come across.
Your projections of recent Dem victories in CO onto the Udall/Schaffer race shows that you are not very familiar with our politics here in the Wild West. The last two Dems to win in this state ran as centrists who could unite left and right (Ken Salazar for Senate, Bill Ritter for the Governorship). Mark Udall, on the other hand, is a liberal’s liberal from the far-left stronghold of Boulder, where he has never had to deal with conservative constituents or Republican challengers. The only reasons that he is even able to compete are the fact that he has been running for the last two years, comes from a political dynasty, and is running against a man who is considered to be as extreme on the right wing as Udall is on the left.
Colorado has not elected anyone like Udall in recent memory, and to assert that such a fer-left candidate could win CO with out a fight is ludicrous.
August 15th, 2007 at 4:36 am
I had to google “South Park Republican”.
Apparently “South Park” is a raunchy cartoon. From what I can gather “South Park Republican” is just a way of saying raunchy libertarian.
August 15th, 2007 at 6:33 am
The GOP needs Rudy? If the GOP has Giuliani, the GOP won’t get my vote.
August 15th, 2007 at 8:21 am
BG if the GOP picks Rudy it has kicked a lot of us out of the party.
August 15th, 2007 at 8:30 am
If Rudy is the answer, it was a stupid question. But he does look horrid in a dress, if that helps.
August 15th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Getting ready for work this morning I heard on the local ABC news that Rudy was leading home town boy Romney by 10% in the state.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:04 am
DaveG:
About your title, is South Park Republican just another work for Pro-Abortion Republican. If so then shame on you for trying to “dress it up” to make pro-abortion popular.
Regards,
sjd
August 15th, 2007 at 9:16 am
DaveG:
In other words, why are you so AFRAID (yes, afraid) of using the title “Pro-Abortion Republican.”
Hmmm…can you answer that? Why are you so afraid of using that title?
Regards,
sjd
August 15th, 2007 at 9:21 am
“shame on you” Ok, Grandma. You condescension is overwhelming.
BG, Econ, Psycheout: Can you please leave the party BEFORE the primaries? PLEASE.
Econ: Way to demonstrate your out-of-touchness. South Park has been running for 10 years, and has consistently been in the news not only for how raunchy it is, but also for how intelligent it is. Probably the smartest show on TV. It’s one thing to be a little behind the curve. It’s quite another to be unaware of one of the cultural bywords of this generation.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:22 am
And, sjd, adding the word “regards” and signing your post does not make you seem smarter or more reasonable. Watch, I’ll demonstrate:
regards,
pb
August 15th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Sjd,
There you go again with your typical so-con dribble. Has it ever occurred to you that some segment of the party doesn’t rate abortion anywhere near their primary concern? I strongly suspect that DaveG (correct me if I’m wrong) is using the term to describe gardern-variety libertarian conservative leanings. To me being a South Park Republican includes being against such liberal doctrine as affirmative action, not falling into the liberal “Blame America First” nonsense, being unapologetically against any form of political correctness, being socially tolerant but not radically liberal in approaching social issues and, (my personal favorite that blows the minds of Rombots everywhere away) NOT PANDERING TO THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT.
Not everyone looks at everything through the prism of abortion stance.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:23 am
South Park Republican was a term coined by Andrew Sullivan for someone who, more or less “hates conservatives, but really f–king hates liberals” — that’s what Mark Stone, the creator of the show, says about politics. More or less a more libertarian Republican. It’s nothing new. It’s just that it’s been given a mediocre term now.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:24 am
I’ve lived near looney Boulder Colorado since 1999. I can tell you that my area is extremely crackpot liberal. I’ll drive 10 miles at times to avoid having to go through downtown Boulder. At times, I take pride in my Romney ‘08 sticker especially since every Subaru here has Kerry / Edwards sticker.
Registered Republicans outnumber register Democrats in the state of Colorado by a very decent margin. Excluding some areas of Denver and all of Boulder, Colorado is as conservative state.
