Giuliani Blog Tracking the likely Presidential candidacy of Rudy Giuliani

Monday, July 31, 2006

Blogs for "Rudi"

Blogs for Rudi is a site that aggregates posts about Rudy Giuliani, including many from here. Do I mind having my name used without permission on another site? Not at all. That's what this endlessly remixable Internet is all about.

Still... "Rudi?" Republican primary voters probably know a lot more about Rudy's positions on social issues than they know about how to correctly spell his name. Rudi... Guiliani... Gulliani... Juliani... I think I've seen it all. Or have I?

Leave any other creative Rudi Guiliani spellings you've come across in the comments.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Sunday, July 30, 2006

True Wisdom vs. Conventional Wisdom

What DaveG says:

I would also warn O’Beirne and others not to put too much stock into ancient quotes from the ’80s and ’90s that make Rudy sound like a liberal. What must be remembered is that Rudy was campaigning to win votes in one of the nation’s most midnight-blue cities. It’s true that Rudy’s mayoral campaigns are chalked full of liberal quotes. But what’s also true is that while Rudy campaigned as a liberal, he governed as a conservative. Just check the record. Rudy was a Reaganite on taxes, a Gingrichite on cutting and reforming government, and a Bushite on toughness and the bad guys. Even on social issues, Rudy was more of a pragmatist than anything. A socially liberal ideologue would never have padlocked porn shops in the name of order. But Rudy made himself sound like a liberal to New Yorkers to get elected and then governed from the center-right, just like Bill Clinton made himself sound like a conservative to the nation to get elected and governed from the center-left. In 2008, Rudy will be campaigning to win the nation — a much more conservative electorate than he faced in New York — and will run on his conservative record, not away from it. I would ask NR to analyze that sort of run, but we’ll probably have to give the conventional wisdom a little more time to catch up to the true wisdom of the American people.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Rudy Giuliani, "Hero Of Our Age"?

Quite possibly according to the Pittsbugh Tribune-Review:

Ronald Reagan was the last candidate to make New York see red. Recent polls suggest Rudy Giuliani may be the next.

Gallup has three of four Republicans putting him at the top of their list.
He loves the Yankees, roasted peanuts (shells included) and the opera. During radiation treatments for prostate cancer, his staff played "stump the mayor" with operatic trivia.

His moderate Republican face displayed all of our anger, grief and horror on Sept. 11. A voracious reader, he turned that night to Roy Jenkins' Winston Churchill biography, poring over its recounting of how vital Churchill was to Britain's survival during World War II.

Today, he stands on the verge of running for president. The most formidable things he faces between now and the 2008 primaries are the hearts of conservative Republicans. His rather liberal record as a pro-choice, pro-gun-control with tolerance for gay marriage moderate could cause hair to rise on the back of the necks of the right.

Ray Hoffmann, GOP chairman in Iowa, home to the first presidential caucus, saw his state go red for the first time in 20 years in 2004. "Our Republicans are on the conservative side," he says, "but anything is possible."

Does Giuliani stand a chance? "Absolutely. ... It is up to him and his message. ... Maybe he has moderated some of his positions on social issues."

Club for Growth President Pat Toomey agrees. When seeking his second term in Congress, Toomey moved his own position to that of pro-life. For conservatives to warm to Giuliani, he says, "is plausible. ... If he starts out by offering up positions that oppose federal funding for abortions and stem-cell research, and promises a constructionist position on judges, well, then, who knows?"

"Twenty years ago, no way," says New Hampshire GOP county chair Wayne Semprini, "but the New Hampshire Republicans of today, that's a different story. ... While there are still a good amount of conservatives here, there are a lot more moderates."

South Carolina, the gateway to the South with that region's first primary, is staunchly conservative. But former GOP chair Barry Wynn says it "depends on the conditions in the country. If the primary were held today, Rudy would be out in front just on leadership. ... The house is on fire and we are sorely lacking firemen -- Giuliani would fill that role."

Bill Bennett, a conservative talk-show host and Bush 41 drug czar, thinks Giuliani stands a chance with conservatives: "Sure, look what is happening on the campaign trail. ... His stands on social issues can be an obstacle, but not a blockade.

"Giuliani starts with more positives than McCain in states like Texas and with the Baptist belt, and the upcoming 9/11 movie will probably give him a huge boost."

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Saturday, July 29, 2006

Clinton-McCain Lovefest

Republicans are girding for battle against Hillary Clinton and are looking for a true warrior to lead them in this fight. To win, we'll need a take no prisoners approach, not vodka-drinking contests and "transcending the current polarization," ideas that make me and my fellow conservatives want to puke.

Read this well, because it goes to the heart of why McCain would be a lousy nominee against Hillary. He'd pull his punches. Rudy wouldn't.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain, however, share not just a title, but also a general approach to politics. Both strive to be seen as willing to break with ideological orthodoxy from time to time and to work across the aisle. Both emerged from nasty political battles — Whitewater and her husband’s impeachment in her case, the 2000 Republican primaries in his — declaring their hatred of the “politics of personal destruction,” as former President Bill Clinton called it.

“They would run a completely different campaign than we’ve seen in recent memory,” said Marshall Wittman, a former aide to Mr. McCain who has worked with Mrs. Clinton.

“Both of them realize there is a desire in the country for a different politics of national unity that transcends the current polarization,” Mr. Wittman said.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Thursday, July 27, 2006

Evolving Stances

To follow-up on RB's post regarding the history of Rudy's abortion stance, I would like to bring to your attention the following passage from Lifenews.com, one of the most stridently Pro-Life groups on the web:

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who says he's a recent pro-life convert, vetoed an embryonic stem cell research promotion bill in his state and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, two other 2008 possibilities, are both pro-life.

To refresh everyone's memory, Mitt Romney has campaigned in the past on the belief that abortion "remains safe and legal".

If it was so easy for Mitt to flip his abortion stance, (so much so that Lifenews now groups him with Pro-Life candidates in this piece), why are people so skeptical of Rudy's chances should he change his position?

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

How Rudy Changed His Position on Abortion... in 1989

Many keyboards have been worn out speculating on whether and to what extent Rudy will modify his position on abortion in the coming campaign. For guidance on this question, we must turn to a little known incident from Rudy's 1989 campaign for mayor that I'm amazed hasn't gotten more attention.

On page 28 of Fred Siegel's The Prince of the City: Giuliani and the Genius of American Life, Siegel recounts how Giuliani formed some of the positions he took in his first campaign, and the influence of a liberal lawyer named Jennifer Raab who worked for him at the time:

Giuliani, who had once thought of going into the priesthood, was deeply immersed in the Catholic tradition and enjoyed debating ideas. He was driven by both personal ambition and a strong moral compass, but his political affiliations he held far more lightly. He began, like most New York Italian Catholics, as a Democrat, but like many ethnics he moved away to become an independent in 1977 and eventually a Republican at the start of the Reagan years. Still, noted his 1989 issues director Jennifer Raab, "he was largely undefined on the local political issues." "In New York," she said, "there are a thousand interest groups with passionately held positions on issues where Giuliani had no opinion" and "almost no staff" to give him one.

He wrestled with his conscience on abortion, waffled -- and then under the influence of liberal Republicans like State Senator Roy Goodman, the pro-abortion Liberal Party and Raab, who made it clear that opposition to abortion would cost him dearly in votes from Jewish women, Giuliani went pro-choice.
For this much mused about debate about Rudy and abortion, we have a woman named Jennifer Raab to thank.

At first blush, this doesn't appear to be all that comforting a sequence of events for social conservatives. But step back, and the clear pattern is one of Rudy doing what needed to be done to get elected in New York City, where the Republican Party is about as popular as tuberculosis.

Anti-Rudyites have mused that Rudy is not just pro-choice, but pro-abortion. Not true. This passage can give us at least some comfort that Rudy is no pro-choice zealot and will eagerly go to the mat for his constituents, in this case Republican primary voters.

Having flipped once, it might seem to calculating of him to flip again. But Rudy is a guy with his hears to the ground, and as the lone candidate with experience in the judicial system, is probably well aware of the safety net social conservatives are offering him on strict constructionist judges.


Get Rudy news and analysis in your email once a day:
(Delivered by FeedBurner)



Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

McCain Praises Rudy on LKL

Cognizant of the battle to come, Larry King tonight asked John McCain what he thought of Rudy Giuliani.

McCain called Rudy "a dear friend" and "a true American hero." The full transcript should be available here shortly.

I've heard McCain dropping little asides in the last couple of months about Rudy's heroism. No doubt this is sincere, but don't discount that there may be some element of trying to coax Rudy out of the race and secure his endorsement. His people are clearly running scared of Rudy Giuliani. With Rudy in, his odds of winning are no more than one in four. With him out, they soar above 50%.

