When RINOs attack

Michele at Reformed Chicks Blabbing had an interesting observation about the tactic which Julie Annie is apparently taking to deal with conservative dissatisfaction with his liberalism on social issues. First she quotes the Des Moines Register's coverage of the Mayor's speech in Iowa:

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani warned GOP activists in Des Moines on Saturday that if they insist on a nominee who always agrees with them, it will spell defeat in 2008.

“Our party is going to grow, and we are going to win in 2008 if we are a party characterized by what we’re for, not if we’re a party that’s known for what we’re against,” the former New York mayor said at a midday campaign stop.

Republicans can win, he said, if they nominate a candidate committed to the fight against terrorism and high taxes, rather than a pure social conservative.

“Our party has to get beyond issues like that,” Giuliani said, a reference to abortion rights, which he supports.

Giuliani made his remarks at a campaign stop before a speech to about 1,000 of the leadoff caucus state’s most active Republicans, some of whom have voiced unease about his moderate social positions.

Then her analysis:

. . . [W]hy should I throw away my principles and convictions to vote for Rudy when there are others in the race who share the same convictions and principles as I do and who are electable. What makes him think that a conservative candidate isn't electable?

I don't think the social conservative issues need to be the focus of this race but it probably will be if Rudy or Romney are the Republican candidate. The MSM will keep bringing it up all the time (Romney is a social conservative flip-flopper and Rudy is too liberal for the base -- this will be the mantra of the MSM throughout the general election). If Thompson were our candidate, then this issue would be settled and he could focus on the issues that need to be addressed: the economy and the war. . .

I agree. Notice how Julie Annie attempts to create a false choice between a social conservative and someone who would be "committed to the fight against terrorism and high taxes" as though you must believe in confiscatory taxation and surrender to Islamofascism in order to want to protect the unborn.

RINOs have been telling Republicans for decades that the path to victory lays in throwing religious conservatives and gun owners overboard. Of course RINOs who don't at least pretend to be conservative socially as well as fiscally lose elections while true conservatives like Ronald Reagan become icons.

The lesson is always lost on the RINOs. No matter how many elections they lose, outside of a few blue states where politicians like Ted Kennedy seem mainstream, they always insist that if only we would slaughter the unborn, give up our guns and stop all that unsightly praying that control of all three branches of government would fall into our hands like the proverbial overripe fruit.

Fred Thompson is running second to Julie Annie even though he hasn't even entered the race at this time. There is a technical term for a bit of data like this. It is called "A CLUE" and I recommend that all the people who are shouting at the top of their lungs that Rudy is the only Republican who can win get one (a clue, that is).

If Rudy can't even earn the support of the Republican base how is he going to win the support of the general public?

Remember this, the mainstream media is a partisan player in all of this. They are going to want for the Republican to lose and the Democrat to win. Remember this past election when the Washington Post turned its editorial office into an annex of the Web For Senate campaign? They will do exactly the same for Hillary or Obama.

This means that if Rudy gets the nomination they will constantly play up the division between the fiscal and the religious conservatives. They will point their cameras at any elected RINO stupid enough to play along (and most elected RINOs are stupid indeed - as they are too dumb to realize that they are actually Democrats) who will be only too happy to tell the world how much harm to the party that religious conservatives do and how much better off the Republican Party will be without single issue gun nuts.

Of course enough of the fundies and gunnies will get the message and either stay home or vote for the Constitution Party on election day to put Mrs. Bill Clinton or B. Hussein Obama into the White House. Then the RINOs, who worked overtime to kick the real conservatives out of the party, will run to the cameras and the op-ed pages to blame the conservatives for not sellling their souls in order to put someone in the Oval Office with an "R" next to his name.

The truth is that in a national election when a Conservative runs against a Liberal the Conservative wins. When a liberal runs against a Liberal the Liberal wins. Ronald Reagan against Jimmy Carter and Bob Dole/George H. W. Bush against Bill Clinton should tell us everything we need to know.