Redstate

Just kidding.  Good diary.  Good analysis.

But can I say: I sure wish I had another choice.  I'm not all that excited about any of these, except maybe Newt.  How are his negatives these days?  Any better?  If I remember correctly, he was one of only a few who had higher negatives than Hillary.

2 points I think you might add:

1. You can't mention Romney without mentioning his faith.  Fair or not, his Morman faith will be a hard swallow for many in the Christian base of the GOP.
   
2. You can't mention Condi without mentioning her politics.  Fair or not, she can't reasonably be called a conservative (see previous remarks she has made on being pro-affirm action and mildly pro-choice).

Also, I think you're being too easy on Rudy.  Most conservatives won't buy the pro-choice / anti-Roe stance (neither will most liberals).  Their is also the pro-gay marriage stand.  I think the trap with Rudy is that the base won't support him in '08 unless they see him as the only way to beat Hillary.  As you know, elections are almost never won by those voting against a candidate, but those inspired to vote for a candidate.

The concept of your post isn't "who can win" but "who is conservative".  Even if we disagree on who can win, can't we agree that Rudy is not a true conservative?  In your own diary you conceed that he would have to change his views to run as a conservative to get elected.

Never the less, the diary is excellent and well thought out.  I like the discussion it should provoke, and it gets a recomendation from me.

I like Pence the best, but agree with you he isn't running.  Even if he did, he should have a governorship behind him first.  I like Gingrich too, but agree with your assesment on him.  I like Browback, but it's not his strong conservatism that would stop him (see Reagan).  He just isn't well known outside the news-junkie class we belong to.

I'm not looking forward to '08.

If the Republicans actually nominate Gringrich(they won't) then

Hillary is our next President. Can conservatives please put their

"convictions" aside for a moment and reflect on what does elect presidents in an media age. It is the "Q Factor" How do they look

and perform on television. Gringrich does not have it. Also

Gringrich only appeals to about 20% of the Republican Party

and his "baggage" is still there.

The battle is going to be between Guiliani, McCain and Allen.

All are strong candiates and all can beat Hillary. The Dims

only chamce is if they nominate someone like Mark Warner.

Re Tom Tancredo above, you should keep in mind that he would be running for President with no expectation on his part or the Republican voters that he would get nominated, or be given VP slot for his effort.  This is unlike all the other candidates you cite.

So those who vote for him can make a point that they support his views on illegal immigration without worrying whether he would actually be a good overall President.  And unlike Pat Buchanan, who he is often compared to, he is not an isolationist on foreign policy.  So there is the potential for him to get alot of primary votes and affect the overall outcome.

The single issue candidates don't tend to do very well. Steve Forbes come to mind.

but that can go a long way in terms of long term party building. Barry Goldwater comes to mind.

I think 2008 is going to be a tough year for us, if things keep going the way they are.  Iraq is an obvious drag, though it's probably not as bad as the left suggests.  The projected burst in the housing bubble, if it happens (and it seems pretty likely), would hurt even more by dragging down the economy and harming Americans' real wealth (rather than a temporary change in economic situation based on a downturn in the economy.)

For us, 2008 doesn't look good.  The GOP's best bet as far as winning the election goes is probably McCain, but it's hard for conservatives to cheer for him (though he'll almost certainly be better than the alternative.)  I'm not inspired by any of the potential candidates, except Brownback, but he may not be electable.

As sad as it is, we may have to bite the bullet and accept four years of Hillary -- but the good side to that is that those four years would remind Americans what happens when they elect a liberal to the White House.  On the other hand, Democrats could do what they usually do and blow up and lose the election.

1. Oh you're very right, Romney's religion will play a factor in 08.  How large a factor is up for debate, but I didn't want to go into that because that's very hard to speculate and very hypothetical and because I mentioned it in the original report.
   
2. I didn't mention Condi, in fact I said, "if you're going to clamor for Condi just leave the diary now, please.  Do me a favor, sit this thread out Condi freaks, she isn't running, get over it."  I agree that mentioning Condi without mentioning her politics is wrong, but I'd rather not mention her at all because she's not running.

Talking about Rudy's candidacy, I think Rudy's 2008 platform will be a conservative one.  Whether or not you trust him to follow through with a new platform as President or return to his policies as NYC Mayor on social issues is up to you and the voters to decide.  I do trust him, and I think voters will too.  But like I said before, If he tries to sell a liberal platform, then he'll suffer the consequences.

The Pro-Choice, Anti-Roe scenario is just one possibility.  I think it could work if he stresses originalism and how there is no right to an abortion anywhere in the Constitution (that should satisfy those worried about judges).  Or maybe he could stress federalism, or maybe.. some other hypothetical.  I mean, he's not going to get the Brownback vote (the ban all abortions crowd), but I think he'll definatly get a number of pro-life supporters with something like that.

not going to elect Hillary no matter how bad Iraq is. The Dims

because of their shrill, immature leftism are no longer an

"acceptable alternative".

