Time for a little forest-for-the-trees overview again…

I’ve been struck recently with the importance of the early states (those prior to 2/5) for all of the top candidates – despite the RNC voting to strip them of half their delegates this morning. Back in early 2007, many of the contributors to this site agreed that each of the top three at the time had a must-win early state to keep them in the game. For Romney, it was Iowa; Rudy had to have New Hampshire; South Carolina was a must-win for McCain. At the time, Romney was in single digits and Rudy was winning IA by a large margin, McCain and Rudy were tied in NH, and McCain had a decent lead in SC.

My, how things have changed.

Now, though, I would like to propose a similar logic for this stage of the game (which may or may not be as likely to change again over the next 73 days until the IA caucus). Each candidate has a must-win state still – a state where, if taken down, they will most likely be out of the race.

Beat Romney in Iowa, and he’s done. Beat McCain in New Hampshire, and he’s done. Beat Thompson in South Carolina, and he’s done. Beat Giuliani in Florida, and he’s done.

Each of the campaigns have more or less publicly declared they are focusing on those four states respectively. That doesn’t mean those are the only states they are focusing on — Romney is leading in NH and running ads in SC and FL; Thompson is hoping for a strong showing in IA; Rudy is angling for a win in NH, NV or MI — but those are the states each campaign is pinning its hopes on.

Of the four, McCain obviously faces the toughest uphill fight. According to pollster.com, Romney has a 12 point margin in IA, Thompson a 3 point margin in SC, and Giuliani a 5 point margin in FL. McCain, on the other hand, is in third place in NH and behind by 14 points.

As for the candidate trying to break into the top tier – Huckabee – his only hope is to make a splash at the IA caucuses. Huckabee benefits from the ability to surprise people with second-place finishes, but one can only ride 2nd place so far. Eventually, you have to start winning something.

Here’s the latest installment:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_ehrV_l214[/youtube]

The results are interesting. Romney wins the overall straw poll- including online- by 30 votes over Mike Huckabee. Huckabee wins the onsite straw poll by 399 votes or just over 40%. On their own, those statistics look like Romney won by hoarding the Internet votes. Yet today, this little nugget was buried on the NYTimes political blog:

There were 5,776 votes cast but only 2,500 people at the summit. The discrepancy comes from Internet votes. Anyone who was a member of Family Research Council Action, which only requires a minimum donation of $1, was allowed to vote. Some had fretted that candidates’ supporters might try to stuff the ballot by registering with Family Research Council and voting, but a spokeswoman for the group said they had not noticed any kind of rush of late registrations.

The straw poll was left open online to FRC family members so as to provide members who couldn’t travel to DC an opportunity to take part in the organizations poll. An interesting factoid, left unreported about the conference.

No rush in late registrants means no sizeable rush of Romney supporters who tipped the straw poll. Huckabee won the onsite straw poll. Romney didn’t. Romney won the total straw poll, Huckabee didn’t. Why?

My Take

Romney was the favorite going into the poll. His stack of recent social conservative endorsements coupled with being the only tier one candidate on the ballet acceptable by most left many there reading the writing on the wall. Yet Saturday morning Huckabee put up quite a show. It was persuasive and dynamic. He talked of biblical references and was a hit. Many seemed swayed.

Those who weren’t at the poll voted for the guy who they thought was the best prepared SoCon who could win both in the primaries and general. Those voters saw the cold hard reality of Huckabee: socially strong, fiscally unacceptable, organizationally inept. Those who caught up in the moment were fired up by his speech. Yet Monday morning they will have a question to mull over: does Huck have the kindling for the fire?

Erik at Redstate had an interesting piece today:

And here we arrive at the conundrum for the GOP and the Press. While the media has been filled with stories about the socons ready to bolt from the GOP if Rudy is the nominee, the real story and the untold story is that the business community is even more ready to bolt from the GOP. For the last eight years they’ve watched as the socons have scored every significant win on the right – stem cells, judges, etc. Only against Labor have the fiscal guys scored wins. But there have been no budget cuts, no culling of pork, steel subsidies, etc.

The fiscal guys see the writing on the wall. They see Hillary’s position. And they are just about ready to cut a deal. And then you have the Republican libertarians who are just about ready to really vote for Ron Paul, doing to the GOP in 2008 what Ralph Nader voters did for the Democrats in 2000.

Huckabee breaks the coalition more than Giuliani because the socons fear Hillary more than the fiscalcons do. And that is why we won’t see too many of the socon leaders rallying to the clear favorite of the socon base.

Erik is right, we are just as much in danger of loosing FisCons as we are SoCons. What is the answer? Pick the guy who has both. Whether Rudy will create a 3rd party split is doubtful, but I am equally doubtful he will rally up the SoCons of the Midwest and the South to GOTV like they did for Bush in 2004. Huckabee might keep SoCons engaged but you would quickly have a FiCons wondering the difference between him and Hillary, especially of Richardson takes a strong role in her campaign. Add to that no ability in raising money while contending against the hillary war chest Huckabee is back in the same spot he was Friday night.

Romney is the only one who can juggle all the balls. Ficons won’t jump ship for the former Private Equity manager and SoCons find him believable enough. Romney is tough on the terrorism and he brings a sense of capability that is hard to achieve. Romney didn’t have to win Values Voters by leaps and bounds, he only had to prove a strong contender who can compete on all realms, and that he did.

Huckabee had a great day for himself yesterday. And proved himself relevant. But he did the same thing after Ames, and quickly slipped away. Both Straw polls Romney won, had his win deflated by Huckabee, only to find Huckabee unable to capitilize. My prediction is we will see this repeated again. Monday morning people will wake up, see Huckabee can’t run a strong campaign, and is a nannystater, and realize that Romney, while perfect in no category, is the best candidate who can unite the party, run a strong campaign, and in the end defeat Hillary.

David Brody says Hizzoner “moved the chains” with his speech:

Rudy Giuliani came here to the Value Voters Summit Saturday and boldly proclaimed, “You have nothing to fear from me”. Webster’s defines fear this way: “To be afraid or feel anxious or apprehensive about a possible or probable situation or event.”

With Giuliani inching closer to the Republican nomination, fear may be gripping some social conservatives for sure. But on Saturday, Giuliani laid out his best material and full arsenal in a pitch to get their votes. The case was compelling and if Giuliani keeps making speeches like this, he has a good shot to gather enough social conservatives to his side to win the nomination.

Listen, as we’ve said here before Giuliani isn’t going to get the bulk of the single issue voters (life, marriage) but what he did Saturday is lay out a bunch of items he does have in common with social conservatives. Issues like school choice, fighting Internet pornography, keeping God’s name in the public square, increasing adoptions, home schooling support, supporting a ban on partial birth abortion, parental notification, strict constructionist judges…and oh by the way, fighting terrorism and supporting Israel. Folks, any way you slice it, that’s a boatload. It was so much material that Giuliani said forget the 20 minute time slot, I’m going over. He did. By about 20 minutes.

