??????? Campaign Closet is what I am going to call those references out in the public domain that GOP presidential candidates would just as soon not see hit the light of day and be able to hide somewhere.
In my view, it is better that Republicans vet their own candidates in this primary so as not to nominate someone whom the Democrats will surprise general election voters with revelations about – as happened in 2000, when the George W. Bush DUI story leaked by Democrats on the weekend before the election gave the popular vote and nearly the Electoral College to Al Gore.
Jonathan Martin of The Politico reports that the New York City firefighters’ union is sending out a video attacking Mayor Rudy Giuliani to a quarter million of its members. That is a drop in the proverbial bucket unless the mainstream media pick up on it and give the tape free exposure all over the country.
Mayor Giuliani is in a unique political position, being arguably the GOP front-runner as well as the most controversial candidate in the Republican field. Entrenched New York City interests as well as social and religious conservative leaders have vowed to vigorously oppose his candidacy – and this is a formal start.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Republius when will you begin vetting other candidates besides Rudy?
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:11 pm
What’s the beef the firefighters have? Were there big disputes in union negotiations or somethings?
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:15 pm
I think this will backfire. Americans already judged Rudy’s actions on live television and they know how passionately he feels about firefighters.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:15 pm
If my memory is correct, the firefighters felt that they were put in a situation after 9/11 that could have negative affects on their health, and that’s the only one I remember off the top of my head.
I’ve thought that this was going to turn into an issue for a while now.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:20 pm
And so it begins with Rudy’s demise.
The firefighters have a huge beef of how Rudy handled the 9/11 cleanup. I think they wanted more time to look for remains and Rudy wanted to get it all cleaned up. For the record, they are a very liberal group and I compeletely disagree with them.
The only problem is to most Americans, Rudy’s positive image is based on being with the NYFD and NYPD and 9/11. Also, to most Americans firemen are heros and not associated with partisanship. My guess is that this will hurt him and that these will be Rudy’s Swiftboat Veterans should he get elected. Obviously we will all have to wait and see what happens.
I think interest groups are going to start lining up against Rudy, mostly because he is the front runner. Pro-life groups and the NRA are next (maybe).
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Ouch, I had heard that the New Your City Firefighters didn’t like Rudy because he stopped the recovery of the remains of the firefighters and victims of 9/11. I didn’t know that they would go to these lengths to stop him from ascending to the presidency. This will really hurt Romney because it cuts him right at the basis of his fitness to be President. I’ve said since 9/11, firefighters are our countries new American heroes. Kids idolize firefighters now, so how do you fight back against these firefighters accusations?
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:29 pm
“I think interest groups are going to start lining up against Rudy, mostly because he is the front runner. Pro-life groups and the NRA are next (maybe).”
Here comes another one (albiet we knew it was coming:
http://www.observer.com/2007/anti-rudy-catholics-plan-their-assault
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:30 pm
This is coming from one NYC Union that has decades long ties to the Democratic party. Their union head was one of the top Kerry guys in NY in 2004.
This is not the view of FF, policemen, or first-responders in NY as a whole and should be taken in context with where this particular group has always come from politically.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:30 pm
“Even as Rudy Giuliani emerges from his campaign’s first real rough patch, a number of conservative Catholic organizations are in the process of rolling out potentially broad-reaching “viral” initiatives with the common aim of denying him the Republican nomination.
A conservative Catholic P.A.C based in a key swing state is planning an anti-Giuliani “multimedia effort” for a June debut. A national network of politically savvy Catholic activists is creating a heavy-hitting Web site patterned after the controversial Catholics Against Kerry effort in 2004 scheduled to appear around the same time. And earlier this month, a disabled vet working out of his home in Blytheville, Ark., launched an invitation-only “Stop Rudy” social-networking site, where Giuliani-haters from across the nation have begun to meet and coordinate real-world planning from behind the protection of a members-only log-in.”
-complete article at above link
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:32 pm
“I think this will backfire. Americans already judged Rudy’s actions on live television and they know how passionately he feels about firefighters.”
DavidB, I agree. If the debate centers on 911, Rudy wins and wins big.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Seriously, this is coming form a union, is it not? Should it be a surprise to any of us here that this union would oppose a Republican candidate even if that candidate is very liberal socially?
These people get paid by taxes. The unions extort “dues” and other favors such as votes in return for “collective bargaining” among other things. They take that dues money and contribute heavily to the DNC, other liberal causes, as well as enriching themselves in the process.
These unions are nothing more than a branch of the Democrat party plain & simple. Regardless if they are right or wrong with these accusations on Rudy, they are who they are and there is no denying that.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
It should also be noted that this is the same NYC union went against their state union to endorse Kerry over Bush in 2004.
