A veteran Republican strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly assess the situation, said he is among those who long believed that a Republican with Giuliani's profile would have no chance. He still believes the former mayor faces significant obstacles but said the odds of Giuliani winning the nomination are not as remote as they once seemed.
He gave three reasons: the absence of a strong, traditional conservative in the GOP field; continuing antipathy among many social and religious conservatives toward McCain; and the prospect of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) becoming the next president.
Giuliani "looks like he can beat Hillary, make the party competitive again in the Northeast, competitive again in California and allow us to keep our strong electoral advantage in the South and Rocky Mountain states," the strategist said.
The former mayor's campaign team believes it has found a credible path to the nomination. Its foundation is a conclusion that while the overwhelming majority of Republicans differ with Giuliani on abortion, gay rights and gun control, a much smaller percentage of GOP primary voters -- perhaps no more than a quarter -- are single-issue voters who would never vote for him because of his views on those issues, a percentage borne out by the latest Post-ABC News poll...
"I think that people like him, and likeability is a big, big factor in presidential politics," a senior Republican strategist said. "Right now, I think his numbers reflect that. As you get closer to the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, likeability may give way to vote-determinative issues, like abortion."
March 4, 2007
"Giuliani Has No Real Chance With GOP Voters . . . or Does He?"
Dan Balz on Rudy Giuliani. I don't know if we'll see Balz on the other candidates. But here we have Balz on Giuliani:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
35 comments:
This evangelical conservative can gladly vote Giuliani over any of the currently left-leaning Democrat possibilities.
"Dad, is Hillary actually capable of being President?" asked my daughter.
Yes, I told her - I believe that she actually has the capabilities to be President. I do not believe that a Madame President Clinton would usher in the end of the world. But I certainly don't want her to be President because I disagree with so many of her views on the issues, not the least of which is America's health care.
The Democrat that seems to me to be most qualified is Bill Richardson. Not perfect for this conservative, but far more experienced as an executive.
Why do we all want celebrities?
"No-experience" Barak, Senate-onlies Hillary and McCain, and now, maybe, Die Hard Fred Thompson. I agree down the line with Thompson on most issues. But if I'm interviewing candidates for the CEO position of the world's largest company, why does a one-job-with-no-administrative-experience celebrity look more appealing than the guy or girl who's actually run things for real?
I agree about Bill Richardson but don't see how he has a chance. As for Giuliani, I'm a fan but then I'm no friend of either the conservatives or the evangelicals. (Neither of which should imply that I'm any friend of the liberals, either.)
"But here we have Balz on Giuliani:"
Can't beat that.
Newt Gingrich: You have a party that is inarticulate, allows its issues to be defined by the elite media, and failed to reform bureaucracies that are failing. I don't think this is a right-left problem, this is a 'make it work, it's not working' problem'.
This is why I want Newt to run. Richardson too. They may not have a shot at winning, but they both bring a conversation to the election thats missing.
I feel may even volunteer for Newt's campaign. Listen to him next time he speaks on the War on Terror. His voice is the articulate Reagan/Churchill that Bush lacks. He can rally the country to face the threat of radical Islam. Bush hasn't.
My worry with Giuliani is that he appeal is based more on popularity. He was a hero to America duing 9-11, and he's a more viable candidate strategically becase of his moderation/centrism. But history is replete with Champions who were ineffectual leaders after their "moment".
Of course Giuliani has a real chance with GOP voters. Balz's article reveals, once again, how shockingly little the Left understands the Right.
This likely will not change soon.
Did he really though? If so, he deserves credit, esp in a "blue" city-state like NYC. But I seem to remember New Yorkers were unhappy with his administration up untill 9-11?
edit: I may be wrong about my recollection of Rudy's term in NYC. If so, I hope Rudy points to his accomplishments [like lowering crime] there, because I'm betting the public does not know as much about it as we should.
We usually choose Governors b/c they have more executive experience. Rudy should do more to push his executive experience [prior 9-11] into our awareness.