Senator, your service in the Vietnam War was genuinely heroic, but after that Gallup poll, not a chance.

Get Rudy news and analysis in your email once a day:
(Delivered by FeedBurner)

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Rudy: Still the Rodney Dangerfield Candidate?

Is Rudy still the candidate who can't get no respect?

At least for the National Journal he's always been, but things seem to be thawing... a bit. In its latest WH'08 rankings, National Journal's Chuck Todd gives Giuliani sole possession of fourth place, bumping Newt. For all the progress we've made in the last month or so, Todd still can't seem to wrap his arms around the idea of Giuliani's genuine grassroots appeal, or the base's stern refusal to nominate McCain. In this, he makes statements that are either intellectually dishonest or willfully blindered.

There's no sign that he's not running, so he's on his own with a solo spot in the rankings. Two words: Ralph Reed. Rudy endorsed him, raised money for him and even recorded a phone call for him. That decision goes to the heart of Giuliani's appeal -- his judgment. State party elites seem to like him and hint that they might excuse his... ideological indiscretions. But there are 10 regular voters for every one member of the elite. That aside, we can't discount his favorability ratings, national name ID and heir-to-Bush creds on terror.
Huh? Is Todd praising Rudy's decision to campaign for Reed or slamming it? Only by reading his column do we see Todd advancing the notion that the Reed endorsement shows Rudy's "tin ear." I disagree. Two months ago, Reed was still leading in the polls. Win or lose, Reed is still an organizational genius who was deeply involved in derailing the Straight Talk Express in South Carolina in 2000. He doesn't have to be popular or even hold elective office to play a key behind the scenes role in the South in '08. I suspect Reed will be one of the reasons South Carolina '00 will look like a garden party compared to '08.

Also, Todd seems to be saying that Rudy is popular with party elites but unpopular with the base. Again: Huh? What ever happened to the wise journalists and party elders skeptical whether or not Rudy's enormous popular appeal will hold up? Have the tables been suddenly reversed? Hasn't Todd read the Gallup poll that shows Rudy way more acceptable to the base than McCain? Apparently not, because the Hotline buried that poll, following its intellectually dishonest assertion that their own Diageo-Hotline poll showed that conservatives were unfamiliar with Rudy's social positions when the poll asked nothing of the kind.

Get Rudy news and analysis in your email once a day:
(Delivered by FeedBurner)



Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Rush Reminds Listeners of When Rudy Booted Arafat

On today's program, Rush Limbaugh noted the hypocrisy of Democrats upset at al-Maliki speaking to Congress, yet who were up in arms at Rudy booting Arafat from Lincoln Center.

Listen here.

Rudy 1, McCain -178, at least when it comes to Rush mentions in the last few months.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Poll Watch - Strategic Vision Florida & Washington

As usual, Rudy dominates the field:

Strategic Vision Florida, July 21-23, 2006

Who is your first choice for the Republican nomination in 2008? (Republicans only)

Rudy Giuliani 40%
John McCain 30%
George Allen 7%
Newt Gingrich 5%
Mitt Romney 4%
Bill Frist 2%
George Pataki 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 9%

If Condoleeza Rice were to run for President in 2008, whom would you support for the Republican nomination in 2008? (Republicans only)

Rudy Giuliani 35%
John McCain 20%
Condoleeza Rice 16%
George Allen 5%
Mitt Romney 4%
Newt Gingrich 3%
Bill Frist 2%
George Pataki 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 12%

Strategic Vision Washington, July 21-23, 2006

For the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination whom would you support? (Republicans Only)

Rudy Giuliani 38%
John McCain 26%
Mitt Romney 9%
Newt Gingrich 5%
Bill Frist 4%
George Allen 2%
Rick Santorum 1%
George Pataki 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 13%

If Condoleeza Rice were to run for President in 2008, whom would you support for the Republican nomination in 2008? (Republicans only)

Rudy Giuliani 34%
John McCain 21%
Condoleeza Rice 16%
Mitt Romney 7%
Newt Gingrich 5%
Bill Frist 2%
George Allen 2%
George Pataki 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 10%

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Rudy the Watercooler Candidate

Earlier today, Rudy Giuliani sparked a raging live-blog at RedState's RedHot and Rudy diaries seemto be overtaking the early flurry of Romney diaries. At the end of the day, I think Rudy will be just fine because I sense there are just more people (from all corners of the GOP) who would crawl on glass to support him than there are for McCain, Romney, Allen, etc. all of whom seem to the "default" candidates of the head, not the heart.

This thread on tonight's RedHot is a perfect case-in-point:

Sounds Exactly Like My In-Laws [machiavel]
It's much the same with my in-laws. They're solid Republicans from the Midwest, primary voters, Rush Limbaugh listeners, and not very interest-group driven.

And at more than one family occasion, it's been "I hope Giuliani runs."

Posted at 07/25/2006 07:45:59 PM EST - #

Re: Rudy [Crank]
I've had roughly the same conversation with my wife, notwithstanding the fact that my wife is really more of a pro-lifer than a Republican.
Posted at 07/25/2006 07:41:56 PM EST - #

Actual Daly Family Dinner Conversation [Dales]

Very fitting, considering the Giuliani debate from earlier on here.

Me (following up on a politics question from my wife): "I think the 2008 Republican primary is going to be very, very interesting."

My wife: "I hope it is Giuliani."

Me, after some crosstalk with the kids: "He's pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control."

My wife: "He is? Wait a minute, I thought he was a Republican."

Me: "He is. There are pro-choice Republicans. There are pro-gay marriage Republicans. There are all sorts of Republicans."

My wife: "That doesn't make sense to me. Still, I'd rather him than Hillary."

My daughter: "Why wouldn't you want Hillary?"

My wife: "I just don't think she is very honest. I hope it is Rudy. I want someone who can beat her.

Posted at 07/25/2006 07:38:51 PM EST - #
I hope this doesn't come across as too rah-rah and echo-chamberish, but these three simultaneous comments confirm what I've seen in the blogosphere and offline. Republicans seem genuinely excited about Rudy. They're buzzing about him at the watercooler and the dinner table. They're talking to their friends about him. Outside of a few consultant-types, I have detected no such spontaneous outpouring for McCain.

This is why you have stuff like the Gallup poll, which shows him far and away as the most exciting nominee for Republicans. This is why you have anecdotes like the one from the Ryan Sager's piece yesterday, where an Atlanta-based pollster admits he couldn't get very many Christian conservative Rudy supporters to budge when he dredged up all the dirt for them to see. That's why you see fewer Rudy supporters defecting to an alternative like Condi in Strategic Vision polls.

I have no way of proving this until he actually runs, but I think people are going to be surprised at how solid Rudy's support winds up being. It's not going to be the wavering conservatives who haven't learned about his past positions. It's going to be people who are sold and know what they want. In fact, I'd bet that the main knock on Rudy supporters (they're highly wavering and driven by name-ID) actually applies more to "supporters" of the default "frontrunner" McCain.

It's just a hunch -- but one that all the current polling seems to hint pretty strongly at.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

100% of Republicans Don’t Endorse a Kate O’Beirne Candidacy

I finally received my copy of the latest issue of National Review in the mail today- the one with the infamous Rudy/Marilyn Monroe photo on the cover.

The article really doesn’t add anything new to the debate regarding Rudy’s presumptive presidential campaign. We get the same tired ”Rudy’s too liberal”; or the patronizing ”Once the ignorant Iowegans find out who Rudy really is, he will lose his standing in the polls” arguments.

One particularly intellectually dishonest argument does need to be addressed. After citing various polls showing Rudy with significant support, O’Beirne makes the following “point”:

“…yet about 70 percent of likely Republican voters don’t endorse a potential Giuliani candidacy for president.”

I’m not sure that this argument would have made it past the vetting of a high school debate coach, so I’m rather suprised it made it past the editors of the most respected conservative magazine in America.

By this argument, we should discount a McCain, Allen, Romney, Gingrich, and every other Republican candidate in the 2008 race as they have either near, or far less of a percentage of Republicans who “don’t endorse” their candidacies.

To those who may believe that O’Beirne is referring to a poll(s) which show that 70% of likely Republican voters do not want Hizzoner to run for president, please do an internet search to try to find such a poll. They simply do not exist. Giuliani consistently tops polls of Republicans that gauge overall favorability. In fact, Giuliani is viewed as an acceptable presidential nominee by 7 out of 10 Republicans.

This intellectual sleight of hand casts a dark shadow over the entire article, making it appear more like a “hit piece” than journalistic analysis.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Watching the '08 Money

Did you know that Rudy has more money he could roll into a potential '08 bid than any other Republican save for George Allen?

