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.

2006-11-16T14:07:00.000-08:00

WHAT IT ALL MEANS

All right, I am now finally over my snit, and I am ready to disclose to one and all the true meaning of the results of the mid-term elections. First, I suppose I should concede that essentially I called it wrong, as did the majority of other prognosticators. Moreover, just as President Bush conceded, the GOP took a “thumping”. Stop chortling, that’s as much as you’re going to get. Even though control of both Chambers was switched to the Democrat Party, the results were no Democrat tsunami, a la the Republican tsunami in 1994, as the MSM and the Conventional Wisdom were rooting for in the guise of predicting same.

Control of the Senate by Democrats ultimately came down to one word, “Macaca”, together with four of the six races that determined control being decided by margins that were so close the loser could legally have demanded a recount if he had chosen so to do.

While control of the House also switched to the Democrats, the actual number of seats gained by that party (29 certain, with 7 still pending) was still less than the average number of seats (37) lost, over the last 100 years, by the Party in control in a mid-term election at the six-year point of a Presidency.

What was most unusual about these mid-terms was that the candidate who had raised and spent the most money lost in seven Senate races (21.2%) and 33 House races (7.5%). This had been true in only 11% of Senate races and 02% of House races since and including 1994.

So, what does it all mean? To me, there are three screaming conclusions about just what the American electorate voted for. I shall state them first in the order of their importance and then analyze them in reverse order, saving the most important for last. Thus, you have to read all the way through to the end. The “good news” is that I shall be uncharacteristically brief. Here goes:

1. RUN RUDY RUN!

2. AMERICANS WANT CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT!

3. IRAQ WAS NOT THE WHOLE STORY!

Certainly, the failed aftermath of the initial military victory in Iraq was a very important issue in the mid-term elections, but it was not even the overriding issue, let alone the whole story. Most of the exit polls tell us this, in their necessarily cryptic way, ranking “War in Iraq”, on average, as only the 4^th most important factor in determining the way voters cast their votes:

Extremely Important Issues:
(average of numerous polls)

Corruption 42%
Terrorism 40%
The Economy 39%
War in Iraq 37%

At the same time, these mid-terms were unusual in that 62% of voters said that “national issues” were more important to them than local issues in deciding how to vote, thus violating Tip O’Neil’s famous dictum that: “All politics is local.”

To the above list of issues, I would add three factors that I think were extremely important in the GOP’s “thumping”, though they didn’t “poll well”:

Do Nothing Congress: Essentially, the GOP-led 109^th Congress had no legislative results to ameliorate or offset the Party’s poor performance in the eyes of the electorate on the issues cited in the exit polls. To wit: The Congress didn’t reform Social Security, didn’t enact immigration reform, didn’t enact tax reform, failed on prescription drug reform, etc., etc., etc. In short, Congress essentially “did nothing”, and Americans are a very “results-oriented” people. Don’t forget, the last time we had a Congress that accomplished as little as this one was the 1946-1948 Republican Congress that Harry Truman famously labeled the “Do Nothing Congress”, and then ran on that slogan to achieve his stunning upset victory over the heavily favoured New York Governor Tom Dewey (my Lodge Brother) in the 1948 Presidential election.

Big Government Run Wild: Indeed, about the only thing the 109^th Congress did do was spend money like it was going out of style – all the while not even trying to compensate for their profligacy with corresponding sending cuts. Congressional apologists tried to put a pretty face on this by waxing philosophical about “Big Government Conservatism”. Well, hogwash! What the GOP Congress really accomplished, however, was to alienate the small-government, libertarian, “leave me alone”, segment of the Party. For all the “noise” made by the “values voters” of the Religious Right, the “leave me alone” crowd ranks no lower than the second largest segment of the GOP’s vaunted “Base”.

Immigration Pandering: In 2004, President Bush got a stunningly large 44% of the Hispanic vote. Hence, he proposed serious immigration reform to the Congress, in a bill including a “guest worker” program that could lead ultimately to full citizenship in the appropriate individual cases. In “disposing” of this proposal, however, the Congress pandered to the worst instincts of the GOP’s “paleo-Right” wing -- vilifying the “guest worker” program as “amnesty” -- and ended up passing a “bill” whose central feature was to build a fence along the Mexican border. Then, they didn’t even pass funding for the fence! As a result, the GOP’s Hispanic vote in 2006, shrank back to its historic 10-15% level. Indeed, this factor alone, given the closeness of the results, could conceivably have determined the switch in control of the Congress. Just ask Rep. J. D. Hayworth of border-state Arizona, who was one of the loudest “anti-immigration” demagogues and lost his supposedly “safe” Republican House seat. As Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said: “Even a dog knows whether he’s been kicked or accidentally stepped on.” Thus, did Hispanic voters perceive that they had been kicked in a hard-right campaign that tried to “arouse the Base” by casting Hispanics as the villains of the piece.

Now I know, that with all the hurrah over Iraq on the cable-news talk shows, it is difficult to see the results of the mid-terms in terms of anything other than Iraq. Of course, Iraq has been and remains an extremely important national issue, but the Donkey Party, with the possible exception of Joe Biden, did not, and has not still, offered its own coherent alternative or well-thought-out plan for Iraq. If for no other reason than this lack of an alternative proposal, Iraq by itself would not have thrown control of Congress to the Donkeys.

Now, to evaluate finally the importance of Iraq in the mid-terms, pause for a moment and conduct the following exercise: Imagine that Iraq was the only thing that the electorate had against GOP candidates on 07 November. Imagine that the national consciousness had never heard of Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay, Bob Ney, Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Conrad Burns, et al., et al., in any negative way. Imagine that the economy was widely perceived to be as good as it actually is. Imagine that the Congress had in fact passed social security reform, tax reform, and immigration reform with some sort of “guest worker” provision. Now, factor in both that there has been no terrorist attack on American soil since 11 September 2001, and the closeness of so many individual Senate and House races.

Well, as the English barrister says: I put it to you, sir: Under these circumstances, the GOP would have lost seats in the mid-term elections, but would still control both Houses of Congress! Now, the GOP may be trying to blame their losses on George Bush and the war in Iraq, but if the Party honestly wants to know who is responsible for losing control of Congress, all they have to do is look in the mirror.

Now, before moving on, you should all pause and thank me that I resisted the mischievous impulse to label this section “The Hand Of Mark Foley At Work”!

2. AMERICANS WANT CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT!

Everyone who cares about the future of this great nation should have burned onto his retina another set of exit poll numbers. Even as the voters were narrowly turning control of the Congress over to the Party of the Left, when asked to describe themselves in more general terms, they responded as follows:

Conservative: 37%
Moderate: 47%
Liberal: 21%

To me the message could not be clearer. To put it in terms more usually associated with a Parliamentary system: Americans want their government to form itself on the Center-Right, not the paleo-Right of Tom Coburn, Sam Brownback, and Tom Tancredo, not even the Center-Left of Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman, and certainly not the (semi) Looney-Left of Howard Dean, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi.

Indeed, the efficacy of this conclusion can be seen also in the character of the newly elected candidates who chose to run under the Democrat banner, and to be fair, candidates whom the Party chose to recruit, endorse and support. Many of the new Democrat faces in the Congress will belong to people of a much more conservative bent than has heretofore been the norm. Indeed, many, if not most of these new Congressmen could have just as easily run as Republicans as they did as Democrats. Two examples, one from each Chamber, will serve to make this point.

Senate: Virtually everyone, from both Parties, concedes that Virginia Republican George Allen ran by far the worst Senate campaign of this election cycle, if indeed not the worst of all time. Still, he led for most of the night, and his final margin of defeat was less 0.5%, small enough that he could legally have demanded a recount had he chosen to do so. Even with all his gaffs, bobbles, mean-spirited bullying, and Larry Sabotage, had George’s opponent been from the Looney-Left of the Democrat Party, virtually everyone concedes also that George would be heading back to Washington. In fact, however, Senator-Elect Jim Webb had himself been a life-long Republican, switching parties only shortly before the 2006 campaign.

Perhaps more to the point, Web is a man of distinctly conservative bent, an Annapolis graduate and a decorated Viet Nam Marine veteran who served in the first Reagan administration as Secretary of the Navy at the young age of 37. Senator-Elect Webb has also authored many well-received books, most particularly Born Fighting, which extols the “Mountain Values” of his Scots-Irish forebears in the Appalachians, the Alleghenies, and the Blue Ridge. Finally, in a state heavy with military voters, Webb’s own son is currently serving in a combat unit in Iraq, and the senior Webb wore his son’s combat boots throughout the campaign. In short, Webb is not exactly the sort of politician one would expect to find in the same party as Carl Levin and David Dingle. The GOP should search its soul long and hard over the loss of a man like Jim Webb.

