Behold, the power of the Internet. You can watch Rudy’s excellent address to Granite State Republicans on C-SPAN’s “Road to the White House” website. The Rudy portion of the episode begins about 57 minutes into the program. Be sure to skip ahead; otherwise, be prepared to suffer through an hour of Hillary Rodham.
So go on. Watch it and make up your own mind. I report, you decide, and all that.
Mitt Romney has an uphill fight in front of him in his quest to earn the GOP nomination in 2008, for sure. But once you get past the flip-flopping attacks and smears and hear the man speak and listen to his ideas, one can understand why those of us who are throwing our support behind the man are optimistic about his chances.
This weekend he gave a keynote speech at the National Review Institute Conservative Summit, and touched on a wide range of topics. From a completely biased standpoint, I have to say, while it was not his best speech, I was thoroughly impressed. Watch the speech here – and decide for yourself about the man called Mitt. Here are some highlights I took away from watching the speech (paraphrases for interest of time and the fact I couldn’t find a transcript):
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, the two Senators from Maine, today announced they would be endorsing and joining John McCain’s campaign for President. McCain also picked up the endorsement of Maine State Representative, and Leader of the House, Josh Tardy.
This is a good pickup for McCain inasmuch as a clean sweep of any state’s Senators is a good pickup – and these are two less Senators than can go to Giuliani or Romney or any other candidate. However, as debated on this site before, surrounding yourself with moderate-to-liberal Senators isn’t going to help a lot in the primaries.
The reverberations of influential Social Conservative activist Maryls Popma’s signing with Team McCain were felt across Iowa last December. In this Race 4 2008 exclusive, Ms. Popma discusses her decision to join Sen. McCain’s exploratory committee, as well as providing a first look into Team McCain’s strategy for reaching out to Iowa’s Social Conservatives.
________________________________________________________________
R4’08: Thank you Marlys for agreeing to this interview. Can you start off by telling us a little bit about your background?
Thank you for taking the time to ask these questions. I appreciate your interest in issues that matter to the social conservatives. I feel very blessed to have been able to do what I love and work for the things I believe in over the course of my career.
I have served as the president of Iowa Right to Life and as the executive director of The Iowa Family Policy Center. I have served as the political director and victory director for the Republican Party of Iowa and twice as its executive director. I have worked for the campaigns of Congressman Jim Ross Lightfoot, and the gubernatorial campaigns of Terry Branstad and Jim Nussle. My past caucus experience includes serving as national deputy political director for Gary Bauer in 2000 and Iowa deputy campaign manager for Phil Gramm in 1996.
R4’08: As perhaps the most well-known and influential conservative activist in Iowa, the decision to sign with a candidate must have required a great deal of deliberation. What specifically led you to join Senator McCain’s campaign?
I appreciate the sentiment, but the conservative movement in
After discussion with people I admire, people I view as mentors, considerable consultation with my husband, and most of all a great deal of time in prayer, my husband and I decided together that we would join Senator McCain’s team. In addition I spent a significant amount of time researching and meeting with the candidates personally. After that process was complete I based my decision on the following factors: willingness to sign pro-life legislation; a belief that marriage is between one man and one woman; electability; honesty/consistency on the issues; fiscal discipline; foreign policy experience necessary to fight the War on Terror; and most importantly the conviction to appoint justices to all levels of the judiciary who will understand that it is their duty to interpret the Constitution not to legislate from the bench. Based on these factors, I knew that Senator McCain was the clear choice.
R4’08: In the early primary/caucus states such as
Having worked in both states I understand the differences in the electorate. I think Senator McCain is uniquely equipped to communicate with the two constituencies. Senator McCain is both a commonsense conservative and a tremendously independent man. One of the things that impresses me most about Senator McCain is that he is who he says he is. He doesn’t take positions on issues based on political convenience. This consistency builds trust with the voters and will resonate all across
R4’08: Can you give us some insight into how you plan to make inroads with
The first thing we must do is to “introduce” social conservatives to John McCain, the real John McCain, not the one they think they know. There is a misperception amongst some social conservatives about his record. Senator McCain has been a consistent advocate for pro-life, pro-family causes. He has a 24 year pro-life voting record, has supported strict constructionist judges, and supports traditional marriage. Once social conservatives are introduced to that record, they will see that he stands very strongly with them.
In addition, social conservatives do not look for candidates in a vacuum; they look for well-rounded candidates. Once they are satisfied with his social conservative record they will be drawn to his fiscal responsibility and foreign policy credentials as well.
R4’08: If you were to speak with a social conservative who was completely unfamiliar with the candidates in the 2008 field and was trying to make up their mind as to who they should support, how would you differentiate between the records of Sen. McCain and other candidates, such as Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. Sam Brownback, and Gov. Mike Huckabee?
R4’08: How well do you feel other candidates are doing in their outreach to
Since the campaign has just begun, I think it’s a little pre-mature to evaluate the outreach of other campaigns. With that being said, I think our campaign is doing a phenomenal job of recruiting influential social conservatives. Obviously I cannot speak for the other campaigns, but I also cannot envision that they could be doing a better job of reaching out to social conservatives than we are.
R4’08: The recent statements of Dr. James Dobson suggest that residual suspicion towards Sen. McCain left over from the 2000 campaign still exists in some circles of the Evangelical community. How would you respond to those suspicions, especially considering the strong opposition to Sen. McCain from culturally liberal groups like NARAL and People for the American Way, which object to Sen. McCain’s Evangelical-friendly record on traditional marriage and life?