The question is can social conservatives overlook his pro-choice and pro-domestic partnership views and settle on all the rest he says he has in common with them? I noticed throughout the whole speech Giuliani weaved this idea of trust into everything he was saying. You can trust me. You can trust me. You can trust me. Clearly, that was a veiled shot at Mitt Romney. So was the line where he said he won’t twist issues up like a pretzel.

Afterwards, the reaction by social conservatives seemed to be pretty positive. Nobody thinks Giuliani is going to win the straw poll but I even had a policy guy from the Family Research Council tell me the speech was a 7 out of 10. That’s saying something. Some weren’t too thrilled with his ‘inclusiveness” line at the beginning of his speech (which they believe is code for liberal) and he didn’t mention marriage at all. But all in all, the speech went over better than expected from the people I talked to.

Here’s the way I see it. The speech was very good and had a lot of issue oriented meat in it. Giuliani was greeted with polite applause but left the room to an even friendlier crowd. To use a football analogy, he may not have gotten in the end zone with this crowd, but he “moved the chains” with this speech. The ball is marching down the field. No fumble.

What was key in this speech was the the fact that Rudy made it clear that he is no advocate for the Pro-Choice agenda. He will veto any change to the Hyde Amendment, vehemently supports both the PBA and parental notification, will appoint constructionist judges in the mold of Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito, and has made a commitment to finds ways to decrease abortions and increase adoptions.

When the entirety of Giuliani’s commitment to conservative voters is examined on the abortion issue, what are the functional differences between him and any other of the other candidates in this race?

Except for the fact of his personal beliefs on the abortion issue, there is no material difference between how Rudy Giuliani would govern on abortion as President and his Republican competitors.

Giuliani has now made this explicit promise. You either have to believe that he is telling the truth, or that he is lying. But when making that determination for yourself, I would ask you to consider this: how much easier would Rudy’s path to the nomination have been from the outset had he simply lied about his personal beliefs on abortion? If he would not lie to you then when it would have made his road so much easier, how likely is it that he is lying to you now?

Rudy Giuliani asked you to trust him on Saturday. With his openness and honesty in this campaign (at great risk to himself), he has earned that trust.

In case you missed it:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzR1Dlr_Mp4[/youtube]

Jennifer Rubin provides the following analysis over at Amspec Blog:

During the speech two things struck me: the number of times Rudy got applause lines and the extent to which he tried to explain why in his words “You have nothing to fear from me.” I agree with Byron York that a home run was not possible but I disagree that it was a mistake to utter that line. Indeed had Romney addressed one of this group’s fears– he recent conversion to pro-life views or his Mormon faith — he might have helped himself more and made an emotional connection with these voters. I would characterize Rudy’s performance as a solid double. It is like the movie scene where the former antagonists finally agree to a first date, they laugh a little, the ice thaws some and a second date is very possible. What was he up to? My take is that he tried to explain the “80% your friend is not your 100%” Reagan maxim differently than he had before. Before the speech most voters and commentators thought the 80% was economics, the war, crime, etc. and the social issues were the 20%. What he tried to do, and time will tell if it worked, was to say that even within that 20% I agree with you on many things: the Hyde Amendment( his specific pledge to veto adjustments in the Hyde Act may have been the most newswothy item), partial birth abortion, pornography(one of his biggest applause lines addressed internet pornography), school choice, religion in the public square, and of course judges. A Rudy advisor later explained that they had come to explain that Rudy was not out to upset the consensus or “orthodoxy” on social issues in the GOP. Did it work? Gary Bauer characterized it as “a good first step” and acknowledged that Rudy was “very wise” to come here. If the audience was not those in the room who may never support Rudy but the larger voting primary population which is concerned about maintaining a unified GOP and preventing an activist pro-life administration he may have succeeded to a greater extent. And a third party candidacy? Again, Gary Bauer contended that a third party option was never a big idea other than with “a relatively small group of people” and that when he spoke out against this idea he received an “avalanche” of positive emails. Put together one could say that Rudy and religious conservatives are starting to think about how they might live with one another. Or at least have a second date.

Charlie Cook reevaluates his stance on Rudy’s chance in the National Journal today:

Good mottos for political columnists might be “Quick to judge, quick to change” and “Don’t go down with the ship.” That is, don’t hang on to a theory or prediction that you no longer believe in or that is increasingly likely to be wrong. As political analysts, we are supposed to figure out what is going on and maybe even venture a forecast. But, let’s face it, from time to time, we’re wrong. And I’m now very much questioning the wisdom of declaring in February that “I am more likely to win the Tour de France next year than Giuliani is to win the GOP presidential nomination.” I could still be right about that, but there’s a more than fair chance I’m wrong.

This flier is making its way around the FRC conference.

Link:

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani urged a student-heavy audience Wednesday night to think of the America they want to graduate into.” America is about the next generation doing better than the last,” the Republican presidential hopeful said to a crowd that a member of the Giuliani camp estimated to number about 700.

Giuliani said his goals, if he is elected president, are to create a safe America that is on the offense for protecting the country and to grow the economy. …

The lively crowd in the Iowa Memorial Union second floor ballroom cheered loudly for the points they agreed with and booed things they were against, such as talk about raising taxes.

Everyone around the world wants to reduce taxes except for the top Democratic presidential contenders, Giuliani said.

As mayor of New York City , Giuliani cut taxes 23 times, Jimmy Centers , co-chairman of the University of Iowa Students for Giuliani group, said in his introduction of the former mayor.

“He is the only candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton,” Centers said. …

[C]enters said the University of Iowa student group is already 200 members strong, one of the largest Giuliani student groups in the nation.

“If this is a sign of support among students, we’re really going to surprise people,” Giuliani told the crowd. …

Giuliani said if elected president, he would put laws in place to restrain what he called “absurd and fraudulent lawsuits,” including having the plaintiff in some cases pay the defendants’ legal fees. …

He also emphasized national security, both for keeping the country safe and for protecting democracy. …

Elizabeth Goodyear, a UI junior majoring in French, said she’s an intern for the Giuliani campaign, and she thought it was a great speech.

“He seems to care about the people a lot,” she said …

Tony Cupp, a UI junior majoring in radiation science, said he came out to find out more about Giuliani so he could make an informed decision as a voter.

“I think he’d be a strong leader,” Cupp said. “He demonstrated leadership as mayor.” …

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP1sTtPSj3Q[/youtube]

Big Crowd

This comes from Salon, so take that for what it’s worth:

Key conservative and religious leaders will continue discussing a mass defection from the Republican Party in a private meeting at a Washington hotel Saturday afternoon, just hours after the pro-choice presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani speaks before thousands of pro-life voters.The unnamed group of about 50 people first met in late September in Salt Lake City, sending shivers through the Republican establishment by adopting a resolution to consider a third-party candidate if Republicans nominate someone like Giuliani. “If the major political parties decide to abandon conservative principles, the cohesion of pro-family advocates will be all too apparent in 2008,” warned Dr. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, in a published article after the meeting.

