It seems Rudy Giuliani’s lead over his next closest challenger in Republican nomination polls has really taken off, quite similarly to George W. Bush’s after he declared himself a candidate in 2000 (and quite similarly to virtually every other eventual Republican nominee in recent history).? In fact, where once Hillary Clinton was once a sure bet who broadly led her party’s polls in comparison to the tight horserace going on in the GOP, it is now Rudy Giuliani who is the head-and-shoulders-above frontrunner of the two major parties.? His lead over the next closest challenger in the latest Quinnipiac Poll is 22 points, compared to Clinton’s 15 points on her side.? Quinnipiac also puts Rudy at 40%–the second survey to do so in the last?week?(USA Today/Gallup did so as well).
Here’s how the race is shaping up, according to the latest poll:
Quinnipiac University Poll. Feb. 13-19, 2007. N=578 Republican voters nationwide. MoE ? 4.1.
.
“If the 2008 Republican primary for president were being held today, and the candidates were [see below], for whom would you vote?”
.
% ? ? ? ? Rudy Giuliani 40 ? ? ? ? John McCain 18 ? ? ? ? Newt Gingrich 10 ? ? ? ? Mitt Romney 7 ? ? ? ? Duncan Hunter 2 ? ? ? ? Mike Huckabee 2 ? ? ? ? Sam Brownback 1 ? ? ? ? George Pataki 1 ? ? ? ? Ron Paul 1 ? ? ? ? Tom Tancredo 1 ? ? ? ? Tommy Thompson 1 ? ? ? ? Jim Gilmore - ? ? ? ? Chuck Hagel - ? ? ? ? Other (vol.) 1 ? ? ? ? Unsure 15
Whilst a mere few weeks ago it was Rudy and McCain that inhabited the upper tier, with Gingrich and Romney jostling in the second tier, and everyone else fighting for scraps, it now appears that McCain is beginning to slide into league with the second tier candidates while Rudy gets closer to laying claim to the title of frontrunner.? McCain’s slide is becoming evident in other recent polls too.? While, in late January, McCain was enjoying big leads over usual third-placer Newt Gingrich (17 pt. lead-Gallup, 10 pt. lead-Rasmussen, 18 pt. lead-ABC/WaPo, 17 pt. lead-CNN, 16 pt. lead-Time), McCain has now begun settling in the teens category, just a few points above Gingrich.? (See the RCP record)
Indeed, Rudy’s lead and McCain’s decline appears to be extraordinarily similar to Bush’s lead and Elizabeth Dole’s decline in the 2000 election cycle polls, as noted not too long ago in another post on this site.? Republicans value consistency and predictability in their nominating process, and those who are the polling frontrunners at this point in the election cycle almost always become the nominee, despite who has the most money or best campaign staff.? There are a lot of factors about 2008 that are different than the past several election years, but there is something to be said for long-established patterns in the GOP.
Rudy’s aura of inevitability also seems to be swelling a bit thanks to his superior general election polling numbers.? The former Mayor seems to have clearly established himself as the best Republican candidate to field in the general election.? Against Hillary Clinton, Rudy gets 3 more points than McCain.? Against Barack Obama, Rudy does better than McCain by 7 points (in fact, Obama ties McCain).? Also, against John Edwards, Rudy once again scores 7 more points for the Republicans than McCain does.