He does. He's got the $1.4 million for his leadership PAC, but also $2 million left over from his 2000 Senate campaign. In just a month, Rudy has been able to nearly equal McCain's cash-on-hand figure, and he hasn't had to venture outside of New York to do it. To be fair, McCain's Straight Talk America PAC has amassed $5 million through the second quarter, and is much more shrewd in targeting campaign donations down to county parties in traditional locales like Iowa and Michigan, but also in unexpected places like Alabama.

The only Republican who has more than Rudy is George Allen, who has $6.6 million in his campaign fund, but he'll be using much of that in what is expected to be a competitive re-election battle.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Monday, July 24, 2006

N.H. Insider Poll: Allen First, Then Rudy

I agree with Kavon here. I'm not sure how much stock we should put in this, but the fact that the sample is composed largely of New Hampshire activists makes me take it a little bit more seriously than I would otherwise.

U.S. Sen. George Allen of Virginia came out on top in a N.H. Insider poll that asked people whom they would vote for if the 2008 Republican presidential primary were held now.

The poll took place between June 8-13, and targeted N.H. Republican insiders, activists and leaders via e-mail, said Stephen DeMaura, founder of the N.H. Insider Web site.

“That’s where a majority of those responses are from,” DeMaura said of the poll results.

Five hundred and two votes were cast. Computer software automatically calculated percentages, and each vote was added to the tally.

Allen claimed the highest number of votes with 16 percent.

Bill Bozin, spokesman for George Allen, said, “The sentiments are greatly appreciated, but Sen. Allen is focused on his re-election in Virginia.”

Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani came in second with 13 percent, and Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney was third with 12 percent of the vote.

Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee both received a 2 percent of the vote.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Rudy the Frontrunner

As The Bij noted earlier today, Ryan Sager's Rudy opus in the Post today has that "just go read it now" feel that no amount of commentary can do justice to.

Read. It. Now.

Sager methodically deconstructs every anti-Rudyism with (gasp) actual reporting. Is it true Rudy will get mauled in the South? Well, let's talk to real Southerners and see.

This part in particular I found really fascinating:

* But McCain would trounce Rudy in those states if people knew about his positions on abortion and gay rights (and his marital history), right? Wrong again. Strategic Vision CEO David Johnson told me of some "push polling" in Florida and Georgia - where his firm told voters about Rudy's positions and marital problems and about McCain's support for campaign-finance reform and working with Democrats against President Bush.

The effect on Rudy's numbers, Johnson said, "underwhelmed" his expectations significantly, merely putting the two candidates into a statistical dead heat - not launching the more conventionally conservative (at least on issues like abortion) McCain into the lead. "Some people who identify themselves as strong conservatives, even when we did do the push-poll questions in Georgia and Florida, were still more willing to go with Giuliani," Johnson said. "Strong, Christian conservatives."

So, how does The Note respond to this thoroughly reported and sourced work? By belittling Sager: "In his New York Post column, Ryan Sager declares Giuliani the front-runner for the 2008 Republican nomination. But Sager also seems to not know what a push poll is, so factor that in."

Read the quote again. It was Johnson, the professional pollster, who used the term "push poll." Sager uses the term in quotation marks. The Note's snarky pronunciation is of a piece with the Hotline headline today: "I'm Telling You, He's The Frontrunner!"

From their perches on DeSales Street and at the Watergate, they seem to think of Rudyites as ignorant cranks and are unwilling to brook any evidence-based argument that McCain might not win (when the striking fact the more you dig deeply into polls, the more you see that McCain cannot win). I guess when they've spent the last year or more touting this particularly staid bit of received wisdom, they just can't let go. Just like they couldn't let go of their 1978 view of Reagan and his followers as irrational cranks.

Well, the Reaganites laughed all the way to the White House, and so will we.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

This is the Kind of President I Want!

Take a listen.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Poll Watch: Rudy Turns New York Red

Marist Poll, July 11-14, 2006:

Hillary Clinton outdistances the Democratic primary field among New York Democrats for president in 2008. Most Democrats and a majority of independents generally think she is ideologically about right, neither too liberal nor too conservative. New York voters divide over whether they would like to see her enter the presidential contest in 2008 even though many think she will. But most registered voters, including a majority of Democrats, do not think she is likely to win. In match-ups for the 2008 presidential contest between Democrat Clinton and the leading Republicans, this traditionally blue state becomes competitive with Republican McCain and moves into the red column with Republican Giuliani.

But most registered voters, including a majority of Democrats, do not think she is likely to win. In match-ups for the 2008 presidential contest between Democrat Clinton and the leading Republicans, this traditionally blue state becomes competitive with Republican McCain and moves into the red column with Republican Giuliani.

Both Rudy Giuliani and John McCain put New York’s 31 electoral votes in play for the Republicans against Hillary Clinton. In match-ups against the two top Republican contenders in New York, Senator Clinton trails former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani by 9 points. She runs competitively against Senator John McCain.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Don't Skip This One

Ryan Sager lays out the case for Rudy better than I could.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Saturday, July 22, 2006

Rudy and Reagan

LateFinal's Ed Moltzen makes an excellent point about the NR cover:

Ronald Reagan had posed with a chimpanzee. As an actor, he even appeared on the silver screen in his underwear. He used to be a Democrat - heck, he was a labor activist. And he had gone through a divorce. In 1980, there were still questions about whether or not Republicans and the country in general would trust a divorced leader. "If he can't commit to a wife, how can he commit to running the country?" Believe it or not, that was a question that swirled around then.

But two events put those questions on the far back burner: the Iran hostage crisis, and the advent of 20-percent interest rates.

Republicans loved that Reagan was a hawk on defense, and they loved that he wanted to slash taxes. Divorce? Bonzo? Trifles. We needed someone to stand up to the Soviets and the Ayatollah.

A few years after he was elected president, when Reagan's own son danced on national television in his underwear, and Reagan and his wife issued very supportive statements, it wound up being no big deal. He was The Gipper. Not even Barry Goldwater had snarky remarks.

I suppose if I were in Rudy's camp, I'd try and put out the following. First, it takes cojones supreme self-confidence to pose for a picture like that. And second, we are at war. Sure, this may not look great, but this election is about electing the strongest possible Commander-in-Chief not a lapse in fashion sense.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Poll Watch - Strategic Vision Pennsylvania & Wisconsin

Rudy continues to lead:

Strategic Vision Pennsylvania, July 14-16, 2006

Who is your choice for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008? (Republicans only)

Rudy Giuliani 42%
John McCain 25%
Newt Gingrich 5%
Mitt Romney 5%
Bill Frist 4%
George Allen 3%
Rick Santorum 1%
George Pataki 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 13%

Strategic Vision Wisconsin, July 14-16, 2006

Who is your choice for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008? (Tommy Thompson included; Republicans only)

Rudy Giuliani 26%
John McCain 23%
Tommy Thompson 22%
Mitt Romney 6%
Newt Gingrich 5%
Bill Frist 2%
Rick Santorum 1%
George Pataki 1%
George Allen 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 12%


Who is your choice for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008? (Tommy Thompson excluded; Republicans only)

Rudy Giuliani 36%
John McCain 33%
Mitt Romney 7%
Newt Gingrich 6%
George Allen 3%
Bill Frist 2%
Rick Santorum 1%
George Pataki 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 10%

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Friday, July 21, 2006

Guess This Would Explain the Rudy-Ralph Alliance, Huh?

Another instance of me playing catch-up here, but it looks like Ralph Reed is blaming John McCain for his defeat. Reed has only one person to blame, and that's himself, but this is interesting nonetheless:

Here's the view of what happened from the Reed camp: Once the Abramoff stuff exploded, it was going to be a very tough road for Reed. Glen Bolger did a poll for the campaign in January showing that it was possible for Reed to win, but his negatives were very high and he would have to squeak by. Reed had a choice to make, and decided to stay in the race and try to make it happen. In the end, soft Republicans appear to have broken very strongly against him in the suburbs. There may have been some cross-over Democratic votes in the open primary, but that alone can't account for a 54-46% loss. Reed's connection to the Abramoff stuff had broken back in the summer of 2004, so it couldn't have been predicted that it would be such a huge deal even now. But it was. The Reed camp blames John McCain for playing payback for his 2000 primary defeat with a campaign of leaks, and the press, of course, was happy to pile on.
I guess this speculation posted at Peach Pundit a while back was right. Reed was angry at McCain for his role in Abramoff investigation (among other things) so he reaches out to McCain's prime competitor for the nomination. Not George Allen. Not Mitt Romney. But Rudy.

A wounded animal can sometimes be the most dangerous one, and paybacks are hell (as Reed himself learned). I personally look forward to seeing what role Reed carves out for himself in the 2008 South Carolina primary.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Rudy Runs Strong in Free Republic Straw Poll

I hadn't seen this, but given the eyebrow-raising coverage of Freeper polls in the past, I guess I should have.

