http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/02/rudy_at_the_california_gop_con.php [rquoter]By Bill Bradley, exclusive to Pajamas Media Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani turned in an impressive performance in his luncheon keynote address today at the California Republican Party convention in Sacramento. There in the ballroom of the Hyatt Regency at Capitol Park, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s state capital residence, as it happens, Giuliani received a much more rousing response than did Schwarzenegger last night at the convention’s opening banquet. Giuliani’s nearly 50-minute address was interrupted several times by standing ovations. Giuliani did not formally declare his candidacy for president, a prevalent rumor beforehand, but made it obvious that he has every intention of running. In fact, he is on a campaign swing though the Golden State that began last night with a fundraiser and private meetings and continues through Tuesday. As a speaker, Giuliani is in transition from the high-dollar motivational speaker he became after his heroics on and after 9/11 and a full-throttle candidate for the presidency. His speech isn’t a stump speech yet, and is far too long for one — though the crowd of California convention delegates certainly didn’t mind — but it is clear that he has the makings of powerful themes. And that he is a very good performer behind the microphone. While he dealt with a number of issues, including education reform, welfare reform, tax reform, and the need to extend health care coverage, and did not not dwell on his moderate to liberal views on social issues, he made it clear that he sees the war on terror as the overarching issue of the election and of America’s future. Giuliani said it is key to stabilize the situation in Iraq lest the strife-torn nation become a future haven for terrorists. He urged patience for the Bush administration’s new “surge” strategy and ridiculed weeks spent on fine-tuning non-binding resolutions against the move as completely unproductive. Giuliani likened the war on terror to the Cold War as a long-term struggle requiring resolve and judgment and a more effective job of selling the idea of America to the world. In doing all that, he invoked the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Which is never a bad thing with the mostly very conservative delegates to this convention.[/rquoter]
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/zito/s_492696.html [rquoter] Rudy the uniter By Salena Zito TRIBUNE-REVIEW Sunday, February 11, 2007 As America rushes into the wide-open 2008 presidential primary season, about the only thing that is certain is this: Bush fatigue. Republicans desperately need a new face painted on their party. Enter center-right Rudy Giuliani. For many, he appears to be holding the right brush. Giuliani entered the presidential race for real last week. Here's a thumbnail version of his social platform, based on his interview with Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity: "America's mayor" favors defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Thus, he does not favor gay marriages. But he does not oppose civil unions. Giuliani hates abortion but ultimately believes in the right to choose, favors parental notification with a so-called judicial bypass and supports a ban on partial-birth abortions with provisions to protect a mother's life. Giuliani says he supports the Second Amendment. Yet, as mayor of New York he admitted that he was in favor of the Brady Bill, considering it necessary to reduce murders, then at 2,000 a year in his city. Giuliani says the Second Amendment must be protected against unreasonable restrictions and favors states' rights on gun laws. Of the Supreme Court, he could not think of any better appointments than Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia. Now, would any card-carrying conservative vote for him, especially if he were running against Hillary Clinton? As one high-ranking Republican told me, "Damn straight -- twice, if possible." Giuliani's path to the Republican nomination starts with more time in New Hampshire than in Iowa, the latter having an electorate that would more likely support him. Iowa matters more than New Hampshire in creating a winner -- but New Hampshire always smacks down the front-runner. It certainly tested Ronald Reagan's mettle when he famously declared at a stalled primary-eve debate that "I am paying for this microphone ... ." That unscripted moment was a turning point, consequently winning him the debate, the primary and the Republican nomination. Several scenarios work in Giuliani's favor: the 'round-the-clock coverage, the uncertain times we live in, and a voter-turnout model that will eclipse the 2006 election, which means you have more moderate- and independent-voting Republicans who usually don't show up for primaries. You also will have states -- like moderate-leaning New Jersey -- that are moving to early primaries. Giuliani knows his negatives. But the first mistake he should avoid is becoming a reactionary on individual litmus-test issues. The biggest mistake he could make would be to try to placate all sides of the party and start to flip-flop. Other candidates have been criticized for trying to gravitate further to the right on issues than where they were in previous years, giving credence to the party faithful's skepticism. What Giuliani brings to the Republican Party is that he is someone who can rally America rather than divide it. For Republicans, if their worst fear is Hillary Clinton, their best solution may be Rudy Giuliani. Democrats now running for president are battling over personalities; they're all pretty much on the same page on positions. The struggle between the Republican nominees is going to be less about curb appeal and more about battling issues, leadership ability and who has the right credentials not only to represent the party, but to win in the general election. [/rquoter]
I agree with Basso that the hold of evangelicals on the Republican party is waning. I think that is largely due to Bush who for all he capitalized on them has also caused a major backlash towards them. I still would be cautious about ruling them out and saying that means that Giuliani has an easy road to the nomination. They may not be kingmakers but they might be spoilers.
