Nice pickup for Senator McCain straight from the heart of presumed “Romney Territory”:

Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. has joined the growing list of Republican officials supporting Senator John McCain for president in 2008.

Huntsman has agreed to serve as a co-chairman of McCain’s Straight Talk America political action committee. He will help coordinate politics and policy for McCain in Western states.

“John McCain’s understanding of America’s role in the world is unparalleled,” said Mike Mower, a spokesman for Huntsman. “His knowledge of the West, leadership and independence are indispensable to our nation’s well-being.”

Huntsman’s support for McCain strikes deep into the political base of Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, another of the potential contenders for the Republican nomination.

Huntsman is a member of one of Utah’s most prominent Mormon families. His father, billionaire philanthropist Jon Huntsman Sr., had been a leading contributor to Romney’s Commonwealth PAC and said he would like to see Romney seek the presidency. The younger Huntsman, who was ambassador to Singapore before his election in 2004, is friendly with Romney and had served as an informal adviser to him on foreign policy matters, according to published reports.

My, what an interesting presidential field we have to replace the term-limited Republican president.? First, there’s the guy who seems to be heir apparent, a candidate who just a decade ago was courting pro-choice voters and has northeastern roots.? Then there’s the disgruntled senator who ran against the sitting GOP president?last time, is still miffed about his loss, and has spent the last few years criticizing the president from the Senate.? And then of course there’s the candidate that many conservatives call the president’s true heir: a former football player who is consistently conservative and stylistically a lot like the president.? And we can’t ignore that quirky eastern governor with an aristocratic name and interesting ideas about how to reform the country.? And finally, there’s the guy attempting to be the candidate of social conservatives, running first and foremost on the cultural issues that are important to certain elements of the GOP base.

The year is not 2008,?it’s 1988.? The term-limited president is not GWB, it’s Ronald Reagan.? The pro-choice heir apparent is not Rudy Giuliani,?it’s George H.W. Bush.? The disgruntled critic in the Senate is not John McCain,?it’s Bob Dole.? The former football player is not George Allen,?it’s Jack Kemp.? The quirky eastern governor is not Mitt Romney,?it’s Pete DuPont.? And the Religious Right candidate is not Huckabee or Brownback, it’s Pat Robertson.

That year’s contest saw Dole win Iowa, Bush win New Hampshire, and the two went on to battle it out in the later primaries, leaving the rest of the group behind.? Even though Kemp and DuPont were in many ways better conservatives than the two frontrunners, the GOP hierarchy trumped ideology, like it almost always does.

Now, I’m not predicting a Rudy/McCain race this year.? I think McCain is even less popular than Dole was in 1988 among Republicans, while the blogosphere helps to boost candidates popular with the base like Allen and Romney.? I do think, though, that it is folly to discount the sheer power of the GOP hierarchy, which has broken candidacies much stronger than those of Allen, Huckabee, Brownback, and the rest of the 2008 pack.

A?Harris poll on the GOP presidential?race from July, 1998.

“If Colin Powell is not a candidate, who would be your first choice?”

George W. Bush: 22%

Elizabeth Dole: 12%

Jack Kemp: 9%

Dan Quayle: 8%

Steve Forbes: 6%

Nobody else received more?than 5% of the vote.? And that poll was taken at the very point we are now at in the race for the nomination in 2000.? Sure, Colin Powell beats all comers when he’s included, but much like Condi Rice, Powell didn’t run.? The result, then, was frontrunner George W. Bush holding his lead for another 18 months and going on to win the nomination.? Still think the GOP doesn’t nominate frontrunners?

Great article in the?USA Today on Sam Brownback and his 2008 strategy, which appears to be to capture that 25% So-Con vote in Iowa and make noise from there:

The basement of Elim Christian Fellowship Church is so airless in the summer heat that even the home-baked apple pies on the dessert table are wilting, but Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback is just getting warmed up.

“It doesn’t get much better than this,” he tells several dozen people perched on folding chairs and listening politely. “You’ve got a Friday evening, the sun’s going down ‘ sitting in a church basement, talking about big issues.”

After delivering what they see as the decisive votes to elect and re-elect George W. Bush, they grumble that social conservatives haven’t gotten all they deserved on the issues that matter most to them, especially the campaign for a constitutional amendment to bar gay marriage.

The question for them next time: Support a candidate who has a good shot of winning but a short history on their core issues? Or back a true believer who faces a steep uphill fight?

