Rudy Giuliani is making the right moves that Gamecock has demanded, expected and seen as essential if America’s Mayor is to be the next President of the United States.
He has followed the Reagan model in calling out the Democrats as weak on defense and socialists on domestic affairs. He is calling the liberals out for their advocacy of proven, failed policies at home and dangerous appeasement policies that cause no enemy or potential enemy of the US to tremble.
Rudy has also done some repairs to his laziness spawned disastrous musings on social issues by praising the Supreme Court’s recent case that upheld the federal ban on partial birth abortion; denouncing the procedure as barbaric as well as publicly disagreeing with New Hampshire’s new law that equates same sex civil unions with marriage which appears to this observer to be consistent with his past support for more narrowly defined civil union laws.
One cautionary note: The recent Who Would Jesus Pick? Wall Street Journal interview with Richard Land poses a great challenge to Rudy that he must meet. I found Dr. Land’s logic in opposing Rudy quite compelling on the character issue, as I find all of Dr. land’s logic on all issues. The leader of Southern Baptists is a much better gauge of what evangelicals think than Falwell, Robertson or any of the other Christian leaders that the MSM have demonized.
I think Rudy can overcome character questions arising from his failed marriages, etc. by pointing to his performance in office, but character does matter, and Rudy must go a long way towards satisfying the concerns raised by Dr. Land.
On the Democratic side, one of the major developments, predictably ignored by the MSM, is that all of the candidates have been forced to defend the barbaric procedure of partial birth abortion by the abortion lobby money that runs their party. Not one of the eight democrats on the stage in the Orangeburg, S.C. debate last week had the courage, or the inclination, to support the court’s decision, and most went out of their way to praise Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent in the case to buttress their identification of her as their “favorite” justice.
Its all on tape for commercials next fall. The Democratic nominee will be on record supporting partial birth abortion and McGovernite appeasment.
Therefore, given the above and more below, Gamecock’s power rankings, defined as who I think have the best chance of winning the nomination based on developments up to now and expected results after a campaign, are as follows:
GOP
1. Rudy Giuliani
2. (three-way tie)
a. Mitt Romney moves up with fundraising and organizational superiority; quick responses to events and great speeches and Reagaesque policy prescriptions.
b. Fred Thompson’s radio addresses filling in for Paul Harvey remind Gamecock of Reagan’s late 1970′s radio addresses that paved the way for his 1980 triumph. Especially impressive was his calling out of Iran for “acts of war” against the US in Iraq.
c. Despite some setbacks, John McCain shows himself to be a fighter and downright brilliant and inspiring on the war.
5. Mike Huckabee is a very inspirational speaker and made good showings in SC last week, but he will not be in the top tier because he is just too much of a nanny state big government “conservative.” He is good on abortion, but that will not be enough. He beats Brownback hands down because he is a war hawk, but no higher.
6. Sam Brownback lost the Southern evangelical vote when he went soft on the war.
Dems
Tied for last: Edwards and all but Hillary, Obama and Biden.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Venti Starbucks cups are dangerous, but, “One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008
April 29th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Referring to yourself in the third person is the last step before the doors to the padded room are locked behind you.
April 29th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Bob Dole disease?
April 29th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Oh yeah, that chicken is me! Yikes!
April 29th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
btw Tano, I hope you read my final comments on the “flag’ blog in which i conceded some points to you and that you really hit home in your psycho analysis of the rooster, er ah, I mean me!
you cool man
April 29th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Tano…I fail to see your point, Palin for VP always refers to himself in the third person and is in perfect mental health!
…Wait a minute, Palin for VP is pushing the newly elected Governor of an itty-bitty state for Vice-President of the United States…maybe he is Looney Toons after all….lol.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:27 am
tano, palin for vp
tough crowd
April 30th, 2007 at 1:08 am
tano should already be in the padded room with the locked door….with gavel and kucinich, etc.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:31 am
Gamecock, how does the Mayor overcome the concerns of Dr. Land? I don’t see it.
The Mayor has called for public funding of abortion, refuses to claim that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and unconvincingly states that he applauds the recent United States Supreme Court decision upholding a federal ban on partial-birth abortion despite his historically opposite views on the matter.
In addition, what is the Mayor supposed to do about the reality of previous marital infidelity, including such with staff while in high public office? Read my lips, no new marital affairs?
The die has seemingly been cast with respect to the Mayor on these social and personal issues. I don’t see that there is anything he can do to win over those with the priorities of Dr. Land, which I think is going to be a growing number of GOP primary and caucus voters as the months roll on.
April 30th, 2007 at 5:26 am
6. Sam Brownback lost the Southern evangelical vote when he went soft on the war.
—-
I really can’t agree with you that Sam Brownback is soft on the war. Unlike most dems heis willing to come up with a plan to help us achieve victory in Iraq (And not call for a withdrawal) other than what the president has proposed. A military solution alone will not win this war we need a political solution as well, plain and simple anyone that doesn’t see that is just blind. It just so happens that most of the people that oppose the president’s course in Iraq are what evangelical conservatives. Look at the polling this war is not popular by all stripes. (R and D and I and Conservative/Liberal)
April 30th, 2007 at 7:02 am
Hey Republius or Kavon. Here’s the poll for IL:
http://www.dailysouthtown.com/news/miller/363378,301MLR1.article
April 30th, 2007 at 7:17 am
Let’s nominate a candidate who can’t win. That’ll show em.