josh makes an interesting point -- Among politics-watchers (and the Giuliani campaign particularly) there's a meme floating around that holds that Rudy Giuliani can overcome conservative resistance to his social liberalism and/or social issue flip-flops by emphasizing what I guess you'd call the leadership principle and his diehard support for War on Terrorism and the Iraq War. That makes sense to the extent that most of Rudy's potential Red state audience doesn't know much about him beyond the 9/11 hagiography. And it makes more sense to the extent that that focus can separate the 'War on Terror' from the War in Iraq -- something conservatives have never liked doing. But there seems to be a basic problem built in to this idea. Do Republicans really want to go into 2008 with a presidential candidacy whose raison d'etre is diehard support for the Iraq War and President Bush's version of the War on Terror, which it would inevitably be? That sounds like perilous political territory on multiple counts unless a lot changes over the next eighteen months. -- Josh Marshall
it works for me. the anti-war stance didn't do so well in 2004 or 2006 (see Lamont, Ned). i understand a lot of people think it'll be winner in 2008, but american admires a man w/ principles, and giuliani stands out in that regard.
You are going to point to one race(Lamont) and somehow hold the position that it trumps every single other race which lost the GOP both houses? You are in denial. That is a herculean effort at spin, but even that isn't enough to get anyone to abandon reason.
From Wonkette Walnuts McCain Worries Iraq War Could Become Unpopular! OH WALNUTS! - No longer even loosely tethered to reality, John WALNUTS! McCain is now making his worst fears public: that something could happen in Iraq that might possibly turn Americans against the war! “A lot of us are also very concerned about the possibility of a, quote, ‘Tet Offensive.’ You know, some large-scale tact that could then switch American public opinion the way that the Tet Offensive did,” McCain told the Associated Press. And where is American public opinion at the moment? * 67% oppose the handling of the war. * Just 32% approve of Bush. * Just 26% approve specifically of Bush’s handling of the war. * 62% say the war should’ve never happened. Is Walnuts hoping for American bloodshed so outrageous and devastating in Iraq that all of us will go crazy, too, and suddenly switch to supporting the awful carnage? We can’t wait to see this psychotic old fool on the primary debate circuit! http://wonkette.com/
im gonna call this now... out of the few that have declared, for both parties, none of them will be president come 2009. it may be a democrat, it may be a republican, but whichever party the winner comes from it will not be one that has already officially declared. i'm working on my proof... though i'm having difficulty finding dates when previous candidates entered the race.
I wouldn't make such a broad statement, but I will say that McCain won't be the Republican nominee. I'm not sure who will, but it won't be McCain, in my opinion. That could be a problem for the Democratic Party, because McCain, again in my opinion, would get beaten like a drum in '08. His pathetic pandering to the Religious Right, who don't really care for him, and joining himself at the hip with Bush on Iraq, and so many other things, will be his demise. McCain used to be well liked. I think he's tossing that goodwill away in his run for the nomination. And another thing... I can't recall a stirring speech by the man. Am I just forgetting some? He comes across much better on talk shows and the like. Doing well on talk shows won't make you President. D&D. Ducks and Drakes.