Brownback has a plan ‘ and a model. In 1976, former Georgia governor Jimmy Carter cultivated Iowa voters and trumped a field of better-known Democrats in the caucuses. The victory helped propel him to the White House and provided the template for long-shot would-be presidents ever since.

He isn’t deterred by a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken in June that found three of four Americans either had never heard of him or didn’t know enough to have an opinion about him, good or bad.?

Someone’s got to capture this element of the GOP primary vote. Brownback is the most likely candidate, unless Romney is able to undo some?damaging past comments on abortion by his frontline battle in the?”Culture Wars”.??

No real suprises in latest Gallup 2008 poll. Giuliani and McCain remain the two “Big Dogs” in the contest with every other candidate in single digits.

Note: The first number represents registrered Republican voters; the second number 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?

The top three Dem finishers were Hillary Clinton 36-37, Al Gore 16-16, and John Edwards 12-12.

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 and McCain edging Hillary by a point or two? I don’t think so:

Diageo/Hotline Poll. June 21-25, 2006.

John McCain 50% Hillary Clinton 40%

Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll. June 1-4, 2006.

John McCain 47% Hillary Clinton 40%

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.

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 as Weyrich 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.

I like Huckabee quite a bit. Good guy with a great story to tell and solid on social issues.?However, it is odd?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“.*?I’m sure Gov. Huckabee will be moving to the right on the issue the closer we get to 2008.

Weyrich is correct in portraying the 2008 GOP slate as one of many, similar choices. The race may simply boil down to who GOP primary voters feel they can trust.

*Note to our?devoted?Huckabee supporters-my own beloved Governor Tim Pawlenty would assuredly be mentioned in this article too if it had been written at a later date as he made almost the same mistake in this area?as Huckabee. We like Mike here at Race 4 2008!

A brand new poll by Gallup measures the sentiments of both Republican and Democratic voters towards the laundry list of potential candidates for each party’s presidential nomination.? This poll is useful because it manages to extract the casual voters who aren’t yet paying attention by allowing them to register no opinion on each of the candidates, thus giving us the approval/disapproval breakdown of those partisans who have actually heard of George Allen, Mitt Romney, etc., even as early as July 2006.? The results are surprising, and I can’t help but wonder if this poll turns the conventional wisdom of 2008 on its head.? Instead of painting a picture of what is generally anticipated by the talking heads — a free-for-all on the GOP side and a Hillary coronation by the Dems — this poll suggests we may be looking at just the opposite: a clear path to the nomination for Rudy and a protracted Democratic battle between Hillary, Edwards, and if he runs, Gore.

Please be sure to read on. (more…)

I’m not sure how else you can spin this:

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.

As DaveG has stated in prior posts, McCain is the Republican Joe Lieberman. The MSM is in for a huge suprise come 2008.

Update Looks like Rudyblogger was here first. Please head over to Giulianiblog and check out his terrific analysis.

Media Matters blasts another hole through the armor of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy by exposing NBC’s Chris Matthews as a Giuliani 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 being a pathetic attempt at smearing Rudy and having little to do with the discussion at hand had nothing to do with Matthews ignoring it.

The American Spectator’s extensive?indepth article on George Allen, entitled “The Jeffersonian“,?from their June 2006 is now available for free on their site. It’s definitely worth checking out if you missed it the first time.

Promoted from the comments on my last post, because I think it’s an interesting question that needs to be addressed.

It has been asserted that Republicans are the party of hierarchy, and that, while the Democrats enjoy the every-four-year fiasco of politically gutting the frontrunners for their presidential nomination (see Dean, Howard; Lieberman, Joe; Hart, Gary), the rank-and-file of the GOP come to the voting booth to reward those who have achieved frontrunner status, not to punish their success.? One could make the argument that this behavior is entirely consistent with the worldview of each party, with Republicans as the party that rewards hard work and Democrats attempting to rip success away from anyone who dares to rise above mediocrity.? But that’s a topic for another time.? What we’re concerned with today is whether or not the charge is true that Republicans nominate their frontrunners and, if so, what that means for 2008.