House: University of Tennessee All-American and Former Washington Redskins quarterback Heath Schuler was elected to the House as a Democrat from the 11^th District of his native North Carolina. The 11^th occupies the extreme southwest tip of the Tar Heel State and includes Asheville and Black Mountain. Essentially the entire District is in the Smokey Mountains, and Rep.-Elect Shuler affirmatively ran his campaign on the same sort of “Mountain Values” espoused by Jim Webb in Virginia. Indeed, the same Heath Shuler was vigorously recruited by the GOP as long ago as 2000, to run for office as a Republican.

Indeed, the most salient fact about the new Democrats like Webb, Shuler, and others is that the Donkey Party of Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer recruited them, endorsed them, and supported them. Thus, the central question, put squarely to that party, is this: Will the Hill Democrats bring the Webbs and the Shulers of the 110^th Congress into the Party Caucus, listen to them, and gradually move the Party to the Center, even if not all the way Center Right? Will they move the Party toward the Democrat Leadership Council, which was founded in 1985, by Bill Clinton, among others, expressly to re-make the Party in a centrist image after the 49-state electoral drubbing administered in 1984 by Ronald Reagan to a Party led by Water Mondale, Geraldine Ferraro, and Jesse Jackson?

Conversely, will the Democrat leaders of the 110^th Congress, now that they have the majority, essentially freeze out the Webbs and Shulers and carry on their merry Leftist way? In fact, that’s exactly what happened two decades ago. Bill Clinton helped found the DLC in 1985, and ran and won on a centrist platform in 1992. Then during his first two years in office he gave the Country a hefty tax increase, gays in the military, and Hillary Care. I really can’t predict which way the Democrat Party will go, but one can learn from history just how each option might turn out.

Take heed of two object lessons, one in each direction: First, as noted, Bill Clinton “ran to the right” in 1992, and immediately came into office and “governed to the left”, in 1993, which lead directly to the Republican tsunami in the 1994 mid-term elections. If the Hill Democrats pull the same stunt in the 110^th Congress, the result could very well be the same kind of Republican wave election in 2008, which is also a Presidential year, as in 1994. The object lesson in the other direction actually comes from across the Pond.

In the mid-1980’s, the British Labour Party, having been flattened by Margaret Thatcher, was in very much the same position as the American Democrat Party. The difference proved to be an obscure back-bencher named Tony Blair. Under Blair’s leadership, the Labourites remade their Party in much the same way the DLC wanted to remake the Donkey Party. The object lesson is that, when the Labourites were voted in, in 1997, Blair, unlike Clinton, governed the same way he had campaigned. The immediate results were the Labourite landslide in 2001, and their semi-landslide in 2006 -- which would have been a second full landslide but for the Blair Government’s decision to support the war in Iraq.

The real difference is that Tony Blair, whatever his politics, is a man of real character, whereas Bill Clinton is . . . well, you finish the sentence. Thus the choice is put squarely to the Hill Democrats: Are they going to emulate Tony Blair and govern the way they campaigned? Are they going to emulate Bill Clinton and lurch even farther Left than they have done in the past?

1. Run Rudy Run!

Aren’t you surprised that I would end up here! Despite my famously announced leanings toward Rudy, however, it is clear to me that Rudy is, and always has been, exactly where the 2006 electorate has announced they want their Government to be: On the Center-Right. You can all leaf back through this Blog and read my extollings of the specific virtues that place Rudy on the Center Right, so I won’t belabour the point and recite them all here. Certainly, poll, after poll, after poll in 2006, has placed Rudy firmly on the Center Right, as well as given the lie to the Conventional Wisdom that the vaunted GOP Base won’t support him in the 2008 Republican Primaries because of his soi disant “liberal positions”. All that’s true, and fine, but it misses the Most Important Point: Leadership.

What this Country wants and needs in its 44^th President is Leadership, with a Capital “L”, and Rudy has demonstrated that in spades. When Rudy’s Leadership is linked with all his other political virtues, virtues that place him firmly on the Center Right in the current American political spectrum -- just exactly where the 2006 electorate has fairly screamed they want their Government to be -- then the conclusion is clear: The 2008 Presidential Election is, as of this moment, Rudy’s to lose. Despite the Webbs and the Shulers of the 110^th Congress, the Donkey Party simply has no potential Presidential candidate for 2008, who can take the Center-Right mantle away from Rudy. A word of caution, however, is in order: Watch the Hill leadership over the next two years. Whether they emulate Bill Clinton in 1993-1994, or Tony Blair in 1997-1999, will determine how long Rudy’s coattails will be, and whether or not he will bring in with him GOP majorities on the Hill.

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

2006-11-06T15:42:00.000-08:00

ABSOLUTELY INFALLIBLE MID-TERM PREDICTIONS

Well, you’ve been waiting for them, et alors, les voici: My absolutely infallible predictions for the mid-term elections! But first, there are three absolutely inviolable rules that must be observed when reading these predictions:

Rule One: I have absolutely no bleedin’ idea what the bloody ’ell is going to happen in the mid-term election!

Rule Two: If I say something you agree with, pause immediately and salute my incandescent brilliance!

Rule Three: If I say something you disagree with, pause immediately and refer back to Rule One!

So, here we go: First the predictions and then the analysis:

Senate: The Republicans will maintain control of the Chamber with 52 or 53 Senators.

House: Refer back to Rile One! Do it again! Now, I am supremely confident that one of two possible results will obtain:

1. The Democrats will pick up the 15 additional seats they need for control of the Chamber, but will have a net gain of no more that 24 seats, thus entering the next Congress with a bare majority – anywhere from 217-217 (with one independent voting with the Democrats to organize the Chamber) to 227-208.

2. The Republicans will lose seats but retain control of the Chamber with their own bare majority, certainly no greater than 224-211

ANALYSIS:

The Liberal Media:

The potential importance of these elections, with control of both Chambers hanging in the balance, together with the super-heated “war sentiment” and the fact that the polls and the pundits have been almost literally “all-over-the-map”, has induced the Liberal Media to show its true colours, even more than usual, and deliver an absolutely disgusting performance of fellow-traveling, cheer-leading partisanship in favour of the Left-leaning Democrat Party. This performance has been far worse than the “Liberal-Media Multiplier-Effect” that I have previously identified in this space (23 October). With the “Multiplier-Effect” in the past, the Media have needed “something” in the first instance to “multiply”. This time round, they have made it up for themselves in the first instance. To wit, but three examples among many:

1. The NBC Network and the MSNBC Cable News Network: On Sunday morning, 29 October 2006, both candidates for the open, currently Democrat, Senate seat in Maryland appeared on NBC’s Meet The Press for a “Senatorial Debate”, which was then re-broadcast that evening on MSNBC. On the morning of the “Debate” NBC released its own “scientific poll” showing Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Steele trailing Democrat Congressman Ben Cardin by 11 percentage points. Over the next few days, the release of this “poll” caused something of a “firestorm” of comment on Fox News and in the blogosphere. No other poll, among at least a dozen, had shown more than a five-point difference, with several polls showing the race to be a “dead heat”. No matter, the damage was done, a pall had been cast over the M-T-P “debate” and had given it the pallor of Democrat Cardin being the almost prohibitive “frontrunner” and Republican Steele being the Quixotic “challenger”. Then, as if to rub salt in the wound, M-T-P Moderator Tim Russert appeared later in the week on MSNBC’s Hardball and absolutely chortled with host Chris Matthews that he (Russert) had thrown Steele a curve ball and really put him off his stride.

2. The McLaughlin Group: This past weekend, the Group “predicted” that the Democrats would gain the six Senate seats they need to control the Chamber. This “prediction” was arrived at by a “vote” on nine Senate races – RI, NJ, PA, MD, VA, TN, OH, MO, and MT – by the Moderator John McLaughlin and his four regular panelists: Lawrence O’Donnell, Eleanor Cliff, Pat Buchanan, and Tony Blankley. This “vote” showed only TN going for the Republicans, thus netting the Democrats six seats. Well, things might indeed that way, but this “vote” is certainly no indication that they will. Cliff did her usual number of wrinkling her brow and pursing her lips so as to seem thoughtful, then as usual, opened her mouth and let spew forth the straight party line. At least O’Donnell appeared to be more honest. He simply chortled over the up-coming Democrat “landslide” and off-handedly “called” every race, save TN, for the Democrats. John McLaughlin took his usual establishmentarian tact and called every race for the Democrat with no analysis. Pat Buchanan pursed his lips once or twice so that he wouldn’t seem too gleeful, and “stuck it” to his former party. Only Tony Blankley, the only at least nominal Republican in the group, attempted to give some thoughtful analysis. After this, he made a very insightful comment, and said essentially that VA, MD, MO, and MT were “too close to call”. I shall come back to both the Blankley remark and the Blankley predictions.