If he's criticized for being to liberal, I think he could explain the difference between what is politically plausible for a Republican in NYC v. DC
Well, I'm a social conservative [but not religous] who would give him a pass on all that so long as he is strong on 1) our need to reform Iraq as part of the larger war on terror, and 2) stopping illegal immigration, and 3) hanging any GOP congress-critter who falls back into the vortex of corruption.
Those are my only issues this election.
I love Newt Gingrich, but think that he would be a disaster as a president. Nevertheless, he is probably the most inciteful former major league politician around right now. Bill Clinton might, just might, be able to compete with Newt, if he would put his pants on and his wife weren't running. Gingrich is a brillian PhD who has an amazing ability to see what is important.
That said, he is much too polarizing, and showed he had no management skills when he was Speaker (not that Pelosi has any more, she doesn't). Analysis has always been his strength, not management.
Did you mean insightful or inciteful. Or both? :P
But I think that Newt is right about Giuliani, the GOP is inevitably inarticulate when it comes to competing with the Democrats in the world of ideas and in politics. The later invariably set the debate (well, having the MSM on your side helps a lot too).
Rudy can and would change this. He likes talking to the people through the camera, and does a pretty good job at it.
One of the reasons that I really hope it is a Rudy v. Hillary fight is that this is one place where she is really, really, vulnerable. She won't do impromtu and esp. won't do hostile interviews. Rudy does extremely well at both. By the end of the campaign, I predict that this will become significant, and even if she tries to make up for it with her safe and captive interviewers, none of them have the type of reach that she needs, and one more soft keyed safe interview by them isn't going to be seen by most Americans.
fen, thanks. Insightful, but probably the later too. Sorry.
Well, there's also a growing perception [ha] that the Left will sabotage the war on terror unless they are given the reins of power. They would definately smear Newt the same way they smeared Rumsfeld and Cheney, and hamstring his efforts. But they might tolerate Rudy because of his positions on social issues.
I agree down the line with Thompson on most issues.
Fred Dalton Thompson is a Republican I could live with--on one condition. He gets back together with Lorrie Morgan. Now there is a FLILF.
One of the reasons that I really hope it is a Rudy v. Hillary fight is that this is one place where she is really, really, vulnerable.
I don't know why you think Rudy would win in a head to head contest when the last time they went head to head with Hillary (in the 2000 Senate campaign) he was headed for almost certain defeat and was forced to withdraw (ostensibly because of prostate cancer).
The scandals that plagued him in that campaign, plus new ones (no one is going to buy Kerik's fictional nanny excuse again), are going to bite him in the ass as the campaign goes on. And you think a few cattle futures and a bad land deal make Hillary look bad? She's on the straight and narrow compared to Rudy.
They would definately smear Newt the same way they smeared Rumsfeld and Cheney, and hamstring his efforts.
Newt, like Rumsfeld and Cheney, smears himself. He doesn't need any help from us liberals. I mean who needs smears when you serve divorce papers on your wife while she is in the hospital being treated for cancer. You just can't make that shit up.
I live in New York and Rudy certainly was ahead in all the polls I read at the time - since you seem to be poll-oriented.
Actually, we're both wrong, they were pretty much tied when Giuliani dropped out of the race.
As to Rudy not being popular with the new Yorkers, the man won with 70% of the vote in a democratic, liberal city.
I don't know where you get these numbers. He barely won the first (actually second, he ran and lost in '89) time 49--46%, and was reelected by a larger margin, 59--41%. But that is still a far cry from 70%
Certainly you did not mean to come across as if you are questioning if cancer was the real reason he dropped out.
Lets just say with all the other scandals building (e.g., the impending messy divorce and The Farmersville Garbage Debacle) the cancer became a convenient excuse to gracefully bow out of the race (where Hillary, who was expected to be a pushover, but suddenly was looking very strong) before it got embarassing.
From the story:
"The former mayor's campaign team believes it has found a credible path to the nomination. Its foundation is a conclusion that while the overwhelming majority of Republicans differ with Giuliani on abortion, gay rights and gun control, a much smaller percentage of GOP primary voters -- perhaps no more than a quarter -- are single-issue voters who would never vote for him because of his views on those issues, a percentage borne out by the latest Post-ABC News poll."