On a sidenote, Mitt Romney also seems to be making gradual improvement in the general election polls.? (Romney went from a devastating 26 point deficit behind Hillary in a December Newsweek poll to a more hopeful 12 point deficit in the lastest Quinnipiac poll):
Quinnipiac
University Poll. Feb. 13-19, 2007. N=1,536 registered voters nationwide. MoE ? 2.5.? ? ? ? ? . ? “If the 2008 election for president were being held today, and the candidates were [see below] the Democrat and [see below] the Republican, for whom would you vote?” ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? Rudolph
Giuliani (R)Hillary
Clinton (D)Someone
Else (vol.)Wouldn’t
Vote (vol.)Unsure ? ? % % % % % ? 2/13-19/07 48 43 1 2 5 ? 3/2-7/05 44 43 2 1 10 ? 12/7-12/04 45 43 3 2 6 ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? John
McCain (R)Hillary
Clinton (D)Someone
Else (vol.)Wouldn’t
Vote (vol.)Unsure ? ? % % % % % ? 2/13-19/07 46 44 1 3 6 ? 11/28 – 12/4/05 44 40 3 3 11 ? 3/2-7/05 43 41 2 1 13 ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? Mitt
Romney (R)Hillary
Clinton (D)Someone
Else (vol.)Wouldn’t
Vote (vol.)Unsure ? ? % % % % % ? 2/13-19/07 37 49 2 4 9 ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? Rudolph
Giuliani (R)Barack
Obama (D)Someone
Else (vol.)Wouldn’t
Vote (vol.)Unsure ? ? % % % % % ? 2/13-19/07 47 40 1 3 10 ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? John
McCain (R)Barack
Obama (D)Someone
Else (vol.)Wouldn’t
Vote (vol.)Unsure ? ? % % % % % ? 2/13-19/07 43 43 1 4 10 ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? Mitt
Romney (R)Barack
Obama (D)Someone
Else (vol.)Wouldn’t
Vote (vol.)Unsure ? ? % % % % % ? 2/13-19/07 29 49 2 5 15 ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? Rudolph
Giuliani (R)John
Edwards (D)Someone
Else (vol.)Wouldn’t
Vote (vol.)Unsure ? ? % % % % % ? 2/13-19/07 48 40 2 3 8 ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? John
McCain (R)John
Edwards (D)Someone
Else (vol.)Wouldn’t
Vote (vol.)Unsure ? ? % % % % % ? 2/13-19/07 43 42 2 4 9 ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? Mitt
Romney (R)John
Edwards (D)Someone
Else (vol.)Wouldn’t
Vote (vol.)Unsure ? ? % % % % % ? 2/13-19/07 32 48 3 5 12
So, will Rudy’s aura of inevitability and recognition by the MSM as the Republican frontrunner (if not at least a co-frontrunner with McCain) eventually become plain to all?? Possibly.? Things could still change though, and that’s what keeps the GOP horserace interesting.
February 21st, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Party Time!
Rudy, Rudy, Rudy!
This is starting to look like a one man race.
February 21st, 2007 at 4:51 pm
McCain’s a freefall which I can’t quite see a clear way for him to pull himself out of. I prefer McCain to Giuliani to be sure, but with the level of odd disdain most Republicans level at McCain, if Rudy seems more electable and more likeable, why would his support increase? I just don’t see a scenario that would leave McCain with the nomination. That said, there has to be a number two candidate, and with the way Romney’s been struggling, its difficult to say with any truth that he deserves that spot. But I certainly can imagine reasons for Romney’s support to substantially increase.
February 21st, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Matt,
I agree to an extent. Unless McCain can find himself and start looking alive on the campaign trail, I don’t see how McCain’s being out on the campaign trail will resuscitate his poll numbers much. McCain’s got a great team and fundraising apparatus, but even the best can’t compensate for a candidate who constantly looks feeble, frumpy, and tired.
February 21st, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Matt,
I agree, McCain is in big trouble. Not sure if anyone will rise to a dominate number two slot.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:02 pm
We still must not forget the so-con wing of the party. They are inevitably going to find someone to support and that person will become the number 2 candidate, I believe. I agree, also, that McCain is quickly falling and needs some major good news soon to keep his candidacy running. Rudy seems to have that Obama quality to him. Everyone loves him but really don’t know a whole lot about him yet. We’ll see where things end up this time next year. I am still a Mitt man and believe he is just now laying the groundwork for a swell in support. The TV ads will say a lot about Mitt’s chances.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:04 pm
The last polled GOP frontrunner to lose the nomination was Nelson Rockefeller. He was a liberal from New York who had trouble with a more conservative Senator from Arizona and his scandalous personal life.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:32 pm
I wonder what the McCain campaign will do now.