3. The New York Times: I have read The Times essentially every day for almost 40 years. The paper has of course taken a “Liberal” stance throughout that period, but I have NEVER witnessed such shameless “news management”, partisan cheerleading form the news hole, and downright lying, as I have during the run-up to the 2006 mid-term elections. I used to think that I could at least rely on The Times’ recitation of hard facts, but I can’t even do that for this election cycle. One example is a little “off center”, but it will make the point: Linda Greenhouse has been The Times’ principal Supreme Court reported for more than two decades. During that time, she has won virtually every award there is to win in journalism, and has become generally highly respected. I have always had my suspicions that she was a “Lefty”, but I used to think I could rely on her professionalism to at least try to keep her personal sentiments out of her reporting. Well, here recently, she was honoured by, and gave a talk to, a group of fellow Radcliff Alumni. The contents of her speech were reported, and they consisted of extremely outré Left-wing sentiments – the modern American Liberal version of the Marxist party line. Well, all right, I thought, no real surprise there, but at least she knows that these are her personal views and makes the effort to keep them out of her reporting. Well! When it was pointed out to her that the rendering of such remarks was against The Times’ policy, and she was asked to defend her actions, she didn’t even bother to invoke any of the usual Lefty shibboleths. No, she said she hadn’t actually violated the times policy against reporters expressing their views in public. No, she hadn’t done that because she had only stated facts! Well, there’s not much else to say: What I describe as the “modern American Liberal version of the Marxist party line”, Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times describes as “fact”.

This all means, among other things, that I cannot rely on the Media as a basic source of facts, from which to draw my own conclusions and make predictions. Thus, this year far more than usual, I have absolutely no bleedin’ idea what the bloody ’ell is going to happen. That said, virtually everyone is agreed that this will be a “Democrat year”, and that they will gain seats in both Chambers. The only question is: Will the pick-up of seats be sufficient to gain voting control of either Chamber? That said, I think I have gleaned, from the MSM and elsewhere, certain “helpful hints”, Seven Pillars of Wisdom”, if you will, that will aid you all in following the election returns tomorrow night. Please allow me to share them with you now. Then I will disclose how I put these hints together to fashion the “predictions” I made above.

The Seven Pillars of Wisdom:

1. The Katrina Effect: This past week end, on the McLaughlin Group, Tony Blankley gave what I thought to be a very useful why of understanding all the predictions of a Democrat tsunami this year. I paraphrase: Right now the inchoate Democrat votes are like a Category 5 hurricane swirling around in the Gulf of Mexico. The actual damage done on land by this hurricane, however, will not be known until it actually makes landfall, and the many relatively small changes it makes in force and direction before it lands will ultimately determine the final extent of the damage.

2. No Poll is Worth a Dam: Including this one! That said, as I have said before in this space (04 October), one can make effective use of the polls if, and only if, one can look at least at 5-6 polls on the same subject, taken over roughly the same period of time. Fortunately, with respect to the mid-terms: “Real Clear Politics” has scrupulously provided us all the polling results in all the Senate and House races, and taken the further trouble to compute the average “polling spread” for each race. These computations show that this year, there is an unusually high number of races where the polling results are not only “within the margin of error”, but are actually down to a margin of less than two percentage points in either direction. This means two thing: If there is to be a Democrat Tsunami, it will have to be built on victories in a large number of very close races. That just is not bloody likely in any year under any circumstances. Moreover, this closeness in many individual races brings sharply into focus the immediately ensuing four of the “Seven Pillars of Wisdom”. To wit: There are so many close races in which any one or more of these four factors call spell the difference, which makes a Democrat Tsunami this year even less bloody likely.

3. Money Makes The World Go Round: Recently in this space (23 October), I reported on the mid-term predictions by Barron’s Magazine, i.e., that when the dust has settled, Republicans will find themselves with 52 seats in the Senate and 224 seats in the House -- just enough for a bare majority in each Chamber. These predictions were based on the sole criterion of which candidate had/has raised and spent the most money in each of the 33 Senate races and 435 House races. While using this “sole criterion”, may indeed sound a bit outré at first blush, Barron’s points out that this very method actually bucked the "Conventional Wisdom" and accurately predicted the election results in both of the last two elections, 2002 and 2004. Moreover, this single predictive factor has (would have) correctly forecast 93% of all House races, going back to 1972, and 98% in recent years. On the Senate side, this method has proven accurate 89% of the time since and including 1996.

4. The Base Comes Home: Just this past week, virtually all the commentators have been taking note of “slight up-ticks” in Republican support. They have all passed this off as merely the “Base coming home”. Perhaps so, but they miss the point. For months, we have been hearing that Republicans are in trouble because their vaunted “Base” was “dispirited” over Iraq, Mark Foley, etc., etc., etc. Thus, the reasoning went, if the Base simply “stayed home” on election day, Republicans would lose to Democrats in close race after close race. Well, now they report that the “Base is coming home”, but do not adjust their overall predictions of a “Democrat year” of tsunami proportions. Ho hum! Well, the way I see it, the fact of the “Base coming home” is another of those several seemingly inconsequential factors that could spell the difference in all those close races that all the pundits are saying the polls are showing. Here also, with respect to the House, we must factor in the fact of Republican Gerrymandering after the 2000 Census. House seats currently held by Republicans simply have a more solid Republican Base than they did before 2000.

5. The “Generic Ballot” Tightens: First of all, if a Democratic lead in the Generic Ballot were sufficient for control of the House, the Democrats would have won the House in 5 of the last 6 Congressional elections, including 1994! Moreover, the spread in favor of the Democrats has tightened considerably since it approached 15-20 percentage points in August-September. “Real Clear Politics” shows an average of six polls taken since 01 November with an average Democrat lead on 11.4%. In my judgment, however, even this average is skewed by “scientific” polls for CNN, Newsweek, and Time, showing a Democrat lead of 20%, 16%, and 15%, respectively (surprise, surprise). In this same average, a nationwide Pew Research Center survey, conducted between 01 and 04 November, finds that the Democrat lead in the Generic Ballot has shrunk to a scant 4 percentage points, i.e., 47%-43%, among likely voters. The MSM and their Fellow Travelers in the Punditocracy have flaunted the Generic Ballot numbers for months, principally because they showed a substantial Democrat lead. Well, it never was all that important in the first place, and now it appears to have shrunk to a manageable difference, if not to virtual insignificance.

6. The Republican Ground Game: Virtually everyone agrees that, at least since the rise of Karl Rove, the Republican get-out-the-vote capability, i.e., the vaunted “Ground Game”, has far surpassed that of the Democrats. And, there are a great many preliminary indications that this will be so again this year. First of all, the Republican efforts are organized and coordinated from a single national office, under the direct supervision of General Rove himself, whereas the Democrat efforts remain scattered among many local offices and under the direct supervision of many local chieftans. Moreover, in MO alone, repots are that, as of 01 November, Republicans had already made substantially more GOTV contacts that they did through election day in 2004, a Presidential year.

7. The Cokie Roberts Method: Usually, I want to tear my hair out every time this woman opens her mouth! That said, in her standard Monday Morning Commentary on NPR today, she gave what I find to be a very useful way of viewing the election returns early tomorrow evening: Most of the Republican losses will come, if they come at all, in the East and Northeast. In these areas, the polls close relatively early because of the difference in time zones, and in some of these areas the polls close even earlier still. So watch the early returns in the East, particularly with respect to the House races. If the Democrats seem to be winning only one out of three of the seats that are supposed to shift, such as the three Republican seats in CN, including that of Chris Shays (CT-4), that all the pundits think are in jeopardy, then the Republicans will almost certainly maintain their majority in the House. If, however, the early returns show the Democrats winning two out of three of these seats, then they will probably take the House with at least a workable majority. Finally, if the Democrats actually do begin to win three out of three of these Eastern seats, that will be a sign that the tsunami is coming after all. I think this will prove to be a very helpful guide to enhance your television viewing pleasure on Election Night. I would add one further specific. Watch Mark Foley’s former district (FL-16). If that seat goes Democrat, it won’t mean munch by itself. If, however, the “Punch Foley for Negron” slogan works, and the Republicans retain this seat, then I would say that the Republican majority in the House is reasonably safe.

Those Predictions Again:

1. How I did it:

First: I looked at the “average” of the polling numbers on “Real Clear Politics”, and I factored in the “Money Ball” analysis of Barron’s. This exercise told me that there are so many close races this year, particularly with respect to the House, that there will probably, almost certainly, not be a “Democrat tsunami”. Ergo, the voting control of each Chamber will most likely turn on a relatively small number of votes in each race, including fifty or more individual pivotal House races.

Second: I looked at the seats in the House that either The Sunday New York Times and/or “Real Clear Politics” think are still “toss-ups”, i.e., the polling numbers show a difference of less that two percentage points in either direction. In my judgment, with respect to these races, the Republican Ground Game, and/or any or all of the Seven Pillars numbered “3” through “6” above, could quite conceivably “make the difference” for the Republican candidate.

Third: Nothing in politics, nor in life for that matter is ever 100%. Thus, the factors listed above will certainly not bring home all the toss-up seats for the Republicans. So, I started playing around with possible allocations of the fifty-odd pivotal House races, including some sixteen listed in the toss-up category by both The Times and “Real Clear Politics”. That’s how I came up with the range that I set forth first above for how many House seats each party can expect to wind up with. Because there are only some 9-13 potentially pivotal Senate races, I was able to do more of a race-by-race analysis, as set forth below.

