For Conservatives, a better way to avoid a Rudy nomination
By Oz Posted in 2008 — Comments (77) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The way to avoid a Rudy nomination is to simply bury him in the primaries. Let's examine a few key facts.
1) The current national polls have Rudy at about 30%, Thompson at 21%, McCain at 13%, Romney at 11%, and Huckabee at 6%. The other 19% are either going for a minor candidate or are undecided.
2) Rudy is mostly leading because a) he's the only pro-choice candidate against seven pro-life candidates and b) he's supported by some conservatives because he's seen as the best chance to win.
3) While McCain is listed as third here, it's pretty generally accepted that he's more likely a fourth given his high negatives plus Romney's focus on the standard momentum theory of the primaries (Iowa + New Hampshire).
4) In other words, the pro-choice candidate has 30%, the pro-life candidates have 50%, and 20% of us are undecided.
5) The fix for this is fairly simple: If you support anyone other than Romney or Fred and you're a conservative, pick one of the top two conservatives NOW and create history. If half the McCain, Huckabee, Brownback, and undecided voters went for Thompson and half went for Romney, then we'd be looking at a three way race of Guiliani 30%, Thompson 36%, and Romney 26%.
6) That kind of movement would start to generate some buzz around Thompson and Romney and likely improve their poll numbers in the national standings as well which in turn might peel support back from Guiliani (some of the conservatives who think he's the only person who can win).
If you're one of the I won't vote for Guiliani in the General conservatives, now is your chance to do something about it:
Pick a conservative who has an actual chance of winning the nomination and get behind him.
I'm not willing to write McCain off just yet. He can run a good campaign and I think he won the last two debates. He still polls third, only a few points behind Thompson. And he has a better shot of willing the general than Romney or Rudy, and is probably about on par with Thompson in that catergrory.
I think it is time for Brownback, Tancredo, Hunter, and probably Huckabee to exit. Huckabee is probably hoping for a VP slot and Hunter for Secretary of Defense or something but if it means hurting the conservative movement they need to go.
Thompson is still newly in the campaign. I want to see how he performs in another debate or two and how well he manages the campaign. He could become a major disappointment and I'd pick McCain or Romney. If he does well and becomes the viable alternative to Rudy then I'll vote for him over McCain.
I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but I'll probably cast my ballot for Rudy's top competitor, if he has one, by the time the New York Primary rolls around. Picking one of them does us no good if we don't all pick the same one. I have serious problems with all of the top tier, but if they all got together and picked a single "not Rudy" candidate, I'd get on board immediately.
Excellent points all. The primaries are the time to get all the party's internal issues worked out. Making the move now sounds much more empowering than waiting to see what happens, and then splitting off with a third-party candidate (a la Dobson).
I agree, airing issues and concerns now is healthy. As to Dobson, listening to Hannity in the car, he said Dobson has tried to clarify (I didn't get where) that he was misquoted/misunderstood? and that he wasn't thinking of supporting a 3rd party candidate. If that's the case, that's sure a relief.
=======================
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
It's kind of sad though to have to tell conservatives they should work within the system.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
they should "almost ignore" Iowa. Give it to Romney and Huckabee, and it won't mean a thing.
And they can rightfully concede New Hampshire, Romney's next door neighbor.
I think the best place to stop Rudy is in Florida, and Thompson will have to do that.
That being said, I'm leery of a Republican "Stop Rudy" movement. He could be the nominee, and it would be better not to have large groups of people going into the general election fresh from having committed time and effort trying to stop him. I respect those who could not vote for Giuliani out of principle, and there is no higher human principle than that of human life, but I'd sooner this not be a major movement. Four years of watching and listening to Hillary speak with power and authority will be too much. (The Republican would survive her Presidency, though.)
...at the beginning of the year (this time around), a movement like that may not be so fresh in the minds of voters.
I do take your point though, I'll just say the original poster has a point about narrowing the field. That act alone may be a better route than trying to create some kind of movement.
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
missteps.
Rudy is not his main competitor. Rudy's supporters are GWOT/security first voters, and they have made up their minds. McCain and increasingly Huckabee are.