In order to test this theory, let’s examine the 15 post-war presidential elections to discover?how the Republicans selected their nominee.? Interestingly, the GOP nominee in each of these elections falls into one or more of only five “heir-apparent” categories:

1) A sitting president (1956, 1972, 1976, 1984, 1992, 2004)

2) A sitting or former vice president (1960, 1968, 1988)

3) A big-state governor (1948, 1980, 2000)

4) A candidate who’s run for the nomination previously (1948, 1980, 1996)?

5) A national hero (1952)

Applying this general rule to the 2008 field is illuminating.? Since George W. Bush is term-limited, there will be no sitting president in the race.? With Vice President Cheney refusing to serve, it is unlikely we will see a sitting or former veep seeking the nod.? The governors of our nation’s biggest states seem to have no immediate presidential ambitions with the exception of New York Gov. George Pataki, who is so far from the mainstream of the GOP that he has garnered virtually no support from the establishment or at the grassroots level.? That leaves us with the final two categories.? John McCain is the only candidate in the field who has made a serious run for the nod previously.? And Rudy Giuliani is probably the only candidate who, like Ike, has attained the status of “national hero” in the American psyche.? If history is to be followed, then, should we expect a McCain/Giuliani race?

Not so fast!? In the above analysis, there’s something I haven’t told you.? And it has nothing to do with whether or not I’m left-handed.? (Sorry.? Bad “Princess Bride” joke.? But what is blogging for if not to celebrate our nerd-dom?)? What I omitted was the year that demonstrates the exception to the aforementioned general rule — 1964 — when Republicans rejected not one, but two candidates that would’ve satisfied the general rule in favor of an unknown senator from a sleepy southwestern state.?

In 1964, New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller was the establishment frontrunner for the GOP nomination.? He had both sought the presidency previously AND he was a big-state governor,?a two-fer that should’ve garnered him the nod under the general rule.? However, Rockefeller was both outside of the GOP mainstream and entirely distrusted by Republicans at the grassroots.? Like John McCain, there was little “Rocky” could do to redeem his candidacy — Republicans had adjudicated him a closet leftist and that was that.? Conservatives did indeed have an alternative that year that would’ve satisfied the general rule, Pennsylvania Gov. Scranton, but GOP voters that year chose to reject both of their northeastern establishment choices and instead select Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, who fulfilled none of the usual heir-apparent requirements.

So the answer to the question as to whether Republicans nominate frontunners is best articulated as, “they do except when they don’t.”? When Republican primary voters are faced with a frontrunner that makes their collective stomachs turn, like Rockefeller in 1964 or John McCain in 2008, they will throw the general framework out the window and then it’s anyone’s game.? The only prospective 2008 candidate who both satisfies the general rule regarding how Republicans select their nominee AND who polls well at the grassroots level is Rudy Giuliani.? Unless Giuliani finds a way to make himself unacceptable to most Republicans, such as a refusal to play ball on guns or abortion, he has a lot going for him given the Republican propensity to select heirs-apparent for the nod and not Johnnys-come-lately.

National Review’s Rich Lowry is a smart guy, but in today’s edition of NRO’s “The Corner,” the good editor engages in some serious intellectual sloppiness.? On the dynamics of 2008, Lowry writes:

“My quick ’08 handicapping is that McCain continues to be the front-runner. His candidacy squeezes out Giuliani, who probably wouldn’t have a chance anyway. Frist appears not to be going anywhere. That leaves Romney and Allen competing to be the non-McCain conservative, and Romney has had a good couple of months.”

Whoa, whoa, whoa!? Like I said, Lowry’s a smart guy, but if he’s viewing ’08 through a simplistic moderate v. conservative?prism, he has yet to grasp the complexity of the coming presidential race.

Thankfully, NRO colleague John Podhoretz?comes to the rescue, pointing out to Rich that based on the bulk of the scientific 2008 polling, Rudy and McCain are not occupying the same niche and are not competing with one another for the same bloc of voters.? I agree with Podhoretz entirely, whose theory is completely consistent with the online polling of Republican and conservative activists that we’ve seen, all of which shows Rudy getting far, far stronger support among Republicans and conservatives than McCain, and most of which shows Rudy as one of only three candidates — the others being Allen and Romney — garnering significant support among those conservatives already paying attention to the race.? If I had to make a rough distinction between the Rudy and McCain camps, I’d say McCain’s currently the candidate of the Bloomberg-style RINOs while Rudy’s the candidate of conservatives who put fiscal and defense issues before social issues.

