Whither the Shivs for Rudy?
By Leon H Wolf Posted in 2008 — Comments (63) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
One needed only to glance at the recommended diaries list at any given point over the last week to notice that a new phenomenon is taking shape in the race for the GOP nomination in 2008: the long knives have come out for Rudy Giuliani. It reminds me a lot of February and March - except that then, every other diary was either shivving Mitt Romney, or angrily defending him from the shivs.
Although Rudy's problems with social conservatives and libertarians have been discussed before, this is the first time in the race that a concerted attack has been launched from all quarters at Rudy. Rudy supporters can perhaps be forgiven for feeling a little perplexed or bombarded by all of it. Well, although I am not a Rudy supporter (in fact, the farthest thing from it), I believe that I have an explanation for the phenomenon, and what it all means for this primary season.
More below...
Back in late 2006, as the primary field was just taking shape, it was clear to virtually everyone that McCain and Rudy were running. Rudy, it was assumed, would run for the socially moderate Republicans who cared most about the war. McCain was assumed to go after much the same crowd, plus some independents who are big on spending issues. People knew that Mitt Romney was planning a run, but it was assumed by most establishment people that he would be competing for Rudy's votes - moderate, but competent. The field looked wide open for a candidate to come in to the right of McCain and build some momentum. Enter Brownback, Hunter, Huckabee, et al.
But then a fascinating thing happened - it turned out that Romney was going to run as the candidate to the right of McCain. And, effectively, he sucked a lot of the oxygen out of the race for those who intended to compete for that spot. That is why, at the beginning of the race, a lot of the fire was directed at Mitt Romney from all sides, hoping that he would not be able to solidify that position.
Well, we are now about two and a half months from the first primary/caucus (gee, thanks, Iowa!) and the race has started to take shape. While Romney hasn't expanded his standing in the national polls at all, neither has he relinquished the 9-15% that he had as of March. McCain imploded over immigration, and Fred took most of his votes, and some of Rudy's votes, and probably some of the votes Romney hoped to expand into. The result is now basically a three-man race. Rudy has to be the favorite because he leads in all the national polls. Fred is the only other guy within sniffing distance of Rudy. Romney's candidacy would have been left dead by the side of the road, but he still maintains a lead in the two earliest primary states - and although the conventional wisdom is that Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina don't control the path to the Presidency anymore, you have to at least leave open the possibility that if Romney pulls out a couple of no-doubter solid wins in those two states, he puts himself into position for an outside shot at the nomination.
Now, here's the important part for the Rudy supporters to understand - none of the other candidates have caught on whatsoever. All have had decent moments now and then, but none have had a moment that legitimately propelled them into contention with those three. Huckabee may have come closest, but Huckabee remains woefully unable to raise an adequate amount of money to seriously compete even in Iowa. And, just as importantly, most people have figured out that Mitt's 9-15% isn't going anywhere.
So what has happened is that there are a lot of people who were supporting, say, Tancredo, Hunter, Brownback, Huckabee, whoever - who are waking up to the reality of a Rudy/Fred/Romney race. And while they may have really, really, really liked their guy, and really wanted him to talk about immigration/life/spending/whatever, the one thing a lot of these people have in common is that their greatest fear is a Rudy nomination. And while Fred/Romney not be their first choice - or even their fifth or sixth choice, Rudy's not on their list of choices at all.
And that's pretty much where we are today. The Rudy supporters are probably not going to like the next couple of months, as the attacks on Rudy begin in earnest, but they should be aware that they are coming. And the closer we get to the actual primaries, as more and more people leave the second-tier candidates to support the first-tier guys, the worse it is going to get in terms of the scrutiny of Rudy's record.
If Rudy can win the nomination after this period, I will say at least that he will have earned it. But it's time for Camp Rudy to get ready for a bumpy ride, the likes of which they have not yet seen in this race. Everybody's guy has taken a lot of shots by this point in the race, and Rudy as the frontrunner has received a remarkable pass up until this point. Let's not be surprised that this is ending.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Were I Rudy, I'd Keep My Distance — Comments (24) »
Whither the Shivs for Rudy? 63 Comments (0 topical, 63 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
At this apex the anthropophaginian instinct always seems to outweigh intellectual intervention for Republicans. So what the heck, lets just have a meal on the pool of candidates containing the eventual party nominee. That way, we can focus all the negativity on ourselves while Hillary snickers and builds the base of ganja smoking beatniks, robot voters and people generally disgusted with political decorum anyway.