The Freepers recently ran their own Presidential straw poll, which found Rudy running fourth. Normally that's bad news, but in a race where Tom Tancredo runs first, I'd say it's pretty remarkable. (Look at who's second to last.)

Tom Tancredo 26.6% 1,610
George Allen 19.1% 1,159
Newt Gingrich 17.7% 1,071
Rudy Giuliani 13.2% 802
Jeb Bush 9.4% 568
Sit it out 4.0% 241
Mitt Romney 3.5% 214
Mike Pence 3.0% 179
John McCain 2.7% 161
Bill Frist 0.9% 52

100.1%
6,057

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

National Review Set to Abandon Conservatism in '08?

rudynr.jpgIt's begun. The long knives are out. The minute Rudy says he's running, and the week it's discovered that a conservative Republican electorate finds Rudy to be the most acceptable nominee, National Review splashes the drag photo on its cover in a largely reporting-free polemic by Kate O'Beirne.

My first reaction: Better now than in late '07. This photo should be brandished liberally in '06 so that it's old news once the campaign gets underway.

In one respect, I agree with Hotline On Call. The real story isn't this conventionally unwise cover piece by O'Beirne. It's the story that accompanies it, by Byron York, on McCain's efforts in South Carolina.

The York piece is noteworthy for two reasons. The first is a poll by McCain adviser Richard Quinn purporting to show a McCain lead in the Palmetto state, with McCain 36%, Giuliani 21%, Gingrich 9%, Frist 4%, Allen 3%, and Romney 1%. This is an internal McCain poll that the McCainites chose to publish, so assume McCain is actually up by 10 or less (if Rudy actually won South Carolina, I'd be shocked -- and the race would be over). Two things here: Does anyone believe that Allen won't play a big role in South Carolina? And who's to say that Allen won't get his inevitable growth at the expense of McCain, making this a Rudy vs. Allen race? FWIW, Rudy has led consistently in independent polling of neighboring Georgia.

The second is York's conclusion: "At least right now, John McCain looks to be in the best position to take the prize. If he can keep a steady strain."

So National Review trash talks Rudy while resigning itself to a McCain coronation. I fail to see how this advances the conservative cause, because a McCain nomination -- the end-result of National Review's reportorial stance -- would be a catastrophe for conservatism. Rudy may be wrong on two or three issues, but McCain is wrong on almost everything else.

Memo to KLo, Ramesh, York, et al.: right now, Rudy is the only guy who can knock McCain out of the race before Iowa. Unite with us now to take out McCain, and then rally around a social conservative to your heart's content. In fact I'll offer this free advice: it will almost certainly be easier for a movement conservative to mobilize against Rudy than it would be against McCain.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

McCain's House of Cards

Conventional wisdom goes that Rudy will be eaten alive by the hard right once he enters the primaries, leaving McCain as the sole contender who can beat Hillary. But can McCain build a constituency out from the conservatives who will putatively abandon Rudy (outside of his paid staff)? The Gallup poll, Strategic Vision state polls, and a new blogosphere poll all suggest that the answer is a clear and resounding "No."

Savvy '08 watchers were rocked this week by the "surprising" news that McCain is found unacceptable by 4 in 10 Republicans. This was no surprise to those of us who have been watching the Internet for months. Now, a new blogosphere poll has come out mirroring the Gallup poll, and it not only asks how acceptable the candidates are, but asks their supporters to rate themselves on a conservative scale from 1 to 10.

And with nearly 4,000 votes cast, John McCain has the most liberal support base (6.01 conservative) of any candidate, except for Chuck Hagel (5.89). Rudy's support base is nearly a point more conservative (6.88), which places his supporter base in the solid mainstream of the Republican Party. Other candidates of note who rated more highly are Mitt Romney (7.02), Bill Frist (7.23), and George Allen (7.41). Rudy's supporters look more like Sam Brownback's (7.45) than John McCain's. Rudy only gets net negative ratings in the 10% or so who categorize themselves as "ultraconservative" and even 36% of them approve of his candidacy.

Oh, and this solidly conservative group of bloggers find Rudy to be acceptable by 61% to 31%, while McCain is unacceptable by 69% to 22%.

This poll merely confirms something else we had known for a while: what support McCain does get comes from the GOP left. These people either won't vote, or will gravitate to whomever else becomes the maverick flavor of the month as McCain rehabs himself into a Falwellian.

We see this hinted at in the Strategic Vision polls, all of which show McCain bleeding support once a candidate like Condi is entered into the race. Condi is somewhat of an enigma, a default choice for the wavering or unaffiliated. McCain's RINO supporters seem to fall disproportionately in this category.

Counterintuitively, Rudy's support seems harder to budge and more grounded in the mainstream of the party, with the people who attend Lincoln Day dinners, walk precincts, and generally decide primaries.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Strategic Vision: +17 in Powerhouse PA, +3 in WI

New polls from Strategic Vision. First, Rudy's opening a big lead in Pennsylvania:

20. Who is your choice for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008? (Republicans only)
Rudy Giuliani 42%
John McCain 25%
Newt Gingrich 5%
Mitt Romney 5%
Bill Frist 4%
George Allen 3%
Rick Santorum 1%
George Pataki 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 13%
Rudy does very well in big states with lots of delegates. The trick is that few of them are early primary states. Ohio (potential firewall), New York (which should be a gimme) and California are all on Super Tuesday. Only Michigan, which is being bought and paid for as we speak, and is also the original home state of Mitt Romney, comes earlier. The big question is: will Florida change its primary date?

He also holds down a slight lead in the Badger State:
21. Who is your choice for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008? (Tommy Thompson excluded; Republicans only)
Rudy Giuliani 36%
John McCain 33%
Mitt Romney 7%
Newt Gingrich 6%
George Allen 3%
Bill Frist 2%
Rick Santorum 1%
George Pataki 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 10%
I don't typically report on SV's Condi results anymore, because I consider the practice of adding a candidate to a second ballot to be invalid. It is interesting to note that in every state, she takes overwhelmingly from McCain. More on what this means in the next post, but McCain's early supporters do seem to be shopping around quite a bit, don't they?

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Thursday, July 20, 2006

Rudy's Record Sets the Standard

From the Winnipeg Sun:

You may not know it from all the headlines, but Winnipeg was making some progress in recent years in bringing down violent crime in the city.

No huge leaps to be sure. Rather a slow but steady decline in the total number of "crimes against persons," as the police categorize them.

They include homicide, attempted murder, sexual assault, other sexual offences assault, abduction and robbery.

When you add up the number of reported crimes in those categories, the total number fell every year from 2000 to 2004 for a total of 9.5%.

It's no Rudy Giuliani feat -- the former tough-on-crime New York City mayor credited with slashing crime by more than half in the 1990s in what used to be a crime-ridden city. But it's better than a kick in the fanny.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Rudy Continues to Lead

Overlooked in the highly fascinating Gallup poll that finds McCain unacceptable to many Republicans is the raw ballot test, which continues to show Rudy with a small lead.

2006 Jun 1-4

Republican
registered voters


All Republicans


%

%

Rudy Giuliani

29

28

John McCain

24

24

Newt Gingrich

8

8

Mitt Romney

6

7

Bill Frist

6

6

George Allen

5

5

Sam Brownback

2

2

Mike Huckabee

2

2

George Pataki

1

1


Other

3

3

None

4

4

All/any

1

1

No opinion

9

10


When the sample is tightened just slightly to include just voters (30 respondents), Rudy's lead grows by a bit.

This Gallup poll is perfectly consistent with the last one that also showed a 4-5 point Rudy lead. Yet lazy reporters continue to report on McCain as being "at or near the top" of most primary polls. The AP's Iowa reporter Mike Glover virtually congratulated him on being the frontrunner based on polls.

If that is the case, McCain is an unusually weak frontrunner. In the past, those that have earned the title of frontrunner have been running in the 40's while their main competition is in the teens or even single digits. McCain is not the frontrunner in the commonly understood definition of the term.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

MSM Buries Gallup's McCain Bombshell

How did the Beltway media react to the revelation that "front-runner" John McCain would be rejected by 41% of his own party, while Rudy Giuliani is the most acceptable nominee in either party?

Hotline On Call: Nothing.

The Fix: Nada. (Maybe after he gets back from the clambake.)

ABC's The Note: Buried under Gov. Huntsman forsaking Romney for McCain.

The Hotline's Blogometer: Zilch. They did have a piece on "McCain: Odds on Favorite" though.

Failing that, the encyclopedic daily edition of the Hotline. Nothing in its '08 section. Buried as item #52, with no McCain reference in the headline.