I consider Colorado now a swing state due to the attention the DNC is giving us. For example, the DNC will host their convention in Denver (gag!). Those mean ‘ol liberals want all the homeless off the street during the convention – imagine that!
I digress, the right Republican can carry the state of Colorado, I don’t agree that Rudy is the only Republican that can do so.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Matt Stone*
August 15th, 2007 at 9:26 am
If “conservative” means swallowing all of the so-con excrement that gets championed by the Rombots here…and nothing else…then I guess I hate conservatives too.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:31 am
It’s sad when the best argument for Rudy is he is the only one who can win, and it’s not even true. As I see it, Rudy is only marginally better than Hillary.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:33 am
I hate to break it to you, but even if we three left the party it wouldn’t make much difference. Every person who comments represents thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people who do not.
And Rudy is not a “South Park Republican,” he’s a New York City Republican. And there is a difference.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Rudy’s supposed to be this tough guy who won’t shrink from the fight against terror. Yet, he sure ran fast from going up against Romney at Ames. So unless you Rudybots are arguing that Romney is more intimidating than worldwide terror, I don’t think Rudy “strategic retreat†Giuliani has the balls to fight terrorists.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Psycheout,
What’s the difference? Enlighten us please.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Bjalder26,
That’s one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is to say that Romney doesn’t have the balls to stand up to Masshole Democrats when he runs an “effectively pro-choice” campaign while claiming to be “personally pro-life”. And I don’t care whether he is or isn’t pro-choice. But he sure does seem to twist into a pretzel when the Massachusetts electorate or the national GOP religious right is holding the whip.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Moral relativist!
August 15th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Oh, is Romney tough? He says that he’s a tough guy, but pornography makes him cry.
It’s like these so-cons. They’re “harder than nails” in the fight against islamic terrorists, but please for the love of god do not drop the f-bomb within shouting distance of them – it causes them to melt.
If you can’t handle two people having sex on film or a word with a negative connotation, but which is just a word like any other, I question your common sense. Unfortunately, our politicians have to pander to people who have some problem with consensual sex on film and otherwise “socially unacceptable” behavior, while at the same time satiating their bloodlust. What an ironic conundrum – I therefore question virtually every politician’s common sense, but I have to choose one.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:49 am
“Moral relativist!”
hahah, funny..
August 15th, 2007 at 9:53 am
pb,
You have to have dignity, self-respect, and morals to even begin to understand how what you state in #44 is offensive.
This is a losing argument. One can’t talk values to another who has no values or respect on the same subject. You either have values, or you don’t.
If you don’t have these values, at least respect the wishes of others who do.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Pb,
I don’t know if Romney has ever *said* he is a tough guy. He may have – I just don’t know. He doesn’t seem like a tough guy to me. He seems like a pretty boy. In fact, when I think of Romney I think “Oh my god (er…sorry so-cons, Oh my GOSH) this guy is OUR JOHN EDWARDS.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Adam,
Calling Romney a “John Edwards” is a major insult. Major insult..
What’s with you anyway?
August 15th, 2007 at 10:06 am
pb, you’re a obviously a liberal. Basically you’re just a low-taxes Ted Kennedy.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:11 am
The last thing the GOP needs is a candidate who is going to move the party to the left – which is exactly what Giuliani would do. Even if he did not promote abortion, the simple fact that he supports abortion moves the party to the left. For how long, I’m not sure, but I really don’t want to risk it.
Obviously, some people on here don’t care about protecting unborn life. Well, thats their opionion. However, there are some of us who do, and who consider it to be an important issue. It may not be the only important issue, or the most important issue, but it is important.