As one in the group you believe will be undertaking this offensive, I will say at least in my case it is incorrect cogitation. Seppuku is never the answer, never. Besides, you will have to help me identify the candidates in that group that support such destructive sniping? Certainly, if they do it's apparent why the golden ring is out of reach in the first place.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
I mean, we test how the candidates do defending their positions; see how they handle unfriendly fire; and make sure there's nothing that's going to make a sizable portion of the moron independent vote vomit and run screaming. That's what primaries are for. You may call it candidate cannibalism if you wish, but I think of it as "vetting."
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
... that you are not a big believer in the myth of the politically savvy, intelligent, totally-informed, radically independent voter either, eh?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Nice fella. He blew neither hot nor cold, so I had this strange urge to spit; but he could make a mean fondue.
Generally speaking, the more informed you are about an issue, the more you gravitate to one side or another. This is not actually an underreported phenomenon.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Fondue? Oh, never mind.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Generally speaking, the more informed you are about an issue, the more you gravitate to one side or another.
Yes, but there's more than one issue out there to pick from, and it's not uncommon for most people to line up differently than regular party lines.
Take your limited-government conservatives: do they vote democrat to preserve social liberties, or do they vote republican to prevent socialist entitlement creep? How about moderates, who might line up in favor of low taxes but want to preserve a woman's right to get an abortion? Economic conservatives typically like the republican position on economics, but what if they're tired of a SoCon agenda?
A very large number of people report that neither party represents them well. This isn't because they're not informed or passionate on any given issue- it's because they line up across the party lines.
I think you are talking about something different from me and (perhaps) different from Thomas as well. My point is that the media likes to portray the "undecided" or "independent" voter as someone who has studied-up on the issue, bones-up on multiple sources of traditional and non-traditional media, knows where the candidates stand on the Grand Issues of the Day and agonizes over their electoral decision.
My experience indicates that to not be anything remotely resembling reality. It's a myth - hardcore BigFoot territory.
That was my only point. I don't think Thomas necesarily disagreed, but I don't think he was addressing what I thought I was addressing - which is why I was happy to drop it without further discussion.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
How they handle friendly fire. We've already years of experience with how Rudy handles barrels of acid from the Left. What's new is how he handles a fight on the Right, of the type he's had little of in his public career.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I was, perhaps stupidly given the topic of the story, speaking in general: Each of these folks has faced an election and governance before, but (almost) never on the national stage; now would be a really good time to see how they handle attacks from all sides.
But your second sentence goes to a really good point: How well do Rudy and McCain, say, handle trying to hold a coalition, large parts of which hate their guts, both during the primary and after?
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
See "agents of intolerance." (Granted, McCain's 2000 campaign was all but mortally wounded by then anyway, but it pretty permanently sealed his deal). McCain's response is precisely what Rudy needs to avoid.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
He's obviously changed some positions since.
I agree with the last sentence.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
You mean how they handle friendly fire.
The left is not above attacking candidates from the right. They'll dish out whatever they can put together to cause damage to the candidate. The only difference will be whether that ad Soros is footing the bill for says it is "Paid for by moveon.org" or "Paid for by Conservatives Against Rudy".
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Use to be back in the good ole days that primaries were for picking your candidate. That involved having that person stake out sound positions on a vision; which would then be compared against the real other guys. That way, one could make an intelligent choice as to how the candidate might contrast and perform in the general election. But alas, those days are gone and we are these days trying to see who the better social or fiscal conservative is by flaming vetting your neighbor.
Now, perhaps in the 21st century that’s synonymous with determining your tolerance by facing “unfriendly fire”, which by definition comes from your enemy (which perhaps now requires better semantical explication). But then again, I am and old fashioned kinda’ guy and pine for the salad days of punching the real enemy until he is so wobbly come election time that no matter who is left standing from our side, he wins. Used to be…..used to be…..
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
Will be in the same atmosphere with what Hillary Clinton will do. Nothing any of these men have experienced before, due respect to New Yorkers who think they somehow have a monopoly on seeing nasty, will either.
We have been without a significantly contested presidential primary since 1980, which, incidentally, was no spring walk. Ford got a few daggers from Reagan, and Lord knows he gave some. I'll concede that primaries have been cozy since 1980, but that's a historical aberration, not the norm.
Put differently, there are no good old days.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
"I paid for this microphone!"
As GWHB's hope of winning the primary went to hell in a hand cart. I wish there was YouTube of that, I remember seeing on the local news - we lived in NH.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
he said it to the moderator. But that line won him the NH primary.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
They neglect to mention that Reagan actually WAS paying for that microphone, because he paid for the debate in order to ensure it wasn't heads up with Bush, to ensure that other candidtaes would be invited. If you're the frontrunner, why let one of your opponents elevate himself?