Remember, these are the same people who in March did a poll that found that Bush approvers would overwhelmingly back Rudy over McCain and spun it as bad news for Hizzoner.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Meme Alert: Weyrich Espouses the Litany

Paul Weyrich weighs in on the 2008 GOP nomination contest and seems unhappy with all of the choices.

This article mentions several of the meme's perpetuated by inside-the-beltway types regarding 2008. Let's take a look:

Arizona Senator John S. McCain, III is everywhere. He virtually lives at NBC. If not there how about CNN. And talk shows. And late night shows. Oh, how the media loves him. A maverick who came close in 2000, he is looking to make one more run at the Presidency. And at the same moment, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani says he is thinking very seriously about running for President. Rudy, too, is loved by the media. How many times have you heard "America's Mayor" in introducing him. He is available to any network at the drop of a hat. My fondest hope is that they both run because they will be going after the same voters. Those voters within the GOP are driven by one issue alone and that is Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY).

The belief that McCain and Rudy are supported by and are pursuing the same bloc of GOP primary voters is simply not supported by the data that we have available to us so far (see here and here). McCain support seems to be coming from the moderate/liberal wing of the GOP, the Christine Todd Whitman "Republican Main Street Partnership" types, where's Rudy's support IS from the conservative wing of the Republican Party.

To cast aside issues of great importance from immigration to right to life to guns to marriage and many more merely for a theoretical match-up in the media is stupid to say the least. Polls I have seen show McCain edging Hillary by only a point or two. The same for Rudy. We don't know for certain that Clinton will run in 2008.

Rudy edging Hillary by a point or two? I don't think so:

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. May 16-18, 2006.

Rudy Giuliani 49% Hillary Clinton 40%

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. March 14-15, 2006

Rudy Giuliani 51% Hillary Clinton 39%

This is the first time in many years that neither party has a presumed nominee, although with the Democrats Hillary is well ahead at the moment. Think about it. Ronald W. Reagan became the presumed nominee after his close but failed attempt in 1976. So Reagan won in 1980 and again in 1984. Then Reagan's hand-picked Vice President, George Herbert Walker Bush, won a convincing victory in 1988. He sought reelection in 1992 and went down miserably. Senator Robert J. Dole was the 1996 nominee because it was "his turn," not because anyone thought he could win. Meanwhile George W. Bush had been elected and re-elected as Governor of Texas, and he ran for President in 2000 and won one of the closest contests in our history. Now comes 2008. There is no presumed nominee.If both of these potential candidates were on the primary ballots in most states the pragmatic voters, those driven solely by Hillary fear, would cancel out each other.
I would both agree and disagree with Weyrich here. I do believe that Republicans themselves have no presumed nominee. However, after the midterms I believe you wil see a concerted effort by the MSM to brand McCain as the "presumed nominee" based upon his strength in polls and GOP's penchant of nominating the candidate who came in 2nd place last time. What a shock the MSM will be in for when the actual votes start coming in!

The problem with Weyrich's analysis here again is his belief that Rudy and McCain are competing with each other for the same voting bloc within the GOP itself. Regardless, after Rudy and McCain declare the MSM will go into full "Rudy vs. McCain" mode, endlessly trumpeting the 2008 GOP nomination fight as the "Battle of the 800 lbs. Gorillas". How many votes are left for Allen, Romney, Huckabee, Frist, etc..., to split among themselves if Rudy and McCain are eating up the majority of the vote?

If conservatives do as they did in 1988 the more liberal candidate would win. That candidate happened to be Bush '41, who was viewed by non-activist voters as being a third Reagan term. Bush was not really a liberal but he was not a conservative either. That is why he lost. The one thing voters knew about him was "read my lips. No new taxes." Then when he sought the largest tax increase in American history voters felt betrayed. If conservatives had had a single candidate in 1988 Bush could have taken second place in the Republican primaries.
With Brownback, Allen, Romney, Huckabee, and Frist all competing as a So-Con candidate, 2008 appears to be unfolding just asWeyrich described 1988 but with perhaps even more options available to split the vote.

One that I find interesting is Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas. He is a former Baptist minister, who certainly still knows how to preach. I have heard him give spellbinding speeches to political groups. Certainly the religious right would like him, he is their kind of guy. His record on taxes is not good. But it seems he now has seen the light on that issue. If we are not to make the perfect the enemy of the good then Huckabee looks attractive. He is sound on most issues. He is likeable, like Reagan. He comes from Hope, Arkansas, from whence Clinton comes. No one was more outspoken against Clinton despite Clinton's continued popularity in Arkansas than was Huckabee.
How strange it is to see the founder of the Heritage Foundation show support for a candidate whose has been branded as one of the "Republican's Who Love Taxes".

Of course there is one 2008 candidate who can unite the GOP- a candidate who is: the most popular politician in America, the most accomplished conservative in the country, and who is the most acceptable 2008 candidate to his fellow Republicans by a large margin.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Rudy's the Frontrunner! 4 in 10 Republicans Find McCain Unacceptable

Memo to the wizened Beltway insiders at the Hotline, the Note, and the Washington Post. THIS is why us Rudyites keep on insisting that our guy is the man to beat, and why we get so cranky when McCain is looked at as anything but a nonfactor. The Gallup poll finally asks the question most of us have been wondering about:

A new Gallup poll asking Americans theirs views of 25 leading candidates for president in 2008 found that one of the Republican frontrunners, Sen. John McCain, is judged "unacceptable" by 41% of those in his own party.

A bare majority, 55%, find him "acceptable." In contrast, 73% of Republicans give their okay to rival Rudy Giuliani. Condoleezza Rice got the thumb's up from 68%.
Most of the opposition to McCain comes from conservatives, possibly explaining his moves in that direction lately.

Interestingly, the Republicans with the highest "unacceptable" ratings are Vice President Cheney (61%) and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (52%).
John Weaver is in a world of hurt right now.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Chris Matthews...Right Wing Shill

Media Matters blasts another hole through the armor of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy by exposing NBC’s Chris Matthews as a Rudy stooge:

Chris Matthews continued his practice of praising former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani as a strong potential presidential candidate in 2008, comparing him to President John F. Kennedy. And when NBC News chief foreign correspondent Andrea Mitchell attempted to bring up criticism Giuliani received for pushing President Bush to nominate former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik to the post of Homeland Security secretary, Matthews interrupted her and changed the subject.

Matthews suggested that both Kennedy and Giuliani "prove[d] themselves in moments that matter" -- Giuliani in responding to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York, and "Kennedy before the Cuban missile crisis."

When NBC News chief foreign correspondent Andrea Mitchell attempted to bring up one such incident -- criticism Giuliani received for pushing President Bush to nominate former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik to the post of Homeland Security secretary -- Matthews interrupted her and changed the subject, calling on New York Times columnist David Brooks to explain whether there will be a "real long-term fight" for the Republican nomination.

Media Matters was not able to discover whether Ken Mehlman or Karl Rove where actually present on-set to direct Matthew’s commentary, or whether they had instructed him before the show began.

...and of course, Andrea Mitchell's mentioning of the Bernie Kerik nomination, a pathetic attempt at smearing Rudy which had little to do with the discussion at hand, had nothing to do with Matthews ignoring it.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Monday, July 17, 2006

Addressing the Abortion Meme

When discussing the candidates for the 2008 Republican nomination for President, invariably at least one pundit will declare that "No Pro-Choice candidate can ever will the GOP nomination". Having stated this "known fact", the pundit will usually go on to definitively dismiss the chances of one or more of the candidates in the GOP field.

The fact that an openly Pro-Choice candidate could never win the Republican nomination will not be debated here. Even the most liberal Republican must concede this point. However, the problem lies with the inherent dishonestly, the "sleight of hand" if you will, of the statement. The real question is whether a candidate that has espoused Pro-Choice ideals in the past can win the Republican nomination for President if they have properly reformed their opinion to fall in line with the majority opinion of the Republican Party. Or perhaps more succinctly: Is a Pro-Choice Presidential candidate able to modify their position on abortion to appease the Republican base? I believe that history shows the not only to be possible, but the norm in the Republican nomination process.

Due to the thesis in question, I will include as evidence policy enacted, signed, or championed during any elected term of the candidates detailed here. The statement in question is in itself a declaration of purity on this issue. Surely then, any legislation signed as an elected official that would serve to increase the number of abortions or further the Pro-Choice agenda in any way would be viewed by the "True Believers" of the GOP as evidence of softness on this issue and will be treated as such here.

Not discussed here will be any impact of nominating a formerly Pro-Choice candidate the 2008 general election. This essay discusses the impact on the Republican nomination process alone.

