If Hillary Rodham Clinton is the Democrats’ presidential nominee in 2008, it will motivate conservative evangelical Christians to oppose her more than if the devil himself were running, the Rev. Jerry Falwell has told pastors at a “values” conference.
“I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate,” Falwell said in the recording.
“I hope she’s the candidate, because nothing will energize my (constituency) like Hillary Clinton,” Falwell said. “If Lucifer ran, he wouldn’t.”
An aide to Falwell said the remarks were off-the-cuff and not intended to demonize the Democratic senator from New York.
Of course the MSM reports this as “Falwell compares Clinton to the devil”.?Would we expect any less from the MSM these days??
John DiStaso of the New Hampshire Union Leader reports that Governor Mitt Romney has secured the services of New Hampshire Republican activist (he is the Republican National Committeeman for the state with the RNC) and lawyer Tom Rath for the 2008 presidential race as a senior adviser to his Commonwealth PAC.
National Republican political strategists will tell you that if there is one person you want on your team for the all important New Hampshire primary campaign it is Tom Rath. This is an important alliance that virtually guarantees two significant outcomes – that Mitt Romney will be running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 and that he will be extremely competitive in New Hampshire and overall for the nomination.
Just moments ago on Hardball With Chris Matthews, nationally-renowned political scientist Larry Sabato, whose home-base has long been in Virginia, all but confirmed that Sen. George Allen has indeed used a specific racial slur directed toward African-Americans.
Unfortunately, the transcript of tonight’s episode is likely inaccessible at this point, but I’ll try to get ahold of it as the evening goes on. To paraphrase, Sabato was asked about the accusations published in Salon by three of Allen’s college football teammates that Allen had made notorious use of the “N” word, as Matthews called it, when referring to African-Americans. Sabato said that he couldn’t comment on the specific accusations because, quite naturally, he wasn’t there, but Sabato further confirmed that he was “absolutely” certain that George Allen had at some point used this disgusting term. When Matthews asked Sabato whether or not Allen had used the term in his presence, Sabato refused to answer the question and basically threatened to end the interview if Matthews pressed him on it any further. Considering that Larry Sabato was a college classmate of Sen. Allen, and considering that Allen’s vocal accusers all identify his college years as the time period in which the senator made regular use of the slur, it doesn’t take much reading between the lines to infer what Larry Sabato was saying.
Keep in mind that Larry Sabato is anything but a partisan hack. Sabato is one of the country’s premier political scientists and, while I will not hesitate to call guys like Sabato, Charlie Cook, et al, on their stubborn refusal to look beyond the conventional wisdom of the day, I don’t think anyone has ever successfully impugned their intregrity as professionals. If Sabato refuses to deny that he heard Allen use the “N” word, I don’t see how one can reach any conclusion other than the obvious.
Update: Here’s the video.
Update 2: The New York Times has uncovered another former colleague of Sen. Allen who cites racist behavior on the part of the senator from the 1980s.
Update 3: I don’t see how Allen can survive all of this. I just can’t. But the Virginia Senate seat is too important for us to lose. For whatever else Jim Webb is, he’s a vote for Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader. And that means fewer conservative judges and a less rigorous war on terror. Perhaps the Virginia GOP can pull a Torricelli and replace Allen with former governor Jim Gilmore on the GOP ticket. Alternatively, Allen needs to put forth a major mea culpa.
Update 4: Make it stop. Please make it stop!
Final Update: The floodgates are opening, and things don’t look good for Sen. Allen. This reminds me a lot of the Clintonian “bimbo eruptions” of the ’90s, where a bevy of female accusers would charge the former president with lewd extramarital misbehavior and Clinton’s handlers would respond with a “nuts or sluts” strategy. Similarly, Team Allen will likely develop a “libs or fibs” response regarding all of his accusers, basically arguing that each of the accusations of racism are untrue and that anyone saying anything to the contrary is either a liberal Webb supporter or a liar out to tarnish Allen’s name for any number of reasons. I don’t think that strategy will work. I think the best thing for Allen to do right now is issue a blanket apology for all of his transgressions and make the case that he is a changed man. I also truly believe the Virginia GOP should begin looking into the legal feasibility of drafting Jim Gilmore into the race. The Senate is just too important to lose over this sort of thing. Think about it this way: do you want Chuck Schumer deciding whether or not President Bush’s next Supreme Court nominee gets an up or down vote?
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was recently interviewed by Katie Couric on 60 Minutes.? Of course, she asked the obligatory Condi question: “Is there anything that could convince you to run for President in 2008?”
But instead of giving a flat out “No,” Ms. Rice responded by saying “Elected office probably isn’t for me” (emphasis mine).
Is there still any question over the now-undeniable fact that Ms. Rice is still keeping her options open concerning ’08?? Of course, no one doubts that she doesn’t “intend” to run, and she probably doesn’t even “want” to run right now.? But,
A). Condi has always refused to issue the Sherman Oath (“If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve”), which myriads of others have issued without qualm.
B). Condi’s denials of interest in ’08 have been getting progressively, but very noticeably, softer and dodgier in the past one year.
Something is happening.
Thinking logically about the issue: Ms. Rice is a public servant who has always,?always put her own personal ambitions and dream jobs on hold to fulfill the mandate given to her by her country.? This was shown when she put her teaching job at Stanford on hold to become Bush’s NSA in 2001 (she made the same kind of denials about wanting to become NSA during the 2000 campaign, but when asked to assume the role, she accepted), and this was shown when she let her ultimate dream job, the NFL Commissioner post, pass her by a few months ago to continue being Secretary of State, in spite of the fact that it is one of the most stressful and grueling jobs, and she is carrying it out during one of the most heated and controversial eras an American diplomat has ever had to endure.
If Condi can be trusted to put the call of her country above her own personal desires, then why should we think that she too would not accept if greeted by the same public mandate that convinced Wesley Clark, Barry Goldwater, Dwight Eisenhower, Adlai Stevenson, Charles Evans Hughes, and James Garfield?
If Barry Goldwater answered the same question that Condi got by saying: “Draft, nothin”I told you I’m not going to run. … I’m not a candidate. And I’m not going to be. I have no intention of running for the Presidency” and he eventually ran, then why is it so impossible that Condi, who said “elected office is probably not for me” would eventually accept the call of the people and run also?
The numbers are there.? When Condi is included in the polls, whether they be nation-wide scientific polls, local straw polls, online polls, or whatever, Condi is always in the upper tier in league with McCain and Giuliani, and more often than not, she tops the whole list.? (See the latest Iowa poll, as reported by the Des Moines Register, where Rice’s “very favorable” rating topped the whole list)
If the GOP has an extraordinary candidate at their disposal who has the same electoral might as McCain and Giuliani, but who is a?genuine true-blue conservative on the issues, and if this candidate has clearly never closed the door on the option and might be persuaded with a little nudging from a “higher” power, why should we believe they would not run that candidate?
I stand by my prediction that Sec. Rice will be persuaded to enter the race, and her increasingly softer and skippier denials are a continuing testament to the difference that I believe is being made within her.
Holy cow. Regardless of who you support, this is simply beyond the pale:
“Brigham Young, who succeeded Smith as church leader, wrote that God put a curse on Cain ‘ a #quot;flat nose and black skin#quot; ‘ for killing his brother Abel.” It’s in a piece by Lee Bandy, describing a confrontation between Gov. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, and Cindy Mosteller, Chrleston Co. GOP chair, who “came armed” to a state GOP meeting with ” a bunch of material ‘ and questions ‘ about the Mormon church.” “Afterward, Mosteller said the governor did not answer any of her questions. She described the meeting as #quot;very tense.#quot; But “Cindi Costa, a conservative Christian from Charleston and member of the Republican National Committee, waited outside the room. She earlier pleaded with Mosteller not to confront Romney.” Mosteller supported Sen. John McCain in ’00.
