Tuesday, February 27, 2007
|
|
Rudy The Liberal Slayer: Will The Big Three Be The Big Two Soon?
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
10:59 AM
|
|
John Podhoretz has an excellent column on Rudy today, and its appearance on the same day of the Boston Globe's "Mitt scoop" underscores how the 2008 campaign is so fundamentally different from any previous campaign. The "inside baseball" of past years --the "money primary," the endorsements, the special interests, the polls, the "scoops"-- are all greatly diminished in "indicator" value given the Republicans' central definition as the party serious about the war and the Democrats' lurch back to McGovernism. As the early battles on the Hill have shown, this cycle is all about the war, and thus the Republicans will be looking for the nominee best suited to win it, the Democrats for the nominee most committed to its abandonment.
If the would-be nominees are perceived as equally committed to victory, then the second-order issues will come into play. Romney will thus be spending most of 2007 talking about Iraq and Iran in an attempt to catch up to Rudy in credibility on the war while Rudy will be working the second-order issues to avoid eclipse if Mitt makes that sale. Stories on the power point slides of Romney's strategists, like the stories surrounding the leaked plans from Rudy's campaign, just don't matter much because of the seriousness of the campaign and the fundamental divide between left and right in this country.
So, you should be asking, if it is all about the war, why isn't John McCain surging in his GOP support given his very vocal commitment to the war for all these years? Why is Dick Morris writing the senator's political obituary? (And not just Morris, but scores of long-time GOP watchers who are quietly switching their attentions elsewhere. Note to Politco: California's biggest Bush backer Brad Freeman is raising funds for Romney. How many other of the key Bush team have gone over to the Massachusetts governor? If I wanted to be first with the most I'd query each member of the 2005 Inaugural Committee about their preferences for 2008)
The GOP base has a trust issue with McCain, one that flows from the 2000 campaign, McCain-Feingold, the Gang of 14, the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, the September 2006 derailing of the Republican end-game strategy. McCain is fading, and not because of his age or energy level, but because the GOP electorate has to absolutely believe that the next president will be as committed to victory as Bush has been. Senator McCain's avoidance of new media has been reinforcing the impression that he is unwilling to provide the assurances he needs to in order to regain the trust he has repeatedly broken with the GOP electorate over the years. There is time to turn that around, but Senator McCain is not making the effort, an effort that would begin by a relentless courting of the base rather than the Hardball/Meet The Press audience. Every week that Senator McCain delays launching that effort is a week in which the mayor and the governor gather more pledges and momentum. The big three could be the big two by Memorial Day.
|
|
Let's fast forward to after the convention. The liberal press will undoubtably set their crosshairs on the Republican nominee, and with a vengence. Here's the result:
Guliani, They will emphasize his personal life, his liberal positions, and in general turn the conservatives against him in hopes they will stay home as they did with Dole. Guliani lacks the charisma to fight back without looking unpresidential. I heard the interview of him on both Hugh and Sean's shows. Guliani can't have a normal conversation. He hogs the time, cuts off the interviewer constantly. It was irritating to listen to. I believe the votors won't transform their respect for the man to liking him.
McCain, He will implode on himself. It is what he does. The MSM is probably sitting on enough footage of him to make him look older than Sheets Byrd. He is unstable (my belief) and it will show through. He is the only possible cabdidate that could push me to a third party vote.
Gingrich, Great conservative, but the media hates him. He has a great conservative mind, but has more a negative and polarizing persona than Hillary. he will lose all but the republican vote. The Dem will scoop up the independants and win in a landslide.
Romney, if you look at the MSM treatment of all of the candidates, it is clear that they hate Romney. They are trying to take him out early, and why? It is because he will as the nominee, be the best campaigner against the dem. He will to those who aren't bigots (and you know who you are) invoke memories of Reagan. He can appeal to the independant vote and win a tight election. To the MSM's dismay, they will have fired all volley's at him in the primary, and have nothing new to lob. Additionally, if he makes it this far he will be battle hardened. Unlike our other candidates he is very likeable, and right or wrong, that is important.