See here for more on this.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:37 pm
I was a member of a public employees union for 12 years and have little doubt that this is anything other than partisanship on the part of the union heads, who , at least in my experience with them, care more about politics these days than about the real issues that affect their members. They spend millions trying to elect Democrats while members (like me formerly) go unrepresented at the bargaining table. They are nothing now but an arm of the Democratic Party (IMO).
Believe me, I’m not defending Rudy; no way he gets my vote. I’m only relaying some personal experience I’ve had with these despicable unions.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Sorry, in the time it took me to write post #13 several of you already made the point about unions equaling the Democratic party.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:58 pm
I am sure Republius only wants us-out of fairness-to know everything bad about Rudy before we vote.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:59 pm
I’m pretty suspicious of unions, myself. I mean, maybe their real beef is about how Giuliani wouldn’t let them recover the bodies of their dead. But then maybe its really about negotiations over pay and benefits, or maybe just that he’s a Republican. Dunno.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Grant; would you rather see stuff like this come out next October?
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:04 pm
I agree that these guys are totally partisan, but firefighters are a tough group to counter attack. Maybe not as tough as soldiers, but Kerry lost the election because of the Swiftboat Veterans, which was also a partisan group. He couldn’t effectively counter attack because veterans have so much credibility.
I think Rudy’s best hope to overcome this unscathed is to acknowledge that it was a very tough decision, but that he did what he thought was best for NY. As already stated, Rudy has credibility on the issue, he just needs to learn how to craft a good response at the right time, which he hasn’t shown so far on abortion or immigration.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:05 pm
I have already seen this union attack Rudy on Fox News. Please don’t pretend to be merely informational when you have a favorite that is not Rudy. I know you are just being fair and balanced. Right.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:06 pm
The unions are very afraid of Rudy.
I can envision their campaign slogan:
“Firefighters for Hillary”
Somehow I don’t think that will be very effective.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:08 pm
to whom is #19 addressed?
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:09 pm
You JB
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:09 pm
This is a great article on Rudy and his electibility:
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:12 pm
No worries JB,
I’m with you 100% there..
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:13 pm
dealwhudson.typepad.com/deal_w_hudson/2007/05/guiliani_aborti.html
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:13 pm
I couldn’t get it out there as a normal link. The site kept eating my messages.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:18 pm
You’ve got me a bit confused Grant. I simply asked you if you’d rather have this info come out next October, and you’re responding as if I wrote the original post. The only comment I actually made was somewhat in defence of RG (#13). Perhaps you should work on keeping your emotions more in check when discussing these things.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:28 pm
I’ll try to unconfuse you. Republius has written dozens of comments on this board. They are virtually unanimously anti-Rudy except to say he would vote for the Repub candidate. Then he tries to tell this board he merely wants the information out. Of course all the information is anti-Rudy. Then JB supports this claim that the statement is put in here for informational purposes only. JB of course likes this information because as he says he will never vote for Rudy. I don’t care if you are against Rudy just play it straight and admit that you like negative info about Rudy because you don’t like Rudy. I am for Rudy so I will mention negative info on other candidates-like polls- because I think they are relevant to my thinking. In actuality, I disagreeewith Rudy on abortion and immigration. But I support him because of 911 and because he can win because he is smart and will do a good job of defending his views and convincing the American people. Let’snot pretend that the info on this thread was informational only.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Grant,
I guess we should all just throw in the towel. How about it? No way we can keep momentum from Hillary.
Clinton 47% Romney 44%
Clinton 47% Thompson 44%
Clinton 48% McCain 44%
Clinton 45% Giuliani 45%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/match_ups/election_2008_gop_presidential_matchups
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Hillary will be very tough to beat. She does this well despite the fact that half the country[including me] hates her. We need to make inroads in the blue states to keep her out. Candidates who take every conservative position in the primary will be toast in the general election. I would a strong conservative candidate–this just isn’t the year. I actually like George W better than most of those running. But I don’t want to9 run him again. Bush is right on abortion , immigration, the war etc.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:37 pm
To continue, I love the Bush tax cuts. I think they are gone because the demos will control the congress. If we lose the wh big, here comes european style socialism.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Yes, I do think it’s very important to do a thorough (spelling?) vetting of the candidates so as not to give that honor to the Dems next October. Since I don’t have a favorite candidate yet (though, I’m leaning Mitt), I guess maybe that’s why I can see the importance of getting all of this stuff out there and digested by the public. Understanding that you are 100% Rudy, I can see why you would view this as attacking your guy. Yes, I am on record as saying that I will not ever vote for Rudy, and I hope his candidacy falls flat, and soon. But if you read my post #13, I actually dismiss these attacks on Giuliani as nothing more than political payback by the union bosses. Chill.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Grant, the only problem is that making inroads in blue states could in the end hurt us in red states. I’m not ready to completely abandon the Rove strategy. If we keep those red states in conservative hands, then we can worry about states like RI, and MA. If we nominate Rudy, in my current opinion, taking those blue states is not a given. Against Hillary, he’d be in a dogfight to even win in NY. We could potentially put more solid states at risk, and end up in a no-win situation. If Edwards is the nominee, all of our candidates are in trouble. Would Rudy be able to shift the momentum in those blue states, and keep a hold on the southern ones? What about the agriculture belt?