Mosteller isn’t just any McCain supporter. She is chair of the Charleston County GOP, and finished second to Katon Dawson for the chairmanship of the South Carolina party.
Not only did Mosteller’s outburst earn her a rebuke from RNC member Costa, but Dawson stepped in:
Costa said Mosteller’s questioning #quot;besmirches her character. It makes her look hateful. This is not what we’re about. The party does not give religious tests,#quot;
#quot;This is awful,#quot; said Spartanburg GOP chairman Rick Beltram. #quot;I’m unhappy with Cyndi.#quot;
State GOP chairman Katon Dawson isn’t pleased either. #quot;She acted in bad taste.#quot;
Chuck Larson, McCain’s Iowa chair, has apparently said that Mitt Romney belongs to a “cult.” These despicable attacks have become something of a pattern aboard the Straight Talk Express. Will Senator McCain step forward and condemn Mosteller and Larson?
Not something I’d picked up on in my first pass at this. But take a look at this chart.
Rudy’s got a 71-18 fav/unfav ratio among Iowa voters. McCain is at 59-24.
But that’s not what catches my interest. Take a look at the “very favorable” column. Rudy 28, McCain 14.
These aren’t the party crosstabs for Republicans. This is among the entire voting population. And we know from previous polls that McCain retains virtually identical fav/unfav ratios with Republicans, Democrats, and independents while Rudy’s numbers follow a more partisan path, with slightly lower numbers than McCain among non-Republicans.
The Grubbs poll that showed Rudy out front showed McCain with a similar fav/unfav ratio with Republicans, Rudy in single digits unfav, and favs in the high 60s. I don’t think it’s all that unreasonable to assume that Rudy holds down a very favorable number in the high 30s/low 40s with caucus-goers, with McCain in the mid-teens.
Why does this matter? Because the Very Favorable universe is the one you use to build your supporter base, and Rudy has more than twice as many Republican voters to work with in Iowa?than McCain.
This is why I’m so bullish on Rudy, despite the wise old Beltway hands and McCain/Romney hacks filling the echo chamber claiming otherwise. Every shred of impartial, empirical data confirms this. Don’t listen to the pundits. Don’t listen to the consultants. Listen to the data. Listen to the ground-level activists and the voters on this one.
A new Iowa poll buried in the catacombs of the Des Moines Register presents Republicans with both news good and bad as we head into 2008, with electoral success dependent on — get this — which candidate each party nominates.?
The poll tests general election matchups between four Republicans (Rudy, McCain, Romney, Frist) and four Democrats (Edwards, Kerry, Vilsack, Hillary).? The results are best viewed via the pop-up chart that can be accessed on the left side of the article on the poll.? Following are some significant findings.
* Giuliani and McCain beat all four Democrats.? Giuliani’s lead ranges from 8-19 points; McCain leads John Edwards by a single point.
* Romney beats Hillary by 4 points but loses to all other Democrats.
* Frist beats Hillary by 1 point, losing to all others.
* Hillary is by far the weakest Democratic candidate; Edwards runs most strongly against the GOP field, besting Romney and Frist and statistically tied with McCain.
Unfortunately, party nomination matchups were not included in the poll.
As observers of electoral politics recall from 2004, Iowa’s presidential election results looked a lot like those of the nation.? Iowans favored President Bush?by only 1 percentage point over John Kerry in 2004, while Bush won the nation by 3 points.? Iowa is another one of these upper-midwestern states that seems to be awfully close to the center of gravity of American politics these days, with Iowa voters and national voters dividing between the candidates along roughly the same lines.? As such, this poll gives us a pretty good idea of the relative strength of these 8 candidates nationally, as well as allows a direct comparison between each of the 4 GOP candidates included and President Bush due to the inclusion of Sen. Kerry in the poll.
Keeping in mind that the president bested Kerry by a single point in Iowa in 2004, we can infer that Romney (Kerry+2) is running about 3 points behind Bush, while Frist (Kerry+7) runs a full 8 points behind the president’s 2004 performance.? Conversely, both McCain and Giuliani run well ahead of Bush, with the candidates’ margins over Kerry greater than that of the president by 13 and 12 points, respectively.?
Another interesting aspect of the poll is the extent to which Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton runs behind 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry.? Hillary underperforms Kerry by an average of 6 points, which would be devastating considering that Kerry lost the nation by 3.? I would imagine the challenge for the Democrats is to find someone that can win more votes than their most recent nominee, not fewer.
Also of note is the relative strength of John Edwards.? Only Giuliani is able to maintain a commanding lead over the former senator, a testament to the proven strength of southern Democrats leading a presidential ticket.? It is not a cooincidence that every Democratic president for the past forty years has hailed from the same region.? Nor does that trend appear to be waning.? The key to the White House for the Democrats can be found in their southern bench.? Nevertheless, it is interesting that McCain’s numbers collapse but Rudy remains a clear victor in a contest with Edwards.? This could be due to a number of factors: Rudy’s status as a national hero, his strength with the GOP base relative to that of McCain, the strong cultural identification with Rudy that likely exists in the heavily ethnic Catholic Great Lakes region, or all of those things in the aggregate.? Whatever the case, Rudy seems to be the antedote, at least in Iowa, to an Edwards nomination by the Democrats.? It would be interesting to observe the extent to which Edwards could make?inroads into the south considering the very heavy margins by which most southern states voted for the GOP ticket in 2004.
That was the question asked by a recently-published Newsweek article.
In the days leading up to the High Holidays, here’s what Sen. George Allen said: #quot;I embrace and take great pride in every aspect of my diverse heritage, including my Lumbroso family line’s Jewish heritage, which I learned about from a recent magazine article and my mother confirmed.#quot;
Enough said. Except he couldn’t stop talking. That same day, in an interview with a Richmond, Va., paper, Allen said his Jewish ancestry was #quot;just an interesting nuance to my background.#quot; And then he added this: #quot;I still had a ham sandwich for lunch. And my mother made great pork chops.#quot; Many observers were unnerved by the flippancy of these remarks, and pundits began to debate whether Allen’s Jewishness’and his strange reaction to it’would help or hurt his re-election campaign. (Latest poll numbers have Allen and his Democratic opponent Jim Webb nearly neck and neck, 46 percent to 42 percent.)
#quot;I think his national political future is over,#quot; says Kati Marton, author of the forthcoming #quot;Nine Jews Who Fled Hitler and Changed the World”. #quot;Because he doesn’t seem to know how to deal with some of the most sensitive issues that speak to his fundamental character ?? Allen obviously hasn’t assimilated too many of history’s lessons and the lessons of American politics, which is that you can’t hide anything’you have to embrace it, you have to own it.#quot; Sixty years since the Holocaust, with politicians from Gen. Wesley Clark to Sen. John Kerry #quot;owning#quot; their Jewish roots in public, she adds, a revelation of Jewishness should be anything but shameful.
When the senator did recently ask his mother about their background, she confirmed that they were born Jewish but swore her son to secrecy out of fear for the family’s well-being; she released him from his bond when the story blew up in the press. #quot;This is so personal,#quot; he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer earlier this week. #quot;To think that a person ?? is still having that pain in her, it’s still paining her; she still lives in fear of that intimidation, that bigotry, that prejudice, that anti-Semitism.#quot;
The idea that Allen might be Jewish was first made public in an August issue of The Forward, a Jewish newspaper’a torturous connecting of the dots between Allen’s mother’s Tunisian background and an insult, #quot;macaca,#quot; that Allen flung at an Indian-American campaign worker for the opposition. Questions from reporters followed and Allen handled them badly. On Monday, when a reporter asked for clarity on the Jewish issue, Allen dodged it, saying his mother was raised Christian; when the reporter persisted, the senator became dismissive, saying #quot;Oh, that’s just all. That’s just all.#quot;
Then came the public confirmation’and the ham sandwich remark. Just hours before sundown on the eve of Rosh Hashana, Ric Arenstein, past president of the Jewish Community Federation of Richmond, was more amused than aghast at Allen’s remarks. They don’t rise to the level of anti-Semitism, he said, just bad timing. In the days to come, there will be #quot;more Jews together than any weekend this year. That’s especially bad the month before an election.#quot; Foxman is more sympathetic: #quot;It’s not easy#quot; to be in Allen’s spot, but as the New Year begins, he offers some free advice: decide who you are, and embrace it.