Fred is still an emerging variable. The Quiet Man, if you will. His competition with Romney is stylistic, and I think Romney is also losing that battle.
On the other hand, Romney's #'s are unremarkable, but steady, so I may be all wet.
your going to stop one of the most beloved mayors of new york in the sixth burough ? All things being equal Rudy wins florida without breaking a sweat.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
your going to stop one of the most beloved mayors of new york in the sixth burough ? All things being equal Rudy wins florida without breaking a sweat.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I just find it laughable that what you're suggesting doing is no different than what your condemning many Rudy voters of doing. That it's unprincipled to vote for a candidate that has the best chance of winning, it should be all about principles.
Now your suggesting that conservatives not vote for the candidate they feel has the most solid principles, and instead rally around a canidate that can win, all just so he can beat Rudy.
Do you not see the catch-22 in that type of thinking?
I'm all for rank-and-file Republicans working within the Party to choose the candidate they best feel represents them, so I have no problem with this strategy.
I DO think that when you vote in a primary, you have made a deal that whoever the rank-and-file chooses, you support the eventual nominee. That's how I've always done it, and believe me, I've not always got my chosen candidate.
Disagree. The "we can't win, so we are not going to play" strategy may dim Romney's victory, but will also make those who bail look weak.
Otherwise, I agree with this post. I'm not worried about Rudy because
A) The majority of the Brownback /Huckabee /Tancredo /Hunter / Paul conservatives will inevitably fall behind Romney/Thompson/McCain. Collectivelly that 10% to 20% should be enough to bury the king of all RINOS.
2) He still has too much baggage
3) And immigration is the 800 pound gorilla in the room this election and Rudy just plain sucks on that issue. Some conservatives delude themselves into believing that Rusy's problems are just abortion and gay rights, but he is wrong on numerous issues such as immigration.
...if anybody other than Rudy Giuliani ends up with the Republican nomination, I'll eat my hat.
I think a lot would have to change between now and February (which ain't that far away) for somebody else to win. For one thing, Giuliani's long been aiming for John McCain's endorsement once McCain does the inevitable. And he'll likely get it.
For another, Rudy's done very well in NH of late. And Romney absolutely must win NH to have a shot. Even then, I think it'll be an uphill battle for him.
Fred's a wildcard, no doubt. He's just getting into the race now and it's possible -- not likely, but possible -- that he'll shake things up some.
I'm not even a betting man. But I'd be willing to put down a fairly large amount of money at this time that Giuliani will end up with the nod. Each of us needs to begin preparing ourselves that for that eventuality and how we may react.
I hope that nobody will stay home or vote 3rd party or do something else that would help Hillary Clinton. But everybody has the right and obligation to make that determination on their own.
It's far better, at this point, for those of us in the pro-life camp to start asking for some influence within the Giuliani camp than to just take our balls and go home.
While I agree Giuliani has a higher probability of being the nominee than any other individual candidate, I think his chance is still less than 50%. My off the cuff estimate of the probabilities of winning the Republican nomination are:
40% Giuliani
25% Thompson
25% Romney
10% McCain, Huckabee, or other surprise.
There's always a small chance that the front runner stumbles and gets blown out of the water in the early states, with a few consecutive miserable showings among IA, NH, MI, SC, FL.
The more likely case is that Giuliani will still be a serious candidate when we get to the Feb 5 national primary. By then I think the field will have shaken out so there is only one other serious candidate facing Giulini; the others will have either dropped out, or be dead men walking that don't get taken seriously by a significant number of voters. The candidate Giulini faces in the two-way contest will probably be Romney or Thompson, but not necessarily.
Giuliani's long been aiming for John McCain's endorsement once McCain does the inevitable. And he'll likely get it.
That may well be true, but I'm skeptical about how many McCain supporters will be influenced by his endorsement, with the same skepticism about the endorsements of any other candidates dropping out.