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Bush is right on immigration? In what universe? Look, I more or less can accept that certain people might want to give illegals a path to citizenship, and although I fiercely oppose that, it’s not something I’m unable to compromise on. Provided we NEVER DO THIS AGAIN. Both McCain-Kennedy, and the present bill being debated would absolutely nothing significant for border security. They don’t propose to enforce current laws. They don’t require certain actual standards of enforcement be met before the path to citizenship begins. In short, they absolutely guarantee that we’re going to be doing this AGAIN, in 20 years, for the 4th time. Assuming of course the country’s still around after terrorists walk across are border and we’re unable to get them to leave, because we’re nothing approaching serious about enforcement. I agree completely with Glen Beck. This isn’t about disliking illegal immigrants, at least not primarily. I think you’d be absolutely astonished at the support a bill that built the entire fence (a physical fence), actually put in place tens of thousands of border patrolman, and purported to actually enforce immigration laws against all future illegals (plus other security measures), while providing a “pathway to citizenship” for current illegals, would get. A nation without borders is not a nation. And nation without border security in an era of radical Islam is completely and utterly unacceptable.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Matt I’d like to run the illegals out. I’d like to run the muslims-legal or illegal – out. But it isn’t practical. The present bill is a step forward. There is no way this congress or the congress elected in 2008 will do what you want. Compromise is what has been sadly lacking in American politics.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Giuliani has a personal vendetta against the Clinotns because of the Marc Rich pardon. If you think the way he went after Ron Paul was drama…
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Grant,
You’re missing the point. Immigration bills “fixing” the problem come about every 20 years and NOTHING is done in between. This will do absolutely nothing to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. Therefore, assuming it’s likely that terrorists are going to try to infiltrate through Mexico (even they haven’t already) in the next 20 years, the bill must be stopped. This isn’t some feel good, bipartisan, uniting issue. It’s a matter of national security. And you don’t compromise on national security, especially when doing so guarantees you won’t be taken up the issue again until it’s too late (some sort of attack has been conducted on American soil). You and your pro-amnesty cohorts are constantly creating false dichotomies on this issue, with your insistence that you’d love to run the illegals out, but it’s simply not practical. Hardly anyone’s arguing that we ought to round up all 12 million illegals and send them packing. What we are arguing, is that we need to ensure that another 12 million doesn’t follow on the heels of this 12. That’s the number 1 priority. Border security. And this bill is going to do absolutely for us in that regard. At the very least, doing nothing on immigration keeps the issue in public mind, and eventually this absurd excuses for statesman will realize that absolutely all of the American public, except apparently Grant Gormley, is demanding that we solve this crisis in a way that ensures it doesn’t resurface in the future.
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:10 pm
I totally forgot about the Rich thing…
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:11 pm
A lot of us are suspicious of Republius’s “vetting” of GOP candidates, which seems to focus on Rudy Giuliani 95% of the time and John McCain 5% of the time, and never mentions any flaws in the two candidates he seems to like: F. Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich.
There is never any mention of:
-Evangelical groups that are forming to attack Mitt Romney, like Jerry Zandstra’s group in Michigan. Or the effect of the attack ads that McCain will launch nearer to the primaries that will put the You Tube videos of Mitt that we all have seem in everyone’s living room’s in IA and NH. Not to mention that the same guy that did the Harold Ford ads in TN will be doing these attack ads for McCain.
-No mention of Newt’s three marriages and numerous affairs, including the one that he had while he was impeaching President Clinton.
-No explanation on the near pie-in-the-sky fantasy that FDT can enter the field this late when he will be $50 million bucks in the hole to Romney and Giuliani and have no one left to hire in key states like IA, NH, and SC.
So until Republius sees fit to “vet” other candidates that he isn’t behind, we should all take his posts with a grain of salt in the credibility dept.
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:19 pm
You guys are dreaming if you think Republius hasn’t attacked Romney.