He can get past his being more socially liberal by playing the "Our Federalism" card - by saying that the federal government should have a "proper respect for state functions, a recognition of the fact that the entire country is made up of a Union of separate state governments, ... the belief that the National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways." Younger, 401 U.S. at 44. He can say "look, I don't agree with you on abortion, and gun rights, and so forth. If I was running for Governor of your state, you should not vote for me if you disagree with me on these issues. But the job I'm running for right now is not a job that has a lot to do with these issues.I don't agree with you, but I support your right as a citizen of the state of ___ to persuade your fellow citizens, vote on it, and resolve it your own way, and to that end, I will veto federal laws that infringe on your right to do that, and appoint federal judges that will respect 'Our Federalism'- which means no more Lawrences and an end to Roe-Casey." If he says that -- and to be clear, that's what I want to hear from any candidate, pro-choice, pro-life or whatever, I'm not suggesting it as a convenient political figleaf -- he's okay.
On which note:
"[Giuliani says] he would appoint federal judges akin to Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. His record in New York does not necessarily support that, according to an analysis recently published in the Politico, but a Giuliani adviser said the selection process there is quite different."
Yes, but see this (particularly Pat's update). The politico hit peice is carefully designed to throw doubt on Giuliani's credibility as an, ahem, "strict constructionist" - but I think it proves less than it suggests, even if taken at face value, which it suggest it should not be. Empirical studies can lie just as effectively as any other study.
MD - Newt's got a great riff he does about his frustration with the GOP's distrust of people who are intellectual and articulate. I think he's exactly right, both in general and in the specific you quoted. If he could win, I'd be rooting for him; since he can't, I'll take what I can get (although to be clear, I've also suggest Michael Steele as veep).
I will veto federal laws that infringe on your right to do that, and appoint federal judges that will respect 'Our Federalism'- which means no more Lawrences and an end to Roe-Casey."
Do you really expect any candidate, especially Giuliani, to specifically state he will appoint judges that will overturn specific cases, especially Roe v. Wade? Heck, if a Supreme Court nominee ever said such a thing, that nomination would be DOA.
If Roe is overturned, wouldn't that same Jurist have a hard time defending Giswold? It is certainly a less well known case, but once people realized that overturning Roe meant that states could also start banning birth control, I bet a lot of people wouldn't think Roe was so bad after all.
Freder Frederson said...
"I don't know why you think Rudy would win in a head to head contest when the last time they went head to head with Hillary (in the 2000 Senate campaign) he was headed for almost certain defeat and was forced to withdraw (ostensibly because of prostate cancer)."
That was a campaign in New York, you pillock! ;) If it'll make you feel any better, I'll stipulate that in the Presidential election, she'll narrowly beat him in New York (although to be clear, I do think that they're competetive there, and Rudy might ultimately win it). Surely you're not seriously comparing a race involving the entire country to a race in one of the bluest of blue states.
And BTW - "ostensibly because of prostate cancer"? I'd expect that kind of low blow from HDhouse, Freder, but it's disappointing coming from you.
And BTW - "ostensibly because of prostate cancer"? I'd expect that kind of low blow from HDhouse, Freder, but it's disappointing coming from you.
Low blow? Oh come on! It's not like that very same sentiment was stated at the time. Rudy was seen as not a very enthusiastic senate candidate from the get-go. And the negatives were beginning to pile up. His health problems were certainly seen at the time as a way for him to gracefully bow out of the campaign.
Freder, I'm pretty sure I've answered this point from you before, earlier this year. Maybe you didn't see it. Yes, of course if Roe goes then Griswold is next in the firing line. And?
(That said, it's next in my firing line, because it was wrongly decided and my view of stare decisis cannot protect it - but I could imagine Justice Scalia or Justice Alito's view on stare decisis protecting Griswold even assuming it doesn't protect Roe.)