Personally I think the whole ordeal is utterly ridiculous and I loved the way Allen handled the question when it was posed to him at the time.? I don’t see why this should hurt Allen in his re-election bid at all.? So, he found out he had some Jewish blood in him… okay?? If some magazine published information showing that I might have some Croatian blood in me, I would probably have the same reaction as Allen: “Um… all right?? I don’t know if that’s true, but I don’t see what it has to do with any of the real issues?here…”
I think the way he handled his “Jewish Moment” will help him more than hurt him in the long run.? I agree with the statement that, due to the Macaca Incident and the Durbin Plagiarism Incident, Allen’s “national political future is over”, but as for the Senate, there is no good reason why he shouldn’t keep his seat this November.
The American Spectator’s W. James Antle III reported an Evangelical breakthrough for Mitt post-Macaca and Phil James, reporting from the values Voters Conference in Washington, D.C. this weekend describes an enthusiastic reception for Romney from evangelicals.
Below is James’ RomneyReport.com entry followed by links to same and The American Spectator column:
Mitt Romney [As Mitt is the focus of my blog, I paid the most attention to him]
TP: Mitt began by saying that David McCullough said the last 5 yrs were the most important in America’s history.
Discussed Jihadists, and then how the culture of America is under attacked. Romney quoted Rick Warren
(Purpose Driven Life). Romney then spent the rest of his time discussing the issue of marriage. Marriage is about children, not the rights of adults. [Big applause] Every child has a right to a mother & father. Children will be impacted 20 years down the road (Jesse Ventura, that’s why it doesn’t matter that your marriage hasn’t been impacted by same-sex marriage says Mitt). Mitt mentioned three impacts same-sex marriage is already having in Mass:
1) Birth certificates being changed from “father & mother” to “parent a & parent b”
2) 2nd Grade children are being read “The King & The King” about two homosexual kings who wed. And parents
do NOT have the authority to opt their children out
3) The Catholic charities that place children in foster homes were denied a license b/c they do not believe
in placing children in homosexual households
Important point: Marriage cannot be a “states issue”. Marriage is not an event like gambling. It is a status
definition, that once changed anywhere, has to remain so.
Analysis: I was very interested in how the crowd here at the Values Voter conference would react to Romney- a
Mormon governor from Massachusetts. Well, he was applauded throughout the speech, and got a standing O at the
end. The Mormon issue didn’t seem to be a problem. And he articulated the marriage defense well.
http://www.romneyreport.com/archives/2006/09/values_voter_co_1.html
R4’08er Republius, as well as reader/R4’08 commenter LJ and Eye on ’08 blogger Soren Dayton, two of McCain’s biggest boosters in the blogosphere, reply to my organization argument. Dayton writes:
Now, GiulianiBlog has responded quite strongly to this whole line of argumentation. He argues, in essence, that all you need is issues, bio, and personality and organization doesn’t matter.
I think that’s a little strong. Operatives matter. Building a turnout operation matters. And having people vouch for you matters. That’s very clear.
That’s not quite the argument. You need an organization to get you past the finish line, but it’s one (albeit very important) element of the larger package. What’s unclear is how much organization matters in 2006, when only a small fraction of the staffers and fundraisers have committed, and none of these guys has really gotten a chance to prove their viability on the fundraising circuit and on the campaign trail. At this point in the 1996 or 2000 cycles, you could probably write stories about how much Phil Gramm, Lamar Alexander, and Steve Forbes were lapping the field in trips to Iowa and organizational commitments.
Organization is a force multiplier. But for it to work, there needs to be a force to multiply. If you have an army of good salespeople hawking a crappy product, people will see through it 100% of the time.
McCain’s brand affinity among the ony voters who matter — those who vote in Republican primaries — is close to zero. Rudy Giuliani’s is off the charts. McCain has furiously been trying to close the gap by building an organization — but the foundation is not sound. Note well the timing of the Dave Roederer announcement, in the works for months, which came after a terrible week for McCain and is designed as a warning to the grassroots that they’re about to get rolled. And don’t doubt for one second they’re more worried about Rudy than Mitt Romney.
The notion being propagated by both the McCain and Romney camps that Rudy isn’t a real threat, that he won’t run, etc. is B.S. spin designed to wave Rudy out of the race. They’ve all seem the numbers. They know that Rudy extends his lead and McCain becomes a non-factor when you drill down to motivated primary voters. Weaver & Co. know that their only hope is the Hillary fear factor, but that becomes a non-issue if Rudy runs. So their strategy is not to attack Rudy directly, since that probably wouldn’t work, but to pooh-pooh his chances to a willing media, to demoralize his inner circle, to make it seem like a wasted effort, to seem like they’re gobbling up 100% of political talent — without actually doing so. In truth, both McCain and Romney know that life becomes a lot easier for them without Rudy in the race.
It’s time someone called B.S. on all this. The anti-Rudy storyline isn’t analysis. It’s a strategy.
Senator John McCain is poised to name David Roederer, a Republican activist in Iowa and President George W. Bush’s state campaign chairman in 2004, as chairman of his Straight Talk America PAC in Iowa, according to Thomas Beaumont of the Des Moines (IA) Register.
Senator McCain already has Terry Nelson, an Iowa native and former Political Director for Bush-Cheney ’04, on board his 2008 campaign as a senior advisor.
Senator McCain may have skipped the Iowa caucuses in 2000, but he is poised to make a strong run in the Hawkeye State in 2008 with the organization he is building there.
Potential Republican presidential candidates George Allen, Sam Brownback, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum will be addressing this weekend’s Family Research Council “2006 Values Voter Summit” at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C. Here is a link to the schedule.
Gauging the reaction of this core Republican target audience to each speaker will be an interesting indicator of how well these candidates are doing with values conservatives. Gauging the content of each speaker’s presentation will be an interesting indicator of where their messages may be heading.
Sec. Rice recently shot down a further attempt at stalling by the Iranian government this week, which requested further preconditions before they would consider halting their uranium enrichment program.? Good for her!
The United States rejects Tehran’s conditions on the suspension of its nuclear enrichment program, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said following a Security Council meeting.? Rice said that there could be no new conditions added to those set by six major countries — China, France, Germany, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States — for negotiations on a package of economic and technological incentives in exchange for Iran’s ending is enrichment activities.
A July 31 Security Council resolution backed the group’s position and gave Iran until August 31 to stop enrichment or face sanctions.
“The terms here are very clear,” Rice told reporters September 21 in New York.? “Iran has been told by the international community through a Security Council resolution, that they should suspend and if they suspend the negotiations can begin.”
“I don’t think we need any further conditionality.? We need to have a suspension of enrichment and reprocessing and then we can move to full-fledged negotiations,” she told journalists after attending a Security Council meeting on the Israeli-Palestinian situation during the opening of the 61st General Assembly.
Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad, also at the U.N. headquarters for the General Assembly, said at a press conference that his country was prepared to negotiate a suspension if it received fair guarantees.? He said he was prepared to meet the council’s demand but gave no timeframe.
Rice said that the six nations are “committed to full implementation of [Security Council] Resolution 1696.”
“We can either begin negotiations or go to the Security Council,” the secretary said.