Past Nominees

Let's begin by taking a look at the first post-Roe open contest-

1980

1980 was essentially a two-man race from the very beginning, 1976 2nd place finisher Pro-Life Ronald Reagan versus Pro-Choice George H.W. Bush.

George H.W. Bush was the liberal candidate in the race. Dr. Larry M. Bartels recalls Bush's 1980 candidacy in his seminal "Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice":


"By 1980 I was ready to begin (working on this book) again, and I remember being delighted as well as provoked when three different friends-all reasonably sophisticated liberal Democrats-began to talk enthusiatically about George (H.W.) Bush in the weeks following his dramatic emergence in the 1980 Iowa Republican Caucuses"


Bush went on to defeat Ronald Reagan in Iowa before his campaign was derailed in New Hampshire.

Bush becomes the model for future Republican presidential candidates. After his selction as VP, Bush was able to reform his abortion stance in order to become acceptable to the Republican base when it was his turn in 1988. By that time, not even Evangelical Minister Pat Robertson could do enough damage to Bush on this issue to deny him the nomination.

But what about the the man at the top of the ticket?

Almost no one denies that Ronald Reagan detested abortion personally (although there are dissenters out there). In 1983, President Reagan submitted an unsolicted Op-Ed to The National Review entitled "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation" where he argued that, "We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life — the unborn — without diminishing the value of all human life."

However, Reagan's actions as Governor of California would certainly be cause for controversy in today's nomination process. As biographer Lou Cannon notes in his chronicle of Reagan's time as Governor "The Role of a Lifetime":


"Reagan was not as obsessive about anti-abortion legislation as he often seemed. Early in his California governorship he had signed a permissive abortion bill that has resulted in more than a million abortions. Afterward, he inaccurately blamed this outcome on doctors, saying that they had deliberately misinterpreted the law. When Reagan ran for president, he won backing from pro-life forces by advocating a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother. Reagan’s stand was partly a product of political calculation, as was his tactic after he was elected of addressing the annual pro-life rally held in Washington by telephone so that he would not be seen with the leaders of the movement on the evening news. While I do not doubt Reagan’s sincerity in advocating an anti-abortion amendment, he invested few political resources toward obtaining this goal."


1996

This bring us to the next open nomination, that of Senator Bob Dole in 1996. Dole was able to gain the nomination over more socially conservative candidates Pat Buchanan and Alan Keyes.

Social Conservatives were uneasy regarding Senator Bob Dole's abortion stance from the very beginning of the campaign. Noted as the only person who could "could bridge the gap between the moderate and conservative wings of the Kansas Republican Party." Many conservatives wondered about Dole's commitment to the Pro-Life movement.

1996 perhaps marks the highwater mark of influence of Pro-Choice adherents on the Republican Party, with politicians such as Christine Todd Wittman, among many others, loudly calling for a Pro-Choice running mate, and warning of impending doom if the GOP did not take a more moderate abortion stance.

Anti-abortion activists found their fears confirmed as soon as Dole won the nomination. Dole openly advocated moderating the Republican Party platform adopt a "declaration of tolerance for divergent points of view" regarding abortion.

2000

The 2000 election brings us the most Pro-Life field of candidates since Roe. However, once again the frontrunners were not without their problems in this regard.

Texas Governor George W. Bush was responsible for appointing the majority of judges on a Texas Supreme Court that ruled the Texas Parental Notification statute unconstitutional. Bush also stated that he did not believe that the country was "ready" to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Arizona Senator John McCain, despite having a lifetime record being strognly Pro-Life, created doubt in the minds of GOP primary voters when it came to light that he privately assured a group of San Francisco newspaper editors that he would not make the overturning of Roe vs. Wade a priority in his administration, as well as vocally attacking the leaders of the Religious Right. These two actions served to cancel out whatever gains McCain may have enjoyed by gaining the support of retiring 2000 GOP candidate Gary Bauer, the strongest So-Con candidate in the race.

This illustration of past Republican Presidential candidates shows us that a GOP Presidential nominee need not be 100% ideologically pure in regards to abortion. Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, and Gary Bauer have all failed in their attempts at the nomination over candidates with much weaker Pro-Life credentials. However, what it does show is that candidates are able to modify their abortion stances to become "acceptable enough" to the Republican base.

At no time will this history be of greater relevance than in 2008, which sports perhaps the weakest field of Presidential frontrunners in regards to abortion since 1976.

Let''s take a look at the 2008 Republican field (excluding media frontrunner John McCain whose abortion stance was discussed above).

Mitt Romney

Governor Mitt Romney entered politics in 1994, challenging Massachusettes Senator Ted Kennedy.

In a televised debate with Sentor Ted Kennedy, Romney explained that "regardless of one's beliefs about choice, you would hope it would be safe and legal."

Romney went on to explain how he had come to his opinion:


"Many years ago, I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that.With my mom, that was a personal thing because we had a tragedy close to us -- not in our immediate family, but a young girl who actually was engaged and had an illegal abortion and died. She was a beautiful, talented young gal we all loved. And it pretty much ruined the parents -- their only daughter. You would do anything not to repeat that."

Referring again to that incident:


"I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it."

In his 2002 campaign for Governor, Romney explained that:


"On a personal basis, I don't favor abortion," he said. "However, as governor of the commonwealth, I will protect a woman's right to choose under the laws of the country and the commonwealth. That's the same position I've had for many years."


George Allen

George Allen entered the Virginia Governorship as "pro-choice in the first trimester and opposed to overturning Roe vs. Wade."

As recently as his 2000 Senatorial campaign, Allen has expressed his opinion that "...a woman should be allowed to have an abortion only until the point in pregnancy when there is a medical evidence of a heartbeat and brain activity." In a Project Vote Smart survey, Allen again reaffirmed that "abortion should be illegal when the fetus is viable, with or without life support" and "[abortion should be legal]...when pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, when the life of the woman is endangered, and gross fetal abnormality." Some Pro-Life advocates have noted that "the point in pregnancy when there is medical evidence of a heartbeat and brain actility accounts for 98% of all abortions."

Hizzoner is on record as supporting abortion in the past. His 2008 campaign has began in earnest. The modification of his abortion stance will likely soon begin as well. With Rudy's
track record of being the most accomplished conservative since Ronald Reagan, and his stratospheric public approval ratings, pundits should discount him at their own peril

In conclusion, I hope the effect of this essay, for those who have taken the time to read it, is to show that rarely are there any ideologically pure frontrunners in a GOP nominating contest. It is useless for we as conservatives to childishly point the finger at the other's candidates and play the "my candidate is more Pro-Life than yours" game.

Anyone who wins the Republican nomination will be naturally constrained by their base from any Pro-Choice leanings, especially in the post Harriet Miers world where websites maintain fantasy footballesque rankings of the most desired conservative Supreme Court nominees.

Spending, taxes, and immigration are critical issues where there is a wide divergence of opinion and track records amongst the 2008 candidates. The abortion issue will take care of itself.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Olmert Cites Giuliani in Israel's Hour of Need

This is not a big item in the conventional political sense, but I did find it interesting that Ehud Olmert mentioned Rudy Giuliani in his national address today. Olmert recalled making a condolence call after the 9/11 attacks, and Giuliani pointed to the perserverence of the people of Jerusalem as a model for how Americans should respond to terror.

It's often said that Giuliani seems most necessary in a 9/11 or Katrina-style disaster. As we approach 2008, these crises seem to keep on coming, and if we think 2008 will be domestic policy election we've got another thing coming. Though not an endorsement, Olmert's mention today reminds us that Rudy is already a world leader. And if I may editorialize, he's exactly the kind of leader you'd want to have in trying times like these.

Address to the Knesset by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert

I recall a conversation with Rudy Giuliani, who was Mayor of New York during the terror attacks of September 2001. I called to offer encouragement to him and the residents of New York following the collapse of the Twin Towers, and he replied: "Ehud, if the New Yorkers can withstand it like the Jerusalemites do, then we will defeat terrorism".

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Poll Watch - Strategic Vision New Jersey

Not suprisingly, Rudy continues to dominate the field in New Jersey:

Strategic Vision - New Jersey, July 7-9, 2006

Who would you support for the Republican nomination in 2008? (Republicans only)
Rudy Giuliani 47%
John McCain 30%
Mitt Romney 5%
Newt Gingrich 3%
George Pataki 2%
Bill Frist 2%
Rick Santorum 1%
George Allen 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 8%

Who is your choice for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008 with Condoleezza Rice included? (Republicans only)

Rudy Giuliani 43%
John McCain 21%
Condoleezza Rice 12%
Mitt Romney 4%
Newt Gingrich 3%
George Pataki 2%
Bill Frist 2%
Rick Santorum 1%
George Allen 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 10%

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Play Golf with Rudy and Mitt Romney on August 10

At least that's how I read this...