I don’t trust Giuliani on abortion. He is pro-abortion, and sees abortion as a Constitutional right. He views Roe as good law. I won’t buy that he will appoint pro-life judges unless he uses those exact words. I also don’t trust that he will sign pro-life legistlation if it comes to him – and I’m not positive he would veto pro-abortion legislation.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Well Edwards is now trying to pander to the kooks by being the loudest anti-war voice on the Left. Romney is doing everything he can to butter up the socons. And setting aside politics – both seem to have that pretty boy appearence. You have to admit – there are at least some parallels.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:03 am
For what its worth, Adam, I see it too. He has that same “snake oil salesman” vibe that Edwards (and, for what it’s worth, Bill Clinton) give off.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:08 am
By the way, the left is painting Giuliani as being even more right-wing than Bush.
“Giuliani is Bush on Steroids.”
“Giuliani is Bush without the thinking.”
“Giuliani is a war monger.”
Don’t think that Giuliani will be a “centrist” candidate. He’s not.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Sjd,
Who cares what the left says?
You think they won’t say the same of Romney? Or worse? The only reason you don’t hear more about him from the likes of Kos already is because Giuliani is up 10 points nationally.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Adam and pb:
So…as so-called South Park Republicans (i.e., Pro-Abortion Republicans), that means you support tearing off a fetus’s limbs, piercing/puncturing its skull, and sucking its brains out with a vacuum into a sink.
What if we did this to you? You are just as expendable to this planet as that baby.
To me, you people are funny…you people are a bunch of cartoons to me.
To me, you people are Fredo. (cite: Godfather)
Regards,
sjd
August 15th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Gonzales v. Carhart:
This is an abortion doctor’s clinical description. Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
“ ‘Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus… .
“ ‘The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.
“ ‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp… .
“ ‘He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.’ †Ibid.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:23 am
And any attempt to limit this abortion debate in the republican party is suppression of free speech.
sjd
August 15th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Sjd,
You support Romney. Romney is down 22 points in FL. A Romney nomination means that Clinton wins.
So…as so-cons(i.e., “standing on principle” Republicans), that means you support a candidate who will lead to the election of a liberal Democrat whose Supreme Court nominess support tearing off a fetus’s limbs, piercing/puncturing its skull, and sucking its brains out with a vacuum into a sink.
What if we did this to you? You are just as expendable to this planet as that baby.
To me, you people are funny…you people are a bunch of cartoons to me.
To me, you people are Fredo. (cite: Godfather)
Regards,
Adam
August 15th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Sjd,
I think I have the perfect new name for you so-cons. From now on I will call you “Tunnel Vision Republicans”.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Adam:
You are citing a poll over 500 days before the general election.
Frankly, that’s incompetent do to so.
sjd
August 15th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Sjd,
I really wish you would stop being so self-righteous. I really do hope that if Romney wins the nomination and CLinton wins the general…and appoints radical Supreme Court justices…I hope you feel as sick to your stomach over the next 4 or 8 years because of your miscalculation as you claim to be now over the thought of a Giuliani presidency.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Adam:
Look in the mirror. You people who are polling over 500 days before the general election and then deriving grandiose conclusions therefrom are the self-righteous ones.
sjd
August 15th, 2007 at 11:34 am
I mean the post by DaveG itself was self-righteous.
He thinks he can call the general election over 500 days prior to the actual vote. Frankly, that’s the definition of self-righteousness.
sjd
August 15th, 2007 at 11:35 am
It pales in comparison to equating support to Giuliani’s candidacy to that rubbish you posted upthread. It’s a foregone conclusion that abortion will never be stopped by legislation or the courts. The best you so-cons can hope for is to send it back to the states, where half of them will support it anyway. You’re making a phony argument and if you have any sense at all you know it. Grow up man.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Abortion will be stopped by legislation.
It already has been stopped by Congress.
And that law was upheld by the Roberts court in Gonzales v. Carhart (with a Ginsburg disent).
August 15th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Adam, this thread, mostly, just shows that you are incompetent and don’t know what you are talking about. First, polling 500 days before an election. Second, getting owned on the facts about abortion legislation that was upheld by the Supreme Court.