2. Senate:

Virtually every commentator (moi inclusive) agrees that there are nine Senate races that, taken together, will almost certainly control the fate of the Chamber: Seven of these seats are currently held by Republicans (including one open seat): MT, OH, PA, RI, MO, TN, and VA. The remaining two (including one open seat) are held by Democrats: NJ and MD. In addition, there are four seats, three held by Democrats in CT, WA, and MI, and one by a Republican, in AZ, any one or more of which could conceivably become a “wild-card” factor if control of the Chamber comes down to a seat or two.

OH and PA: Virtually everyone concedes that the Senate seats in OH and PA will be lost by the Republicans and picked up by the Democrats. There is nothing I can see that would contradict this more-or-less conventional wisdom. The most recent average polling numbers at “Real Clear Politics” show Brown (D) over DeWine (R) in OH by 7.4 percentage points and Casey (D) over Santorum (R) in PA by 11.5 percentage points. Moreover, those spreads have been more-or-less consistent for quite some time, and they are two wide for the Ground Game or anything else to save those seats for the GOP.

TN: As of Sunday evening, virtually every commentator had conceded that Corker (R) will defeat Ford (D). Indeed, as of this morning, Corker’s average polling margin was 8.5 percentage points, TN has deep Republican leanings, and Ford physically looks like a beaten man.

VA and MO: The average polling margin shows a gap of less than two percentage points in both of these races: Webb (D) leads Allen (R) in VA by 1.5 points and McCaskill (D) leads Talent (R) in MO by 1.4 points. Thus, I think that the factors listed above should be able to push both Allen and Talent over the top. Here too, we can also factor in the power of incumbency and the general Republican leanings in both states. Moreover, Talent in MO has done nothing himself to anger the voters and has given them no reason to “fire” him.

RI and MT: The “Real Clear Politics” average polling margin, as of this morning shows Democrat challengers leading Republican incumbents in both of these states: Tester (D) over Burns (R) by 3.0 points in MT and Whitehouse (D) over Chafee (R) by 5.4 points in RI. There are, however, other factors that militate against calling either of these states for the Democrats. In addition to all the factors listed above, there is the power of incumbency in both states, and the fact that both of these Republican senators have closed previously huge polling gaps in recent days. Thus that famously unquantifiable factor of “momentum” is on the side of both Burns and Chafee. Moreover, MT is among the “reddest” of Red States, and President Bush campaigned hugely there for Burns this past week end.

In RI, the Chafee family is a political dynasty, and the previous Senator Chafee, father of the present Senator, was probably the most popular man in RI for many years. Also, Chafee himself has done nothing to anger RI voters. The campaign against him as been run largely on the basis of the ultimate control of the Senate, and that sort of thing doesn’t play very well in the voting booth.

Actually, I’m going to split the difference here and call MT for the GOP, on the basis of momentum, a scant 3.0 point polling spread, the “Redness” of the state, and President Bush’s recent campaigning. Similarly, I’m going to call RI for the Democrats on the basis of the “Blue” leanings of the state, the 5.4 polling spread, and the fact that Chafee doesn’t really have any plus factor going for him other than his pedigree. Don’t be surprised, however, if Chafee pulls it out.

NJ: I have to call this one for the Democrats. The incumbent Menendez (D) leads the challenger Kean (R) by an average polling margin of 6.4 points in a very Democrat state. I know some people still hold out some hope for Kean, but even though he is the son of a still very popular former governor, his campaign has never really gotten off the ground. Without any of the “plus factors” that I see in MT, I just don’t think the Republican ground game can make up a 6.4 point average polling margin.

MD: As of this morning, Congressman Cardin (D) held a 3.5 point average polling margin over Lt. Gov. Steele (R), but this race could very well got to Steele. First, the margin is only slightly above my 2.0 point threshold for the ground game to work, and Steele has run a very smart, tight campaign. Cardin, on the other hand, despite ten terms in the House, has been a very lackluster campaigner. Now, MD is generally thought to be a Democrat state, but in this unusual circumstance that may actually work to Steele’s favour. MD has the largest Black population outside of the old Confederacy, and as we all know, Blacks typically vote 85-90% or better for the Democrats. Steele, however, in addition to being a very good campaigner, is himself Black. Moreover, just last week all the members of the Prince George County Commission, who are themselves both Black and Democrat, formally endorsed Steele. Prince George is MD’s largest county. So, you can see how this might play out. Indeed, if Steele gets as much as 25-30% of the Black vote, which he might very well do, Cardin simply cannot win. Moreover, don’t forget that, in the MD Governor’s race four years ago, Ehrlich (R) surprised everyone by defeating Kennedy Townsend (D). Steele was Ehrlich’s running mate for Lt. Gov. in that race. Now, I’m not making a formal prediction that Steele will win, but it could happen, and don’t be surprised if it does.

So there you have it: Senate seats in TN, MO, VA, and MT, stay in Republican hands, while the Democrats pick up seats in OH, PA, and RI, for a net Democrat gain of three seats, resulting in a GOP margin of 52-47, with one independent, in the next Congress. Moreover, if Steele pulls it out in MD, which he really could do, the margin could be 53-46-1. This brings us to the “wild cards”.

AZ, WA, and MI: Actually, I don’t see any of these three seats changing party hands. Kyle (R) has an 8.6 point average polling margin in AZ, and there is no real reason to believe he won’t win. I list AZ here only because some Democrats, apparently anticipating a tsunami, have held AZ out as a potential pick-up – not bloody likely in my view. Similarly, Stabenow (D) leads in MI by 14.5 points and Cantwell (D) leads in WA by 13.5 points. It’s simply not bloody likely that either incumbent will lose. I list them only because the RNC was still spending money in these two states fairly late in the game, and the “word” was that Karl Rove held out the hope of picking up either or both of these seats. Sorry Karl, not bloody likely in my view.

CN: This is the REAL wild card. The outcome is not really in doubt. The incumbent Lieberman (D) hold an 11.8 point average polling margin over his nearest challenger Lamont (D). Yes, that’s right, they’re both Democrats. As we all recall, CT Democrats bounced the Hawkish Lieberman in the primary in favor of the far-left Lamont. Lieberman is now running as an “Independent Democrat”, and is almost certain to win. This anomalous situation presents wild-card possibilities in two ways. First, Lieberman, as an Independent, has sough votes from both Democrats and Republicans on the basis of his hawkish views on Iraq. Thus, it is not inconceivable that Lieberman’s coattails could benefit the three CT Republican Representatives who appear to be in some jeopardy – Shays (CT-4), Johnson (CT-5), and Simmons (CT-2) – and help keep control of the House in Republican hands.

The other wild-card possibility is even more intriguing: Should a mini tsunami actually occur in favour of the Democrats, the breakdown in the Chamber COULD turn out to be 49 Democrats and 49 Republicans, with two Independents, Jeffords of VT who caucuses with the Democrats, and Lieberman. Thus, Lieberman COULD choose to caucus with the Republicans, and hand control of the Chamber to the GOP, with V.P. Cheney’s tie-breaker vote. Not, this is admittedly not bloody likely, but it COULD happen. Don’t forget the absolutely viscous way in which the Democrats dumped Lieberman in the primary, and all the Democrats who have actively campaigned against him. At the same time, Republicans have virtually fallen all over themselves not to offend the good Senator. It’s things like this that make politics REALLY interesting.

3. House:

First, refer back to Rule One. Now, with respect to the House, not being able to rely on the MSM as a dependable source of facts, and simply not having the time to suss out some fifty-odd potentially pivotal individual races, my analysis here will of necessity be more of a macro analysis that the relatively micro analysis I gave above with respect to the Senate. That said, I feel no less certain of my conclusions, but the margin of error is necessarily greater. So, here we go:

The Seven Pillars of Wisdom apply here as much as they do with respect to the Senate. Moreover, the power of incumbency and the Republican Gerrymandering after the 2000 Census, present the Democrats with real obstacles to gaining control of the Chamber. That said, “everyone” (“tout le monde”) agrees that this will be a Democrat year, though I believe that the all the factors set forth above militate strongly against there being any sort of tsunami in favour of the Democrats. That said, they only need a net gain of 15 seats to achieve the 218 seats necessary for bare control of the Chamber. The current breakdown in the House is 232 (R), 202 (D), and 1 (I), who caucuses with the Democrats, according to “Real Clear Politics”.