In addition to Dobson, the September meeting was attended by the Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, conservative activist Richard Viguerie and former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, who called in by phone. Before the meeting ended, the group agreed to meet again this weekend at the Hilton Washington Hotel, where thousands of social conservatives are expected to gather for a “Values Voter Summit” beginning Thursday.

“There will be further exploration of what is to be done,” said Howard Phillips, the president of the Conservative Caucus, who participated in the Salt Lake meeting. “And there will be some discussion of who would be a viable independent candidate.”

Conservative circles have been buzzing for weeks about the possibility of a third-party bid, which remains a heavily disputed idea even among religious conservatives. On Wednesday, longtime conservative leader Paul Weyrich, president of the Free Congress Foundation, published a column laying out three requirements for a successful third-party bid: major defections of elected officials from the Republican Party, the financial backing of an independently wealthy individual, and the support of a major news organization, like the Fox News Channel or the Wall Street Journal. “If the walkout of Republicans grassroots were dramatic enough and if it enticed major figures to join, which in turn caused millionaires to follow along and caused major media continually to provide favorable treatment, a third party could work,” Weyrich argued in the article.

Back during the beginning of the month, I speculated on a couple of the consequences of a third party mutiny to deny Rudy the presidency were he to win the nomination:

[T]here is an equal, if not more, possibility that non-social conservatives become so upset that Rudy was basically the victim of fratricide that there’s a rebellion against social conservatives immediately following the election.

Another problem, potentially even more disastrous, is what happens if SoCons do organize a third party effort against Rudy and he manages to still win the election. Much like how Joe Lieberman was freed from the normal constraints on Senate Democrats (he votes with Republicans on almost all matters related to the GWOT) after fending off Ned Lamont and the netroots, it’s highly likely that Rudy wouldn’t go out of his way to advocate for SoCon policies. Such a scenario would essentially render their movement impotent.

Considering these scenarios and the backlash that the idea has received from the blogosphere, it seemed likely that this was all talk and that the leaders of this mutiny would back down. But over the past 3 weeks, several polls have shown that anywhere from 12% to 27% of Republicans will vote for a third party were Giuliani to make it through the primaries. Now comes word that discussions and planning are still moving forward.

Dobson has laid down the gauntlet. If he backs down now, he loses a lot of face among his followers. It’s fascinating because polls show that Giuliani does pretty well with the rank and file SoCons. This could have the effect of splitting the SoCon elites from their base (in much the same way the GOP split over immigration this summer). At the same time, Mitt Romney is the only one that Dobson has not given the kiss of death to. Add to that his recent success with securing backing by prominent SoCon leaders, you could end up with the reverse of the Giuliani dilemma, Romney attracting support from the elites but turning off the rank and file.

There is still time for a Dobson-Giuliani summit in which they go into a room and Dobson comes out saying that Giuliani “shares his values” and that after much discussion, Giuliani is an acceptable nominee. The problem with this scenario is that Giuliani is not the type of person who would go out of his way to make nice with Dobson. This could very quickly turn into a battle to see who blinks first.

There are still a lot of unresolved questions though: Who will the third party candidate be? Was this story leaked by someone within the “group of 50″ who is doesn’t back the effort? Was it leaked by someone who does support the effort and is using it to cast a pall over Giuliani’s speech of Saturday? Of all the outlets, why leak it to a left-wing Internet newspaper? Given his rising prominence, why aren’t Dobson, Viguerie, and Weyrich backing Huckabee (as Dave rightly pointed out earlier, he’s a Bush Republican when it comes to government)?

If nothing else, there’s always Alan Keyes.

When Romney first entered the fray he was dubbed the “My. PowerPoint” and for good reason. He is one of the few candidates who makes regular use of the medium for more intimate group settings and for making the case for his strategy across his network of advocates.

Yesterday, MyManMitt obtained a copy of a “deck” entitled: “Romney vs. Rudy: Different Visions, Different Strategies”. Here are some key slides from the deck.

Title Slide: Romney vs. Rudy	What the pundits are saying (sample)	National vs. Local Polls
Romney’s Strategy: Tested, Proven	Rudy’s Strategy: Unproven	Rudy leads the national polls but…
Primary Calendar	Iowa and New Hampshire	Opportunity for Growth
Fundraising

Just announced:

The Rudy Giuliani Presidential Campaign today announced the endorsement of Jeb Bush Jr. Bush joins the Giuliani campaign as Chairman of Florida Young Professionals for Rudy.

“As someone who grew up around politics and candidates, I know that Rudy has the leadership qualities and unmatched experience to be the next President of the United States . I’m honored to join his campaign and look forward to working with the many young professionals throughout Florida supporting the Mayor,” Bush said.

Bush’s activities with the campaign will focus on building grassroots support in South Florida and the recruitment of young professionals across the state.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7SwiT7DkmU[/youtube]

The rumors are swirling:

Gov. Rick Perry and Michael Williams, chairman of the Texas Railroad Commission, are expected to endorse former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani for president as soon as Wednesday, a well-placed Republican source says.

Perry’s move, coming a week after Giuliani tapped the state comptroller, Susan Combs, as his Texas campaign chair, will be sure to generate speculation in GOP circles about Perry desiring to run as Giuliani’s running mate presuming Hizzoner wins the party’s 2008 nomination.

Perry’s spokesman, Robert Black, said “stay tuned” when asked about a possible endorsement early Tuesday afternoon. But the well-placed source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they’re not authorized to speak for Giuliani, said Perry and Williams are lined up to endorse Giuliani, who has led in national polls.

Here is a recap of several Rudy-related stories from last weeks that are worthy of mention.

First off, Hizzoner announced the addition of several key foreign policy advisors:

The Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee today announced additional members of Mayor Giuliani’s foreign policy team, including Dr. Ruth Wedgwood, an internationally-renowned legal and United Nations expert, as a member of the International Law and Organizations Advisory Board, and Adm. Robert Natter, Ret., as Senior Military Advisor.

“Mayor Giuliani is enormously bright, tough and prudent,” said Wedgwood. “He knows how to defend what we value, including the freedom of America in the face of a dangerous foe. He drives for results, not rhetoric. His human qualities are not masked, and his leadership will be characterized by articulate explanation of what America stands for in the world.”

Wedgwood and Natter are joined by several advisors who served in Iraq : John Agresto, Owen West, and Michael Rubin. Other additions to the foreign policy team members include Kori Schake, David Frum, and Thomas Joscelyn.