Obviously who would win the national primary, in a two way Giuliani vs. Romney or Thompson contest, depends on how many voters each can attract from the fallen candidates. The conventional wisdom is that Giuliani only has the lead because the social conservative voters are divided among several candidates, and that may well be true. Social conservatives are a majority in the Republican party, so if a large majority of them vote for Giuliani's opponent on Super Duper Tuesday (and later contests), Giuliani will not be the Republican nominee.
The bottom line for Giuliani is that he needs a lot of social conservatives, even if less than a majority, voting for him in the primaries if he's going to win the Republican nomination. How many social conservatives' votes Giuliani can win probably will depend on which opponent he's facing on Feb. 5.
I think his chances are higher than you do -- but only because I think everybody else's chances are lower. The only other two guys who have an outside shot at this point are Romney and Thompson. And I'm not even sure about the latter.
I'd say Rudy's a 3-1 favorite (75%) to be the nominee.
And, yes, Rudy will need a healthy portion of social conservatives. But have you seen his poll numbers to that end? He's poll remarkably well with self-identified social conservatives.
Keep in mind, though, that there's more than one way to the nomination just as there's more than one way to 270 electoral votes. Giuliani's electoral calculus will, no question, be different than GWBs was. There will be places he loses and places he gains.
But the important part for me is that he fares so much better than our party in general. And that's precisely the candidate we need this cycle -- issues aside. We need somebody who transcends the "Republican" label and Giuliani is the candidate who can do that.
There's no reason for anyone to drop until after Iowa at the very earliest. However, I do think you'll see candidates start dropping out then and after New Hampshire. As I'm in Texas, it's likely we'll already have the nominee or there will be only two viable candidates. If one of two is Rudy, I'll vote for the other.
You've stated that you're going to vote for a candidate based purely on their ability to beat Rudy.
How is that any different than a Republican voting for Rudy based on his ability to beat Hillary?
I thought that type of voter was "unprincipled" in your eyes.
You thought wrong. Where did I ever say it is "unprinicipled" to vote someone who I do not agree with 100%?
There's a difference between voting for someone who is less than perfect and voting for someone who's views on life issues are anathema to your own.
So it's not unprincipled for a pro-life Republican to vote for Giuliani purely on the basis that he has a better chance of beating Hillary in November?
Your stance is "I'll vote for whoever has the best chance of beating Rudy in the primary."
I don't see a difference between the two lines of reasoning.
There's a lot of double-speak that comes from Rudy-haters.
Charges like, "You'll destroy the party" when in reality, they're the ones threatening to destroy the party by forming a third party.
It's the same for the charge that Giuliani supporters have no principles, they just want to win against Hillary, when now these same people are saying "let's line up behind ANY candidate that has the best chance of knocking Rudy off!"
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
As a Rudy supporter, I have no problem with efforts to coalesce around someone else. That's part of the process.
Of course, if the effort succeeds, the coalescers have to take accountability for what happens in the general. That's part of the process, too.
is that Rudy is the only pro-choice, outright social liberal in the pack. He makes everybody else look good in comparison.
Really, it's not that hard to understand. I'm getting the feeling that Rudy's supporters don't WANT to understand.
year. Rudy will revise his positions, and promise not to advance the pro-abortion position and agree that Roe was wrongly decided and that his judges will undrstand that. He must or has no chance.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I agree that he'll probably strike some sort of accord with the social right. But I can't imagine him just willy-nilly going back on all the things he's said during the primary.
Ironically enough, I imagine that Rudy would be more boxed in as a president making judicial picks than GWB was, or even Reagan. He'll be under intense scrutiny by the social right -- while Reagan (and to a lesser extent, GWB) was more trusted.
But see my posts elsewhere about the fallacy of assuming too much about judicial picks by presidency. As much as the social right was wary of GWB (ie, for saying, among other things, that the country wasn't ready for abortion to be outlawed in 2000, etc.), I think they got him to make 2 solid picks. Reagan was 1 for 3, at least so far as social hot-button issues go.
sorry were the dems.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
GOP's pro-life majority who gave him their ticket to run on.
On Scotus, he will not have a litmus test. Unlike Bush, he knows how to play hardball if the Dems try to impose one.