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
that drifts from one crisis to another." Ah, yes, the good old Carter Years!
=========
About the Author
Lord Vegas is a true American. some would call him a Mutt, but he pr
I am wondering if one day some of the high school Tom Foolery, in which my friends and I engaged in, will show up on YouTube.
But it may be black and white or perhaps resemble a Buster Keaton movie.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
From where this started -mea culpa- which I believe was an attempt to define the positive virtue of relative bottomfeeders, attacking candidates from their own party.I fail to see who this serves except perhaps their own scrapbook image - shared with the grandkids for years to come with stories of how they foolishly ran their one trick pony to help elect the opposition candidate.
Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with comparing agendas via debate to pick the right candidate. But disagree what Leon has discussed is constructive.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
I'm not reading any of the above posts to say it is constructive. I'm reading them to say It is what is, so suck it up and get over it. If you can't deal with love kicks in the primary, you'll never survive the long knives of the real fights.
You and I don't have to like it, but pining for something that never was and is contrary to human nature is a waste of effort.
Personally, I won't vote for Rudy or McCain if they win the primary. But then again, my vote wouldn't really matter if I did pull the big (metaphorical) Republican lever, because I reside in the heart of the People's Republic of Maryland.
I have no problem with a good fight during primary season. People abandoning their never-had-a-chance candidates and choosing a top tier candidate that can win, even if it is just to stop Rudy, is a good thing. I will be voting for Fred or Mitt in the primary. The guy I cast my vote for will likely be the one who has the best chance of winning. They are both better choices than Rudy.
Come general election time, I will vote for the better man, whoever that happens to be.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I couldn't agree more with this assessment.
My hope is that enough supporters of the second-tier guys will recognize they should shift their support to Fred or Mitt to avert a Rudy nomination.
If the plurality doesn't take all, wouldn't there be an opportunity for them to shift their support anyway?
I've said before and I'll say again that I think there is a very good chance we will not know the nominee until after next year's national convention.
It's still conceivable that we won't know the winner until after the primaries are all done and we see some horse trading, but upon further review I don't think we'll have to wait until the convention like they had to in the old days.
Back in the old days they had to wait becausenobody actually knew how many delegates everyone had, which is astounding to the modern eye but there you go, and ven if everyone knew, it woudl have been impossible to coordinate that many people remotely to get to a decision in advance. The technology wasn't there, so the convention was of necessity.
Now though, everyone's going to know just who has what pleged delegates, and I'm thinking a great many unpledged delegates will have made noises clearly in favor of one candidate or another, too. The delegate counts will be more clear than at any point in our history, and that will get the delegates thinking clearly in advance about what their options are before the first vote is cast.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
... And after they think, it's going to be *practical* for them to *talk with other delegates*, and we'd probably see at least the basis of a compromise made before anyone set foot on the convention floor.
If the convention goes beyond three ballots I'd be surprised.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
but it is my firm belief that Rudy will be unstoppable if he takes New Hampshire. He would then have a great shot to win SC and almost assuredly take Michigan, Nevada and Florida heading into Super Tuesday.
If Rudy takes NH, it's over.
It's not over if Giuliani takes N.H., by my count. To use the Rasmussen tracking poll as a rough guide, Giuliani is on the verge of having a third of the party. In any normal year, we'd have started to coalesce around him plus one significant challenger by now, but we haven't. To me that suggests it's possible that a bunch of us can't stand the idea of nominating the guy.
So what we could see after a Giuliani win in N.H. is firstly the candidates who didn't meet expectations to drop out *cough*Romney*cough* and then for the supporters of those candidates to rally around who's left.
If it's a two way race going into South Carolina, Florida, and Super Tuesday, then that gets interesting.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
NH has been how good of a predictor in the R side for the past few elections?
AND, just to argue, Rudy could win NH and still easily lose MI to Mitt cuz he has strong roots in MI. AND Fred could easily take SC because of his strong regional (read Southern) support. Now, where does that leave popular wisdom?
=========
About the Author
Lord Vegas is a true American. some would call him a Mutt, but he prefers the term political animal.
If someone wins both of those, they will be very hard to stop on Super Tuesday. If Fred Thompson wins those two, he's golden after Super Tuesday. The other guys are all in it for a big Veep audition.
“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."
... and the race might not even be settled after Super Tuesday.