“I support Rudy Giuliani because I believe our country really needs the managerial competence and fiscal conservatism he demonstrated so ably as Mayor of New York,” said Schake. “He’s focused on the most important problems, takes responsibility for his choices, is tough enough to implement decisions, and never loses sight of the greater good. We will be well served to have Rudy Giuliani as President.”

Giuliani Policy Director Bill Simon said: “I’m delighted that these outstanding individuals have joined the foreign policy team that is continuing to grow under the strong leadership of Charles Hill.”

Mayor Giuliani’s foreign policy team advises the Mayor on a foreign policy vision that advances the United States as a world leader: expanding America ‘s involvement in the global economy, strengthening our reputation around the world, and keeping our country on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us.

The complete list is as follows:

Ruth Wedgwood, International Law and Organizations Advisory Board Member

Wedgwood is the Burling Professor of International Law and Diplomacy at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, in Washington , D.C. , where she also directs the International Law and Organizations program.

Wedgwood has a broad experience in international institutions. In 2002, she was elected to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. Previously, Dr. Wedgwood served as amicus curiae to the United Nations’ International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia , at the invitation of President Antonio Cassese, also serving as director of studies at The Hague Academy of International Law.

She is a member of the board of editors of the American Journal of International Law and was senior fellow and director of the Ford Foundation project on international law at the Council on Foreign Relations. Wedgwood has served on many advisory boards, including the Secretary of State’s Advisory Committee on International Law, the CIA’s Historical Review Panel, the Congress’s Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security in the 21st Century, the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, and the U.S. delegations to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Wehrkunde Security Conference.

Wedgwood is a graduate of Harvard University and Yale Law School , where she was executive editor of the Yale Law Journal and won the Peres Prize for finest writing. She was a law clerk to Judge Henry J. Friendly and a law clerk on the U.S. Supreme Court.

She served as a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, with Rudolph Giuliani, where she investigated and tried complex criminal cases. Wedgwood has taught at the U.S. Naval War College as the Stockton Professor of International Law and as a visiting professor at the University of Paris . She was a Prize Fellow at the American Academy in Berlin in 2006. She was also a professor on the Yale Law School faculty for over a decade and a fellow of Berkeley College . She is a member of the board of directors of Freedom House, which supports political freedom in the countries of the former Soviet bloc and the Middle East .

She is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the American Law Institute, the International Institute of Strategic Studies, and the San Remo Institute on Humanitarian Law. She is a former vice president and life member of the American Society of International Law and chaired the ASIL Task Force on Terrorism.

Wedgwood has been a frequent commentator on legal issues on National Public Radio, the Lehrer News Hour, BBC, MSNBC, and ABC News, and has written for the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and LA Times.

Robert Natter, Senior Military Advisor

Admiral Natter retired from the US Navy as a four star Admiral after serving as Commander of the US Atlantic Fleet and the first Commander of US Fleet Forces Command, responsible for the training and equipping of all world wide deploying US Navy forces. Following one year of reserve enlisted service and four years at the Naval Academy , he was graduated and commissioned an Ensign in 1967.

His service at sea included department head tours in a Costal Minesweeper and Frigate, and Executive Officer tours in two Amphibious Tank Landing Ships and a Spruance Destroyer. He was Officer-in-Charge of a Naval Special Warfare detachment in Vietnam and commanded USS CHANDLER (DDG 996), USS ANTIETAM (CG 54), and the United States SEVENTH Fleet before his assignment at Fleet Forces Command.

Shore assignments included Company Officer and later Flag Secretary to the Superintendent at the U.S. Naval Academy; Executive Assistant to the Director of Naval Warfare in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations; staff member for the House Armed Services Committee of the 100th Congress of the United States; Executive Assistant to the Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet, Executive Assistant to the Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, during Desert Storm Operations in the Middle East; Assistant Chief of Naval Personnel for officer and enlisted personnel assignments; Chief of the Navy ‘s Legislative Affairs organization; and Director for Space, Information Warfare, Command and Control. He was also the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Plans, Policy and Operations.

Admiral Natter was a distinguished graduate of the U.S. Naval War College and has Masters Degrees in Business Management and International Relations. In May 2000, he was honored as the fifth recipient of the Naval War College ‘s annual Distinguished Graduate Leadership Award.

His personal decorations include the Silver Star Medal, four awards of the Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, five awards of the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal with Combat V, Purple Heart, two awards of the Meritorious Service Medal, the Navy Commendation Medal with Combat V, Navy Achievement Medal with Combat V, and various unit and campaign awards.

John Agresto, Iraqi Advisory Board Member

Agresto is the former president of St. John’s College in Santa Fe , NM . A long-time educator and scholar in American law and government, Dr. Agresto spent time in Iraq after the fall of Saddam working to rebuild the Iraqi higher education system. After earning his doctorate from Cornell University , he taught at the University of Toronto , Kenyon College , the New School University , and Duke. He was both deputy and acting chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities, appointed by Ronald Reagan. He is also the author of an analysis of the current situation in Iraq , Mugged by Reality. He and his wife currently reside in New Mexico .

Owen West, Iraq Advisory Board Member

Owen is a graduate of Harvard College and Stanford Business School . He served as a Marine infantry officer for six years before joining Goldman Sachs, where he is currently a Managing Director of Energy Trading. Owen has taken two leaves-of-absence from Goldman to fight with the Marines in Iraq , most recently leading a team of advisors living with an Iraqi infantry battalion. As an author and reporter, his novels and articles on military affairs have won several awards including the Boyd Literary Award for best military novel and the Marine Corps Essay Contest. A former heavyweight rower, he has completed 100-mile marathons, attempted Mount Everest and finished as high as 2nd in the Eco Challenge. Owen is a director of the Marine Corps Scholarship Foundation. He lives in New York City with his wife and two boys.

Michael Rubin, Senior Iran and Turkey Advisor and Middle East Advisory Board Member

Rubin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and editor of the Middle East Quarterly. Rubin is co-author of two books: Eternal Iran: Continuity and Chaos (Palgrave, 2005) and author Into the Shadows: Radical Vigilantes in Khatami’s Iran (Washington Institute, 2001). A native of Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Rubin earned a B.S. in Biology and a Ph.D. in History from Yale University . In 2002, the Council on Foreign Relations’ International Affairs Fellowship placed Rubin on the Iran and Iraq desk at the Pentagon, from where he was seconded to Baghdad . Since 2005, Rubin has helped educate U.S. officers deploying to Iraq through the Naval Postgraduate School ‘s Leadership Development & Education for Sustained Peace program.

Kori Schake, Senior Foreign Policy Advisor

Schake is a fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University and holds the Distinguished Chair of International Security Studies at the U.S. Military Academy. She has just completed the book Managing American Hegemony: Essays on Power in a Time of Dominance. Other recent publications include: The Coming Crisis of High Expectations: Transatlantic Relations After the 2008 Elections (Centre for European Reform: October 2007), and “Dealing with a Nuclear Iran,” (Policy Review, February/March 2007). She also runs the overarching issues team in the Project on National Security Reform, which aims to better structure, finance, staff, and train the U.S. government for contemporary security challenges.

