Not that I read World Net Daily that often, but when I saw a link to Pat Buchanan's column on who is still a viable contender for the GOP nomination, I had to read. And I saw this really interesting nugget:
The front-runner since spring, Rudy Giuliani, is close to toast.
By dropping out of the Iowa Straw Poll in August, Rudy ceded Iowa and the cornucopia of publicity the winner receives. He is running far behind in Iowa, sinking in New Hampshire and certain to be skunked twice by Jan. 9. If so, he will lose Michigan, then South Carolina, where he is already far behind, and Florida, his firewall, where he is now slipping behind both Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney.
If Rudy is 0-4 going into Florida, he loses Florida. If he is 0-5 going into the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday states, his national lead will be ancient history. In some national polls, it has already vanished.
He says the same for Fred Thompson.
His best guess:
If Mitt Romney wins New Hampshire, drop the curtain for Rudy, Thompson and McCain – and they know it. For if Mitt wins in New Hampshire, none of the three beats him in Michigan, they will not beat him in South Carolina, and they will not beat him in Florida.
Can McCain, who kicked away what seemed a near-certain nomination by embracing the Bush-Kennedy amnesty and stiffing the Iowa Straw Poll, win? Not impossible. If he can win New Hampshire and make himself the national alternative to Huckabee, a desperate GOP establishment might rally to him for lack of an alternative.
But McCain's fate is not entirely in his own hands. He needs an assist. He needs Huckabee to defeat Romney in Iowa, where McCain will be waxed, then to come back and beat Romney himself in New Hampshire. Two losses by Romney in states where he has invested millions would put his campaign on life support.
But if Romney wins Iowa, he will win New Hampshire and Michigan, and go into South Carolina 3-0. If Romney wins the first two, he is almost surely the nominee. For that would eliminate Rudy, McCain and Thompson, leaving the only man able to stop him in South Carolina, a twice-defeated Mike Huckabee and his Christian prayer warriors.
I'm wondering what has caused Rudy's decline and why Thompson has never gotten off the ground. Because Rudy (Gordy) and Fred (Mark) have strong supporters here, I want to see what they think as well. And what do you see as Huckabee's role in all of this. If he wins Iowa, can he really be the nominee?
Discuss.
I think Rudy's meltdown was not only forseeable, but predictable to anyone paying attention to what happened when he ran for Senate in New York against Hilary. The people who thought he would make a great presidential candiate focused only on his performance right after 9/11, and the contrast in his demeanor to that of Bush. They did not think about his problems with his personal life, his association with shady characters and crooks, the bad decisions he made before 9/11, his imperial personality. Sure crime went down in NYC while he was mayor. It did in every major U.S. city. I am a Democrat, and I was hoping the Republicans would nominate him and the meltdown wouldn't come until afterwards.
I wonder when Pat Buchanon became a credible source.
I'm still pulling for McCain since he has the most integrity of anyone running in either party. What we need is for Huckabee to beat Mitt in Iowa, which would hurt his numbers in New Hampshire, and for Hilliary to win in Iowa, which would bring more independents into the Republican primary in NH. Rudy was a great mayor and his improvements to New York City FAR outpaced those made in any other city. His personal issues, though, may be too much for the national electorate. He can always run for New York governor in 2010 since Spitzer's approvals are in the basement. This election won't work out for him, but Rudy still has a political future beyond 2008.
Perhaps the decline is linked to support from Gordy and Mark. :)
Perhaps it is that Guliani is an Italian Catholic, and while Italian Catholics don't ring your doorbell during a nap, they are just about as mysterious and strange to the Huckabee-wanna-bees as are the Mormons.
And Rudy is not only an Italian Catholic, but his children have disowned him and he has already had one more wife than Reagan. If Clinton had 3 wives they would have called him a womanizer.
Guliani is an Italian Catholic,
Please - don't insult the real, honest Italian Catholics with this title for Rudy. He's about as Catholic as much as Clinton is celebate.
"I wonder when Pat Buchanon became a credible source."
That's what I was wondering. I can't remember that last time PB was right about anything, but even a stopped clock...
"Because Rudy (Gordy) and Fred (Mark) have strong supporters here, I want to see what they think as well. And what do you see as Huckabee's role in all of this. If he wins Iowa, can he really be the nominee?"
I would dispute that I'm a "strong supporter" of Rudy. I've been saying for months that he's my preference, but I've not done any work for him, and feel no special disappointment now that he's cratering. I still think he's my favorite candidate, but I've become resigned over the past few months to the notion that the issues that are most important to me are not most important to the majority of national Republican Primary voters.