This is a different Dim party than the party of FDR and Kennedy.

The Dim party began their downward slide in 1972 and it

continues unabated today. If however, the party can truely began to move back to the center then someday they will again be an "acceptable alternative".  If by a miricle they nominated someone

like Mark Warner in '08 then they have a real chance at winning.

Remember they have only won 3 out of 10 of the last elections

and those three wins were for Southern Dim governors.

Agreed. Tancredo is the only candidate that has excited me so far. He is most well known for his stance on immigration reform but he is also a solid conservative on most every other issue. In addition, he has a base of fanatical followers making up many of the disgruntled paleo-cons of the party.

I'm in total agreement with Tancredo's positions on the illegal immigration issues (hard not to be).  I would caution, however, not to give him too much credibility.  Politically and intellectually I think he's a lightweight and will wilt under the bright light of more exposure.  I'm sure he sounds good from afar, but if you had a closer view of him, you wouldn't be that impressed.  He's really kind of a clown and a klutz with little more substance, but is right on this particular issue.  

Despite my desire to see someone who will aggressively attack illegal immigration rather than pander to LULAC and speak bad Spanish on the stump, I think Tancredo's comments on bombing Mecca give a pretty good idea of his intellectual heft.

1. Christian conservatives will not shy away from Mormon Romney because his faith is a very conservative one, and to say that these good God-fearing Americans will vote against someone because of where he goes to church on Sunday is to suggest that most conservative Christians are bigots and they are not.  I think his faith will merely be an asterisk in his biography and nothing more because Americans simply don't act that way anymore.
   
2.  I read the Newt's speech that was linked in the story, and I've got to say, I was very pleasantly surprised.  He spoke about solving health care problems better than any politician I've ever heard, and that will resonate strongly with seniors and boomers who fear they won't be able to afford their medicine and with younger folks like me who don't want to be taxed into bankruptcy.  Once again, I think Newt may have his finger on the pulse of America and know what we want better than anybody in power today.  
   
3.  For all the reasons mentioned by everybody else and a lot more, Giuliani has no chance of getting the nomination or winning the general election.  
   
4.  Hillary Clinton will not be the Dem nominee.  She is considered the frontrunner right now and would put up a good fight in the general election, which is precisely why she will not win the nomination.  Since 1972 (when the current primary system was set up by McGovern in response to the 1968 debacle), no non-incumbent (Pres./V.P.) "frontrunner" has won the Dem nomination.  The press anoint some charismatic Democrat as the frontrunner and then proceed to destroy them.  Dean in 04 is a great example.  I believe the Dems will pick a moderate governor seeing as how that is the only way they have won in recent decades and they want a win after Bush real bad.  

Two divorces. Both wives left under bad situations. Guy's character is about as good as Bill Clinton's.

This would be as appropriate a time as any to link to my blog post with my STV presidential poll on it:

click here to vote.

Excellent article.  I agree that Barbour will be a candidate - but not in 2008.  When he does run for the R ticket, he will not only win that, but he will be in the WH too.

I am surprised that Romney features on your top 4 as 2006 will dictate if he deserves to be there (or even in the race at all).  He loses all credibility if (regardless if he runs or not) his state goes to the blue team.

I am kind of watching this one from the side lines.  I am a Canadian who is thrilled with President Bush.  I'd do anything to help Jeb, but he says he is not running (it's OK - I'll wait for his son, George P. Bush!!!!), I like Frist, but nobody else does and his organization is not the greatest.

Newt is definately an interesting name.  I have not (until now) seriously considered him for 2008.  He'd be great. I bumped into him at the 2000 convention and he was literally walking around solo - no security, no media, no hacks.  Many Republican staffers were taken aback  - saying that they had never seen him solo.  I thought he looked at ease.  And confident.  

I would help Newt.  

And comments on 2006 would be interesting to read.  After the mid-terms the real fun begins.  

Oh - and don't forget to follow our elections up here in the Great White North.  The Conservatives will force an election call on Monday and hopefully you won't have to put up with our dumb ass Liberal government any longer!

Katie W. Robinette

He is far better at articulating what conservatives stand for than the current president.

I could support Newt for president.

But I like Giuliani, too.

As for Condi, I hope you really were kidding.  The only Condi fans at this point are liberal trolls and people who've had their heads in the sand for the last 18 months.

Just like Governor Romney, I'm a practicing Latter-Day Saint.  I really hope that today's Republican Party is not made up of people that assume that Republicans must be from one of the big five Protestant denominations (Methodist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Baptist, Lutheran).  

But I think that hoosierteacher's point that Romney's religious beliefs are an issue in his candidacy.  But I would take it one step further: there is no more "fairly or not".  If we are to exclude Governor Romney as a serious candidate simply because he belongs to a Chuch which is currently the fourth largest denomination nationwide and the second largest denomination in the largest state in the union (California), then we aren't being fair at all.

