If Rudy is the best they have will the religious right vote for a guy that has had adulterous affairs, two divorces and supports gay rights and gay marriage?
2007-01-31 09:33:28 · 11 answers · asked by Jim B 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
it's still early yet... neither team really has much for a viable choice as of yet there is too much time till the primaries.. any one who came out now as we will see soon has so much time for dirty politics and mudslinging to take effect
2007-01-31 09:42:12 · answer #1 · answered by lethander_99 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It depends on how much they want to win. If they want to win the White House they better put up the most viable candidate which is Giuliani or McCain. If the religious right doesn't get out and vote for the republican candidate though (we all know they won't vote democratic) then neither will stand a chance. But the uber right is in a bit of predicament, because if they do vote for one of these two guys, they are voting against principle, and what does that say about they conservative rights morals? I think no matter what, this election is going to be fun!
2007-01-31 09:44:31 · answer #2 · answered by MeShell 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's early yet to write off the Republicans' ability to find a viable candidate.
Giuliani's divorces (which, by the way, are a lot healthier than the Clintons' marriage) and stand on gay right are issues primarily for the Torquemada/Cotton Mather wing of the GOP. The broader American public would probably be willing to overlook these in the context of Rudy's heroic leadership of NYC after 9/11 and proven record in reducing crime in NYC (this success being the one thing the Democrats will never forgive him for). Another advantage that Giuliani has--one shared with Mitt Romney--is that he's not in the Senate or House and does not have the same type of stake as, say, John McCain, in Bush's current game of 21,000-up-man-ship.
It's also worth putting the state of the GOP contenders in the context of history and what's happening on the other side. I at least am old enough to remember 1991, when Bush 41 appeared unbeatable after the victory in Gulf War I and the most "viable" Democrats such as Mario Cuomo ceded the race to unknowns such as the young governor of Arkansas. Another governor of Arkansas (Huckabee) could pull off the same maneuver from obscurity to viability just as easily as Giuliani (my own choice, as astute readers will have guessed) or McCain.
And the Democrats have their own viability problems. Hillary has negative poll numbers that are matched only by W's, and her standing as the Dem Establishment candidate and ability to harvest obscene amounts of donations may foster a regal attitude that will undo her. Obama appears formidable for now, but I think this is because he is serving as a Rohrschach ink blot onto which voters and pundits project their own desires; at some point he'll lose these Zelig-like qualities. John Edwards relies too much on the boyish grin, great hair, and country lawyer slickness. And we won't even go into the terminal logorrhea that seems to have infected Joe Biden.
My bottom-line on this is to paraphrase Forrest Gump's momma: viability is as viability does.
2007-01-31 10:05:41 · answer #3 · answered by Bethesdan 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The GOP could field countless superb applicants; even nonetheless, the individuals who worry to ensue to vote in GOP primaries are such extremists that the superb applicants do not worry - and why could they. seem at how McCain became into taken care of by way of Bush in 2000. Lies, smears and deceit. Why might an exceedingly great guy or woman post with that. Perry has destroyed Texas. Race to the backside in training, poverty and winning the race to create minimum salary jobs isn't what the voters had in ideas. even if, given the ludicrously low prove, possibly it became into. @RJC: keep in mind that "accepted Republican" has no negatives. replace Perry or Bachman for accepted and watch the polls. while the GOP nominates a annoying right extremist, Obama will start to look great. EDIT: Ryan or Christie or Rubio = no distinction, no new suggestions, comparable previous anti-woman, anti-freedom, social nonsense.
2016-12-13 05:35:35 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rudy is a good candidate. Chuck Hagel is another good potential Republican candidate for President. He hasn't announced yet that he's running, and is so much at odds with the present administration that he might not get nominated anyhow - but perhaps the party will realize it is time for a totally new approach.
The power of the "Religious Right" is probably over-estimated. Both Rudy and Chuck are at least as electable as Hillary and Obama.
It the Republicans run a "business as usual" candidate and the Democrats still don't win, wow! What country is this that we live in, anyhow?
2007-01-31 09:51:55 · answer #5 · answered by Husker41 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Bush was *very* beatable in 2004, and you guys blew it! Talk about not putting forth a viable candidate!!
There are other people in the running, you know. But I won't tell you who - look it up for yourself.
Thanks for the giggle - have a nice day.
2007-01-31 09:39:02 · answer #6 · answered by Jadis 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
McCain?
Guiliani?
Mitt Romney?
Ok, let's talk about adulterous affairs, remember bill clinton!
2007-01-31 10:41:03 · answer #7 · answered by infobrokernate 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well as long as the media is hollowed Democrat territory then even if there is someone else out there we wont know until after the DNC Thats how it works
2007-01-31 09:41:57 · answer #8 · answered by crawler 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Tom Tancredo!!!!!!!!!! The only vote conservatives have!
The other canidates are liberals in conservatrive suites...
2007-01-31 09:46:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
George W. Bush's non-leadership and governmental goofs has caused the Republicans to be more inept than they were already.
2007-01-31 09:42:25 · answer #10 · answered by furrryyy 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