There's my two cents worth. |
|
|
According to the article, Levin made that statement yesterday during an Armed Services Committee hearing. It's quick flips like that that convince me that conservatives have alot of traction. The game seems to be for candidates to convince the establishment money that they can "handle" us conservatives. It seems to be working with those who insist that everyone outside of McCain and Giuliani are unelectable. |
|
Protecting the border is way over-rated. Maintain a well-financed and trained FBI (and related agencies), annihilate any state sponsor of terrorism (unless they're terrorizing our enemies :o) and the border will be safe enough to let in all freedom-loving, hard-working people no matter what their nationality.
Guliani is a proven leader that speaks in plain english. I heard him on Larry King and he was very reasonable and straight forward but not trite or simplistic. He comes across as a man of action. To me, he sounds like he has no use for the double-talk that politicians use to fool THEMSELVES into thinking they can play both sides of the fence.
It would be a shame to rule him out on the specious claim that closed borders are essential to US safety and identity. Given the fundamental nature or our guiding principles, the U.S. is much bigger than the land area it occupies. |
|
|
You always add something to any thread, glad to have your insights. My weird comment was specific to will's hari-kiri comment. |
|
|
I skipped over lots of comments when I jumped to the end. I now understand your "weird" comment. I thought I was actually adding something to this string. A cautionary tale. |
|
|
|
|
weird, that was the mental image I had |
|
|
It's the same people repeating what they have said hundreds of time to the same people. If I am catching the general drift, it is 1972 all over again. The dems are about to nominate a McGovernite socialist Democrat and the Reps are about to nominate a liberal democrat. Here is the difference this time. About 30% of the voters describe themselves as conservative while about 20% as liberal. Democrats won last November because the Blue Dogs went back to voting for CONSERVATIVE democrats. They are now gumming up the works for their liberal leadership. Ask Murtha what is happening with his "slow bleed" strategy. With the primaries bunched up early, nominations should be wrapped up by the end of February when we will already be sick, sick, sick of these people that just got crammed down our throats - nine months before the election. Plenty of time for a conservative third party candidate to sneak in. Perot got 19% in 1992. Given the frustration level of voters of both parties and this conservative trend, the next president might get elected with a mere 38% of the vote. It might be a good idea to take a really good look at all of these "unelectable" conservative candidates like Duncan Hunter and Jim Gilmore while we still have time. Otherwise, Virginia Patriot is dead on right: GOP-RIP. |
|
McCain DOES disagree a lot with conservative Republicans. So does Hillary and Howard Dean.
Rudy may do.
Mitt? Trying to get Hugh and Dean off the dead horse is like trying to teach a pig to dance. It's a waste of our time and it annoys the pig.
On the other hand, what's time to a pig:) |
|
|
Even with the typos a very astute analysis of the GOP. I think you have described the divisions fairly accurately. I think all segments generally support finishing the job in Iraq, even if some may not have been totally in favor of starting it, knowing that very bad consequences would ensue if we leave. However, I see more of a possibility of a conservative third party challenge, particularly if Rudy is the nominee. The Dems will be full throated anti-war by primary time, so no need of an anti-war left third party candidate. There are many on the right who just won't vote for Democrat-lite. Some for social conservative reasons, some that feel betrayed on the border. If the right candidate ran on stopping the NAU and real border security, I think they could draw enough from both parties to win. |
|
|
|
Why is it that Romney is the only one being scrutinized at the level he is. We all know Guliani has trash on him and Hilary is a flip flopper....etc...etc.
Romney is the only one the media seems to be trouncing on.
I think it is because McCain and other know that if discovered, he is their biggest threat. If one actually looks to his record and listens to him, one can see he is more competent than any of the career politicians in the race. He is what the country needs: competence.
|
|
»The Iraq war will be an important issue in 2008, but it won't be the only issue.«
B-b-b-b-b-b-b-but Dems say that it was virtually the only issue in '06! |
|
Hugh,
I (and countless other associates of mine ) are so behind you in your thinking concerning Mitt Romney's position in this election. You have the insight and vision concerning the Republican candidates and this campaign that many others don't even come close to. I am smiling behind the scenes watching this all play out.
Once Romney gets out in front of the public in a few debates, the other candidates will pale considerably. When you look for the total package, Romney is the only candidate that even comes close. Considering the beating that he has received in just the short time since he announced his candidacy, it shows how scared the other candidates are of him. What's so great though, is that they've hit him with everything they can think of ---- religion, "flip-flops"--- every silly, ridiculous accusation you can imagine. What's left?? It reminds me of my second grade class trying to come up with "cut downs" against someone they don't like. The arguments are petty, juvenile and the overwhelming majority are without substance or credibility. Unfortunately for the others, there's isn't much left to "expose" on Mitt---and fortunately for the Mitt Romney team, there's more than enough "skeletons" in the other candidate's closets that can and hopefully will be brought up in the upcoming months of the campaign.