This leads me to believe that Lowry is quite wrong about McCain’s frontrunner status.? McCain is the frontrunner the way Lieberman was the Democratic frontrunner prior to 2004.? Once the conservatives and Republicans who plan to come to the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire start paying attention to the race, it’s likely that they will follow the lead of their political junkie brethren who are actively participating in these online polls and embrace Romney, Rudy, and Allen, and not McCain.? In a presidential race, three’s a crowd, meaning that a Romney/Rudy/Allen race would have little room for anyone else, and that’s the most likely trio to come out of Iowa and New Hampshire alive.? At that point it all comes down to who voters trust the most to lead the party and the country for the next four years.? And that decision will be based on the nuances of the candidates and, while we all have our predictions as to which will win, suffice it to say it’s impossible to know for sure.

In sum, Lowry’d be better off putting his money on Allen, Romney, or Rudy instead of on McCain.? Absent a last-minute Condi Rice entry into the race, one of those three men will be the nominee.

To build on Kavon’s excellent post below, I think it’s important to remember that the single most important?thing the president does to impact social policy in this country is the appointment of judges to the federal courts.

Since Ronald Reagan, Republican presidents have basically used three mechanisms to advance the causes of social conservatives in this country.? Those mechanisms include:

1) The veto of any socially?liberal legislation, such as funding for abortion, national gay marriage, etc;

2) Use of the bully pulpit to address issues important to social conservatives; and

3) The appointment of conservative judges who defer to the political process with regard to social and cultural decision-making.

As Kavon rightly noted, the Pat Robertson candidate — the one who would enact a pro-active socially conservative national platform — never seems to get the nomination.? This suggests to me that Republicans are on balance a tempermentally socially conservative lot.? When a municipality or state, through the political process, enacts civil unions or funds stem cell research, what reaction do we hear from Republicans and conservatives at the national level?? Absolutely nothing.? But when a state or federal court forces a change in social policy on the unwilling electorate, that’s when Republicans and conservatives demand action from Washington to put the policy decision back in the hands of the people.

Now, back to the president’s three mechanisms to address social policy at a national level.? The first mechanism cited above, the veto of socially liberal legislation, is far less important today than it was 20 years ago.? Since 1994, at least one house of Congress has been controlled by Republicans.? Thanks to congressional districting and population distribution, the GOP has likely attained institutional majority status, meaning that years when Democrats control either house will be few and far between, and years when they control both houses will be virtually nonexistent.? As such, a bill mandating national gay marriage or equivalent is highly unlikely to make it to any president’s desk in the near future.

Second, the use of the bully pulpit is more of a feel-good mechanism than anything.? First, it is difficult if not impossible to cite the last time that a presidential speech on social policy changed that policy in a conservative?direction.? About the only thing that “red meat” speeches on social issues are good for is morale, and, since there’s no constitutional authority needed to deliver such speeches, the task could just as easily be accomplished by a socially conservative vice president if the president’s personal views weren’t in line with socially conservative policies on any given issue, similar to the function that Vice President Quayle served in George H.W. Bush’s administration.

That leaves us with judicial nominations, which constitute the single most important executive mechanism for advancing the concerns of social conservatives at the federal?level.? This is because it is the courts that decide whether any given social policy is to be decided by the people or by the unelected judiciary.? When a social issue is left to the people, such as the death penalty, the result is a national non-issue.? When, on the other hand, a social issue is usurped by the courts, like abortion, the result is a 30-plus year national standoff.? The only true social position that matters, then,?with regard to the GOP’s 2008 nominee is whether or not?s/he will?appoint judges?that will defer to the people and their elected representatives concerning matters of social policy.

At this point, it’s important to understand just how constrained?any Republican president will be regarding judicial nominations in this day and age.? The power of the new media has provided Republicans and conservatives at the grassroots with a de facto veto power over judicial nominees that?are unacceptable to the majority of the center-right coalition.? We saw this dynamic in action most recently with both Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Miers.? If David Souter were nominated today, he most likely would not be seated on the Supreme Court.?

On the flip side, the polarization that exists in the country today?ensures that as long as Democrats have 41 Senate seats, no outspoken conservative jurist like Janice Rogers Brown will be confirmed to the Supreme Court or even to many federal appellate courts.? This leaves the GOP executive with very narrow parameters when selecting judicial nominees.? And a Roberts or an Alito — highly intelligent, tempermentally conservative jurists — are the sorts of judges that are most likely to result from that exceedingly narrow range.? Selecting a nominee to the left of Roberts would be a death knell to a GOP president’s reelection, and I suspect Allen, Romney, Giuliani, and the like all know that.? I suppose it would be possible for an Anthony Kennedy to sneak by, but the days of Souters and O’Connors are over.