If that's the case, then the Republican Party should re-name itself the Protestant Party and quit asking Mormons, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and all non-Protestants for their votes.

I know many Mormons, myself included, who have sacrificed their time, energy, and money supporting Republicans individually and collectively.  It's time for the party to either accept Mormonism as a religion on par with all other religions, or tell us that we're not wanted unless and until we convert to a more Protestant denomination.

And for those of you who are still in the dark about what Mormons believe, we are a Christian church.  We believe in Christ and His Atonement.  We believe the Bible to be God's Word and we believe that the Book of Mormon is also God's Word.

We can argue about the finer points of theology if we are in a theological discussion.  But when it comes to whether or not a Mormon is "worthy" to bear the standard of the Republican Party, I hope that all of you consider the consequences of writing off every Mormon candidate because of his religious beliefs alone.  That reeks of the kind of bigotry that made the Nazi Party notorious.

I thought for a second there that you were one of our many friends from dKurse, sent here to try to ameliorate the dread and loathing that would accompany another Clinton presidency.

But then I read this gem from your first (and only) diary:

Most liberal policies will ultimately be bad for America.

And I noticed that good buddy Tim Saler read your diary too and found much to like.

Welcome to RedState.  Welcome to the Party that will be setting public policy for at least the next 20 years (as opposed to the party which has been complaining about the policy of the last 10 years and will continue to complain about policy until the unfortunate day when they might conceivably return to power).

Just remember this:

I will bet 20-1 (my $20 to your $1) that Hillary Clinton will never become president.

My gut instinct tells me that she will never even find herself on a national ticket.

Why not?

Because she is easily beaten by any halfway credible Republican.

I'm being completely honest and frank here.  No tricks, no deception.

If Hillary is the best the dems can do, then they are destined to stay in the wilderness until they can come up with a candidate that doesn't have the same baggage and Machiavellian self-interest as Hillary.

Mark Warner would be much harder to beat than Hillary (assuming that he could get through the same nominating process that got guys like Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale, and McGovern installed as nominees).

Even Wes Clark, who has never held any elected office, would be tougher to beat than old Hillary.

Hillary is the punchline to a joke the Democrats are afraid to tell.

I would be happy with either Newt or Condi, and I challenge you to show from my comments here that I'm either a liberal troll (ha) or have had my head in the sand.

I'm anti abortion.  Can't go there.

But about Newt, at one point his unfavorable rating was up there around 50 percent and Hillary's was over 40.  Someone said the no one had ever come close the the WH with negatives that high.  I understand that hers has come down some, but has anyone polled on him?  Have you heard?

And yes, I like Newt.  Not 100% sure about executive material; he certainly had trouble manipulating the press, but he was up against Clinton, who could safely be called the master.

Heh. Fun comment about John McCain acting like a Republican. And, too bad Jeb's said he's not running ... after his performances in hurricane season, I took a second look at him.

But, to me, the problem isn't so much 2008, as it is getting past 2006, and maintaining a Republican majority in the House and Senate ...

I think the House will be okay - but,  people are really, really getting fed up with the spinelesness of the Republican Senate. who have been methodically trying to figure out which of two feet to shoot themselves in next.

If a person wants a Senator to act like a Democrat, they'll vote for a Democrat. If they have a Republican Senator who acts like a Democrat ... they may just decide to stay home in 2006.

Hillary really is an electoral disaster, but I wouldn't give the DNC the benefit of the doubt to know that.

I worry most about Bayh and I'm growing more worried with Warner.  But again, I wouldn't give the DNC the benefit of the doubt to know that either.

If MoveOn really did buy the DNC, then I can't see Feingold not being mentioned as a frontrunner for 08.

I'm not saying that Hillary will be elected.  Really.  We just need to watch out and don't need to nominate somebody who's too far out of the mainstream.  Conservative, yes; extremist, no.

And I wouldn't put it past Democratic voters to nominate Hillary.  Yes, they really do think she would be a good President, and no, they don't think she'll be an electoral disaster.  Complacency on our part, though, could lead to a Hillary Presidency.

It won't be because we nominated an "extremist" (not sure who would fit in that category). It will be because we nominated a weak candidate... which is always a possibility. Dole couldn't have beat a ham sandwich.

As a resident of NYC, I'm curious what liberal policies did Rudy enact when he was mayor?  Was it putting criminals in jail?  Was it taking a city tax code written in the 1930's and bringing it into the 1950's?  Perhaps it had something to do with calling out the Brooklyn Mueseum when they used tax dollars to fund offensive art?  Did I miss something?

There is one major blemish for Rudy, and it explains why there is zero chance he'll be the nominee: gun control.  Unlike abortion, where Rudy's past comments are bascially ambiguous, he has a long record of restricting legal firearm ownership.  The N.R.A. will never go for that.