Now to try to begin to attack the analysis, The New York Times and “Real Clear Politics” set the table as follows:

The New York Times:

Safe Republican Seats: 180
Leaning (R) Seats: 25
Total (R) Seats : 205

Safe Democrat Seats: 198
Leaning (D) Seats: 16
Total (D) Sets: 214

Toss-up Seats: 16

Now, I start off with the proposition that The Times, whether consciously or subliminally, has skewed these numbers in favor of the Democrats. Still, even The Times’ tally has the theoretical likely spread, assuming all the “leaning” seats go the way they are leaning, at between 230-205 (D) and 221-214 (R). I am prepared to posit, however, that the vaunted Republican ground game, together with the others of the Seven Pillars, together with incumbency and Gerrymandering, should be able to bring home at least half the toss-ups, or eight seats, for the GOP. Thus the spread would be 222-213 (D). If, however, they are able to bring home three/fourths for the GOP, the resulting margin would be 218-217 (D), and if the GOP won all the tossups, the margin would be 221-214 (R). Here, I take note that this is three seats less for the GOP that the Barron’s “Money Ball” analysis, which forecast the margin at 224-211 (R). I am prepared to chalk off this discrepancy to The Times’ pro Democrat bias, and say that the maximum GOP margin following the mid-terms would be 224-211, and the maximum Democrat margin would be 227-208, a workable majority in either case.

Real Clear Politics:

Unlike The Times, Real Clear Politics specifically identifies 54 pivotal House seats, 48 currently held by Republicans and 6 currently held by Democrats, and breaks them down this way:

Current Republican Seats:

Leaning (R): 22
Leaning (D): 12
Toss-ups: 14

Current Democrat Seats:

Leaning (R): -0-
Leaning (D): 4
Toss-ups: 2

First, I note that the theoretically potential margins here, are only slightly different from those set out by The Times, i.e., assuming all the “leaning” seats go the way they are leaning, then, depending on how the 16 toss-ups break, the margin would be between 229-206 (D) and 222-213 (R).

I also note that RCP has the same number of toss-ups, 16, as The Times, but breaks them down into 14 currently in Republican hands and 2 currently in Democrat hands. Here then, my analysis is different from what it was with respect to The Times’ more opaque tabulation. If 14 toss-up seats are currently in Republican hands, then I am prepared to say that the Republican ground game, the Seven Pillars, the power of incumbency and Republican Gerrymandering, could – emphasizes the word “could” – tot up to bring all of these 14 toss-ups home to the GOP. Thus, the resulting margin would be 222-213 (R).

Finally, I used the Barron’s “Money Ball” analysis and frankly my own “nose” and/or “gut”, to arrive, somewhat arbitrarily, at the spread of resulting margins that I “predicted” first above, i.e., between 227-208 (D) to 224-211 (R). Actually, it could very well be even closer to dead even. Now, refer back to Rule One!

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

2006-11-06T05:19:00.000-08:00

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

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

2006-10-31T12:44:00.000-08:00

STATE OF THE ART ON HALLOWEEN

Below I have reproduced Liz Mair's take on Rudy's "campaign strategy", posted on the GOP Progress web-site on Saturday, 28 October. My take on same follows.

Giuliani shows some smarts
By Liz Mair
Posted on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 02:44:00 PM EST

“A couple of interesting tidbits have come out over the last couple of days relating to Rudy Giuliani, and his 2008 prospects. The upshot is, I can see Rudy adopting a smart strategy--and one that could yield real dividends for him, even if that's not immediately obvious right now.

“Analysis of said tidbits below the fold.

“Tidbit no. 1 is this: yesterday The New York Daily News ran a story entitled ‘McCain makes hay while Rudy ponders a run.’

“The point of this story was to demonstrate that McCain is trumping Rudy in what some observers call the "staff primary," especially in New Hampshire, where, just last week, a whopping 50 state legislators signed on to aid McCain's PAC, Straight Talk America.

“Larry [Sabotage] has claimed this is evidence that "McCain is leapfrogging Giuliani in his own backyard." Well, actually, it's more like McCain leapfrogging Romney in his own backyard, since New Hampshire is a long way from New York (trust me, I've done the Concord to NYC drive in one day), but neighbors Massachusetts. But the point is this: a lot of observers think Giuliani's being too pondering, too slow, and just frankly not showing the dedication McCain is because he hasn't done nearly as much to make headway in New Hampshire, in particular.

“Let me go out on a limb here and suggest something else.

“New Hampshire is territory owned by McCain. That has been the case since 2000, and it's not going to change unless an Act of God occurs. Rudy's no dummy, and he's bound to know that.

“He also knows, that while it will be nigh on impossible for anyone to knock McCain out of the no. 1 position in New Hampshire, he's currently sitting comfortably in second place, a position he should be able to hold easily given that the next in-line contender is Mitt Romney, a man already known to Granite Staters because they get Boston TV, and whom they don't seem much interested in. It took the injection of roughly $1,000,000 via an RGA ‘Kerry Healey’ ad touting Mitt Romney that was broadcast in New Hampshire, for Romney to see even a minute bounce in his poll numbers in the state, which bodes pretty badly for the conservative-inclined, blue state Governor.

“Rudy will be well aware of all this, so it seems to me a good strategy on his part to keep doing what he has been doing with regard to New Hampshire, albeit with an increasing step-up as we get closer to the beginning of 2008.

“Why? Well, he's not wasting resources on New Hampshire where he can't win outright. He's focusing on other places, where polls suggest he has more of a chance, while he does enough in new Hampshire to keep his name on people's tongues and in their minds. In essence, he's gunning for first elsewhere, specifically, in states where McCain does not have a clear and unchangeable lead, and where Romney lacks one, too, despite many visits, mass hires, and a lot of press. Like South Carolina.

“This leads on to tidbit no. 2.

“Tidbit no. 2 is Byron York’s South Carolina poll, published yesterday, which probably made for downright troubling news for the Romney camp, and just so-so news for McCain. On the flipside, that poll made for outright fabulous news for Rudy.

“Why? Well, the poll shows in no uncertain terms that Rudy--yes, New Yorker, pro-choice, gay-friendly, occasional drag-wearing Rudy--is positioned better than any other likely 2008 contender in the state.

“Rudy has name ID just short of McCain and Newt Gingrich (93%), yet he has a higher favorable rating than any other likely GOP 2008 contender. Let me say that again. Rudy Giuliani has a higher favorable rating in South Carolina than any other likely GOP 2008 contender--higher than McCain, higher than Romney, and higher than Gingrich.

“This is astonishing. Rudy has a 78% favorable rating, and just a 10% unfavorable rating, compared to McCain with a 65% favorable rating, but a 23% unfavorable rating, Newt with a 53% favorable rating and a 31% unfavorable rating, and Romney with a 41% favorable rating and an 11% unfavorable rating.

“Now, sure, one thing those numbers tell you is that Romney isn't well enough known in the state yet for people to say ‘favorable’ or ‘unfavorable.’ That will change with time, I am sure, but his camp have got to be worried, given the amount of attention that has been focused on the state (somewhere they must feel is an easy place to try to kill off McCain, rightly or wrongly), that 60% of those polled have never even heard of him. It begs the question: what is their press and grassroots operation up to, exactly?

“The numbers are also notable in that they show that what is, in my view, a larger than expected percentage of voters favorable to McCain, but still, given the effort he's put into turning South Carolina in his direction, it's worrying that a social liberal has seemingly strolled in, and charmed a lot of voters. His unfavorable rating is also not so great, though it will probably be nudged down a bit with time.

“Of course, as ‘Race 4 2008’ has noted, the impressions the public have of McCain, Rudy and Newt are relatively fixed and unshapeable at this stage. While McCain will always remind a few South Carolina voters of 2000 (not overly helpful), Rudy will always remind them of hope and triumph in the face of the 9/11 attacks (brilliant). And I know that Rudy has been doing a lot to talk to voters and GOP activists face to face about his views on social matters--probably their only real concern regarding a Giuliani candidacy. And while being frank about his views on abortion (which, given that he is a pro-choicer who seems to support the position that abortion is an issue for the states, not the federal government, aren't turning out to be so bad for him anyway), he's also been being frank about his views on things like school choice--which is a big concern for many Christian conservatives who want to educate their children in line with their own beliefs, whether that means chartering a school, using school vouchers to send their kids private or parochial, or homeschooling.

“From where I sit, it looks like Rudy's employing a pretty smart strategy for a guy who seems to still be mulling it over. Sure, it may not be enough to push him over the finishing line (he won't beat McCain in New Hampshire, and he's probably got no shot in Michigan), but then again, some funny old things happen in the course of Presidential primaries. Like a candidate that many moderates and libertarian-leaners feel is their best philosophical match getting support from those furthest to the right (even if it turns out to be enough to only let him finish second, in the end).

“One thing this poll does tell me, for sure, is that Romney is going to have to work his cotton socks off to get anywhere in two of the most important states: NH and SC. New Hampshire is probably a lost cause, and is perhaps best ignored in favor of focusing on South Carolina, where it seems like there is the most potential for him to do well. That being said, of course, it is a sad fact that there may be only so far a Mormon can go in a state, many of whose evangelical voters don't even seem too big on Catholics (a much more known quantity than Mormons in terms of their theology). Romney may turn out to be too much, too soon for Palmetto staters, while McCain and Giuliani may both come out looking just about right.