Again, I believe that this is merely a matter of not yet “knowing” the Senator and being unaware of his voting record. A person is almost always best identified by the friends they keep and the enemies they engage. John McCain has consistently received a 0% rating from both NARAL and Planned Parenthood. The measure of your enemy’s tolerance is a good reflection of a person’s position on the life issue. When members of the pro-life community become fully aware of these facts, they will be able to proudly support and work on behalf of John McCain.
During this time period, Senator McCain’s voting record was being misrepresented. A man who proudly proclaimed himself a pro-life, pro-family conservative was being unduly chastised by some in our party. We must always guard against those temptations of believing that we are right with no consideration of the real facts. He has actively reached out to social conservatives. He has also made very clear to me, and I am fully confident, that he will put social conservative issues at the forefront in this campaign.
R4’08: In 2000, Sen. McCain stated that he didn’t think Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Do you believe this is where he stands now?
Senator McCain has a 24 year pro-life voting record. He believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. His choice of words were unfortunate, but after taking the time to understand the full meaning of his heart, it is obvious that he cares about not only the precious children who are losing their lives, but also for the women who are faced with very difficult situations. I am confident that Sen. McCain will continue to support pro-life causes, just as he has for the last twenty plus years.
It is important that a presidential candidate believe that marriage should remain between one man and one woman, but I don’t believe they need to support a federal marriage amendment. As a federalist, Senator McCain believes in governing as our Founding Fathers intended. He believes, as do many other social conservatives, that the best government is that government that is closest to the people. He is an active supporter of states’ rights rather than the overreaching arm of the federal government. I believe that if our Founding Fathers were alive today that they would support the state’s rights approach to this issue.
Additionally, Senator McCain has indicated to me that if the federal courts strip the states of their wishes to define marriage in the traditional fashion, he feels it is at that time that the federal government should be given the power to step in and defend the rights of the states by passing a federal marriage amendment. As a side note, I think it is important that people know that Sen. McCain played a critical role in the effort in
R4’08: How confident are you that conservatives would be pleased with a President McCain’s nominees to the federal bench? Would a typical McCain judicial nominee look more like Scalia, O’Connor, or Stevens?
I am extremely confident that conservatives will be pleased with McCain nominees to the court. Senator McCain has voted for constructionist judges time and time again. He will appoint judges who interpret the Constitution according to its original intent and understand courts should NOT make law
R4’08: What policy would Sen. McCain advance towards
Watching it now on C-SPAN. I know I’m far from objective, but I can honestly say that the reports from the ground haven’t done Mayor Giuliani justice.
Far from the somber event it was described as, Rudy started out with some classic New York-style humor that was received well by this northeastern audience. Rudy seems young and vibrant; you’d never guess he was over 60. He’s projecting an optimism that I haven’t seen in a presidential candidate since Reagan himself. He’s talking up New Hampshire’s “Live Free or Die” motto, which coincides well with Rudy’s own libertarian-conservative governing philosophy. Rudy comes across as very pro-market and anti-tax. His policy emphasis seems to be on freedom, particularly economic freedom, winning the war on terror, and competence in government. He’s just partisan enough without turning off non-Republicans. Rudy comes across as someone with both a vision as well as the ability to execute that vision. His language on the war on terror is less of a grandiose Wilsonianism and more common-sense pragmatism. “We don’t go back to the pre-September 11th mentality of being on defense.” Rudy envisions a world where countries do business with one another instead of making war with each other. He speaks of an America that stays engaged in the world and that remains on offense in the GWOT, but he describes this in terms that are more pragmatic than idealistic. He trumpets the importance of fiscal conservatism. Rudy sounds almost like Milton Friedman as he explains why people should be trusted with their money and not the government. He wants to save Social Security and secure the borders. Rudy is frustrated that Washington can’t seem to get anything done. He wants government to work again. Rudy believes in both being practical and optimistic. He evokes the strength of America with the tenacity of a New Yorker. “The past will inform us. The present will energize us. But the future is where we’re going.”
Anyone who actually saw this speech and described it as anything less than stellar is either engaging in spin or politically tone-deaf. If Rudy spends the next year giving speeches like this, it’s time to start practicing saying, “President Giuliani.”
It seems that Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards just moved into “the most valuable home in Orange County [North Carolina].” A $6 million, 28,200 square foot house. In general, I have nothing against such large purchases (after all, my man McCain bought a stunning $4.6 million condo back in October), but this would seem to be a big political liability for Edwards’ “Two Americas” theme. Steven Taylor even notes an article that says:
Edwards had hit the talk-show circuit with his book Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives, which describes the childhood homes of more-or-less famous people, including his own modest mill-village houses.
“I came from a very different place,” [Edwards] said. “And I have been lucky enough to – to have everything you could ever have in this country. And I feel a responsibility to help people help themselves. It’s for you and the American people to judge whether they think that’s real and authentic. I believe it is, but that’s not my judgment to make.”
I know times have changed quite a bit and all, but it seems very hard to try to portray yourself as a man of the people when your house has a $300,000 basketball court attached to it.
Lots of Rudy news from this weekend. Let’s start off with The Politico’s accusations of Rudy’s “prickliness”:
Mark Barabak of the LA Times, reporting from New Hampshire, neatly encapsulates through one anecdote an element of Team Rudy that will probably have to give.
“But Giuliani’s famously prickly style could be a problem. New Hampshire voters expect a highly personal touch, not the kind of imperious display the Giuliani camp put on Saturday. As the ex-mayor was being swept into an SUV outside the Palace Theatre, a man pushed his way forward and threw an arm over Giuliani’s shoulder, posing for a picture. A burly security guard lifted the man’s arm off, like a piece of bad meat.”