They really seem to be imploding.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:33 pm
David Kohlhoff,
Liberal New Yorker huh? Try checking out some facts.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Great link Kavon.
I’m going to bookmark that one.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:45 pm
I looked on the link you gave for facts but all I found were local economic and crime statistics for NYC. It had nothing at all to do with Rudy’s position ideologically within the Republican Party.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Kavon,
I think it’s time you update your power rankings.
McCain is now a distant 2nd place.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:49 pm
David,
What do those “local economic and crime statistics for NYC” tell you about Rudy’s ideological positions within the Republican Party on such things as the economy, taxes, government growth and spending, family issues, welfare reform, employment, quality of life, job privatization, crime fighting, and public safety?
February 21st, 2007 at 5:50 pm
What is ironic is that Guiliani has actually run on the “Liberal Party” ticket. He is by definition a Liberal-Republican as he has been the candidate for both parties.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:55 pm
They don’t tell me anything because I haven’t seen proof that Rudy Giuliani deserves credit for those statistics. I could assume that but then I wouldn’t be basing my analysis in reality but in a cult of hero-worship.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:55 pm
David,
Well, never let it be said that reality can triumph over a closed mind.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:59 pm
My mind is closed to assertion. I’ve seen a lot of anecdotal evidence but nothing approaching strong evidence that Rudy had anything to do with the general improvement in crime and the economy that occurred nationwide (including NYC) during that period.
February 21st, 2007 at 6:01 pm
David,
Perhaps you should put things in context. Rudy Giuliani ran as a Republican fusion candidate, and also happened to be the LP nominee, but he did not run as a LP candidate. The point Kavon was trying to make by showing you the statistics of NYC’s evolution under Rudy’s administration was that, if Rudy is supposed to be a liberal, he really sucks at it, because Rudy employed Reaganite principles of governmental, social, and economic conservatism on a broader scale than had been done almost anywhere else, and to great success.
If you call someone who initiates record-breaking tax cuts, turns around an economy, vastly reduces the size and spending of government, moves scores of jobs into the private sector, ensures adoption for tens of thousands of children in foster care, reforms one of the worst welfare systems in the nation, slashes crime, slashes homicide, slashes unemployment, raises the standard of living and public safety, cleans up some of the smuttiest areas in the city, doesn’t lift a finger to further abortion, and opposes gay marriage a liberal, then I don’t know what is a conservative.
February 21st, 2007 at 6:06 pm
David,
While there’s some debate over Rudy’s specific involvement in the crime decline in NYC (which is still pretty ridiculous, since, when people claim that the NYC drop was due to the national drop, they fail to point out that NYC’s drop pulled down 25% of the national drop because of NYC’s huge population), there’s really not much doubt over Rudy’s responsibility for the economic and social turnaround in NYC during his tenure.
His own policies are directly tied to the tax cuts, reduction in government size and spending, welfare reform, and other turnarounds, and it was by his own initiatives that some of the darkest areas of town (like Times Square) were cleaned up. In fact, I’ve never heard ANYONE dispute that it was directly because of Rudy and his policies that those things occurred. If you’ve got any hard stats or evidence to suggest that taxes, government size and spending, the number of New Yorkers on welfare, and all that other stuff just happened to fall without any real influence from Rudy’s administration, feel free to enlighten me, but I’ve never really heard that stuff under dispute.
February 21st, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Thanks for the concession, despite the factual inaccuracies in the paragraph that preceded it.
February 21st, 2007 at 6:10 pm
David,
Exactly what factual inaccuracies have been stated yet, aside from your assertion that Rudy Giuliani is a liberal?