“In any event, Giuliani is playing it smart from now, from where I sit”.

With but three exceptions, this is, in my judgment, the absolute state-of-the-art analysis of Rudy's Presidential possibilities as of this moment.

Exception one: This piece was apparently written before the Ken Mehlman "bombshell" that Kathleen Parker dropped on the Chris Matthews' Show this past Sunday. If the "rumor" turns out to be true that RNC National Chairman Mehlman will join the Giuliani campaign following the mid-term elections, then Rudy will, with one fell swoop, have put himself squarely in front of the queue, and all the current analysis will have to be re-thought.

Exception two: I don't think Ms. Mair factors Iowa sufficiently into the analysis. Don't forget that in early August, Rudy led McCain 30%-18% in a poll of Iowa Caucus workers, with no one else in double figures. At the time, all the commentators thought this was "stunning". Now, however, even people generally favorable to Rudy, like Ms. Mair, seem to have forgotten all about it. (Now, it is the South Carolina poll numbers that are "astonishing". Perhaps political commentators really do have the attention span of a fruit fly.) Remember also, that Iowa Republicans have scheduled a campaign swing through the state for Rudy on the eve of the mid-term elections. Moreover, Ken Mehlman would be among the best in the business at turning this preference among Iowa political (semi) professionals into a caucus victory.

Exception three: This one is summed up in Ms. Mair's comment that: "[Rudy] won't beat McCain in New Hampshire, and he's probably got no shot in Michigan, but then again, some funny old things happen in the course of Presidential primaries." Exactly! I think it is simply too early to write off completely Rudy's chances in New Hampshire. Don't forget, the demand for paid tickets to see Rudy in October was so great that New Hampshire Republicans had to schedule a second visit, which they have scheduled for four days before the mid-term elections. Moreover, the Manchester Union Leader, which used to be thought of as the absolute sine qua non of victory in the state, has all but endorsed Rudy.

Thus, in both Iowa and New Hampshire, the actual candidates and political professionals seem to want to hitch their wagon to Rudy's star. That I think is the most telling omen of all. And, it seems to give at least some credence to the Mehlman "bombshell rumor".

That said, I very much agree with Ms. Mair that the best strategy for Rudy would be to focus on South Carolina and, I would add, Iowa. If Rudy can score a victory in the Iowa Caucuses and the South Carolina Primary, and finish second to McCain in the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, then, less than two months after the voting begins, the race for the Republican nomination would be down to Rudy and McCain, with Romney, Newt, and everyone else headed home. I would say also that this state of affairs would clearly put Rudy in the driver's seat. Even now, some influential Republican commentators are saying that McCain is finished if he loses South Carolina again, as he so famously did in 2000. Perhaps most importantly, it would have put the final kibosh on the MSM's Conventional Wisdom that Rudy can't win in the South because of his "liberal" social positions.

Finally, let me throw one other point into the mix that Ms. Mair has overlooked: Ralph Reed! Despite "taking it on the chin" in the Republican Primary for Lt. Governor in Georgia, owing to his admittedly unfortunate dealings with Jack Abramoff, Ralph remains one of the most astute and capable political professionals in the GOP. Moreover, Ralph's particular expertise is in the South, most particularly among what are now being called "values voters", e.g., what used to be called the Religious Right, Christian Coalition, Moral Majority, Evangelicals, Conservative Christians, etc., etc., etc. Well, by whatever name they are called, Ralph is among the best in the business to organize and turn out this vote. Don't forget, it was Ralph Reed, as the head of Pat Robertson's soi disant "Christian Coalition", who turned these voters into a solid Republican bloc in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Remember also that Rudy campaigned extensively for Ralph last Spring. This tells us at least two things: (1) Ralph owes Rudy. (2) Ralph wanted to have Rudy campaign for him because, obviously, he thought Rudy would "play" well among the Religious Conservative base that Ralph was seeking in Georgia.

That brings us to the final piece of the puzzle: Rudy's genuinely and deeply felt Catholic faith. Among the thoughts floating around the blogosphere of late is that Rudy could make a "faith-based" common cause with the Christian Right on the basis of his Catholicism. As far back as April, I suggested that this could be a possibility, and I pointed to several ways that Catholics and Southern Evangelicals are already making such common cause: Aids in Africa, opposition to abortion, environmentalism, genocide in Darfur, etc., etc. Indeed Ms. Mair comments on this sort of "bargain" in terms of Rudy's positions on returning control of abortion to the States, as well as school choice/school vouchers. In short: Ralph Reed would be the perfect person to strike such a bargain on Rudy's behalf and make it work.

To close, I think the most important analytical point Ms. Mair makes is this: "Rudy will always remind [voters] of hope and triumph in the face of the 9/11 attacks (brilliant)."

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

PS: Here are the actual numbers from Byron York's recent South Carolina Poll, referred to as "astonishing" by Liz Mair in her pro Rudy piece on GOP Progress (reproduced above), with what I think is some very good analysis and a very astute comment at the end from “Race 4 2008”. I do think, however, that these numbers leave Mitt Romney with a very hard row to hoe, and that the results for McCain, when properly analyzed, are indeed closer to "DOA" than to "Amazing". Even the current "conventional wisdom" in the MSM has it that, if McCain doesn't win South Carolina outright, he doesn't win the nomination.

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

“October 27, 2006

South Carolina Rates the Candidates

“I've been trying to nail down this poll all day, and South Carolina expert Byron York finally delivers it. Much to even my surprise, Rudy has far and away the highest favorable ratings among South Carolina Republicans.

Candidate Heard of Favorable Unfavorable

John McCain 96% 65% 23%
Newt Gingrich 95% 53% 31%
Rudy Giuliani 93% 78% 10%
George Pataki 69% 35% 18%
Bill Frist 66% 43% 21%
Mitt Romney 40% 41% 11%
George Allen 37% 38% 11%
Mike Huckabee 16% - -

“Convert it to the net rating and it's Rudy +68%, McCain +42%, Romney +30%, Allen +27%, Frist +22%, Gingrich +21%, Pataki +17%. It's true that there's a New Yorker in this race who will never sell in the South. Except his name is George Pataki. Moderate New Yorkers bookend this poll in terms of favorability.

“People carp about ‘name ID’ skewing polls like this. I agree 100%. Romney or Huckabee just aren't where they'll be in February of '08. But a legitimate comparison can be made between candidates who are well known (Rudy, McCain, Newt), those who are moderately well known (Pataki, Frist), and those who are complete unknowns (Romney, Allen, Huckabee).

“Among the universally well known candidates, Rudy beats McCain who beats Newt. Because they've been on the public stage for years, opinions of these leaders are the hardest to change. While opinions of these leaders are likely to take somewhat of a beating, their public personas are to some extent firm and fixed. McCain won't become a conservative hero. Rudy will never lose that association with 9/11.

“In the welterweight category, Frist and Pataki have been on the public stage as "supporting actors" and have managed to rack up pretty high unfavorables, a fact that probably dooms their bids. Though there are theoretically 30% or 40% of Republicans who haven't heard of them who can be moved, everyone basically agrees that these two are dead in the water because of the baggage they've already collected manifested by their inability to move beyond a 2-1 favorable ratio.

“It's not a coincidence that those considered the brightest stars in the field (at one point or another) share the fact of low name ID. They're clean slates. They can introduce themselves to the electorate on their own terms. They could easily rocket up to Giuliani/McCain heights by extending their 3 and 4-1 edge in favorability with the 60% who don't know them. Romney's nearly 4-to-1 favorable ratio has got to be encouraging from the standpoint of knocking down the LDS issue as a problem for his bid in the South.

“Perhaps a more accurate measure might be the ratio of favorables to unfavorables. They are:

Rudy 7.8 / 1
Romney 3.7 / 1
Allen 3.5 / 1
McCain 2.8 /1
Frist 2.1 / 1
Pataki 1.9 /1
Newt 1.7 / 1

“You'll notice that McCain hovers not too far above DOA status.

One Response to ‘South Carolina Rates the Candidates’:

“Are you kidding me? A 65% favorability rating (or a 42% net rating) is amazing for McCain given the leftover hostility towards him for 2000. This is far from "not too far above DOA status." Granted, this isn't a 2008 poll (come on Strategic Vision, how much longer do we have to wait?), but it'll do. Since McCain has the highest name recognition and considering that Allen, Frist, Pataki, and Huckabee are all non-entities, that's a significant portion of the vote that will be divided up amongst McCain. Rudy, and Romney. Rudy's numbers aren't surprising at all and they correlate to almost all of national and state polls we've seen in the past. Romney is doing very well in South Carolina as well, again that's not surprising. This doesn't necessarily mean Romney has slayed the LDS issue, it just means that the people who have heard about him view him favorable, not that they'd vote for him (the same can be said for McCain and Rudy too).

“If I'd be so brave as to make an extremely tentative prediction for the SC 2008 poll. I'd say it would be around:

“Rudy Giuliani 30%
John McCain 20-25%
Mitt Romney 10-15%
George Allen 10%

”Everyone Else takes to remainder.