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 become acceptable to the?Republican base? I believe that history shows this not only to be possible, but to be 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 discussing the impact on the Republican nomination process alone.

(more…)

It appears that the MSM and the national political establishment are finally becoming aware of Giuliani’s strength and seriousness as a presidential candidate.? While a bit late to the party, as the nation’s bigwigs usually are, it’s good to see that the wisdom of we common folk is finally permeating the ivory towers of our media and political elites.

In this column, a Democratic strategist argues that Rudy does indeed have what it takes to be president, and discusses his?smartest manuevers to acquire the GOP nod.

Over here, a lefty journalist from Arkansas comes to the conclusion that Rudy can’t get over the social issues barrier to the nomination with little support for that conclusion.

And here?we have a softball article on Rudy from Pittsburgh.

What’s interesting is that the wisdom that we on the blogosphere have been?touting for the past year or so in some cases — that Rudy is the perfect Republican candidate with the exception of a few social positions — is actually becoming the conventional wisdom among the MSM.? A year ago, media elites were still dismissing Rudy as a New York “RINO” who would collapse when adjudicated by GOP primary voters.? But those of us who checked his record discovered that this assessment couldn’t be farther from the truth.? Giuliani’s accomplishments in NYC are those of a Reagan on taxes, a GWB on toughness, and a Gingrich on government reform.? That?a candidate who brings together the best of the past three national conservative leaders and tops it off with solid support from independents and Democrats wouldn’t rise to the head of the pack is insane, and the MSM is finally catching on.? As the aggregate of today’s Rudy news implies, and as many bloggers long ago inferred, Giuliani isn’t a RINO, he’s a conservative with massive crossover appeal who just happens to be a cultural New Yorker.? If he can successfully make peace with the sunbelt on those cultural issues, a Rudy juggernaut will be nearly impossible to stop.

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.
(more…)

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%

McCain stands with Israel:

Popular United States Senator John McCain Friday said Israel’s ongoing military response to an assault on its northern border by the Lebanon-based Hizb’allah is entirely appropriate.

Speaking to CNN, McCain said the US would react no differently if put in a similar situation.

Campaigning in Iowa as a prospective 2008 presidential candidate, McCain reiterated his position in an interview with The Des Moines Register:

“Israel is reacting appropriately to unprovoked acts of war. Of course we want it over. Of course we want the peace restored, but Israel is reacting as any nation would.”

Israel and the world can really use our prayers for peace?tonight.

George Allen holds a huge cash advantage over challenger Jim Webb in this 2006 race?with enormous 2008 ramifications:

Federal campaign reports show incumbent Republican Senator George Allen has a huge money advantage over Jim Webb, his Democratic challenger in this year’s race.

From April through June, Allen’s campaign took in one-point-eight (m) million dollars and had six-point-six (m) million dollars on hand to start July.

Webb started the month with more than 424-thousand dollars on hand, according to documents filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Of course I’m talking about Rudy 2008:

In one of the strongest indications he’ll seek the nation’s top job, Rudy Giuliani said yesterday he’s “seriously considering” a run for president.?

How serious? Well, let’s look at Rudy’s week-

Today Baltimore, Maryland,?fund-raiser for Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich’s re-election bid

Giuliani acknowledged that in a presidential bid he would have to rally supporters in states where voters have more conservative leanings. But he said he could have a broad appeal.

“Sure, there are divisions between red states and blue states, but Americans are more similar than they are different,” he said.

Yesterday: Naperville, Illinois, Judy Baar Topinka?fundraiser?

As India recovered from the bombings on a Mumbai commuter train system that killed at least 147 people Tuesday, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani led a discussion about terrorism with local first responders ‘ the firefighters and police who would be on the scene first if a terrorist attack were to happen in the western suburbs.

Giuliani was in town stumping for Republican gubernatorial candidate Judy Baar Topinka and her running mate for lieutenant governor, DuPage County State’s Attorney Joe Birkett. Both Topinka and Birkett hosted and participated in the discussion.

