RUN RUDY RUN

2007-02-05T11:54:00.000-08:00

À SON AISE DANS SA PEAU!

If you do nothing else "political" this week, view and listen carefully to this video:

http://www.schotline.com/

It is a video of an interview of Rudy by Will Folks in South Carolina! It's all interesting, but the "must see" part is approximately the last half of the 7-minute piece. When asked how he would "present himself" to S.C. voters, he gives essentially a presentation of his "campaign stance" that I think is absolutely spot-on -- at once both honest and politically astute.

Whether or not someone supports Rudy for President, I don't see how anyone cannot like and respect him as a candidate. When compared to almost all other politicians, at least at the Presidential level, he comes across as a giant among pygmies! Rather than flip-flop, fudge, shade, obfuscate, cover-up, he takes a straightforward approach, essentially (I paraphrase): "This is what I believe. Now, let's focus on those things we agree on, and discuss those things on which we don't agree." He doesn't back off one inch on who he is and what he believes. As the French put it, he is “at ease in his own skin" ("à son aise dans sa peau").

He asks people only that they evaluate him “as a whole person, and as someone who will be honest with you” in judging him as a candidate. The only sad part is that our political discourse has sunk to such a level that Rudy, or any candidate, would feel it necessary to make this request. While not backing off, Rudy does point out, however, that the differences between his positions and those of social-conservative voters are not as great as his opponents have made them out to be. Surprise, surprise! Here again, I must quote the wisdom of Ed Koch: "If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, vote for me! If you agree with me on 12 out of 12, see a psychiatrist!"

Now, a personal note: I wish I could take some small measure of credit for Rudy's presentation, but alas I cannot! I can say, however, that what he says is almost exactly what I have been saying he should say until I have become blue in the face. The positions he takes are virtually exactly identical to those that I have sussed out that he would hold, based on my knowledge of him as a public figure for almost 25 years, and more importantly because of how I have judged him as a man! For proof, read my postings in this space since July!

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

2007-02-01T11:28:00.000-08:00

THE “CONVENTIONAL WISDOM” - - -

IMPERVIOUS TO THE FACTS AS ALWAYS

An article by the Gallup Organization about its recent Poll of Republicans, conducted 25-28 January 2007, asserts/concedes that “Rudy Giuliani and John McCain [are] the clear frontrunners among the Republican Party’s 2008 presidential hopefuls.” In this poll, 31% said they would support Giuliani and 27% said McCain. When asked to choose between the two, however, Republicans show a “slight” [sic] preference for Giuliani over McCain at 50% to 42%, respectively. The complete article, the hard numbers, and all the cross-tabs are here:

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26341&pg=1

The substance of this new poll and article from the Gallup Organization is certainly good news for Rudy, though hardly surprising. I must say, however, that the "Conventional Wisdom" is still very much at work in the article describing the Poll.

The article’s author has done what can only be described as a disingenuous job of building up the McCain side of the poll's numbers and categories at Rudy's expense, to wit:

Rudy leads McCain by 4% in the overall horse race. He leads McCain by 8% in the head-to-head match-up, and in the cross-tabs, Rudy leads in 10 of 15 categories, including what can only be described as devastating leads with respect to crime (78%-17%), the economy (52%-38%), and terrorism (53%-41%). In the remaining five categories, Rudy is tied in two, while McCain leads in three. To express that in terms of a sports team’s record, Rudy's record against McCain would be 10-3-2.

Down in the "teeth" of the article, the Gallup Organization "concedes" that "Giuliani's perceived strengths are many, and the distance between Giuliani and McCain on some of these dimensions is very large" and "Overall, Giuliani appears to be very well positioned against McCain on many relevant and important dimensions".

Yet, the author goes out of his way to build up those relatively few areas in which McCain leads Rudy, so as, apparently, to enable him to make the overall assessment that the two candidates should essentially be considered together as "clear frontrunners". Well, if all one had to judge by were the facts presented in this article and poll, the only way in which the two should be considered together as "clear frontrunners" is that Rudy is clearly in first place, McCain is clearly in second place, and everyone else is clearly in no better than third place.

Moreover, the editors give the piece the headline "Giuliani, McCain Have Competing Strengths in Republicans' Eyes", obviously trying to fix the mindset of the reader, at the outset of the article, that neither man is leading the other, as well as to deflect attention-at-a-glance away from the hard numbers. Perhaps the most obvious "howler", however, is where the author terms Rudy's 8-point (50%-42%) in the head-to-head match-up as "slight".

I come back yet again to Deroy Murdock's observation: "The oddest thing about the conventional wisdom may be its almost bulletproof imperviousness to the facts." Indeed, here we have a purveyor of the "Conventional Wisdom" who appears to be impervious even to the facts that he himself is presenting. I would say that actually goes beyond being impervious to facts. It is downright dishonest.

Finally, as a friend of mine, who is close to Rudy personally, puts it: “I agree with you 100%. They can't come to grips with Rudy's strength in the Country and the Party”.

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

2007-01-30T05:53:00.000-08:00

AMERICA’S MAYOR IN THE GRANITE STATE

A recent SurveyUSA New Hampshire Poll, released 29 January 2007, that is gaining quite a bit of Media attention, particularly in Boston and the Northeast, shows the following:

GOP:

Rudy: 33%

McCain: 32

Romney: 21

Other: 9

DEM:

Hillary: 40%

Obama: 25

Edwards 23

Other: 11

Nothing new on the Democrat side!

On the GOP side: Even though Rudy is shown to lead McCain in New Hampshire, by 1%, nevertheless I do agree with many commentators, in the blogosphere and elsewhere, that the general value of this latest SurveyUSA poll is quite low in estimating now what the Republican Primary will look like a year from now. Certainly, this Poll’s lack of value to Romney is even more apparent because he reached the 20% level of support ONLY because Newt was removed from consideration by the Pollsters, and this from what should be a State favourable to Romney as the immediate past Governor of neighboring Massachusetts.

That said, please allow me to share with you all again a report/analysis that I first published in this space, on 11 January 2007, and that I have also posted elsewhere in the blogosphere. This report/analysis is, in my judgment, absolutely vital to assessing the state of play in New Hampshire, and I don’t believe any other commentator has mentioned it in connection with this latest SurveyUSA Poll. As you read the following report/analysis, please bear in mind two other Poll results, with which readers of this space are quite familiar, but that seem to have been forgotten elsewhere in the blogosphere:

1. A recent Zogby New Hampshire Poll, conducted 15-17 January 2007, showed the following:

Republicans:

McCain 26%

Rudy 20%

Romney 13%

Condi 7%

Newt 6%

2. A recent Fox News New Poll, released on 07 January 2007, showed Rudy leading McCain by 29% to 24%,

Now the report/analysis:

“I heard an interesting tidbit last night [10 January] in Fox News' Chief Political Correspondent Carl Cameron's report on the ‘state of things’ in New Hampshire, which I think bears on my comments yesterday about the recent poll showing Rudy leading McCain by 29% to 24% in the Granite State, as well as on the New Hampshire Primary in general.

“This tidbit is set in the context of John McCain's 2000 Republican Primary trouncing of George Bush by 49% to 32%. Mr. Cameron talked to a New Hampshire Democrat ‘political insider’ who gave the following analysis: McCain's margin of victory in 2000 was the result largely of registered independent voters who ‘broke’ hugely for the Arizona Senator -- ‘Straight Talk Express’, and all that. The 2006 elections, however, ‘changed all that’. This past November, owing to the war in Iraq and all the other things we all know about, those same independent voters voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, giving the New Hampshire polity a political ‘cast’ at all levels that is hugely Democrat, in fact more so than at any previous time in the State's history. That's more-or-less ‘fact’. The ‘analysis’ is that those voters have cast their lot with the Democrat Party, at least for the foreseeable future, and will not therefore be voting in the Republican Primary in 2008.

“I do not necessarily ‘endorse’ this analysis, but at the same time, I have no reason to doubt it. In fact, it does sound rather intuitive, and it is certainly in consonance with all the ad nauseam Media blather we heard in the wake of the 2006 elections, about how the GOP ‘lost’ the Northeastern Republicans -- the old ‘Rockefeller Republicans’ -- perhaps for good. The ‘poster boy’ example, of course, was Lincoln Chafee, who lost his and his family's long-held Senate seat in Rhode Island, apparently for no other reason than that he had an ‘R’ after his name on the ballot. Moreover, the actual results in New Hampshire in 2006, do seem to support the analysis of Mr. Cameron's interlocutor.

“If the ‘analysis’, actually an educated prediction about voting patterns in the 2008 New Hampshire primaries, proves to be accurate, then, in the current through-the-looking-glass world in which we find ourselves, this can be only good news for Rudy. I put it that way because, in the normal year, independent New Hampshire voters, who customarily vote Republican in the primary, would be exactly the kind of voter one would expect to respond very well to Rudy. Thus, their loss to the Democrat Party should hurt Rudy’s primary electoral fortunes. This time round, however, the defection of those voters to the Democrats will mean principally that the support of Rudy's primary rival has been gutted! Couple that with the recent Fox News poll and the enormous and enthusiastic turn-out for Rudy's appearances in New Hampshire last fall, and it all adds up to a very good ‘alignment of the planets’ for America's Mayor in the Granite State!”

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

2007-01-25T06:05:00.000-08:00

JOHN McCAIN: FRONTRUNNER, BECAUSE . . .?

Please tell me again, O Vaunted Conventional Wisdom! Please enlighten me anew, O Revered Beltway Punditocracy. In the race for the GOP’s 2008 Presidential Nomination: John McCain is the “Frontrunner” because . . . ? Mitt Romney is the “3^rd of the Big 3”, or indeed even a “serious candidate”, because . . . ?

In addition to the eight separate polls by American Research Group (ARG), in eight significant Primary States – polls showing Rudy with solid leads in seven of the eight – that I commented on the day before yesterday, there have been no less than five other recent polls of significant note. Below are the numbers, followed by even more significant commentary from an arch-denizen of the MSM, and purveyor of the “Conventional Wisdom”. Chris Cillizza, one of the WaPo’s own Political Columnist/Analysts.

Mr. Cillizza’s commentary is significant, not merely because of his position in the “camp of the enemy”, but particularly for what he says. He parses the WaPo/ABC News poll and shows the internal numbers or “cross tabs”. This is significant for at least two reasons:

(1) This is the closest I have seen a card-carrying member of the Beltway Punditocracy come to admitting that Rudy should be regarded at this moment as the Frontrunner “on the ground”, and

(2) The internal numbers show Rudy with significant and solid leads over John McCain among Women, among Married Women (even bigger lead), among Moderate Republicans (somewhat surprising), and (mirabile dictu), among self-identified Conservatives.

Now I grant you, it is clear from the tone of Cillizza’s commentary, that he still considers McCain to be the Frontrunner, and he assumes that Rudy’s numbers are inflated by his 9/11 performance, and that those numbers will fall as Rudy’s “negatives” become known. After all, Cillizza is an MSM sheep, so why shouldn’t he bleat like one? Nevertheless, his parsing of the numbers is worth reading.

Even if the following numbers give you a MEGO effect, please scan them quickly and read the following commentary. I promise you, you will not be disappointed.

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

________________________________

January 25, 2007

Poll Alert: Quinnipiac Shows Rudy New Jersey

Quinnipiac has come out with a presidential primary poll of New Jersey voters. Rudy Giuliani holds a wide lead, among Registered Republicians for the GOP Nomination:

[NB: The three numbers represent “total”, “men”, and “women”.]

Giuliani 39% 35% 43%

McCain 21% 22% 21%

Gingrich 11% 17% 5%

Romney 5% 6% 5%

[Next highest was George Pataki at 3%]

________________________________

January 23, 2007

Poll Alert: Rassmussen 2008 GOP & General Election

Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of 571 Likely Republican Primary Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports January 15-18, 2007. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence (results reported may not be complete-KWN):

Rudy Giuliani 30%
John McCain 22%
Newt Gingrich 12%
Mitt Romney 10%

[Next highest were Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback, tied at 2%]

_________________________________

January 24, 2007

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research

Republicans 2008: Giuliani 34%, McCain 27%

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Rudy Giuliani remains the most popular presidential hopeful for Republican Party supporters in the United States, according to a poll by TNS released by the Washington Post and ABC News. 34 per cent of respondents would support the former New York City mayor in a 2008 primary.

[NB: The first number listed reflects the survey taken in Jan. 2007, and the second number listed reflects Nov. 2006.]

Rudy Giuliani 34% 34%

John McCain 27% 26%

Mitt Romney 9% 5%

Newt Gingrich 9% 12%

[Next highest was George Pataki at 2%/ 3%]

_________________________________

January 19-21, 2007

Poll Alert: Strategic Vision Iowa

600 likely Republican caucus goers:

Rudy Giuliani 25%
John McCain 21%
Newt Gingrich 13%
Mitt Romney 8%

_________________________________

Saturday, Jan. 20, 2007

Washington Post-ABC News Poll

This poll was conducted by telephone January 16-19, 2007, among a random national sample of 1,000 adults. The results have a three-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.

(ASKED OF LEANED REPUBLICANS) If the 2008 Republican presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, for whom would you vote?

[NB: The first number listed reflects the survey taken 19 Jan. 2007, and the second number listed reflects 11 Dec. 2006.]

Rudy Giuliani 34% 34%

John McCain 27% 26%

Mitt Romney 9% 5%

Newt Gingrich 9 % 12%

[Next highest was Tommy Thompson at 1% and 2%]

Now, as I promised, here is the “parsing of the numbers” from the WaPo’s own Political Columnist/Analyst:

“Turning to the Republicans, the only subgroup comparisons worth making at the moment are between Giuliani and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.). None of the other potential candidates garner enough support to make the slicing and dicing of their numbers insightful.

“Overall, Giuliani led McCain 34 percent to 27 percent. No other candidate nudged into double figures; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) each received nine percent.

“Drilling down into the numbers, the first thing that becomes clear is that Giuliani's lead is the result of a somewhat striking gender gap. While Giuliani and McCain both take 32 percent among men, Hizzoner leads McCain 35 percent to 22 percent among women. Among married men and women the gap is even larger. Married men favor McCain by a 36 percent to 30 percent margin; married women go for Giuliani 40 percent to 20 percent. Are these married women the "security moms" over whom so much ink was spilled in the 2004 election? Is Giuliani's lead among females tied to his handling of Sept. 11, 2001 and the belief that he can best keep the country safe from future attack? And will these numbers move when details of Giuliani's personal life, which have been fodder for the New York tabloids, become more widely known?

“The other intriguing contrast in the McCain/Giuliani numbers come when voters are broken down by ideology. Moderate Republican voters go for Giuliani 37 percent to 32 percent -- not terribly surprising given that the former mayor is clearly the most moderate/liberal candidate in the field. Self-identified conservatives chose Giuliani 33 percent to 21 percent.

“The twelve-point bulge for Giuliani among conservatives reveals two things. First, Giuliani's Sept. 11 aura appears at the moment to be masking or eclipsing his liberal social views in the eyes of conservative voters. Second, although McCain agrees with conservatives on most issues he still bears the lingering scars of the 2000 campaign when he was cast -- wrongly his staff argues -- as the moderate alternative to the conservative George W. Bush.

“For McCain to win the nomination he must hope that these conservatives decide he is the best combination of a candidate who generally supports their views and who can also win in November 2008. Romney is gunning for these influential conservative voters but could struggle due to his evolving position on social issues. Enter Gingrich or even Sen. Sam Brownback (Kans.).”