Lets take your unstoppable Rudy scenario to the max. Say Giuliani sweeps IA, NH, MI, SC and FL. At that point he'd clearly be the front runner. But barring some highly unlikely even splits, one of Thompson or Romney (or conceivably some other guy) would have elbowed ahead of the other by then as the clear second place challenger to Giuliani in the Super Tuesday duel.
On Super Tuesday, if a large majority of social conservatives believe that any credible pro-life candidate is preferable to Giuliani, their votes for the remaining alternative to Giuliani will decisively end Giuliani's hopes for the nomination. At that point either Thompson or Romney would have the nomination essentially guaranteed.
Whether or not Giuliani gets blown out of the water on Super Tuesday depends on how many social conservatives want Giuliani to be President (in preference over whatever pro-life candidate is still in the running on Super Tuesday).
And my hope is that they mostly switch to Fred or Mitt in advance of Feb. 5, so there's a clear alternative.
My fear is that Fred and Mitt will spend most of their time sniping at each other and Rudy breeze through.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
Rather than make noise about jumping ship after the primary, it's time for conservatives to pick between Rudy, Romney, and maybe McCain if they want to derail Rudy.
All the contests before then don't amount to large number of delegates. They'll generate a lot of media hype and shake out the vanity candidates. If one candidate wins most or all of those states, he'll clearly be the declared front runner, but there'll almost certainly be a clear second place alternative to the front runner.
At that stage, any Republican who thinks denying the nomination to Giuliani is important will have no doubt about which alternative candidate to vote for.
but I would love to see a three way undecided outcome going into the Convention. Then the nomination could be done the way God intended it to be -- in a smoke-filled room in the dark of night during the Convention.
OK, today it would be a non-smoking hotel in a non-smoking city, but you get the point.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
I think his positions should be hyperanalyzed on a forum like this. I would hope that people don't demonize him and also understand the context that much of his pervious agenda was implemented in one of the most liberal cities in the country. If anyone really expects Rudy to have a down the line conservative record while presiding over New York then they are frankly out of their mind. The funny thing is that Rudy gets just as much vitriol from the left as he gets from many on the right. It is truly amazing that this guy has picked up so many enemies and continues to do so well.
I have referred to his campaign as a paradigm. He has no natural base. I don't think that there is such a base as socially moderate Republicans and if it is it isn't very large. He basically gives just enough to everyone but not everything to anyone, and this is a very tricky political dynamic however it has worked for him with flying colors. He not only got elected mayor of one of the most liberal cities in the country but he was one of the greatest mayors of all time.
I frankly don't mind all of the attacks however I wish that some of the vitriol would be held back. Rudy is no one's enemy on this board and he shouldn't be treated as such.
We are men of action, lies do not become us
I wish those whose first concern is "life" issues would spend more time convincing and less condemning - there are majorities out there to be won that aren't persuaded by threats, blackballing, etc., no matter how important the issue.
Rudy ain't perfect. Neither is Mitt or Fred - or McCain (oh, boy, is he not 'perfect') or the rest. One of these guys is going to be nominated and it's not in our interest that ANY of them is detested when that happens.
What if a Rudy Administration, in terms of abortion policy, nominated judges in the mold of Scalia & Thomas, vetoed any legislation which expanded the incidence of abortion and agreed abstained from enacting any administrative rules, regulations, etc. which expanded the incidence of abortion?
I ask because these are the parameters in which abortion is likely to be debated in the next 8 - 10 years - as much as any of us would prefer otherwise, there is simply no majority at present for any significant restrictions on the current 'right' of abortion and because, as near as I can gather, Rudy has indicated he respects and would not seek to change the current Republican position on abortion.
IMO, a lot of us still don't appreciate either the importance of winning the war against Islamofascism or that us prevailing is by no means a sure thing. A portion of our population wants us to lose; another (larger, imo) does not believe it matters much whether we win or lose. Together, they're a lot closer to a majority than any of us want to believe.
Lose the war and abortion policy will be among the least of our problems.
blog.
As Rudy said in his Hannity interview last night, the first mafioso who put a hit on him offered 800K. The last one only offered 400K. He said he was insulted by the price decline.
Rudy can survive the SoConis. The GOP electorate has a few months to make up its mind. If I were the Soconis, I would whack a few of their own boys to make it a more manageable race.
because unlike everyone else in this race he has actions that they like not just words. He cleaned up crime, they love that. He cleaned up smut, they love that. He stood up against that vitriolic painting of the Virgin Mary. They love that. Abortions were dropped in his city, they love that. Adoptions went up in his city, they love that.