To be fair, Giuiani’s team was dealing with a significant amount of reporters and cameras following their candidate and wanted to retain some degree of order. Still, the staff and security cordon around Rudy is something that won’t be looked fondly upon by Iowa and New Hampshire voters used to having free and easy access at visiting presidential hopefuls. It will be interesting to see if they ease up on the entourage as the press herd lessens on Hizzoner’s second, third and fourth trip.
I have personally attended not one, but two events headlined by Rudy. The two events were held months apart and in different states. On both occasions, Hizzoner was charming, affable, and accessable to everyone in attendance. Rudy did not leave until every hand was shaken, every picture taken, and every autograph signed.
Does Hizzoner look like someone averse to mingling with his admirers?
Next up, Philip Klein of the American Spectator details Rudy’s appearance in New Hampshire:
I spent Saturday in Manchester, NH where Rudy Giuliani was the keynote speaker at the annual meeting of the Republican State Committee. I plan to write a longer piece on this for our main website on Monday, so I don’t want to go into too much detail here. But the bottom line is that the speech was very well received, and after speaking extensively to NH Republican activists, it became clear to me that the primary is very much in play for Rudy, and social issues, while an obstacle, will not be a deal breaker for him here. The closest thing I found to a consensus view was that it’s very early, voters want to get to know each of the candidates a lot better before making a decision, but the door is definitely open for Giuliani. It also became clearer that Rudy is unlikely to flip flop on social issues, emphasizing the things that Republicans agree on –fiscal discipline, cutting taxes, personal responsibility, national defense, staying on offense against terrorism. He acknowledged that conservative voters may not agree with him on every issue, but nobody agrees with any candidate 100 percent of the time. He also sounded very much like a candidate, saying, “when I promise you things, if I do, when I do, as I do, I’ll promise them because I’ve done them before,” and then boasting about his accomplishments as mayor.
And Finally, George Will gave his assessment of Hizzoner on ABC‘s This Week:
“Let me — let me make the case for Giuliani. Just — you can argue as indeed I have so argued that his eight years as mayor of New York were the most successful episode of conservative governance in this country in the last 50 years, on welfare and crime particularly.”
Don’t forget that you can still catch Rudy’s New Hampshire appearance on C-Span starting at 12:30am Eastern.
The ultra-lefty blog, Think Progress, posts the transcript and video of this morning’s Fox News Sunday. Lieberman argues that the Hagel/Biden resolution effectively encourages and emboldens the enemy in Iraq. Brownback said that they’re already emboldened right now.
LIEBERMAN: I fear that while this resolution is non-binding and, therefore, will not affect the implementation of the plan, it will do two things that can be harmful, which is that it will discourage our troops, who we’re asking to carry out this new plan, and it will encourage the enemy, because as General Petraeus said to our committee, war is a test of wills, and you don’t want your enemy to be given any hope.
[snip]
BROWNBACK: I don’t I don’t see this enemy as needing any more emboldening or getting it from any resolution. They’re emboldened now. I was there two weeks ago in Iraq. I was in Baghdad. I was in northern Iraq. This is a very aggressive situation. You have sectarian violence of Sunni and Shia. I was in the Kurdish area. They were talking about we have to get the Sunni and Shia together. I talked with the head of the Kurdish group. He said he wouldn’t vote for more troops because you have to first force the Sunni and Shia to sit down and talk about a political accommodation and that’s not happening.
I doubt this will help Brownback’s quest for the Republican nomination, but at least he’s getting some publicity and name recognition.
Joe Lieberman, my favorite Democratic Independent U.S. senator, has stated that he is open to supporting whomever is best suited to lead the country in 2008, regardless of party:
“I’m going to do what most independents and a lot of Democrats and Republicans in America do, which is to take a look at all the candidates and then in the end, regardless of party, decide who I think will be best for the future of our country,” Lieberman said Sunday.
“So I’m open to supporting a Democrat, Republican or even an Independent, if there’s a strong one. Stay tuned,” said the three-term lawmaker who caucuses with Senate Democrats.
Lieberman is an ally of GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a 2008 hopeful, and supports President Bush’s new Iraq strategy. Lieberman won re-election as an independent last fall when Democrats backed an anti-war candidate who won the party primary.
Speaking of which politician he may support in 2008, Lieberman said, “Obviously, the positions that some candidates have taken in Iraq troubles me. Obviously, I will be looking at what positions they take in the larger war against Islamist terrorism.”
About one-third of my political gut thinks that Lieberman is trying to hedge his bets so that he can back the strongest candidate and possibly get the SecDef job he’s been aiming for over the past few years. Another third of me says that he’s cut a deal with his friend McCain. And yet another third of me thinks that Lieberman’s eyeing Chuck Hagel and a possible independent bid for the White House. Lieberman knows that his days in the good graces of Senate Democrats are numbered. Dems are likely to gain a couple of Senate seats in 2008, and probably another couple in 2010, both years which involve the GOP defending ridiculous numbers of seats due to our successes in past years. Lieberman’s Senate career is closer to its end than its beginning; he can either watch his committee chair be yanked out from under him in two years or make a play for something a bit bigger. It looks like Joe has chosen the latter option.
Hizzoner’s New Hampshire appearance will be featured tonight on C-Span’s “Road to the White House“. Broadcast times are: 6:30pm, 9:30pm, and 12:30pm Eastern Standard time.
Friend of Race 4 2008, writer and attorney Jennifer Rubin, has written an article for this week’s issue of The Weekly Standard that examines just how recent Mitt Romney’s conversion to social conservatism really was.