My money is currenly on Newt or Tommy Thompson ending up with the Republican nomination. Just can't see the party putting any of the perceived big three at the top of their ticket.
its broad, but i'll just throw my working hypothesis out, and let me know.... in 1990 bush had a 75% approval rating. 18 months later, clinton comes in an wins the '91 election. in 2000 gore was already throned... bush was a distant 2nd to mccain, and the tides quickly turned. he ended up winning (albeit with controversy that's been discussed ad nauseum) granted this is only 2 examples, and a small percentage of the total number of presidential elections we've had, but i think it just holds true. the early front runners, 18 months out, it's too easy for them to slip up, and much dirt will be tossed before the primaries even start. that in turn will be used by the opposition party, if indeed one of these early candidates wins the nomination. i realize these thoughts are scattered but i'm working on my theory.
Giuliani: 'Thank God that George Bush is our president' http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/30/giuliani.transcript/ Giuliani, McCain praise Bush for war on terror http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...ive/2004/08/31/MNG0B8H7ST1.DTL&type=printable
more on the republican frontrunner... FLASHBACK: 1993 Rudy Campaign Internal Oppo Report Unearthed When Rudy Giuliani was making his second bid for Mayor of New York, his campaign had a lot of potential dirt to fend off — so much so that Rudy had a 450-page report done on himself! (Such self-examinations are standard campaign practice.) Excerpts from the report have just been posted by The Smoking Gun. They provide a wealth of info about Rudy's efforts to placate New York's liberal electorate on all manner of issues — Among the interesting tidbits: • "The Giuliani campaign should emphasize its candidate's independence from traditional national Republican policies." (Emphasis theirs.) It was further recommended that Rudy play up "his un-Republican views on many social issues of concern to New Yorkers, like abortion, gun control and bias protection for homosexuals." • "Simplicity is the best response to questions about abortion." (Emphasis theirs.) And their simple answer? "Giuliani is pro-choice. He supports public funding for abortion. He will continue city funding of abortions at city hospitals. Nothing more, nothing less." • On gay rights: "Giuliani is pretty good on most issues of concern to gay and lesbian New Yorkers. Gay marriage really is the only issue where Giuliani opposes the gay agenda." • The report raised Giuliani's first marriage — to his second cousin — as a major liability. "In reviewing the news stories describing this event and others in his private life, there are numerous inconsistencies and questionable circumstances about how long the two were married, whether Giuliani knew he was marrying his second cousin, whether he dated other women while still married, and ultimately, how consistent he has been about his personal life." • On Giuliani's honesty about their familial relationship: "He grew up with her, vacationed with her, married her, then divorced her and had the marriage annulled ... Despite their time together building sand castles out on Long Island, Giuliani claimed, first, he knew, and then he didn't know, Gina was his second cousin." • Rudy's first marriage was not fully dissolved when he began dating Donna Hanover, who he would later marry — and then divorce after an adultery scandal in 2000. • On Giuliani's exceptional deferment from the draft to work as a law clerk: "A 'one in a million occurrence' ... Ironically, after avoiding the fighting Giuliani worked in a department supposed to punish others who did the same." • Giuliani was a Democrat as late as 1972, supporting George McGovern, but later switched to the Republicans in 1980, when doing so would get him ahead in the Justice Department. • And interestingly enough, the 1993 report mentions Rudy's close associations with conservative figure Roger Ailes. Ailes is now head of the Fox News Channel — and Rudy has been receiving nothing but glowing coverage from Fox. http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/..._rudy_campaign_internal_oppo_report_unearthed
There's a lot of space between "diehard support" and flip flopping. The Democrats who voted for the war should know about that.