I think Rudy's free-fall is tied to the allegations about his administration using City funds to provide security for his mistress, and to Hillary's decline in the Democratic primary. While electability was never a big issue for me, it was for many Rudy supporters, and when Hillary was clearly running away with the Democratic nomination it was easier for some Republicans to support Rudy.
That said, There is no GOP frontrunner at the moment, and I think Rudy can still win the nomination. Will he? I doubt it. But it's possible, just as it is for McCain, Romney and Huckabee. But I think Huckabee's support is already fading, and I don't know if McCain's surge is real. If I had to guess:
But that's just a guess.
"Perhaps the decline is linked to support from Gordy and Mark. :)"
Good point.
I have to believe the core of GOP members do not like any of the canidates. The GOP party chiefs have not establish a platform except supporting the GWB et. al. Unless there is a substantial GOP platform with a canidate to match, I look for lots of Dems and independents taking over GOP elected offices. The Dems have allow the GOP to rally back with their lackluster performance as the majority in Congress but the GOP is missing the opportunity.
"The Dems have allow the GOP to rally back with their lackluster performance as the majority in Congress but the GOP is missing the opportunity."
The story of the GOP since GWB's first inauguration has been one giant missed opportunity.
Huckabee is not going to win SC. The conservative hit squads have been hammering him from every direction. He might survive long enough to do well in Iowa, but by SC he will be done.
Yeah, you're probably right. By SC, everything will be a jumble.
that is why there is still hope for Fred :-)
"that is why there is still hope for Fred :-) "
If I had seen any indication that Fred was capable of (or wanted to) capitalize on this mess, I might agree with you. I'm just not seeing it.
The Left is still afraid of Rudy even now that he has lost his lead.
What are the conservative hit squads saying negative against Huckabee? I should do some surfing, I guess...
Just curious... I read some quite strict religious stuff that tends to avoid the GOP and go straight for the Constitution Party and the like (except they worry about throwing their vote away, cave, and go GOP in the end often), I know in those circles they're saying that Huckabee is too statist, and pushing Ron Paul. Ron Paul doesn't fit the religious desires (these are people who want a true theonomist candidate) but the feeling seems to be that if he's true to his consitutionalist principles (as they see them, I'm not too much an expert on any of the candidates yet I must confess) then at least he would let the states do their own thing, and the good Christians can push for godly government there.
Mind you, those circles aren't too fond of Baptists theologically, they're Calvinist/Reformed, so that too might have something to do with it.
On the other hand, I've seen some sites gushing over the fact that the HSLDA (Homeschool Legal Defense Association, a group representing some religious homeschoolers) has endorsed Huckabee (this is probably what led to the article about religious homeschoolers having their majority-age kids vote for Huckabee that ran in the NYTimes was coming from). But, the Calvinist groups I read are complaining about that too, so who knows.
I don't see any way in hell, so to speak, that the religious will go for Giuliani. He's just too tainted, even BEFORE you ask him his views. Of course, how much of a factor the religious are is open to debate, I guess. But for what it's worth, at least the serious "we want religion in government" types are not happy with the current situation, they see it as "we keep voting and only getting crumbs off the table, if that, we won't be fooled again." This is similar to the complaints of the left about the complete lack of spine in the Democratic Party. Swap out a few keywords and the posts are almost identical.
On the other hand, I've seen some sites gushing over the fact that the HSLDA (Homeschool Legal Defense Association, a group representing some religious homeschoolers) has endorsed Huckabee
Huck was also endorsed by the teachers union in NH - seems like a weird combo to me.
The folks at NRO and many at Townhall have taken shots at him in the last couple weeks.
Huckabee was the only one who went after union support, and he got it in a lot of cases.
Mike Huckabee is basically a pro-life, pro gun Democrat. Take away those two positions, and he pretty much looks like Bill Clinton.
Good thing he lost weight to differentiate himself!
To those who describe Huckabee as "a pro-life, pro-gun Democrat" should take a step back to realize just how unbelievably 'electable' he is - assuming that description is true.
I don't know how true the stories are about Huckabee are but I have thought the same thing, I wonder if he will have the money? They say he has Ed Rollins working for him which people have attacked Huck for, another time were I ask is that just negative spin? Ed Rollins is supposed to be a real heavy hitter so if the GOP conservative base which has some of the bases hardest workers then the other campaigns may have a problem.
Anyone but Hillary, Anyone but Romney!
While I don’t hold Pat Buchanan up as a model political strategist, (not that I am either!) I also have expected Rudy’s race to play out this way. I am not trying to disparage Rudy in any way, but I will admit freely that my opinion has been all along that his history (both politically and personally) was going to be his toughest issue in this race.
