Rudy's running?

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

He was on "Road to" on C-Span this weekend; I was favorably impressed by his tone and demeanor. There's a website at http://www.joinrudy2008.com/ . We may have an acceptable candidate here.

Comments?

[Trumpetmaster]

We want Rudy!!!!

[Shapley]

Rudy's a good man, and a strong leader. He did great things with New York City when he was Mayor, and he showed himself to be in command during 9/11.

His positions are often far to the left of where I like my Republicans to be. Even so, his positives far outweigh the negatives, IMHO.

Given that John McCain is considered his principle opponent in this (very early) primary race, he is the currently the best candidate in the field.

Right now, he looks to be the front runner in the 2008 primary polls

And also looks like the best choice to beat Hillary in the 2008 general election polls

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Well, heck, Shapley, I'm far left of where you like your Republicans to be. I think I'll have to send the man some money, and we'll see how it goes.

[Shapley]

Well, heck, Shapley, I'm far left of where you like your Republicans to be.

Yes, but then your not seeking the Republican nomination, as far as I know.

However, right now, most of the Republicans are to the left of where I like my Republicans to be. Without Ronaldus Maximus to serve as an anchor, they've kind of drifted with the tide.

V/R
Shapley

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Not allowed to run. Hatch Act. Also not qualified to be a politician, as I have an unfortunate tendancy to say what I actually think.

[Shapley]

The mere act of thinking might knock you off the short list...

[Haggis@wk]

I mostly agree with Shapely and would additionally point out that most of Rudy's "leftishy" positions are more properly State's Rights issues and will be, eventually, dealt with at that level; abortion, guns, etc.

I've never immediately rejected a politician of either stripe simple because of his/her politics. Heck, I voted for Carter (for which I'm sure I'll be held accountable in any interviews that lead to decisions to grant or deny entry into the hereafter) and could probably get behind Rudy. I certainly would, out of principal, support him over McCain.

McCain irredeemably damaged himself for my vote when he decided the First Amendment needed "under new management" signs.

Sadly, there are some Republicans who have much better chops than McCain but they aren't blessed with the attendant high profile McCain enjoys.

I think it is way too early in the cycle to look at any one candidate and would point out that Romney is polling well as long as that bothersome “Mormon” thing isn’t pushed front and center.

(Jeez, if only he was handing out copies of Watchtower!!)

I, personally, will be interested in the blogs that address the issue from a right viewpoint. This will be the first time that the right "blogosphere" will have to deal with a blank canvas and it will be more than enlightening to see what evolves as more and more candidates realize that in 2006 20% of the electorate got their information exclusively from the Internet.

2008 will be a pivotal election as far as the internet is concerned.

[jamiebk]

The fact of it is, that if the republicans want to win in '08 they must moderate some of their far right agenda. I think the fall elections prove that the country is demanding a new direction and agenda. It does no good to stand on principal and lose all together. Rather, it would be wise to seek compromise and middle ground to represent more people.

[Shapley]

The fact of it is, that if the republicans want to win in '08 they must moderate some of their far right agenda.

I heartily disagree. The Republicans win when they run on the right side of the issues. Given the choice between a Democrat and a 'Democrat Lite', the Republicans will stay home or vote third party, the Democrats will vote, and the swing voters won't be enough to make up the difference either way.

However, a proven leader, such as Rudy, can possibly pull in enough swing voters who find themselves attracted to his leadership qualities to overcome the deficit created by the conservative Republicans who reject his left-leaning policies.

Either party loses if they abandon their base, unless their candidate shows that he/she has qualities that overcome the percieved deficiencies in 'traditional' policy position.

V/R
Shapley

[Haggis@wk]

I said before that the recent elections were won and lost for the exact same reason; both parties abandoned their base

[jamiebk]

The Republicans win when they run on the right side of the issues.

Oh...you mean like in the last election? Sorry Shap, I don't see the massive wide support you claim. It may be passionate where it exists but the majority of people are speaking their minds and Republicans are losing. The elections are stacked through 2012 in favor of Demos.

PS...any party will win when it is on the correct side of the issues...that is not always the "right" side.

[Shapley]

Jamie,

The Republicans lost the last election because they had abandoned their base - they did not legislate 'on the right' during the past two years, and they did not run 'on the right' in the elections, with few exceptions.

I wouldn't get too comfortable that the elections are 'fixed until 2012'. That is utter hogwash. If the Democrats deliver what their base is looking for, they will continue to win elections. If the Republicans get their act together and reunite with their base, they have a chance of regaining power.

Two years ago everyone thought the elections were 'fixed' for the Republicans - and they got lazy. The mood of the country seemed to favour conservative politics. The Republicans thought all they had to do was throw a few bones to the party base and coast their way to victory - and they were wrong.

The Democrats did not run on their usual issues. They ran against President Bush, and nothing else. Their platform was "vote for us, we're not them". It worked for the election, but now that they are in power they have to stand for something - and their having a hard time figuring out what that is. Most of the incoming freshemen ran on fairly conservative tickets. Some of the oldtimers remember that the people through them out when they stood too strongly on liberal issues. However, the senior leadership remains mired in the liberal policies the people rejected in 1992, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004. They have a very fine line to walk if they are to keep their citizens happy.

V/R
Shapley

[jamiebk]

Jamie,

The Republicans lost the last election because they had abandoned their base - they did not legislate 'on the right' during the past two years, and they did not run 'on the right' in the elections, with few exceptions.