The mayor has ALREADY expounded on how he thinks the eminent domain case was wrongly decided.
see where a good reporter could take this?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Politicians have done this in the past, and the pro-life community seems to buy it.
George H.W. Bush was originally pro-choice, then became pro-life just in time for the primaries in 1987. The pro-life community didn't seem to mind. The same with Mitt Romney. He was a pro-choice Senatorial candidate and a pro-choice Governor, and immediately before the primary he flip-flopped to become a pro-life crusader, and social conservatives eat it up.
Giuliani needs to find common ground with social conservatives as much as possible without looking like he did a complete 180. Him choosing a solid, pro-life VP will really quiet a lot of fears for social conservatives, even if in terms of policy it is largely symbolic.
This is not the first time I've heard this, but I can't imagine it's going to make a difference. If you don't believe he's going to follow his committee of judge-pickers, why would you believe he'd listen to a VP?
It's a start, of course - more in getting a major pro-life figure to endorse him than anything else. But Rudy's dug himself into a deep hole over years. Climbing out is not going to be easy or quick, if it's even still possible.
Social conservative don't need a whole lot of convincing to vote against Hillary Clinton, they really want to knock her teeth in. If Rudy was up against a less polarizing Democrat, than I think there would be legitimate concerns, but not against her. The Clintons are more overtly pro-abortion than any other Democrat politician I can think of.
A pro-life VP would also give some cover for Dobson-like figures to give the Republican ticket their blessing, or at the very least, quiet opposition.
It would also symbolize to social conservatives that they have a "seat at the table" in a Giuliani administration by him appointing his #2 position to a pro-life, social conservative.
If Giuliani gets the nomination, I'm not worried in the least that these differences are not going to be reconciled in order to beat the Clintons in the general election.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
The Clintons are more overtly pro-abortion than any other Democrat politician I can think of.
Try Cynthia McKinney or Obama. At least Hillary voted in favor of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Obama supports infanticide. Furthermore, Elizabeth Edwards said her husband's health plan would cover abortions. Even though we know she too would try, Hillary has been quite silent about direct funding. Of course everyone knows Hillary is vehemently pro-abortion and would try to do far more to advance it than Rudy. I just want to be clear that some Democrats can go even beyond her be it their "overtness."
That last sentence should say
I just want to be clear that some Democrats can go even beyond her IN their "overtness.
Cynthia Mckinney as the Democrat Nominee. It certainly has a certain Je nais se quoi to it. But somehow I don't think the RABID LUNATIC BLOCK is quite large enough to pull it off.
Maybe If they threatened the democrats with voting for a third party if their guy wasn't picked.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
that objecting pro-lifers would really like to lend their support to Giuliani. They just need an excuse, or a symbol, to ease their consciences.
No.
I don't want 8+ years of pro-choice policies and judges. I don't want the Republican party to abandon the pro-life plank and lesser social conservative goals. I will not endorse these outcomes by voting for Giuliani. Clinton isn't nearly as damaging.
The key to any change is indication that these outcomes won't occur, or at least aren't likely. A Vice-Presidential post doesn't help in the least. DOJ spots would be more relevant. What I'd really want, some assurance that he'd pick strict constructionist judges by a -conservative- definition, might be more than he can offer. A mere promise isn't going to mean a whole lot at this point.
I don't doubt there will be a few hold-outs that will not vote for Giuliani, but I can guarantee you the overwhelming majority of pro-life, social conservatives will vote for a Giuliani ticket. You're going to be disappointed if you think there is going to be some sort of mass exodus from the Republican Party, it's just not going to happen.
If James Dobson and his crew want to start a 3rd party, they're going to get about as many votes as Pat Buchanan did, less than 1%. Giuliani will easily make that up in gaining Independents and Moderates.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
The really sad thing will be that if Dobson does this it will discredit the work of focus on the family. A shame to see it go down in flames.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Dobson knows that if he tries to take down the eventual Republican nominee in the general election, not only will he fail, his organization is finished. It's a lose/lose proposition for him.
Republicans will be furious at him, and he won't have a place of power with ANY Republican leaders. The rank-and-file social conservatives will take their money and manpower to other political organizations that represent their policy goals AND can play well with others and will actually still have influence in the Republican Party.