2007-01-24T12:28:00.000-08:00

IN DEFENSE OF DISCUSSION!

As most of you know, I visit frequently a web-site called “Race 4 2008” (http://race42008.com/). Sometimes, I post a comment. When I do, this comment usually leads to a similar posting here, almost always after I have revised it. “Race 4 2008” provides a forum for discussion centered around the race for the GOP’s Presidential nomination in 2008. In addition, the sponsors of that site rate the current and potential Republican candidates in what they call “Power Rankings” Since 29 November 2006, these Power Rankings have had Rudy and McCain in a tie for first place with Romney in third and Newt in fourth, and all the others lined up thereafter, more or less as one might expect. Recently, some supporters of Romney, and indeed, even some supporters of Mike Huchabee, accused the organizers of the site of being “biased” in favour of Rudy in the Power Rankings. This led to a spirited debate! I thought that readers of this site might be interested to see what I had to say. Here it is:

I must come to the defense of this site. I have been a regular visitor, and sometime commentator, since last June/July. As I have groked the purpose of this site, it is intended to present a forum for open political discussion – centered around the contest for the GOP’s Presidential nomination in 2008 -- not to strive for metaphysical clarity or rectitude. In my judgment, the site succeeds admirably in its purpose. I have seen some of the most absolutely inane and puerile opinions expressed here, opinions that strain my own commitment to civil discourse to the breaking point. I have also seen opinions evidencing great sagacity, maturity, and insight -- verging on real profundity. I have seen everything in between. My overall seat-of-the-pants assessment of the site’s content would weigh distinctly toward the latter, rather than the former. Moreover, these disparate opinions are expressed by a huge number of contributors, apparently from all across the country. For a discussion forum, gentlemen, that is real success!

Before I turn to the issue of the “Power Rankings”, a bit of disclosure is in order. There is no question that I support Rudy Giuliani for the Presidency in 2008! See: “Run Rudy Run”. During Rudy’s tenure as U.S. Attorney in New York in the 1980’s, I was a practicing attorney and negotiated with his office on more than a few occasions. I supported Ron Lauder against Rudy in the 1989 Mayoral Primary. Subsequently, I saw the error of my ways and supported Rudy in all his three runs for Gracie Mansion. All that said, I have been involved in Republican politics since 1960, when I handed out leaflets on the street corner for Richard Nixon. I covered the 1968 Democrat convention in Chicago as a reporter for my college newspaper. My first foray into politics as other than a volunteer or journalist was in the short-lived 1982 Senate campaign of Republican Mike Seymour in New York. I have truly “seen it all”.

As for the “Power Rankings”: Ranking Rudy and McCain as “tied” for the status of “frontrunner” seems to me a very thoughtful and creative way to address a somewhat ambiguous and confusing, if not unique, situation. At this point in time, every single hard fact-on-the-ground places Rudy as the clear frontrunner, with McCain a distinct second, albeit not terribly far back. No one else is even close. At the same time, the “Conventional Wisdom”, the MSM, the Beltway Punditocracy, and the “Wise Men” of Washington, all virtually unanimously rate McCain as the frontrunner, even to the point of disdaining or ignoring Rudy. Then there is the nagging suspicion, even among some of his supporters -- though not I -- that Rudy will ultimately eschew actually running. Finally, there is the inescapable fact that not a single meaningful vote has yet been cast. Without trying here to assess the underlying reasons for this situation -- as National Review’s Deroy Murdock puts it: "[t]he oddest thing about the conventional wisdom may be its almost bulletproof imperviousness to the facts” -- the question nevertheless presents itself: What’s an honest power ranker to do? As I say, the “tie” seems to me a thoughtful and creative answer.

As for the rest of the rankings: Romney (3^rd) and Newt (4^th) were, when these rankings were last updated, and still are, the only other potential candidates who had/have shown any objective sign of breaking away from the rest of the pack, though neither has shown any objective sign of actually challenging Rudy or McCain. As I have shown in other postings on this site, Newt has of late -- though he still insists he has not made the decision to run and will not run unless the top-tier candidates falter -- significantly out-performed Romney, who has actually formed an Exploratory Committee. At same time, there are those on this site and elsewhere who firmly insist that Romney is “the 3^rd of the Big 3”, or that he will leap into the lead when his poll numbers rise and Rudy’s decline, or some such thing, all with absolutely no objective evidence to support their wishful thinking. Ho-hum; whatever! In my view, these two, Newt and Romney, should be viewed at this point in time as the only “other” potential candidates who have even a glimmer of hope of competing seriously for the nomination, and that’s just where the Power Rankings have them: in 3^rd and 4^th place, the specific order is irrelevant.

Below that, there’s no one yet that I am willing to take the time even to consider. By that, I do not mean to denigrate any of them. Some of them are very fine men and government officials. I actually like Mike Huckabee, and I have known Jim Gilmore for almost 50 years. [Note: Jim is not currently in the Power Rankings because (I assume), when they were last up-dated, he had not yet formed his Exploratory Committee.] That said, for a mature, indeed sentient, human being to opine seriously that “Huckabee will come through” or “I prefer Tom Tancredo over Duncan Hunter, or vice versa”, or “Jim Gilmore is the only true conservative in the race”, or “Condi Rice will ultimately be drafted by the American People”, is, in my judgment at this time, nothing more than mental masturbation.

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

2007-01-23T07:50:00.000-08:00

TO THE TINTINNABULATION THAT SO MUSICALLY ROLLS FROM THE POLLS, POLLS, POLLS, POLLS, POLLS, POLLS, POLLS!

Below are the eight-state Republican Primary Poll numbers released by American Research Group (ARG) on 22 January 2007, i.e., Michigan, Missouri, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, New Mexico, California, and North Carolina. But, first . . .

My tally of place finishes:

Rudy: 7 firsts 1 second

McCain: 1 first 5 seconds 2 thirds

Newt: 2 seconds 4 thirds 2 fourths

Romney: 2 thirds 1 fourth 3 fifth 2 sixth

_______________________________

My tally of average race-by-race percentage:

Rudy: 31.9

McCain: 22.9

Newt: 12.0

Romney: 04.9

_________________________________

My tally of these 8 States' 2008 Electoral Votes:

Rudy: 161

i.e., 59.6% of total needed to win the General Election

McCain: 11

Newt: -0-

Romney: -0-

_________________________________

My tally of the Newt-Romney Match-up:

Average Percent: Newt 12.0 Romney 04.9

Higher ranking: Newt 6 Romney 2

Electoral Votes: Newt 134 Romney 28

Double figures: Newt 5 Romney 2

Second Place: Newt 2 Romney 0

Third Place: Newt 4 Romney 2

Fourth Place: Newt 2 Romney 1

Fifth Place: Romney 3 Newt 0

Sixth Place: Romney 2 Newt 0 Gilmore 2

Don't forget: Newt isn't even running!

_________________________________

Now, if I understand the litany of the MSM, the "Conventional Wisdom", and the Beltway Punditocracy correctly, all this means that: (1) Rudy's numbers will go down, but Mitt's numbers will come up. (2) At worst, Romney is the third of the "Big Three" Republican candidates. In a word: Hogwash! In a phrase: Utter Hogwash! In a sentence: These people are deluding themselves!

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

My penultimate conclusion: Newt for Veep!

_________________________________

January 22, 2007

Poll Alert: 8 State Poll from ARG

Michigan
Giuliani 34%
McCain 24%
Romney 10%
Gingrich 9%
Thompson 7%
Huckabee 2%
Undecided 14%
Under 1%: Brownback, Gilmore, Hagel, Hunter, Pataki

Missouri
McCain 31%
Giuliani 18%
Gingrich 14%
Brownback 5%
Hagel 3%
Romney 2%
Thompson 2%
Huckabee 1%
Undecided 24%
Under 1%: Gilmore, Hunter, Pataki

Florida
Giuliani 30%
Gingrich 16%
McCain 15%
Hagel 2%
Romney 2%
Huckabee 1%
Brownback 1%
Pataki 1%
Undecided 32%
Under 1%: Gilmore, Hunter, Thompson

Pennsylvania
Giuliani 35%
McCain 25%
Gingrich 10%
Hagel 4%
Brownback 2%
Gilmore 1%
Huckabee 1%
Romney 1%
Undecided 21%
Under 1%: Hunter, Pataki, Thompson

Illinois
Giuliani 33%
McCain 24%
Romney 12%
Gingrich 8%
Brownback 4%
Thompson 4%
Hagel 3%
Hunter 1%
Undecided 11%
Under 1%: Gilmore, Huckabee, Pataki

New Mexico
Giuliani 38%
McCain 20%
Gingrich 9%
Romney 7%
Hagel 6%
Brownback 4%
Pataki 1%
Undecided 15%
Under 1%: Gilmore, Huckabee, Hunter, Thompson

California
Giuliani 33%
Gingrich 19%
McCain 18%
Hagel 5%
Romney 3%
Hunter 1%
Undecided 22%
Under 1%: Brownback, Gilmore, Huckabee, Pataki, Thompson

North Carolina
Giuliani 34%
McCain 26%
Gingrich 11%
Huckabee 4%
Hagel 2%
Romney 2%
Gilmore 1%
Undecided: 21%
Under 1%: Brownback, Hunter, Pataki, Thompson

2007-01-19T07:20:00.000-08:00

NEW ZOGBY NEW HAMPSHIRE POLL!

The Zogby Organization has released a new New Hanpshire poll. The Democratic and Republican live operator telephone surveys were conducted Jan. 15-17, 2007. The Democratic poll included 502 respondents and carries a margin of error of +/- 4.5 percentage points. The Republican survey included 503 respondents and carries a margin of error of +/- 4.5 percentage points. The numbers:

Republicans:

John McCain 26%

Rudy Giuliani 20%

Mitt Romney 13%

Condi Rice 7%

Newt Gingrich 6%

Chuck Hagel 3%

Tom Tancredo 2%

Duncan Hunter 1%

George Pataki 1%

Ron Paul 1%

Unsure 15%

Democrats:

Barack Obama 23%

Hillary Clinton 19%

John Edwards 19%

John Kerry 5%

Wes Clark 3%

Joe Biden 3%

Dennis Kucinich 1%

Bill Richardson 1%

Tom Vilsack 1%

Unsure 22%

Here, I will say the same thing about Zogby/New Hampshire that I did about Zogby/Iowa:

“The Zogby organization is downright notorious for polling to the "Left", both among Republicans and among Democrats. In my almost 40 years of studying political polls, I have noticed that the Zogby poll, for however long its been around -- I don't remember exactly -- has consistently been an outlier to the left. Hence, Rudy is down from the 30%-18% lead he enjoyed over McCain among Iowa Caucus Workers in August, and Hillary is tied for third place, some 11 points behind Class Warrior Edwards.”

Further to this point: I would remind everyone that a Fox News poll, released on 07 January 2007, had Rudy leading McCain in New Hampshire Poll by 29% to 24%.

Further still to this point, because I think it quite significant, I would offer yet again the following two observations, one each about Iowa and New Hampshire, which I have recently posted in this space:

Posted: 15 January 2007:

RUDY HAS STAR POWER IN IOWA!

The "Krusty Konservative", a blog concentrating on Iowa, has commented recently on the 2008 Iowa caucuses. The money quote is this, and if you are a regular reader of this blog, said quote more-or-less speaks for itself, needing no further embellishment from me:

"So while McCain starts to attack Romney, and Romney will likely fire back, a huge opportunity will be created in Iowa for an alternative kandidate to emerge. We have discussed in depth that there is a huge void that exists in Iowa for a kredible konservative kandidate, but I also think it might now be an opportune time for Rudy Giuliani to make a foray into Iowa.

"Giuliani will face many of the same obstacles that McCain faces, but what makes Rudy different than McCain is he does have a silver bullet, star power. Giuliani is a celebrity, and if uses that advantage he could really make some noise in Iowa. Now, I'm not a fan of Rudy's positions on the social issues, but when it comes to leadership and toughness he is off the charts. I also think that Giuliani might be the only Republican kandidate who can recapture the national security issues that has delivered victories for Bush and Republicans in 2002 and 2004. I'm still not konvinced that Rudy will play in Iowa, but if he does it will be extremely interesting to watch."

Posted: 11 January 2007:

MORE ON NEW HAMPSHIRE

I heard an interesting tidbit last night in Fox News' Chief Political Correspondent Carl Cameron's report on the "state of things" in New Hampshire, which I think bears on my comments yesterday about the recent poll showing Rudy leading McCain by 29% to 24% in the Granite State, as well as on the New Hampshire Primary in general.

This tidbit is set in the context of John McCain's 2000 Republican Primary trouncing of George Bush by 49% to 32%. Mr. Cameron talked to a New Hampshire Democrat "political insider" who gave the following analysis: McCain's margin of victory in 2000 was the result largely of registered independent voters who "broke" hugely for the Arizona Senator -- "Straight Talk Express", and all that. The 2006 elections, however, "changed all that". This past November, owing to the war in Iraq and all the other things we all know about, those same independent voters voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, giving the New Hampshire polity a political "cast" at all levels that is hugely Democrat, in fact more so than at any previous time in the State's history. That's more-or-less "fact". The "analysis" is that those voters have cast their lot with the Democrat Party, at least for the foreseeable future, and will not therefore be voting in the Republican Primary in 2008.

I do not necessarily "endorse" this analysis, but at the same time, I have no reason to doubt it. In fact, it does sound rather intuitive, and it is certainly in consonance with all the ad nauseam Media blather we heard in the wake of the 2006 elections, about how the GOP "lost" the Northeastern Republicans -- the old "Rockefeller Republicans" -- perhaps for good. The "poster boy" example, of course, was Lincoln Chafee, who lost his and his family's long-held Senate seat in Rhode Island, apparently for no other reason than that he had an "R" after his name on the ballot. Moreover, the actual results in New Hampshire in 2006, do seem to support the analysis of Mr. Cameron's interlocutor.

If the "analysis", actually an educated prediction about voting patterns in the 2008 New Hampshire primaries, proves to be accurate, then, in the current through-the-looking-glass world in which we find ourselves, this can be only good news for Rudy. I put it that way because, in the normal year, independent New Hampshire voters, who customarily vote Republican in the primary, would be exactly the kind of voter one would expect to respond very well to Rudy. Thus, their loss to the Democrat Party should hurt Rudy’s primary electoral fortunes. This time round, however, the defection of those voters to the Democrats will mean principally that the support of Rudy's primary rival has been gutted! Couple that with the recent Fox News poll and the enormous and enthusiastic turn-out for Rudy's appearances in New Hampshire last fall, and it all adds up to a very good "alignment of the planets" for America's Mayor in the Granite State!

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

2007-01-18T13:11:00.000-08:00

THE TALE OF THE POLLS: SECOND VERSE, SAME AS THE FIRST!

Within the past two days, 17 and 18 January, there have been three new scientific polls published, all showing Rudy with his by now customary lead for the Republican Nomination: (1) a Strategic Vision poll in Georgia; (2) a national Gallup Poll, and (3) a poll from the Zogby Organization among “likely caucus-goers in Iowa. Below, I have reproduced (only) the Republican side of these three polls, and I have limited them to the top contenders. Following that I have reproduced a very interesting colloquy in which I participated in the “Comments” section following the Zogby-Iowa poll results at “Race 4 2008” (). I think readers of this space will be very interested in this back-and-forth. Be sure to read all the way to the end. I promise you it will be worth it!