Secretary Rice clearly understands the big picture here.? Condi sees that Iran is possibly the biggest threat our nation has faced in the past 50 years, and she’s got the grit to stand them down.? Condi’s a history expert, and she knows what happens when the world tries to appease dictators and tyrannical regimes with fluffy concessions.? When Condi is in a presidential debate, who would be able to contradict her on national security and foreign policy issues?? Who will be able to say: “You don’t know what you’re talking about; you’re not familiar with the situation”?? If national security and foreign policy are really what the GOP needs to capitalize on in 2008, Rice will be their woman for the job.
…and if by March 2007, we’re still having this coversation, Rudy or anyone else on my original list will be in big trouble.
But the sky-is-falling crowd is just wrong. It makes two fundamentally flawed assumptions:
1) The supply of political operatives is so finite that everyone will be spoken for by the midterm elections, ignoring all the people who are currently working on the midterm elections
2) The list of ’08 staff we should care about is limited to those who worked on past Presidential campaigns. That’s just dead wrong. Who knew who Karl Rove was before 2000? Eventually, the old campaign vets get burned out and a new generation rises. Happens every cycle.
Fundraising is arguably where is matters the most right now. And does anyone doubt Rudy couldn’t raise the $100 million to be competitive in this race? Rudy was able to raise $2.3 million this year, mostly by doing one event, and mostly from New York donors (I’ve read the FEC report). In a presidential race, he’d squeeze $20 million out of Manhattan alone. The fundraising race also most resembles an efficient market because there are real dollars involved. An unknown with momentum can raise the money quickly. An establishment favorite who’s a dog in the polls will quickly see his fundraising dry up (see Kerry’s 3Q 2007 numbers).
I see that RudyBlogger has been contemplating the same subject I have been mulling over in my own mind – that of presidential campaign organization – but probably for different reasons. I have been thinking of doing a series of articles delineating who each of the prospective Republican presidential candidates for 2008 have recruited as campaign staff to date, since I think it might be interesting to know who these important people are and to surface the relative degree of organization each candidate has compiled.
I get the feeling that RudyBlogger is contemplating this subject because his avowed favorite 2008 candidate, Mayor Giuliani, has not recruited nearly as many campaign staffers as some of the competition, especially Senator McCain and Governor Romney, and is having his interest in running and chances for success in 2008 questioned by the national media as a result.
I don’t think there is any way to spin that organization is anything but crucial, as is fundraising prowess, in building a presidential campaign; and I don’t think there is any way to spin the depth of the McCain and Romney campaign organizations as anything other than strengths for their candidacies to date. That doesn’t mean, in my view, it is too late or unlikely for candidates like Mayor Giuliani and Speaker Gingrich to compile such staffs. On the contrary, both would probably be able to build formidable organizations rather quickly if needed. But at some point sooner rather than later, any serious 2008 presidential contender is going to have to build an organization that can compete for votes and money, even if they have a late entry strategy.
The Iowa caucus is held at night, in the winter, when it is freezing outside. You have to be pretty well motivated to participate in such a process. And as a candidate it takes organization to identify your supporters in such a process and get them to the closest caucus venue in the middle of nightfall in often inclement weather. Remember that one of the great upsets in Iowa caucus history occurred in 1988 when Reverend Pat Robertson received 25% of the vote in finishing second behind Senator Robert Dole’s 37% and ahead of Vice President George H.W. Bush’s 19%. That finish was a triumph of organization as much as anything else. Had Robertson been able to replicate that organization in New Hampshire there might never have been such a thing as the Bush presidencies.
The New Hampshire primary is the ultimate in retail politics – voters don’t support you in that process unless they have met you in-person and frequently and have been inspired by your personal pitch. New Hampshire Republican National Committeewoman Ruth Gordon can tell you about how each and every Republican presidential candidate for the last so many years has been in her living room on multiple occasions, with some of them (like Senator Lamar Alexander) even taking to the piano in that room. It takes organization to get the candidate to enough and the correct homes and events in the Granite State to succeed on primary day.
I think organization is a key topic, and I look forward to delving into the actual results and potential of each key Republican candidate when it comes to the 2008 race.
In conclusion, however, I would caution us not to forget about fundraising prowess as another key measure of viability in presidential politics. While it still may be early for some to put together 2008 organizations, their fundraising may be an equally important barometer of their presidential viability. And in this respect, these GOP candidates have established federal PACs (while the figure for Governor Huckabee is for a state PAC, which others may have as well that are not reported herein) that have raised the following sums (and these are not cash on hand figures but money raised figures, unless otherwise noted) during the 2005-2006 cycle (and of course Senator Allen and Congressman Tancredo are running for re-election and Senator Frist is Senate Majority leader this campaign cycle, which helps their ability to raise funds): Senator Allen – $10.4 million (with another $870,000 sitting in other federal campaign committee accounts that can be used for a 2008 presidential run); Senator Frist – $6.8 million; Senator McCain – $6.5 million (with another $1.1 million sitting in a federal Senate campaign account that can be transferred to a 2008 presidential run); Mayor Giuliani – $2.4 million (with another $2.0 million sitting in a federal Senate campaign account that can be transferred to a 2008 presidential run); Governor Romney – $1.6 million (plus multiple state PAC accounts that are reportedly doing well); Governor Pataki – $1.5 million; Congressman Tancredo – $1.2 million; Senator Hagel – $360,300; Governor Huckabee – $287,000; and Senator Brownback – $280,000. Note that Speaker Newt Gingrich has ostensibly done no fundraising; there is no link on his web site to facilitate contributions of any kind
Though I am finding the Bill Sammon series of articles in the Washington Examiner assessing the chances of various presidential contenders in 2008 to be an interesting exercise, I cannot help but be reminded of how futile such prognostications can be – even with the collective wisdom of experienced national political analysts like Charlie Cook, Larry Sabato, and David Yepsen – when considering that the tectonic shift of political power represented by Republican takeover of the United States House of Representatives in November of 1994 was predicted by so few of these experts. As I recall, there was one national political commentator who predicted the 1994 Republican House takeover, which makes me leery of assertions for 2006 and 2008 by these experts as to who the political winners and losers may be in an age when the unique challenge of the global war on terror lurks behind every vote and high technology Get Out the Vote programs defy the turnout models of our best pollsters (as the 2004 Ohio presidential and 2006 Rhode Island Republican primary elections illustrate).
In late summer of 1994, I was a Republican congressional staffer in attendance at the semi-annual meeting of the Republican National Committee in Los Angeles. For those who may be unaware, in non-presidential election years, the RNC holds two national meetings a year – the winter meeting in Washington, D.C. and a summer meeting that rotates to major cities throughout the country each year; in a presidential election year the party conducts one nationally televised nominating convention in the summer. Each state is represented at those RNC meetings, in a voting capacity, by the chairman of their state Republican party and the Republican national committeeman and Republican national committeewoman from their state.
One of the sessions at this particular RNC summer meeting was a strategy session in which Republican political demographer John Morgan, Sr., assessed the chances for party candidates in the fall mid-term elections. This closed (to the press) door session was remarkable in that Mr. Morgan went through a slide presentation by region, since we collectively did not have the time to consider each of the 435 separate races for the U.S. House of Representatives, in which he calculated that the likely Republican seat pick-ups would be enough to give the party control of the chamber the following January, after 40 years in the minority. While the audience sat in stunned silence, Mr. Morgan calmly reiterated that his analysis was not based on hype or optimism – he had painstakingly gone through the data in each of the 435 races and confidently concluded that the GOP would win a House majority. Of course he was prophetic and correct.
The one national political pundit, as far as I know, who similarly predicted Republican takeover of the House in 1994 was syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who did so (from what I know) because he had sat down with John Morgan, Sr., later that fall and absorbed the latter’s analysis for each of the 435 House races. Novak knew what those of us who attended that strategy session at the 1994 RNC summer meeting in Los Angeles knew – thanks to Mr. Morgan – and was able to make a unique and prescient prediction for the fall mid-terms as a result.