Dobson doesn't want his organization to get shut out of power, so he'll find a way to give the eventual Republican ticket his blessing, and Giuliani will gladly accept it.
...I'll pass on your offer.
I think it would be incredibly stupid for the Republican Party to nominate either Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. We might feel better about ourselves when we pull the lever...but feeling better about ourselves matters none, winning and losing means everything.
I've said before and I'll say again that I think the actual best candidate in this race for my general outlook is Mitt Romney. There's a lot to like about him and I'm hard-pressed to find anything he's said that I've disagreed with.
So why am I, instead, supporting somebody with whom I often disagree? Well, because I don't want to wake up and see President Hillary Clinton. And, so, it makes no sense to support somebody who would almost certainly lose.
Rudy outpolls the party. He transcends that ugly, ever-present, naggingly pernicious generic gap between the parties. I don't like that "the Republicans" are at such a deficit with "the Democrats" (particularly considering how horrid most of today's Democrats are). But I'm not the public -- I don't get to make those determinations. I can only react to them.
For those of you who are worried about his impact on abortion, it goes no farther than what he'd do with his judicial nominees. And he's said everything that ought to be said on that matter. He'll nominate the right judges.
Meanwhile, the former president most of us admire most (Reagan) was responsible for the nominations of Justices O'Connor and Kennedy -- two of the justices who helped make a 6-3 majority in Casey v. Planned Parenthood.
Go figure. Go Rudy.
Re Reagan, he did nominate Bork, but had to replace him with Kennedy when Bork, well, got Borked.
It's interesting to look at the court appointments in the past 30 years or so:
Ford- Stevens
Carter- none
Reagan- O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy
Bush- Souter, Thomas
Clinton- Ginsberg, Bryer
Bush- Roberts, Alito
Note that Reagan is primarily responsible for O'Connor, not so with Kennedy. But he did let Bork get Borked.
GHWB made a lousy move with Souter. But he did not let Thomas get Borked.
Reagan wanted Bork, he got Kennedy. And I don't think Kennedy has turned out to be a disaster. But I think most of us would all agree that we'd rather have Bork.
The point I'm trying to make is that we'd be better off not setting up a circular firing squad. Conservatives have a tendency to be a bit romantic and sentimental about the past -- particularly as it applies to Reagan. And, often times, our memories of him and his presidency are actually not all that square with reality.
And so it is with his judicial nominations. So far as abortion goes anyway, he was 1 for 3...which is certainly better than Ford's batting average, but not better than either of the Bushes (who social conservatives have long been wary of re: social policy).
So we're looking for another Reagan, eh? Does that mean we're looking for more O'Connors and Kennedys on the high court? Probably not. And that just goes to show how truly empty all this stuff is.
A president has precisely one substantive job as it relates to abortion policy: his judicial picks. And Giuliani's said the right things on judges. Does that mean he'd follow through? Maybe, maybe not.
But I can flat guarantee what sorts of nominations we'd get from Hillary Clinton -- we'd get more Ruth Bader Ginsbugs. And it seems to me that job #1 of the conservative movement right now is preventing that from happening.
And I honestly think we have one road to take to have a chance at doing so. To be perfectly frank, I wish this wasn't the case. But it is the case and that's enough for me.
Actually, O'Connor is more to blame for that one. She invented and wrote the opinion. Kennedy only agreed to it at the last minute. I pin the blame on O'Connor for most of Casey. Without her, neither Kennedy nor Souter would have specifically devised a test applicable only to abortion cases and thrown in another new test for reversing it?
ALL Republican Presidents (except Gerald Ford) TRY to nominate conservative justices, and all Democrat President try to nominate liberal justices. Usually Democrats get exactly what they want, but Republicans have been bamboozled quite a few times. Even so, an O'Connor or Kennedy is better than a Breyer or Ginsberg.
If Reagan and Bush Sr. could have seen how their justices, Kennedy and Souter, came out, I think they would have chosen different judges. I do think both Republican Presidents made good faith efforts to both nominate and confirm conservative jurists that would tilt the Court to the Right.