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Sunday, July 16, 2006

The Group Blog Era Begins

With Rudy looking more and more serious about running, I've decided to bring another hand on deck to help cover all the latest and provide serious insider-level analysis. Please welcome Kavon W. Nikrad (a/k/a The Bij), who has been blogging about Rudy longer than I have.

Kavon is the founder of the excellent Race42008 blog, where I also blog. In May, he traveled 250 miles to Iowa to see what Rudy was really made of, and his belief in the man has only grown since.

Welcome, Kavon!

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Dem Says Don't Bet Against Rudy

Typically, liberals are the first to dismiss Rudy's prospects, holding that the Republican base consists of a bunch of mind-numbed robots who will reject a candidate like Rudy. (This would be like saying Hillary can't be nominated because of her stance on the war, which lately has been more central to their base than abortion is to ours -- which is patently ridiculous.)

Karle Agne says otherwise in the Daily News:

The first involves a relatively small circle dominated by large corporate interests and kingmakers of the party establishment. The winner of this invisible primary gets a tremendous financial advantage and big media buzz, and — from Nixon in 1968 to Bush in 2000 — has never lost the Republican nomination.

The pragmatic powerbroker leaders don't trust John McCain, but they know they need a winner. When they look at Giuliani's security credentials, broad appeal and a list of his recent consulting clients, they'll know they have a man they can count on.

Leave aside the paranoia about sinister corporate interests, and this is basically right. Either Rudy or McCain will emerge as the establishment choice. And as we have argued numerous times, Rudy brings you the same electability as McCain does (and possibly more), without engendering a full-scale revolt in all parts of the base.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Saturday, July 15, 2006

Religious Right Persecution Syndrome

Howie Kurtz brings up the Rudy question... before quickly dismissing it, stating pre-emptively that a "pro-choice" and "pro-gay rights" candidate cannot win the Republican nomination. Very often, media figures repeat this assertion with no analysis and no justification, as if it were a self-evident fact. But is it?

To be sure, Rudy supporters need to confront some brutal truths. There is a large segment of the Republican base -- perhaps 30 to 40 percent -- for whom social issues are a very big deal and who will not be able to reconcile themselves to Rudy's past positions on these subjects. Assume that Rudy starts out with 40% of primary voters who will never support him.

But what about the other 60?

The truth is, though many Republicans won't be able to bring themselves to vote for Rudy, the number of Republicans who will never vote for McCain is almost certainly larger. Their reasons may not be as sexy, but they run the gamut -- immigration, CFR, Gang of 14, taxes, pandering to the MSM, disloyalty to the President, and most likely some combination of all of the above. However, the media isn't able to process the depth of base anger towards McCain because it doesn't fit the one-dimensional social-issue prism through which they view everything in Republican politics.

Get Rudy news and analysis in your email once a day:
(Delivered by FeedBurner)



Every time the Republican platform is debated, it has to just be about abortion. Everytime a RINO Republican is challenged, it has to just be about abortion. Everytime Republicans come out of the woodwork and vote in higher numbers than Democrats, it's always because of abortion, gays, and "values voters," and never about taxes, judges, and the war.

As a social conservative and member of the base, this has always puzzled me, because it's really NOT all about abortion. Social issue voters are about a third of the Republican coalition, fiscal conservatives being another keystone group, as are military/national security conservatives. They don't utterly dominate everything, even in Iowa, contrary to popular belief.

And recent indications are that pure-play social issues are losing their potency in cementing the Republican coalition. Let's look at the issues that have and haven't "excited" conservatives in the recent past.

The Federal Marriage Amendment failed to excite the conservative base, and was even attacked as a red-meat ploy to divert attention from the issue that really mattered -- namely immigration. The Schiavo bill also failed to energize the conservative base. Stem cells is another one -- you hear barely a peep about it from the activist Christian groups on the right.

Calls to build a wall along the border, on the other hand, have excited the conservative base, as have calls to cut federal pork. The Roberts and Alito nominations were mildly exciting to the conservative base -- but they brought to the table the whole package: the prospect of better jurisprudence on Roe (social conservatives), Kelo (economic conservatives) and Hamdan (national security conservatives). Conservatives have taken a keen interest in the judiciary because activist judges are an obstacle to Constitutional government across the board, not just on cultural matters. (Hence the belief that if Rudy comes around on judges, it trumps whatever his stated positions are on the specific issues.) None of the issues that have galvanized conservatives in the last eighteen months have had any conspicuous cultural overtones.

Perhaps this is just an issue of reporters projecting. Perhaps it's social issues that preoccupy them -- if not the actual Republican base writ large. (More than a few have called the civil rights movement the catalyst for their journalistic careers.) It's not hard to reach the conclusion that if you personally are as far as it gets from a Republican, anyone who shares your views on anything important doesn't have much of a chance of being the Republican candidate. You see this especially in New York-based publications like the Observer, who have a hard time coming to grips that one of their own could play well with the heathen masses outside Manhattan. You saw this, poignantly, with Jewish voters in the 2000 election, many of whom had mixed feelings about Joe Lieberman as they felt it would stir up the old ghosts of discimination. No one who's like me could ever possibly get elected.

These suspicions are not without foundation. Not just any New Yorker could win the nomination and the White House on the Republican ticket (George Pataki -- don't even try). Not just any pro-choicer could waltz in and take the party with him. But as a conservative, pro-life, non-Manhattanite, 20-year observer of politics, I'm telling you that Rudy is the one who can, and it's because of the one word that defines what the Presidency is all about.

Leadership.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Giuliani a Media Favorite After All?

Last week's Chris Matthews Show devoted an entire segment to a potential Rudy candidacy. Here are some excerpts:

Mr. BROOKS: Yeah. Well, I--I--I'm told that when he thinks about his future, the only thing that really grabs him is public service, and that means being the president, stay at that level.

MATTHEWS: So he's making a lot of money, but that's not what he wants.

Even David Brooks understands that Rudy's support comes from the Right, and what follows is a lively discussion that opens up the possibility that Giuliani could win this thing after all:

Mr. BROOKS: But there is a difference in their constituencies. When you look at who's backing Giuliani, oddly it's the people to the right of the people backing McCain, because they like the tough guy. And the crucial question for Giuliani is when those people learn about the divorces and the other things in his background, do they react or not? And I don't think that's a clear issue that they immediately push him away. They might, you know, they're pretty broad-minded and practical-minded. And they might say, OK, `We'll accept all that, if he sends us a message on judges.'
What's interesting is that social conservatives aren't telling Rudy "No" right off the bat. They're batting their eyes provocatively, playing hard-to-get, wanting to be wooed, waiting to get the signal they seem to intensely desire -- that he's one of us.

Matthews sees Rudy as the tribune of Reagan Democrats:
MATTHEWS: I'm not so sure that the people on the Catholic side who are usually pretty cautious about issues or negative about issues like gay marriage, abortion rights, don't find a kinship with this guy that may trump all that. A familiarity coming up in ethnic neighborhoods in the big city, being a big-city mayor, that grittiness, that Catholic school education may trump all that. People say, `I know he's had some mistakes in his life, but he seems like us, you know, he's tough--tough on crime,' you know the whole thing.
In the back and forth, comes good reason why reporters should root for Rudy and not pooh-pooh him:

Ms. TUCKER: He--he is the guy that journalists would most like to see in the
race.

Mr. FINEMAN: You got it.

MATTHEWS: Why? Because we don't have any idea what would happen, right?

Ms. TUCKER: That's exactly right.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Giuliani "Seriously Considering" Presidential Run

That's the most direct statement I have heard from the Mayor himself on the question. From an event earlier today with Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich that raised $500,000 for the campaign:

Giuliani said he is "seriously considering" a run for president in 2008. But he said, as he has in many campaign-style appearances, that he was focused on the 2006 midterm elections. He said he would continue to travel the country to gauge the breadth of his support and his ability to raise the money needed for a presidential bid.

"Eventually, when you make the decision, you have to go through a kind of soul-searching about how much you think you can bring to it," Giuliani said.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Giuliani: Just Like Bush?

Watch a wrongheaded conservative and a wrongheaded liberal debate the question and reach the right conclusion for all the wrong reasons.