There are too many sure things in politics – like Presidents Al Gore and John Kerry and Governor Tom Bradley of California, to name a few – and too many unexpected turns of political events – such as the Republican House takeover in 1994 – that the experts have failed to see coming for me to rely on their vision. I think part of the problem is that the analysis is too macro-political – generic congressional ballot tests, historic Electoral College trends, and inaccurate polling based on flawed turnout and party representation models. As Speaker Tip O’Neill famously said, “All politics is local.” So when the national pundits show me that they have done their homework and dug down and built a forecast based on an aggregate of local data, as Bob Novak did with John Morgan, Sr., in 1994, then I will start taking their prognostications seriously.
When it comes to the Republican presidential contest of 2008, the subject of our site, I have a feeling that the old rules and historic trends are going out the window. So while I commend the efforts of Bill Sammon in his series of articles, I personally find the analyses to be too traditional and boilerplate to be compelling. I think that the 2008 race is much more likely to rewrite the old rules and create its own new ones, which is why I think it will be so worthwhile to follow.
For all the arguments made at Giuliani Blog and Race42008 for why Rudy is the frontrunner, the one our critics keep coming back to is organization. My macro argument has been that the fundamentals –bio, attributes, likeability — matter far more than organization. Good organization provides that critical 2-3 points in a close race. The candidate supplies everything else. A candidate who spits in the face of the Commander-in-Chief (not to mention the base) who’s got a good kitchen cabinet is just lipstick on a pig.
But let’s for a moment confront the organization question on its own terms.
To hear certain Beltway media types tell it, everyone else is organizing down to the precinct in Iowa except Rudy.
But that’s not strictly true. McCain and Romney have made a point of organizing early. I touched on this tangentially in an earlier post, but both are doing it out of weakness to a certain extent. McCain to prove he can play nice with the establishment and hopefully outrun the conservative new media tsunami that’s about to overcome him. And Romney, as a newcomer with no natural organization outside Massachusetts (and perhaps Utah). Romney’s early seed-laying has arguably been more impressive as he has yet to break out of single digits in the polls and people are still signing up.
Of the other serious candidates — Rudy, Allen, Frist, Newt, and Huckabee — none have organized to the extent McCain and Romney have. This has created a nice sideshow between the two of them but has not seriously dented Rudy’s (growing) lead in the polls and his excellent standing with conservatives.
Setting Rudy aside for a moment, let’s take a look at where the other campaigns stand organization-wise.
Allen: In retrospect, Allen probably wishes he hadn’t run for re-election — he’d have had a statewide resume 2 1/2 times as long as Mitt Romney’s after making the same move. Allen has hired Dick Wadhams as his Karl Rove, is retaining long time strategist Chris LaCivita and has Ed Gillespie and Mary Matalin as advisors but otherwise has not done any hiring in the early states, and his re-election campaign has put the kibosh on in-person campaigning for 2008. Whether or not Allen will fare well after these last two months is another question, but ultimately, Allen made the calculation to run for re-election to the Senate when he was a frontrunning Republican candidate knowing that he’d have to take a pass on hiring Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina staff. It was a risk his seasoned senior staff was entirely willing to make, figuring there’d be plenty of talent to be had after the midterm elections (Hillary has made the same calculation). He may have made a mistake — but for entirely different reasons.
Frist: Bill Frist has named Brian Kennedy, a former Terry Branstad aide, as his Iowa Chairman but has otherwise been quiet on the hiring front. Granted, his stock in Republican circles isn’t the highest right now, but he did have the warewithall to bus hundreds of activists in to vote for him at the SRLC and did receive about 15% of non-Tennessee votes. His missteps as Majority Leader haven’t hurt his poll numbers as badly as they could have and he’s one or two votes away from ending his tenure on a high note. The further away he gets from that radioactive job, the better he looks. Granted, it’s a bit of a stretch, but he could probably build a Romney-like organization if he wanted to. (I mean, even Pataki is hiring people.) For whatever reason, he hasn’t.
Newt: Newt is a one-man traveling roadshow. Unless rumors about Vin Weber are to believed, no serious insiders, either nationally or in the states, have signed on to Team Newt. Like Rudy, I believe he enjoys a lot of closet support in surprising quarters, and I’m actually rather bullish on him doing well in the early states and with no organization. Republicans love the guy, and it probably wouldn’t stop him from getting 20 percent from frustrated conservatives in Iowa. But they love Rudy even more, and that won’t stop him from getting 30 percent plus.
Huckabee: Again, here’s an example of a guy with Romney-like potential, who’s openly campaigning in Iowa, who fits a perfect niche (Southern social conservative), and who hasn’t signed on anyone of note in the early states. Washington wags have practically begged him to do so. Still, no dice.
None of this is to take away from the remarkable job that McCain and Romney have done in places like Michigan and South Carolina. In McCain’s case, it’s rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, especially after the last week, but nonetheless, hats off.
But it strikes me that the best campaign talent in America probably isn’t sitting around waiting for calls from 2008 contenders. They’re focused on 2006 and fighting big campaigns — Schwarzenegger in California, Kennedy in Minnesota, Santorum in Pennsylvania, among others — or they’re at the national party committees or at the White House.
After November, I’m not sure what sense it would make for them to join a top-heavy beast like the Straight Talk Express, where Weaver’s going to be calling all the shots anyway and the Bushies will just be for show. With all the folks who have supposedly signed on, people who were very senior in past Republican Presidential campaigns are going to be relegated to second tier position. McCain is running the kind of Noah’s Ark campaign that Kerry and Gore ran, and in the end it’s just not effective. For many, it will prove a beneficial for their careers bet to join a candidate like Rudy, misunderestimated by the press, where they can have wide latitude without the bureaucracy.
And Rudy’s no slouch when it comes to running a tight ship (just ask his mayoral staff). Rudy has long time aides Chris Henick (Karl Rove’s former deputy), Tony Carbonetti (his Mayoral chief of staff), and Sunny Mindel (his communications guru). It’s not at all dissimilar to Bush’s “Iron Triangle” of Karl Rove, Joe Allbaugh, and Karen Hughes. And like Rudy, Bush was later to the game of building an organization, staying coy about his plans as he ran for re-election in 1998, telling people “keep your powder dry” but not inking anyone. Also like Rudy, the Washington people hated it and complained to the press about the unseasoned operatives at the helm in Austin.
Well, we all saw how that worked out.
Today, the Washington Examiner‘s Bill Sammon continues his “Meet the Next President” series with Rudy Giuliani. The piece begins strong, an example that the social right’s paradoxical support for Rudy is becoming ingrained into the conventional wisdom, but goes downhill from there.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani ‘ at least on paper ‘ is precisely the sort of candidate that most conservatives would vote against in a GOP presidential primary.
And yet in person, Giuliani is a living reminder of the powerful leadership he displayed in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. That leadership has translated into enormous credibility on the all-important issue of national security, which Giuliani hopes will assuage conservatives who disagree with his positions on social issues.
The rest of the piece effectively functions as an oppo dump, with the worst tidbits of Rudy’s past social libertarianism. I encourage one and all to read it to get a sense of the stuff that’s going to be thrown at us in the next year and a half.
The reporter was apparently upset that Giuliani’s spokesperson didn’t return his calls. That’s not innuendo. That’s actually in the article.