I can't believe there are people arguing that Giuliani would not appoint more conservative judges than Hillary Clinton. The absolute worst case scenario I can see for a Giuliani Presidency would be he doesn't nominate an Alito or a Scalia,(as he promised) but instead an O'Connor. At the very least, you can see this would be a huge improvement over a Hillary pick, which would be another Ruth-Bader Ginsberg.
Judicial appointments are the front line of the battle for abortion. Without question, Giuliani's picks would move the Supreme Court further to the right than ANY judges Hillary picks.
Most of the judges who are any President's short list for a spot on SCOTUS are hardly unknown quantities. They usually have a pretty long track record as a jurist, if not other legal experience.
It's not as if David Souter was some conservative when he got the nomination. You're probably right that Bush wanted somebody more conservative. But he tried, and failed, with Douglas Ginsberg.
And, so, in prances Warren Rudman with his pal David Souter -- who stood a better chance of getting confirmed by a Democratic Senate than Ginsberg had stood. But it was probably little secret at the time that Souter was well to the left than Ginsberg.
I tend to think that GHWB knew basically what he was getting.
That said, if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency next year, she'll be able to get basically any judge she wants on the court. And I imagine that several of those justices would retire quickly to take advantage of what promises to be a pretty heavily Democratic Senate (it's possible that Dems could have 60 Senators next term, folks).
If you're motivated by social matters, I can't possibly fathom how you wouldn't do anything you possibly could to stop Hillary Clinton from winning. She would be a disaster for conservative social policy....and, while, Giuliani may be far from your first choice, he's probably the only thing standing in her way.
I think Presidents have been genuinely surprised and disappointed with their judicial picks, the most famous being Eisenhower's appointment of Earl Warren, which Eisenhower later stated was "the biggest damned-fool mistake" he made.
Do you think Regean got exactly the type of judges he wanted? I believe he honestly thought O'Connor was more conservative than she turned out.
I also think Bush Sr. genuinely thought Souter was a "stealth conservative" that he could get approved. Souter's previous record seemed to indicate he would be a conservative jurist.
Except for the silly side-show that ocurred with Clarence Thomas, I think Bush Sr, is quite happy with how conservative Justice Thomas ended up being, and would have preferred all of his picks to be as ideologically close to Thomas as possible.
My point is that even moderate Republicans like Bush Sr. (who at one time was pro-choice) make good faith efforts to appoint conservative judges whenever possible, but it's hard to predict the future.
I think Giuliani will try to appoint constructionist judges to the bench whenever possible, and I KNOW Hillary will appoint liberal judges whenever possible.
Roberts, Alito
perfect
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
first in 2009
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
The absolute worst case scenario I can see for a Giuliani Presidency would be he doesn't nominate an Alito or a Scalia,(as he promised) but instead an O'Connor. At the very least, you can see this would be a huge improvement over a Hillary pick, which would be another Ruth-Bader Ginsberg.
If I thought that would be the case, I would not vote for a President. O'Connor would, in some ways, be WORSE than Ginsburg. In fact, I belive her to be among the absolute worst Supreme Court justices in the nation's history.
If it came to a choice between O'Connor and Ginsburg, I would not vote. Fortunately, I don't believe ANY justice will be "like" any other. They are all going to be different, and I find these comparisons to be meaningless.
So you would have preferred Ronald Reagan had appointed Ruth Bader Ginsberg instead of Sandra Day O'Connor? In your eyes, that would have been a better pick?
I guess using your warped logic, Reagan wasn't even worth voting for, since he appointed O'Connor and Kennedy.
If you can't see the benefit of having a moderate conservative judge like O'Connor over a flaming left-wing judge like Ruth-Bader Ginsberg, I think you would be happier joining some ridiculous 3rd party that's as pure as you are.
I understand being disappointed by justices like O'Connor and Kennedy, but they still come down on the right side most of the time, and they're certainly better than a card-carrying ACLU leftist judge.
The next three Supreme Court vacancies are going to be vacated by liberal justices. Even moderate-conservative replacements would be an enormous improvement.