Before meeting with the first responders, Giuliani joined Topinka for a private fund-raiser at the Bolingbrook Golf Club.

“I’m here to support her,” Giuliani said. “She’s going to be a really tough governor.”

And King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, for Lynn Swann

They joked about getting each other’s autograph, then Rudolph Giuliani and Lynn Swann stood there and let everyone see that the mayor who had led New York through the 9/11 crisis and the NFL Hall of Famer were a team.

At a news conference after a joint appearance in King of Prussia yesterday, veteran Giuliani praised rookie Swann as “somebody new… what we need in America right now.”

“I may possibly run for president,” Giuliani said. “I’ve been campaigning for Republicans I believe in intensely since 1998. Lynn’s candidacy helps to build the party.”

Now that’s a heck of a couple of days for someone just “considering” a White House run. It’s getting to the point where you have to be one of?the really smart guys like Chuck Todd and Charlie Cook to?realize that Rudy isn’t running for President.

…On Michael Bloomberg 2008:

City voters don’t believe Mayor Bloomberg will launch a bid for the White House – and even if he did, they wouldn’t rush to support him, a new poll found.

Amid all the buzz about Hizzoner contemplating a run for President, 62% of registered city voters say it is “not too likely” or “not likely at all,” according to a Quinnipiac University Polling Institute poll released yesterday.

Bloomberg, 64, has denied any interest in a White House bid, but if he changed his mind, 48% said they “probably” or “definitely” won’t vote for him, and 40% say they “definitely” or “probably” would vote for him.

If Mayor Bloomberg wishes to blow $500 million of his personal?fortune?on this vanity project, that is certainly a?prerogative available?to someone of his means.

As a Republican partisan however, I should not be so quick to condemn his running. As I have stated earlier, Bloomberg running as an independent would only serve to drive moderate and?Democratic leaning independents away from the Democratic Party and would virtually assure that the GOP would win New York State and New Jersey if Rudy Giuliani is the Republican nominee.

A Republican Senator and Presidential hopeful defending his party and conservative ideals that is:

Republican Sen. George Allen defended the Bush administration’s open-ended military commitment in Iraq before a veterans’ group Saturday and dismissed his war-wounded challenger’s deep misgivings about the war as “political gamesmanship.”

“Rather than strategic plans to retreat, I believe we need strategic plans for success,” Allen said.

“What is not helpful for the trust in and the credibility of America and our will to win are those who revel in the political world, the world of I-told-you-so, (saying) that we never should have gone,” Allen told about 300 Legionnaires at a suburban hotel.

At the close of Allen’s remarks, Legion officers singled him out for a special ovation for supporting a constitutional ban on burning the American flag.

Allen voted for the amendment, which the Senate rejected two weeks ago.

I have noticed a subtle shift in the tenor of some of the Main Stream pundits lately, and wonder if it might not signal a shift toward reality on their parts, with perhaps, just a hint of panic thrown in.

For months we have been inundated with the MSM groupthink that the Presidents plummeting poll numbers signal a seismic shift in the electorate and a Democratic landslide is inevitable in November, with the imminent takeover of the House and Senate.

They have gone so far as to begin calling Nancy Pelosi “Madame Speaker,” and to hail Harry Reid as the next Majority Leader of the Senate.

But lately, as I have mentioned, a now thread has begun to surface; the thought being touted today is how our Republic needs two strong and vibrant parties in order to remain strong. Since I have yet to ever hear the MSM discuss the Republican Party in these terms, suggesting the nation “needs” a strong Republican opposition, I can only suppose that the reality of minority status, through yet another election cycle or two, has finally begun to set in.

They know they are going to lose, yet again, and hope to mitigate their losses by making themselves relevant as a minority. As long as they can continue to lose “close” they can continue to claim relevancy, even in the minority. Only a huge Republican victory, an electoral and popular landslide of Nixonian proportions as in 1972, or Reaganesque as in 1984 will completely vanquish the Democratic Party to the point where they take a good hard look at what they have become, and take steps to rectify it.

It is my opinion, that the most important single issue facing our nation and the seminal issue around which the 2008 election will be framed is the Greater War on Terror. All other issues are either a subset of, or are made irrelevant by that single issue. Illegal immigration, the issue we are all screaming about at the moment, is primarily important because the security of our borders is paramount in the GWOT. Illegal immigration’s effect on jobs, the economy and healthcare costs will all be quickly forgotten if another terrorist attack hits our nation??especially if they arrive through that porous border.

