And as the icing on the proverbial cake today as the floodgates continue to open and more and more Republicans jump on the Rudy juggernaut comes this story on the sentiments from inside the Bush Administration regarding 2008:
While the White House is taking a hands-off approach to the 2008 GOP presidential primaries so far, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is quietly seeing an administration cheerleading section grow.
One insider said that it is built on the fact that Giuliani continues to beat Sen. John McCain in the polls and also because he is offering to stick with several Bush programs, including an aggressive stance against terrorists, and promises to name conservative judges to the court. One Bush official today noted Giuliani’s pledge to nominate conservative judges and applauded the New Yorker for making that claim in liberal California.
“He didn’t back away just because he was in California. In fact, he went there to make that statement. That’s a very important signal,” said the insider. Interestingly, even White House conservatives are showing support for Giuliani.
“He’s the front-runner, and he’s doing everything so far very good,” said another official. “He isn’t bending to what people want to hear. He kind of sounds like Bush did in 2000.”
My emphasis. And I couldn’t agree more. For months we were told that the floor would fall out from under Rudy’s support once conservatives “got to know” his positions on the issues. That meme is being obliterated as we speak. Ever since Rudy got serious about his run, including appearing on Hannity & Colmes and stating in no unclear terms that he is pro-choice but in favor of conservative judges, the Mayor’s support has gone through the roof. As my colleagues noted earlier today, Rudy has hit the 40 percent mark in the latest Gallup poll on the GOP field. He also creamed Romney in the latest GOP Bloggers monthly straw poll of online conservatives. And speaking of Romney, remember that dirty little rumor that Jeb Bush was in the Mittster’s corner? Well, Andrew Sullivan received an email today with another bit of hearsay regarding the former Florida governor’s sympathies. Says Andrew’s reader:
I was speaking with a Republican political operative in Sarasota some two months ago. This was after the drubbing we took in November. We had been watching Rudy’s polling throughout 2005 and 2006. What you and other moderates never understood is where the rank and file of the Republican Party has been going, so concentrated were you on the bogeyman that you had constructed around “Christianism”. He and I agreed that not only is Rudy the favorite to get the nomination, but Rudy will probably win the presidency.
The three Big Dogs throughout 2005 were Rice, McCain, and Rudy. Once Condi had made it clear that she wasn’t going forward (at least as a Presidential candidate), Mitt Romney was able to move up to the top tier. Romney has tried to corral the “conservative” wing that was supposed to coalesce around the Washington Beltway’s conservative candidate, George Allen. However, the flips and flops outlined by you as well as those conservatives not posting on the Corner appear to have damaged Romney in the short term. McCain is not trusted by the base.
You’ve overblown the power of the “Christianists”. You’ll see this when Rudy walks away with South Carolina and gets the support of guys like Haley Barbour and Jeb Bush (who is already, silently, in Rudy’s corner). “Christianists” don’t win elections; Republicans do. That’s what the polling is saying – people in our party are recovering a more Republican identity and embracing the idea of a larger tent. All that was needed was for the exclusionary wing to play themselves out …
Again, my emphasis. So will it be Rudy/Barbour or Rudy/Jeb? Stay tuned…
February 13th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Dave,
Surely you jest.
A Bush on the ticket in ’08? Irrespective of what you think of Jeb, tell me seriously. Is there anyone in your party that really wants to go there?
And Barbour? Mr. Uber-Lobbyist? A guy who looks (hey, life is unfair) like everyone’s stereotype of the (bad) good ol’ boy? Do you seriously think he wouldnt hurt the ticket far more than he might help it?
If it werent for his astronomical negatives, Newt would be the ideal balance to Rudy. I actually think that Huckabee is best positioned in terms of all the traditional balance considerations. He would need to put on a resepctable show over the next year or so, and find some sort of a following.
And as far as the WH quotes – sounds like Bush in 2000? For taking unpopular stands? Huh?
What unpopular stand did Bush take? Cut your taxes? Or was it no bj in the OO?
February 13th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
A few notes:
1. I’m fine with Rudy being ahead in the polls. This means that everyone will soon commence frontal attacks on him and when Rudy loses Iowa and South Carolina, he’ll go the way of Howard Dean and his candidacy will be stopped in it’s tracks.
2. Speaking of which, the email the Sullivan quotes seems wrong regarding South Carolina. If the author had really been looking at Rudy’s poll numbers, they would know that while Rudy has lead most national averages during the past 12-24 months, Rudy has consistently been trailing McCain in South Carolina in all the polls taken during the same time. If Rudy wins in SC, I will eat my socks.
3. Everything I’ve read suggests that Barbour is on McCain’s side, since every time he visits Mississippi Barbour lavishes him praise that he hasn’t for Giuliani or Mitt. Obviously, it isn’t official yet, but I’d also be very surprised to see Barbour endorse Giuliani.
4. Even though I’m a McCain guy, I admittedly was starting buy the meme that Jeb was in Mitt’s corner. But Jeb’s good friends with McCain as well. Maybe I missed it, but I haven’t seen anything to imply that Jeb is in Rudy’s camp. Plus, as much as I like Jeb, I think another Bush on the ticket would be an electoral disaster and would effectively nullify every regional advantage Rudy would have in a general election.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
I would rather see Rudy make a more inspired pick than either of those two…
February 13th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
I imagine Jeb’s surname will destroy his chances of being on the ticket in 2008. And it IS unfair, as Jeb would have made a darn good president, and would certainly make a darn good vice president. I was just taking a good-natured swipe at the Romneyites on the site with that Jeb commentary, considering that there have been so many “rumors” of a Mitt/Bush alliance that will initiate Mitt’s long-awaited Rom-entum!
(Yes, I went there.)