1.  I think your right, mostly because I hope your right.  Not because I'm a fan of Romney or anything, which i am, but as a christian who would be ashamed if other christians discredited Romney solely because of his religion.
   
2.  I've been following Newt pretty closely, and I'll expose my bias: I think he is the best thing for the party, whether its his ideas or him as a candidate, the GOP needs Newt.  No other politician I've heard has better explained health care reform (medicare and medicaid), border patrol and immigration, and even the war in Iraq.

Here's another great article on Newt from USNews.com.  People are catching on to Newt because he's talking big ideas... something that the Republican party used to be based on.

3.  I disagree.  I think it all hinges on his platform.  My prediction is that he is currently breaking down every issue and forming a conservative platform for 08.  I assume he's testing platforms like the ones I've mentioned, Pro-Choice/Anti-Roe, Pro-Life/Anti-Roe, Moderate/Anti-Roe and he'll run with the most effective.  One thing I believe is certain though, he will run anti-Roe and anti-gay marriage.
   
4.  I don't think Hillary will be the candidate either, but I still think she will be a frontrunner for the nomination.  I don't think Warner has the fundraising ability to win the nomination, but I think he may finish well enough to be considered Vice Presidential.  Remember, the invisible primary (fundraising) is arguably more important than the issues.

Bayh however is doing very, very well so far in fundraising, which is surprising considering his speeches are anti-hard-left, which clearly is the DNC nowadays.

And I'm not sure the DNC is going to go moderate in 08... remember, MoveOn didnt buy the party to go moderate, they bought the party to keep from going moderate.  They are principle over politics, and will accept losses to stay liberal.

can do well down here and win.

Newt is a genius, period.

I think Hillary would be crushed by any republican.

I would have though this diary would have provoked numerous McCain supporters to claim that he was in fact a fiscal conservative who shared the beliefs of a supply side economist.

Where's the debate here?  Most notably I was hoping for Adam C to comment for his support of McCain... I was really looking forward to that.

Or at least  Huckabee supporter saying that his history as a tax hiker isn't important or SOMETHING... anything... I can't possibly be this right.

Perhaps you misunderstood my point (or I misunderstood your reply).

You assume the anti-Morman vote will come from the republicans?  I'll get to the left and Sen. Kennedy's statement later in this post.

It is reality that some people have an anti-Morman bias and votes will certainly reflect that.  Like you, I'd rather not discuss theology.  My point is (and you would probably agree) that such a bias exists.  To say "fairly or not" is a way to say "Let's agree the bias exists without going into deep discussions of theology".  It is true that a reverse bias exists (probably to the same small degree) in Mormanism.  For example, A Morman runs for office against a protestant or a Catholic and some Mormans will vote their faith not the man.  The larger numbers of non-Mormans however means that the small percentage of biased votes will be proportionatly larger.  Let me give you an example that points this out with a group other than Mormans so you can see the point without feeling attacked.

An American of Indian decent (Mr. Jindal) ran for Governor of La. a couple of years ago.  One dynamic looked at was his Indian decent versus a woman in the race.  Clearly most people don't have a problem with women or people of Indian decent.  But (again, fairly or not) it was a point not to be ignored that some ignorant voters felt that they had to decide between a "girl" and a "foreigner".  Despicable?  Absolutely.  But fairly or not, it was an issue.  Based on that issue though, one didn't find Indian-Americans or women-Americans complaining that the bias existed.  They knew it was present and took it into account when campaigning.  It is noteworthy that the Indian American ran as a republican but didn't complain about the anti-"foreigner vote".  Instead, he embraced the voters that would vote for him.  You can see this today in the democrats using race against a black man running for senate in Maryland (Lt. Gov. Steele).  He doesn't have time for complaining about the race card, but he acknowledges that "fairly or not" it will be used.  Note also that the conservative talking heads (Hannity comes to mind) are the most vocal about coming to the defense of black or Morman candidates (or any other minorities) because the left attacks minority candidates but the right never seems to.  You'll often hear Hannity talking about his love "for the Church" when he talks to Morman call-ins (Hannity is Catholic).  The republicans are your friends here.

The left stands for anti-religious bigotry.  You will recall Sen Kennedy pointing out that Mass. politics had no room for an "exotic" (his word) religion that excludes women from its priesthood (forgetting his own Catholic faith.  Then again, I don't think Kennedy is a true Catholic anyway).  Romney (or any other Morman) can't run as a democrat nationwide in this country.  Republicans embrace the Morman ethic (and vice versa) on many conservative principles, especialy pro family issues that democrats reject.

Consider this.  Which party is more likely to run a non-white, non-protestant, or non-male most successfuly?  I submit it is the republicans.  Compare our quality minority candidates.  Condi, Steele, Powell, Blackwell (Ohio Sec. of State), et al. VS. Sharpton, Jackson, Farakahn, Mckinney et al.  When it comes to faith, republicans put practicing "real" Catholics (Santorum for example) up against phonies any day (Kerry-Kennedy).