“If SV releases a poll with McCain under 20% support then he has a big problem. But this CU poll makes that seem very remote.”

2006-10-23T07:33:00.000-07:00

NEWSFLASH: REPUBLICANS HOLD BOTH HOUSES!

Newsflash: Barron’s has predicted, in the cover story of its current issue, that Republicans will lose seats in the up-coming mid-term elections, but, directly contrary to the prevailing "Conventional Wisdom" in the “Liberal Media”, that they will maintain their controlling majority status in both houses. Here is the Hyper-Link to the complete article:

http://online.barrons.com/public/article/SB116138396438799484-IdCXhh7Ie9DTbX74S9pa7pqHYY4_20061120.html?mod=9_0002_b_free_features

Barron's has actually analyzed all 435 House races and 33 Senate races, and made an individual prediction in each one. Then, by adding up those individual predictions, they forecast that, when the dust has settled, Republicans will find themselves with 52 seats in the Senate and 224 seats in the House -- just enough for a bare majority in each Chamber. The "quirk" about the Barron's analysis/ predictions is that they base their prediction in each individual race solely on which candidate has raised the most money. Now, I agree that this does sound a bit outré, but I urge you all to read the actual piece, where they explain/justify their analytical/predictive methodology. There you will learn, inter alia, that this very method actually bucked the "Conventional Wisdom" and accurately predicted the election results in both of the last two elections, 2002 and 2004. You will also learn that this single predictive factor has (would have) correctly forecast 93% of all House races, going back to 1972, and 98% in recent years. On the Senate side, this method has proven accurate 89% of the time since and including 1996.

Perhaps more importantly, for our purposes this time round, we have a golden opportunity to analyze the accuracy of the "Conventional Wisdom" and the integrity of the Liberal Media. Yesterday on "Meet the Press", Tim Russert presented this Barron's article/method to a "special pre-election roundtable", for which Mr. Russert had "assembled the best and brightest in political analysis", consisting of: David Broder of the Washington Post, Charlie Cook from National Journal and the Cook Political Report, John Harwood of CNBC and the Wall Street Journal, and syndicated columnist Robert Novak of the Evans-Novak Political Report.

These four soi disant "best and brightest" were unanimous in forecasting a minimum Democrat gain in the House of 20 seats, and probably "many more" than that. As for the Senate, they were more equivocal about forecasting a shift in control. Three of them more-or-less agreed that the most likely outcome would be bare Republican "control" of that Chamber, with the GOP holding on to 50 seats, but that it "could be much worse". The odd-man-out as to the Senate, Robert Novak would not agree to a numerical prediction for the Senate, saying simply that the outcome there was "not as certain" as in the House.

All four of these "best and brightest" were confident of their predictions to the point of being downright smug. The only shadow of doubt they allowed to show was as to whether the gain for the Democrats in the House would be the "minimum" of 20 seats or many more than that. Moreover, they were all very much smug and dismissive of the Barron's piece and its methodology. The unspoken, albeit clear, attitude was: "No mere predictive formula could even presume to be as accurate as our intuitive predictions, based on our great wisdom and sagacity. Besides, this particular formula is downright stupid." Russert, for his part, did not see fit to mention the past accuracy of the Barron’s methodology as reported in the piece itself.

So, there you have it! The perfect opportunity to test the self-righteous smugness of the "Conventional Wisdom" and the "Main Stream Media". Read the Barron's piece, print it out, and save it. Read the transcript of the "special pre-election roundtable" on "Meet The Press" and save it too. Then, we shall re-visit this issue after the mid-term elections.

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

2006-10-23T07:09:00.000-07:00

LIBERAL MEDIA MULTIPLIER EFFECT

Below, I have re-produced, my own analysis of the mid-term elections that I wrote on 07 August 2006, wherein I first identified the “Liberal Media Multiplier Effect”. As of 28 September 2006, I still thought I had “nailed it”. Events since that time have indeed caused me to become less sanguine about Republican chances of maintaining control of Congress this November, but I think you will find the August piece interesting in any event. In my next posting, I shall revisit the subject of the Liberal Media’s anti-Republican bias, and its affect on their predictive abilities, a scant two weeks before the 2006, mid-term elections.

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

“On the morning after the election in 2004, I sat in a law-firm conference room in New York and discussed with a colleague of mine -- a former Republican candidate for state-wide office -- the previous day's reporting of the election returns, principally at the Presidential level. The big topic was that on election day, from late afternoon on through early evening, all the networks were reporting ‘exit polls’ that purportedly showed that John Kerry was heading for a ‘big win’. Apropos of George Bush's solid victory, I recounted an analysis of the, shall-we-say-flawed, reporting that I had heard -- I don't remember where -- with witch I agreed, to the effect that: The exit polls did indeed ‘get it wrong’ because they assumed that the Democrat ‘ground game’ would dwarf Republican efforts, as in the past, and hence they (the pollsters) were un-prepared for the fact that the Republican get-out-the-vote efforts on election day actually dwarfed the Democrat effort. This error, bad enough in itself, was then exacerbated because the reporters reporting the error actually wanted to believe it, and this desire acted like a multiplier (borrowing a mathematical concept from the 'dismal science') and washed through the early coverage of the returns.

“In a subsequent lunch conversation during the summer of 2006, I reported on an analysis I had read in the ‘Blogosphere’ of the Democrats' prospects of re-taking either or both Houses of Congress this Fall, to the effect that the Republicans would lose seats in both Houses, but actually hang on to bare majorities in both. My colleague expressed surprise at this because everything he had heard was actually predicting something like a mini-landslide for the Democrats, and that they would sweep into control of both Houses. Well, not to put too fine a point on it, I thought mightily over the week end about what my colleague said, and I came to believe that we were witnessing that summer (2006) a ‘multiplier effect’ similar to the one at work on election day 2004: Virtually all the reporters at most of the major news outlets -- that is all major news outlets except Fox News and The Washington Times, to the extent the Times can be considered a ‘major’ news outlet -- are at best ‘closet Liberals’, and they very much want to believe that the Democrats will sweep into control of both Houses this Fall, so they are, subconsciously I grant, skewing their analysis of the facts on the ground so as to look forward to that outcome.

“Now, I'm not issuing my own ‘prediction’ here. The electoral calculus really is too close for that, but I do believe that the 'Conventional wisdom' is skewed by a ‘Liberal Media Multiplier Effect’. To wit:

“Bob Novak says that, even though there is ‘anger’ at Republicans over the war in Iraq, The Democrats do not seem to him to be getting any ‘traction’, because they aren't offering any coherent alternative platform. Frank Luntz essentially confirms this with actual polling results. [Don't forget the oldest wisdom in politics: ‘You can't beat somebody with nobody!’]

“Rahm Emanuel, Chairman of the House Democrat Campaign Committee, is in a major spat with Party Chairman Howard Dean primarily over how much money will flow from the Party's national coffers into which House races. Apparently, it's so bad that the two men are not even speaking to each other. Moreover, Frank Luntz's polling tends to confirm that the country in general thinks Howard Dean is an embarrassment for the Party.

“The New York Times is still listing the Allen/Web Senate race in VA as merely ‘leaning Republican’, whereas Allen actually enjoys a 16 point advantage in the latest poll.

“The Times only just recently changed the Ohio Senate race as from ‘toss up’ to ‘leaning’ Republican, whereas David Brooks last night on ‘The Chris Matthews Show’ ‘reported’ that the incumbent Republican, Mike DeWine had pulled out to a ‘comfortable’ lead.

“Even at that, if Democrats win all the House and Senate races the Times lists as ‘in play’, they will still win only bare majorities in both houses, whereas if the Republicans win all those races, they will have prohibitive majorities: 61 Senators and 246 Representatives.

“The ‘big story’ on NPR this morning was that Cindy Sheehan has taken her sleeping bag with her to Crawford, Texas!

“What put me ‘over-the-top’ about the ‘Liberal Media Multiplier Effect’ was yesterday's Op-Ed pages in the ‘Week in Review’ section of The New York Times. Most of one page was filled with four 'reports' on four ‘in play Senate races, written by stringers for The Times in the individual states: Minnesota, Montana, Ohio, and Tennessee. I'm sure you read these pieces yourself, but just in case you didn't, I have provided the hyper-link to each one at the end of this posting.

“These four authors are not professional reporters; hence they are unskilled in hiding their biases, and those biases are on display for all to see. The ones from Minnesota and Montana are the most blatant. The tone of each one is: ‘This is how I want it to be because I want the Democrat to win.' Now, I have no personal knowledge of either race, and the Democrat candidate may indeed win each one, but this Op-Ed piece in the Times tells me nothing more than that the author wishes it so. Minnesota: The epithet ‘Karl Rove slimeballs’ is supposed to pass as intelligent commentary. Montana: Incumbent Republican Conrad Burns' ‘haircut ads’ don't sit well with the folks at the barbershop that the author talked to. The Times ‘political calculator’ has Minnesota as ‘leaning Democrat’ and Montana as a ‘toss up’.