But to get a sense of just how stale and unoriginal the conventional wisdom is, you have to read the experts’ takes…
David Yepsen
Political columnist
Des Moines Register
PRO ? #quot;When he has been here, he’s been well received ‘ he’s a rock star. He shows well in the polls.#quot;
CON ? #quot;He’s too liberal on social issues. I mean, I just think the Republican Party is a pro-life party, anti-gay rights party. And I think that will really hurt Giuliani in the final analysis.#quot;
Charlie Cook
Editor
Cook Political Report
PRO ? #quot;The potency of the imagery from 9/11 is very, very strong.#quot;
CON ? #quot;I think the social, cultural issues would just cut him up in primaries and caucuses.#quot;
Larry Sabato
Political scientist, University of Virginia
PRO ? #quot;America’s Mayor?? will always be associated with his actions on September 11, which were seen by most as strong and decisive. Terrorism is his issue and it provides cover for more liberal positions on social issues.#quot;
CON ? #quot;But those issues ‘ pro-choice on abortion, pro-gay rights and so on ‘ are poison for a large majority of conservative GOP primary and caucus participants.#quot;
They all say the same thing. Pro: 9/11. Con: Social issues. Yawn. I could have told you that. It just goes to show you just how little these analysts have thought through the implications of a Giuliani candidacy.
After 9/11, the Republican Party is first and foremost the party of national security. To suggest that social issues are ultimately more important than national security in the Republican Party strikes me as very dated. In 2000, undoubtedly. And for the hardcore/Freeper/Tancredoite faction, sure. But the dirty little secret here is that these litmus test social conservatives probably represent about 30% of the party — the same noisy Alan Keyes/Gary Bauer Republicans who never voted for George W. Bush. Republicans won the last two elections on national security, and if they pull the rabbit out of the hat this time, make that three in a row.
Don’t get me wrong. Religiously active voters are probably the lion’s share of Republicans. But not all of them are litmus test voters, and the non-litmus test voters are the ones who are quite open to a candidate with so many other strengths like Rudy. And that’s not counting the economic/national security conservatives Rudy could do very well with.
But have they turned to this part of the playbook too quickly?
Governor Mitt Romney is speaking today in Washington, D.C. about the healthcare reform bill passed recently in Massachusetts with his leadership. Speaker Newt Gingrich will be speaking tomorrow in Columbus, Georgia about healthcare, as well.
Healthcare is a major and problematic issue for our country and one that the Republican Party has arguably failed to address with any vigor recently, ceding the floor to Democrats in this area with the exception of the Medicare prescription drug plan pushed by President George W. Bush. And it is virtually certain that healthcare will be and needs to be front and center as an issue during the presidential race of 2008. It is refreshing to see Republicans showing leadership in this area and fighting the Democrats for credibility on an issue that polls show the public trusts the latter party with a lot more than ours.
But what about timing?
With only 46 days left until the 2006 midterm elections, shouldn’t the focus be on congressional and gubernatorial politics, where healthcare has yet to seemingly raise its head as a leading issue? Republicans are fighting for their lives to maintain control of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and a majority of governors’ chairs. Is now the best time to be pushing for pet issues and positioning for 2008 if you are a presidential contender? What about staying on Republican message for the last month-and-a-half and speaking on behalf of Republican candidates who are up in November as a team player? And that means talking about the global war on terror, a healthy economy, immigration reform, and the consequences for America if liberals control the federal and state levers of government.
I have been waiting for and urging Republicans to start talking about the important issue of healthcare reform and offer their own plans to the public in contrast to the Democrats. But now? How about beginning November 8, 2006?
This juicy tidbit?from Strategic Vision’s most recent poll of Wisconsin voters just cannot be ignored.? Among Wisconsin Democrats, Al Gore has nearly caught up to Hillary Clinton?in the race for the 2008 Democratic nomination.? Ms. Rodham leads the former veep by only six percentage points, 35% to 29%.? John Edwards is the only other candidate to break into double-digits, registering 12% support.
Since Wisconsin is a very purple state, fairly accurately reflecting the political center of gravity of the nation, what does this say about Hillary’s chances nationally?? And since Wisconsin Democrats are probably a lot like Iowa Democrats, what does this say about the impact of a Gore run on the Iowa caucuses?? What all of this says to me is that, should Gore jump into the race, he and Hillary would clear the field, and he would probably upset Mrs. Clinton in Iowa, or at least come in a very, very close second.? At that point, all bets would be off regarding the Democratic nomination, with the possibility that?the GOP?will select its nominee long before the dust settles from the battle to lead the Democratic Party between?its most recent?president’s spouse and former veep.
Race 4 2008 would like to welcome new contributing writer Blue State Republican. Please visit BSR’s awesome blog Mike Huckabee 2008. Thanks BSR for lending your blogging prowess to R4’08!-Kavon?
—————————————————————?
Blogger Rick Daniel of Irmo, South Carolina met Gov. Mike Huckabee during his recent tour through the state and likes what he learned about the Governor’s stance on gun rights.
Mr. Daniel served nearly 10 years as president of Gun Owners of South Carolina (NRA State Association) and is currently serving as GOSC legislative director. He is a NRA Life Member and is, in fact, the only non-legislator in South Carolina to be named a “Defender of Freedom” by NRA.
Needless to say, Mr. Daniel is qualified to analyze and give an opinion about candidates’ gun rights positions.
“Friends, Mike Huckabee is the real deal.”
“I finally met a likely presidential candidate who leaves no doubt about where he stands on the gun issue,” Daniel said. “Friends, Mike Huckabee is the real deal. He understands gun rights as well as anyone I’ve met. You can’t fake the answers he gave and the depth of knowledge that he displayed. Kudos to Mike Huckabee and I wish him the absolute best of luck.”
Among Huckabee’s gun rights credentials that impressed Daniel:
–Huckabee has his own Concealed Weapons Permit (CWP) and supports a national right-to-carry
–Huckabee is a true outdoorsman, including being a knowledgeable and skilled marksman
–Huckabee understands that the Second Amendment is about far more than just hunting. It is about self-defense and ultimately it gives the citizenry protection against a tyrannical government
There’s more, so hop on over the Mr. Daniel’s blog, SC Gun Rights, here.
I was thinking something the other day. When Rudy announces, it’s going to shock the pundits and turn the political world upside down. Why? Because reading several pieces over the last few days, it’s clear that the political establishment doesn’t quite know what to make of Rudy’s overwhelming support and what it might do to the field.
Over the weekend, Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley put Rudy in one of the frontrunner slots if he decides to run:
The venerable Charles Ernest Grassley said on Iowa Press this weekend that for 08 “Only one stands out right now.” In his estimation that person is fellow Senator John McCain. He did add the Rudy Giuliani would stand out as well “if he were in campaign mode.”
It still amazes me that people say “if he were in campaign mode,” but coming from the great state of Iowa, I’ll take it.
For another example of this phenomenon, check out Howard Fineman, who suggests that Rudy could be among the candidates to pick up a lot of young Bush aides… if he runs:
Anti-McCain Republicans don’t have a single alternative, but seem to be gravitating to Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. The McCain people view him as serious competition: they have been wooing supporters in part by showing them polling match-ups in which McCain defeats Romney. Sen. George Allen of Virginia was last year’s anti-McCainanite, but the bloom – indeed the whole stem – is off of that rose. The Big Unknown: Rudy Giuliani. He’s the only one who can scramble the current outlines of the race, which is: McCain/Romney and a southerner to be named later (Bill Frist, Newt Gingrich, Allen, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas).
Here it’s the same thing. We don’t know if Rudy’s gonna run, but if he does… hold on to your seats. Never mind that he’s said through friends he going to run, and he’s visiting early primary states like South Carolina and New Hampshire.
A few weeks ago, I too would have worried about Rudy’s lack of hiring for an ’08 run. But it’s now painfully clear that McCain’s hiring spasm was borne out of weakness — weaknesses that were exposed in the last week. He’s gone into maverick remission, and he still remains deeply distrusted both outside the Beltway, and it is now clear, inside too. Meanwhile, Rudy has only continued to rise in the polls despite not being in the news very much. He has avoided unneeded scrutiny as he cements his frontrunner status — but he will need to confront that scrutiny with gusto in ’07.