February 21st, 2007 at 6:16 pm
David is just frustrated by the polls, his guy must be losing.
February 21st, 2007 at 6:29 pm
You stated that Rudy “didn’t lift a finger to further abortion’. Well, he did support the continued taxpayer funding of abortions by New York residents.
As far as the rest I’ll admit that Rudy was instrumental in welfare reform. As mayor he had some role in the economic upturn in NYC but to claim that he did that and to ignore the national trend and to ignore the private efforts of individuals is misleading.
The point of all this is comparative. Is Rudy a conservative in comparison to McCain or Romney. You seem to trust polling so I’ll appeal to that.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Favorables/RepublicanPresidentialCandidates.htm
Ideologically he is placed further to the left by respondents than McCain or Romney.
February 21st, 2007 at 6:44 pm
So, if Gingrich ends up not running (he’s not really building up a campaign at the moment, is he?) then were do his numbers go? If he’s hoped for by the social conservatives then I guess most of his votes go to McCain & Romney.
I agree that McCain is in trouble, he’s older, is starting to look it, and associated with a war & President who are rather unpopular.
It will be an interesting battle if we end up with Romney and Guiliani fighting it out, with maybe Brownback picking up those social conservatives not as supportive of Iraq. Maybe McCain will try and be kingmaker?
A debate between Guiliani & Romney would be compelling viewing!
February 21st, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Looks like David supports Brownback.
Brownback 1%
Good luck with that.
February 21st, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Rudy Giuliani is pro-choice, yes, but he didn’t do anything to pro-actively further abortion. Even NY Conservative Party Chair Mike Long admitted, when asked if he remembered Rudy taking any policy action to further the pro-choice cause: “I don’t think so. … I never remember seeing him promote the issue, to my knowledge.” In fact, taxpayer-funded abortions actually fell during Giuliani’s tenure. Here’s a great article to read on the issue: Giuliani’s Choices.
This seems to be the only “factual inaccuracy” you can point out, when, in reality, there was nothing factually inaccurate in that statement.
So, if politicians are defined as “conservative” or “liberal” by comparison to one or two other politicians, then why can’t I just compare Rudy to one or two more liberal politicians and make the claim that Rudy is a conservative?
By the way, I hardly think that someone who has been a nation-wide leader on tax cuts (Rudy) is less conservative than someone who opposed some of the most instrumental national tax cuts in recent history (McCain), or that a former Reagan official who has been a bulwark on national security issues and an advocate of a strong national defense (Rudy) is less conservative than someone who caters to the comfort of terrorists (see Geneva interpretation incident) when American lives are on the line (McCain), or that someone who is dedicated to nominating strict constructionist judges with strong conservative backgrounds like Scalia/Alito/Roberts (Rudy) is less conservative than someone who softened (see Gang of 14) in the face of a radical liberal minority in the Senate and lost the GOP the opportunity to win the judicial issue and restore the Constitution’s design (McCain), or that someone who is a well-known warrior on the libertarianism and personal civil liberties front (Rudy) is less conservative than someone who would blanantly disregard the first amendment (see McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation) to score political points (McCain), etc. etc.
Also, what’s interesting, David, about the Rasmussen Poll that you point out is that 88% of Republicans disagree with the statement that Rudy Giuliani is a liberal, and in fact, more than twice as many Republicans say Rudy is a conservative than those that say he’s a liberal. So if polls decide who is a conservative or a liberal, then doesn’t that poll you cited lend more evidence to “Rudy is a conservative” than to “Rudy is a liberal?”
If you want to really get to know Rudy, I suggest you check out a book by Fred Siegel called The Prince of the City. It’s a very non-biased, neutral, and balanced look at Giuliani’s tenure as NYC Mayor. Siegel calls Rudy out on his failures, but he does confirm the magnificent turnaround of Rudy’s NYC and how Rudy and his policies directly made that turnaround happen.