April 30th, 2007 at 7:18 am
The only solution to the war is a military solution, but the American people don’t have the stomach for it so what then?
April 30th, 2007 at 7:41 am
Republius
He may not be able to overcome Land’s concern for Land personally, but he will be able to for many like him that have those concerns by showing how srong he is on other issues, expecially:
How well he goes after the Dems on war, taxes, etc and how he is tough with the press.
By making more explicit promises on judges, Roe and social issues in a federalist context.
Show kept promises when he was Mayor to shore up his credibility.
and more later
April 30th, 2007 at 7:42 am
I saw Brownback so soft out of his own mouth on one of the Sunday shows soon after the 06 election and soon after the surge was announced. He used the liberal language of defeat.
April 30th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Game- I disagree with you simply put…He is not as weak at the dems find a different candidate to trash already would ya!
April 30th, 2007 at 8:57 am
I have nowhere else to post this, so I’m posting it here for Republius, Gamecock, or Kavon to pick up if they’re interested, these are some new endorsements for FDT. For y’all debating the current blog, ignore this. My page isn’t working right now, so here’s the info:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/4759616.html
April 30th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Republius,
Can you please name the GOP presidential candidates who do NOT support the Hyde Amendment, as Rudy does, which provides federal funding for abortions only in cases involving rape, incest, and the life of the pregnant woman?
April 30th, 2007 at 9:53 am
JL,
It’s a canard to say we need a political solution in Iraq. A liberal canard at that. Of course we need a political solution. But no political solution can be successful in the absence of security. I agree with Thomas P.M. Barnett on this (hardly a movement conservative). When you don’t have security it’s 100% of the problem. When you do have it, it’s only 10% of the solution. Nothing Brownback is proposing is even remotely geared towards producing security in Iraq.
His 3-state idea, while admittedly better then anything the Democrats are proposing, is all but guaranteed to lead to massive population dislocations, and genocide on a wide scale. How that’s meant to create a secure situation, I really don’t know. We absolutely need to work on political questions within Iraq. We need to work, more seriously, on giving the Iraqi’s economic stake in their country. We need to implement more serious job programs. But all of these things have as their pre-requisite, a secure nation. Because one things for sure, you can’t “politick” if you’re dead.
April 30th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Matt you fail to see the obvious Iraq will not have victory with a military surge alone. Both you and likes of McCain are wrong on that issue. We need a political solution pushed a lot harder. We lost this year largely because of Iraq. We need a leader who is willing to chart a new course rather than go with the status quo.
April 30th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Wrong JL. You’re defeating a straw man. I never said or suggesting anything of the kind. The surge is the pre-condition for security, which is a pre-condition for political solutions. If you think a society can create a lasting “political solution”, without a stable region or people, then you really ought to say so and attempt to defend that position. Because your cry for “political solution” is otherwise utterly irrelevant.
April 30th, 2007 at 10:19 am
JL,
you fail to see the obvious parts of matt’s post.
I am quite sure matt isn’t talking about success based on the military alone.
“When you don’t have security it’s 100% of the problem. When you do have it, it’s only 10% of the solution. Nothing Brownback is proposing is even remotely geared towards producing security in Iraq. “
April 30th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Great post! I think I agree with every observation made. I especially like the effort to highligyht something positive about the top candidates, which it wasn’t hard to do. The GOP is not and never should be the party of gloom.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Argo (in #18), the Hyde Amendment is not the issue if the Mayor is going to fallaciously claim to support it.
No GOP candidate is against the Hyde Amendment. Most Democrats are not against it.
But the Mayor has said that because the U.S. Supreme Court has made abortion a fundamental right that it should be subsidized for poor people by the states (which allows him to fallaciously claim he is a Hyde Amendment supporter). And there are three huge problems here for the Mayor.
First, he is the only GOP candidate to support public funding of abortion. Second, the claim that the government must financially subsidize fundamental rights is ludicrous – we don’t do so for expressed (the rights of free speech or to own a firearm, for example) or implied (the rights to procreate and raise a family as a parent sees fit, for example) fundamental rights – and not something Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court require. And, third, it is unconstitutional to force states to finance purely federal programs, which is what the Mayor would be doing insisting that states subsidize a constitutional fundamental right; if the Mayor believes that a constitutional fundamental right must be subsidized then the federal government must do so and he would need to be in favor of rescinding the Hyde Amendment in this case.
The Mayor’s call for public funding of abortion is way out of the Republican, if not the American, mainstream. And the fallacious way he claims to support the Hyde Amendment in order to make his call for public funding of abortion more palatable is sophistry.
April 30th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Thanks HH