Schake was the Director for Strategy and Requirements on the National Security Council, where her work focused on national security strategy, long-term defense planning, NATO adaptation, and management of coalitions with forces in Afghanistan and Iraq . She ran the interagency review of U.S. military bases around the world, which resulted in the most significant reposturing of U.S. forces since the Korean War.

Previous work includes six years in the Pentagon for both the Joint Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense and teaching in the faculties of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, the University of Maryland ‘s School of Public Affairs , and the National Defense University.

David Frum, Senior Foreign Policy Advisor

Frum is the author of five books, including two New York Times bestsellers: The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush (2003) and co-author with Richard Perle of An End To Evil: How To Win the War on Terror (2004). His sixth book, Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again, will be published later this year.

Frum is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and writes a daily column for National Review Online, plus weekly columns for Canada ‘s National Post and Italy’s Il Foglio. He has contributed frequently to the editorial pages of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal and appears often on CNN, Fox News, and the BBC. Frum is a regular commentator on American Public Radio’s “Marketplace” program.

Frum served as a speechwriter and special assistant to President George W. Bush.

Frum’s first book, Dead Right, was described by William F. Buckley as “the most refreshing ideological experience in a generation,” and by Frank Rich of the New York Times as “the smartest book written from the inside about the American conservative movement.” In 1996, The Wall Street Journal acclaimed him as “one of the leading political commentators of his generation.” In 2001, Judge Richard Posner’s study of public intellectuals listed Frum as one of the 100 most influential minds in the United States.

Frum was born in Toronto , Canada in 1960. He received a simultaneous BA and MA in history from Yale in 1982. He was appointed a visiting lecturer in history at Yale in 1986; in 1987, he graduated cum laude from the Harvard Law School , where he served as president of the Federalist Society.

Thomas Joscelyn, Senior Terrorism Advisor

Joscelyn is a terrorism analyst, economist, and writer living in New York . Most of Joscelyn’s research and writing has focused on how al Qaeda and its affiliates operate around the world. He is a regular contributor to the Weekly Standard and its online publications, the Daily Standard and Worldwide Standard. His work has also been published by National Review Online, the New York Post, and other media outlets. Joscelyn is the author of Iran’s Proxy War Against America, a booklet published by the Claremont Institute that details Iran ‘s decades-long sponsorship of America ‘s terrorist enemies. Mr. Joscelyn makes regular appearances on radio programs around the country and has appeared on MSNBC.

In 2006 he was named one of the Claremont Institute’s Lincoln Fellows. In addition to his life as a terrorism analyst, Mr. Joscelyn also manages economic research projects focused on antitrust, regulatory and securities issues for a prominent economic consulting firm. He holds a B.A. in Economics from the University of Chicago.

Secondly, Gov. Tommy Thompson was the mystery endorser in South Carolina:

Thompson, who also served as Secretary of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush, was elected to an historic four terms as Wisconsin Governor. As National Co-Chair, Thompson will help promote Rudy’s record of results and leadership as Mayor of New York City, while talking about the Mayor’s bold vision for America .

“Rudy Giuliani has shown that he is a true leader. He is America ‘s Mayor and during a period of time of great stress for this country he showed tremendous leadership,” said Governor Thompson. “He can and will win the nomination and the Presidency of the United States .”

“I’m honored to have the endorsement and support of Governor Tommy Thompson,” said Mayor Giuliani. “He is a strong conservative with a record of achieving fiscal discipline, implementing tort reform, and bringing about innovation in government. Governor Thompson gave leadership to the Department of Health and Human Services during a period of great crisis, and his expertise in this area is invaluable. I’m honored to have his support and I look forward to learning from his experience and leadership.”

And finally, here is the latest installment of “Running with Rudy”:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFFCgKEuB8Q[/youtube]

Former NYC Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik is feeling the heat. This as of this morning:

Bernard Kerik’s legal nightmare is about to get worse, with federal prosecutors expected to file charges against the former police commissioner that will likely include allegations of bribery, tax fraud and obstruction of justice, the Daily News has learned.

Will this have any impact on his former boss Rudy Giuliani? The Daily News thinks so:

The indictment will have direct implications for Giuliani, the sources said.

For one, another Giuliani commissioner and a top inspector general during Giuliani’s years as mayor will be called as witnesses to describe the secret meeting in Tribeca.

…

Giuliani has extensive ties to Kerik, promoting him to correction commissioner, then to police commissioner. Giuliani later also hired him at his firm, Giuliani Partners, and recommended him to President Bush for the job of Homeland Security secretary.

The relationship soured in December 2004 when Kerik withdrew from consideration for the Homeland Security job and a torrent of accusations of wrongdoing poured forth.

To be fair, Rudy has handled this very well. He’s admitted that the nomination was a mistake and there is no direct implication Rudy’s efforts in Kerik’s aleged illegalities. Still, skeletons in the closet are not pretty… but first glances can be deceiving.

Romney has had his share of associates get banged up for legal and ethical problems and I can tell you from personal experience that some of these issues are just trumped-up silliness. I don’t think that Kerik is any type of victim here… but the criminal-candidate connections are usually way overplayed.

Mystery solved. From Yahoo News:

Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani will pick up the endorsement Friday of former GOP rival Tommy Thompson, a one-time Midwestern state governor.

“Rudy Giuliani has shown that he is a true leader. He can and will win the nomination and the presidency. He is America’s mayor, and during a period of time of great stress for this country he showed tremendous leadership,” Thompson, the former Wisconsin governor, said in a statement obtained by the Associated Press.

…

Unclear is the impact of Thompson’s support for Giuliani. On one hand, Giuliani could use the endorsement to try to mollify skeptical Iowans and other Midwesterners who are concerned about his moderate-to-liberal stances on social issues, pointing out that a prominent Republican from their backyards is supporting him.

On the other hand, Thompson left the race because voters weren’t gravitating toward him and he doesn’t bring with him much support in early voting Iowa and elsewhere. He languished in single digits in polls there, and barely registered in national surveys while in the race.

Coming from S.C. Politics:

Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani’s campaign has been tight lipped about his stop in Charleston on Friday, as it announced the campaign has garnered a major endorsement.Rumors swirled that Gov. Mark Sanford would be joining the former New York mayor’s campaign. But Sanford spokesman Joel Sawyer said the governor would not be making an endorsement this week. Neither would First Lady Jenny Sanford, Sawyer said.

Later the campaign verified the announcement will be of a national endorsement, happening here only because Giuliani is scheduled to be in the state.

I love a good mystery… I think I figured it out. A major national endorsement to be announced in SoCon country….

My Best Guesses:

• A Famous Senator?

• A Religious Force?
  