February 21st, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Kavon,
That’s a nice link Murdock put together. Do you think he will ever ever include the change in NYC debt during Giuliani’s tenure? From $26 billion to $43 billion. The city debt in 2001 consumed more than 15 cents per tax dollar.
That’s kind of a big one to sweep under the rug, don’t you think? How anyone can omit that and title a piece “Giuliani’s Fiscal Record” is beyond me. Don’t you agree?
February 21st, 2007 at 7:13 pm
So murphy,
What’s the deal with Romney at 7%
He’s 3 points behind a guy who is not even campaigning.
February 21st, 2007 at 7:22 pm
GOP Activist,
I’ve addressed the polling data a dozen times for you. You never change your tune. Why should I waste time doing it again?
My #26 was a serious point that gets little attention from Rudy fans claiming him to be fiscally immaculate.
February 21st, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Yes,
But according to the polls nobody cares.
Rudy continues to rise!
February 21st, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Case in point. That was all that I expected from you and more.
February 21st, 2007 at 7:35 pm
murphy,
We have room for you over at Team Rudy.
February 21st, 2007 at 7:37 pm
murphy,
While I would hardly call Rudy fiscally immaculate, it is difficult to dispute his overall success on the economic front. Granted, I think Rudy made a mistake in using city loans as much as he did, but what you fail to point out is that now, a few years out from Giuliani’s administration when Rudy’s policies have been allowed to run their course, NYC is once again in a comfortable $3 billion surplus (as of the 2007 NYC financial report).
And while it is true that Rudy borrowed for NYC, it is also true that the NYC tax burden was greatly reduced, Rudy quite successfully reformed the city welfare system, moved many jobs into the private sector, increased citizens’ personal incomes by 53%, and was instrumental in pushing back the increasing rate of NYC government growth and spending. The hard fact is that New York’s economy is in a far better shape now than it was in 1993 largely because of Rudy’s leadership.
February 21st, 2007 at 7:38 pm
GOP Activist,
I appreciate your participation in the discussion, but let’s focus on issues instead of making personal remarks and quips. Thanks.
February 21st, 2007 at 7:42 pm
No problem,
I’m just having a little too much fun.
February 21st, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Woodrow,
I completely agree with your points in your second paragraph of #32. I wouldn’t want to seem as though I were ignoring the positives of Rudy’s fiscal record, lest I be guilty of the same behavior true of many Rudy fans. My big complaint is seeing a $16 billion borrowing binge (double the tax relief he offered New Yorkers) get breezed over as if it did not exist. And just for equal comparisons, that “comfortable $3 billion surplus” you cited is accompanyed by a smothering $55 billion debt.
This is one of my big reasons for supporting Romney over Rudy…lower taxes, lower spending, and no borrowing gimmicks.
February 21st, 2007 at 8:27 pm
murphy:
Romney raised taxes. Rudy cut them, even when the city was facing a huge budget shortfall. The tax cuts were completely counterintuitive, and they forced Rudy to finance the debt through bonds, but he knew that cutting taxes was essential to making NYC more competitive and restoring the economy.
Now, having said that, I would concede that an old-school Dole/ McCain-style deficit hawk would prefer to cut spending and increase taxes as opposed to the Giuliani approach. But then again, the fi-cons didn’t exactly rally to McCain when he ran against Bush in 2000, did they? In fact, the fi-cons main beef with Bush wasn’t really the deficits per se, but with the vast increase in discretionary domestic spending.
February 21st, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Romney did not raise taxes. That’s simply a lie Sean P. He increased a handful of fees, but the vast majority of the budget gap was closed by reduced spending.
February 21st, 2007 at 8:55 pm
also, everyone wants the next Reagan and we all know how great he was when it came to deficits and debts.
that number by itself doesn’t mean anything.
what would it have been if say Dinkins was mayor the 8 years, or if Messinger won in 97?
what % of total was it?
what was the total economic growth and other figures during te period?
how much did 9/11 affect things?
how does it compare to similar debts/deficits at other periods in NYC’s history?
what is their credit/borrowing rating? has it gone down or did it improve while Rudy was mayor?