Huckabee should scare the daylights out of the DNC. I have been struck by his ability to take the most complex and disputed positions and turn them into short easily understood answers. People may not exactly agree with his positions, but they can at least look at him and understand why he feels the way he does—plus they can usually acknowledge that he makes some sense. That is a rare gift in politicians, and he uses it well.
I think Hillary is cooking with Rudy (near toast in other words) and if I had to place a bet on it today, I’d predict that she will not win in Iowa or New Hampshire. If I am right about that, I think you can stick a fork in her plans to re-occupy the White House. If recent polling trends on the Dem side hold, I think we are maybe looking at Obama running against Huckabee in the General, and I honestly can’t handicap that particular race.
Just my two cents (and it is probably worth less!)
Laura
Laura, I'm a Democrat too, and I agree with your analysis completely, except I'm not sure Huckabee has gotten his surge soon enough to put together the infrastructure to run effectively in all the primaries bunched together after New Hampshire. I hope not. I think Rudy or Mitt or even McCain would be much easier to beat. I don't know what is about the water in Hope, Arkansas, but it produces politicians who know how to reach people. Huckabee's statement, "I'm a conservative, but I'm not mad at anybody," fit the mood of the times perfectly.
Buchanan's American Conservative is going to run a scathing cover story on Rudy in a few weeks. Suffice it to say I don't think Pat likes him, but I don't think his crash and burn prediction is off either.
Here's a link to the article for those interested: http://amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_14/cover.html
main
8:55 PM Anonymous said, “…I'm not sure Huckabee has gotten his surge soon enough to put together the infrastructure to run effectively in all the primaries bunched together after New Hampshire…”
I also wondered if it was too late for Huckabee to surge. Something that really makes me wonder, however, is the fact that Rollins is on board with Huckabee now. Whle I disagree with him on some things, I do think Rollins is an asset to Huckabee’s campaign, in part because he has deep ties into the GOP that harken back to Ronnie, Ford, and Bush 1.
Rollins seems to be one of those guys that IF he lands on a campaign and stays put, he will bring a lot of the “old guard” money and their existing organization with him. That cache that Rollins carries is what Huckabee needs most desperately right now, and it may be enough to carry him out of this Primary.
I’ll grant you, it isn’t the whole package, but if you couple Rollins’ ready made organization with Huckabee’s ability to distill complex policy discussion into easily understood soundbites (intended as a compliment when I say that, remember) I think it might be enough to carry him to the convention.
Like any political puditry, we can all sit here and act like sages, but an awful lot depends on how everybody behaves between now and the conventions. Just about the time you think you can predict the future, somebody will get caught on film doing or saying something so incredibly outrageous that nobody would DREAM of admitting they ever took that candidate seriously.
“Who ME? Nah, I NEVER thought for a second that (insert spectacular meltdown candidate here) would win.”
Regards!
Laura
In every election we find Identify candidates, single issue candidates, and "me first" candidates. Because there are no absolutes let's just say that these voters will vote this way 90% of the time because of one of these three factors.
The identify voters are those that will vote for JFK because he was a Catholic, Judy Baar Topinka because she is a woman, and Stroger because he is black.
The single issue voters are ones that will vote for a candidate based on one issue like abortion, guns, etc.
The "me first" candidates are those that base their vote on what that candidate can do for him. If you are a trial lawyer, Edwards is your guy.
It is difficult to argue with these types, because their mind is made up and you won't change it. I won't even try.
But for those that are not one of these types, there are three factors that may help decide who you should vote for in the 2008 election. I think they fall into three categories: Issues, relevant character of a chief executive, and relevant experience of chief executive.
Issues can describe a philosopy. Do we wish to be an isolationist nation or do we want to engage the enemy on foreign soil? Frame the philosophy any way you like, the philosophy will usually boil down to a "balancing test". Let's avoid Irag because that gets too emotional. Take bringing guns being brought to schools. Do we want to reguire every school to have a metal detector and police to make sure that no one brings a gun to school? At what cost? Drilling in Alaska? Etc.
Character of a chief executive. Character is something that you do when no one is looking. If we cannot trust the executive in small things (name one), can we trust him or her in other matters.
Relevant experience as a chief executive. It should be difficult to hold an executive office when you have never had any executive experience. A good chief executive surround himself with good experienced people. A good executive listens to all opposing views because sometimes he or she has to change his or her mind.
This is how I view a candidate and this is why Romney is the best choice. It is not even close.