It's so ironic that after only a few weeks of announcing his candidacy, many are trying to claim that Romney's ship is sinking. Ha! Oh, how they wish it were, for the sake of their candidate. This is only the beginning and with Romney's financial and political backing, let alone his remarkable ability to reach people and explain complicated issues with clarity and ease, the other candidates should be running scared. It's so fascinating to me that the top two contenders have already opted out of the first debate. Of course, they are scared to death to have to appear and discuss the issues next to Romney. There will be no competition and they know it. Next to him, they will be sitting ducks. The longer they can prolong having to compete head to head with Romney, the better. Their only hope is to try to knock him out before that happens (which of course, they won't be able to do).
Thanks Hugh, for intelligently explaining the issues in a thoughtful, calm and insightful manner and not being caught up in the knee jerk reactions of the alarmists that surround these Republican elections. What a gift you are to the future of America in being such a advocate for common sense and intelligence. Keep up the great work!!
|
|
Here are the facts boys...
The media tools continue to spread disinformation as to what the 2008 election will be about. Funny thing is, they have yet to figure out what 2006 was about, so why should we trust their opinions about 2008 ?
The Iraq war will be an important issue in 2008, but it won't be the only issue. In fact, for the democrats the Iraq war will play a more significant role than for repubublican voters. Basically, the majority of democrats want the US to end the occupation of Iraq soon. If Hillary doesn't come around to that position sometime during the next 6-12 months her campaign will be history. Obama, or even Al Gore, will pick up the slack and become the nominee of the party.
For the republicans things are far more complicated. There are numerous factions within the party leading into 2008. The war party/open borders wing lead by Rudy, McCain and Romney, along with their media dogs, ie, Hugh Hewitt, are one faction.
Then there are the traditional libertarian/conservatives who believe in limited government, fiscal responsibility, and tight border control. While fighting terrorists is important to this group of the party, the Iraq war isn't nearly as important as are the domestic issues. This wing of the party has yet to find an acceptable candidate for 2008.
Then the third faction of the party, and arguably the most significant because of their grass roots activism, are the social conservatives. Abortion is the most important issue to this group and any candidate who publically supports abortion rights WILL NOT get their support. This group cares about Iraq, but is FAR more concerned about domestic social issues. Not only does this group not have a candidate for 2008, but they will spend millions and campaign to stop a Rudy nomination.
One interesting side note, because the primaries are front loaded in 2008, the nominees will be chosen after the big February 5th primary. That primary will include California, New York, and about a dozen other big states. This format favors a moderate/liberal like Rudy. But, because there will be almost 10 months between his primary victory and the general election, there will be more than enough time for a third party candidate to start an effective campaign and raise sufficient money to cause trouble in November.
Bottom line...The democrats biggest worry isn't Rudy or McCain. No, their biggest worry is an independent anti-war candidate with money who might challenge them and split the vote - which would ultimately lead to a republican victory.
|
|
Hugh's right as far as I'm concerned. I would rather not vote for president than vote for McCain.
He is as egocentric as Bill Clinton, but not nearly as smooth. I think his criticism of Donald Rumsfeld just drove more conservatives away. Maybe it will help him in North Carolina and Virginia, but I don't see how.
He increasingly strikes me as a guy who wants to be the center of attention and poses as the only one around with any real moral concerns.
Romney has the expertise to address financial issues, and conservative views. Giuliani knows how to deal with criminal organizations, being an old Mafia fighter and how to enhance security against street crime. As far as being liberal or conservative on other issues, I think he has the sense to listen to his base. I think Romney knows many things, like a Fox, but Giuliani, like a hedgehog, knows one big thing that people really care about. In actual practice, I don't think either is likely to disappoint conservatives. |
|
The media tools continue to spread disinformation as to what the 2008 election will be about. Funny thing is, they have yet to figure out what 2006 was about, so why should we trust their opinions on 2008 ?