• An Icon Of Popular Culture?

While I’m taking lunch, I thought I’d also take a moment to highlight one of Aron Goldman’s “Essential Reads” that I thought really put this whole flap into perspective (Link).

Professor Calabresi is one of the co-founders of the Federalist Society and one of the best-known leaders of the strict constructionist/judicial conservative movement. In fairness, he is also one of Guiliani’s advisors on the judiciary. The piece explains very well why Giuliani’s challenge to the Clinton-era line item veto was the right from a strict constructionist/judicial conservative viewpoint.

Quote:

“All judicial conservatives think the Supreme Court ought not to make up new rights, and most judicial conservatives I know believe the Court ought instead to police the separation of powers and federalism guarantees that really are in the Constitution even when bright lines cannot be drawn. This is what Mayor Giuliani quite rightly asked the Rehnquist Court to do and this is what the Rehnquist Court did when it said that the Constitution had to be amended to give the president a line-item veto.

Far from being criticized here, Mayor Giuliani ought to be praised for vindicating the original Constitution and for getting a well-meaning but unconstitutional law struck down. What this episode really shows is that Mayor Giuliani understands constitutional law and is a faithful devotee of judicial conservative principles.”

I strongly recommend the entire piece to everyone, but especially to supports of both Giuliani and Romney. If we’re going to discuss this thing, let at least do it knowledgeably.

Republicans, and especially conservatives, know full well that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In fact, that’s the classic response to the liberal philosophy that we should take property by force from some people to give it to others “less fortunate,” or the liberal idea that corporations should be taxed/regulated “for the good of all.” It’s the lesson of George Orwell’s “Animal Farm.” This is another case where a well-intentioned piece of legislation was antithetical to the literal words of the Constitution.

We need a line item veto, and Rudy favors a line-item veto. He just favors one that is constitutional – one that does not subvert adherence to the Constitution as the Supreme Law of our Republic.

The Palmetto Scoop has the exclusive:

Rumors are swirling across the Palmetto State that Gov. Mark Sanford, who has until now remained neutral in the race for the White House, will endorse former Mayor Rudy Giuliani in his bid to become the next president. The Palmetto Scoop has been contacted by numerous sources who are reporting a “feeding frenzy” among national and local reporters to confirm the buzz.

The whispers of a Sanford-Giuliani endorsement grew to a roar early this morning following a Greenville News article that reported the Giuliani campaign had conspicuously concealed details about its Thursday campaign schedule in South Carolina.

Absolutely huge endorsement for Rudy if this report is correct.

I’m continuing to push the theory that this is narrowing down to a two-man race. I could be wrong. Fred might push forward and actually make some momentum… but the polls, the money and the organizational prowess currently favor Rudy and Romney, not Fred.

Leaving Fred aside, to date, I have felt confident that either candidate would be a good choice against Hillary Clinton in the general election. Rudy has a national connection to the electorate and Romney has the “fix-it” mantra.

But today… I worry about judges. I worry about a third party break-off and I worry about Rudy towing the conservative line and possibly tearing the party apart. In short, I’m less convinced of a conservative victory if Rudy is the nominee.

(more…)

Here is Hizzoner’s post-debate interview with Larry Kudlow. It’s definitely worth your time not only for Rudy’s statements on Hillary’s philosophical connection to the policies of the Democratic Party circa 1972, but also for his explanation of why Strict Constructionism calls for the implementation of the Line Item Veto via the amendment process.

How anyone could still doubt his commitment to Strict Constructionism after seeing his conviction on the issue in this video is beyond me.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3yoruvUt1E[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wid7rnmVXMU[/youtube]

R4’08 Bonus: Sorry to butt in on your thread here Jason. But after viewing this video, click here to read our interview with Gov. Cellucci from earlier this year.-KWN

Jennifer Rubin offers Hizzoner some advice on how to communicate with Social Conservatives for Human Events:

By all accounts Giuliani had a great September. He stole John McCain’s thunder on the Petraeus hearings by taking on MoveOn.org and Hillary Clinton. He seemed comfortable on the world stage rubbing elbows with Margaret Thatcher and the current British leadership. Then he won the money race, beating expectations by playing coy with the media which had pegged Mitt Romney to finish first.

But the race is a long way from won and significant hurdles lay in Giuliani’s path. Social conservative leaders are threatening a mutiny. Romney will have unlimited personal funds down the stretch in key primary states. So what could Giuliani do to lock up the nomination?

First, he should use his lawyer skills, marshal the evidence and make the case that he has met social conservatives at least half way on abortion. His support for strict constructionist judges in the mold of justices Thomas, Scalia and Roberts is a start but will not be sufficient for many social conservative.

A year ago few political pundits or GOP insiders would have predicted Rudy Giuliani would be leading the national polls for the presidential nomination. There were too many issues: his pro-choice views, his personal life and his temper. Yet he is in the lead and (in part because of the weaknesses of his opponents) he has a good shot at the nomination.

By all accounts Giuliani had a great September. He stole John McCain’s thunder on the Petraeus hearings by taking on MoveOn.org and Hillary Clinton. He seemed comfortable on the world stage rubbing elbows with Margaret Thatcher and the current British leadership. Then he won the money race, beating expectations by playing coy with the media which had pegged Mitt Romney to finish first.

But the race is a long way from won and significant hurdles lay in Giuliani’s path. Social conservative leaders are threatening a mutiny. Romney will have unlimited personal funds down the stretch in key primary states. So what could Giuliani do to lock up the nomination?

First, he should use his lawyer skills, marshal the evidence and make the case that he has met social conservatives at least half way on abortion. His support for strict constructionist judges in the mold of justices Thomas, Scalia and Roberts is a start but will not be sufficient for many social conservative.

In his address at Houston Baptist University in May (and through surrogates including pro-life stalwart Rep. Pete Sessions since), he seems to have recognized this and has tried to convince conservatives that he is not a pro-choice extremist. He supports the partial birth abortion ban and the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding that ban, would leave the Hyde Amendment and Mexico City accord in place and favors parental notification (with the caveat that a judge be available in extreme cases such as incest).

But most conservative voters don’t know this. Giuliani needs to speak loudly and clearly to remove any doubt. At the coming Family Research Council Voters Value Forum he needs to reiterate that these are his positions, that he will resist attempts to tamper with the Hyde Amendment or repeal the Mexico City Accords, and that all this (plus, of course, the appointment of strict constructionist judges) should lead pro-life voters to support him.

Second, while it is tempting, he should not follow Fred Thompson’s lead in telling James Dobson in effect “I’m not calling you but you can call me.” Though voters like a candidate to be his own man, it’s too early to denigrate the influence of prominent social conservatives. There will be plenty of time down the road if he is the nominee to, as one conservative insider put it, quietly “tell everyone to get on the bus.” For now, reiterating that he respects people of faith and their views is a better tactic. And for voters who don’t know about it, reminding them that he tried to cut off public funding for the Brooklyn Museum’s exhibit (and its jaw-dropping “art” which defiled religious images) wouldn’t hurt.