Meanwhile, you’ll have to read blogs like this one to figure out what Rudy would do to the race, because the media types won’t tell you. A few weeks ago, I laid it all out:
1. January-June 2007: Media is obsessed with the Rudy vs. McCain dynamic, covering their every hire and fundraising report. The race remains relatively static.
2. Summer 2007: Media notices that a conservative dark horse starts to make a move. Polls begin to look like Rudy 30%, McCain 25%, Conservative “alternative” 15%.
3. Also during Summer 2007: Pundits also notice that McCain, under withering attack from 527s, talk radio and bloggers, hasn’t moved at all. A poll or two showing him below 20% gets the media in a tizzy about the bursting of the McCain frontrunner bubble. McCain starts losing what conservative support he had. But the race isn’t leaderless — Rudy is there, deftly taking advantage, and the defection of a major fundraiser or two from McCain is taken as a sign of shifting momentum.
4. Fall-Winter 2007: Polls show Rudy 35%, Conservative “alternative” 20%, McCain 15%.
5. Alternative candidate surges and wins Iowa, with Rudy second. McCain is a distant third.
6. McCain tries to revive in New Hampshire but it’s too late. Rudy wins. McCain drops out.
7. Conservative alternative wins South Carolina and possibly Michigan. But Rudy wins a moved-up Florida primary to shift the momentum back his way.
8. But Rudy cleans up on Super Tuesday, winning New York, California, and Ohio.
…was the title of TIME Magazine’s?cover story?last Sunday, September 17th:?
The first message was routine enough: a “Prepare to Deploy” order sent through naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters. The orders didn’t actually command the ships out of port; they just said to be ready to move by Oct. 1. But inside the Navy those messages generated more buzz than usual last week when a second request, from the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), asked for fresh eyes on long-standing U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports on the Persian Gulf. The CNO had asked for a rundown on how a blockade of those strategic targets might work. When he didn’t like the analysis he received, he ordered his troops to work the lash up once again.
What’s going on? The two orders offered tantalizing clues. There are only a few places in the world where minesweepers top the list of U.S. naval requirements. And every sailor, petroleum engineer and hedge-fund manager knows the name of the most important: the Strait of Hormuz, the 20-mile-wide bottleneck in the Persian Gulf through which roughly 40% of the world’s oil needs to pass each day. Coupled with the CNO’s request for a blockade review, a deployment of minesweepers to the west coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed–but until now largely theoretical–prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran.
From Destin Online:
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani was met with a standing ovation as he took the podium at the Walton County Chamber of Commerce’s 80th anniversary dinner Tuesday night.
At least 1,000 people filled two ballrooms at the Hilton Sandestin to hear Giuliani give a lively and entertaining keynote speech on the subject of leadership.
“I’m going to try very, very hard not to say something controversial,” he said jokingly. “It’s not easy.”
Giuliani shared amusing anecdotes with a rapt crowd as he listed six leadership practices that he said helped him through a personal battle with prostate cancer and the Sept. 11 terrorist attack in New York.
Good leaders should stick to their convictions, be optimistic, have courage, be prepared, encourage teamwork and be good communicators, he said.
“If you want to be a leader, you have to care about people,” he said. “Love them, in fact.”Giuliani said that last week’s five-year anniversary of the terrorist attack was one of the hardest days for him and many others who lived through the experience.
“It seemed like it was a more difficult day (than the other anniversaries),” he said.Giuliani’s appearance at the chamber dinner generated such a high demand for tickets that the chamber booked an adjacent ballroom at the Hilton and rigged it with audio/visual equipment so the hundreds of banquetgoers there could see and hear Giuliani’s speech.
Giuliani’s words were particularly meaningful for Crestview resident Charles Fisher, a retired New York firefighter who attended the dinner.
Fisher lost 150 friends and coworkers in the terrorist attack and the subsequent rescue efforts.When he heard a few weeks ago that Giuliani was coming to South Walton, Fisher wanted to attend the chamber dinner but could not afford a ticket. The chamber heard his story and gave him free admission.
“I’m just in heaven,” said Fisher, who arrived wearing a jacket covered in pins memorializing dozens of his fallen comrades.
Chamber President Dawn Moliterno could not say enough how happy she was that Giuliani attended the event.“We’re just excited to see him here today, and spending the afternoon with him has just been delightful,” she said
While he is often first and foremost perceived as a tough, get-the-job-done-at-all-costs kind of guy, Mayor Rudy Giuliani exhibits an understanding of some crucial elements necessary for a successful pursuit of the presidency, it seems to me, as exemplified by his remarks yesterday at an event in Florida. I think we would do well to consider what he is saying, think back on how what he is saying has played in recent presidential elections, and contemplate which candidates in 2008 may be best positioned to succeed on this basis.
I think Mayor Giuliani understands and identifies some crucial elements required of successful presidential candidates when he talks about optimism and communication and the fact that, “If you want to be a leader, you have to care about people. Love them, in fact.” Polling data strongly suggests that voters are looking for presidential candidates who both “care about people like me” and are “likeable.” Recent studies conclude that in fact it is required that political advertising touch an emotional chord to be effective. Of course Ronald Reagan was the best political communicator and most optimistic national candidate of our lifetimes, and his electoral success reflected such. And it seems highly plausible that in razor-thin elections where the Democrats had a lot of inherent advantages, either of Al Gore or John Kerry might well have been able to secure Electoral College majorities had they scored higher on the “likability” scale. Michael Dukakis was aloof and hardly likeable – and got trounced accordingly. Bill Clinton was optimistic, a terrific public communicator, and likeable in many respects – at least prior to the Lewinsky matter – and was rewarded by voters with two terms in the White House. Jimmy Carter defeated a badly damaged Gerald Ford after the latter’s pardoning of Richard Nixon by convincing voters he could be trusted to inspire confidence in government after Watergate.
While being able to project, through communication skills, an optimistic and likeable persona is necessary for electoral success at the presidential level, I don’t mean to imply that it is sufficient. Clearly, especially in the age of the Global War on Terror, substantive positions and prescriptions on the issues of the day matter a lot. But in winnowing the field and in analyzing head-to-head match-ups, the “likability” factor has always proven to be significant
I am quite please?to welcome Race 4 2008‘s newest writer Republius.
Republius has served as a corporate executive, congressional staff member to three Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives, and lawyer; having served in the House when the GOP was in the minority (pre-1994) as well as when they became the majority (post-1994), he is interested in the Race for 2008 as a critical test of who will lead the GOP as it approaches the fork in the road that will determine whether they build on or relinquish their majority status in Washington, D.C. You can email Republius with any tips, comments or suggestions at republiusrace42008@yahoo.com.
It is truly an honor for me to welcome Republius to R4’08.
The?original version of?yesterday’s post entitled?”Ending Before It Begins” was much longer than the published version. I intended to?end the article with a paragraph that was something along the lines of “Not to be a black helicopter/tinfoil hat wearing kind of guy, but McCain’s bizzare actions on the detainee issue almost make you wonder if he has already decided that the GOP nomination is lost and he is laying the groundwork for an Independant run.”
After reading the draft, I decided that part was just a little too out there. After all, McCain has said several times that he will never leave the Republican Party and that the biggest mistake his hero Teddy Roosevelt ever made was his third-party run in 1912.
Then I came across John McIntyre’s column on Real Clear Politics:
Senator John McCain’s handling of the detainee issue with the President could have very long-reaching political ramifications. By and large, McCain had been doing a pretty good job over the last ten months aligning himself with President Bush and signing up high-profile Republicans for his 2008 run. McCain seems to have learned his lesson from 2000 that if he wants to be President as a Republican, he first has to win the Republican nomination.