I wouldn't get too comfortable that the elections are 'fixed until 2012'. That is utter hogwash. If the Democrats deliver what their base is looking for, they will continue to win elections. If the Republicans get their act together and reunite with their base, they have a chance of regaining power.

Two years ago everyone thought the elections were 'fixed' for the Republicans - and they got lazy. The mood of the country seemed to favour conservative politics. The Republicans thought all they had to do was throw a few bones to the party base and coast their way to victory - and they were wrong.

The Democrats did not run on their usual issues. They ran against President Bush, and nothing else. Their platform was "vote for us, we're not them". It worked for the election, but now that they are in power they have to stand for something - and their having a hard time figuring out what that is. Most of the incoming freshemen ran on fairly conservative tickets. Some of the oldtimers remember that the people through them out when they stood too strongly on liberal issues. However, the senior leadership remains mired in the liberal policies the people rejected in 1992, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004. They have a very fine line to walk if they are to keep their citizens happy.

V/R
Shapley

Shap, the majority of people (voters) out there are simply not as polarized as you believe. They are at various points away from each end of the political spectrum. People stay in power by working to the benefit of the majority of the people...not just the empassioned zealots on the far right OR far left. That does not mean abandoning one's pricipals...it means coming to compromise and solutions.

The Republicans lost because the majority of people do not like the way the country is going right now. All the while, GWB sticks to his agenda. So, I maintain that he has not lost touch with his "base" ...simply, his base is not powerful or broad enough to carry the election in their favor. The greatest number of voters simply do not support the current path we are on. They are looking for another alternative. Most republicans and most democrats would rather see a middle of the road candidate of their party elected rather than having no representation at all.

[Shapley]

Jamie,

I don't think all the people are polarized, but I think the majority opinion is to the right of center, this is why the Democrats, who by and large are to the left of center, kept quiet about their stance on most issues. They ran on Iraq and President Bush, nothing else.

President Bush has not been true to the base. He has stuck to his guns on the issues, but his guns are not always pointed in the right direction. He has increased spending on education faster than any President, without offering the type of States' rights and free market reforms conservatives desire. He instituted a prescription drug plan for the medicare recipients, which irked those on the right who remain opposed to increases in entitlement spending, while gaining no support from the left who consider it too little of a benefit.

Many are opposed to the war in Iraq. Others who favour the war are unhappy with the execution of the war. The Democrats made this the focus of the their campaign. Cleverly, however, they remained uncommitted to a course of action, the merely expressed their opposition to the Presidents' course of action. The people elected them, largely on this issue. Now, they have to present a course of action, and they are finding difficulty establishing a common ground on which to do so.

Read the link I posted by Mr. Laird. He says President Nixon was elected because the people thought he had a plan for ending the war. He didn't, says Mr. Laird, who was hired to formulate one. The Democrats now find themselves in Mr. Nixon's, or perhaps Mr. Laird's, unenviable position. How the elections of 2008 will turn out will depend largely on what their plan is. Unless, that is, President Bush does something to change the peoples fickle minds about the situation. Something like, perhaps, winning the war.

Of course, this Congress is already preparing itself to ensure that type of a thing doesn't happen.

V/R
Shapley

[jamiebk]

Shap, I REALLY don't think that congress is purposely torpedo-ing winning the war just to gain power. What you suggest is heinous.

Bush started this ill-advised mess. He needs to fix it. If he can't, he deserves to be thrown out along with those who advised him.

[Shapley]

All through the election Democrats running for office exclaimed that the President was fighting the war with too little manpower. Haggis has posted numerous links recording their statements. Now the President has agreed that there is not enough U.S. presence on the ground, and is prepared to send in more troops. Those same Congressmen now exclaim that 'escalating the war' (i.e. sending in more troops) is ill-advised.

In short, they are telling him to win the war with what he has, or 'stay the course', to quote the President. Do you disagree that this is true? I say he has to win the war. He has presented a plan using principles that were successfully employed in Vietnam, and it is running into roadblocks in the Congress.

It is heinous, but it is no more heinous than the very similar method that was successfully employed by the Congress of the '70s to bring about the shameful end to the Vietnam War and destruction of the South Vietnamese government.

I'm not suggesting that there is some sort of grand conspiracy here - I'm suggesting that they are carrying this out in broad daylight under the noses of the people - the people who have bought the lies they've told about the Vietnam War for thirty years - the people who have no stomach for protracted wars.

V/R
Shapley

[jamiebk]

very similar method that was successfully employed by the Congress of the '70s to bring about the shameful end to the Vietnam War and destruction of the South Vietnamese government.

I could not care less about the south Vietnamese government...we were supposedly fighting Communism...you remember...the big red power that was out supposed to overcome the United States. Where are they now? Communisim does not seem to be a problem in spite of our "shameful end to the Vietnam War". All we did was save billions of dollars and thousands of lives by getting out.

[BigJon]

Shap, I REALLY don't think that congress is purposely torpedo-ing winning the war just to gain power. What you suggest is heinous.

Why don't you when a lot of people do? It seems pretty obvious to me.

[Shapley]

Jamie,

Communism continued to be a great threat until the '80s and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

WIth the growth of China and that nation's continued buildup of military might, the threat continues to smolder beneath the surface - overshadowed now, of course, by the threat of radical Islam, but still there, still a danger.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

V/R
Shapley