The Iraq war will be an important issue in 2008, but it won't be the only issue. In fact, for the democrats the Iraq war will play a more significant role than for repubublican voters. Basically, the majority of democrats want the US to end the US occupation of Iraq soon. If Hillary doesn't come around to that position sometime during the next 6-12 months her campaign will be history. Obama, or even Al Gore, will pick up the slack and become the nominee of the party.
For the republicans things are far more complicated. There are numerous factions within the party leading into 2008. The war party/open borders wing lead by Rudy, McCain and Romney, along with their media dogs, ie, Hugh Hewitt, are one faction.
Then there are the traditional libertarian/conservatives who believe in limited government, fiscal responsibility, and tight border control. While fighting terrorists is important to this group of the party, the Iraq war isn't nearly as important as are the domestic issues. This wing of the party has yet to find an acceptable candidate for 2008.
Then the third faction of the party, and arguably the most significant because of their grass roots activism, are the social conservatives. Abortion is the most important issue to this group and any candidate who publically supports abortion rights WILL NOT get their support. This group cares about Iraq, but is FAR more concerned about domestic social issues. Not only does this group not have a candidate for 2008, but they will spend millions and campaign to stop a Rudy nomination.
One interesting side note, because the primaries are front loaded in 2008, the nominees will be chosen after the big February 5th primary. That primary will include California, New York, and about a dozen other big states. This format favors a moderate/liberal like Rudy. But, because there will be almost 10 months between his primary victory and ther general election, there will be more than enough time for a third party candidate to start an effective campaign and raise sufficient money to cause trouble in the general election. The democrats biggest worry insn't Rudy or McCain. No, there biggest worry is an independent anti war candidate will money who might challenge them in the general.
|
|
He writes, "The 'inside baseball' of past years --the 'money primary,' the endorsements, the special interests, the polls, the 'scoops'-- are all greatly diminished in 'indicator' value given the Republicans' central definition as the party serious about the war and the Democrats' lurch back to McGovernism."
Later, he goes on to say, parenthetically, "And not just Morris, but scores of long-time GOP watchers who are quietly switching their attentions elsewhere. Note to Politco: California's biggest Bush backer Brad Freeman is raising funds for Romney. How many other of the key Bush team have gone over to the Massachusetts governor? If I wanted to be first with the most I'd query each member of the 2005 Inaugural Committee about their preferences for 2008." That's about as inside baseball as you can get. It seems inside baseball matters only when it can be used to write McCain out of this race.
There's an indicator in there, but it's not about any of the candidates . . . |
|
Well, "married" three times, Rudy makes Bill Clinton like a trustworthy husband.
I wonder how desperate the Republicans have been.
|
|
The big three are, to some of a greater extent, LIBERAL DEMOCRATS with strong voice against terrorism.
How funny that the conservatives have no problem abandoning their true conservative principles just because of a strong voice against terrorism.
Remember, almost all conservatives also have strong voice and action against terrorism.
But out of them, can we just find those who also truly embrace conservative values like pro-life, pro strong family foundation and etc?
Reagan "light", where are you?
|
|
emboldens the enemy.
Calling McCain a tool of the Gang of 14, completely demoralizes the enemy |
|
John McCain disagrees with the most Republicans on a lot of issues. But he has never been disloyal. He has campaigned like a trooper all over the country for all kind of Republicans for years. It must have been pretty difficult for him to do so after losing the nomination in 2000. I disagree with McCain on all the usual issues but he is an identifiale Republican with great appeal to independents, and especially Perot-type voters.
Rudy Giuliani is part of the group that has caused the Republican party of New York to nearly vanish. Until 9/11 it was all about Rudy. Since then he has hit the trail for Republicans but the self-interest is obvious. Before that he backed Cuomo and failed to push Republican nominees, especially in 1994 when a bit of help from Rudy might have taken some Queens/Long Island seats from the Democrats. He came back to run for Mayor and quickly attacked Ed Meese, an honorable man who had done him no wrong in Washington. Where in N.Y. are the "Giuliani Republicans" who will take the State forward? His successor, the Nurse is one of the great enemies of freedom, to smoke or to shoot (or to eat what you want) in the entire nation, Democrat or Republican. He had no problem engaging in flagrant and notorious adultery, even taking his mistress to offical events like some kind of Frenchmen. Even in Italy, Berlusconi has had to apologize to his wife for this sort of behavior. Giuliani never has. Loyalty to anyone but Rudy seems beyond him.