Kennedy and O'Connor do not fall in the same category. O'Connor was worse, and no, I would NOT pick her over Ginsburg. She hardly ever "came down on the right side" in big cases. She tried to make liberal opinions sound more palatable. Had she not done so, I think Kennedy would have been more conservative. She had a way of writing opinions that made it crystal clear she had no clue what the role of a judge was. I refuse to call O'Connor a "moderate." She was horrible!
It's not about being "pure" or part of some fringe extremist group. I'm not into third parties; I'd leave a spot blank before I would do that. I already said that I don't believe any judge will be "like" any other. Fortunately, we will have no more O'Connors.
If any Presidential candidate were to speak admirably of O'Connor's judicial philosophy, I would be more inclined to vote for his or her opponent.
McCain polls slightly better than Rudy in a match up with Hillary. Check out realclearpolitics. Of course Romney and Thompson don't but they don't have nearly the name recognition.
I don't remember when it became inappropriate on RedState to point out a candidate's electability problems. Really, the sheer hypocrisy of those objecting to such announcements is getting more amusing than frustating.
That said, I agree what you suggest should also be considered. I'm willing to give the minor candidates a little more time to make a splash. But soon now, it's going to be time to flush the dead ones.
Some people consider electability to be a bogus issue -- either for or against. To these people, you support a candidate solely for what they stand for and forget the likelihood that they might actually be elected.
Usually, these are people whose preferred candidates have electability issues. ;)
I've really never understood this mentality. Typically, they'll bring up the 2004 Democratic primary and John Kerry (ostensibly because Democrats coalesced around him as the most electable candidate).
That may be. But there are problems with that comparison:
1) John Kerry was never terribly electable
2) He still probably was the most electable of that particular crop of Democrats.
There's nothing wrong with choosing (or rejecting) candidates because of their perceived electability.
On 2, I think you are understating the reasons for Rudy's support. A lot of us also like Rudy for affirmative reasons not solely limited to electability and abortion, notably his leadership record, the war, and his economic record and positions. The importance of that will vary among voters but you can't just assume that there's no reason to vote Rudy other than wanting a pro-choicer and focusing wholly on electability.
On 5, I'm not sure all the McCain supporters (or hardly any of the Ron Paul supporters) are conservatives. I think it likely that a significant portion of the McCain backers would get behind Rudy. (Romney likely has some moderate support as well). Huckabee is also significantly to Rudy's left on numerous issues, notably foreign policy and economic/regulatory issues.
Otherwise, I think you are describing fairly well how opponents of Rudy should organize themselves.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I think many people are misreading Giuliani supporters, it's not that all of Giuliani's support comes from rabid, pro-choice Republicans. It's also not only for electability reasons, either.
I know many pro-life, social conservatives who support Rudy because they like his fiscal conservatism, his numerous tax cuts, his tough foreign policy stances, his tough stance on crime, his record as mayor of NYC, and great leadership qualities. They also like that he's a "fighter" who they feel won't get punched around by the Clintons.
These "pro-life' Republicans don't like his stance on abortion, but on the whole, they think Rudy's positives outweigh his negatives, and they feel abortion is just one issue out of many.
Not every Republican is so obsessed with the abortion issue, most Republicans are pro-life, but they have many other concerns about the challenges that face this country, and they feel Rudy would make the best leader.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
be allowed to sit on a jury in any kind of abortion related case.
I'll vote for Rudy in the general in a heartbeat.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Well, not really a problem from my point of view, but the problem with your analysis is that single-issue pro-life voters make up around 2% of the electorate. So the fact that the pro-choice candidate has 30% of the vote and the pro-life candidates have 50% of the vote does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Rudy wouldn't get a large chunk of the votes going to the pro-life candidates.
In fact, if memory serves, Rudy gets from 50-70% in most one-on-one matchups.
moronic misconception here is that all Rudy supporters are pro choice and all non Rudy supporters are pro life. I'm a John McCain supporter, but its got nothing to do with abortion. I think a lot of McCain supporters also like Giuliani as a second choice, as i do.