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

___________________________________

January 17, 2007

Gallup Poll: Rudy Widens Lead Over McCain, Newt and Mitt Improving

Gallup Poll. Jan. 12-14, 2007. N=412 Republicans and Republican leaners nationwide. MoE ± 5 .

"Next, I'm going to read a list of people who may be running in the Republican primary for president in the next election. After I read all the names, please tell me which of those candidates you would be most likely to support for the Republican nomination for president in the year 2008, or if you would support someone else. . . ." Names rotated. Rice was included in the list of candidates in 2006.

Jan Dec Nov

Rudy Giuliani 31 28 28

John McCain 27 28 26

Newt Gingrich 10 8 7

Mitt Romney 7 4 5

____________________________________

January 18, 2007

Poll Alert: Strategic Vision Georgia

For the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination whom would you support? (Republicans Only)

Rudy Giuliani 27%
John McCain 24%
Newt Gingrich 12%
Mitt Romney 7%
___________________________________

January 17, 2007

Poll Alert: Zogby 2008 Iowa Caucus

A Zogby poll; conducted 1/15-16; surveyed 465 likely GOP caucus-goers (margin of error +/- 4.6%); released 1/17). “Who do you support for the Republican nomination in 2008?

R. Giuliani 19%

J. McCain 17

N. Gingrich 13

C. Rice 9

M. Romney 5

Other/undec 31

__________________________

· Luther C. Hardy Says:
January 18th, 2007 at 9:23 am

Two points:

1. The Zogby organization is downright notorious for polling to the “Left”, both among Republicans and among Democrats. In my almost 40 years of studying political polls, I have noticed that the Zogby poll, for however long its been around — I don’t remember exactly — has consistently be an outlier to the left. Hence, Rudy is down from the 30%-18% lead he enjoyed over McCain among Iowa Caucus Workers in August, and Hillary is tied for third place, some 11 points behind Class Warrior Edwards.

2. I have been hearing for more than a year now that Rudy’s consistently high poll standing is based largely if not solely on ignorance. “When all those Right Wingers really get to know what he stands for, they won’t vote for him!” I honestly don’t know whether to laugh or cry. I don’t think I have ever seen such a persistent example of mass idiocy! There is obviously some sort of underlying psycho-pathological syndrome at work here. Or could it just be that the Beltway Elite is simply scared to death of a Rudy Presidency? — just the way that Mobsters, Inside Traders, and the Koch administration were scared to death of him when he was U.S. Attorney.

Of course, no evidence is ever given as to why Rudy’s poll numbers will come down, and no acknowledgement is ever given of all the sophisticated push-polling that has been done to compensate for possible ignorance of Rudy’s past positions, and when this is done, his numbers do not drop significantly! Put simply: Where is the hard evidence, for example, that “likely Iowa Caucus goers” — a famously savvy group on Presidential politics — are any more or less aware of McCain’s positions than Rudy’s, or vice versa? The facts are that Rudy has been pilloried from one end of the political spectrum to the other, from The NYT Editorial Page to that of the WSJ, about his soi disant “liberal positions”, yet he still consistently out-polls the Republican field, even in savvy Iowa and hard-core Republican “Base” States like Georgia.

I have written many times that it is downright insulting to the Christian Right, and other like-minded voters, to assume that they do not know of Rudy’s past positions. With all the attention and publicity that those positions have gotten, and are continuing to get, such a continuing assumption is downright idiotic.

Moreover, it’s even worse than that! In fact, it is not Rudy’s actual past positions that have gotten such attention and publicity. It is rather either a simply untrue statement of those positions, a caricature of them, or a Panglossian expression of distaste. For example: Rudy does not now, and has not ever, supported Gay marriage. Yet, just recently I heard no less a Media personage than Tom Brokaw give a political “analysis” where he stated flatly, and without contradiction, that among Rudy’s liberal positions that the “Right” will not like is that he (Rudy) supports Gay marriage! Another example: Rudy supported handgun-control for New York City when he was Mayor, yet he has stated that he does not support gun-control as a national policy.

All of this is particularly important for this reason. Of all those people who do “know” of Rudy’s positions — and he still remains the leader in the polls even after push-polling — what many, if indeed not most, of them “know” is the Media caricature of his positions. This actually leads to the conclusion, and there is a bit more than “some” evidence already to support this point, that when voters learn of Rudy’s actual positions, and find out that they are not so outré Lefty as they have been portrayed to be, his political support will actually go up.

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

· HeavyM Says:
January 18th, 2007 at 9:50 am

Luther,

I don’t have any scientific evidence, but I have plenty of anecdotes supporting the fact that when people get to know Rudy, they will not vote for him. I am not sure if it will play out nationwide like it does in my friends’ lives, but for whatever it’s worth: I have three friends specifically that I am thinking of that are fairly politically savvy. Out of those three, only one knew that Rudy was pro-choice all the way to partial birth abortion and pro-gun control. That one said he could never vote for Rudy based on those positions. The other two told me, after seeing Rudy in some magazine or commercial somewhere, that they hoped he ran and were thinking of voting for him. I said, “I don’t know if I could ever vote for him…” When asked why, I told them he was majorly pro-choice and pro-gun control. Both were shocked, surprised, and, after a few seconds of pondering the new information, said, “I don’t know if I could vote for him then, either.”

I know there’s scientific polls to show otherwise, but I will be interested to see what those polls show the closer we get to the primaries when it’s not theoretical and folks have to make an actual decision.

· Luther C. Hardy Says:
January 18th, 2007 at 10:28 am

HeavyM:

Actually, the reaction of your friends makes my point, and also points up the difference between “scientific” push-polling and anecdotal evidence: Rudy is actually not “pro abortion all the way to partial birth” and he does not support “gun control” either for the nation as a whole, nor the kind of gun control that most concerns the Republican “Base” in the South. Being in favour of controlling “Saturday night specials” in New York City is a distinctly different position that supporting the control of hunting rifles/shotguns in Alabama. As for the abortion position, there are a number of good articles floating around about how Rudy wrestled with this issue, vis-à-vis his sincerely held Catholic faith when first he considered a run for public office in the late 1980’s. I’ll see if I can find a cite for you.

Moreover, I have never had any doubt that Rudy most probably will not win outright the Christian Right, and other like-minded voters, though I would not bet the farm against it. That said, I think the more precise point is as I wrote in a posting on my own blog “Run Rudy Run” (http://lutherhardy.blogspot.com/) on 01 December 2006:

“Don’t forget, Rudy doesn’t actually have to win this block of voters. All he has to do is garner enough of their votes so that they don’t vote as a bloc for someone else and thereby deliver a primary win to that someone else.”

The title of the full posting is “The Frontrunnig Underdog”. Here is a longer excerpt:

“At least as important as Mr. Murdock’s prose, however, is the chart (reproduced below) that he compiled from Quinnipiac’s “Thermometer Reading” poll (conducted 13-19 November 2006), in conjunction with his article on Rudy in National Review On-Line, yesterday, 30 November 2006. I don’t believe I have ever seen anything quite this astounding. One should study this chart carefully!

“At the same time that the MSM and the “Conventional Wisdom” are loudly trumpeting John McCain as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2008, Rudy leads every current potential candidate in every category of potential voters! Let me say that again louder: RUDY LEADS EVERY CURRENT POTENTIAL CANDIDATE IN EVERY CATEGORY OF POTENTIAL VOTERS!

“Even when non-candidates for 2008 are considered, Rudy still leads in 8 of 9 categories. The 9th category is “Republicans” where Rudy comes in a close 3rd to two non-candidates: 1. Condi Rice 72.3%; 2. President Bush 72.1%; 3. Rudy 71.7%. More importantly, however, even in this category, Rudy leads actual potential candidates, McCain (by 9.5 percentage points), Gingrich (12.8), and Romney (18.9), all by margins that are solidly above that category’s announced margin of error of +/-4.4%.

“Most importantly of all, however, in the category of “White Born-Again Christians”, Rudy leads the entire field by substantial margins. Here again, Rudy leads actual potential candidates McCain (9.2), Gingrich (18.5), and Romney (19.9), by margins that are solidly above that category’s announced margin of error 0f +/-4.7%. What is most important here is that this is the very category that the MSM and the “Conventional Wisdom” say is supposed to deny Rudy the Republican nomination.

“Moreover, that’s all they have to say against Rudy. Let me say that again louder: THAT’S ALL THEY HAVE TO SAY AGAINST RUDY! There is no other reason advanced by the MSM and the “Conventional Wisdom” as to why Rudy won’t win the nomination than that the Christian Right in the South won’t vote for him in the primaries. Yet, not only does Rudy lead every other name advanced in this category, he also leads Mitt Romney, supposedly the new “darling” of the Values Voters, by almost 20 percentage points! Don’t forget, Rudy doesn’t actually have to win this block of voters. All he has to do is garner enough of their votes so that they don’t vote as a bloc for someone else and thereby deliver a primary win to that someone else.”

In addition, if you do visit “Run Rudy Run”, on these subjects, I would recommend initially the following postings: the one entitled “Polls, Polls, and More Polls”, on 04 October 2006, “Don’t Ignore this Poll” from 12 October 2006, “Another Poll to Remember” from 16 October 2006, “Politics, Polls, etc.” from 10 January 2007, and “More from New Hampshire” on 11 January 2007.

Finally, like you I eagerly await what the polls show the closer we get to the primaries when it’s not theoretical and voters have to make an actual decision. My “nose” tells me that people underestimate Rudy at their peril. Most pointed, I think they underestimate Rudy’s metaphysical bond with grass-roots America.

· HeavyM Says:
January 18th, 2007 at 10:48 am

Luther, I agree with much of what you’ve written - that is, the polls do show Rudy in the lead right now and strong in every group of GOP voters. There’s no doubting that. I just wonder how many know Rudy’s actual stances on the issues, and when they do, whether or not that will affect their voting decisions. I know, it’s a line oft trumpeted by the MSM, but I can’t help but have it in the back of my mind.

Rudy certainly is pro-choice up to partial birth abortion, and has fought for public funding for abortions in NYC as well as said “No woman should ever be denied her right to an abortion.” Now, if he’s had some kind of change of heart on this issue I might take a look at the guy. But that’s doubtful as well, since he said “I don’t see my position on that changing” in regards to supporting partial birth abortion.

And he did get an F from Gun Owners of America (I couldn’t find an NRA rating on him), which seems to tell me that he has gone a little farther than just outlawing Saturday Night Specials while mayor.

· Grant Gormley Says:
January 18th, 2007 at 11:30 am

Luther–good job.. What others seem to say is:Ignore the polls showing Rudy is the most popular politician in America. They say Rudy is up but will go down when people get to know him. But Romney is down but will go up when people get to know him. That argument is rubbish. Go Rudy.

· Luther C. Hardy Says:
January 18th, 2007 at 1:30 pm

HeavyM and Grant:

I look forward hugely to continuing to correspond with both of you as we wend our way toward 20 January 2009!

I shall look for more information on Rudy on both abortion and gun control. It may take me a while, however, because I do after all have a law practice to run. I do know, however, that Rudy has said that he views gun-control to be a matter of Federalism, i.e., local control, though I cannot give you the specific citation off the seat of my pants. Rudy certainly has an obligation to set forth his present positions. I do not, however, take the "F" grade by GOA any more seriously than I would take a special-interest group on the Left skewering Hillary because she voted for the war in Iraq.

I really don't like to get myself drawn in to a discussion of Rudy's past positions, though I do it far more than I probably ought do. My basic position is this: Because of 9/11 the American public forged an almost mystical bond with Rudy, a bond that goes way beyond this position or that position. Moreover, Rudy's record as Mayor before 9/11 actually stands up well by comparison to his performance in the wake of 9/11.

There are no doubt many people who will not vote for him because of this position or that position. The 2008 election, however, will, in my judgment, turn on Leadership, with a Capital “L”, and particularly so with respect to “National Security” and “Homeland Security”. I am convinced that there are many people, including many in the Christian Right, who are going to strike an implicit bargain with Rudy and pull the lever for him in order to get his Leadership, even though they may have to “hold their nose” while doing so, on this or that issue. To some degree, I could indeed describe myself that way.

If you do read “Run Rudy Run”, you will find numerous instances where sophisticated commentators have also seen this tendency toward an implicit “bargain” with Rudy, including more than a few on the Christian Right, e.g., Fred Barnes. I would never criticize any actual voter who decided not to vote for Rudy because of what that voter considered to be a moral issue. Though I might not make the same choice myself, I do respect it.

What really drives me up the bleeding wall, however, and I am NOT referring here to either of you two gentlemen, is this. The Establishment Left, i.e., the “Conventional Wisdom”, the Mainstream Media, and the Beltway Punditoctacy are, in my judgment, using the Christian Right, whom they themselves disdain, as a verbal stalking horse for their own opposition to Rudy, so they won’t have to spell out their own reasons for opposing him. “The Christian Right opposes him, ergo, he can’t get the Republican nomination, ergo, all the PLU can simply dismiss him.”

These people oppose Rudy, not on any sincerely felt moral ground, but because they are afraid to the core of their souls of a Rudy Presidency. They are so deathly afraid of Rudy, first, because they KNOW they will not be able to “control” President Giuliani in the way they believe they would be able to control President McCain. More importantly, however, they are afraid because they KNOW that a Giuliani Presidency would absolutely sweep them from their customary positions of influence. Indeed, it would be like the 11^th Labour of Hercules where he mucked out the Augean stables by diverting the flow of the Alpheus River.

Finally, it really PISSES ME OFF that these pompous blowhards think they can get away with using the Christian Right in this way.

marK Says:

January 18th, 2007 at 2:27 pm

They do the same with Romney, Luther. How does the serenity prayer go again?

Lord, give me the courage to change the things I can change,
The patience to endure the things I can’t change,
And the wisdom to see the difference.

…or something like that.

Grant Gormley Says:

January 18th, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Luther==I don’t know if I am part of the Christian right or not, but I am catholic, social conservative, and financial conservative. I am a retired lawyer so no law firm to run. I support Rudy because only two Repubs can win–Rudy and McCain. I don’t like McCain because he backstabbed GW for 6 years so that leaves Rudy. I also don’t like the commentators who say Rudy can’t win. I can’t think of a social conservative commentator on TV other than Cal Thomas and Pat Buchanan(whatever he is). Unlike the commentators on tv, I actually don’t feel condicension for social conservatives. Many like me support Rudy because of 9/11.

Luther C. Hardy Says:

January 18th, 2007 at 3:28 pm

Mark:

If I were that wise, I would not be involved in politics!

Luther C. Hardy Says:

January 18th, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Grant:

It sounds like you and I are, if not exactly on the same page, then no more than a page apart!

As for the Christian Right, I would count you in that group, as I would myself — a High-Church Anglican Virginian, who is just this side of being a full-blown Libertarian. The necessity, as I perceive it, for a strong military and strong fiscal discipline keeps me “just this side”. I practiced law in New York for 20 years, and negotiated many times with Rudy’s U.S. Attorney’s office. If Rudy and I belonged to the same debating club, we might very well find ourselves on opposite sides of more issues than not. His leadership as Mayor of NYC, and his performance in the wake of 9/11, however, puts him in a different category for me than merely someone with whom I might or might not disagree, on this or that issue.

