Archive for May, 2007

Re. Good News From the Far Right

May 31, 2007

Sweet graph, Ohio.  That’s some sexy blogging.

That also confirms what early internal polls were showing:  “Social” conservatives have always been receptive to Giuliani.  Furthermore, those conservatives are the generally the best informed on the relative merits of the candidates.

The self-appointed ringleaders of this important and valuable constituency within the GOP will do their best to guilt their compatriots into abandoning Hizzoner.  No doubt there will be some more tense moments between Giuliani and these folks down the road.  I bet you dollars to donuts, though, they will continue to support Giuliani in large numbers.


Good News from the Far-Right

May 28, 2007

Rudy and the social conservatives

 Despite some hardliners who think their interpretation of conservatism is gospel, this report indicates that a fair number of “social conservatives” realize that Rudy has the strength and tenacity to protect their freedoms from Islamic terrorists and from the socialists on the other side of the aisle.

Red Staters Continue to Ignore the GOP Establishment

May 24, 2007

It seems gun-owners like Mayor Giuliani, according to this poll.  That crowd, of which I am a nominal member, is arguably as powerful a potential single-issue voting block as any other in the GOP big tent.  And, as we all know, Hizzoner is hardly a NRA poster-boy.

On the heels of that poll we learn the speaker of the Georgia State House will be heading up Giuliani’s campaign team in that state.  Along with that announcement we learn of the endorsements of number of GOP Georgia legislators.  Taking a quick scan of the names, I see these are most assuredly not big city Atlanta types.  These Republicans are colored very deeply red.

Is it possible that the grassroots of the Republican party understand better how Federalism works than the pundits and mainstream media?

National vs. Early State Primary Polls

May 23, 2007

It has been observed elsewhere that Team Giuliani may perhaps be eschewing Iowa and New Hampshire for the bigger states who hold primaries soon afterwards:  California, Texas, Florida, Michigan…and a little prize called New York.

While it certainly would be a mistake to ignore the traditional early primary states entirely, it seems to me this is a wise strategy on the part of Team Giuliani.  Remember, New Hampshire’s delegates have gone in the past to powerhouses like Buchanan and McCain.

I mention this as there have been a few polls showing Romney opening up a lead in Iowa and New Hampshire.  I suppose this is a good thing for his campaign– after all, one would rather win those states than not– but his new strength in those states is not matched by any national movement.  Romney stills polls in the single digits nationally, coming in behind Hizzoner, McCain, Thompson, and even Newt every once in a while.

Personally, it seems to me if Team Romney is hoping victories in Iowa and New Hampshire build momentum for the new super-Tuesday on Feb. 5, they will be dissappointed.  If Giuliani can’t win California and New York, he’s a goner anyway.  And if he does, as he should, New Hampshire and Iowa don’t matter even a little bit.

PS:  If I have anything to do with it, Pennsylvania will have its primary on Feb. 5 as well, and that’s a good thing for Team Giuliani as well.

“The Mayor Who Should Be President”

May 18, 2007

Interesting editorial from today’s Boston Herald:

It Was Rudy In A Runaway: The Mayor Who Should Be President
Boston Herald

By Michael Graham

May 17, 2007

[L]istening to Texas Rep. Ron Paul … legitimize the 9/11 attacks as the rational, anticipatable reaction to America’s foreign policy, Rudy Giuliani delivered the smackdown Americans wanted to hear:

“That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11.”

It was the mayor’s moment, and he seized it. It wasn’t that Giuliani said anything the other candidates didn’t also believe, but it highlighted that he is the right person to say it. … it looked really, really good.

Giuliani Doubles Up Nearest Competition in WSJ

May 15, 2007

The most recent WSJ poll of voters likely to vote in a GOP presidential primary suggests almost 40% of the Republican party:

1)  Does’t much care about socially conservative issues that greatly motivate a vocal minority of the GOP, or

2)  They are social conservatives that can grasp the concept that their goals can most effectively be moved forward by a president not easily caricatured by the MSM as a religious ideologue.

Being a member of category #2, I hope there are more of us than there are in the first category.  Unfortunately, all available polling evidence seems to indicate iconoclastic social conservatives are thin on the ground in the American electorate, so those hopes are probably in vain.