It’s like saying the US deficit is at an all time high when as % of GDP it’s not even close or saying that the defense budget is at an all time high when as % it’s far lower than it was during the peacetime Reagan or Eisenhower years.
Anyone can use numbers. It really takes further analysis to draw any conclusions.
February 21st, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Woodrow,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the “surplus” spent by the end of Rudy’s term? Wasn’t the $3 billion generated largely by Bloomberg coming into office and further cutting spending while hiking taxes? I’m not trying to say that hiking taxes is necessarily the way to go…I’m just trying to track down who’s responsible for the $3 billion surplus you cited.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Sean P,
Romney didn’t raise taxes. Here’s the lineup, with percentages relative to the MA 2002 budget and all numbers approximate:
Income tax: Pushed for a 6% decrease, which the 90% Democrat MA legislature ignored.
Misc Fees: Raised some fees 2%, eliminated other fees (eg highway tolls in western MA).
Tax Loopholes: Closed tax loopholes to raise revenue by Spending: Cut state spending by over 10%.
I’d suggest you consider the interest that gets paid on the money Rudy borrowed. At the end of Rudy’s term NYC paid 15 cents of every dollar to interest. With tax revenues of over $40 billion, that’s over $6 billion per year to cover the interest on Rudy’s debts.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:00 pm
also, Romney left after his 1st term. who knows what thing sowuld be like if he served a second term and faced different circumstances.
If you really want to do a fair comparison, and even then it’s not 100%, you’d have to compare Rudy’s 1st term with Romney’s only term and see how things stack up.
After his 1st term, even the NYT praised his fiscal policy and conceded he had dramatically improved the econmic situation in the city.
So, I’d want to see a comparison of Romney’s term with Rudy’s 1st term. And even then, city and state budgets are different and have different factors influencing them, different political climates, different economic climates so it’s not really fair to just compare the two.
The real issue, though, isn’t what happened in the past, it is what is their policy for the US 2009-2013. I think I’ll wait until they both come out with their economic/fiscal plans before I make any judgments on that.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:01 pm
that should have read:
Tax Loopholes: Closed tax loopholes to raise revenue by less than 1%.
Spending: Cut state spending by over 10%.
dumb html tags…
February 21st, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Jim,
And even then, city and state budgets are different and have different factors influencing them, different political climates, different economic climates so it’s not really fair to just compare the two.
That’s an interesting point, and if you have any concrete examples I’m all ears. As for postulating that Romney’s second term (had there been one) could have been tougher than Romney’s first term, that extremely unlikely. When Romney came into office jobs were fleeing the state, the legislature was about to impliment a retroactive capital gains tax, the government was on the verge of shutting down, and the dot com bubble burst was wreaking havoc on tax revenues. Romney left office having paid off the state debts, reversed the loss of jobs so that there were more jobs than when he came in office, balanced every budget, slashed spending, cut more state jobs than any state in the union, and tucked away enough money in the “Rainy Day Fund” to cope with unforseen disasters.
My main point is to use the candidate’s records to determine their fiscal philosophy. Romney cuts taxes, cuts spending, and doesn’t sell out his kids’ futures using borrowing gimmicks. Rudy borrows money like one of my in-laws with a gambling problem.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Woodrow,
Rudy Giuliani is pro-choice, yes, but he didn’t do anything to pro-actively further abortion.
I don’t mean this maliciously, I’m genuinely curious. How’s that position any different from Hillary Clinton’s? She’s pro-choice, but she hasn’t done anything to further it either.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Jim,
NYC’s budget is MORE THAN that of some states.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:25 pm
i’m just saying that there’s really tons of differences in size, population, revenues, spending, political culture, special interests, to compare the two isn’t the same as if both had governed the same state and you could.