Beyond the issues, Romney just doesn't inspire much confidence in character to me. It's not that he changed his mind on some issues, it is the fact that he changed his mind on views he claimed to strongly hold and claimed he would not waver on... which might even be understandable if he gave a reason that was somewhat believable. His excuses for changing his mind aren't as absurd as Rudy's claim that 9/11 changed him from a Brady Bunch gun banner instantly into a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment without any further explanation... but they aren't any more convincing. It leaves little doubt in my mind he's just pandering on issues he cares little about.
As far as relevant experience, it is certainly good to have some executive experience prior to taking the top executive position in gov't, but it is certainly not the sole factor. A great deal of the management of federal agencies is done via appointees who are charged with carrying out the Executive's policy. As we learned with Bush and Clinton, it does not guarantee that federal agencies will be managed well. The critical issue is whether they are qualified to guage the character of appointees who will implement their policy and whether their policies are sound. Can they lead bureacrats, work with them, and fight them when necessary? Will they bow to political pressure when doing the right thing is on the line? Romney does not come off as this man. Additionally the Executive is also the head of foreign policy and the military. Right now we're facing diplomatic and military issues world wide where merely having advisors on foreign policy and military matters without a general understanding and experience with them can lead to the wrong policy decisions and actions. In this critical time of US international relations, Romney and especially Rudy appear quite inept. They seem to regurgitate what their advisors tell them to say and support to win an election, not what they actually know is the right policy given the information at hand.
As far as the issues, I tend to disagree with him more than others. His continued support of gun bans while lying about NRA support makes me a bit sick to my stomach. His desire to legislate his newfound morality on the federal level as opposed to leaving it up to the States if given the chance directly contradicts yet another one of my strongly held Constitutional concerns. His desire to cut spending and keep taxes low is nice to hear, but given his record I have my strong doubts he'd stick to it when popular spending issues and his re-election are on the line. His foreign policy of one-liners and little substance is indicative of his reliance on advisors in this area. Who knows what policies his future advisors will convince him of once he's president? If we weren't currently at war and our international relations weren't absolutely critical in keeping numerous situations from becoming wars, good advisors would probably be sufficient. That's just not the state of affairs today.
It's true that many of these same complaints could be levied on Rudy as well, which is why Buchanan might be right on Rudy being close to toast, but I'm also of the thinking that this isn't and should not be a race between those two. Quite honestly, I have no idea how they have built enough support to be frontrunners, not merely on issue disagreements, but on relevanat character and experience issues. I understand why many people dislike my candidate of choice, I just wish there were better alternatives for them to choose from.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Mitt never changed his mind when he had to consider the issue of life while in office. True he proclaimed he was pro-choice (stem cell issue) during the time his wife had MS, but when he was Governor, he followed what he thought right. (See statement he made in my blog.)
I am talking about experience as an executive. Someone that has actually run something. If you think our President should intern in that post, I beg to differ. He ran a turn around consulting company in which he made so much money he never took salary when he saved the 2002 Olympics or as Governor of Mass. As a conservative, he was elected the Governor of the most liberal State, not because he lied about his views, but because the State of Mass. was broke and in need of a "fix it guy."
Being in the army doesn't mean anything. I have more "executive" type army experience than any of the candidates including McCain. You are right that it means having good people around you, but that is what good executives do. Poor executives, may I use Blago as an example, put cronies around them. He did not become a billionaire hiring bad people. I think you need to go to his web site and look a little deeper on that.
The gun issue is minor. I bought my cop son a Glock for xmas last year, and I don't own a gun. For sure he is not a foot stomping gun right, anti-abortion, or Christ save us type guy, but he is for balanced budgets, getting our students (especially at risk students) the best education possible, he does not want to expand the role of the federal government because that would mean more wasteful spending, he believes in streamlining programs to create higher paying jobs, he recognizes the tremendous systemic waste in our health care system and actually did something about it in Massacusets.
He has absolutely no character flaws. Not youthful drug use, no billing records problems, no cheating on his wife. He went on a 2 year mission for Christ sake. He gives 10% of what he makes to his Church and gives millions more to charity. And what is it you like about the other candidates character?
"Mitt never changed his mind when he had to consider the issue of life while in office." (empahsis mine)
Notice how it did not match his campaign statements though. That's what we're getting from him now. Campaign statements. Who can be certain he'll stick to them this time?
"True he proclaimed he was pro-choice (stem cell issue) during the time his wife had MS, but when he was Governor, he followed what he thought right. (See statement he made in my blog.)"
It's true that he proclained he was pro-choice on the abortion issue, not just stem cells. Both of which he had strong reasoning for at the time. His change of heart was for far less compelling rationale. It appears to many observers to be the classic "bait and switch."
"I am talking about experience as an executive. Someone that has actually run something. If you think our President should intern in that post, I beg to differ."