I don't want Rudy out of the way. IMO, he's our best overall candidate.
I've already done it when talk first started about Fred getting in. I think its a good idea for those that haven't done so already.
Fred Thompson will win the SC primary, and then will win the Florida primary, and after some bouts in which Rudy will win some and lose some, Fred will eventually win the nomination.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
We'll know which candidates are going the distance after Super Tuesday.
Now, I'm sure Romney would love to win N.H., Iowa, and Mich., Thompson would love to win S.C., and Giuliani wants Fla. going into that big day, but when you're cracking four digits of delegates, that's really all that matters.
Tuesday there will be serious winnowing, but my prediction stands. Eventually, Fred will win the conservative battle and defeat Rudy.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
If the plurality doesn't win all, does it really matter? If more than half vote for someone other than Rudy, would there not be some kind of vote between the top two at some point?
No one here seems to think the voters in these polls are unaware of Rudy's positions. I believe a majority of them still do not know anything about Rudy besides 9/11. Indeed I think that will continue to be the case possibly when people do vote. I think the Republican primaries will be little more than name recognition.
I think Rudy could win the nomination only because most primary voters never bothered to learn anything about him besides 9/11.
between the "never vote for Rudy crowd" and that annoying employee that felt you couldn't run the business without him or her?
For me personally I find that a "career adjustment" is the only cure to this ill.
The party will not miss you, nor will I.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
The fact is that as we speak, Tancredo and Rudy are tied with ZERO delgates.
All the rest is talk. All the talk is
IF
IF
IF
Rudy is the nomineee....yakyak
Rudy isn't
so here we go
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
"I think it likely that a significant portion of the McCain backers would get behind Rudy."
Exactly. McCain supporters are more liberal than Giuliani supporters. He may be pro-life, but he sticks his finger in conservatives' eyes every chance he gets and feels more at home with the liberal media.
The fact is that Fred's entry just splits social conservatives, helping Giuliani. McCain's recent mini-resurgance probably hurts Giuliani though. If McCain drops out before Feb. 5, Giuliani will probably dominate and could sew up the nomination that night.
Can anyone "sew up the nomination" with a third of the vote?
I have a feeling either there will be runoff elections and/or we won't know until after the Republican National Convention.
I will be voting for Romney. I am a pro-life conservative, who cares about unborn babies.
Before everyone jumps and votes for Rudy. Ask yourself this question. Will he rescend the Mexico City POlicy? After all he is pro-choice.
If he wins the primary, I will hold my nose and vote for him, but I have a choice in the primary.
I live in Florida and their are three people in my family that will be voting for Romney.
and the Tancredos if they split the base. Personnaly I don't believe there are many Americans in either camp but since neither said they'd support the nominee you can read that as running independent when the time comes, thus stealing votes.
I also don't believe Gulliani can win becuase I'm talking to more and more conservatives who express the idea that they would allow the Demon-crat candidate to win before they'd vote for a centrist like Gulliani.
I'm an admitted Fred-head but I'm also an anyonebutHillary guy too. Rudi is coming off much more pollished, but that's right now. Fred is coming off much more genuine, imo. I don't like Romney much but would rather see Brownback or Hunter as a VP candidate. Personnaly I think many of the second and third tier candidates are still in the race vying for the VP spot and not really for the presidency.
That's my opinion, we welcome yours...
I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say it to the very death.
It's nice to have a lot of choice for a while. But the continuing presence of people like Ron Paul, Hunter, Brownback and Tancredo, is actually throwing things off kilter. It is giving the impression that the liberal in the field is a winner. If the third-tier cnadidates would just clear the decks, their supporters would reorder themselves among the others in the field and you'd see one or two of the more conservative major candidates move upward into a position where they would be in the 30s themselves. That would make Rudy seem much less inevitable, and would also serve to focus some more attention from the general public on our other choices.
And looking at head-to-head numbers at Real Clear Politics, it would appear that the Democratic candidates have their lowest numbers not against Rudy, but against John McCain. If electable is what we want, maybe we should be giving McCain another look. He's certainly more conservative than Rudy. Bet we'd even get better judges out of him.