Third, he should supplement the Twelve Commitments with the Hillary List, to feature issues that she will go hard left on and that he poses the best choice against.

For example, he should put on the list the six Supreme Court justices she will most likely nominate such as Lani Ganier and Bill Lann Lee, two of her husband’s favorite leftist laywers (liberal legal scholar and Supreme Court advocate Lawrence Tribe won’t make the list since he conceded there is a Second Amendment an individual right to own a gun) and the list of conservative legal issues which will be lost under Hillary (e.g. partial birth abortion ban).

Be sure to read the whole thing.

Both the Giuliani and McCain are setting the stage for this afternoon’s debate (focusing on economic issues) with proposals to help remedy Michigan’s dire economic condition.

First off, Hizzoner focuses on fiscal discipline:

When I look at Michigan , I’m reminded of the words of the great American philosopher, Yogi Berra. It’s deja vu all over again.

I see unemployment rates that are much higher than the national average. I see government passing tax hikes instead of tax cuts …

I’ve seen this condition before — the good news is that there is a proven strategy for improving the situation. It’s called fiscal discipline: lower taxes, smaller government, less regulation …

I know, because that’s how we turned around the City of New York . New York City had a 10.4 percent unemployment rate the day I walked into office in 1994. We had a $2.3 billion deficit. New York City had lost over 320,000 jobs over the previous five years. …

In response, we put Republican ideas into action. …

I cut taxes 23 times … We cut spending and the size of the bureaucracy … Pro-growth policies spurred the private sector to create 423,000 new private sector jobs, cutting the unemployment rate in half. …

Tax hikes, like the $1.48 billion tax increase passed by the Michigan Legislature last week, lead to a deepening cycle of taxing and spending that drives businesses away and promotes greater dependence on the government. On the other hand, a low tax, pro-growth approach, enables the private sector to create … a cycle of prosperity … Michigan experienced this for itself under Governor Engler. When he cut taxes, welfare was reformed and Michigan briefly outpaced the nation in new job creation.

I’ll continue my commitment to pro-growth policies if I’m elected president. … I’ll keep individual tax rates low and index the Alternative Minimum Tax for inflation to keep it from affecting middle class families. I’ll work to keep America competitive in the global economy by reducing the corporate tax rates … I’ll end the death tax …

Another way the president can help the economy — especially in Michigan — is to enforce our trade rules. The automotive industry has a serious problem with counterfeit parts being made overseas and then sold back to Americans.

Not only are these inferior products a safety issue for American consumers, but counterfeit automobile parts cost the automotive supplier industry more than $12 billion annually. …

It’s time that we focus on putting Republican ideas into action so that jobs and business will return to our cities.

Sen. McCain focuses on the need to adapt to new economic challenges:

John McCain on Tuesday proposed updating the unemployment system and retooling training programs to help people who have lost their jobs-particularly older workers-adapt to a changing economy.

“Change is hard, and while most of us gain, some industries, companies and workers are forced to struggle with very difficult choices,” the Republican presidential candidate said as he espoused free-market principles in a state that leads the nation in unemployment.

“But it is government’s job to help workers get the education and training they need for the new jobs that will be created by new businesses in this new century,” McCain added.

In a broad speech to Detroit Economic Club, the Arizona senator promised to rein in runaway federal spending, simplify the tax code, help U.S. industries become more competitive, and control spiraling health care costs. He also called for increasing fuel economy standards while maintaining auto safety.

He spoke to about 500 members of the group hours before joining eight GOP opponents in nearby Dearborn , Mich. , for a debate primarily on economic issues. The setting was fitting. Michigan ‘s unemployment rate was 7.4 percent in August; the nation’s was 4.6 percent.

In the speech, McCain slapped at his rivals generally, scolding them for “claiming to understand the finer nuances of markets and management. In fact, success has nothing to do with fancy theory.” He said free people are the strongest economic force in the country.

As he does routinely, McCain also assailed Democrats and accused their party’s presidential front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton, of backing dangerous economic policies. “I will not let the Democrats roll back the Bush tax cuts,” said McCain, who voted against the president’s tax cuts but now supports them because he says that repealing them would amount to a tax increase.

Separating himself from Bush, McCain criticized federal programs intended to aide displaced workers, and called for:

Overhauling the unemployment insurance program so that it can retrain, relocate and assist workers to find new jobs. “It needs to be modernized to meet the goals of helping displaced workers make ends meet between jobs and moving people quickly on to the next opportunity,” he said.

Replacing a half-dozen outmoded and redundant jobs programs with a single system and drawing on the success of community colleges that he says does a better job than the federal government of giving workers skills they need. “We need to transform rigid training programs to approaches that can be used to meet the bills, pay for training, and get back to work,” he said.

With Michigan’s primary being of such critical importance, I wonder how “lively” things may become in light of the preemptive sparring of last week.

Remember Richard Viguerie? The guy who claims to have “walked with Reagan?” The man who is adamantly opposed to a Giuliani nomination? The man writing petitions for a 3rd party candidate, in case of a Rudy ticket, hasn’t always been so hostile. From Marc Ambinder:

On Friday, Richard Viguerie, the conservative direct pioneer, circulated a petition on his website urging Republicans to commit to opposing a pro-choice nominee, a la Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City,”We will present the petition to the members of the Republican National Committee, the President and Republican members of Congress, media and blogs, and many other Republican leaders.”
“It will be a powerful warning to those in a position of influence that, if the GOP turns against unborn children, a significant portion of its base will not vote for Republican candidates.”

But in 2000, Viguerie had no compunction about taking money from Giuliani.

According to FEC records and news accounts, Giuliani’s abortive (heh) 2000 Senate campaign contracted with American Target Advertising, Viguerie’s firm, to the tune of $820,000.

This guy’s a real riot. An increasingly irrelevant one…

The Brody File has the scoop:

Rudy is in. It’s official. The Family Research Council just sent out this press release. See below:

“Today FRC Action announced that GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani will speak at the Washington Briefing 2007: Values Voter Summit on Saturday morning October 20. Former Mayor Giuliani becomes the eighth presidential hopeful to commit to address the largest gathering of pro-family activists in the nation’s capital.”

The Brody File has also received this from Katie Levinson, the Communications Director for the Giuliani campaign:

“Rudy is very much looking forward to the event.”

And with those words, all eyes will now be on this event. I am told Giuliani will speak Saturday morning. There will be a straw poll at the event and the results will be announced sometime Saturday afternoon.
You can say whatever you want about Giuliani but give him this much: he’s not backing down. This is typical of him and his campaign. They will not concede the social conservative vote. They believe (as documented in this space before) that they can win over quite a few social conservatives. They are not rolling over.