Romney and his supporters often point to the length of time since his conversion to social conservatism. However, Jennifer discusses how ardently Pro-Choice Romney campaigned as in the 2002 race for governor. Among Jennifer’s revelations:
In the spring of 2002 Romney completed a Planned Parenthood questionnaire. Signed by Romney and dated April 9, 2002, it contained these responses:
-Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade? YES
-Do you support state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women? YES
In 1998 the FDA approved the first packaging of emergency contraception, also known as the “morning after pill.” Emergency contraception is a high dose combination of oral contraceptives that if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can safely prevent a pregnancy from occurring. Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception? YES
Romney also completed the questionnaire of the National Abortion Rights Action League, or NARAL (now called NARAL Pro-Choice America), with this statement:
I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government’s. The truth is no candidate in the governor’s race in either party would deny women abortion rights. So let’s end an argument that does not exist and stop these cynical and divisive attacks that are made only for political gain.
As he had with Planned Parenthood, Romney answered “Yes” to questions asking whether he supported Roe v. Wade and opposed attempts to restrict abortion. After completing the questionnaire, Romney met with three NARAL executives. In this meeting, NARAL executives recount, Romney evidenced no hesitation about his pro-choice views. He also tried to pique the executives’ interest in endorsing him by bluntly acknowledging that he had higher political aspirations, saying, “You need someone like me in Washington.” Moreover, those present recall that Romney argued that his election would make him credible in the Republican party nationally and thus help “sensible” Republicans like him overshadow more conservative elements in the GOP.
That spring, Romney also personally telephoned the group Republican Majority for Choice and asked for its endorsement. Completing a questionnaire similar to those of other pro-choice groups, Romney got what he wanted from the pro-choice Republicans. His campaign trumpeted the endorsement with a press release.
With the length of the paper trail Gov. Romney has on these issues, it seems improbable that this will simply go away.
????????By the way, did anyone see former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee on Meet the Press this morning? He announced that indeed he will be forming a presidential exploratory committee tomorrow, and I thought he acquitted himself well in general, handling the toughest Tim Russert questions calmly, confidently, and in a manner that tells me he was well prepared and anticipated the areas a moderator would probe for weakness.
He spoke partisanly and coservatively, yet in a mannner that was open to reaching across party divides and would be appealing to moderates and independents. He also advocated his positions passionately and seriously, but with a smile and some humor, which is Reaganesque and refreshing. He was able to make a cogent case for his?niche in the 2008 Republican primary field as a former state chief executive who is for change as a Washington, D.C. outsider, rather than allow himself to get painted into a corner of caricature by Russert, as so often happens to Meet the Press guests.
I have seen Governor Huckabee on numerous other appearances, but previously he always looked to me to be the essence of the governor from a small state that he was. Today he looked like a presidential candidate, if not perhaps even presidential.
If Governor Huckabee can raise money or light a spark in Iowa or New Hampshire, I think he has the potential to rise into the top tier of candidates that includes Gingrich, Giuliani, McCain, and Romney.
I thought Mike Huckabee seemingly helped himself substantially in pursuing the Republican nomination for president in 2008 with his Meet the Press performance today.
Finally, we see Rudy Giuliani hitting the campaign trail in full force!? (Hat tip to FullosseousFlap)
Rudy gave the headline speech at the New Hampshire Republican Convention earlier this morning, which received rave reviews.
Next stop on the?’Leadership’?Express:
I’m particularly interested in the attention Rudy is giving to California, which, with its many electoral votes and big-name potential donors/supporters, could begin playing a?huge role in the Republican nominating process, especially if they move their primary date up to February 5th, 2008,?as is planned.
This begins what will hopefully be a regular feature on Race 4 2008 – The Endorsement Race. As names fly all over the place of who is endorsing who, we have yet to find one site that keeps track of them all in one place. So, we have taken it upon ourselves to do just that!
Right up front, we should mention that winning the endorsement race does not automatically a campaign victory make. However, many times endorsements can add to a feeling of inevitability, or a key endorsement from a popular politician could change the dynamics of the race. So the candidate that is ahead in The Endorsement Race updates here on R4’08 is not necessarily the candidate that is going to win, or even in the best position to win. But it is an overall positive mark for the chance of success for their campaign!
The first installment of The Endorsement Race, along with a first-time explanation, is below the fold.
(more…)
John Hawkins of Right Wing News, the perennial sunny optimist, posted the results of the annual right-of-center bloggers’ poll regarding the 2008 GOP nomination. The poll asked conservative bloggers whom they would most like to see as the GOP nominee, and to also identify who they’d least like to win the nod. At least one of the results was a bit surprising.
The results of the poll can be found here. And here is the ranking of the candidates if you take the difference of their most desired and least desired votes:
Newt Gingrich +52 / -13.5 = 38.5
Duncan Hunter +35.5 / -3.5 = 32
Mitt Romney 43 / -11.5 = 31.5
Rudy Giuliani +45 / -17 = 28
Tommy Thompson 15.5 / -9 = 6.5
Mike Huckabee +14 / -12 = 2
Tom Tancredo 31.5 / -30 = 1.5
Jim Gilmore +5.5 / -5.5 = 0
John Cox +4 / -4.5 = -.5
Sam Brownback +20 / -21 = -1
Ron Paul 8.5 / -10.5 = -2
John McCain +19 / -60.5 = -41.5
George Pataki 1 / -49 = -48
Chuck Hagel +1 / -64 = -63
At least one of these results sticks out like a sore thumb. Duncan Hunter, a seemingly lower-tier candidate for the GOP nomination, finds himself sandwiched between the big boys. He places second only to Newt, edging out Romney and Giuliani and beating everyone else by a mile. Query: is this the beginning of Hunter-mania?