He claims that when the other two announce he will start to vet them. I think we all know that isn’t true because he suppots Thompson. The reason he has spent a little more time on Rudy lately is because Rudy is an easier target right now, he’s the frontrunner and because most of Thompson’s support will come from Rudy.
If you check the archives a month or two ago Romney was the one getting killed all the time like Rudy is now.
For the record as long as the attacks are substantive and fair I don’t have too much of a problem with people bringing that stuff up.
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Agreed Captain Jack Sparrow. Although, I think over the last month or so Republius has “vetted” all the candidates he doesn’t like, fairly equally. In fact, I’m pretty sure if we went back and checked his “vetting” pieces, there’s a fair chance his order of preferences would line up pretty evenly with the number of vetting stories he’s posted on each candidate. I.e, very few negative pieces on Newt, virtually none on Fred, and a whole bunch on Rudy, Mitt, and McCain.
Curious I think, though doubtless he’ll insist that there’s not much to vet about the non-declared candidates. It’s strange though, that his insistence that the candidates be as thoroughly vetted as possible, leads him to support one of the two candidates likely to get the least vetting in the primary process (simply because they refuse to enter the arena).
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:51 pm
So until Republius sees fit to “vet” other candidates that he isn’t behind, we should all take his posts with a grain of salt in the credibility dept.
I don’t think he’s lied about the substance of the post, do you? What I take with a grain of salt is his protestation of being neutral.
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Hold up on going after Republius. Rudy is going to face the criticism if he wants to be the nominee. Romney has recently proven his conservative stands weren’t all just fluff, and Republius backed off. Nobody seriously questions that Thompson and Gingrich aren’t conservatives, and their’s not a lot out on Thompson yet (Newt’s too easy, at this point). For Rudy to win, he has to convince us that he’s not only the candidate to win, but that conservatives shouldn’t worry about his negatives. Also, he has to empty that closet of his. By announcing that McCain’s campaign director quit is hardly going after somebody, and Republius has mentioned he’s not a big fan of McCain anyways. If you guys remember how hard some of the opposing posters bashed Thompson for a while, and a lot of the commentators as well.
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:41 pm
I agree with 42 and 43, the only thing Republius is doing I have a problem with is not being open about his support for Thompson. (Of course I’m hoping I’m wrong and Romney has won Republius’s support)
If it is fair criticism then we need to hear it now. If it has been disproven or seems less than credible I think we should ignore it.
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Tommy,
It’s not a question of Rudy or Romney, or McCain facing criticism. Of course they will and should. I certainly agree that candidates ought to be vetted. But, it’s more then a little strange for the poster chanting this mantra so loudly, to have publicly declared himself capable of supporting, in the primary, only the two candidates who’ve refused to be vetted. Not to mention his claims to be neutral simply ring hollow. To be sure, he seems to be fairly neutral on the candidates he’s actually attempting to vet, but anything but on the only candidates he finds acceptable.
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Matt, that’s what Jason is for.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Tommy,
Jason doesn’t claim to be neutral. He doesn’t post things like “I report, you decide”, as if he didn’t have a preference in the world. And he doesn’t claim to want to vet all of the candidates in the field, while already having admitted that he finds them all unacceptable (why is he so concerned with vetting people he finds so unacceptable?). It’s not the articles themselves that bother me, but rather the presumption that they’re coming from a neutral observer. They’re not. Republius will support Thompson, because he’s already eliminated the Big Three, and has stated that he believes Newt is utterly unelectable. And as pragmatic sort of person, that only leaves Thompson. That mentality is abundantly clear in his postings.
A few months ago, Republius was demanding that we couldn’t come to any definitive conclusions about the candidates for quite sometime, assuring us that everyone had jumped the gun. Within weeks of the Thompson boomlet, he announced that he couldn’t support Mitt or Rudy in the primary. He wasn’t being anymore of a neutral observer then he is now. He simply didn’t like any of the announced candidates, and was hoping for a white horse to ride into the fray. Which is fine, I mean, Republius is actually one of my favorite poster’s here, because he does provides positive Thompson and Newt coverage, which is sometimes lacking with the constant Rudy-Mitt proxy wars here, and he hardly ever resorts to extreme statements. He’s a strong writer, and measured and thoughtful. But, he has as much of an agenda as anyone else here, and I think he does everyone a disservice by masking it.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Thanks for noticing that Republius may have preferences. Now attack Rudy all you want–just don’t claim neutrality.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:44 pm
As for immigration, the situation under the bill would be better than the status quo. The enforcement would be better. I’m not suggesting that more border enforcement coudn’t be implemented in the future. I think we should pass what we can get now on enforcement.