Where does Saturday’s speech rank in importance among all those made so far during Hizzoner’s presidential campaign?

Fire away in the comments.

Fellow pro-life brothers and sisters, who, like me, have been working and praying for the day that the U.S. Supreme Court corrects its usurpation of the right of We the People to self govern on the issue of abortion, consider the following:

Roe/Casey do not require that women kill their babies. What have we been doing to persuade women since 1972 not to kill their babies? What will we do the day after Roe/Casey are reversed?

On the day after Roe/Casey are reversed, we will come face to face with the pro-abortion advocates in our states in the arena of ideas with the task of persuading a majority of voters to throw off barbarism and choose to civilize themselves. To turn around from the easy road to Gomorrah we have been slouching towards, and accept the responsibility of our heretofore imagined free, consequence-less sex.

Reversals of Roe/Casey won’t save one baby unless we can persuade hearts and minds in a battle that will probably be harder than the task in Iraq.

Success in such persuasion would make Roe/Casey reversal redundant.

Let me be clear. Roe/Casey are abominations. They should be reversed. I prefer Fred and Mitt to Rudy because of my position on this issue.

But no matter the President and the court, the only real vehicle to victory on the life issue is us.

Of course, the Democratic Party’s nominee will be pro-abortion.

The Democratic Party nominee will also be the winner of the McGovernite appeasement mantle. They will be weak on defense. No enemy of the US will fear a Democrat. They will return to law enforcement treatment of terrorism that brought us 911.

The United States will be exponentially more at risk under a Democrat.

No one can make a President defend us. Ask Dick Morris.

I have the greatest respect for Richard Land of the Southern Baptist convention, as well as James Dobson. I respect their view that a pro-choice GOP nominee could do grave damage to the pro-life movement. And given that we are in the primary stage, their public statements are not totally unwelcome.

But, I do not for one minute believe that a significant portion of the GOP base would sit at home or vote 3rd party given the choice between a Rudy Giuliani and a Democrat.

Won’t happen.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008
http://www.win-the-war.com/

MAYOR RUDY GIULIANI: “Democrats illustrate one of President Ronald Reagan’s favorite quotations. Public funds seemingly belong to no one and the temptation to bestow them on someone is irresistible. That’s a temptation that Democrats just can’t seem to avoid. Let me give you one very recent example. Hillary Clinton, the other day, proposed giving every single baby born in the United States … a Hillary bond … worth $5,000 each. Now, I know this never occurs to the people like Hillary and the other Democrats here in Washington , but you know something? I got news for you: This costs money. Doesn’t just come — doesn’t come from the trees. Doesn’t come down from Heaven. It costs money. And when I hear a proposal like that, unlike the Democrats who make it — who, by the way, in the case of the three leading Democrats, have never run a city, they’ve never run a state, I don’t think they’ve ever run a business. They want you to give them on-the- job executive training in the executive office of the United States as president.”

AUDIENCE: “No.”

GIULIANI: “Not a good idea. Not a good idea. What do you think?”

AUDIENCE: “No.”

GIULIANI: “How about you never drove before and we’re going to give you this complex machine? You want somebody flying your airplane that has no hours of experience flying airplanes?”

AUDIENCE: “No.”

GIULIANI: “Not me. But this is why they make proposals like this. When I hear that, the first moment I heard that — the first moment I heard Hillary wants to give away $5,000 bonds to every child born in the United States , do you know the first question I asked: How many children are born in the United States ? Because I was going to multiply that by the $5,000. Because I ran a city. I’ve run a business. I know how to make a payroll and I know how to reduce expenses. Do you know how much money it is per year? $20 billion.”

AUDIENCE: “Oooooh.”

GIULIANI: “Hillary, that’s real money. You and Bill can’t afford that. It’s got to come out of somebody’s pockets. You know who it comes out of?”

AUDIENCE: “Mine.”

GIULIANI: “Yours, mine, hardworking Americans. Hard-earned tax dollars. $20 billion? And it’s going to be more than that, because we’re going to have to add to that the cost of the large bureaucracy that’s going to have to print up the bonds, right? With Hillary’s picture on them. You have to print up the bonds. You got to mail them out to all 4 million kids, right? You may just have to check and make sure you’re getting valid birth certificates. You think somebody might think of cheating if they get — no. No. No, we’ll just send them all the money, that’s — you know, we’ll just … Now, the other question is, if she’s going to do this, maybe she’ll make it retroactive. And did you ever think that children of illegal immigrants will have to get this bond? They’re born in the United States . They’re citizens of the United States . And some of the people who get this bond, this money, may not need it. Suppose the Gateses have another child. Suppose they have twins. You’ll be sending them 10 grand. I know they get real upset when I say, you know, Hillary and John Edwards and Barack Obama want to move us to socialized medicine. Well, they do, you know? But tell me this isn’t a socialist idea, tell me this doesn’t come out of a wellspring of thinking that has its roots in socialism: Send everybody a $5,000 bond. George McGovern wanted to send everybody a $1,000 check back in 1972. And if you figure out what $1,000 is worth now, you know what it’s worth now? $4,810. Bad socialist ideas never die … They get resurrected in one way or another. Each Democratic candidate promises to raise taxes. You can be sure — you know, this is a promise they’re going to keep, all right? You know that. We’ve got a different approach. We’re going to cut spending, we’re going to cut taxes. I guarantee you in a Giuliani administration, the days of anonymous earmarks are over on day one. I look at it this way: I used the broken windows theory to reduce crime in New York by more than it was reduced in any city in the country. I’m going to use a broken windows theory on earmarks.”

I’m not going to repost Geraughty’s whole article, but check out this post.

As luck would have it Cesar Conda (Cheney’s former top domestic advisor) had this to say about Rudy and taxes just yesterday:

By signing this pledge, Giuliani could make a commitment to no new taxes the cornerstone of his tax agenda. Yet, he refuses to sign the pledge and clearly remains open to raising taxes.

While some may find his record troubling, his recent statements on the campaign trail have proven baffling. Recently, in an interview with the Associated Press, Giuliani refused to rule out a tax increase as a way of solving our Social Security problems. In the interview, he said, ‘I am opposed to tax increases, but I would look at whatever proposal they came up with and try to figure out how we can come up with a bipartisan
way to do it.’

…

Mayor Giuliani’s actions have cast doubt on his commitment to the low-tax, economic conservatism that have been a basic pillar of the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan. He refuses to sign the no-tax pledge – a pledge that has become emblematic of the conservative movement. He raises the prospect of tax increases to address Social Security’s fiscal problems. He shows economic naïveté when he offhandedly states that he would offset the costs of one huge tax cut with further tax cuts. Simply put, Mayor Giuliani has failed to produce a forward-looking, pro-growth fiscal agenda.

I love it when I can move beyond the campaign talking points and let someone else take the helm.