As someone who experienced brutal torture as a Vietnam POW, I am sure McCain is acting on this issue out of personal conviction. So while the substance of his position may not be open to much compromise, the public relations angle of how he handles this blowup certainly is. Looking at this issue politically, McCain’s approach only works if the McCain camp has strategically come to a decision that the Republican nomination is simply unattainable and that an independent bid is his only realistic chance to win the Presidency. But that logic doesn’t make a lot of sense as McCain has no reason to think he doesn’t have a very good shot of winning the GOP nomination.
At this stage in the ’08 nominating battle McCain, Giuliani and Romney clearly look like the Big 3. And while Giuliani looks good in some of these early polls, McCain still has to be regarded as the front-runner. That is what makes this fight with the President all the more perplexing. Perhaps McCain feels his history as a decorated POW in Vietnam will provide him cover on this issue and in some sense it definitely does. But McCain has only so many more sticks he can shove into conservative eyes before he really starts to hurt his chances for the GOP nomination.
Well if John McIntyre is not afraid to address this issue, neither should I.
I personally doubt that McCain will go indy in ’08 if he loses the Republican nomination. I do?believe that despite my many, many problems with him issues-wise, that Sen. McCain is a decent man who will keep his word. Especially regarding a promise?that he has made?publically several?times.
McCain most likely also lacks the financial?means to go third-party. The price tag of an indy run will be in the $500 million range, which is much more than what he will have left over after the primary contest. I know that his wife Cindy is very wealthy, however I do not believe that she is in the Ross Perot or Michael Bloomberg class which is probably where you have to be to consider a serious third-party run.
If McCain was able to gain the financial backing of some?uberwealthy backers, those people are most likely to come from The Left—like George Soros (Soros has contributed to McCain in the past). Taking Soros money may turn off the very independant/moderate voters he would be?counting on.
Another 2008 McCain related conspiracy theory was tiptoed around yesterday at Hotline:
Today, McCain woke up to find stories in both the Post and LA Times looking at the political fallout of his battle, or “discussion” as the WH and McCain’s camp would have it, with Bush. Perhaps more politically notable, a similar story ran in The State, SC’s largest and most important newspaper, on Sunday. Although his fellow maverick, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) defended McCain to his home-state paper, SC GOP chair Katon Dawson was quoted as saying the state is “certainly Bush country” and while “John McCain thinks he’s right” on the issue, “people on the ground think they’re wrong,” referring to both McCain and Graham. Or, as another SC GOP activist put it to us today, “we elected George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, NOT John McCain and Lindsey Graham.”
It is far too early to hold up one issue, particularly one where McCain and Bush could still reach consensus, as being even potentially relevant in primary still well over a year away. But what is notable about this debate is what has not happened. While such staunch McCain allies as Weekly Standard editor have conceded that the issue will hurt McCain politically, we’ve yet to see any blind quotes coming out of the WH knocking McCain. Said one “SAO” in today’s Post story: “There’s no question of motives that there may have been a couple years ago. My sense is, this is paining him and this pains us. Neither of us wants to be in the position to have to do this and have it spill out into public.”
Has the president, or a certain Dep Chief of Staff, laid down the law to such “SAOs” that there will be no negative leaks about McCain? And, if so, what does that say to those in “Bush Country” about how this admin feels about ’08?
This of course is a reference to the infamous?”corrupt bargain” rumor that has circulated since Summer 2004 where McCain supposedly went to Dubya with John?Kerry’s V.P. offer and something along the lines of “I don’t want to do this, but my time is running out. Back me in 2008 and I will turn down this offer and go all out for you” was said and agreed to.
I have always wondered why Hotline/Chuck Todd/National Journal are the most strident backers of John McCain as the Republican frontrunner out there. Perhaps they buy into some of this.
The reason I don’t buy into this is strictly?personal. I believe President Bush to be a man of the utmost integrity. He has said that he will not meddle in the ’08 nomination process and I?believe him. Dubya hardly seems?to be the kind of politician to strike a?”corrupt bargain” of this kind. Perhaps I’m naive.
That will?conclude Race 4 2008, X-Files addition. Tinfoil hat off…?????
Strategic Vision Wisconsin, Sept. 15th-17th, 2006
Who is your choice for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008? (Tommy Thompson excluded; Republicans only)
Rudy Giuliani 40%
John McCain 23%
Mitt Romney 10%
Newt Gingrich 5%
Bill Frist 4%
George Allen 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
George Pataki 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 14%
Strategic Vision Michigan, Sept. 15th-17th, 2006
For the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination whom would you support? (Republicans Only)
John McCain 37%
Rudy Giuliani 22%
Mitt Romney 16%
Newt Gingrich 3%
Bill Frist 2%
George Allen 1%
George Pataki 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 16%
?
Not that anyone in the U.S. that pays attention to politics actually?believed her claims that she?hadn’t made a decision yet. But still, the confirmation is worth noting because it signals that?we have crossed a threshold in the openings stages of what will be the most epic political?battle of a?lifetime:
Hillary running for President has been confirmed by Terry McAuliffe:
Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe has told business associates and Democratic donors that he will chair Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) presidential campaign next year, according to several Democratic sources.
Together, Clinton, the favorite to win the Democratic nomination, and McAuliffe, the top money man in Democratic politics, have a good chance of raising $100 million before the first official contest, the Iowa caucuses in January 2008.
While Clinton and her staff insist she is focused solely on winning reelection in New York this November, the decision over who will be in charge of getting her elected to the White House is already settled.
McAuliffe told The Hill yesterday that Clinton has not made a decision on running for president and will not do so until after Nov. 7. McAuliffe also denied telling friends that he will serve as chairman, although sources contradict him.
He acknowledged that he would play a “huge role” in her presidential campaign if it materializes and that he has recruited donors for a possible White House run.
“I would just say that I hope she runs,” said McAuliffe. “She’s focused on the Senate and I’m focused on helping Democrats.
“Would I have a huge role on the campaign? Of course, that’s not real news. People know that I have has been around lining up people if she decides to run.”
My hearts all aflutter just thinking about 2008. Not only will we have the epic GOP contest, but the real entertainment will come from The Left as they tear each other apart over the nomination. Just think about it: DLC vs. the Nutroots, Captain Al jumping in to save the day, Obama’s continual teasing, Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, George Soros, Al Sharpton, Markos, Michael Moore, Jimmy Carter,?etc… It will be a bloodbath…and I can’t wait!?
“Murder/Suicide” is a term that entered the political lexicon in 2004′s Iowa Caucuses, when Dick Gephardt gratitously attacked Howard Dean and Dean responded in kind, commiting the cardinal sin of singling out one opponent for attack in a multicandidate field and leaving voters to flock to the sunny, optimistic Kerry and Edwards Iowa campaigns.
Is the same dynamic developing between McCain and Romney? Marc Ambinder and Jonathan Martin explore.
Gov. Romney said what many of us were thinking and went after McCain for the “torture” fiasco. In doing so, what was a proxy war broke out into the open. Granted — it’s pretty small beans compared to the vicious stuff that’s coming, but the time January 2008 rolls around, their campaign teams are going to HATE each other, and it’s going to lead to some pretty nasty attacks in both directions.
Regular readers of this blog will know that in addition to my sincere admiration for Mayor Giuliani, nothing gets me riled up more than the prospect of Senator McCain slipping away with the nomination. But on the official level, Mayor Giuliani and Senator McCain get along fine. Their staffs are cordial, from what I hear. I can’t imagine being in Mayor Giuliani’s inner circle and NOT thinking of this past week as anything but a massive opportunity — but it doesn’t pay to directly attack McCain when others will do it for you. (And besides, McCain’s 10-15% support among core primary voters could be what wins us the nomination once he collapses.)
Imagine this scenario heading into Iowa. Romney attacks McCain. McCain attacks Romney. And then there’s Rudy, waiting in the wings, staying above the fray, sweeping up the voters tired of the nasty attack politics, winning Iowa and cruising to the nomination.