So I hope you didn't feel I meant that because Romney is Morman that he won't pass muster with republicans.  Let me condence my thoughts into small points.

1. Democrats would never run a Romney nationwide.  Republicans would.
   
2. Fair or not, almost all democrats would vote against a practicing Morman (or insert "black", Jewish", or anything else)if he/she ran as a republican.  Of course, a small number of republicans might stay at home.  Would this happen if the Morman ran as a democrat (republicans all reject, but a few democrats reject too?)  I say No!  It is moot because as point one staes, democrats wouldn't run a real Morman nationaly.

There is always going to be a minority in each party that has a reason (in their mind) to oppose the party's choice of candidate.  Focus on the point that it is a minority of our party, and the majority of their party that would use Mormanism as an issue.

And yes, it would unfair.

I don't know about Newt's unfavorable rating, and I don't know why anyone would have that information currently.  However, I'm sure it's gone down in the last 7 years being out of office.

As for his media skills, I can visibly see huge improvement in his latest speeches.  He's coming off as a nice personable person now who happens to be a genius instead of the old genius attack dog.  He's also lost his partisanship, and has talked about wanting to rid politics of dirty tricks (which is a pretty big 180 for Newt.)

The tables have turned for Newt, his unfavorable rating went up because he was an attacker, no attackers have a good rating, especially on someone like good ol' Bill.  Now he can focus on his new contract and play the nice guy trying to solve the world's problems.

Exactly.  Rudy governed NYC as a conservative.  Cut taxes.  Cut spending.  Made government work more efficiently.  Privatized services.  Tough on law and order.  He's an economic, domestic, and foreign policy conservative who has liberal positions on a few big cultural issues.

I agree with those who say that his stances on social issues will have to be made irrelevant in some way or other for him to win the nod.  He'll have to come out as a social federalist; i.e., even though he personally believes in abortion and gun control, he doesn't think the Constitution gives the federal gov't the right to interfere and thus he won't be signing any gun bans or funding for abortion.  Combined with a promise to appoint Justices in the mold of Alito and Roberts, that should be enough for conservatives who can't bring themselves to allow McCain to win the nomination and who know that Hillary will appoint more Ginsbergs if elected.

I definatly think Rudy can pull of the GOP nod if he stresses federalism.

However, I really disagree in what I think is your assumption that this race has only two horses, Rudy and McCain.  Like I said in my diary, I think this one will have four frontrunners, with Mitt and Newt picking up the other two slots.

I disagree.  I think the MSM painted him as an attack dog, bomb throwing, right wing hack.  In my humble opinion he was no such thing.  Newt's only downside that justifies the negative rating is (quite rightly) his multiple affairs.  Really now, cheating on the woman  that you used to cheat on yet another women is a bit much.

is a Democratic painting of some of our candidates and officeholders.  I agree, none of the candidates strike me as an extremist, but it's all relative.  A lot of Democrats think Howard Dean isn't an extremist.

A weak candidate is definitely something we must avoid.

His marital history is one of his negatives that i listed in the report (It was nearly 3,000 words I can understand if people don't read it all).

But as for his unfavorablility rating back in 98 was probably because of how the MSM painted him as an attack dog, bomb throwing, right wing hack.

I think we're talking about two different things and I think we actually agree.

However, on a minor note, I wouldnt say Newt was "oainted" as an attack dog... I mean lets go over his rise to power:  

The Congressional Page Scandal

The ethics charges agaisnt Jim Wright

The "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control" Memo

The impeachment of Bill Clinton

I mean... thats a lot of bomb throwing.

Of the candidates, Brownback is the closest to an extremist, and its arguable that he is an extremist.

He's previously related abortion to the holocaust, which I can only assume will be a large problem for him to overcome if he intends to run nationally.

That's why I said he's the most controversial... because he's going to dive into every touchy subject head first, and chances are he's going to come out very bruised.  He's already said he intends on running a campaign similar to Pat Robertson if he were to run for President.

on Rudy Guiliani. Beyond just his social stances, there's a ton of dirt lying underneath his rug, and liberals, like me, won't hesitate to expose it to the world. I say this as a New Yorker who knows. Trust me, in a national election, his invulnerabilty because he's an "American hero"--your words not mine--will last about as long as Kerry's status as a war hero did in the last election. There's a reason he was heckled by fire fighter families during his appearance before the 9/11 commission.

Frankly I would be shocked if he even ran. After all, him and his oh-so-upstanding partner Bernie Kerek have done quite well for themselves with that little consulting business of theirs.

In my opinion, the Republicans best shot right now is McCain. And I don't say this because I'm a fan. His biggest knock is his age/health and his shakey popularity with the socially conservative portion of the base.

I haven't done my research?