My attitude toward Rudy is very much akin to the attitude expressed by the arch-Jacobin, General Vandamme about the Emperor Napoleon: “And so it was that I, who feared neither God nor Devil, trembled like a child when I approached him! And, I would have followed wherever he chose to lead.”

Back to the Christian Right: Despite how you and I might count ourselves, I fear that the Beltway Punditocracy, when it uses that or a similar term, intends it to mean someone more along the lines of a Southern Fundamentalist or Evangelical Protestant, a la Jerry Falwell – for whom I have enormous respect, though he would never be my confessor. That’s why, I think, the Quinnipiac “Thermometer Reading” poll came up with the category of “White Born-Again Christian Males”. In my view, this is one of the myriad of ways in which the Beltway Elite express subtly their disdain for anyone who is not PLU, including those who profess a sincere Christian faith. I cannot profess to know Rudy intimately, but I do know him well enough to assure you that his Catholic faith is deeply and sincerely held.

As for Media Personae, I would limit my social conservative commentators on T.V. to Cal Thomas and Fred Barnes. Pat, I am afraid long ago, became more Beltway Media Insider that Conservative Catholic Christian.

2007-01-15T05:35:00.000-08:00

RUDY HAS STAR POWER IN IOWA!

The "Krusty Konservative", a blog concentrating on Iowa, has commented on the 2008 Iowa caucuses.

(http://krustykonservative.blogspot.com/2007/01/iowas-political-landscape.html)

The money quote is this, and if you are a regular reader of this blog, said quote more-or-less speaks for itself, needing no further embellishment from me:

The full posting is this:

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Iowa's Political Landscape

While the main street media, DC politicos, and bloggers outside of Iowa see John McCain as the clear frontrunner in the race for the Republican nomination, the political landscape in Iowa is much different. Yesterday's Roll Call article helped shed some light on what is going on in Iowa.

Roll Call interviewed 63 county chairs and 42 of those said that likely caucus-goers in their area are not inclined to support McCain, 15 said opinions on the Senator are mixed, and 6 said there was enthusiasm for McCain. While the news wasn't good for McCain, Romney faired much better with Iowa's Republican County Chairs, a majority of them said he is exciting the base.

I'm sure that people outside of Iowa are wondering if the opinion of Iowa's Republican county chairs is any accurate indicator of grassroots support for the various 2008 presidential candidates. The reason why this is an accurate representation is because the majority of county chairs are simply activist, they are the everyday Iowans who will actually go to their caucus. It's also important to note that only 100,000 people will probably attend the Iowa Republican caucuses. It takes a pretty motivated person to spend an evening at their local caucus.

It is obvious that McCain has some big hurdles to overcome in Iowa if he is going to be successful in the Straw Poll and Iowa Caucus. He can overcome them, but it is going to take a lot of hard work, and a campaign team with a golden touch with Iowa activist. For McCain there isn't a silver bullet issues that propel him to victory in Iowa. Instead, McCain is going to need to visit every nook and cranny of Iowa and get to know Iowans in hopes that they get to know, and end up liking him.

I'm pretty sure that the Romney folks were thrilled to see the Roll Call article. However, it also creates a problem for them. Romney is now konsidered the frontrunner in Iowa, which is a position that will bring additional challenges to the Romney kampaign.

One of the problems is expectations. Romney is now expected to do very well in Iowa. I really don't think the Romney campaign is going to worry much about this, they need to win Iowa, and they know it. But while their expectations when up with the latest news, McCain's have now lowered in Iowa, which they needed to do.

The other problem for Romney is the target is now on his back. As the frontrunner in Iowa, Romney is going to be attached from all sides, and especially from John McCain. Yesterday we saw the sudden appearance of a YouTube video that shows Romney answering questions about gay rights and abortion. I find the timing of these things to be very interesting. I don't think it's a koincidence that the same day John McCain gets some bad news, an anti-Romney clip surfaces.

So while McCain starts to attack Romney, and Romney will likely fire back, a huge opportunity will be created in Iowa for an alternative kandidate to emerge. We have discussed in depth that there is a huge void that exists in Iowa for a kredible konservative kandidate, but I also think it might now be an opportune time for Rudy Giuliani to make a foray into Iowa.

Giuliani will face many of the same obstacles that McCain faces, but what makes Rudy different than McCain is he does have a silver bullet, star power. Giuliani is a celebrity, and if uses that advantage he could really make some noise in Iowa. Now, I'm not a fan of Rudy's positions on the social issues, but when it comes to leadership and toughness he is off the charts. I also think that Giuliani might be the only Republican kandidate who can recapture the national security issues that has delivered victories for Bush and Republicans in 2002 and 2004. I'm still not konvinced that Rudy will play in Iowa, but if he does it will be extremely interesting to watch.

The majority of traditional caucus goers are social konservatives, and that block of voters kurrently lacks an active kredible konservative kandidate. It seems like there is an early move towards Romney, but as McCain and other candidates will do all they can to educate them Romney's past statements that could change. However it doesn't guarantee that they then flock to McCain, they might go with a Huckabee or Brownback instead.

Success for McCain and Giuliani in the Iowa Caucus will depend on their ability to motivate people who don't normally attend a caucus to go out and support them. It's my opinion that Giuliani would be more successful at that than McCain will.

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

2007-01-14T16:14:00.000-08:00

TELL ME AGAIN, WHO’S GOING TO DENY WHOM THE NOMINATION?

As you read the interview I have reproduced below with Dr. James Dobson, don't forget -- as if you could -- that the "Conventional Wisdom", the MSM, and the Beltway Punditocracy have all been saying for months, if not years, that the Christian Right, for whom Dr. Dobson is a major spokesman, will deny Rudy the Republican nomination -- that's right, Rudy, not McCain. I have not heard one single peep from these self-appointed "Wise Men" to the effect that John McCain will have any problem whatsoever with the Christian Right as he seeks the nomination. Now, essentially out of the blue, a scant year before the start of the Primary Season, we have a man who is certainly one of the half-dozen or so most important spokesman for the Christian Right saying: "Speaking as a private individual, I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances". Take careful note also, that Dobson's interlocutor, when he gave Dobson the opening to opine about McCain, also gave him ample opportunity to include Rudy in his remarks, and Dobson implicitly declined to do so.

I have also heard the self-appointed "Wise Men" say that the Christian Right will not vote for Romney because he is a Mormon. My point here is simply this: The "Conventional Wisdom", the MSM, and the Beltway Punditocracy are so ignorant of the Christian Right, as well as Social Conservatives or Values Voters in general, and ultimately so smugly disdainful of these groups that it is nothing more than a tribute to the utter hubris of the "Conventional Wisdom", the MSM, and the Beltway Punditocracy that they profess to know anything at all about how the Christian Right will decide to vote when faced with the specific array of choices that will apparently present themselves in 2008.

Finally, I have come to understand thoroughly, what I probably should have groked all along: The "Conventional Wisdom", the MSM, and the Beltway Punditocracy are all so self-contained, self-referential, and smug that their opinions tell you more about them than they do about the subject matter of the opinions themselves. That, my friends, is the unmistakable and certain mark of a fool! Rudy, and all the rest of us, would indeed be foolish ourselves if we paid undue attention to the essentially anti-Rudy litany coming from the self-appointed "Wise Men"!

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

__________________________________________

ELECTION 2008

Dobson says 'no way' to McCain candidacy
Christian leader declares he couldn't support senator 'under any circumstances'

By Bob Unruh

Posted: January 13, 2007

A prominent Christian leader whose radio and magazine outreaches are solidly in support of biblically-based marriages - and keeps in touch with millions of constituents daily - says he cannot consider Arizona Sen. John McCain a viable candidate for president.

"Speaking as a private individual, I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances," said James Dobson, founder of the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family as well as the Focus Action cultural action organization set up specifically to provide a platform for informing and rallying constituents.

Dobson, who always is careful to note that he's not speaking for the non-profit ministry, which cannot advocate for or against candidates legally, also doesn't hesitate to state his personal opinions on social or political issues and agendas.

Several times he's talked to Republicans, the traditionally conservative political party, about the need to maintain the values of that large part of the U.S. population, or lose the support of those people.

His most recent comments came during an interview on the Jerry Johnson Live program on KCBI 90.0 FM.

The show host noted that pro-family conservatives already are thinking about the next cycle of leadership in the United States, which will be determined in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections. He also noted that McCain and New York mayor Rudy Giuliani appear to be the leaders.

Then he asked Dobson to listen to a statement from McCain and respond.

"I think, uh ... I think that gay marriage should be allowed if there's a ceremony kind of thing, if you wanna call it that ... I don't have any problem with that," McCain says.

"Dr. Dobson, would you be comfortable with someone like John McCain as the ... conservative or Republican candidate for president?" Johnson asked.

"Well, let me say that I am not in the office. I'm in the little condo so I can speak for myself and not for Focus on the Family," Dobson said in rejecting McCain's leadership.

He noted that legislation he'd just been discussing on the program, regarding an attempt by Democrat leaders in Congress to create obstacles for ministries such as Focus to reach constituents with action messages about pending legislation, is being supported by McCain, too.

"That came from McCain, and the McCain Feingold Bill kept us from telling the truth right before elections ... and there are a lot of other things. He's not in favor of traditional marriage, and I pray that we won't get stuck with him," Dobson said.

The provisions of the new congressional proposal, hidden deep inside a plan to reform lobbying rules to eliminate the many recent scandals involving members of Congress, would require pro-family groups to provide documentation of their actions to the government any time they try to spark any "grass-roots" action.

Phone calls, personal visits, e-mails, magazines, broadcasts, phone banks, appearances, travel, fundraising and other items all would be subject to government tabulation, verification and audits, Dobson said during a recent program. "On and on it goes."

"Clearly, the objective here is to hide what goes on from the public and punish and silence those of us who would talk about what our representatives are doing," Dobson said of the plan by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. American Family Association Chairman Donald Wildmon, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and American Values President Gary Bauer joined Dobson in urging listeners to flood Capitol Hill with phone calls demanding those speech limits be removed.

Bauer said the telephone number to call is: 202-224-3121.

Focus also has begun an online petition, at Focuspetitions.com.

Wildmon characterized the Washington proposal as a message to the American public: "We don't want to hear from you, and this is the way we're going to handle it."

Dobson also earlier scolded Republicans for blaming the 2006 election victories by Democrats in many races across the country on conservatives.

"Dick Armey emerged from four years in the wilderness to blame conservative Christians for Tuesday's defeat. They were, he said, 'too involved' with the party. He can't be serious! Someone should tell him that without the support of that specific constituency, John Kerry would be president and the Republicans would have fallen into a black hole in '04," Dobson said in a story WND reported earlier.

"Values Voters are not going to carry the water for the Republican Party if it ignores their deeply held convictions and beliefs," he said.

"Republican leaders in Congress during this term apparently never understood, or they forgot, why Ronald Reagan was so loved and why he is considered one of our greatest presidents. If they hope to return to power in '08, they must rediscover the conservative principles that resonated with the majority of Americans in the 1980s - and still resonate with them today. Failure to do so will be catastrophic," Dobson said.

Dobson noted he'd been interviewed by U.S. News and World Report after the 2004 elections and warned if Republicans squandered their opportunity, they would pay a price at the polls in either 2008 or 2006.

Dobson's predictions about values and the Republican Party go back even further than that, too.

In 1998 he told a reporter that the GOP was in danger of losing its ability to "claim to speak for those of us with deep moral convictions."

He said at that time the party has "ignored the moral issues year after year, term after term" and said at that time it was "time to fish or cut bait."

At that time he also warned the GOP Christians and conservatives "will abandon them if they continue to ignore the most important issues."

2007-01-14T08:35:00.000-08:00

YES, IT IS COMPSTAT! – GINGRICH FOR VEEP?

In an address on Long Island on 09 January 2007, while reiterating his support for the for the President’s proposed “surge” of troops in Iraq, and joining John McCain on the “Island of Political Courage”, Rudy concluded his remarks on Iraq with this:

"We must not wait for a year or more to measure the success of our strategy but must develop a system to do so monthly weekly even daily so we give our troops the necessary support to succeed."

In a posting dated 12 January 2007, this space commented on those concluding remarks with this:

“This is, however, actually a new contribution to the debate over what to do in Iraq, and I think a potentially VERY IMPORTANT contribution! Moreover, it is uniquely Rudy's contribution. What he proposes here is essentially the CompStat Program his administration initiated for the New York Police in 1993, i.e., the very program that worked so well in, inter alia, reducing homicides in the City by 67.9% during Rudy's administration. As Rudy used to say, with respect to CompStat: "What gets measured gets paid attention to. What gets paid attention to gets done." Bravo Rudy!”

In an Op-Ed Column that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Friday, 12 January 2007, and that Rudy co-authored with Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, he confirmed that he was indeed referring to CompStat in his Delaware remarks. The entire column is reproduced below, the money quote is this:

“[The] change from welfare to work did as much as the New York Police Department Compstat program to keep reducing crime. A similar model can work in Iraq.”

In this single Op-Ed Column, Rudy and Speaker Gingrich have together gone further toward laying out a specific and workable program for success in Iraq than any other major governmental or political figure, including President Bush – certainly more so than the feckless new Democrat majority in Congress, and even more certainly more so than any other potential Presidential candidate for 2008, Democrat or Republican. This is, however, not surprising! This is precisely what one has come to expect from both Rudy and Speaker Gingrich: real-word solutions to real-world problems, solutions that will work “on the ground”. Bravo Gentlemen!

Finally, and not to put too fine a point on it, this authorial collaboration brings into sharp focus a thought that has been germinating in my mind for some time now: Speaker Gingrich would make the ideal candidate for Vice President on a ticket headed by Rudy! In my judgment, if these two men could indeed reach such an agreement between themselves within the next year’s time, and then take the BOLD STEP of announcing it before the Primary Season begins in January, 2008, they would blitz the field, both for the Republican Nomination and for the White House! For now, that’s just a thought. More later!

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

_____________________________

Wall Street Journal

Friday, January 12, 2007

“GETTING IRAQ TO WORK:

New York City’s successes have lessons for Baghdad”

By: Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich

The American mission in Iraq must succeed. Our goal – promoting a stable, accountable democracy in the heart of the Middle East – cannot be achieved by purely military means.

Iraqis need to establish a civil society. Without the support of mediating civic and social associations–the informal ties that bind us together–no government can long remain stable, and no cohesive nation can be maintained. To establish a civil society, Iraqis must rebuild their basic infrastructure. Iraqis must take control of their destiny by rebuilding houses, stores, schools, roads, highways, mosques and churches.

But the constant threat of violence, combined with a high unemployment rate estimated between 30% and 50%, fundamentally undermines that effort. This not only sustains the fertile breeding ground for terrorist recruiters but has the same corrosive effect as it would in any city–raising the likelihood of further violence, civic decay and a crippling sense of powerlessness.

A massive effort must be made to engage in a well organized plan to rebuild Iraq. The goal: an infrastructure to support and encourage a strong, stable civil society.