There is no executive position quite like the presidency. Everyone essentially interns at the job right off the bat. Are other forms of executive experience helpful? Absolutely! But given the role of the President is far more a policy making position than a management position, it is important to keep in mind that we need someone who will apoint the right heads of agencies who have the executive experience to manage them. The President will primarily be tasked with setting the right policies for them. I'm not arguing that executive experience isn't an asset... just that it is not necessarily a requirement if the candidate has other experience that would make up in those areas where executive experience could help.
"He ran a turn around consulting company in which he made so much money he never took salary when he saved the 2002 Olympics or as Governor of Mass. As a conservative, he was elected the Governor of the most liberal State, not because he lied about his views, but because the State of Mass. was broke and in need of a "fix it guy.""
Perhaps he'd be a better nominee to be the Secretary over the Department of Veterans Affairs?
"Being in the army doesn't mean anything. I have more "executive" type army experience than any of the candidates including McCain."
My point with both the military experience and foreign policy experience was not in terms of Executive management of federal agencies but of his duties as Commander-in-Chief and his role in diplomatic affairs withour allies and hostile governments. In peace time neither will necessariy take big priority over other issues. But with our current ongoing conflicts and the potential for more conflicts without appropriate diplomatic manuvering... it seems more critical than ever in our modern times. While McCain's service makes for an amazing tale of the human spirit... it alone is not what I'm referring to here. Rather his years of working on foreign policy and military affairs in the Senate, his military education, as well as his personal experience as both a military veteran and a father of men in the uniform.
"You are right that it means having good people around you, but that is what good executives do. Poor executives, may I use Blago as an example, put cronies around them. He did not become a billionaire hiring bad people. I think you need to go to his web site and look a little deeper on that."
Blago is a twice elected executive. Nothing about his experience readied him for the job of the President of the United States. The qualities of a good executive that are applicable to the job are the qualities you can find other candidates as well, not just those with executive experience. Romney's executive experience certainly is a plus, but it hardly means that others do not also have relevant experience through prior work.
"The gun issue is minor. I bought my cop son a Glock for xmas last year, and I don't own a gun."
Well a candidate supporting a ban of guns I own isn't a minor issue for me. As I'm sure you can imagine. They weren't cheap.
"For sure he is not a foot stomping gun right, anti-abortion, or Christ save us type guy, but he is for balanced budgets, getting our students (especially at risk students) the best education possible, he does not want to expand the role of the federal government because that would mean more wasteful spending, he believes in streamlining programs to create higher paying jobs, he recognizes the tremendous systemic waste in our health care system and actually did something about it in Massacusets."
He's going to use his position in gov't to solve all these problems, but without expanding the role of the gov't? The best example being the Massachusetts you used. The gov't costs weren't expanded, but the role certainly was as the gov't stepped in and told people that health coverage was required by all citizens to get. In Illinois we have a similar rule for all drivers in Illniois. It didn't reduce the cost of car repairs, it didn't decrease the cost of car insurance, but it certainly added profits to car insurance companies and it certainly made it a lot more difficult on those in lower income brackets. The role of gov't was expanded, but without any real solution to the problem, but many problems in lieu of solutions.
"He has absolutely no character flaws. Not youthful drug use, no billing records problems, no cheating on his wife. He went on a 2 year mission for Christ sake. He gives 10% of what he makes to his Church and gives millions more to charity. And what is it you like about the other candidates character?"
I apologize. I was going off your earlier post which said "relevant character" as it applied to his job, I wasn't figuring you really meant that we should be evaluating every mistake he may or may not have made in his personal and non-professional aspects of his life... even going back as far as youthful indiscretions. As far as "relevant character" issues, professionally and politically, that appear to talk straight at our ability to trust him to hold to his campaign statements, or at least offer reasonable explanations for changes from them... Romney is sorely lacking. His blatant lie about NRA support to pad his obvious lack in belief of the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment really hit a nerve with me as well. Perhaps as a life member of the NRA I'm a bit too touchy on the subject, but you can't discount the lie and the intention of the lie hardly speaks to "good" character.
As for other candidates, there are so many... some with bigger character flaws, some with fewer, etc. Any particular one you want me to respond on?
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
The New Hampshire Union Leader said today about Romney, "In this primary, the more Mitt Romney speaks, the less believable he becomes." See, http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=bc5bd60b-68a2-4427-93aa-d0fc2548ba3d&headline=The+Romney+backlash%3a+Conservatives+are+coming+home I don't have; a dog in this fight. I hope you Republicans nominate Romney or Guiliani, or better yet, both.
Ghouliani on Ron Paul:
http://people.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements/2007/12/19/rudy-giuliani/