Word is that Giuliani was discussed on CNN's political roundtable and on Olbermann, both in the 8 o'clock hour. If anyone has video of these segments, please drop a line in the comments.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

New Media Reports from Arkansas

As is increasingly the case with coverage of this presidential cycle, the blogs have more interesting and thorough analysis than the mainstream media. While in Arkansas, Rudy Giuliani and Asa Hutchinson spoke to some high school students, answering a question about the role of evolution in public schools:

Given that Bloomberg ran on the Republican ticket with the former mayor’s endorsement, Giuliani was asked if he also supported Bloomberg’s strong stance in favor of evolution education. In a rather long response incorporating ideas such as “academic freedom” and “freedom of religion”, Giuliani eventually articulated that “Darwin’s theories are a very accepted part of science,” and added “I am a Christian, and I can accommodate that to my beliefs…”
If you'll believe it, the Arkansas Family Coalition, a group of solid religious conservatives is touting Rudy as the anthesis to Barbara Streisand. Consultants and media types in Washington, D.C. would tell you that's impossible -- Rudy sidling up with Christian conservatives in the culture wars. Well, behold...

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Hotline Fawns Over JMac for Playing in Southern Primaries, But Rudy Does the Same

More grist for the First Responder mill.

The Hotline perpetuates the myth that McCain is a "confident" frontrunner because he plays in primaries, most recently in Louisiana. They ignore the fact that he had to run and hide from CA-50 because of his immigration stance. They also overlook Rudy Giuliani's pivotal endorsement of Ralph Reed in the hotly contested Georgia LG primary, which is certainly fraught with a higher risk/reward ratio than the low-profile races McCain has been dabbling in. And in terms of making friends, there's no better way than endorsing Ralph Reed, who could be the key to the South in terms of raw organizing skill.

If McCain really wanted to play, he'd endorse Casey Cagle and force a showdown with Rudy. Would such an endorsement help or hurt Cagle? The answer to that question may well determine if he can be the Republican nominee.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

McCain Beats Hillary in MA and Rudy Doesn't (Why This is a Good Thing)

DaveG, now my colleague over at the Race42008 blog, has an interesting piece on the Massachusetts poll showing McCain beating Hillary in Massachusetts (!) by a point, with Rudy trailing by 8 points. Ryan Sager won't be surprised to learn that Dave and myself are finding a silver lining to this. I'd go a step further and argue that this undermines the McCain electability argument, and shows why he should not be the nominee.

The crux of the argument is this: If McCain is winning Massachusetts, it's not just swing voters he's winning, it's hardcore, dyed-in-the-wool liberal Democrats. Dave notes that McCain's strength in the dark blue states is peculiar since he's not beating Hillary by 20 to 30 points nationally. Where does he pay for his strength in Massachusetts? Most likely by shedding conservatives he should be winning in the dark red states. Extend this out to other heartland swing states with a reddish tinge and McCain's appeal to coastal elites makes states like Iowa, Missouri, and perhaps Ohio less winnable if the race suddenly tightens (and it will -- Bush was once up by 15-20 points in 2000 and 2004).

What troubles me about nominating about nominating a candidate who could win Massachusetts -- which has been on the wrong side of every Presidential election but one for two generations -- is that it forces us to rely on an extremely shaky and untenable coalition of conservative Republicans, maverick independents, and even some liberal Democrats. How do you keep all of these groups together? The answer is that you can't. You piss off conservatives by playing to MSM and your liberal supporters, and you piss off liberals by doing what you need to do to reach out to the Religious Right. Once McCain is forced to choose what kind of candidate he wants to be, the wheels start flying off. The liberals will flock back home to the Democrats like they do every election, McCain will lose his lead, and he has to go back to the well with an atrophied and unenthused base. The conservatives who gave 110% for W. will give 75-80% for McCain.

The problem with McCain's base is that it's not coherent. He attracts support from all over the ideological spectrum. And that's a bad thing. It means he has an unusually difficult job in pleasing everyone, particularly if the media one day decides to stop giving him a free ride.

One thing Karl Rove understands well is that to win, your base needs to be coherent and in agreement with itself at least 80% of the time. That's why Bush hasn't played to the middle and was able to win time after time on base turnout. Both Giuliani and McCain should be able to add voters outside the base. The question is how?

As Dave suggests, only Giuliani has the potential to build a true center-right coalition, tacking on the 3 or 4 percent of voters just to the left of Bush's 51 percent while leaving the liberal rump exclusively to Hillary. McCain brings us a hodgepodge of moderates, Massachusetts liberals, and the mainstream media. All of which we need like a hole in the head. Ultimately, it will prove impossible to manage and McCain will implode.

McCain's appeal is similar to that of the The West Wing's Arnold Vinick. Remember him? The maverick Republican who led prohibitively in every early poll, was urged to run a 50-state strategy by his Democratic strategist, and ultimately crashed and burned against a bread-and-butter liberal when he didn't keep his eye on the ball and mobilize his base.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day:

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Responding to Drew Cline of the Manchester Union Leader...

What's in the water up in New Hampshire? It's the only place Rudy can't seem to make any headway. You've got Dick Bennett's ARG making up flimsy excuses for ragging on Rudy, citing activist scuttlebutt no one else seems to have heard about. You've got the otherwise solid Pat Hynes shilling for McCain. And you've got Drew Cline, editorial page editor of the pivotal Manchester Union Leader suggesting Rudy won't make it because... he's not strong on terrorism and national security (???). Is there anyone up there who hasn't been bought, influenced, or otherwise cajoled by McCain? With support like that, Mr. McCain-Feingold should be able to again nab 50% without breaking a sweat.

On his blog today, Cline rehashes the conventional wisdom argument against Rudy getting in. Oddly, he chooses to focus his first salvo on Rudy's national security credentials:

1. Unless we stop the bleeding in Iraq by then, the issue for 2008 will be foreign policy in general and the Iraq war in particular. I have a hard time believing that the average voter will say, “Look, I’m not concerned about the war. What is your policy on health care?” With that in mind, does anyone have any idea what a Giuliani Doctrine might look like? Does he have a foreign policy? Will GOP voters want as Commander in Chief someone whose highest elected office was mayor, and that many years ago?

He has expressed support for the war in Iraq, but I think people are going to want a very specific vision for winning that war and the War on Terror. Will he be able to best McCain on those points? I’m not a McCain partisan, but I think that would be difficult.
Is there anyone who is more viscerally molded in the public consciousness with 9/11 and the issue of global terrorism than Rudy Giuliani? Rudy not only witnessed terrorism -- he fought it firsthand, as the lead federal prosecutor in the murder of Leon Klinghoffer. When the United States of America needed someone to make the case against Zacarias Moussaoui, who did they call?

What is McCain's involvement in this war beyond making speeches and casting votes -- one of which seemingly hampered our troops in dealing with enemy combatants? Aside from his stance on "torture," McCain indeed has a fine record on the war -- but the last election showed that Americans prefer a strong executive to a bloviating Senator to fight the War on Terror.

The bottom line is that no public figure besides Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice is more associated with the War on Terror than Rudy Giuliani -- not just in fact, but more importantly, in public perception.

Continuing,

2. I don’t necessarily think a conservative will win the ‘08 nomination, but I think Giuliani will have a very hard time winning conservatives, who, after Bush, are desperate for a candidate who will represent them. Some other candidate will win the pro-life vote. That candidate (Romney? Allen?) will probably have a muscular foreign policy agenda, which Republicans will want. So it won’t be a matter of sacrificing Iraq for a President who is good on abortion and stem cell research. Pro-lifers will get both with the same candidate. Conservatives also tend to hold negative views of people with Giuliani’s personal baggage. And his opponents certainly will make sure that primary voters are well acquainted with his personal life.

Will conservatives forgive his positions on abortion and same-sex marriage? Perhaps, but in exchange for what? If he’s no better than McCain on foreign policy, and McCain is pro-life and thinks states should be allowed to ban same-sex marriage, then why go for Giuliani? There is McCain’s disdain for the First Amendment, but he tends to get a pass on that.

If another candidate wins the pro-life vote, being pro-life doesn't matter as much in capturing the segment of the party that's indifferent or pro-choice. (Thinking about Novak's trifecta, in fact, I'm beginning to think Rudy's biggest challenge isn't abortion, but guns -- which obsess the libertarians Rudy badly needs.) And he's no better than McCain on foreign policy? Maybe not in the geeky policy checklist kind of way, but in terms of viscerally connecting with America's determination to beat the jihadists, he is superlatively better. Instincts and emotions trump all else in politics and this tends to render "balance sheet" type calculations like Cline's meaningless. Read the comments in places like RedState or Polipundit to get a sense of this: "Yes, I agree with McCain on X, Y, and Z, but I don't trust him. I trust Rudy." Attitudes like this tend to overwhelm everything else in electoral politics. And if Rudy pledges constructionist judges -- the kind that would overturn Roe and gut CFR -- we're even-stevens on social issues.

UPDATE: I forgot the most important point. Republicans want a conservative firebreather who'll represent them, unlike Bush, so they're gonna pick the guy who's leading the charge for Bush's un-conservative immigration plan, the issue that matters most to them?

Yeah, right.

Find this post interesting? Get posts
from this blog in your inbox once a day: