And Rudy will do this sooner rather than later.
Some Rudy supporters suggest that social conservatives must compromise most or all of their religious free speech rights, abortion, protection of marriage, abortion, embryonic stem cell and other concerns with respect to Giuliani since he is strong on the preeminent issue of national security and since the election of any democrat would be a disaster. The assumptions in this supposed necessity are legion and the presumption is palpable.
After my below comments on the seminal book about Rudy’s mayoralty and recent appearance on the Fox News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes, I reprint comments by attorney Mark Levin that mirror my view on many issues surrounding Rudy’s run for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination.
I admire Rudy for his leadership in fixing NYC with conservative policies and for his post 9/11 performance under fire. I recently read Fred Siegel’s 2005 “Prince of the City” which documents Rudy’s strong conservative leadership in saving America’s greatest city from failed liberal policies that had rendered the city unlivable.
I think he would probably be a good or great president on the economy and national defense. He also is dead on in his absolute rejection of race based policies and laws. He gets the “war” and I would enthusiastically support him in the general election.
But unless he at least changes his rhetoric on most social and court issues, I doubt I would be able to endure listening to him speak.
His use of the usual misleading liberal puff on abortion sounds like fingers scratching a chalkboard, makes him look like weak, and reduces his credibility overall. For example, the first amendment gives Americans the right to choose what words they will state, but no one referring to a person’s strong advocacy of free speech rights refers to it as “the right to choose.”
Rudy comes off as insulting people’s intelligence when he uses that term with the same eyes glazed over look that liberal democrats have when they call killing by another name. He also insults 99% of pro-lifers that have never advocated putting women getting abortions in jail, when he again insults our intelligence by implying that one cannot outlaw abortion without doing so. He acts as if his hands are tied, when he knows and we know they aren’t. The woman getting an abortion does not perform the prohibited act in most instances, and any law could apply the penalty exclusively to third parties.
On another front, a commenter at Redstate.com stated the following in response to my panning of lawyer Rudy’s H&C spot:
“Well Sean, it wouldn’t be appropriate for the president to appoint judges on the basis of which decision he wants overwritten. And I wouldn’t make such a promise any more than Presidents Reagan, Bush or any of my competitors.”
To which I responded:
There is nothing inappropriate about appointing judges you expect will correct unconstitutional precedents. I didn’t demand that Rudy make a promise, but I would love for a President to promise that he would appoint judges he expected to act on their oath to uphold the Constitution, and that any judge doing that would have to rule that the Constitution does not grant a right to abortion if such a case came before it. And that the Constitution does not allow race based laws or grant a right to own slaves or take private property for public use. Constitutional law is not magic that only lawyers can perform. The Constitution is in English and all take an oath to follow it.
The Constitution is written.
BUT, Rudy is a lawyer to boot. A constitutional lawyer to double boot. He can’t hide behind the Bush line that he relies on lawyers. He was in Reagan’s justice dept. He has an opinion on Roe and owes it to voters to tell us his opinion.
And, he will.
But even more so, many liberal lawyers have publicly said Roe was a joke, even if they like the result. ALL lawyers know it’s a joke. Rudy must state this, and he will. To be qualified to be a justice is to follow the constitution’s words and meaning. Rudy said Ginsburg was qualified, just like Scalia, Roberts and Alito. This is the old comity solipsism of the senate. The spineless GOP talk where they brag on voting for Clinton’s nominees since he won the election.
Poppycock says Gamecock.
The GOP was wrong to vote for living constitution judges. It should be an impeachable offense to violate one’s oath to uphold the dead constitution.
He will rephrase his positions.
Now, Mark Levin’s take on Rudy which saved me a lot of work as I had planned on writing much the same:
We are not electing a secretary of defense. We are electing a president. And when Rudy’s early supporters brush aside social or character issues and tell us to only focus on his post 9/11 response or his law enforcement record, they demonstrate a naiveté about the political process and the conservative coalition that may well put Hillary Clinton or another equally troubling Democrat in the White House.
Maybe Giuliani will be or should be the Republican nominee, but he will be a sure loser in the general election if his supporters insist that social and economic conservatives ignore his record and past statements.
It is said, or at least assumed, that Giuliani would be better than others in the Republican ranks on the war. Why is that? Mitt Romney has been just as gung-ho about supporting the president and our military as Giuliani.
Does Giuliani bring some expertise to the table in waging this war than Romney or even John McCain?
I don’t think so.
Of course his response to the attack on New York City was outstanding. Nobody questions that. He showed great leadership. And in no way do I seek to diminish it. Indeed, contrast it to New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin’s response to Katrina. But when it comes to actually waging war against al-Qaeda, Giuliani has no more or less experience than McCain or Romney. McCain has been calling for an increase in troop levels in Iraq since early in the war.
Giuliani has not.
Does that make McCain a better potential commander-in-chief?
Probably not, given that McCain has pushed for other measures that, in my view, have weakened our war effort, including conferring constitutional and treaty rights on terrorists. It should be said that Giuliani hasn’t exactly been an outspoken opponent to McCain’s efforts.
Let me put it this way: Other than Sam Brownback, I’m not aware of any Republican seeking his party’s nomination that is wobbly on the Battle of Iraq or more generally using our armed forces to destroy the enemy. As an aside, there are some here who’ve questioned President Bush’s democracy project. I am among them in the sense that I believe it is secondary to military victory.
But to the best of my knowledge, those who’ve criticized the president’s position and who support Giuliani have not explained how Giuliani’s foreign policy would differ from the president’s in this regard.
More importantly, Giuliani himself has not staked out a position different from the president’s. And, some here have rightly argued for the longest time, if we do not neutralize the regime in Iran, we cannot win this war.
Yet, I’ve not heard any policy from Giuliani or the other candidates on how they’d do that. In the context of the debate over Giuliani’s foreign policy or war-fighting credentials, I hardly see how he has separated himself from the pack. Giuliani’s supporters don’t deny that he’s weak on a variety of other issues that are important to various parts of the conservative base; they just want us to ignore them, or accept Giuliani’s conversion. The same can be said of McCain on taxes and Romney on abortion.
Giuliani contends that he’s a Reaganite.
That is simply false.
He worked in the Reagan administration. He served in the number three position at the Justice Department and later as United States attorney. But if he means by Reaganite that he was a Reagan conservative, nobody then or now believes that. I, too, served in the Reagan administration, including as chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese after Giuliani had returned to New York. But the view was widely held that Giuliani, as U.S. attorney, was a bit of a loose cannon who was clearly positioning himself to run for mayor, despite my friend Ted Olson’s recent endorsement of him.
There is no diminishing his commitment to law enforcement. But Giuliani’s attempt to wrap himself in Reagan’s conservative banner is unwarranted. Giuliani recently told my buddy Sean Hannity that he knows how to pick strict constructionist judges because he was in the meetings at the White House when the president was selecting judges. The fact is that Giuliani had little or no role in the selection of judges.
I know this because I was later intimately involved in the process. As both counselor to the president and attorney general, Ed Meese was Ronald Reagan’s right-hand man in helping to change the judiciary, as he was in so many policy areas. This would be the same Ed Meese, Reagan’s closest advisor, who Giuliani or someone on his staff once called a “sleaze” during the course of another rogue independent counsel’s investigation.
This was Giuliani trying to distance himself from the Reagan administration to appeal to liberal New Yorkers the same Reagan administration he now proudly embraces. It was an act of political cowardice and betrayal for which Giuliani has never apologized. There are other issues that not only provide voters with the measure of a man, but which are very important to the future of the nation. Some of us believe that man-made global warming is a farce being vigorously promoted by the Left as a major assault on liberty, capitalism and limited government.
It is the latest effort to grow the administrative state and regulate vast areas of private life. While campaigning earlier this week in California, the San Francisco Chronicle quotes Giuliani saying: “The overwhelming number of scientists now believe that there is significant human cause.”
He said the debate on the existence of global warming is “is almost unnecessary…because we should be dealing with pollution anyway.”Others have debunked the idiocy that is the latest United Nations report on this subject. But the point is that Giuliani, like McCain and Arnold Swartzenegger, is prepared to expand government power in ways that few conservatives could justify or endorse. I also don’t think Swartzenegger is anybody’s example of a conservative these days.
But during this same California trip, Giuliani announced: “I generally agree with Gov. Schwarzenegger. He’s a good friend and a progressive leader.” Swarzenegger is also the most widely irresponsible, big-spending governor in the history of California, and that’s saying something.
So, which is it?
Is Giuliani a limited government Reaganite, or is he a global warming, big-government progressive? His signals and actions are mixed, as they’ve been for decades. Oh, and about the social issues that we’re supposed to overlook, his positions on abortion and gay rights have been every bit as radical as Howard Dean’s maybe more so. He now says he opposes partial birth abortion and gay marriage. If true, that’s a start. I’m not opposed to conversion, no matter how limited or how late. But the question is whether there really has been a conversion or whether he is simply being strategic in his responses. Giuliani seemed so adamant about his earlier positions.
Apart from trying to defuse objections from social conservatives, what has caused his thinking to change on such fundamental issues? Whether you accept Romney’s conversion or not, he at least ties it to a meeting about embryonic stem cell research in which he was repulsed by what he was hearing.
Giuliani also argues that he would nominate “strict constructionist” judges, apparently implying that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. Well, does Giuliani reject Roe? He doesn’t directly tell us.
But we can infer that he does as he also now argues that the states should make these decisions. Of course, that would require reversing Roe.
So, we’re left with a muddle. And I don’t think it’s particularly useful to say he will appoint originalists to the bench, either. I know of no Republican candidate running on a platform of nominating liberal activists to the bench. And while Giuliani’s management of New York City deserves enormous credit, let’s not pretend he didn’t have his share of problems for which he will have to answer when the going gets tough in this election, including some of personnel decisions he made along the way. “Some, like George Will (although he is not alone) have attempted to redefine conservatism and diminish Reagan’s accomplishments to fit the Giuliani record. Some have argued that Giuliani is our best hope of defeating Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat nominee. That may be true, although I think it’s a bit early to make such a judgment.
Much more will be written by me and others before this race is over about all the candidates. But I find serious defects in some of the early arguments being made in Giuliani’s favor, which his supporters will need to work through more carefully.”
Gamecock dittos.
I predict Rudy will soon rephrase his rhetoric on these issues and make promises that go further than he has thus far.
Rudy is not stupid.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
The Minority Report
February 19th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
“great president on the economy and national defense”
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.
Security trumps everything, without security we have nothing.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
We’re still dodging the issue of whether Giuliani would make a good president. He would be a man without a party since he’s out of step with the Republican mainstream and will have few friends on Capital Hill once his autocratic style of governing gets a workout.
He wouldn’t make us safer. We’d be compromising our principles for nothing.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
GOP Activist,
Your reasoning there is exactly what Gamecock and Levin are arguing against. Are you just yanking their chains?
February 19th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Mark Levin has gone on record as saying he has a problem with all the candidates, but says he admires Romney. He states that “he doesnt care if one is converted on abortion, if thats what he believes today”. Hannity, Levin, and Rush will, I think, all join the Romney camp as this progresses because on abortion, defense, immigration, etc, he is more in line with what they believe. I think they are not at all bigoted, and will have nothing but respect for his faith.
GOP Activist, I dont know why you think that Rudy has an edge on security? Romney has been outspoken in defense of the war, building up the military, and has talked tough on Iran. And McCain, who I dislike for many reasons, is anything but weak on national security. I applaud the job he did as mayor during 9/11, but he was simply a mayor. I think all 3 front runners earn high marks on being right on the security issue, and thats why social and fiscal issues will play a role in deciding the nominee.
People are kidding themselves if they think that Rudy’s social issues wont come back to haunt him. And I dont believe he will nominate a Thomas or Alito judge because he has and is still pro choice. At least Romney has a story for his changed position, and admits he was flat wrong on the issue. Rudy has never said he was wrong on it, and wont.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Someone with military/foreign policy experience is a must. By this standard Romney and Rudy are not acceptable.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
I don’t think Rudy needs to change anything with numbers like this:
USA Today/Gallup Poll
Rudy Giuliani 40%
John McCain 24%
Newt Gingrich 9%
Mitt Romney 5%
Sam Brownback 3%
Jim Gilmore 2%
Tommy Thompson 2%
Mike Huckabee 2%
Duncan Hunter 1%
Tom Tancredo 1%
George Pataki 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
February 19th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
On the Rush show, it was discussed if Rudy won the nomitation. The seldom mentioned scenerio to this is that it would create an environment for a more social, pro life conservative to announce a 3rd party stab at winning. Pro lifers would want one of there own to run, and in the end it could split the vote and give the win to the Republicans. That why I see Romney forcefully and openly speaking on his changed social views, and putting those issues to rest for good. He has always been as conservative on many issues (death penalty, taxes, education, defense, business, etc) as almost any other 08 candidate of today. I think that people will see a religious man, married for nearly 40 years, who doesnt swear, drink, or smoke, and who readily admits that while he was always privately against abortion, he was wrong to not speak out against it as a public official. He governed as a pro lifer, and he will be embraced in huge numbers by social conservatives. Many of those social conservatives are what won 04 for Bush in a huge way.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
David,
Most conservatives tend to think Reagan was pretty good on the foreign policy side of things. He didn’t have any foreign policy experience.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
To quote LJ:
“it really just comes down to Iraq in the end”
If the Iraq War does not improve, all other issues will be mute.
It will come down to, who can rebuild support for the Iraq War and the GOP.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Reagan also had Bush as his VP. In this climate I suspect that having a VP who has military/foreign policy experience will be a must for the candidates that are weak in that area (Romney & Rudy).
February 19th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Foriegn policy is a must? Tell me sir how many seasoned Senators from Washington have lost to governors in the BIG GAME.
Gov Carter wins in 76
Gov Reagan wins in 80 and 84
Gov Clinton wins in 92 and 96 (over Bush 41 and his foreign policy, and a US Senator in 96)
Gov Bush beats (1st Sen McCain with his wealth of foreign policy) and later VP Gore
Then Bush beats another Sen with years of Foriegn policy experience.
Governors become presidents, not mayors or senators, and history proves that. I really think people (Rep and Dems alike) are sick of Congress, and especially the Roman Senate which got nothing conservative done while in the majority. More entitlement, more spending, and very little else.
Dont give me this post 9/11 BS either because, the opinion of most Americans is negative toward most everyone in Washington, from all 3 branches of Govt.
We need the comsumate manager, CEO, and turnaround artist, who understands foreign policy, and hasnt fought for terrorists civil rights, and for illegals to get there social security, as McCain has.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Jason,
A one term Governor, who was unable to get re-elected in his own state, doesn’t stand a chance in this political environment.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
GOP Activist, the mayors poll numbers look good.
And in a related story; As spring training now begins, the Yankees look so good today that they are sending there players home till October when the playoffs begin since they are a shoe in, right?
Dude, we are still in practice. They havent scrimmaged yet (the debates), or had preseason games (the rest of 07 campaigning), or even started with the regular season (the primaries). Yet Rudy fans are ready to hoist their championship banner. After seeing their polls, they feel like they just won the playoffs or something.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Nusrat,
Most conservatives tend to think Reagan was pretty good on the foreign policy side of things. He didn’t have any foreign policy experience.
I hear this argument all the time and each time it makes me more upset.
We are at war. During times of war, this country always, always elects a President who is deemed the most capable at defending us. Reagan didn’t have to worry about having foreign policy experience in 1980 because that wasn’t the big issue at the time. But in 2008, even moreso than 2004, will be defined by the War in Iraq and the broader Global War on Terror. Candidates like Romney, Obama and Edwards just won’t be able to measure up.
It’s certainly possible that they could learn in office, but we’ll need a candidate ready from Day One! After all, GWB had almost no foreign policy experience and let’s just say that hasn’t worked out for the best.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
[...] post by Gamecock and software by Elliott [...]
February 19th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
“Dude, we are still in practice”
Dude this election is not for rookies.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Thomas Alan
makes a great point and let me expand. I think Rudy would compromise with the Dems in Congress to get his way on his issues by selling out social conservatives on social issues. He is used to dealing with dems in NYC that had to compromise with him. He will find DC Dems a whole new animal. They don’t have to accomplish anything and will be in a position, even if only as a senate minority, to block Rudy’s agenda.
I expect Rudy to change his current not well thought out tune on social isses. Rudy has not been working hard to prepare for this race so far and got caught being a liberal in the raw on Hannity.
He will move right. But he is who he is and the language he used was just too liberal cliche-ish. He just stunk. He didn’t sound like a conservative.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
LJ, we have seen many wars in the last hundred years. WW1 and 2, Korea, Vietnam, the cold war, and our current war. That said, how many Senators have won the White House in the last hundred years?
We dont need a consensus builder and leader of the gang of 14, someone who supports giving enemy combatents their “1st amendment rights” to tackle our war on terror. Someone who said that the swift boat vets were out of line to call out Kerrys comments on vets. No thanks.
Give me anyone but McCain please.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Rudy has an edge on security because he tossed out Arafat and broke up the mob, not to mention all of his work in the criminal justice department. He has a HISTORY of ACTS/CONDUCT.
In criminal law terms, Rudy has a propensity to act.
What did Romney do? Clean up the most overrated sporting event of all-time? Not to mention,in Utah, we all know how dangerous of a place that is. The only thing in danger there are the farm animals.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
“Dude, this election is not for rookies”– 1st of all, many vets in politics (Bush 41, Dole, McCain 2000, Kerry) went home losers to people with far more charisma and far less experience.
2nd, Romney is not a rookie altogether. He has a resume that is nearly unmatched by todays contenders, and he can succeed just fine in this realm. He is the Reagan of today, and BJ Clinton with his pants on at the same time. He is a great politican, well spoken, and will do well when he as well known as Rudy is.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
“Give me anyone but McCain please”
If the race comes down to Rudy and McCain, I wonder who will win the conservative vote.
Will it even matter?
February 19th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
GOP Activist,
It’s getting tiresome to read the same thing from you in almost every thread. I think polls are very important at this stage as a way to gauge a candidates name recognition and popularity. But just because Rudy is riding high right now, doesn’t mean that his numbers won’t plummet in a month from now. The thing is, no one knows what is going to happen.
As an example, 4 months before the 1968 election Hubert Humphrey was trailing Nixon by over 20 points. Everyone thought it was a lost cause, but a month before election day, Humphrey started to rally and ended up losing the election by less than 1%, had the election been held the next week, it’s likely that he would’ve beaten Nixon. So anything can happen and you can’t simple extrapolate results from this week onto the political landscape on November 4th, 2008.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
wasn’t the big issue in 1980?
Perhaps you’re unaware of a little thing called the Iran Hostage crisis
Perhaps you’re unaware of a little thing called the Cold War
Of course Foreign Policy was a big issue.
As for Rudy’s #s, they are what they are. The point is that someone who’s at 40% shouldn’t be in a rush to revamp their strategy.
I’ll just leave it at this: If it comes down in 2008 to who’s more capable of defending us, Rudy Giuliani or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I think we both know the answer.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
LJ,
I agree that Rudy’s numbers could go down.
Although, a better question would be:
What makes you believe that McCain’s numbers will go up?
February 19th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Romney refused security for Iranian diplomats, and Rudy tossed out Arafat. Score Rudy 1, Romney 1.
Rudy fought the mob and won; and Romney did little more than protect farm animals in Utah? Are you kidding or just ignorant because not enough your candidate would agree with such a dumb statement.
You are correct though when you say he has a record of ACTS/CONDUCT. Just ask both of his ex wives, and the 2 gay guys he moved in with. They could vouch for that. Romney is a little square however, staying married to his high school sweetheart for nearly 40 years. Not nearly the ACTS and CONDUCT of the mayor, advantage Rudy I think?
February 19th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Jim does have a good point:
“The point is that someone who’s at 40% shouldn’t be in a rush to revamp their strategy”
I think McCain, Romney and just about everyone else should hit the panic button.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
40% in a national poll of adults 11 months before a primary is about as significant as a strain and 2 farts on the Canadian tundra.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
David the polls predicted GWB the winner at the same point in time.
The GOP has a long history of nominating frontrunners.
That said, why should someone change strategy, when it appears to be working.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Mike B,
Rudy has an edge on security because he tossed out Arafat and broke up the mob, not to mention all of his work in the criminal justice department.
It was hilarious that Rudy threw out Arafat. It was also refreshing clarity on how we shouldn’t be coddling up with terrorists or their sponsors. Romney showed equivalent clarity with regards to Khatami. And both Romney and Giuliani see eye to eye on foreign policy.
However, I fail to see how Rudy’s resume has the edge on national security. Citing his crime reforms vs Romney’s credentials:
–He sits on the federal Department Homeland Security’s Advisory Council (a branch of the Executive Branch Cabinet)
–He Co-chaired the National Governor’s Association Homeland Security Committee. Here is the letter he co-authored to the US House http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.cb6e7818b34088d18a278110501010a0/?vgnextoid=7c0c9e2f1b091010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD&vgnextchannel=455c8aaa2ebbff00VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD
–His state recently became one of only 10 states nationwide to receive a the highest grade for disaster preparedness (See CBS story).
–He proactively led Massachusetts through a recent (May 2006) “State of Emergency” due to their worst flooding in 70+ years. Romney’s leadership through what the Federal government designated a “Major Disaster Emergency” drew rave reviews both locally and nationally.
–The Massachusetts Avian Flu disaster plan has been held up as a model that the CDC and other officials have praised.
–He has testified before the US Senate and US House on homeland security issues on multiple occassions, and lectured before the Heritage Foundation.
And maybe you should take up your characterization of the Olympics with Dr. James Carafano, a senior research fellow for defense and homeland security at The Heritage Foundation. According to Carafano in a piece called “Olympic Sized-Security”: “The 2002 Salt Lake City, Utah, Winter Olympics featured an unprecedented, integrated security and intelligence apparatus organized by Mitt Romney. Salt Lake set the standard.”
February 19th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
GOP Activist is right,
This just in from team Romney, he will hold a press conference tomorrow to do what Rudy’s Campaign Manager, Mr. GOP Activist has suggested. At 10am EST before the media, he will officially hit the “Panic Button”. Brought on by being a little known candidate nationally by 75% of America 11 months before our 1st primary. What other choice does he have than to hit that Panic Button since raising money, organizing, and winning endorsements just isnt doing it this “late” in the game. I’m really surprised it’s taken this long for the former CEO and 500 Millionaire to hit that panic button. After all, he announced he was running 6 long days ago!!!!!!!
February 19th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Jason,
That said, how many Senators have won the White House in the last hundred years?
Two. But that argument holds very little sway in 2008.
How many women have won the White House in the last hundred years? How many Blacks? How many Hispanics? How many Mormons? How many Mayors?
We dont need a consensus builder
Really? Was not Ronald Reagan one of the better consensus builders in the past century? For the past 16 years, the United States has endured two of the most divisive Presidencies in American history (half the country despised Bill Clinton, just like the other half despises George Bush now). We are so polarized that every little issue is used an a partisan wedge that only serves to further divide us. I’m not saying that we should compromise and have bipartisanship just for the sake of it, but we should have a leader who can actually lead the country.
GOP Activist,
What makes you believe that McCain’s numbers will go up?
Well, if you look at McCain’s numbers over the past year, you’ll see that he’s averaged at around 25% to 30% in Republican support. This is with all of McCain’s alleged heresies against the base. So when the campaign actually begins and Republicans learn that McCain’s actually much more conservative than he’s been portrayed, he will win converts. How do I know this? He’s already getting support from hundreds of people who had previously hated him, including lots of influential social and fiscal conservatives.
I think that come summer and fall, you’ll see a leveling out of the field. With McCain and Giuliani ranging around 35%-40% each and Romney at 10%-15%. I have no problem with Rudy being ahead of McCain for the next few months because it puts the pressure of Rudy to perform better than his rivals, while McCain can work behind the scenes and solidify a hold in the grassroots. As for Romney, he has about two months to start gaining traction (anything at all), before it might be too late for him to catch up to Rudy and McCain.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
LJ,
That two months (and counting) time frame that you’re giving Romney should be just enough for him to kick some serious tail in the first GOP debates.
But actually, what matters right now is the fundraising, staff hires, endorsements, and overall organization building that Romney and McCain are doing so well. Public opinion can swing in a matter of months before the primaries, so I won’t start to get concerned about polls until around Q3/Q4.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
LJ-
Rudy and McCain are as known these days by Americans as Washington and Lincoln, and I really dont know what will change that will win them even greater support. Being from AZ, I can tell you that while he won there each election, people in his party today are tired of his act. He never misses a chance to stand against the GOP, except when he is seeking the nomination. Name me a prominant conservative talk show host who supports him. He is too RINO to win the nod. And Rudy is a great guy, but has more baggage than a 747 fully loaded, and it will come out over time.
As I mentioned to GOP Activist, Romney is holding a news conference to officially hit that “panic button” that he suggested. Look Romney will trend upward for 11 more months and Im confidant that, just as he did in business, he will win when it matters most.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Mike B,
Rudy has an edge on security because he tossed out Arafat and broke up the mob, not to mention all of his work in the criminal justice department.
It was hilarious that Rudy threw out Arafat. It was also refreshing clarity on how we shouldn’t be coddling up with terrorists or their sponsors. Romney showed equivalent clarity with regards to Khatami. And both Romney and Giuliani see eye to eye on foreign policy.
However, I fail to see how Rudy’s resume has the edge on national security. Citing his crime reforms vs Romney’s credentials:
–He sits on the federal Department Homeland Security’s Advisory Council (a branch of the Executive Branch Cabinet)
–He Co-chaired the National Governor’s Association Homeland Security Committee, and co-authored letters to the US House and Senate.
–His state recently became one of only 10 states nationwide to receive a the highest grade for disaster preparedness.
–He proactively led Massachusetts through what the Federal government designated a “major disaster emergency” last year, the worst flooding in 70+ years. His leadership and response drew rave reviews both locally and nationally.
–The Massachusetts Avian Flu disaster plan has been held up as a model that the CDC and other officials have praised.
–He has testified before the US Senate and US House on homeland security issues on multiple occassions, and lectured before the Heritage Foundation.
And maybe you should take up your characterization of the Olympics with Dr. James Carafano, a senior research fellow for defense and homeland security at The Heritage Foundation. According to Carafano in a piece called “Olympic Sized-Security”: “The 2002 Salt Lake City, Utah, Winter Olympics featured an unprecedented, integrated security and intelligence apparatus organized by Mitt Romney. Salt Lake set the standard.”
February 19th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Thank you LJ for your well thought out response.
I agree totally on what McCain needs to do. He has done a good job of hiring staff and getting endorsements, but he has a very long way to go with the grassroots.
As a GOP political unit leader, I can tell you that there is a lot more grassroots support for Rudy. Most of the support for McCain appears to be manufactured. Maybe that will change.
If not, will you support Rudy when he wins the nomination?
February 19th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
tonight was fun guys. Goodnight-
February 20th, 2007 at 12:04 am
The past is predictor of the future except when it isn’t. Until 2004 no President with approval ratings as low as Bush’s had been re-elected. Polls have a way of making people look and act like fools. Polls are written in sand and often in ambiguous words.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:53 am
LJ,
There were really only three issues in the 1980 campaign when it comes down to it: foreign policy, the economy, and foreign policy.
War was on everybody’s mind. The march of the Soviet Union into Afghanistan made it so. The Iranian hostage situation made it so. In fact, Reagan’s speeches consistently focused on Carter’s lousy foreign policy.
Additionally, it was the 1976 GOP convention that paved the way for Reagan’s victory in 1980 and showed the overarching importance the Cold War had on America: Ford won the nomination and motioned for Reagan to come down from his box and give a speech in response. Reagan’s speech to the GOP delegates consisted wholly of talk about nuclear missiles, destruction of the planet, the Soviet Union, and our need to end the Cold War. Many delegates in response said they thought they nominated the wrong guy in 76! In 1980, it was even a bigger issue.
Military experience is not necessary. What is necessary in foreign policy is the proper beliefs about the conflict you are facing. Reagan knew there was a bear and that we could and had to defeat the bear in the woods. Once you truly understand that, and your foreign policy comes as a result of that, that’s what matters.
February 20th, 2007 at 2:05 am
OK, HOmeland security. Naturally Rudy wins with 9/11. Romney kept the Olympics safe. While Rudy wins, Romney’s not shabby either
Romney deserves more that he’s getting. the only one in the three announcd to support FMA and not a half-shabby leadership record is not half-bad
none of these 3 have won a war. Romney & Rudy have been in charghe of Security for major events,
February 20th, 2007 at 9:59 am
JasonJack,
Additionally, don’t forget that Romney sat on the Dept of Homeland Security’s Advisory Council and also co-chaired the National Governor’s Association’s Homeland Security Committee.
He implemented a $300 million security plan at the SLC Olympics just months after 9/11 smoothly and effectively.
What Rudy did on 9/11 was more crisis management than homeland security, obviously, and Mitt is well trained in that area as well: Mitt’s handling of the worst flooding in MA in 70 years garnered rave reviews locally and nationally at the time. He also led MA to be one of only 10 states to receive the highest grade on a disaster preparedness report, and the MA model for dealing with a possible Avian flu outbreak has been held up by the CDC as a model for other states to use.
When it comes to homeland security, I think Romney wins hands down.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:15 am
At the risk of sounding simplistic and emotional, I am sick and tired of Romney already. He is not the kick-ass, powerful, decisive leader that we need. That person is Rudy. I am from New York, I was in New York when he became mayor and I saw the incredible transformation of the largest city in America right before my very own eyes and how it affected my everyday life and that of 8 million others. Romney is ALL PACKAGE…PERIOD. Sorry.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Murphy:
Romney “sits” on a board and “authored” a piece. Not really intense actions words.
He was also in charge of the big dig.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:51 am
KT:
and the fact that he would be dthe most liberal Rep. for president in 30 years means…
Bush41, Reagan & dole were all prolife by the time they ran
February 20th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Mike B,
Nope, he wasn’t. He fought, very publicly, after he was elected to eject Amorello and take over control of the Mass Turnpike Authority himself. He failed. Then the tunnel collapsed, he swung into action, succeeded in ejecting Amorello, took over the board himself, and made the issue virtually disappear. I think that’s a serious difficulty Romney’s going to have. He conquers every challenge he encounters so effortlessly that its difficult to remember there was a problem in the first place. 300 million dollar Olympics deficit? Corruption scandal? Gone, without a trace. 3 billion dollar budget deficit? The worst fiscal crisis in Massachusetts in a century? Vanished. The man’s a phenom.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:59 am
JASONjACK: sorry, I dont know what you mean(?) Splain’, Ricky
February 20th, 2007 at 11:03 am
KT.
Are you at all concerned that Gulianni is More liberal than Bush 41 & 43, Dole & Reagan…the last 30 years of candidates?
February 20th, 2007 at 11:04 am
KT,
Now that you’ve admitted to being a Rudy supporter, how do you defend his unexplained flip-flops on partial birth abortion and parental consent? Or perhaps, the line he’s trying to sell the American people on guns. The man who once said that everyone who wants to own a gun should have to take a test, expects us to accept that he’s a federalist on this issue even though, prior to saying as much recently, he’d been nothing of the kind, supporting both the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons ban on the national level. Romney supported an assault weapons ban in 2002. and continues to support it, and somehow he’s a flip-flopper, yet Giuliani utterly rearranges the landscape of his opinions to “well, I only believe those liberal things when I’m in New York”, and he’s given a pass? It’s astounding.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:11 am
To Matt and Jasonjack: I think I can answer both of you at the same time, with the same answer. I am not going to try to list all the reasons why RG is truly a conservative. Those are clear in his actions as mayor of New York. With regard to the very “sticky” issues of PBA and Gun Control, I am TOTALLY in sync with you that it is dissappointing that RG was for them. In my opinion, you both should give some credit to RG for having won in New York AS A REPUBLICAN, in a city of democrats. He HAD to create a government that provided some compromise on some of those sensitive issues (PBA and gun control). Lets face it, the man is a New Yorker and New York republicans are different. This is a plus for Rudy in the general election.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Oh, Jasonjack, I would like to add a quick follow-up with regard to Bush 43 being more conservative than RG. I would first say, that I am not a fan of Bush 43. In fact, when he ran against McCain for the nomination in 2000 I was totally for McCain and I think Bush treated McCain like crap. As for Bush 43 being more conservative than Rudy, let me point o ut the following: Rudy would have pardoned those border patrol agents. Rudy would have tackled the illegal immigration problem (which no president has, especially Bush 43). Rudy would not be back tracking with Iran and making clintonian deals with North Korea. I think Bush 43 is the worst “conservative” president we ever had! Reagan must be turning in his grave.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:28 am
KT,
Rudy would not have won in most red states on the same platform. It’s like a UT Dem may be prolife & as or more conservative than Rudy and yet run & win in Utah. the strategy would not have worked in NT. apparently Rudy is running well now, but his positions were Liberal than.
Romney could have probably won in most states, ignoring the mormon issue. His abortion law policy was status quo, for example.
also, Bush 43 has made a boatload of mistakes.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:33 am
I understand what you mean, Jasonjack. I just personally hope that Rudy gets his chance. He will surprise many conservatives. Incidentally, I worked on RG’s first mayoral campaign, and I received a personally signed thank you letter from Rudy, even though he lost! I was essentially a nobody on the campaign.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:34 am
With all due respect to Gamecock, any argument that quotes Mark Levin as support, in my opinion, should be highly questioned. Levin is an embarrassment to the conservative cause; he is an angry buffoon who gets attention and ratings by being outrageous, thus he is not the kind of public persona Giuliani would want support from in any event.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
HeavyM,
War was on everybody’s mind. The march of the Soviet Union into Afghanistan made it so. The Iranian hostage situation made it so. In fact, Reagan’s speeches consistently focused on Carter’s lousy foreign policy.
I should’ve clarified my post more. What I meant was that in 1980, while the Cold War was indeed raging, the US itself was still reeling from Vietnam and we weren’t engaged in a hot war with anyone. Everything you point out about Reagan is true, but remember that were it not for the completely disastrous Carter Presidency, Reagan might not have had much of a chance.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Completely agree, LJ, and I see where you’re coming from.
I was just pointing out that foreign policy “experience”, nebulous as that is (because somehow Rudy’s crisis management skills gives him that…?), is not something afforded to some of history’s greatest Presidents – and thus should not be a prerequisite to rising to the office of the Presidency. Reagan won the Cold War, leading us through it strongly and decisively, despite no foreign policy “experience”, and Romney, I believe, will win the war on terror, leading us through it strongly and decisively.
Why? Because all that matters is that you see the bear in the woods, understand it for what it is, and then lead out of that understanding.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
KT,
I’m not disappointed that Rudy has changed his position on these issues. What disappoints me is that he gives no indication that he’s done so, and neither do his supporters. Everyone gives him a free pass, while lambasting Romney for much more plausible shifts. Romney was actually DEALING with these issues when he found himself shifting on a few issues. Rudy’s been off giving speeches. I perfectly understand why Rudy is pretending he’s always been against partial birth. Because if people are having a hard time buying that Romney’s position on abortion might change after the legislature sent a dozen abortion related bills to his desk, they’re going to have an even harder time accepting that giving inspirational speeches for 100k a pop has given Rudy some sort of newfound moral clarity. Or maybe they won’t because, as I’ve said, Rudy supporters apply significant double standards. As do McCain supporters (well, supporter) after he’s pandered/flipped on Falwell, taxes, abortion, gay marriage (in the same interview), campaign finance reform (removing his name from the new bill), etc. As far as Rudy needing to compromise in deeply blue NYC…umm…hello? So Massachusetts isn’t what you’d consider, deeply blue? They have a 90% Democratic legislature, not a single elected Republican to state office, and an all Democratic Congressional delegation. Why doesn’t the same leeway apply to Romney? Oh wait, because he’s Romney. I really think ultimately Romney-bashers are going to collapse under a mountain of contradiction, never to be heard from again.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
“they’re going to have an even harder time accepting that giving inspirational speeches for 100k a pop has given Rudy some sort of newfound moral clarity.”
Matt, I don’t know why, but this line made me laugh out loud. Pretty hard.
February 20th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Republius
Levin is a brilliant lawyer (like moi! smile) and I share his concerns about Rudy, was about to write much of what he wrote verbatim, and so saved some time by letting him say it for me. Yes, Levin is an angry man. Liberals can do that to you.
February 20th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
I hate to be mean. I have been having some trouble giving specifics as to why I do not trust or like very much, Mssr. Romney. I believe that this article says it all:
http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_edition/viewpoints/2007/02/20/holy-cow-romney-honestly-insincere/
February 20th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
KT,
To sum up that article you linked to, the author doesn’t like or trust Romney because:
1. He announced his Presidential run in Michigan (where he was born), not Massachusettes (where he lives) or Utah (where he rescued the Olympics).
2. He politely denied plannign a run for President in 2002.
3. He campaigned in Iowa for other GOP nominees during his term as Governor. He also visited China, Turin, Alaska, and Utah during his term. In total, he spent 212 days outside MA in 2006.
4. He made jokes about how liberal MA is.
5. The MA GOP was dealt defeats in elections.
6. Romney didn’t help his successor Healy get elected.
7. His actions show a self-serving ambition rather than a focus on the greater good.
Now then. #1 and #2 are completely irrelevant. #3 is made irrelevant by the invention of telephones, the fact that Romney’s campaigning raised record ammounts of cash for GOP candidates nationwide, and the fact that many of those 212 days include non-business day weekends and holidays. #4 is a positive, IMHO. #5 doesn’t exactly set MA apart from the rest of the country…more important is the money Romney raised for the GOP than how the individual candidates performed. #6 is an outright lie, Healy is on record saying Romney had helped her in every way she asked for. #7 is perhaps the most rediculous of all (and that’s saying a lot), since the last decade of Romney’s career with the Olympics and politics has been marked by donating not only significant amounts of personal time but more than his entire salary to charity. Perhaps the only thing the author bases this accusation upon is the fact that Romney is an elected official.
Seriously, KT. That article is an amateur hack job, low on facts, high on hype, stuffed with overblown rhetoric and MSM-style talking points.
February 20th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Why isn’t the media talking about how Hillary bribed a state Senator to get his endorsement?
February 20th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Rudy and Romney’s newfound moral clarity makes me laugh.