Romney may be fine but his entire persona does not scream "wartime" President to me.
This is McCain's hour. All of the issues on which he is bad are secondary, or indeed tertiary. If he will respect conservative's concerns he should get their votes and, God willing, win the Presidency. |
|
I have yet to hear an anti-war/anti-Bush mobster explain what he thinks will happen in Iraq once we leave. Will the terrorists leave us alone, y'think?
I mean, the terrorists attacked us and we weren't even in Iraq at the time. So, does that mean that, if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will attack us again, that being in Iraq has nothing to do with terror attacks on us?
If that's the case, which party has demonstrated competence in protecting us? After all, there's been no terrorist attack on America since 911 and our response.
All we hear from Dems -- most of them -- is trashing programs that are used to protect us. Can we depend on them to replace these programs with those that better protect us?? Have they every told us what those programs are? |
|
|
I have said that I admire McCain for his support of the war, and I do think that finishing Iraq is the biggest thing that trumps everything else. But does McCain's support of the war qualify him to finish it? |
|
|
Interesting that so many of the folks who say that McCain is disloyal to Republican Party principles are so ready and happy to bash President Bush and our efforts in Iraq. We're at war and my first principle is to support our president on this core matter. Bush showed a lot of guts in sending reinforcements to Iraq in the face of the election results and the polls. The plain fact is that McCain has been far more supportive of the president on the war than a lot of the people here who love to put him down. And that for me trumps a lot of the other stuff where I part company with McCain. Really, if you can't support the president on the central issue of Iraq, as McCain has done, then perhaps you're not quite as loyal to the party's principles as you think. |
|
Mitten? That could leave a mark Lydia!
I have problems with Santorum. I think he takes away from a Guiliani candidancy in the general election. When a candidate cannot carry his own home state, that is troubling. Santorum is loved by social conservatives, but he is not a fiscal one. I agree Rudy could use a respected conservative in the VP slot, but preferably someone from the South or West. I suggested Fred Thompson.
Virginia Patriot--I am with you on stopping illegal immigration, I just think we need to start enforcing strict fines against employers who hire illegals. The hotel, restaurant, and landscape industries will survive. |
|
Paraphrasing Carville.
Romney has the majority of the money raised, ergo he is a member of the "big 3." The largest GOP donors are flocking to Romney's camp. With California moving up in the primaries, the individual with the most money early on will have a significant advantage over their opponents.
We may all love people like Duncan Hunter, and I certainly do, but Romney's financial advantage really puts candidates like Hunter behind the 8-ball early on. It's practically a TKO right now, but certainly by Super Tuesday it will be a knock-out punch. Very likely the only candidates still standing after Super Tuesday will be Rudy and Mitt...all things remain equal. A lot can change between now and then though, after all "it's politics." |
|
From a new poll:
The biggest liability for a candidate, however, was being on the planet for more than 72 years, as will be the case for Arizona Republican McCain in August 2008, the poll showed.
More than half of the respondents, 58 percent, said they were less likely to vote for a presidential candidate of that age, while 39 percent said it wouldn't matter. |
|
|
Never thought I'd write those words, but you state it well. And thank you for immigrating the right way. |
|
|
different poster, i respect your opinions, you present them well. We may disagree about whether you can defend against terrorists with a wide open back door, but much of what you write i agree with. |
|
|
Vote Now.com just has a poll up and Newt and Rudy G are running 1-2. My guess is that Rudy G will eclipse both St. John and Mitt. If he has a conserv VP, someone the BASE can trust, he will win the nomination. So far, 1. he is strong on national defense. 2. he says, says, he will appoint jurists like Scalia. 3. he has a record on public safety. 4. he needs to take the No Taxes pledge. If he does, he will be the nominee. Why? Because he will be the only person who can defeat Her Highness or BO. Period. |
|
As Hugh will remind (and Dean will parrot), the polls that show Romney in the 7-9% and in 4th place are what is reported by the MSM. We all know what Hugh thinks of the MSM polls, especially the ones concerning his favorite candidate.
The pollster Uncky Rove used (from Michigan, I think) for the November election has assured Hugh that Romney has sizeable lead over Guiliani and McCain. So, if you support Romney then you are one of Hugh's "serious" people. |
|
I am an immigrant and I am against open borders
As the British and, the French and, the Dutch, are painfully learning; open arms does not necessarily translate into closed loyalty.