Anyway, I’m not ready to give up on Barbour just yet, and Huckabee doesn’t do it for me, but I’d be willing to accept him if polling showed he could hold the border states. The truth is, though, most DC outsiders pick someone from inside the beltway, meaning Rudy would probably go with a congressperson or senator we’re not even thinking of.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
DaveG,
I have no idea where the idea of Jeb in Rudy’s camp is coming from, but I have seen many articles that say Jeb is leanign towards Romney.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
I agree with LJ.
Does no one else think it would be political suicide for Jeb to even be considered for the ballot?
You know a lot of independents would just see Romney/Bush or Giuliani/Bush, and since Bush hasn’t exactly been a great president or a great leader in any way, shape, or form (in fact, in my humble opinion, he’s been pretty much a disaster, and I’m not alone), that Bush sticking out like a sore thumb would kill the ticket.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Dave,
considering that there have been so many “rumors” of a Mitt/Bush alliance that will initiate Mitt’s long-awaited Rom-entum!
Heh!
That’s interesting, though. I just assumed something was up because it seems that every other week Romney announces another member of Jeb’s team, while McCain does the same with Charlie Crist (and everyone knows Crist is a McCain guy). Although, I never expected that even if Jeb went with Mitt that it would have more than a marginal effect on Mitt’s numbers. I’ll say though, if Romentum doesn’t start over the next 2 months, I’m seriously contemplating downgrading him to second tier. Bill Richardson is just as unknown as Romney and he managed to get 4%, yet no one considers him a legitimate threat to Hillary, Obama or Edwards.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
I am less than confident that being the favorite presidential candidate of the Bush White House is a good thing. This is a President whose approval rating is at historic lows. Mark my words, at some stage all of these Republican presidential candidates are going to have to distance themselves from President George W. Bush to some degree.
I think it is the right thing to support a President in time of war, as the Mayor is doing. But to have this administration reciprocate and tell the press that the Mayor is their favorite candidate is not something I think the Giuliani campaign will want disseminated publicly.
And, as LJ points out, the candidate playing the point in these early polls is the one who is going to take the heaviest hits. If it wasn’t for the need to raise so much money, I am confident that the Giuliani campaign would have infinitely preferred to lay low until this coming fall. But, too late.
As to references to a potential Giuliani running mate, don’t leave former governor and congressman Bob Ehrlich off your list. Mayor Giuliani is not going to go with a conventional ticket balancing, regional pick if selected as the nominee; he will pick the Republican best suited to replace him in an emergency and carry on his philosophy, which is going to mean that popularity and conventional wisdom are out the door.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
LJ,
The reason people say Rihardson is not a threat is because he has little campaign/fundraising structure unlike Romney who has one of the best.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Republius,
he will pick the Republican best suited to replace him in an emergency and carry on his philosophy
I certainly hope that it’s not Bernie Kerik.
Texas Conservative,
The reason people say Rihardson is not a threat is because he has little campaign/fundraising structure unlike Romney who has one of the best.
But that’s exactly my point. With all the organization and campaigning that Romney’s done over the past 6 months, don’t you think his numbers would be higher by now. It’s not like no one knows who he is, he’s consistently mentioned as a top tier contender and as my latest post last night shows, he’s not lacking in the publicity department either.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Bob Ehrlich was an excellent governor, and Marylanders will rue the day they put party ahead of accomplishment and failed to re-elect him. For VP, however, I would think Rudy would pick someone more on the socially conservative side. That’s the kind of ticket balancing he would need. Maybe John Kyl of Arizona? I also wish Fred Thompson would make himself available.
February 14th, 2007 at 5:40 am
12 months to the elections guys.
Relax.
February 14th, 2007 at 8:47 am
As a liberal leaning independant I can say that Rudy is the only Republican I would vote for. I have several friends that refuse to vote for Hilary and will vote for Rudy instead. McCain won’t get their vote though, he’s seen as too willing to do anything to get a vote and isn’t trustworthy because of that. I’m from Michigan and still can say that Romney doesn’t have a chance.
February 14th, 2007 at 10:40 am
I agree with Casey, Rudy is the only hope we have in 08.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Alberto Gonzalez.–I’d like some Hispanic votes–also no baggage.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
How about Rudy/Rice
February 14th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
“You’ve overblown the power of the “Christianists”. ”
Didn’t they get Bush elected in ’04?
February 14th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Well first, let me note that I’m not the one calling anyone a “Christianist.” I was just quoting Andrew’s emailer. So let’s take that loaded word out of it and refer to these voters simply as strong social conservatives.
As to your question, which was probably rhetorical, but I’ll answer it anyway, I’ve long thought the notion that any one group of voters “got Bush elected” in ’04 is the wrong way to think about it. Would Bush have lost if a few social conservatives in Ohio had stayed home? Yes. But he would also have lost if a few libertarians in Ohio had voted for Kerry. Or a few nat’l sec voters. Or a few fi-cons. Bush had very little room for error in both elections. If we’re going to say that strong so-cons were indispensible to Bush’s victory, we have to say the same thing about every other bloc of voters that cast their ballots for him.
Further, 2006 showed that strong so-con support is meaningless when everyone else votes against you. I’ve parsed the ’06 data numerous times and have published my results. As longtime readers may recall, we lost in 2006 because moderate indies from the north and west defected bigtime.
Additionally, current polling shows that “white evangelicals,” who probably overlap in a major way with strong so-cons, are identifying less and less as Republicans, and are no longer aligned with your average Republican on many defense issues. This means that the so-con/hawk base that was 2004 is no longer feasible, even if indies were to come along for the ride.
2008 will be a new template.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
[...] had traditionally led McCain by 5% for much of the past year. This prompted my colleague, DaveG, to opine that For months we were told that the floor would fall out from under Rudy’s support once [...]