Truth be told, guys like Hunter don’t win the GOP presidential nomination. A Hunter nomination is almost unthinkable; it would be Goldwater redux. That doesn’t mean, though, that Hunter couldn’t prove a spoiler in Iowa by coming in second or third and claiming the “conservative” mantle, only to lack the support to place in New Hampshire or beyond. In so doing, Hunter would probably knock all of the candidates not named Rudy or McCain out of the race, thus setting up that two-man race for the subsequent primaries. It’s difficult to imagine a guy like Hunter going the distance though given the presence of two heavyweights in the presidential field of a party that likes heirs apparent.
Still, don’t underestimate the “they all suck” mentality of conservatives as we head into 2008. The desire to protest-vote may be stronger than we all realize.
Newsweek is out with its latest ’08 poll, in which the liberal mag again expects us to believe that a GOP contender can match his Democratic opponent in support from his own party AND beat said Democrat among independents substantially, only to lose to the Democrat by a significant margin. As I pointed out last week, in the last two elections, including in the one held just under three months ago, Democrats have never enjoyed more than a 2-point advantage over Republicans in actual turnout. Eleanor Clift may not like it, but this is not 1970, and Democrats do not outnumber Republicans by ten points. As such, take these numbers with several grains of salt, and remember that the crosstabs are your friends, and that Bush beat Kerry by 3 points in 2004 by beating his base turnout while losing independents by 1 point.
Here are Newsweek’s head-to-head matchup numbers. Check the link for crosstabs.
Hillary 50
McCain 44Obama 48
McCain 42Edwards 48
McCain 44Hillary 49
Rudy 46Obama 47
Rudy 44Edwards 46
Rudy 47Hillary 56
Romney 37Obama 56
Romney 30Edwards 60
Romney 26
A few points.
First, note how Edwards bleeds Democratic support in a matchup against Rudy. This is further support for my theory that a lot of people who now consider themselves “Democrats” are DLC types in the north and the west who are pro-market, pro-trade, and definitely pro-fiscal sanity, none of which is embodied in an old-fashioned populist Democrat like Edwards. Faced with Edwards on one hand and a socially libertarian, pro-economic freedom Republican like Rudy on the other, lots of Democrats cross over to vote for the GOP ticket. In other words, a Rudy/Edwards matchup would create lots of “Rudy Democrats.”
Second, note how despite conservatives’ perpetual grumbling, both Rudy and McCain manage to hold onto a minimum of 86 percent of Republicans in every single matchup. This proves that conservative grumbling is just hot air. Republicans will vote for Rudy or McCain over any of the Democratic Big 3.
Finally, note how Romney bleeds Republican support against every Democrat, losing between 15 and 20 percent of Republicans to the Democrat. This is important, as if these voters were simply checking the “undecided” box, it would illustrate that they simply haven’t heard of Mitt. But instead, these Republicans are actually voting Democrat if Romney heads the ticket! Could it be that there is a latent anti-Mormon vote among conservatives at the grassroots that everyone is too polite to talk about until the curtain to the ballot box is closed?
Newsweek also polled various combinations of primary matchups, the results of which I’ve compiled here:
Rudy 48
McCain 44Rudy 72
Romney 17McCain 69
Romney 19Hillary 62
Edwards 29Hillary 55
Obama 35Obama 46
Edwards 39
This is Obama’s path to the nomination: a two-man race with Edwards. If Edwards wins Iowa, where he currently leads, and then goes on to win union-heavy Nevada, Hillary will be down but not out, and Obama will have a chance to finish her off in New Hampshire. An Obama win in the Granite State followed by an Edwards comeback in South Carolina will pretty much take Hillary out of the race. And then on February 5th, which is shaping up to be National Primary Day, Obama could potentially beat Edwards in a series of matchups to garner the nomination. A longshot, but it could happen.
Final thought. I know Romney’s name recognition sucks, but shouldn’t he be doing just a teensy, weensy bit better against Rudy or McCain after all the time and money and energy Team Mitt has put forth?
The Hotline’s Kevin Rennie files a report from today’s Rudy Giuliani speech in Manchester and seemed to come away unimpressed:
MANCHESTER, NH — A week before Frank Santos, “The R-Rated Hyptonist” takes the stage in at the Palace Theater in Manchester, New Hampshire, former New York Mayor Rudoph Giuliani devlivered a subdued speech to the state Republican annual meeting.
Giuliani, whose heralded appearance helped draw more than 500 state Republicans to the conclave, touched on his copyrighted issues of reducing crime, reforming welfare and, of course, leading New York through the attacks of September 11th.
The former mayor, accompanied by his wife Judith, suggested again that he will make his decision on whether to run for the White House when he’s answered the questions, “Can you take the things you’ve done and do a better job?”
“Can you do a better job?” is the essential question, he says. If so, Giuliani ought to be jumping in soon.
In his 30 minute speech, Guliani recited a long list of things he did as mayor of New York and applied them successfully to the city in a speech with long stretched without applause or laughter. The New Hampshire crowd, eager for some lift after suffering historic losses at every level in November was stirred only when Giuliani made odes to freedom, low taxes, and New York’s firefighters. His obligatory nod to the state’s “Live Free or Die” motto early on was rarely matched again in the laugh-free adress. The Upper East Side Republican made no mention of social issues.
Rennie also noted that:
New Hamshire supporters for candidates Tom Tancredo, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Duncan Hunter mingled among the crowd of state party regulars with signs and stickers. Few activists sported “Team Rudy” stickers. Operatives for the campaigns were seeking commitments from crucial locals.