As to Roe itself - as I've said before, "Roe is actually a very good litmus test for a judicial nominee. Asking about Roe will at once provide a candidate with an opportunity to discuss two matters which ARE important to textualists: their view on substantive due process (or, indeed, any other grounds they feel they might rest unenumerated -- which is to say, nonexistant -- constitutional provisions upon), and their views on stare decisis, and when (or if) it might protect a decision that was wrongly decided as an original matter."
I continue to think that we would be in a lot better shape as a country if people were honest about this stuff, if we actually had the debate. When Scalia was nominated, he said that he didn't want to talk about Roe because he didn't feel it was fair for litigants to go before a judge who's already made their mind up about a case. You think that was much on his mind -- or on Ruth Ginsburg's mind -- when Carhart was argued a couple of months ago? As I explained in the context of recusal, judges make their minds up on issues of law. That isn't problematic. And a nominee's view on Roe says a lot about their view on a great number of issues in the law, because "Constitutional cases ... announce rules of law. They speak to the parties to the case and they speak to the rest of society. Cases are disputes that the courts must address, but they are also occasions for saying what the law is." Althouse, Saying What Rights Are - In and Out of Context, 1991 Wis. L. Rev. 929, 939 (emphasis added).
What happens if Roe goes? Not to be too glib (since there's a forthcoming essay on this subject I'm eager to read.;)), but gosh, Freder; I guess that depends on how much you believe your own propaganda.
I mean who needs smears when you serve divorce papers on your wife while she is in the hospital being treated for cancer. You just can't make that shit up.
I'd be surprised if it wasn't. I'm sure that if I delved into that story, I'd find the Left had grossly misrepresented it.
What happens if Roe goes? Not to be too glib (since there's a forthcoming essay on this subject I'm eager to read.;)), but gosh, Freder; I guess that depends on how much you believe your own propaganda.
I guess it depends on how much it you believe your propaganda too, Simon. Because while you may be able to raise moral outrage over "activist" judges overturning state laws that prevent faggots from having butt-sex or women from killing their babies, I think a lot of people would begin to kind of begin to like those "activist" courts when they realized those same decisions also mean they can go down to the local 7-11 and buy a box of condoms without having to get a prescription from their doctor or proving they are married or get a blowjob from their wife without the state legislature declaring them a felon (I'm not sure about the law in question in Lawrence but the law at issue in Bowers v. Hardwick, which I am sure you think was decided correctly, also made heterosexual sodomy--including oral sex, although oddly not sex between two women--illegal).
The computer says: NAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I'm sure that if I delved into that story, I'd find the Left had grossly misrepresented it.
Well why don't you do that and report back to us how it was "grossly misrepresented" by the Left. Because apparently taking anyone's cancer as less than deadly serious is apparently only something the "lunatic fringe and complete partisan assholes" would do. It was completely "loathsome" of me to suggest that Giuliani's cancer might not have been an entirely adequate explanation for him dropping out of the 2000 Senate race.
If Newt really did serve divorce papers on his wife while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery, well that would be beyond loathsome. I don't even think there are words that could describe the callousness and inhumanity of that.
Freder, you either didn't read or didn't understand the posts I linked to above. The availability of contraception doesn't turn on Griswold; all Griswold does (as far as contraception is concerned, at any rate) is say that even if you have a majority in a given state that wants to ban contraception, you still can't ban it. No such majority (or even a substantial minority) exists in any state today of which I'm aware, and so the effect on the availability of contraception of overruling Griswold would be nil. Likewise, the legal availability of abortion in any given state does not hinge on Roe, it hinges on what the majority thinks. That's how a democracy works Freder. If Roe was overturned tommorow, just as with contraceptives and Griswold, ceteris paribus,* abortion would not become illegal, it would simply become possible for states to legislative on the matter.