Likewise, social security reform, education and reduction of government spending will have little import if we lose the war.

Thus far, any and all Democrat candidates, if elected in 2008, will “cut and run.” There is only one Democrat even remotely strong on defense of this nation, and they are busily drumming him out of their party even as we speak.

Let us be clear??the War on Terror is a war we dare not lose! The world, and more specifically, our enemies will be watching that election, and if we elect a weak on defense President, the GWOT will be set back??possibly irreversibly. If our allies, many of whom have supported the United States’ efforts at great risk to their own political stability, see the US waiver, and/or retreat in our resolve, because the next President chooses to go in a “new direction,” we will never be supported on tough decisions again??because we will nave lost the trust of the other nations of the world.

I would point out, one of the difficulties we have had in Iraq was our premature retreat from the country, with Saddam still in charge, at the end of Desert Storm in 1991. Whether the reasons GHWB left Saddam in power were correct or not, the fact remains, the Iraqi people were hesitant to embrace American liberators, until they were sure Saddam was indeed not going to return to power.

Now, today, the constant “cut and run” drumbeat from the American left, which the Iraqi people hear every day, undermines our efforts to bring peace to that country. The terrorist read that, and having learned the lessons of Vietnam, that the left can bring about a retreat, they are emboldened, and so they redouble their efforts to cause death and mayhem. Those people in whom we hope to instill democracy, see the efforts of our left, and fearing they will experience their own “killing fields” if we pull out too soon, are reluctant to put themselves in harms way.

This type of defeatism can become a self-fulfilling prophesy!

(more…)

Over the next few days, you’re bound to hear a lot about this poll showing Arizona Sen. John McCain besting Hillary Clinton in midnight-blue Massachusetts by a single percentage point while Rudy Giuliani loses to Ms. Rodham by eight. The Beltway punditocracy will likely tell you that John McCain and only John McCain stands between Hillary and the White House, that Rudy’s a loser, and that this poll proves a McCain candidacy would command a 60-percent supermajority not unlike the one that elected LBJ in 1964 or Richard Nixon in 1972.

If anyone makes these claims, don’t believe them. Read on to find out why. (more…)

Dick Morris warns of a potentially successful 2008 independent candidacy of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg in Newsmax today. Honestly… I’m not making this up… Click here if you don’t believe me:

New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg can win the presidency in 2008 if he runs as an independent, says political strategist Dick Morris.

Not only is the billionaire Republican a viable candidate for the White House, but the time has never been better for an independent to triumph in the general election, according to Morris.

If Hillary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination and a staunch conservative like Virginia Sen. George Allen defeats John McCain or Rudy Giuliani for the GOP nod, “the way will be wide open for a strong independent candidate,” the former White House adviser writes in the New York Post.

“Both parties seem hell-bent on nominating extremely vulnerable candidates who cater to their ideological peculiarities more than to the broad middle of the American electorate. As a result, the time is riper for victory by a third-party candidate than it has ever been in our nation’s history.”

I’ll likely need to undergo treatment for high blood pressure from the truckloads of salt I’ve had to take everytime I’ve read Dick Morris in the past year (Condi Rice is the ONLY Republican with ANY chance of defeating Hillary Clinton for example).

Michael Bloomberg would represent the “broad middle of the American electorate” as much as a Barbara Boxer candidacy would. For those who may be unfamiliar with him, Mayor Bloomberg is a lifelong liberal Democrat who switched his party designation to (R) only because he couldn’t win the Democratic mayoral primary.

Anyone can call themselves whatever they wish to. Heck, I can call myself a Japanese, parasailing, transvestite, professional bowler if I wish to. But that doesn’t make it so. Mike Bloomberg putting an (R) next to his name doesn’t make that so either.

The only thing a Bloomberg independent candidacy will accomplish would be to siphon centrist and independent leaning Democrats away from the Democratic Party (and maybe some Northeastern Country Club Republicans) ala John Anderson in 1980. If Rudy is the Republican nominee, it would essentially guarantee that New York State and New Jersey drop for the GOP.

Michael Bloomberg…? 270 electoral votes…?

What happened to Dick Morris?