Liz Sidoti of the AP was at the same event and came away with a decidedly different impression:
The state’s Republican faithful greeted Giuliani warmly. They swarmed him to say hello and shake his hand. Some chanted “Rudy. Rudy.” They shoved copies of his best-selling book, “Leadership,” in front of him for an autograph.
“I was very impressed. He did very well,” said Will Infantine of Manchester, a GOP committee member who is not aligned with a candidate.
“His performance was absolutely outstanding,” added David Hess, the deputy Republican leader of the New Hampshire House who also is unaffiliated.
“He’s very charismatic,” agreed Natalie Healy of Exeter, another committee member. State Rep. Mary Griffin of Windham called him “exceptional.” Still, they _ like many others at the meeting _ were unwilling to commit just yet. They said it was too early in the process.
MSNBC also had coverage of parts of Giuliani’s speech and they had a “Is Rudy Running?” banner across the bottom of the screen the whole time.
After some speculation earlier this week that Mike Huckabee is planning to make some sort of official move toward running for President within the next few days, that rumor has been confirmed, as aides for Huckabee explain, he will be setting up an exploratory committee on Monday.
FOX News has the scoop:
Republican Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and a favorite of conservatives, will take the first step in a 2008 presidential bid, an official told The Associated Press on Friday.
Huckabee, 51, plans to file papers on Monday establishing an exploratory committee that will allow him to raise money and hire campaign staff, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting a formal announcement.
Huckabee faces difficult odds as he enters a crowded Republican field topped by better-known, better-funded candidates such as Sen. John McCain of Arizona, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
All three have spent the last few months building their national campaign organizations, courting fundraisers and lining up grass-roots supporters in primary and caucus states. However, they also have records or positions on social or fiscal issues that don’t sit well with conservative voters and that could give Huckabee an opening.
“My brand of conservatism is not an angry hostile brand. It’s one that says ‘conservative’ means we want to conserve the best of our culture, society, principles and values and pass them on,” he said last month.
I can’t wait to see what Team Mike has to offer.
With all the talk from ’08 observers poo-poohing the Mayor’s chances of going the distance, it’s probably time for me to spell out my reasons for maintaining my belief in the probability of a Giuliani nomination. Let me start with an anecdote.
A few weeks after President Bush was reelected in 2004, the first ’08 polls of the GOP field showed Rudy Giuliani statistically tied with or leading John McCain in the race to succeed the president. From the start, it was Rudy who was the frontrunner in the race, or at least a frontrunner. Around that same time, a prominent Republican establishmentarian here in the Beltway gave a talk at a conservative, sectarian institution of higher education. A couple of friends of mine were currently in attendance there, and went to hear the prominent establishment Republican speak. At the end of the speech, the moderator opened up a Q&A session, and one of the questions that came from the very religious, socially conservative audience was whether Rudy Giuliani would be the next GOP presidential nominee. The establishmentarian, not particularly known for his social conservatism or movement conservatism of any variety, quickly replied, “no, because he’s pro-choice,” and moved on.
And therein lies the true status of the Mayor’s run for the White House. Rudy Giuliani is probably unique in recent presidential history inasmuch as he is a frontrunning insurgent. Like Ronald Reagan in 1976 or John McCain in 2000, Rudy’s support comes not from the GOP establishment — from the money-men, the officeholders, or the Beltway old guard — instead, Rudy’s base is in the grassroots. As polls have shown for over two years now, it’s the actual voters who want Rudy to be president, a dynamic which has made this Reagan ’76 style insurgent an early frontrunner as well.
The term, “frontrunning insurgent” was probably an oxymoron before Rudy showed up, and it took a perfect storm to yield such a status. Take the classic insurgent campaign of John McCain in 2000 as an example. McCain laid low in all the polls, barely registered with the money-men and the endorsements, and put everything into a win in New Hampshire. After coming from behind in the Granite State, McCain shook up the GOP field so much that the money and the endorsements arrived overnight, with prominent conservatives like Bill Kristol and Michael Reagan flirting with Team McCain for awhile. Had McCain won South Carolina, he would’ve probably gone on to win the nomination.
The difference between Rudy ’08 and McCain ’00 is that Rudy is not only registering in all the polls, he’s usually leading in them. How, then, can a frontrunner also be an insurgent?
Again, the term, “perfect storm” explains it all. The Beltway establishment has long been mired in a poisonous conventional wisdom that dismisses Rudy out of hand due to his deviation from the GOP orthodoxy on cultural issues. Establishments are by their nature horrid at thinking outside the box, and therefore all of the other layers to Rudy — the pro-market, fiscal conservative, the libertarian conservative, the competent executive, the potential war president — are lost on these types, as is the notion that Rudy could take social issues off the table by supporting conservative judges early and often. And the result is what you saw in my earlier anecdote: grassroots movement conservatives calling for a Rudy presidency and being dismissed by establishment conservatives who have long since stopped caring about any such movement.
As such, fellow Rudy-supporters, do not lose faith as Sen. McCain and Gov. Romney partition the GOP establishment between them. As long as Rudy has the hearts and minds of the actual Republican voters, he will be a force to be reckoned with in the race for the White House.
The New York Times has a front page article on the nascent Giuliani for President campaign. In many ways, it echos some of the questions that others and myself have brought up over the past few months. The article is chocked full of information in almost every paragraph, so I recommend reading the whole thing. There’s stuff in it for Rudy believers and skeptics alike. By the end, I came away with the belief that Rudy does plan on running, but it’s still an open case as to whether he can really go all the way.
Michael R. Long, chairman of the New York State Conservative Party, voiced uncertainty.
“He called me before Thanksgiving just to touch base and said he’d like to talk, and I haven’t heard from him since,” Mr. Long said. “We went through this in the United States Senate race. Whether he pulls the trigger or not, I don’t know.”