How about you talk about some of the "dirt lying underneath the rug" instead of saying he has it.  Sounds like your going to mention a whole lot of "Known Facts" to me.

And if you read my diary at all, you'd realize that I have done my research and have explained that the biggest knock against McCain is his nonexistant popularity with the supply side fiscally conservative portion of the base, not the socially conservative portion after McCain has further defined his pro-life positions.

How about we keep your empty liberal analysis over at dkos.

Holiday and all kept me busy.  For the umpteenth time I don't know why people associate me with supporting McCain.  He has some pluses and some minuses.  I still think Jeb, Sanford, or Pawlenty would be preferable.

That being said, I don't know anyone who claimed McCain was a supply-sider.  Most of us (and almost everyone who follows politics at all) knows that he is a fan of small government.  He is virulently anti-pork to the point of extremism... and as we know "extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice."  He would veto many pork bills and win kudos from the media and pro-growth groups at the same time by doing so.

I guess the fundamental point here is that being pro-small government and a supply sider are not the same thing.  So saying we shouldn't "buy" his fiscal conservatism is silly.  He has a longer and stronger track record fighting "Washington as usual" and pork politics than any other politician.  Second probably goes to Gov. Sanford which explains his place on my above short list.

As a bit of outside evidence, here is Steve Moore on McCain:

When I ask Mr. McCain if he's a conservative, he seems slightly agitated at having to defend his credentials in this way. "Hell yes, I'm a conservative. When it comes to a strong defense and smaller government, I'm as conservative it gets. Look at my National Taxpayers Union rating. I'm near 100% every year." (I do. He is.) Then he fumes: "I'm so disgusted with the way my party is wasting money. It's an embarrassment."....

It is on this issue that Mr. McCain has struck the mother lode. More than any other first-tier GOP candidate in 2008, Mr. McCain has shrewdly tapped into the rage that conservatives are feeling over President Bush's $800 billion Medicare drug bill (which he voted against), the highway bill with its 6,000 earmarked white-elephant projects (which he also voted against), and the infamous $500 million Alaska Bridge to Nowhere (which he led the crusade to defund). Mr. McCain whips out a spreadsheet detailing the legislation he drafted with Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn to cut the budget by $100 billion by canceling the highway pork, delaying the prescription drug bill, establishing a commission to end worthless government programs, and so on. Give the man his due: He has monopolized the anti-big-government Reaganite message of late.

The rest discusses his non-supply side issues and points out the good and bad:

But Mr. McCain is no antitax supply-sider himself. He grandstanded against the Bush capital-gains and dividend tax cuts and even co-sponsored an amendment with Tom Daschle to scuttle the reduction in the highest income-tax rates. Why? "I just thought it was too tilted to the wealthy and I still do. I want to cut the taxes on the middle class." Even when I confront him with emphatic evidence that those tax cuts have been an economic triumph and have increased revenues, he is unrepentant and defends his "no" vote by falling back on class-warfare type thinking: "We have a wealth gap in this country, and that worries me."....

And finally for the record, McCain knows this is not his best area of knowledge and he has some good advisors:

On a broader range of economic issues, though, Mr. McCain readily departs from Reaganomics. His philosophy is best described as a work in progress. He is refreshingly blunt when he tell me: "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." OK, so who does he turn to for advice? His answer is reassuring. His foremost economic guru is former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm (who would almost certainly be Treasury secretary in a McCain administration). He's also friendly with the godfather of supply-side economics, Arthur Laffer.

but I'm not all that new here (though I rarely post) and I wasn't intending to insult you at all. And nope, I don't trade in "known facts." It's late, but I will come back with a list of issues that I think will be very problematic for Guiliani, especially in terms of the American Hero frame--and yes, they're more substantial than the fact that he's been caught on film in a dress.

Also, my knock on your research was only in reference to Guiliani. My call on McCain is just based on very casual observation. He seems to do well in national polls, and centrist/conservative Dems and indies seem to be okay with him.

As for my analysis, well yes, it surely is liberal, I said that from the start, but fwiw, 99 percent of what ALL of us write on the internet--whether here, on Dkos or any other blog, is all more or less hot air, is it not?

99 percent of what ALL of us write on the internet--whether here, on Dkos or any other blog, is all more or less hot air, is it not?

Do not discount it. It has been of tremendous scientific value. As Robert Wilensky has noted, "We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true."

Here is my list. I tried my best to source the most conservative media possible. And while granted, I had to use the Village Voice and the Nation, which are as liberal as they come, for two of my sources, you can judge their reporting for yourself.

Fire-fighter families have critized him for gaps in command, control and communications among New York's agencies in charge of emergency response (which is why he was heckled at the 9/11 hearings).

http://www.idsnews.com/story.php?id=23310

He chose to place command central in the World Trade Center after the center had been attacked, which left operations in disarray on the morning of 9/11.

http://www.thebrooklynrail.org/books/april05/control.html

He avoided service in Vietnam via deferments

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0247,barrett,39997,5.html

And yet, he suggested on national TV during 2004 presidential campaign that troops were to blame for missing explosives in Iraq

http://www.mainetoday.com/elections/2004/presidential/041029rudy.shtml

Was criticized by state conservatives for taking a $3 billion budget surplus in 1998 to a $4.5 billion deficit by the time he left office.