The week before Christmas, the Pentagon asked Congress to approve a supplemental $100 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, on top of the estimated $500 billion spent to date. The administration should direct a small percent of that amount to create an Iraqi Citizen Job Corps, along the lines of FDR’s Civilian Conservation Corps during the Great Depression. The Job Corps can operate under the supervision of our military and with its protection. The Army Corps of Engineers might be particularly helpful in directing this effort. It will place our military in a constructive relationship with the Iraqis–both literally and figuratively. Today, Iraq has almost 200 state-owned factories that have been abandoned by the governing authorities since the outbreak of war in 2003. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Paul A. Brinkley has led a team to 26 of those facilities, traveling far beyond the Green Zone to idled plants from Fallujah to Ramadi. Mr. Brinkley believes that under Department of Defense leadership, at least 10 of these facilities could be re-opened almost immediately, putting more than 10,000 Iraqis to work within weeks. This should be done without delay–and it is only the beginning.

The wages that these thousands of gainfully employed workers receive will be used to purchase goods and services that will employ other Iraqis. Those goods and services must be produced by still other Iraqis. These are the first steps in creating the requisite conditions of a stable functioning economy and the best hope of displacing retribution and violence with hope and opportunity.

We must try to achieve constructive and compassionate goals through conservative means–jump starting civic improvement and the individual work ethic in Iraq, without creating permanent subsidies. The goal is to get more Iraqis working, especially young males, who are most susceptible to the terrorist and warlord recruiters.

There are many lessons from the successful welfare reforms in New York City that can be readily applied in Iraq. In the early 1990s, New York City suffered an average of 2,000 murders a year while more than 1.1 million people–one out of every seven New Yorkers–were unemployed and on welfare. Too many neighborhoods were pervaded by a sense of hopelessness that came from a combination of high crime, high unemployment and despair. “Workfare” proved an excellent method to change this destructive decades-long paradigm. It required able-bodied welfare recipients to work 20 hours a week in exchange for their benefits. In the process, we reasserted the value of the social contract, which says that for every right there is a responsibility, for every benefit an obligation.

As many as 37,000 people participated at a single time, working in the neighborhoods that most needed their help, cleaning up streets with the Sanitation Department, removing graffiti from schools and government buildings, or helping to beautify public spaces in the Parks Department.

More than 250,000 individuals went through our Workfare program between 1994 and 2001, and their effort helped to visibly improve the quality of life in New York City. Many of them moved on to permanent employment. This change from welfare to work did as much as the New York Police Department Compstat program to keep reducing crime. A similar model can work in Iraq.

There is an opportunity not only to increase employment by rebuilding roads, houses, schools and government buildings, but also to engage the Iraqi people to participate in laying the foundation for a civil and prosperous society.

The population of Iraq is roughly 30 million with a pre-war median annual income equivalent to $700. Subsidizing unemployed Iraqis with a meaningful wage in exchange for meaningful work rebuilding their society is well within the means of the U.S. and its allies.

The entire effort will help stabilize and grow the Iraqi economy. It should be open to all willing Iraqis–Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds–as a means of helping to create a common culture through shared participation in work projects to rebuild and take ownership of their nation.One word of caution: The program should be overseen by the U.S. military, not private contractors, to avoid unnecessary delays in deployment or accusations of cronyism in the bidding process. Our military will still be devoted to its primary role of hunting down terrorists and patrolling the streets, but administering a jobs program would be a direct extension of their effort to secure law and order. After the program has been started and becomes successful, it can be transferred to a civilian authority within the Iraqi government.

The creation of an Iraqi Citizen Job Corps will help expedite the establishment of a more stable civil society and improve the growing Iraqi economy through the transforming power of an honest day’s work.

2007-01-13T11:58:00.000-08:00

RUDY HAS ALL THE RIGHT ENEMIES!

Below, I have reproduced an Associated Press article below that reports on a recent Rudy Speech. Please note how this charter member of the MSM chooses to cherry-pick a single line out of his speech and frame the whole article around it with the headline: "Giuliani, in Delaware Speech, Hedges." It seems to me that the headline could've just as easily been, "Rudy talks tough on Iraq," or, "Giuliani: social views aren't insurmountable." Why, then, does the MSM continue to focus on the notion that Rudy won't run? Could it be that the MSM, comprised largely of the coastal elite, observed Giuliani's governance of NYC and realize that he's a conservative who could unite the country, not unlike Ronald Reagan? Whatever the case, the media has long been terrified of a Rudy run, downplaying his chances from every angle, every chance it gets. Movement conservatives still hesitant on Rudy should take note of who his enemies are!

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

_____________________________

Giuliani. in Delaware Speech, Hedges

By RANDALL CHASE
Associated Press
January 13, 2007 updated 12:57 pm EST

WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) - Mayor Giuliani remained noncommittal Friday on a possible bid for the GOP presidential nomination but sounded campaign-like themes in a speech to Delaware Republicans.

"I think the biggest question you have to ask is, 'Can you really lead the country?'" he said. "If I believe that I can do it, then I will, and if I don't, then I'll support somebody else."

Mr. Giuliani said the key trait a leader needs is optimism.

"People follow hopes and they follow dreams and they follow the solution to problems," he said in accepting the Pete du Pont Individual Freedom Award, named for Delaware's former Republican governor. "I saw that happen in New York City ... I think we have to have a sense of optimism about ourselves, about who we are and where we're going."

Calling the war in Iraq a serious challenge, Mr. Giuliani said what the Bush administration is trying to achieve is of "profound importance" to the United States.

"If we leave Iraq in failure, then the world is going to be much more dangerous for us," he said.

On other issues, Mr. Giuliani said that moving the country toward energy independence will be one of the greatest challenges for the next president. He also called for school vouchers and said the country needs to "revolutionize" its public education system in order to compete in the global economy.

In a brief meeting with reporters after his speech, Mr. Giuliani shrugged off suggestions that his liberal social views, divorces and business dealings since leaving the mayor's office may prove to be obstacles in a campaign for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination.

"You don't get to decide what the issues are when you're running," he said.

2007-01-12T07:30:00.000-08:00

WHAT GETS MEASURED - - - GETS DONE!

In an address on Long Island recently, while reiterating his support for the for the President’s proposed “surge” of troops in Iraq, and joining John McCain on the “Island of Political Courage”, Rudy said this:

“Success or failure in Iraq is not a matter of partisan politics but a matter of national security. All Americans should be hoping, praying and offering constructive advice for the success of our troops in Iraq and for those Iraqis seeking to create a stable and decent government. In that spirit, I support the President's increase in troops. Even more importantly - I support the change in strategy - the focus on security and the emphasis on a political and economic solution as being even more important than a military solution. I would add to it a heavy emphasis on measuring results and having the flexibility of adapting our strategy to make certain we restore security as quickly as possible.”

Those remarks speak for themselves! Rudy then “practiced what he preached”, and indeed offered some “constructive advice”. He concluded his remarks with this:

"We must not wait for a year or more to measure the success of our strategy but must develop a system to do so monthly weekly even daily so we give our troops the necessary support to succeed."

These specific remarks have apparently gone essentially unnoticed by both the MSM and the Blogosphere. This is, however, actually a new contribution to the debate over what to do in Iraq, and I think a potentially VERY IMPORTANT contribution! Moreover, it is uniquely Rudy's contribution. What he proposes here is essentially the CompStat Program his administration initiated for the New York Police in 1993, i.e., the very program that worked so well in, inter alia, reducing homicides in the City by 67.9% during Rudy's administration. As Rudy used to say, with respect to CompStat: "What gets measured gets paid attention to. What gets paid attention to gets done." Bravo Rudy!

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

2007-01-12T06:20:00.000-08:00

NOT LIKE THE RANTINGS OF SAVONAROLA

I realize that at times I must seem like Girolamo Savonarola (1452-1498), when I repeat yet again my mantra that Social Conservatives, including the Christian Right, are prepared to strike an implicit bargain with Rudy and, despite disagreeing with him on many soi disant "social issues", support him for President because they want his leadership. Well, I am apparently not quite as alone in my rantings as was Father Savonarola! The following is a recent posting on RudyRoots:

(http://www.rudyroots.org/):

"Social Conservatives Value Rudy's Leadership"

"Social conservatives -- contrary to conventional wisdom -- will seriously consider supporting the Republican presidential aspirations of Rudolph W. Giuliani, political analysts and operatives say. Republicans in the early primary states in the South and the West may disagree with Mr. Giuliani's stance on abortion and gun control, but they admire his response to the September 11 attacks and, more importantly, they think he can win in November."

RudyRoots, you will recall, is the new web-site of the social-conservative Ohio group who started out vehemently opposed to Rudy's Presidential ambitions and originally went up on the web with the site: "SayNoToRudy.org". Then, last November they disbanded, with a very public valedictory message, stating how, once they had investigated Rudy and "gotten to know him", they turned completely around and became his vehement supporters, so much so that they reorganized and went back up on the web with RudyRoots.

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

2007-01-12T05:38:00.000-08:00

THREE CHEERS FOR JOHN McCAIN

As all readers of this space certainly know, I am a passionate supporter of Rudy Giuliani for President. That said, I simply must hand it to John McCain! He is demonstrating, in my view, true patriotism and real political courage in the current debate over what to do in Iraq. His recent statement puts it best:

"I have presidential ambitions, but they pale in comparison to what I think is most important to our nation's security. If it [the surge] destroys any ambitions I may have, I'm willing to pay that price gladly."

That is an example par excellence of having the courage of one's convictions, no matter the political cost. Here, by way of contrast, from "The Novak Report", is the Democrat version:

"As often happens after bitterly contested elections, the victors and the vanquished began by speaking of a new bipartisan spirit in Washington. As always, this has been disproved in a matter of weeks. The clearest sign that nothing has changed is the fact that Democrats are negotiating the new Iraq policy through the media.

"Not only does this demonstrate that Iraq remains just another political issue for them, but it also demonstrates that they feel sufficiently excluded from the policy conversation that they think they have more to gain by posturing than by trying to work with President Bush for a policy solution. The Democrats' complaints -- and their use of terms like 'escalation of this conflict' -- also came before Bush has unveiled any strategy."

I do not waiver in my support for Rudy, but as I have also said many times: If, through the vagaries of Presidential politics, John McCain were to end up as President, the Country would be very well served.

2007-01-11T13:58:00.000-08:00

MORE ON NEW HAMPSHIRE

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

2007-01-10T15:13:00.000-08:00

POLITICS, POLLS, PILLFERINGS, AND PECADILLOES

News flash: 02 Jan 2006: Daily News publishes pilfered “strategic memo” from Giulian1 Camp!

News flash: 07 Jan 2006: Giuliani leads McCain in Fox News New Hampshire Poll by 29% to 24%!

Well, I’m back from my customary two-week sojourn in the Big Apple during the Christmas-New Year’s holiday. Actually, I got back on the 3^rd, but I had several things on my desk to which I first had to attend so that I could give my postings on recent events the thought they deserve. In this posting, I shall combine my thoughts about the latest New Hampshire poll with my developing thoughts on Rudy's “strategic memorandum” that was made public last week by the Daily News, probably as the result of a political pilfering. Of course, I had many “political conversations” amid the holiday social whirl in New York, but nothing arose therein anywhere nearly as interesting as "L'affaire de la publication" and the New Hampshire poll.

As for the specific New Hampshire Poll: The substance thereof does not surprise me one whit! At the same time, I would not put too much stock in this one poll, particularly not at this stage of the game. Remember the dictum: “No single poll is worth a damn, including this one!” That said, any poll that has Rudy leading McCain in as an important a Primary State as New Hampshire, a state that McCain won over then Governor Bush in 2000, cannot be said to be anything but “good news” for Rudy, no matter its relative significance in the ultimate scheme of things.

Of all the states currently "in play", however, New Hampshire is the most problematic for all three top GOP contenders, as well as the hardest to predict. McCain has an obviously strong level of support there owing to his strong showing in the 2000 primary when he trounced George Bush 49%-32%, immediately after losing the Iowa Caucuses to Bush. Romney was until last week the Governor of a neighboring state, and New Hampshire is very much in the Massachusetts media orbit. At the same time, Rudy also has a high level of support in the Granite State, as evidenced by the demand for tickets to Rudy events there last Fall. Rudy is also a "Northeastern Republican”. More importantly, I feel, is that New Hampshire Republicans are exactly the kind of self-reliant "libertarian-oriented" Republicans that should form the absolute core of Rudy's personal "base".

At this stage, however, the most important thing to remember is that New Hampshire is no longer the sine qua non to either party's nomination that it has been in the past, e.g., George Bush (43) and Bill Clinton. Moreover, or in light thereof, I think it would be at least a "minor victory" for Rudy to come out of the New Hampshire primary in a virtual three-way dead heat with McCain and Romney. It would be a "Huge Victory" for Rudy to come out in a virtual two-way dead heat with either one of them, with the third significantly behind. That said, I don't see any reason Rudy should not actually "go for the win". All the anecdotal evidence adds up to the conclusion that he has a very good chance, and now this latest poll seems to corroborate that evidence. My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

Now, as for the strategic memo: Since I first read of its publication in the Daily News on 02 January 2007, my thoughts have evolved considerably, and become considerably truncated. Within a day or two, Anne Dickerson of the Giuliani expressed to a friend and correspondent of mine, who is a former high-ranking official in the Giuliani Mayoral Administration in New York, that the publication (I paraphrase): "is only a problem if we make it a problem!", "we" being the Giuliani campaign itself. I still believe firmly that this approach is absolutely the right one. Unfortunately, the Giuliani Camo has not behaved entirely in consonance with that pronouncement, and I have become somewhat concerned over the substance of the memo itself, as distinct from its public disclosure. Of course, since the memo was not intended to be made public, I cannot say for certain if my concerns are well-founded or not, but I shall express them anyway. First, however, let's get a few points "out-of-the-way":

In the short run, it would appear that the entire Giuliani camp has not fully internalized Ms. Dickerson's approach to the publication of the memo. The two-day back-and-forth about how Florida Governor Crist was behind "stealing" the memo was not at all helpful. To my mind, "not making a problem" out of the publication of the memo should mean essentially ignoring it entirely. I hope the campaign team is now fully up to speed on this point.

Perhaps the main reason this sort of thing is not helpful is that "die langen Messer" are now definitely "out" for Rudy. They are out from the Beltway Establishment because they know that a Giuliani Presidency will sweep them from their customary perch of influence. They are out from the Mainstream Media because they believe they can "control" John McCain, whereas they know in the deepest recesses of their being that they cannot control Rudy. They are out from the Paleo-Conservative Establishment, e.g., National Review, Kate O'Bierne, Pat Buchanan, et al., because these are the people who would rather "find the right candidate" that win the election. Getting into a snit with any Governor, let alone the Governor of a state (Florida) that will be a vital part of Rudy's electoral strategy, is distinctly "not helpful"! This sort of thing simply gives red meat for die langen Messer to carve up, and believe me, they will find enough red meat on their own. Just the night before last on Hardball, Pat Buchanan used the snit with Crist as his opening to be completely dismissive about Rudy's candidacy, saying: "He's not going to run. He's not serious." before he moved on to analyze the "McCain-Romney race", and then to lament the fact that there was no "true conservative" in the race.

Please take note here: die langen Messer are NOT "out" for Rudy among the Christian Right, the very group that the "Conventional Wisdom" says is supposed to deny Rudy the Republican nomination! These people are far more perspicacious and self-aware than that. Moreover, these people are far too honest, and have far too much self-respect, to become involved in the kind of childish "spit-ball fights" that are the veritable "stock-in-trade" of the groups I describe above. Most importantly, these people WANT Rudy's leadership, and they KNOW the Country needs it. In order to get that leadership, they are willing to give Rudy a second look, a third look, a fourth look, and strike an implicit bargain with him. That said, the quickest way to lose the respect of these people would be to become "just another politician" and descend into food fights with the lesser mortals in the field.

Rudy is the Eisenhower (in '52) of this race, and just like Ike did, Rudy needs to stay above the fray. "America's Mayor" cast in the role created by Ike of "National Hero"! In this regard, the recent Democrat takeover of Congress may very well actually help Rudy's chances in 2008. Had the GOP held on to control of either or both houses, and after another two years of Iraq, Neo-Con arrogance, and Republican profligacy, to say nothing of scandals, the Christian Right might very well have "stayed home" in 2008, thus virtually assuring the election of a Democrat. After a year of Nancy Pelosi, however, at the start of the Primary Season, I predict that the GOP, and especially the Christian Right, will be deathly afraid of a Hillary-Nancy governing tandem, and will thus be "dead on" not losing the White House, as well as the Congress. This attitude should fuel further their willingness to "strike a bargain" with Rudy.

"L'affaire de la publication" of the strategic memo is the perfect example of an instance in which Rudy, as well as his campaign staff, needs to stay "above the fray”. If he does that, then affaires such as this will never penetrate into the consciousness of the vast, vast majority of the electorate -- something close to 100%. The MSM has almost forgotten it already, and would have completely forgotten it already but for the food fight with the Crist camp. The only people who will remember it are the Pat Buchanan's and Kate O'Bierne's of the world, and even they will seem petty and snarky if Rudy himself stays above the fray. If Rudy does not stay above the fray, however, with respect to incidents such as this, the public will remember the "food fight", if not the incident itself, and that has real potential for political damage.

I am perfectly prepared to believe that someone from the Crist camp pilfered the memo, but at this point it doesn't matter! Let me say that again louder: AT THIS POINT IT DOESN’T MATTER! Any damage from the theft and the publication have already been done, and cannot be undone. The damage going forward, if any, will result from the food fight. America's Mayor, the Hero-Leader of 9-11, has the potential to be "something special", a la Ike or better, but he will squander that potential if he becomes "just another politician" by playing tit-for-tat with lesser mortals like Charlie Crist, or even John McCain.

Now, as for the substance of the memo itself: I am about to offer some "free advice", and any good lawyer knows that "free advice" is usually worth exactly what one paid for it. So, please take the following in that spirit. Moreover, I have not read the entire memo. I have read only those portions that have been quoted in the Daily News, and a few other places. Consequently, I shall refrain from comment on the overall substance of the memo. Particularly, I shall refrain from comment on the various substantive political issues that are currently of great pith and moment. In any event, my general leanings on such things are a "matter of public record", and may be found throughout this space.

[In essence, however, since I can't resist: Most, if not all, of Rudy's perceived "problems" with the GOP's vaunted "Base" can be "cured" by a three-pronged strategy, to wit: 1. Federalism, 2. Federalism, and 3. Federalism! If some in the campaign feel the need to flesh that out, then: 1. "I do not believe that all the things I supported as right for New York City, when I was Mayor, are necessarily right for the Country as a whole, or even for any specific part thereof." 2. That's why I believe that 'Federalism' is the only way to govern effectively a continental nation of 300 million people." 3. "As president, all my judicial appointments will be cast in the mold of Scalia, Roberts, and Alito."]

What I want to comment on here, are two parts of the strategic memo that, based on the commentary I have read, do give me some pause for concern, to wit: 1. the candidate's marital history, and 2. l'affaire de Bernard Kerik. I actually have no comment to make on the substance of either matter, but only on the way they are apparently being "handled" within the campaign -- again based solely on what I have read in the press about the strategic memo. Perhaps the best way to "get into" this topic would be to begin with an anecdote:

On the Chris Matthews Show on NBC on Sunday, 31 December 2006 -- before the publication of the strategic memo -- Mr. Matthews asked his panelist Norah O'Donnell, Chief Washington Correspondent for MSNBC, in essence, what she thought of Rudy's chances of winning the Republican nomination for President in 2008. Ms. O'Donnell, a self-impressed, hard-core Beltway-Elite Wannabe, began her response by saying: "Look, the Republican Party is not going to nominate someone who has been married three times . . ." She was clearly about to continue with a further laundry list of Rudy's perceived political weaknesses, but before she could get another word out of her mouth, Matthews cut her off, saying: "Look, if I'm on the subway late at night, and I'm feeling a little insecure, I don't care how many times the cop who saves me has been married." Matthews continued on a bit in this vein, but he never let Ms. O'Donnell get back to her "laundry list".

Now, as readers of this space are well aware, I do not hold a very "high opinion” of Mr. Matthews. Generally, I think he is a loud-mouth clod, and a Bush-obsessed, closet-Liberal, Jerk, with a Capital "J"! That said, of all the current political talking-heads, Matthews does seem, mirabile dictu, to be essentially the only one who at least seems to "get" Rudy's appeal and Rudy's potential. Certainly, Matthews hit the nail square-on-the-head in the exchange with Ms. O'Donnell! Moreover, I think therein lies a great object lesson for the Giuliani Campaign!

Rudy should not spend one whit's worth of time obsessing over how to defend his marital record, nor for that matter his 2004 recommendation of Bernie Kerik, nor the fact that, when Donna Hanover threw him out of Gracie mansion, he bunked-in for a time with two old friends who were gay. People either buy Rudy's appeal as America's Mayor, as a great leader, as the man who governed the ungovernable city, as the "cop-on-the-beat" who will keep America safe, or they don't buy it! For those who do buy into Rudy's mystique, they will overlook all those "personal matters" to whatever extent they have to in order to pull the lever for him. That includes most pointedly many in the Christian Right! For those who don't buy into Rudy's mystique, all the obsessiveness and all the "explanations" in the world will not cause them to vote for him. For my part, I believe firmly that there are enough people who either already believe in Rudy (moi inclusif), or who will be brought around, to carry him into the White House. The way to hold on to the faithful, and to bring others around, is to play to the mystique, not to undercut the mystique with defensive explanations and worry beads! The sum total of Rudy's discussion of the issues outline above should be essentially as follows:

Marital Record: Please allow me to introduce you to my wife Judith Nathan Giuliani. She is a great lady. I love her dearly, and I know she will be a great aid and comfort to me as First Lady. What, what's that? Yes, it's true I was married twice before Judy and I found each other. That's a matter of public record. So what? Next question!

Divorces, affairs, etc.: All that is a matter of public record. Go read it for yourself. Next question!

Gay room mates: Those two gentlemen are old friends of mine, and I think very highly of both of them. They were real friends in need for me, and gave me a place to live during a time of personal trouble. I thank them for all they did, and I consider myself fortunate to know them! What, what's that? Don't be ridiculous. If you want to talk about my position on gay rights or gay marriage, first read my campaign literature, and then ask me about it at the appropriate time. Next question!

Bernie Kerik: The Bernie Kerik I knew as Mayor was a great Police Commissioner, and he contributed greatly to my administration. That Bernie Kerik would have made a great Secretary of Homeland Security. I was as shocked and saddened as anyone to learn of the personal troubles that caused him to withdraw. He is now paying the price for his mistakes, and my heart goes out to him and his family on a personal level. The Bernie Kerik story I knew was as up-lifting a tale as I have ever heard. The turn that story has taken is both a tragedy and great object lesson and cautionary tale for us all. Next question!

I am fully aware that the "non-strategy-strategy" I suggest above would be a perhaps impossibly tall order for most politicians to pull off. But then, I have already established in this piece, and in this space, that I believe Rudy to be far more than just another politician. For the man who did what Rudy did as Mayor, both in the wake of 9-11 and before, the man who stared down all the people he had to stare down, and bent the ungovernable city to his will, for that man, effectuating the strategy I suggest above should prove a piece of cake. That's the man who has the potential to be a transformative President. That's the man I hope is now running for President!

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

2006-12-20T13:34:00.000-08:00

DON’T INSULT THEIR OR MY INTELLIGENCE!

I hope you all heard New York Times Op-Ed “token conservative” columnist David Brooks — whom I like very much — last Sunday on “Meet The Press”. The main part of the discussion between and among Brooks, Tom Friedman, and Moderator Tin Russert, centered on just how bad a disaster Iraq and the greater Middle East could become in the next two years. In this context, when talking about the ‘08 election, Brooks first acknowledged Rudy’s standing in all the polls, then he said (I paraphrase): “I think security is going to be the big issue in 2008, and I think that evangelical voters are going to be willing to trade their disagreements with Rudy on social issues for his leadership on security issues. That could pull Rudy through in both the primaries and the general election.”

Thank you David! These comments are also in tune with Fred Barnes’ comments to the same effect last week on both “Special Report” and “Beltway Boys”. This is the very theme on which I have been harping at least since last May, when Frank Rich said in his Sunday column, when commenting on a Rudy campaign appearance in Georgia for Ralph Reed (I quote): “Any religious conservative who mistakes “America’s mayor,” an adamant supporter of abortion rights and gay rights, for a fellow traveler is in desperate need of an intervention, if not an exorcism.”

I am very much in sync with the comments of certain of my colleagues to the effect that:

“First of all, the statement that Rudy is pro-gay marriage is an outright lie. He has always come out strongly against gay marriage and in favor of upholding traditional marriage.

Also, I think most social conservatives are intelligent enough to make sophisticated value judgments in regard to assessing Rudy’s gun and abortion views in light of his support of strict constructionist judges with strong conservative backgrounds like Roberts, Scalia, and Alito. If you think so-cons would “never” accept Rudy, then you’re insulting their intelligence. ”

And:

“I think the fact that he dropped out of the Senate race in 2000 shows Rudy has good judgment if anything–if you’re facing cancer and can’t go for a few hours without puking because of the chemotherapy, and if you feel like you’re going to die 24/7, then that’s no way to campaign. Had he campaigned in that condition, he would have been SURE to lose. But instead, he passed the torch off to someone else, who at least had a better chance. He put the good of his Party above his own political ambitions and knew when to put his health first. I think that just shows that Rudy is a wise man with a good head on his shoulders.

Believe me. Research Rudy’s runs for NYC mayor, and you’ll see that he embodies ‘fire in the belly campaigning.’”

I do not count my self as an “Evangelical Voter” — I am a life-long Episcopalian — or a “Religious Values Voter”, but I did grow up and go to school in Virginia, my first wife was from South Carolina, I have lived in New Orleans and North Florida (as well as some 20 years in New York City), and many of my relatives could easily be described by these terms, one of whom, with whom I am very friendly, also an Episcopalian, was once a high ranking official in Pat Robertson’s organization. All of this is to say that I have an intimate feel for these people, as well as enormous respect.

The stock-in-trade of the MSM is disdain for Southerners in general and Religious Conservatives in particular, and their “default position” is to insult the intelligence of this broadly-defined group. For my part, I have seen for some time a “bargain” a-borning between these voters and Rudy. Agree with them or not, these people are intelligent, sophisticated, and self-aware, and they are eminently capable of assessing their options and striking a clear-headed, cold-eyed bargain. Like Fred Barnes and David Brooks have opined, I also believe that is exactly what they are going to do.

Finally, I would like to quote two people, both of who are (were) actually Democrats:

The first is Midge Costanza, a Democrat operative, who said in 1976, when she was trying to sell Jimmy Carter to up-state New Yorkers:

“Politics is not an exercise in applied theology.”

The second is another Mayor of New York, Ed Koch, who once said what I believe should be the mantra of all politics:

“If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12, see a psychiatrist.”

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

2006-12-19T11:59:00.000-08:00

FROM “SAY NO TO RUDY” TO “RUDY ROOTS”!

Remember "SayNoToRudy.org"? That was the anti-Rudy web-site that closed itself down in early November, with a very pro-Rudy closing-up-shop article. At the time, they promised to reorganize and reappear as a pro-Rudy web-site/organization. Well, they've done it! It's called "RudyRoots.org". Here is the hyper-link:

http://www.rudyroots.org/

I have book-marked the site and intend to visit regularly. I commend to you all the entire site, but for starters, I heartily recommend reading the internal links entitled "Who is Rudy?" and "What Rudy Stands For".

In order to "square the circle" and start "RudyRoots" off on the right foot in this space, I have reproduced below the closing-up-shop article from "SayNoToRudy.org", together with my commentary on same at the time.

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

________________________________________________________________________

READ THE WHOLE STATEMENT NOW,

THEN SEE MY COMMENT AT THE END:

"IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PRESS RELEASE

SayNoToRudy.org Ceases Operations, Endorses Giuliani for President

Sunday November 05, 2006

Today, SayNoToRudy.org will officially cease its operations and will no longer seek to actively discourage former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani from seeking the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008. In what has been a complicated, and outright ironic, transition for the entire organization, we now officially endorse Mayor Giuliani for President in 2008, should he choose to run. It has been a long journey for each of us involved on this team that has made us truly look inside ourselves and ask hard questions, but as of today, the consensus is that we as social conservatives have no reason to so forcefully oppose a Giuliani candidacy in 2008. We want Mr. Giuliani to have a fair chance to explain himself on the positions to other voters without negative preconceptions coloring their judgments. We will no longer write pieces discouraging Mr. Giuliani from seeking the presidency, nor will our writings discourage other voters from considering Mr. Giuliani as a presidential candidate, nor will we actively petition to prevent Mr. Giuliani from being a candidate, nor will we sell anti-Giuliani paraphernalia or engage in any sort of campaign to thwart his aspirations.

The creators of this organization now have a complex, but interesting story to tell. When we began this organization, we had skeletal knowledge of Mayor Giuliani's views on social issues and some of the issues surrounding his tenure as Mayor of New York City. Uncomfortable with what we knew, we sought to do everything legally possible to prevent such a candidate from becoming the Republican presidential nominee. In our efforts to stop his potential candidacy, we delved deep into his record, poured over his speeches and writings, and spoke personally to those who were most familiar with him as a friend and leader. Unexpectedly, as we began to see more and more of who Mr. Giuliani really is, we found our disdain for his candidacy becoming continually undermined as we found that Mr. Giuliani is truly a committed Republican and an accomplished conservative on many issues. When we felt we had a sufficient picture of Mr. Giuliani, we found that his positives now outweighed his negatives. Furthermore, many of us have, in the past month, come to the conclusion that not only is Mayor Giuliani a leader to be admired and respected, he may also be the Republican Party's best chance in 2008. Therefore, the creators of this organization, with much humility and apology, beyond all probability, hereby announce that we are willing to endorse Mr. Giuliani for the Presidency in 2008 both now, and if and when he decides to run. We have truly been humbled by this experience and we hope this will be a lesson to all of us in America that we must not be too quick to rush to judgment and that all of us can work together for the greater good, even if we disagree on some issues.

We hope that you will join us in this endeavor to promote a leader who we feel embodies all of the overlying principles that we think makes the Republican Party great: Hard work, preparedness, optimism, responsibility, integrity through accountability, smaller government, and a bold vision for the future. We feel that Mr. Giuliani, America's Mayor, embodies these values more than any other candidate on the political playing field today. As a result, Say No To Rudy is officially and forever shut down and will, in the coming weeks, be replaced by a website that will seek to provide convincing evidence to other social conservatives that it is not only O.K., but also preferable, to support Mr. Giuliani for President."

This is a truly moving tale of self-introspection, reflection, and a resulting change of mind, demonstrating an honesty and a candor that is today all too lacking in American politics (moi inclusif!)! This statement moves me to make two comments, both of which are deadly serious, though the second is expressed with the inimitable humourous touch of Hizzoner Ed Koch.