It makes much more sense to compare Rudy with Dinkins and Bloomberg and to compare Romney with Weld, Celluci, Swift and Patrick, than to compare them with each other.
I think we can both agree they’d probably be better than Bush on spending. He hasn’t exactly been the best fiscal conservative and I think he could run for a 3rd term he’d win the nomination going away.
That would actually be an interesting poll question:
If the choices for the Republican nominee in 2008 were:
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Rudy Giuliani
George W Bush
Sam Brownback
who would you vote for?
February 21st, 2007 at 9:41 pm
No. Bush would not win another nomination. It would be general election suicide.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:46 pm
I’m surprised that no one has linked to today’s Slate piece on Rudy Giuliani’s potential downfalls in the Whitehouse. It wasn’t a one-sided hit piece either. It just illustrated how Rudy’s management style could be less than ideal for the job.
Link for those interested: http://www.slate.com/id/2160285
February 21st, 2007 at 9:57 pm
BarkTwiggs:
Maybe it is time for a CHANGE in Washington!!!!!!!!
February 21st, 2007 at 10:17 pm
That article is interesting. It basically says Rudy had a great first term and by the time his 2nd term started rolling around, he got a little power hungry and out of control.
It explicitly compares him to Churchill and Thatcher and states that he’s a leader and not a manager-and that’s supposed to be a bad thing?
Word to Jacob Weisberg: Making comparisons to the Bulldog and the Iron Lady isn’t exactly the best way to sink a GOP candidate.
In fact, I can just see the ads now: “Liberal columnist compares Rudy to Churchill and Thatcher. Run for your lives”
In any event, even assuming what he writes is true, Rudy will turn 65 a few months into his first term.
I’ll gladly take a great first term from a President Giuliani, kick terrorist ass, stop iranian nukes, cut taxes, lower spending, a few other things, and see him step aside after 4 years to make way for VP Gingrich.
I think most other republicans and conservatives would as well.
In fact, if he gets the nomination, that might be a good way to unite the party and prevent a 3rd party.
We’d get all the good of Rudy(the 1st term), without the bad(the 2nd term).
February 21st, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Jim,
It makes much more sense to compare Rudy with Dinkins and Bloomberg and to compare Romney with Weld, Celluci, Swift and Patrick, than to compare them with each other.
Yes, definitely, I agree. Unfortunately (for the sake of comparison) and fortunately (for the sake of the country), those other guys aren’t running. Comparisons between McCain, Giuliani, and Romney are imperfect and completely necessary.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:08 pm
jim,
I too don’t think a Rudy presidency will be as bad as some make it out to be, but there are a few caveats to a Giuliani nomination. I assume you are banking on Rudy’s universal recognition to keep the party together. If that media persona of his is not enough, I actually see a 3rd party more likely forming due to his centrist and liberal leanings. In that environment, all that is needed is the Ralph Nader equivalent for 2008 on the right to syphon just enough votes away to prevent a majority. Keep in mind, this is all hypothetical, though I wonder if the big tent will stay or go away.
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:19 am
Rudy’s Lead Takes Off: Quinnipiac Poll…
…
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:24 am
BarkTwiggs,
I really don’t think a third Party is a major threat to the GOP. The only successful effort came from the middle with Ross Perot. Rudy has a lock on the middle. The far right does not have the money or resources to mount a successful third Party like Ralph Nader.
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:25 am
Gingrich is smart but would only hurt the ticket. Condi or Alberto Gonzalez.
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:29 am
Grant,
I like Giuliani/Condi
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Matt:
So I’m a liar, am I? Pretty uncalled for, if I do say so myself. Moreover, this is backed up by the claim of Virginia Buckingham (source: http://news.bostonherald.com/columnists/view.bg?articleid=182639&srvc=home) who, unlike myself and most of the posters here, actually lived in Massachussettes and notes the following:
“Rather than forcing the Legislature to close the budget gap through spending cuts alone, Romney raised some $500 million in fees.