SoCons aren't as easily open to demonization as some on this board think. They also aren't monolithic. They can accept a difference of opinion on abortion, if that individual has a record of accomplishing things that are important to them.
We are men of action, lies do not become us
The Soconis are the organized pressure groups that try to dictate to the socons. The socons themselves are just ordinary voters who like socially conservative positions, but vote depending on the specific issues that are important in a given election, just like any other group of voters.
"How's that working out for you?"
"How's what working out for me?"
"Being clever."
------------
With all the love my mama gave me
I'm gonna drop the devil to his knees
The full colloquy is actually:
"Oh, I get it, it's very clever."
"Thank you."
"How's that working out for you?"
"What?"
"Being clever?"
"Great."
"Keep it up then. And now a question of etiquette: as I pass, do I give you..."
Well, nevermind.
------------
With all the love my mama gave me
I'm gonna drop the devil to his knees
I don't think that is why he leads. He leads because of name recognition and association with 9/11. I do not believe the vast majority of them know anything about his other accomplishments or positions on issues.
Do the bot, man.
Here a candidate that you can't deny...
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
One of these:
Except instead of being programmed to say "Danger! Danger!" all the time, it says something like "Rudy is the only one that can beat Hillary!"
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Brings back nostalgia like you would not believe.
Even though Land of the Giants had the hotter girl.
______________________________
"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
Everything to do with a race that only one guy can win and a bunch of people who invested badly realizing its not their guy. Its not that Rudy wasn't on their list, its that if it isn't their guy they validate themselves by taking a wizz on the guy.
If Fred, or Mitt were in the lead right now I would expect the same things to be happening to them. I won't go into McCain or RP because that would be happening no matter what.
______________________________
"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 think you and Leon said the same thing. You just used fewer words to say it, and in doing so perhaps said it more clearly.
______________________________
"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
Duncan Hunter is the guy I love, but I've decided to support Romney now as the best 'stop Rudy' candidate. And if Iowa and NH don't boost Romney the way I think they will, then Thompson will be getting my vote and my cash when my Feb. 5 primary rolls around.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
I could see many others in your position picking Romney as well. The question is how much increased support does that equate to?
the attacks haven't coalesced into a plan from what I can see. Take Dobson and co.: already talking about a third party run. Why not either pick a horse in the race and get behind him, push him, make something happen? Or put in one yourself? Granted it's late in the game, as the original post mentioned, and the race is starting to take shape. But a few weeks is a long time in politics, to say nothing of a few months.
Anyway, my point is attacking Giuliani in an attempt to peel away some of his supporters will probably be somewhat successful, especially (as someone mentioned above) at this point at least some portion of his support is from name recognition and taking credit for handling 9/11. But at the end of the primary, it would be much smarter not just to attack the problem, but offer the solution. Mitt's trying that stategy hard-core with his appeals to conservatives.
The problematic dynamic with Rudy is that, should he win, he will undeniably alienate a decent-sized chunk of the Republican voters. Essentially the party would have swung hard left on social issues to combat Hillary, etc. So even should Rudy survive this last quarter, does it ultimately hurt our general election chances or help them? I should disclose that I am a voter very much unsure of whether I could support Rudy in a general, especially if Hillary didn't win the dem nom, so maybe I'm just over-estimating the impact of potential voters in my quandery.
This third party talk isn't serious. Its all about (1) smashing Giuliani's argument that he's most electable and (2) getting lots of free press which mentinos Giuliani's pro-choice stances.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
That was my first reaction too. And I think it was a smart move, especially considering the press bit on it hard. As time goes on and the talk stays the same, I begin to wonder, because they need to capitolize on the press by making their endorsement push. Perhaps they are setting the stage for it.
Back when I had a job where I could listen to talk radio a fair bit, I use to listen to Dr. Dobson all the time. He doesn't do Machiavelli. He lays out what he believes, and why he thinks you should agree with him, and there he stands. Maybe a few of the people who were at the meeting do Machiavelli, but my suspicion is that the rest are like Dobson as well. They can't endorse any of the front runners and they don't want to not have a voice, so they may just form a third party. Which is something GOP strategists should consider when claiming Guiliani is the only person who can win the general election. He may turn out to the GOP candidate most likely to lose the general election, because you can count on the Dems to come home to whoever they nominate against the GOP.
as when I was young I knew a little about him, and that seems like an accurate desciption. It will be interesting to see who does well at the straw poll taking place at the summit this weekend--will it help social conservative pick a candidate to support?
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).