First: This statement gives the lie exquisitely well to all the opinions by all the commentators, both in the MSM, such as Frank Rich, and out, who grossly underestimated the intelligence of the Republican Base, including Social and Religious Conservatives, by saying that these people would not vote for Rudy once they learned of his past "liberal positions", thus at least intimating, if not actually saying, that such people were so consumed within themselves that they could not look at the facts and make the conscious choice to opt for Rudy's Leadership, even though they disagreed with some of his positions.

Second: In my judgment, Mayor Koch summed it up best and most pithily, during one of his many mostly successful runs for office, when he said: "If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12, see a psychiatrist!"

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

2006-12-19T11:49:00.000-08:00

EVEN THE MEDIA “ELITE” CAN’T COMPLETELY IGNORE RUDY!

Here is the hyper-link to a new "polling story" by the Los Angeles Times, published on latimes.com:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-prezpoll14dec14,0,360296,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Naturally, since the LA Times is a bastion of the "Liberal Media Elite", the headline favours John McCain: "Voters favor McCain over Clinton in '08". Please read the entire story. I have excerpted below the "money quotes" from the perspective of this space.

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

_____________________________________________

"Still, the survey spotlighted obstacles to McCain emerging as the GOP standard-bearer. A significant segment of Republicans who call themselves conservatives - the base of the party - have an unfavorable opinion of him.

"In contrast, former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani received highly favorable marks across the party's ideological spectrum. Giuliani has not taken as many steps toward a presidential candidacy as McCain and Romney have, and the poll did not measure how he would perform against Clinton."

"Romney's religion - he is a Mormon - and McCain's age could be more problematic. Fourteen percent of registered voters polled said they would not vote for a Mormon, and the same number said they would not vote for someone who is 72 years old, which will be McCain's age by election day in 2008."

"Among Republicans, the two best-known and most popular potential candidates are Giuliani and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Both were viewed favorably by more than 80% of those polled.

"Giuliani, renowned for his leadership role after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, surpassed the 80% favorable mark even among conservative Republicans polled - in spite of his liberal record on issues such as abortion, gay rights and gun control. He has formed a presidential exploratory committee; Rice has said she does not plan to run for president.

"The view of McCain is more mixed among Republicans, with 65% of those polled viewing him favorably and 20% viewing him unfavorably."

2006-12-18T12:42:00.000-08:00

“MACACA”: FINAL CHAPTER!

I’m going to indulge myself here and make one last posting about George Allen and his “Macaca Moment” that cost the GOP control of the Senate. Then, my plan is to devote the next two years virtually exclusively to the Giuliani Campaign.

Here recently, the editors of “Race 4 2008”, a Republican web-site that I follow, made the announcement that George had (finally) formally withdrawn as a candidate for the Presidency in 2008. That posting, and my response thereto were as follows:

December 13, 2006

Allen '08 Officially Ends.

Confirming what everybody already knew, outgoing Virginia Sen. George Allen this weekend announced that running for President in 2008 is now out of consideration. While he did not rule out running for elected office again some time in the future, his loss to Democratic challenger Jim Webb in November effectively ended his presumed White House ambitions.

It was a long, exciting, and interesting nascent campaign to follow these past couple of years, but it has now officially come to a close. Recently ousted politicians never make very good presidential candidates anyway (Tom Daschle had enough sense to drop out on the Democratic side a couple of weeks ago as well). The Allen "campaign" was an amazing story. One that took an underdog, unheard-of young Senator to becoming the Insider's frontrunner for the Republican nomination. And a story that brought him down with a single slip of the tongue. Allen can be both an inspiration and a warning to other candidates. May we wish him well in whatever he chooses to do after January 2007.

Response to "Allen '08 Officially Ends."

Luther C. Hardy Says:
December 14th, 2006 at 10:09 am

"As the twig is bent, so grows the tree." - Publius Vergilius Maro

George has been a bully all his life, and it was this very characteristic that ultimately did him in. The "Macaca Moment" was not born out of racism, as so many people form Larry Sabotage to some on this very site have assumed. Rather, the motivating ethos of George's actions toward the young Webb staffer was his own bullying nature.

Despite the misapprehension of a nation obsessed with race, I must conclude that George ultimately got what he deserved. That said, it is nevertheless sobering indeed to see a personal character flaw come to the fore at just the right/wrong moment and have such monumental consequences as to shift political control of the United States Senate in a time of war.

This exchange led a colleague of mine to pose me the following question:

“But do you truly think that the sole cause of G. Allen's losing his re-election was due to that [ridiculous] Macaca incident? That is a rather simplistic view of things, is it not?”

To which I responded:

I don't think this view is at all simplistic. At the time of the "Macaca" incident, George had a solid 16-point lead in the polls and almost ten times as much cash-on-hand as Webb, to say nothing of the power of Republican incumbency in an at-least-semi "Red State", less than 3 months out from election day. Think of it this way: "Macaca" was the pebble that formed the snowball that rolled down hill and became the avalanche.

With "Macaca" George gave the opening to his enemies, and they piled on. Without "Macaca", Larry Sabotage would not have come out with his spurious charges of "racism" from George's college days. Without "Macaca", the Franco-Algerian Jewish origin of George's mother would not have come up, as it has not come up in any other race he has run. Because, however, the term "Macaca" -- a word I dare say very few Virginians had ever heard before George used it on camera -- is so firmly rooted in the Franco-Algerian patois, those origins had to come up this time round. This led directly to George's "ham sandwich" moment with the editors of the Times Dispatch, which by itself was so awkward and immature that it made my skin crawl. Then, the National Democrats, with control of the Senate potentially in the balance, saw an opening and piled on with 20 times the financial support for Webb they had given him in the theretofore. This led to Webb's actually outspending George by a significant margin in the last two months before election day, by far the most crucial time for campaign spending.

George's campaign was thrown into a "damage control" mode for at least a month-to-six-weeks after the "Macaca Moment" because of George's unwillingness to deal forthrightly with it and, at a minimum, apologize. Perhaps most importantly, all charges of "racism" aside, the "Macaca Moment" showed a side of George's character that many voters did not know was there, and it reminded those of us who did know it was there 30 years ago, but who had essentially forgotten about it, or at least put it to one side. For example, I myself began the campaign very much in George's camp. After "Macaca" and "ham sandwich", I felt almost unclean that I was more-or-less compelled to continue to support him because I did not want the GOP to lose control of the Senate.

All of this led to led to a desperation mode in the campaign that produced truly embarrassing moments, such as reading the sex scenes out of Webb's novels, in the crucial last days before the vote. Finally, after all this, George still only lost by slightly over 9,000 votes out of over 2.3 million cast. Another way to put it: "Macaca" was the pebble in the pond that caused all the ripples. In sum, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that, had George not decided to bully the young Webb staffer, he would now be headed back to Washington, with the GOP (barely) in control of the Senate. As Chris Matthews has put it: If George had not campaigned at all, but simply gone on vacation for three months and kept his mouth shut, he would have won.

Subsequently, my colleague asked me to explain the “ham sandwich” moment and the derivation of the term “Macaca”. I responded as follows:

“Ham sandwich”: Shortly after the “Macaca Moment”, George gave an already-scheduled interview to the Editorial Board of The Richmond Times Dispatch, Virginia’s largest and editorially most influential newspaper. The editors asked George if it was true that his mother was Jewish.

Now, right there, I think we should pause and acknowledge that this says something positive about Virginia. At that point George had been a major public figure in Virginia for over 30 years. He was an incumbent United States Senator, and had been a Governor of Virginia, a United States Congressman, and a Virginia State Delegate, holding the very same seat held some 200 years before by Thomas Jefferson. Moreover, George had been an Academic All-American quarterback at the University of Virginia, and his father, George Allen, Sr., had been a major public figure in the Commonwealth for many years as Head Coach of the Washington Redskins. After all of this, the fact that George’s mother was Jewish was not known by the Editors of the State’s most influential newspaper. They didn’t know it because it hadn’t come up. It hadn’t come up because no one considered it significant.

How George responded: He mumbled and fumbled around, admitted it was true, and claimed he had “only just learned about it”. Then he felt compelled to add, “but I still had a ham sandwich for lunch”. As I said above, George’s response here actually made my skin crawl.

What George should have said: Since you asked, yes, it is true. My mother’s maiden name was Lumbroso. The Lumbrosos are one of the one of the most prominent and accomplished families in the Mediterranean World. They were originally a family of Italian Sephardim, and have been in Algeria for over 300 years. I am enormously proud to be a Lumbroso descendant. I never brought it up before now because I didn’t want to seem to be bragging. That would not have been appropriate for a Virginia Gentleman. Next question.

The derivation of “Macaca”: This is a perfectly legitimate scientific term. It is the French term for a sub species of the Rhesus Monkey, which is native to North Africa, among other places. In the French Algerian patois, when someone is referred to as a “Macaca”, the term’s meaning depends entirely on context. It can be used as a slur, racial or otherwise. It is also used as a diminutive term by mothers for their children, as in: “you’re just my little monkey, aren’t you?” Mrs. Allen, Sr., who was raised in Tunis was undoubtedly familiar with this term, and may very well have used it, indeed probably did use it, in the Allen household when George was a child.

In fact, the current scuttlebutt going around Virginia on this matter, assumes this to be the case. The story, which I believe to be essentially true, is told below in the from of yet another response I made to a posting on “Race 4 2008”, which I have excerpted to avoid repetition in this space:

I’m through defending George because I think he got exactly what he deserved, even though the specific charge of “racism” was in my judgment unfounded. George was acting like a bully, which is essentially what he has been his whole life, and frankly, I’m glad he is — I hope — out of public life for good! . . .

And now, I have picked up some “inside baseball” in Virginia that I think sheds some interesting light on the “Macaca” incident. . . . I admit that, given that the object of George’s use of the term was of Indian descent, George slid close to the edge and should have known better, regardless of what he thought the term meant. Now, here’s the “inside baseball”:

The Allen campaign wanted to put out the following “explanation”, which, surprisingly enough, appears actually to have been the truth: George’s mother grew up in Tunis and spoke the French Algerian patois. George learned the term “Macaca” as a child from his mother as an endearment. Not speaking French, let alone the Algerian patois, however, George was blissfully unaware of its parallel usage as a racial epithet. [Having known George as a young man in law school, it is not at all hard for me to believe that his own mother might very-well have described him as a “little monkey” when he was a child.] When George used the term in the campaign, he meant it sarcastically as a “false endearment”, applied to someone who was after all an agent of the opposing candidate. The “false endearment” is actually a perfectly legitimate rhetorical device. In this context, the sense would have been: “Let’s give a big welcome to my dear friend over here from the Webb Campaign.” The story goes on to say that George himself nixed the use of this explanation because he did not want to call attention to his mother’s foreign (Jewish) origin!

Now, we can fairly accuse George of being many things, from dimwit to bully to lunkhead to idiot, but the specific charge of racism that was made did not fit.

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

2006-12-14T13:19:00.000-08:00

ALL WORSE OFF FOR IT!

This morning, in a discussion about the potential political fall-out if the health problems of Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) cause him to leave the Senate, a colleague posed the following question: “Would we be debating this if senators were chosen by the state legislatures like they used to be?” My response follows:

Short Answer: Yes, but in a different and less urgent way. I have no idea what the Senate would look like today if State Legislatures did still choose the Senators.

The more important point to make, however, is that the structure and powers of the US Government in the original Constitution, as well as in the intent of the framers, are vastly different from what they were in 1788. Here, one should think of the first 10 Amendments (Bill of Rights) as part of the original Constitution. They were proposed by the first Congress in 1789, little more than a year after final ratification of the original document, and the process of ratification by the States was complete less than two years after that, in 1791. Most, if not all, of the original framers agreed they should have been part of the basic document. The remaining 17 Amendments -- numbers 11 through 27, however are a very different story.

In my view, only two of these Amendments -- 13th (Abolition of Slavery); and 19th (Female Suffrage) -- have had a beneficial effect. Indeed, we would have undoubtedly been a better nation/society if we had resolved the slavery issue in 1788. Three other Amendments -- 20th (Terms of Office/Congressional Succession), 26th (Presidential Succession) and 27th (Congressional Compensation) have had a more-or-less benign effect because they deal merely with the mundane internal mechanics of the central government.

All the other 12 have been a bad idea. The 22nd (Presidential Terms) has not yet had a bad effect, but it has created a disaster waiting to happen – think of Wendell Wilkie as Commander in Chief in WW II. The 18th (Prohibition) and 21st (Repeal) may appear to have been a "wash", but in their 15-year process of canceling each other out, they created the economic base for organized crime.

The worst, however, have been the 14th (Equal Treatment), 15th (Voting Rights), 16th (Income Tax) and 17th (Direct Election of Senators). Together, these four Amendments have, essentially by themselves, transmogrified a Federal Republic, based on mutual consent and limited surrender of sovereign prerogatives by Sovereign States, into a federal tyranny. This is exactly what the original Framers feared most. Moreover, these Amendments form the bulk of the asserted justification for the unchecked arrogance of the Supreme Court and the Federal Judiciary. Every American is worse off for this state of affairs.

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

2006-12-13T09:13:00.000-08:00

A BARGAIN IS A BARGAIN IS A BARGAIN!

Please allow me to draw your attention to the "Fox All-Stars" panel discussion last night on "Special Report with Brit Hume". Brit's panelists were: Fred Barnes, Mort Kondracke, and Michael Barone -- three of the most astute observers of the political scene today. They all agreed, more-or-less without discussion, that "Conservative Christian" voters were willing to trade "correctness on social issues" (I paraphrase) in return for Rudy's leadership on security issues! They were focusing specifically on the Iowa Caucuses, but also expressly extended their assessment nationwide.

Even Fred Barnes agreed more-or-less en passant that Religious voters were willing to make this trade, or strike such a bargain with Rudy! This alone is quite important. Of all the more-or-less major political reporters writing today, Fred has essentially staked out his territory as understanding the Christian Right -- indeed, so much so that I have in recent years come to question his overall political prognostication. That said, however, no one can question Fred's knowledge of the Christian Right, or the "values voters" that form the core of the vaunted "Republican Base". Moreover, the Panel's specific description of Rudy's support as a "trade" or a "bargain" is particularly significant because it indicates that the Base knows exactly what it is doing, and their attitude is not based on some sort of ignorance of Rudy's "social positions". Thus, the support is solid and will not waver when this group somehow "learns more about" Rudy.

At the risk of seeming to beat you, gentle readers, over the head with the obvious, this assessment is even more important for two additional reasons, both of which apply to the "horse race" aspect of the 2008 campaign, and both of which I have previously trumpeted in this space, as follows:

First, as I wrote in this space on 01 December, when discussing Rudy's polling lead among "White, Male, Born-Again Christians" in a November Poll done by Quinnipiac University's Polling Institute:

"What is most important here is that this is the very category that the MSM and the "Conventional Wisdom" say is supposed to deny Rudy the Republican nomination. Moreover, that's all they have to say against Rudy. Let me say that again louder: THAT'S ALL THEY HAVE TO SAY AGAINST RUDY! There is no other reason advanced by the MSM and the "Conventional Wisdom" as to why Rudy won't win the nomination than that the Christian Right in the South won't vote for him in the primaries. Yet, not only does Rudy lead every other name advanced in this category, he also leads Mitt Romney, supposedly the new "darling" of the Values Voters, by almost 20 percentage points!"