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20020617&s=newfield

Because of his strongarm tactics during his time as mayor, he is viewed by many as a racist, charges that the current mayor of NY, who has also done a good job of controlling crime and is a Republican, doesn't suffer from. In a post-Katrina world, this becomes a greater sticking point in the Republican effort to improve relations with black Americans: http://www.crimelynx.com/hillrolls.html

Damaged by his association with Kerik (I'm actually not sure how this will play out. Some seem to think it's not that big of a deal):

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2004/12/25/14056.html

Stayed with two gay friends while hashing out ugly separation with second wife Donna Hanover (Again, I'm not sure how this will play out. It bothers me not a whit--actually I see it as a positive, but I don't know enough about the socially conservative portion of the Republican base to know how they'd react--my gut is that this would fall into the hate the sin not the sinner category: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=95000930

As of 11/05, he is still pro-choice and pro-gun control, and on these two issues I know he's got a lot of flip-flopping to do before he'd be acceptable to a big chunk of the Republican base.

http://select.nytimes.com/2005/11/14/nyregion/14matters.html

And for those of you who can't access the article, here are some excerpts based on a talk he gave at Wash Univ:

The accommodating writer, who is also a news editor of the paper, agreed to transcribe his tape recording. Based on that transcription, Mr. Giuliani spoke extensively about abortion rights. He said: "As a Republican, it made more sense for me to be pro-choice. I think Republicans more often want people to make choices about their own lives," and he advocated government intrusion "only to the extent necessary."

THE former mayor told the student audience: "I think some people will come to the moral choice about abortion that it is sinful or wrong. But ultimately I think it is the woman's right and the choice she has to make."

And: "Seven out of 10 Americans are pro-life and pro-choice. They would prefer that somebody didn't have an abortion. They might even prefer themselves not to have an abortion. They say as far as government is concerned, it shouldn't interfere with abortion or shouldn't criminalize it."

The same on gay rights and gun control. He described gay rights as "a question of human rights," calling homosexuality "determined, something you are or you aren't. You have to respect that and you have to allow people equal rights."

And he reiterated his support for controlling handguns. "My view on it as being mayor of a big city," he said, "is that possession of handguns and possession of uncontrolled handguns is a very dangerous thing. The rest of it I don't have much of an objection to." That reference - "the rest of it" - was to the use of guns for hunting, said Ms. Mindel, his spokeswoman.

Other issues that will eat at his ability to withstand the scrutiny of a nation: He's on his third marriage. His first marriage was annulled because he didn't realize he had married his second cousin. The break-up of his second marriage was public, well-documented, ugly and included a mistress. He had to drop out of the NY Senate race because of protrate cancer. And....worst of all...he's a diehard Yankee fan (about the only stance on which we share common ground).

Seriously--it is my greatest goal to reduce the amount of time I spend online. It's served it's purpose, and now it seems, not much good is coming from it.

1.  The 9/11 hearings had to be one of the biggest pro-Rudy events, and will be remembered in 08 for the praise he recieved by the committee, not for the heckling he recieved by a few fanatical relatives that very obviously did not understand what they were talking about.  If you think that's harsh, I'll ask you straight up:

Who do you believe?  The 9/11 Commission or a few radical relatives?  No one is going to say "oooh... but the relative knew something that the commission didn't."  Why?  Because that's ridiculous.

2.  I read the article, and I cannot find a single case where I've found something incriminating Rudy.  I happened to find misquotes from John Lehman to try and pit Lehman against Rudy, despite how Lehman was actually someone who called these kinds of attacks on Rudy's handling of 9/11 as "not worthy of the boy scouts."  Nice bit of propaganda.
   
3.  Vietnam deferments really aren't a big deal anymore.  Go ahead, call him a chicken hawk... that smear doesn't have too big of an effect anymore, and it certainly wouldn't tarnish his "American Hero" image.
   
4.  That has got to be the most ridiculous spin I've heard on Rudy.  Rudy said that blame for not finding nuclear weapons shouldn't be placed solely on President Bush, which it shouldnt.  But am I surprised by it?  No, because look at where that spin came from: Jesse Derris, spokesman for the Kerry campaign in Maine.
   
5.  NYC flourished under Rudy's control, and Jack Newfield can't change that as much as he'd like to.
   
6.  Now heres the only non-Known-Fact that I've seen so far, Rudy's unpopularity with the black population of NYC should come up as a problem in 2008.  But I don't think it should be too large of a problem.  Electorally it doesn't seem like a big deal.
   