“The piece on Ohio is not nearly so blatantly partisan, perhaps only more clever. After labeling the Ohio race as 'one of the half-dozen that will determine control of the Senate’, the author adopts a ‘pox-on-both-houses’ stance to the candidates, and tells us essentially nothing more than that Ohioans will not even focus on this race until after the Summer. Well, compare that to David Brooks' take last night on ‘The Chris Matthews Show’ that the incumbent Republican Mike DeWine has pulled into a comfortable lead.

“All the Op-Ed author tells us about DeWine, however, is that he -- an incumbent two-term Senator -- is not ‘particularly well endowed in the charisma department’ and that ‘he might be an assistant principal at your local middle school’. As for the Democrat challenger: he 'might manage the men's wear department at the new Macy's’. ‘It's the bland leading the bland.’ Well, even if one assumes arguendo that that's a fair assessment of both candidates and the current interest level in Ohio, then one would have to give the edge to the two-term incumbent Senator. The Times political calculator only recently changed the Ohio race from ‘toss up’ to ‘leaning Republican’.

“The Tennessee author is by far the most honest observer, and he essentially gives the Republican candidate the edge to succeed Bill Frist. Of course, he gives that in a sort-of backhanded way, choosing to focus on the legal troubles of Harold Ford's uncle. Perhaps more to the point, this piece, to the extent it actually does give the edge to the Republican candidate, must, in my view, be seen against the backdrop of The Times, as well as the networks and cable channels, fawning all over Harold Ford all Spring and summer: potentially the first African American Senator from the South since Reconstruction, blah, blah, blah. Now, I actually like Harold Ford, but I certainly don't knew whether he will win in Tennessee or not, particularly given 'Tennessee's ever-growing love affair with the Republican Party' as the Op-Ed author puts it. Moreover, The Times' political calculator lists Tennessee as ‘leaning Republican’. The point is: A casual observer of politics at the national level, who doesn't really focus on specifics too closely will probably have gotten, almost by osmosis, that Harold Ford is a strong front runner in Tennessee, and that just isn't so.

“In sum, the view of these four ‘closely watched’ Senate races, that The Times Op-Ed Editor chooses to put forward as a microcosm of the overall race for control of the Senate is at best flawed on its face, and even more flawed when one considers other reporting. Now, there's no neat Cartesian conclusion to be drawn here, the Democrats may indeed seize control of both Houses of Congress this Fall. Still, I must go back to what I said at the beginning of this missive: There is a 'Liberal Media Multiplier Effect" at work in any current perception that the Democrats are now charging hell-bent toward that eventuality.”

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

NYT Op-Ed Links:

Minnesota:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/opinion/06baxter.html

Montana:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/opinion/06mcnamer.html

Ohio:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/opinion/06chaon.html

Tennessee:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/opinion/06hicks.html

2006-10-19T08:10:00.000-07:00

WHY “RUN RUDY RUN”?

All right, I won’t put it off any longer! Today, Thursday, 19 October 2006 -- the 225th anniversary of George Washington’s victory at Yorktown, Virginia -- David Brooks wrote his Op-Ed column in The New York Times, urging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama to run for the Democrat nomination for President in 2008. He chose to title his column: “Run, Barack, Run”! Now, I can’t say for certain that Mr. Brooks pilfered this locution from moi, but, apart from the superfluous commas, the similarity is striking. Thus, am I motivated finally to “get off my duff” and explain to one and all why I chose “Run Rudy Run” as both the title for this blog and as my political mantra for 2008.

Apart form the obvious, i.e., that I mean to urge former New York City Mayor Rudolph “Rudy” Giuliani to run for President, my choice of this specific locution was the result of a three-step thought process, as follows:

1. I wanted a mantra to employ in the same manner as Marcus Porcius Cato (234-149 BC), known as “Cato the Elder”, employed “Carthago delenda est”. Cato was famous for, among other things, ending all of his speeches in the Roman Senate by saying: "That is my opinion. It is further my opinion, that Carthage must be destroyed." (“Ceterum censeo, Carthago delenda est.”) This was shortened to simply “Carthago delenda est” for most purposes outside the Senate, such as political sloganeering. Eventually, his fellow Senators became so worn down by Cato’s single-minded determination that they launched the Third Punic War (149-146 BC), which ended with Carthage in fact destroyed, and the ground sowed with salt. Thus, so as to evidence the same single-minded determination as Cato the Elder, the title of my political blog, and my political e-mail missives, is “Run Rudy Run”, and I end all my political analyses with the complete locution: “My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!”

2. The phrase is short, punchy, and in this political season, its meaning is unmistakable. There is only ONE “Rudy” and only ONE thing that urging him to “Run” could possibly mean. Moreover, the alliteration of the three successive “R’s” was simply too good to pass up.

3. The actual phraseology, “Run . . . Run”, was adopted from the most popular German film of the 1990’s: “Lola rennt”, literally “Lola runs”, starring Franka Potente as Lola. The film was released in the United States in 1998, however, with the English language title “Run Lola Run”, and became one of the most popular foreign language films ever.

Hyper-link: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_Lola_Run)

The film is similar in conception to Akira Kurosawa’s masterpiece “Rashomon”, in that it presents three separate versions of the same transaction. In each version, Lola is a very physically fit young woman, obviously a track athlete of some sort. She is on one side of town and her boyfriend/fiancé is about to get into serious trouble on the other side of town. The idea is that only Lola can save him, and only if she can run all the way across town in a seemingly impossibly short period of time. Thus, only Lola can “save the day” and only if she will “run”. Thus, the phrase “Run Rudy Run” has its subtext drawn form the film: Only Rudy can save the United States in 2008, and only if he will Run for President!

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

2006-10-16T13:17:00.000-07:00

ANOTHER POLL TO REMEMBER

Just as with the GOP Bloggers’ October straw poll, AOL’s on-line, self-selected, Presidential straw poll should not be overlooked by supporters of Rudy, albeit for different reasons. First the results, as reported on Giuliani Blog:

“Sunday, October 15, 2006

Giuliani Wins AOL Poll

Huge sample size, and includes the Democrats, independents, libertarians and vegetarians McCain does so well with.

Which Republican would you favor for president?

Rudolph Giuliani 39%

John McCain 36%

Other 18%

Mitt Romney 7%

Total Votes: 131,245”

As the blogster points out, the sample-size is huge, essentially 10 times the size of the GOP Bloggers October straw poll, and I believe just about the largest I have ever seen. The size is not, however, the most important point for analysis. In the first place, this poll includes everyone – across the political spectrum and off the spectrum, and I am perfectly willing to concede here that these results do reflect largely “name recognition”. What is most striking, however, is that John McCain comes within three percentage points of Rudy, whereas in virtually all the relatively recent polls of “Republicans only”, “political professionals”, such as the Iowa caucus workers, and people with a great interest in politics, such as the GOP Bloggers, Rudy has led McCain by double digits. The only exceptions have been in Michigan, and one recent poll in New Hampshire. This tells me two things:

First, the heretofore prevailing “Conventional Wisdom” about these two candidates has been flat wrong. The C-W has had it that, while both Rudy and McCain would be attractive “moderate-general-election” candidates, Rudy could not be nominated by the Republican Party because his soi disant “liberal positions” would cause the Republican “Base” to shun voting for him in the primaries, particularly in the South. At least up to now, however, Rudy’s “liberal positions” have not appeared to hamper his poll standing among the “Base”, and the Party’s professionals. On the other hand, John McCain’s past “positions”, indeed past “actions”, such as his leadership of the “gang of 14” and his initial opposition to the Bush Administration’s detainee bill, have caused him essentially to “drop off the radar screen” among the Party’s “Base”. Thus, the C-W has in fact had it exactly backwards: It would appear to be John McCain who would make a good general election candidate, but who cannot win the Republican nomination.

The second thing this straw poll tells me is that no one, least of all Rudy, should underestimate John McCain. Despite his current poll-problems with the Republican “Base” and the Party’s professionals, he would clearly make a formidable candidate in the general election, and that fact alone will undoubtedly sway some primary votes in his favor, when people actually get “in the booth”.

Finally, with respect to the AOL straw poll, I cannot help but notice that Mitt Romney fares very much worse, at 7%, than he has in the other recent “scientific” and “straw” polls discussed above. In those other polls, Governor Romney has experienced a “meteoric rise” in the past two-to-three months, to the point where, it was beginning to look like a three-way race for the Republican nomination, or perhaps even a two-way race, with the descent of McCain’s poll fortunes. I’m not quite sure, at the moment, that I know exactly what to make of this Romney dichotomy. One thing that comes to mind – and I wouldn’t want to be held to this – is that true “political people”, such as Party members, caucus workers, and bloggers, simply “leapt past” Romney’s Mormonism, whereas the country in general may not prove quite so accepting. Right now, however, that’s just a thought.

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!