It’s ok…you’re just incompetent to speak on these issues. But go ahead and continue. It’s comedy for the rest of us.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Sjd,
If you think that 60 senators and a majority of House members and the next president (whomever it is) will sign such a bill then you ought to quit whatever your day job is and sell whatever it is you’re smoking to the Kos kids.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Sjd,
You haven’t refuted a single point I’ve made. What’s comical is your belief that such a pandering opportunist cares about your so-con fantasies any more than his political ambition.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
“”If you think that 60 senators and a majority of House members and the next president (whomever it is) will sign such a bill then you ought to quit whatever your day job is and sell whatever it is you’re smoking to the Kos kids.”"
Listen, okay, IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.
The Partial Birth Abortion Act was passed by both houses of Congress, and signed by President Bush. It was upheld by the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart (with Ginsburg in the dessent).
Your insistence that abortion is not in play is FLAT WRONG.
And, for that reason, among others, you are incompetent Adam.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
[Edit: (with Ginsburg in the dissent)]
August 15th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Thomas Alan, I wish to take a few more minutes to help you understand the difference between Bush’s and Rudy’s immigration plans. The key word here with Rudy’s plan, which you have quoted, is thus: “who go to the back of the line to apply”. This is a big difference. Bush would essentially create a new line (Z-Visa), and let those illegal immigrants get it almost automatically, then this while the border is being secured and the employement system being implemented. Rudy has always emphasized that the border be secured FIRST and employment system established FIRST before he would do anything about the illegal immigrants. It is his position, along with many other immigration experts, that if they could not get a job, they will depot themselves out of the country. This is pretty much the same plan (different approach, but same general idea) that Mitt has.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
SJD (#69), thought you would like to know PBA is not working. Here’s an article you may want to read. Do realize that PBA is very specificed in that a fetus become a baby when it is partial in the canal.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Only Fred Thompson or Newt could unite all the wings of our party and be competitive across the country.
Giuliani is a nonstarter. His nomination will cause the religious R vote to decline, and he is an angry man, regardless. He just gives a good press conference, that’s all.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
“Listen, okay, IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED”
“The Partial Birth Abortion Act…”
Dude – I’m NOT TALKING ABOUT “PARTIAL BIRTH”. Everyone hates partial birth. It’s NOT in play. You’re not going to ban abortions. It’s doubtful you’ll even get enough support to ban abortions after the first trimester. Anything beyond that is a pipe dream.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Even if partial birth abortion bans are upheld by the courts…(and I’m well aware of the history of Clinton not signing the Partial Birth Abortion ban and the subsequent attempts. Thanks for assuming that because YOU DIDN’T MAKE IT CLEAR YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT PARTIAL BIRTH it means I don’t know what I’m talking about)…is that going to satisfy the so-con right? Of course not. And your champions will never accomplish it unless you can convince the public to not want to go through with the practice. It seems to me that you and your ilk are incompetant and rather stupid. Why? You blindly support any candidate that calls himself “pro-life” yet for the longest time you haven’t gained very many yards on the football field. Who is getting had here? And say what you will but everytime someone starts with the personal attacks in an argument I know I can sit back and smile.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Jim (#5), yeah, Mitt is not competitive because if you look at the favorable/unfavorable rates in recent national polls, he aproximately is at 50%. This means about 50% of people know about him enough to say whether they like them or not. There are still a whole lot of people that do not know him. Now, if you look at Rudy, he pretty much is at 85% from day one. He has an advantage of being, along with Hillary, the most recognized candidate in the nation, from day one. The big questions here then, are, how much about Rudy do people really know (meaning, will they still like him with all of the vetting from Democrats, if he does win the nomination?), and could Mitt build his recognization across the nation in time?
August 15th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Adam, unbelievable.
You’re missing the point. You said abortion is not in play. The point is, abortion is in play. Abortion is in play on many many different levels. And it will stay that way the next 100 years of our country.
So we vote on it. And we vote against Giuliani. Period.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Also, Adam, unbelievable.