Second, as I have written in this space since July, and been harping on since 2005:

"Conservative Christian Republican sentiment [voters] are absolutely ripe for a bargain with Rudy." and

"Rudy has solid support in “Base” states like South Carolina and Georgia, and this support does not drop off significantly either when Rudy’s former and current “liberal positions” become known, or when poll respondents are “push-polled” with respect to these issues."

As I said in October, the "shall-we-say 'maturity' and 'self-awareness' reflected [by the Republican Base is] driving the 'Bargain' that I have described in this space and elsewhere as a-borning between Rudy and the Republican 'Base'"

Finally, on 08 December, in discussing the latest FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll released the same day, this space informed its readers that:

“The poll also asks about perceptions of Rudy Giuliani’s ideology. Even more than Hillary, a whopping 47% of Americans say Rudy is in just the right place politically. Only 9% of Americans say he’s too liberal, and if anything, 15% say he’s too conservative. Funny enough, amongst Republicans, with 81% of GOPers knowing enough about Rudy’s positions to have a definitive opinion on him, a total 65% say he’s in the right place. Only 11% of Republicans say he’s too liberal, which is about the same number of Democrats who say Hillary is too conservative (10%). According to the numbers, if a pundit says Rudy is too liberal for the GOP, then they must also say Hillary is too conservative for the Democrats, which few MSM analysts would buy.”

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

2006-12-06T11:04:00.000-08:00

GET OUT OF OUR LIVES!

Yesterday, Tuesday, 05 December 2006, during an interview on Dennis Prager’s radio show, Rudy made the following statement that has had the Conservative blogosphere all a 'twitter this morning. Some are even saying it “may well be the quote of century”:

"I think we should be a society in which government, when it can, sort of extricates itself from people's personal lives."

By clicking here you may listen to the entire Prager interview with Rudy. If you have "pod cast" capability, you may actually view the interview. At the end of this posting, I have reproduced a sampling of blogosphere commentary this morning on the interview.

As you will see below, "tax cuts" and "leave me alone" have been the most commented upon aspects of the interview. For my money, however, the most "immediate" issue was Rudy's flat statement that he is opposed to same-sex marriage, and always has been: "Marriage should be between a man and a woman." At the same time Rudy believes that "civil unions" -- called "domestic partnerships" in New York when Rudy, as Mayor, signed legislation approving them -- are a viable way to address the issue and afford gays and lesbians equal protection of the law as they live their lives.

Take note that this flat statement came less than 24 hours after Tom Brokaw said on "Hardball with Campbell Brown" that Rudy could not win the Republican nomination because he is in favour of "gay marriage". Play a mental game with yourself and see if Mr. Brokaw ever corrects himself. Please take note, also, that this statement of position by Rudy is almost exactly how I have articulated for you all in the past what I had sussed out his position to be.

In sum, the entire Prager interview points up, to me at least, why I support Rudy so strongly: In addition to his toughness on crime and terrorism, his tax cutting record, etc., this interview shows him to be a strong National-Security and Fiscal Conservative with a strong (small "l") libertarian streak. This is almost exactly how I would describe myself.

The only significant issue of Principle left is "Federalism" -- which is the latest euphemism for "States' Rights" -- and Rudy appears to be making "Federalism" a central plank in his campaign platform, e.g., "strict constructionist" judges, social issues left to state legislatures, etc. For me that squares the circle.

Yet, the Tom Brokaws of the world keep saying Rudy is too "liberal" for the Republican "Base". Well, hogwash! Dare I say it? This man could be a more significant President than Ronald Reagan! Both in the sense of what he would do as President and in sense of how the MSM will continue either to ignore or underestimate him until he has absolutely eaten their lunch!

Finally, I would ask all McCainiacs to take especial note of Rudy's conciliatory, diplomatic, indeed praising comments about the good Senator, who will most likely prove to be Rudy's principal rival for the GOP nomination in 2008. Could it be that Rudy is consciously resurrecting Ronald Reagan's vaunted "11th Commandment"? Could we really be once again on the verge of "Morning in America". Ah, 'tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

And now, the blogosphere commentary on the Prager interview:

10 Responses to "Quote of the Day"

jake Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 8:46 pm

That should be the mantra of the Republican Party, repeated by every candidate when he wakes up in the morning, before every speech, and again before he goes to sleep.

Zach Mayo Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 8:53 pm

Take out the "sort of" and that may well be the quote of century. Of course, this is only a step away from the "out of my pocketbook, out of my bedroom" rhetoric that so angers the so-cons (mostly that latter half). Being a social moderate myself, I don't care much whether Giuliani was thinking about abortion when he said this.

DaveG Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 8:57 pm

Dare I say it's morning in America again?

jake Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 8:58 pm

Dave G. . .nice.

Zach Mayo Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 9:04 pm

Well, Dave, I dare say that Rudy Giuliani's staff would love for you to make that particular connection .

Nusrat Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 10:19 pm

Is it just me, or is Giuliani the closest thing a small-l libertarian like myself will get to the perfect candidate?

Nusrat Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 10:44 pm

(In a major party, that is)

DaveG Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 11:37 pm

Nusrat: It's not just you

Steve Says:

December 6th, 2006 at 12:31 am

As a social conservative (as well as a fiscon and neocon), and a Republican that knows that without social conservatives the Republican candidate can never win, I find this statement troubling. I was close to being able to enthusiastically supporting Rudy if he were the nominee. Now, I'm significantly less sure.

DaveG Says:

December 6th, 2006 at 1:01 am

Hi Steve,

Just to make sure you know, this statement wasn't code for any sort of position on abortion. It came up in the context of taxes and civil unions, and Rudy was arguing that his opposition to taxes, and his support in NYC for ensuring that gay citizens are afforded the same legal protections that the rest of us enjoy as we live our lives, both stem from his political philosophy, which is articulated in our quote of the century above. Beyond that, I guess I would just ask to what extent you would disagree with the general principle that government should generally err on the side of not meddling in people's lives? If it's abortion that you're concerned about, I think it's quite possible to be a small-l libertarian and pro-life, and it's definitely possible to be a small-l libertarian and support judges who defer to the democratic process.

________________________________________________________________________

And, in response to a posting entitled “Still Think Rudy’s Not Running” announcing that Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Management Sandra Pack will leave her post and head to Giuliani's exploratory committee, the following:

7 Responses to "Still Think Rudy's Not Running?"

Paul8148 Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 5:19 pm

Yes. It also helps to get some non-New York blood on his team. Romney has got the Republicans to "op-resource" guy on board for the Republican party.

Methepeople Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 5:25 pm

For Rudy fans, he was interviewed on Dennis Prager's show today, both at the end of the second hour and also at the beginning of the third hour.

Dennis asked him questions about Iraq/War on Terror and Israel as well as domestic issues like tax cuts, same-sex marriage, and campaign finance reform. He also asked Rudy about John McCain. Rudy was great- candid, much more conservative than I expected, and the way he talked about he and McCain running against each other made it clear that he is running.

Also, I think Kavon had said he supposed that Rudy might take the Reagan route and not "bash" other candidates...he's right. When asked about McCain, Rudy played his cards WELL. I, being a Romney fan, conceded that that attitude might win him the nomination. But you gotta hear it for yourself. It's the first interview that I'm aware of that he made after the exploratory committee announcement.

Jennifer Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 5:32 pm

Mr Meet the People, What did he say on the social issues? Did he make a strong judges pitch?

Methepeople Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 5:44 pm

He was not asked about judges. He said that he was against same-sex marriage- "Marriage is between a man and a woman." He conceded that he signed civil union bill when he was mayor, but compared it to domestic partnership (in a pretty disarming way). He is pro tax cuts, and cited the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush administrations as evidence that tax cuts spur the economy.

He also said the McCain-Feingold had many loopholes, but that he was used to it because he ran for mayor under a CFR system. But he said he didn't like McCain-Feingold, but that to McCain's credit, Rudy thought McCain has realized some of the problems that were unforeseen at the time of the legislation. He said the CFR was easily as complex as the current tax code.

Jennifer Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 5:49 pm

Dear MethePeople(sorry for the prior typo):

Sounds somewhat convincing. I always thought his best social conservative gambit would be that he went into the lion's den-cleaning up NY, fighting the cross defilers, defending the cops against the ACLU. Any push on that?

Methepeople Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm

Nope. It wasn't that long of an interview. I think a main message I got from the interview was: "I'm not liberal like you thought." It's RUDY that almost sounded like the heir apparent to Bush, rather than McCain.

DaveG Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 7:33 pm

I thought Rudy knocked the ball out of the park. My favorite line came when Rudy was making the distinction between his opposition for SSM and support for civil unions. He basically said that while we shouldn't change the definition of marriage, we should give gay individuals the ability to be protected under the law as they live their lives. He then pointed out that this is consistent with his philosophy of generally *getting government out of people's lives.*

I also thought that his Iraq response was good. Basically argued that we can't pull out now, not for some amorphous reason like the need to establish a utopia on the Euphrates, but for the simple reason that if we do, it will likely empower Iran even more and will create a hotbed for terrorist production. I assume Rudy means that if we leave now, it won't be long before Iraq becomes a Shia-led mini-Iran. The thing is, he's probably right. Rudy said we must leave a “stable” Iraq behind.

2006-12-01T06:51:00.000-08:00

THE FRONTRUNNING UNDERDOG

And now, Ladies and Gentlemen, back to Rudy: National Review's Deroy Murdock has once again hit the nail on the head with respect to Rudy’s status as the actual “on-the-ground” frontrunner for the 2008 Republican nomination for President. He has also, once again, absolutely skewered the MSM’s and the “Conventional Wisdom’s” almost childishly petulant denial of that obvious reality. Here is the hyper-link to the entire article:

(http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWIwODQ5ZDZkYzkzOWU4MTJhYjkwZTFiYzJlYzk4Mzc=),

and here are the “money quotes:

"The oddest thing about the conventional wisdom may be its almost bulletproof imperviousness to the facts. An excellent example of this phenomenon is Arizona Senator John McCain's oft-trumpeted status as frontrunner for the 2008 Republican nomination. Conversely, the cognoscenti titter at former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani as terminally liberal."

"Most fascinating is Giuliani's performance among self-professed "White evangelicals/Born-again Christians." Here again, among 439 of the study's most socially conservative respondents, Giuliani is at the top of the heap. He scores 66.3, ahead of Rice (64.4), Bush (58.1), McCain (57.1), Gingrich (47.8), and Romney (46.4). (Error margin for these respondents: +/- 4.7 percent.)"

"The conventional wisdom further argues that Giuliani benefits from his high name ID in the wake of his universally covered and highly appreciated leadership on September 11. But Giuliani is not outshining a state senator here or a second-term House member there. McCain is widely known from coast to coast, as are Gingrich, Bush, and Rice. Giuliani easily outpolls the former speaker of the House of Representatives and the man who was runner-up for the 2000 GOP presidential nomination. Giuliani tops the current secretary of State and the president of the United States in general "warmth" and comes within 0.6 and 0.4 "degrees" of them in popularity among Republicans."

"As for his alleged liberalism, Giuliani, to be sure, will face resistance from Republican primary voters who differ with him on abortion, gay marriage, and gun ownership. While Giuliani's views on these issues eventually may gravitate to the right, he will address his potential critics with an enormous reservoir of goodwill, as Quinnipiac's numbers show.

Some have speculated that Giuliani's numbers will fall once GOP voters across America learn that he favors civil unions, is pro-choice, and has called for greater gun regulations. Perhaps.

But his numbers could hold or even rise once Republicans outside Gotham learn that, as mayor, he cut the local tax burden by 19 percent, jettisoned racial and gender preferences for contracting (during his first month as mayor, no less), hunted deadbeat dads and made them pay their child support, implemented charter schools, promoted "vouchers" (always embracing that word), and hosed down seedy, crime-infested areas such as Times Square. It now is safe, literally, for Mary Poppins - a new Disney musical that opened on 42^nd Street, where pornographic films unspooled prior to Giuliani's tenure."

At least as important as Mr. Murdock’s prose, however, is the chart (reproduced below) that he compiled from Quinnipiac's "Thermometer Reading" poll (conducted 13-19 November 2006), in conjunction with his article on Rudy in National Review On-Line, yesterday, 30 November 2006. I don't believe I have ever seen anything quite this astounding. One should study this chart carefully!

At the same time that the MSM and the "Conventional Wisdom" are loudly trumpeting John McCain as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2008, Rudy leads every current potential candidate in every category of potential voters! Let me say that again louder: RUDY LEADS EVERY CURRENT POTENTIAL CANDIDATE IN EVERY CATEGORY OF POTENTIAL VOTERS!

Even when non-candidates for 2008 are considered, Rudy still leads in 8 of 9 categories. The 9th category is "Republicans" where Rudy comes in a close 3rd to two non-candidates: 1. Condi Rice 72.3%; 2. President Bush 72.1%; 3. Rudy 71.7%. More importantly, however, even in this category, Rudy leads actual potential candidates, McCain (by 9.5 percentage points), Gingrich (12.8), and Romney (18.9), all by margins that are solidly above that category's announced margin of error of +/-4.4%.

Most importantly of all, however, in the category of "White Born-Again Christians", Rudy leads the entire field by substantial margins. Here again, Rudy leads actual potential candidates McCain (9.2), Gingrich (18.5), and Romney (19.9), by margins that are solidly above that category's announced margin of error 0f +/-4.7%. What is most important here is that this is the very category that the MSM and the "Conventional Wisdom" say is supposed to deny Rudy the Republican nomination.

Moreover, that's all they have to say against Rudy. Let me say that again louder: THAT'S ALL THEY HAVE TO SAY AGAINST RUDY! There is no other reason advanced by the MSM and the "Conventional Wisdom" as to why Rudy won't win the nomination than that the Christian Right in the South won't vote for him in the primaries. Yet, not only does Rudy lead every other name advanced in this category, he also leads Mitt Romney, supposedly the new "darling" of the Values Voters, by almost 20 percentage points! Don't forget, Rudy doesn't actually have to win this block of voters. All he has to do is garner enough of their votes so that they don't vote as a bloc for someone else and thereby deliver a primary win to that someone else.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________




Giuliani Tops Republicans in "Thermometer Reading" of National Leaders

									White Evang./
							White	White	Born-again
Leader	Total	Men	Women	Republicans	Democrats	Independents	Protestants	Catholics	Christians

G.W. Bush	43.8	43.6	44.0	72.1	22.2	38.9	53.6	45.1	58.1
Gingrich	42.0	42.6	41.4	58.9	29.0	38.9	45.7	42.5	47.8
Giuliani	64.2	62.9	65.6	71.7	56.4	64.1	66.2	66.7	66.3
McCain	57.7	59.6	55.7	62.2	52.5	58.6	60.2	59.6	57.1
Rice	56.1	53.0	59.1	72.3	44.1	53.3	61.4	57.2	64.4
Romney	45.9	46.4	45.2	52.8	39.7	45.9	46.8	46.6	46.4

Source: Quinnipiac University Polling Institute's "Feeling Thermometer" -- 1,623 registered voters rated the warmth
of national leaders from 0 - 100: "The higher the number, the warmer or more favorable you feel toward that person,
the lower the number, the colder or less favorable." Mean scores presented here.

Key error margins: +/- 2.4 percent, overall. Among Republicans: +/- 4.4 percent. Among Born-against: +/- 4.7 percent.

Survey conducted November 13 - 19, 2006.