Unless you can prove that you are loyal to this country and that you have renounced all loyalty to our previous nation: I don’t want you here.
Such premise assumes there is an orderly process of admission, acclimatization and, assimilation.
Without it we may as well disperse the police, finish the military and disband the Federal (central) government. Let the UN run the country.
Our troops fight and die for this country; not a borderless, undefined, globalist notion.
Second:
The only thing that makes America different from all the ratholes we had to run from is the rule o' law.
I don’t want anyone whose first statement is; “I don’t give a flip about your immigration law, I’m getting a false social security number and I’m working for cash and less than minimum wage.”
That is how things work in Latin America: There is the law and then there is the way around the law.
Which one of you, is ready to change this country for the legal climate of Mexico or, Colombia?
The border is an issue as important to our survival as the war on terror.
The only reasons most Americans don’t believe it is; because they have never experienced living in a country where laws are just window dressing.
|
|
|
|
|
Why do so many people think Rudy will be great on the war? He has not said anything so far that would bear this out. |
|
Look, I like McCain personally, and I admire his stable stance on the war; but the guy is inconsistent and totally left-wing on so many other issues.
I think McCain WILL drop out eventually. He's a stubborn guy, which is a good thing, but eventually as Romney is "revealed" as a better choice for conservatives, McCain is going to go.
I wish Romney was more assertive and charismatic, especially regarding the war (which is ultimately what decides my vote this time around), but if nobody better than Romney shows up, I'm tossing my vote to him.
It's still early. |
|
|
What should be most important is our future. THe Millennium Development Goals set a plan for our future that is positive for everyone. I think we should elect a candidate who can see a world without poverty and hunger and is willing to work toward that goal. |
|
|
I have never been a McCain fan, but Hugh & Dean's "All Romney, All the Time" is truly bothersome. Pro-choice Giuliani is not an option for me. |
|
If anyone could be seen as fading at such an early date, wouldn't it have to be Romney? Despite all the hype and interaction with the "new media," he can't get 10% in Iowa and trails Newt, who's not even officially in the race. If Newt does join the fray, I would expect Romney to fall even further behind, since he's currently viewed as the only conservative option by some folks.
I too believe that McCain has too much baggage (and is adding more with his global warming stance) for conservatives, but the idea that Rudy and Romney will soon be the "big two" is silly. |
|
I prefer beer or wine, occasionally a nice bourbon when I am relaxing.
I am not pro-abortion, but I do put the future of my own living children ahead of what someone wants to do to their unborn child. I recognize many of you disagree, but that is the way I see it. Until you have enough people to pass a constitutional amendment on the issue--I think the best you can hope for is for is Roe to be overturned as bad law (which it is).
So I consider the GWOT, fiscal responsibility, and for that matter immigration more of an issue for me than abortion. |
|
|
Why do we need to pick a lesser evil again? All 3 candidates are RINO's. I would vote for Newt in a second. |
|
|
...if it's true that Obama doesn't have the black vote behind him like Hillary has. |
|
Just not as important as the GWOT.
Geffen aside, I still think Hillary will be the nominee, barring Bill running amuk and messing up her chances. I think Guiliani will be the GOP nominee, barring him making some self inflicted gaffe.
McCain will remain in the second tier, even if not loved by the base, if only because he can win against the Dems.
Newt will be in senior advisor role. Romney is toast unless he can show he is a real contender. He has bounced up and down in the single digits--he needs to start doing better. The Boston Globe is not that powerful, something else is holding Romney back.
|
|
|
HaHaHa. If Rudy is a liberal slayer, he'll be committing political suicide because HE IS A LIBERAL! |
|
|
Stop smoking that stuff, it's rotting your brain. |
|
Brian J assumes that because today the Democrats are in the majority, this will still be true in 2008. By that logic, the Republicans should have won in 1996 and 2006. Events and people's opinions change. That's why we bother with elections. Brian J notes that Giuliani and McCain have weaknesses and that, therefore, they can't win. Well, I hate to be the one to break the news to Brian J but even Hillary and Barack have weaknesses and flaws (yes, it's true).