Re: How Important Is Abortion

May 11, 2007

UPDATE: See also this editorial in the WSJ.

Courtesy of Eric Devericks at the Seattle Times:

That was linked at a popular NW conservative blog in a post suggesting Rudy is fading. Discuss.

Roll Rudy

May 9, 2007

I know I have recently declared my comments a zone free of mention of a particular subject.  So let me just say this:  What states strike you as potential buckles of the Bible belt?  What issues are presumed to matter there?

With these questions on mind, take note of thisAlabama poll.  [HT NRO]  It was admittedly taken before the recent debate.  That matters if you think voters there are ignorant hicks who first found out from from the GOP debate that Hizzoner is not exactly the preferred candidate of the Liberty University crowd.  I happen to think more highly of my southern brothers and sisters than that.

How Important is Abortion?

May 8, 2007

When reading the title of this post, please keep in mind I am a pro-lifer.  I am not an earnest pro-lifer, in that I am like the vast majority of the American people and wouldrather not think about the subject much.  It’s a thorny one, and there’s a reason good talk-radio hosts and columnists avoid this issue.  Discussion of the matter tends to serve as a homing beacon for those inclined to throw agitated ad hominems at each other.

This morning, though, I was composing a response to a well known right-wing pundit’s recent epistle essentially describing the Mayor as a dissembling baby-killer.  As a person who ascribes a great deal of Giuliani’s electoral appeal to the mundane fact that he happens to agree with most voters on most issues, I was curious about how highly abortion ranked as an issue when open-ended polling is used to see what’s on our minds.

Take a look at this collectionof polls.  Pay special attention to the open-ended ones, where voters are not told to select their concerns from a pre-set range of issues.  The top two polls make my point.

Voters don’t care about abortion.

Now, I’m not trying to say supporting the rights of the unborn is not an important issue.  What I’m saying is that American voters pretty much have no problems with the status quo.  And you know what?  I bet if we ended up taking the more Federalist approach Mayor Giuliani favors, American voters would care even less.  Of course, such a minuscule amount of concern would be impossible to reliably poll.

So I am tempted to declare my comments an abortion-free zone.  Otherwise I am letting activists on both sides of the issue set the agenda.  It seems wiser to let the American people set the agenda.

Re. The Debate

May 7, 2007

I didn’t get a chance to watch it, as I was too tired from fishing on Thursday morning.  Besides, I elect to not let cable television into my house.  I’ve seen the allegedly mishandled abortion questions, though, and I don’t think it was mishandled at all.

Giuliani was a pro-choice Mayor of New York City.  There’s no getting around it.  What pundits accuse him of is hemming and hawing on the abortion issue.  They are wrong.  He is being entirely consistent, and avoiding appearing as a flip-flopper.  Most importantly, he is expressing a strong Federalist agenda while simultaneously acknowledging that if the Supreme Court overturns Roe the country would have to deal with it.  That is a bald challenge to pro-choicers, as it is far more likely a court with another Roberts or Alito on it would overturn Roe than support it.

Importantly, during the debate Brownback– a man with impeccable social conservative street cred– said he would be comfortable supporting Giuliani.  We’ve heard similar things recently from Tancredo.

I do agree Giuliani could stand to be a little more feisty.  Part of his appeal, to paraphrase John Derbyshire, is he may be an SOB, but he would be our SOB, working for us.  People may want to see a little more of that back alley scrapper that broke the mob.

Personally, I think the whole abortion thing is a red herring.  Hizzoner should master his answers on the issue so he can make his state’s rights case more succinctly, then move on.  We know everything there is to know.  Personally opposed, but not going to lead the charge to ban abortion in San Francisco.  Will appoint strict constructionists to the bench.  There’s really no more to say.

What he should be concentrating on instead is coming up with a comprehensive and detailed plan for the War on Terror to provide specifics to buttress his natural strength there.  On the social specifics he should just have about 12 different versions of an answer that says “That’s between you and your local legislators as far as I’m concerned.  Call them.  I am running to be Commander in Chief of the whole nation.  Here is what I will do to help protect the Republic so in the future your local legislators can do their jobs without having to consult Sharia law.”