“Romney raised corporate taxes by an estimated $210 million and only backed down under pressure from pushing for even higher taxes on business.
“Romney watered down a voter-approved immediate rollback of the income tax, by proposing to spread the final phase of the cut over two years.
“Romney flip-flopped on rebating capital gains taxes to taxpayers that had been collected unconstitutionally. ‘I’d far rather see tax cuts in the future than tax cuts applied in the past,’ he said as the state’s highest court wrestled with the issue.”
Oh, and the CATO Institute accused Romney of increasing taxes as well and gave Romney a “C” rating. Are they liars too?
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Sean P,
Fees are not taxes. First, they are targetted at the people incuring the cost, unlike general taxes which are far more socialistic in their scope. Second, you can avoid the fee by not using the service.
Closing tax loopholes is not the same as raising taxes any more than sending an escaped convict back to prison is sentencing.
Your #36 is misleading, as I addressed in my #41.
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:09 pm
So $210 million in tax increases aren’t tax increases? And failure to rebate tax refunds due isn’t a tax increase either?
I see you have softpedaled your accusation that I “lied” to simply saying I was “misleading” but if you want to see misleading, look at a picture of your preferred candidate.
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Sean P,
Considering you can’t keep straight who told you that one of your posts was a lie and who told you that one of your posts was misleading, I’m not surprised to hear you ignore what I just said in #57.
The $210 million came as a result of Romney enforcing the law, and cannot be counted as “raising taxes” in the ordinary sense. To pretend that enforcing existing tax law is equivalent to approving new and higher taxes is misleading, lying, however you want to hear it.
And delaying additional tax cuts for a year is not a tax hike. It’s keeping taxes steady.
Give it up, this “Romney raised taxes” meme is sounding rediculous.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:04 pm
OK, Matt vs. Murphy. Yeah, that was a mistake and I apologize (to you).
But your spin on the $210 hike is disputed by quite a few people in Mass. And Romney didn’t just “delay an additional tax cut” for a year, he fought to keep a tax cut off the books for an additional year when the proposition was drafted to apply to the year before. Plus, your interpretation of what constitutes and does not constitute a tax increase is not shared by most fi-cons. Consider: by your logic, if our income taxes suddenly shoot up to pre-2001 levels, that is NOT a tax increase. If the estate tax shoots back up to 50% in 2001, that is NOT a tax increase. Why? Because the cuts expire on their own terms in 2011, so nobody would be increasing taxes. That’s the kind of argument Democrats would make, but not fiscal conservatives. And my initial point is that Rudy is more appealing to fiscal conservatives than Romney.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Sean P,
Apology accepted, but don’t worry…I wasn’t exactly bothered by it in the first place. And I definitely agree that should the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011, it will be a tax increase because I will simply be paying more taxes.
But you’re attempting to aply the same rational on a different situation. The expiration of a tax cut is not the same as the delay of a tax cut. For example, the person watching their tax forms between 2010 and 2011 will definitely see a tax hike. But the person in MA watching their tax forms between 2002 and 2003 would see no change, and conclude that taxes remained steady. It is not a tax increase because no taxes have increased.
As for the $210 million, that is not a tax increase either because the subjects of that tax were merely evading the intent of the law in the first place. As Governor, Romney’s job was to enforce the law, like it or not. And as a law and order type of guy, he enforced the law on the books regardless of personal feelings for or against it. The corporations that were previously evading their tax responsibility were not allowed to do so…that’s not a tax hike, that’s a tax enforcement.
So, if you want to say that Romney increased fees related to specific government services, enforced current tax law, and did not give a new tax cut as soon as he should have, that is fine. But the moment you summarize any of these as a tax increase, you misrepresent his record. And, if you’ve noticed anything from my posting around here, the misrepresentation of any politician’s record is something I’m very much against.