Brian J won't admit it, but I'll bet it makes him just a little nervous to see that, even with the current low fortunes of Bush and the Republicans, the polls show that Giuliani and McCain run ahead or even with Hillary. Perhaps a reason to pause before heading to the coronation. |
|
Cheney is less popular than the President (whose approval rates are about 35%). Jimmy Carter could beat Dick Cheney in the general election.
As for McCain--all I know is he is one of the guys currently in the race who does well in the general. Not Romney and not Newt. I am concerned about McCain's age and think Rudy (if he is smart) can win this thing. Sane Republicans want to win the presidency with a candidate who is strong on the GWOT--not have some fantasy "pure" candidate who get whupped.
Yeah immigration and abortion are important.
|
|
|
And by the way Joe, I'm still underage for drinking, but thanks for the offer. ;) |
|
In the face one of the most fundamental truths ever to be written, all men are created equal and possess the inalienable right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is impossible to justify the validity of the term illegal alien as applied in the U.S.. To remain consistent with its guiding principles, the land of the free must maintain open borders.
Do you fear terrorists? don't sustain the double standard inherent in the concept "illegal alien", destroy the state sponsors of terrorism (i.e. Iran). Just like a snake dies when you cut off it's head, so goes terrorism, to any significant degree, if you annihilate Iran.
Do you fear "cheap labor"? Repeal the socialistic and therefore, hamstringing regulations on business across the board. For some reason, the loudest voices against Amnesty and open borders, Republicans, fail to highlight the contradiction of "closed borders" in the land of the free" which could finally provide the shoe-horn for the passing of small government policies. Isn't it obvious that if the unions were not coercively entitled to their stranglehold on businesses, wages would find a new equilibrium and positively affect business costs and therefore the market in general? The impact of this correction would reverberate through the whole market and if the newly realized opportunity was consistently applied, it would mean a boon to small government Republicans in terms of policy success!
If Guliani sees this connection between open borders and small government, his success resurrecting the credibility of the NYPD will pale compared to the improvement to growth he will enable in the US economy. |
|
Is simple: the Democrats are in the majority, and the Repubs are in the minority.
There are very few Democrats in any danger of losing their Congressional races. In the Senate, there are 1 1/2 vulnerable Democrats: Landrieu and maybe Johnson. The GOoPers have at least a half dozen tough seats to defend.
Giuliani will fold like a concertina, as he did running against Hillary in 2000. Those skeletons haven't gone away, his personality hasn't changed, and he still doesn't have the establishment support (which is still with McCain) or that of right-wing posters on this site. Hello, (at least one) third party. Goodbye, White House. Goodbye, relevance.
The GOoPers have run so far to the right that Giuliani or anyone else can't bring them back in one cycle. He can start the process, as did (for instance) the UK's Conservatives in 2005, but it'll take more than one cycle to make the GOoPers competitive again. Or he might start the process toward the GOoPers' dissolution, like Kim Campbell in Canada in 1993.
As for Hector, sure, why not? Cheney is what the GOoPers wish they could say out loud- a badly written James Bond villain, openly out to dominate the world. |
|
|
Really now, would it be that bad an idea? We've talked about how Romney et al are outing a couple of their tamer skeletons so as to appear honest. With Cheney, who has been torned apart by the MSM (as we call it here) so much, has nothing to lose by being honest. Besides, he has a tongue that could beat out any of the Democrat candidates. |
|
I believe that Hugh oversells Romney, who most Republicans know nothing about, and underestimates McCain. If McCain is sinking as Hugh suggests, an awful lot of pundits are going to be (or should be) embarrassed. Rich Lowery for starters.
On the other hand, I hope Hugh is right about McVain. Nothing would make me happier than having him abandon the nomination, and the Senate, for that matter. No bleeping way I'd vote for him. |
|
|
Cheney run for President? You should not be drinking the hard stuff this early in the morning. |
|
The GOP is in good shape in it has two candidate who can potentially win the general: Rudy and McCain. Rudy right now is the stronger of the two, but we assume he will gain some negatives with more exposure. McCain is fully exposed. We know what we are getting with him.
Newt does not win. Again he is a known commodity with voters-that is not going to change.