An interesting, very pro-Giuliani piece appears on Alan Keyes’ Renew America site touting Rudy’s presidential chances:

President Giuliani? It’s a Good Bet

By now, most people around politics know that former New York Republican Mayor Rudy Giuliani would be seeking the nomination for president of the United States.

A recent column by Washington’s premiere political pundit, Robert Novak, only underlines the obvious: The question is not if Giuliani runs, but when he openly declares that he is running. Though Novak does not say when, I would speculate that Giuliani will announce by the end of this year.

What’s worth noting here is that the battle for the 2008 presidency will be fought by two well-known political figures who both share the non-too-complimentary appellation of “RINO,” or “Republican in name only.”

Though Giuliani is considered by conservative GOP insiders as too socially liberal to capture the support of the hard-core right of the party, this writer believes otherwise.

The primary contest that will eventually come down between Sen. John McCain and Giuliani will be fought on a number of fronts.

On the issues themselves, McCain and Giuliani will both have their problems.

But McCain’s positions and past votes within the Senate ‘ of which Giuliani has none to worry over ‘ will make it harder for him to claim solid platform-Republican credentials, much less conservative ones. McCain authored the Campaign Finance Reform bill, which to many in the GOP is a travesty against free speech. McCain has consistently voted against nearly all tax reform or tax cut programs proffered by the Bush administration.

McCain has also embraced the president’s ill-advised immigration reform plan, or as most call it, “amnesty-lite.” Amusingly, you now see McCain shifting his positions on some of these issues ‘ like the immigration bill ‘ as the campaign for 2008 draws ever near. But that is what a voting record is for; it never lets the advancement of time or events forget those votes.

I believe that Giuliani will modify his position on all these issues. He will do what so many have done before him regarding these issues, and that is to stress the commonality that he shares with the base ‘ like being against gay marriage ‘ a maybe even reverse on a key issue, like partial-birth abortion.

Giuliani will campaign on the events of 9/11 and showcase his well-documented leadership, the same thing that has sustained Bush through nearly all else in his presidency. McCain will claim that he has stood fast with Bush since 9/11, and so he has.

But at the end of the day, the GOP elephant never forgets. The party faithful will find it difficult to elect the maverick senator from Arizona, instead opting for the stalwart and iron-willed mayor from New York, who helped show a nation the way back into the light of a new day when the chaotic and nightmarish darkness of 9/11 threatened to bring America to its knees.

Still not convinced that Rudy can win over So-Cons?

A little more fuel to the fire perhaps on McCain/Bush 2008:

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has frequently said he won’t run for president in 2008, but he’s never ruled out being a running mate.

And he didn’t Monday when asked about teaming up with Arizona Sen. John McCain.

“I like Sen. McCain. I think he’s a good guy,” Bush told reporters after returning from a holiday in Maine with his family.

When prodded about the likelihood of a McCain-Bush ticket, Bush hedged just slightly.

“There’s all sorts of time to worry about the 2008 election,” he said.

I still believe that McCain will not sacrifice his “Maverick” image with the MSM by selecting a Bush for his running mate, not to mention risking charges of a “corrupt bargain” with the current president in regards to the Kerry offer of the VP slot in the 2004 campaign.

Hizzoner has stepped up his travel schedule, campaigning for six candidates alone this week:

Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani began a fundraising tour Monday for Republicans locked in tight congressional races, a trip that is taking him into two presidential battleground states and heightening speculation about a possible White House run.

Giuliani, who has topped several national 2008 presidential polls in recent months, was to headline a cocktail reception in Cleveland on Monday night for two-term Sen. Mike DeWine. DeWine faces a stiff re-election challenge from Democratic Rep. Sherrod Brown.

Giuliani touches down in three states Tuesday, attending events for Arkansas gubernatorial candidate Asa Hutchinson, Illinois gubernatorial hopeful Judy Baer Topinka, and Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. He’ll also take in the All-Star baseball game in Pittsburgh on Tuesday night.

He completes the tour Wednesday with a breakfast fundraiser for Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Lynn Swann and a reception in Baltimore for Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich.

Interesting note from Talk Radio today… Talk show host and blog “Founding Father” Hugh Hewitt asked for speculation today from his guests, fellow Blogfathers Glenn Reynolds and Mickey Kaus, regarding their predictions as to will be the next President of the United States.

Reynolds predicted a victorious Giuliani/Rice ticket; while Kaus predicted Gov. Mitt Romney as the future Commander-in-Chief.