Partial Birth Abortion IS IN PLAY. Tons of democrats voted against the bill.
EVERYTHING IS IN PLAY. Barack Obama even voted against legislation in Illinois that bans killing fetuses that actually survive abortions. So in Illinois, as Barack Obama would have it, the doctor must affirmatively kill a fetus that actually survives the abortion.
EVERYTHING IS IN PLAY.
All Giuliani does is undermine the pro-life movement.
THAT, my friend, is the point.
August 15th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
No ,
You Taliban wingers of the pro life movement will never vote for Rudy, but rational pro lifers who know Rudy’s true positions on abortion and compare them to any of the leading Democrat contenders will have no problem casting a vote for him over any of the totally pro choice( including partial birth abortion)Dem alternatives.
August 15th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
TennJoe:
From 2012-2016 we would rather have Jeb Bush or Governor Crist than Giuliani.
Plus, Romney will beat Hillary anyways…he has nowhere to go but up…
August 15th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
My problem is: where is the proof or promise that Giuliani would appoint pro-life judges or sign pro-life legislation?
Rudy has said that he would appoint Constitutionalist judges – which means nothing coming from a man who believes there is a Constitutional right to an abortion.
Giuliani is pro-choice, he supports abortion, and until he promises to “appoint pro-life judges” – until I hear those words come out of him – I don’t trust him on the issue.
August 15th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
To those who asked…
A South Park Republican is just another name for a secular conservative; i.e., a conservative minus any interest in the use of government to promote the values of any religious sect, which often, though not always, leads to liberal or libertarian views on social issues mixed with conservative views on all other issues. This sort of formula is more complex than it looks. The South Park Republican is not simply a warmed over libertarian. In fact, the SP Republican, with his or her roots in conservatism, and thus, realism, likely views libertarians as misinformed allies who are far too idealistic and ideological. The SP Republican is similar to a paleocon in many ways, complete with a skeptical, cynical view of human nature, and with a decidedly anti-utopian streak. But this paleocon realism and cynicism is married to a classical liberal belief in individualism that jettisons the support of the Old Right for collectivist institutions such as organized religion to keep individuals in check. In that sense, the SP Republican could be described as a paleocon/classical liberal hybrid. Dennis Miller is the best real-world example that I can think of, other than myself, of course — the sort of fellow who would have no problem going to his gay friends’ commitment ceremony, and drinking lots of wine while there, but who also wouldn’t think twice about blowing any and all Islamist threats to Western civilization straight to Tartarus.
The SP Republican is secular when it comes to politics but not necessarily areligious. Many may be devout religionists in their personal lives, yet prefer to keep church and state uber-distinct. Most seem to be personally secular as well though: atheist/agnostic types or heterodox religionists.
The SP Republican is not even necessarily socially liberal. Heather MacDonald is almost certainly an SP Republican and she is both an outspoken atheist and a strong cultural conservative. The SP Republican is often very pragmatic, preferring to do what works instead of what ideology would dictate. Many would agree with MacDonald, then, when she says we should promote two-parent homes because that’s what yields the most stable society, not because some deity or other commands it. Still, the SP Republican decries attempts by the state to change the culture, which means that banning porn is a no-no, but so is attempting to socially engineer with PC nonsense or affirmative action. The SP Republican is usually pro-choice, but can certainly be pro-life given their belief in individualism and the reality that abortion ends the life of an individual human being against his or her will. Unfortunately, as Kavon has often noted, the “pro-life libertarian” is a rare species, even though such a framework is seemingly more logically consistent than a pro-abortion libertarian.
It is no surprise that western states like Colorado prefer a South Park Republican like Rudy. The Goldwaterite, individualist bent of the west, combined with the reality that the west sports the highest percentage of areligious Americans, make states like Colorado particularly susceptible to this message. That’s why Rudy is doing so well in Colorado, and that’s why he’ll also take Arizona and Nevada off the table, and have a shot at flipping Oregon too.