Romney? I suspect Romney will poll better with more exposure, but I do not see him becoming as strong as Guiliani or for that matter even McCain. I doubt Romney can win the general election. |
|
|
I know this is going to shock some of you, but I really wish Cheney would run for President. |
|
|
Brian J rejoices in the Republican Party's embrace of Giuliani as a supposed repudiation of the party's conservative base (showing his misunderstanding of the base and the candidate). If I was him, I'd temper my celebration. If, as you say, the Republicans are moving to the center and, clearly, the Democrats have moved far to the left from the Clinton years, and if we further assume that America is profoundly a centrist nation, where do you think these moves position the parties as we head toward 2008? |
|
Hugh what did McCain do to you, run over your dog and not stop?
Romney is in fourth place. Fourth. He is behind Newt. McCain is in second place. I don't deny that McCain has trust issues with the GOP base, but so do Guiliani and Romney.
It is still way early. Romney might gain some more voters with more exposure (or not)--we just don't know yet. Guiliani's bloom may fade if he makes a mistake. McCain could rise and fall in the polls (he might want to reconsider that whole global warming strategy right now).
I would not be tossing McCain out of the life boat just yet because he is old or not your idea of a Republican. We still have to win the general election and Romney's numbers are terrible against Clinton, Obama, and even Edwards. They all beat him soundly. |
|
"Rudy The Liberal Slayer:"
Isn't that akin to saying 'Tax-em-all-guy, the Progressive slayer' ?
Or "abolish the second amendment man, the destroyer of socialism"?
Please. You've offered less than trustable advice on betting on Romney, and now you fluff Guliani, simply because he's pretty good on external threats?
Hugh and Dean, I am losing faith in you both. You are both buying into the 'fish sandwich' idea that Hugh did with Bush's attourney whatshername. It's disgusting.
Dont' get fooled again. We won't follow you down that path this time. Heck, we didn't follow you down that hole LAST time. Pick an actual conservative, or screw you. There - the choice is yours.
*grumble* |
|
|
Hugh, please let us know how you can consider Romney who is polling between 7-9% as one of the big three? It is these kind of proclamations that further erode your credibility. |
|
Safe to say Hugh has a trust issue with McCain since he won't come on the Almighty's show.
Most polls I see show McCain leading (one of the recent polls showed Guiliani leading - forget which). And this has been a fairly consistent theme.
So, how could he be leading if the base is not trusting him? |
|
|
Hugh's analysis is exactly right. The sympathy and support that Giuliani is receiving from so many conservatives and his aggressive outreach efforts to win over the party's base makes it increasingly unlikely that McCain will outflank him on the right. It's possible that Romney, or less likely Gingrich, will overtake Giuliani but it's going to be tough for either of them (or any other darkhorse contender). The plain fact for Republicans is that, for at least the past 40 years, if not longer, the candidate ahead in the polls at this stage of the campaign has ALWAYS won the nomination. Now I'll agree that past history doesn't guarantee the future, but it's a pretty good indicator. |
|
|
I have it! The Dems will pass a non-binding resolution disavowing their original votes to go to war. Then they will move to impeach Bush. The rationale: There was no authorizing vote, as it's been disavowed. They NYT will confirm this. Such is never-never land on the left. |
|
This conservative will not vote for another open borders candidate. In a post 9/11 world we can no longer tolerate illegal aliens and their employers ignoring our borders and laws. We can not fight Islamic terrorists with the back door wide open.
The Republican Party under GWB seems intent on political suicide. Pandering to citizens of other countries illegally in our country while telling us we must be vigilantes if we object to illegal aliens ignoring our borders and laws. Mel Martinez is there to ensure an open borders candidate in '08. The cheap labor express will be kept running, regardless of the consequences. GOP-RIP
|
|
Giuliani's making only the most token attempts to win over the very conservative vote. Among very conservative voters, according to Zogby, Giuliani's scoring 4 percent- which is one point better than McCain. And yet those two candidates are far ahead of everyone else.
No one cares what Hugh or the other whiners of the far right think anymore, and that can only be good news for America. And Hugh knows it, which is why he's trying to get an in with Giuliani.
(Won't work. Giuliani gains nothing from your associating with him. Hugh would make a perfect "Sister Souljah" target for repudiation- minimal audience and monetary loss, maximum ability to dissociate from extremists.) |
|
|
You keep trying to write McCain's obituatry while promoting Romney as the second coming of Reagan. Yet Romney's support is in single digits and in the last Zogby poll, McCain's popularity increased. Are you only supporting Romney at the moment because of the imminent release of your book? |
|
|
|