Fred Siegel, a Cooper Union historian and Giuliani biographer, dismissed the analogy to 2000. “The question is there in Washington,” Mr. Siegel said, but “I think it’s mistaken.”
…
“Folks who believe he is not running do so at their own peril,” said Michael DuHaime, former political director of the Republican National Committee, who is heading Mr. Giuliani’s exploratory effort.
“There is a spin out there that the campaign is further behind than it is, that Rudy may not be serious, and that is being done deliberately to keep us from certain fund-raisers,” said Mr. DuHaime, a native New Jerseyan who begins working for Mr. Giuliani full time next week.
…
Some consultants to Mr. Giuliani’s rivals, and even some of his supporters, say that given the campaign’s relatively late start, his inner circle may be overconfident about his ability to build a respectable war chest by March 31, the first of the deadlines for reporting campaign contributions. A poor sum then would make it all the harder to attract further donations, and, with more candidates now choosing not to participate in the federal campaign financing system, the importance of fund-raising has increased, as has competition for the millions at stake.
I suppose we will find out if Rudy can really go the distance by March 31st. Only 64 more days.
Not again…
This time, sources have been dug up that apparently show Mitt Romney has also flip-flopped on English only in the classroom.? (Hat tip to Caucus Cooler)
In 2002, apparently Mitt Romney, while running for Massachusetts Governor, refused to endorse a ballot issue that would have replaced bilingual education with English-only education.
Today, Mitt Romney told a crowd of Dubuque, Iowans that he now supports English immersion, stating: “If kids in this country want to be successful in this country, they need to speak the language of this country.”
Is there anything else?? If so, Romney needs to get it all out of the closet and out of the way ASAP.? It can’t be good for Mitt’s candidacy to continually receive this slow, steady feed of newly discovered Mitt-flops each week.
Yesterday, Chuck Todd of the National Journal wrote the updated 2008 Republican Presidential Rankings. He has some fascinating thoughts on the race, even echoing a lot of the stuff we’ve been saying here at R4’08:
(more…)
To piggyback the suggestion of Hagel and/or Pataki being part of, or the complete set of, a third-party ticket in 2008, Hotline is reporting that Chuck Hagel is interested in the new internet-based Unity Party.
The Unity Party, whose website can be found at www.unity08.com, is a unique sort of movement/idea/thing that was started by former administration officials from the Ford and Carter teams. They are a completely web-based party, believe both major parties are broken, and dedicated to getting an alternative Presidential ticket in front of the American people for the 2008 election.
They will do this by presenting in the first half of 2008 all of the candidates that desire to run on the Unity Party ticket, and allowing any and all Americans to vote in a secure, completely online Unity Party Nominating Convention. The rules are simple: If a Democrat plans to run on a Unity Party ticket, he or she must select a Republican as their Vice President, and vice-versa. The votes will be tallied, and then the Unity Party will work to get this tandem on the ballot in all 51 states (including DC).
Hotline reports that Hagel seems to be interested in topping a Unity Party ticket.
The interesting part of this whole scenario, though, is the Unity Party’s online Convention will purposely take place immediately after the GOP and Dem nominees are decided – around March or so – so the shot for a Unity Party nomination is open to everyone who loses the major party nominations. This was a brilliant move by the founders, in my opinion, that will allow many candidates who believe they should be President but lost their party’s nomination to try running again.
For instance, if Hillary is knocked off by Obama, why wouldn’t she consider seeking the Unity Party nomination? If it’s a bitter, divided fight between Giuliani and McCain, or Romney and Giuliani, or Romney and McCain, what would stop the losing nominee from checking out the Unity Party? If McCain loses the GOP primary, he’ll be way too old to ever run again, so he might as well give it his last shot on the Unity ticket. And if folks like Duncan Hunter and Bill Richardson really think they’ve got a shot at the Presidency, they could team up on a Unity Party ticket. (Oooh… now that sounds interesting, doesn’t it?)
So the question is this: with a new third party being founded by some pretty big beltway folks with a plan to feature some big names on their Presidential ticket, will the Unity Party have a real effect on 2008? Will this be the beginning of a shift in American Presidential politics? Or will the American public largely ignore this third party like they have so many others?
And, if you had a chance to vote for a Unity Party ticket, who would you have on it? Remember, it has to be one Republican and one Democrat…
This is almost pure speculation, but the rumor mill is again swirling and some secrets just cannot be kept quiet when it comes to Presidential politics.
Mike Huckabee is gearing up for a big weekend: speaking at National Review’s Conservative Summit (along with Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney), appearing on Meet the Press for the first time in six years, and getting ready for a five-city tour of Iowa. Rumor has it that at one of these events, Huckabee will announce he will be seeking the GOP nomination.
Will he do it at the conservative summit to try and pre-empt Romney’s message there? Will he do it on national television? Or will he wait until he’s in the middle of the first primary state and announce it directly to Iowans?
What’s not rumor is that Huckabee is beginning to make one-on-one phone calls to Arkansas state Republicans today. The biggest question out of all of this for me is: Mike, why wait so long?
Just in case you’ve been waiting around on pins and needles wondering… George Pataki is trying to make a little noise today by giving a speech at Georgetown where he will announce that he opposes the increase in troop levels in Iraq – setting him alongside Brownback and Hagel as the other ’08 hopefuls with the same position.
Pataki is still trying to decide whether or not to run for the GOP nomination in 2008, but of course, no one expects him to have a shot – his poll numbers are microscopic, his organization has completely fallen apart, and he hasn’t been seen on the campaign trail for a good long while before this speech today.