You need to get past this idea that I want to overrule Griswold and Roe because I have some opinion on the merits of the laws in those cases. That isn't why I want them gone. I want them gone because as Ann's observation that I quoted above says, a case is not just about the instant case, it's about the rule of law that is announced. I don't have any desire to recriminalize contraception, and I think anti-sodomy laws are stupid and invidious, perfect examples of big government sticking its nose into matters that I don't think it has any business deciding. Guess what? Contra Randy Barnett, the Constitution isn't a libertarian document. It isn't a liberal document, either, or even a conservative document. It's a legal text, and like all legal texts, it says some things, doesn't say others, permits some bad results and forecloses some good results (indeed, demands some bad results - I agree with Scalia's parade of bad consequences in his Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co dissent, I just don't think that changes what the Constitution says, and as much as I'd like the Constitution to contain a right to life that no state can violate by permitting abortion, it just plain doesn't). The courts are not the only vindicators and balancers of our rights. In most cases, those questions are left to the people of the several states to decide at the state level.
As to your invocation of Bowers and Lawrence - Lawrence explicitly pivoted from an equal protection challenge, which I might have been more sympathetic to, to a substantive due process question. The Fourteenth Amendment does not prevent states from criminalizing certain sexual conduct; it leaves that matter to the democratic processes of the states. You have to argue it out with the majority. And while I suspect that you will easily find a majority to impede the passage of or to effect the repeal of laws criminalizing consensual sodomy, Freder, what you can't do is say "I really want this, and so I'm goig to persuade five of those nine wise men and women on the Supreme Court and impose my opinion, coast-to-coast." If you'll forgive a momentary descent into vulgarity, if you want to repeal sodomy laws, then as a matter of Constitutional Law, to paraphrase the Beastie Boys, you gotta fight - not litigate - for your right to get a blowjob.
__________
* Assuming, fictitiously, that states do not presently have laws on the books which would be enforcable the moment Roe was overturned. But needless to say, if a majority for choice exists, such laws would rapidly depart the statute book.
Freder, you either didn't read or didn't understand the posts I linked to above. The availability of contraception doesn't turn on Griswold; all Griswold does (as far as contraception is concerned, at any rate) is say that even if you have a majority in a given state that wants to ban contraception, you still can't ban it.
And that is my point exactly--that most people are results oriented. They don't like "activist" judges because of decisions, not the legal reasoning. If you are aching or arguing for a returning to a pure originalist or strict constructionist interpretation of the constitution, most people are not buying what you are selling. That is why most politicians (especially Republicans from Reagan to the current Bush) have the good sense to promise a whole lot on these issues but do amazingly little. They know that the right to privacy, even though it may be hidden in the penumbras of the rest of the bill of rights, is actually pretty damn popular, and they have to be careful about appointing judges who have a history of ridiculing that right.
For me, the more liberal the Democratic nominee is the more willing I am to swing to the center. And while I do not hate her, I am quite concerned about Senator Clinton being president. I think I would vote for (holding his nose) McCain rather than her.
Trey
Freder: Newt, like Rumsfeld and Cheney, smears himself. He doesn't need any help from us liberals. I mean who needs smears when you serve divorce papers on your wife while she is in the hospital being treated for cancer. You just can't make that shit up.
and...
Freder: Well why don't you do that and report back to us how it was "grossly misrepresented" by the Left.
In other words, you aren't really sure what happened. You're just parroting gossip to smear a man you have political differences with.
Thanks for making my point.
In other words, you aren't really sure what happened. You're just parroting gossip to smear a man you have political differences with.
Well no, I know it did happen (she was actually recovering from cancer surgery if you can believe that), that's why I can ridicule you knowing that the best you can come back with is "she was expecting it", an assertion btw that no one has actually backed up with a link.
Actually it works the other way around Freder. If you're going to imply his wife was victimized by Newt asking for divorce while she was on her deathbed, or somesuch, you need to provide the evidence.
I'd like to hear Newts side of that. My experience is that you guys distort fact to push talking points, like claiming Bush lied about WMDs, or having to use the 7th of nine defintions of "fixed" to imply the Downing Street Memo proves deliberate deception.
I might actually bother to research the topic if I thought you were capable of a mea culpa. But we know how that goes. At best you'll ignore the facts or pretend they say something else. My experience with Lefty Propaganda tells me I'm better off being skeptical of anything they say.
Post a Comment