The biggest rumors still swirling out there are that he will run as an independent. Hmmm… Hagel/Pataki in ’08? If one of the Big 3 get the GOP nod, don’t count out the possibility of an anti-war independent ticket that would completely shred the GOP’s hopes of maintaining the White House.
Earlier this week, Alabama Representative Mike Rogers announced he would be endorsing, and joining, the Romney campaign. Two days later, we have two more announcements from Alabama Congressmen.
Rep Spencer Bachus will be joining McCain’s campaign as an Advisor and the SE Co-Chair of the Exploratory Committee, and Rep Terry Everett announced he is endorsing Duncan Hunter for President.
For anyone keeping track, Alabama has seven GOP Representatives, so that leaves four of them up for grabs. The flurry to attract endorsements from Alabama comes as a result of that state moving its primary up to February 5 – the new “National Primary” date right after the triumverate of IA, NH, and SC.
In August of 2006, John McCain announced on the Sunday morning talk shows, of which he is a frequent guest, that he rejected any calls from Democrats to put a timetable on the war in Iraq. He explained we must not set artificial dates, but instead continuously review how things are going on the ground.
Then in November of 2006, McCain announced that he “vehemently opposed” a timetable for the war in Iraq. Artificial dates? Not only no, but…
But now, according to the Kansas City Star this morning, McCain is mulling over introducing a bill to the Senate setting “benchmarks” for the war in Iraq – specific things the Iraqis must do by specific dates, or else we withdraw from the country. Well, he never said “withdraw” precisely, but he did say if the timetable wasn’t met by the Iraqis that, “[E]verybody knows the consequences. Haven’t met the benchmarks? Obviously, then, we’re not able to complete the mission.”
So let me get this straight, Senator… you say, for example, the Iraqis must have 100,000 troops trained by March, 2007. They have 90,000 trained, and your response would be “We’re not able to complete the mission?” What happened to understanding that war does not happen in a vaccuum? What about even the best laid plans don’t survive first contact with the enemy? What about reviewing how things are going on the ground? What about giving your own plan to increase the number of troops a chance to succeed, as it is currently doing? Instead, now, you’d like to impose artificial dates on an already strained Iraqi government and army that, if not met, mean that we lose?
I guess it makes sense if you’re coming from a standpoint that our troops are already “on the verge of defeat.” And I guess it makes sense if you’re watching your poll numbers drop after the President adopted your plan.
A rose by any other name… whether you label it as a timetable or as benchmarks, the plan stinks – McCain was against benchmarks before he was for them.
In what can only be seen as a blow to the Romney campaign, former Massachusetts governor Paul Cellucci announced today he would be supporting Rudy Giuliani for President in 2008. Cellucci was the governor that served from 1997-2001 (just prior to Romney), and from whom the Romney campaign was actively seeking an endorsement.
Cellucci did say that Romney is a “capable leader,” that there was “no snub intended,” and “This is not anti-Mitt. This is pro-Rudy.”
Still, even with those niceties from his predecessor, the Romney camp must be stinging after this one.
That’s the title of Rich Lowry’s latest piece in the National Review.
Thus, there’s yet another layer to what, at the moment, is the tragic irony of John McCain. He is exhibiting just the sort of go-it-alone bravery the media pine for at a time the media are uninterested in celebrating it, either because they consider the war lost or are obsessed with the primary-season horse race. He finally is getting the additional troops for Iraq that he has long advocated at a time when it might be too late and when support for the war is collapsing. He is winning over the Republican establishment that once loathed him at a time when the GOP brand is significantly degraded.
There is no justice in any of this. McCain began calling for more troops almost immediately after the invasion and criticized Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld back when he was still a GOP icon. President Bush has come to see the merit of McCain’s view on the conduct of the war, but belatedly.
This has created the most tragic irony of all. After a long period of being distant from or hostile to President Bush, McCain is closer to him than ever, just as Bush is at his lowest ebb of public support. Bush sank McCain’s presidential hopes in 2000 with his enmity; he might sink them in 2008 with his amity.
McCain’s attitude has been that the political considerations don’t matter. Whether he has been bucking an administration of his own party (originally) or public opinion (now), McCain has been standing like a stone wall for the proposition that the war must be won and that our effort must be commensurate with the high stakes.
McCain’s Iraq position is a true display of Presidential leadership that’s been woefully lacking in the American polity for quite sometime now. Presidents are supposed to make tough decisions that benefit this country, even if it’s incredibly unpopular politically. When President Truman fired General MacArthur for insubordination, he was vilified across the country and it ultimately cost him any chance at re-election.
Lowry notes the irony that at the exact moment when McCain’s efforts to rebuild the bridges to conservatives that he torched in 2000 are paying dividends, he has ended up alienating some independents who make up the core of his base and will harm his general election appeal. In my darker moments, I have lamented the fact that the Iraq War might end up destroying any hope of a McCain Presidency at the exact moment when his resolve and determination are what this country needs most.
Yet, there is still an entire year to go until the Iowa caucuses and anything can (and will) happen. These are trying times, to be sure, but to give into pessimism would be self-defeating. McCain sums up the situation:
“It’s hard to make jokes; we are a nation at war,” he said. “There are great national security challenges that we face. But I also believe, as Ronald Reagan did, that America’s greatest days are ahead of us. It’s going to be an upbeat campaign and an optimistic one.”
This edition of the GOPUSA-NJ Conservatives with Attitude! & Polipundit.com podcast show features the former Governor of Arkansas and author of the book From Hope To Higher Ground, 12 STOPs to Restoring America’s Greatness, Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Click here to listen or right-click on link and choose “Save As”
-Michael A.J. Sparxx” Illions
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