7.  I'm one of them.  Maybe it's just me but I don't think his association with Kerik is damning at all.
   
8.  Yup, this is one issue where he's gotta stress federalism, and that may not be good enough.
   
9.  He doesn't seem to profess a pro-Roe position, merely Pro-Choice.  I still think the pro-choice/anti-roe argument can win a GOP nod.  Once again, he would need to stress federalism.
   
10. Yeah, well it remains to be seen how his divorces will play.  Newt is on his third marriage too, and both of them have the advantage to know that already the most damning details about them have already been exposed.  Personally I think Rudy once again has the advantage in his enormous popularity to overcome it.

I should note, I'm no Rudy enthusiast, yet at least, just I really think that these attacks on Rudy are unfounded and smell a whole lot like "Known Facts."

Good to see you back, sorry if I misrepresented you as a McCain supporter for 08, just from previous comments I assumed you were.

And the term fiscal conservative is loosely defined, which is why I thought I would be able to slip being supply side in there without being noticed, but you're right, fiscal conservatism = the small government approach.

I just like to point out how hostile he is to supply side policies because I think macroeconomic theory is often ignored by those who don't pay close attention to it.

However,

I still think Jeb, Sanford, or Pawlenty would be preferable.

None of them are options anymore, and we just have to deal with it.  I agree completely that they would be my top four if they were running like I stated in my original report, but that is not the case.

Out of the new Big Four (Newt, Rudy, McCain, and Mitt), who are you following here?  Personally I think everything that's coming out of Newt's mouth lately has been gold, but Newt is still Newt, and his history is far from gold.  Then there's Mitt who has done a good job working himself into a dependable conservative as of late.  Of course Rudy is a big question mark and will remain a question mark until he launches his campaign.  And then there's McCain, the anti-pork crusader with "spread the wealth" and "class-warfare" messages that draws comparisons to John Kerry and John Edwards.

Final note, thanks for the good article.

"I just thought it was too tilted to the wealthy and I still do. I want to cut the taxes on the middle class... We have a wealth gap in this country, and that worries me"

"I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."

Well Okay, but you're running for President... I'd rather you know economics.  And just because he's open to education doesn't mean he's open to supply side econ, I mean he surrounded himself in 2000 with anti-supply siders.  I'd love to ask him if anything has changed in his philosophy since 2000 but I guess I'll have to wait till 2007.

Of those 4, I'd lean toward McCain at this point.  It would be very hard for me to vote for a pro-choice Presidential nominee as long as Roe is operative law.  That leaves Newt and McCain.  I like Newt a lot but his past is not pretty.  He would make a good VP choice at the least (although I'd prefer Condi) or a Secretary of Anything.  There may be other GOVs who throw their hat in the ring and some of the above "nos" may change their minds so I'm not convinced by either Pawlenty or Sanford.  I do, however, think Sanford will not run if McCain does.  If McCain passes for any reason (i.e. health), then I think Sanford will take the plunge and get McCain's endorsement and full support.  Sanford would probably have NH and SC on his side before the campaign even began.  That's my dream at least.

I'll defend Romney's Pro-Life credentials, you saw the quote in the diary:

"States should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate... I understand that my views on laws governing abortion set me in the minority in our Commonwealth... I am prolife. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice, except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view."

That's clearly an anti-Roe statement.

About Newt as a VP, I dont know about that.  Newt has too many ideas of his own and too many negatives to ride as the veep.  I mean, do you really expect Newt to agree to anyone saying "Okay, be my veep and change all of your positions so they mirror mine."  That wouldn't fly with Newt.

I also would have to say that it would be smartest to keep the ticket distanced from Bush so any existing anti-Bush sentiment can't be used against the new ticket.  That's why I'd be against picking a member of Bush's cabinet, regardless of Condi's pro-choice stance.

And I really, really, really, really don't think Sanford or Pawlenty will run.  They're both fantastic Veep selections, but I seriously don't think they were lieing when they ruled out 08 runs.  Even those still 'sorta' considering it leave it as an option (See: Senator Dodd who just recently opened up that possibility, further complicating the Dem 08 Primary).

I guess we'll just agree to disagree on that one... but on a sidenote:  What other governors might run?  Huckabee?  I guess if your going to eliminate Rudy, Newt, and Mitt immediately, Huckabee might be your guy, but he's definatly not mine.

That's an unfair criticism. I produced what I said I would produce: issues that could prove to be problematic for Rudy should he run, and they're backed up in almost all cases with widely distributed news stories.

We can debate the merits or fairness of my list until the cows come home (and you can label it "spin" according to your take, but it's how the event plays out with the general public that matters.) Even I expressed my doubts about one or two of them. However, my bigger point is that he he has background issues that haven't been nationalized and he is far from immune to criticism because of his status as a 9/11 hero.

As for your question on a few "radical relatives," don't underestimate their power. They, after all, are the reason for the commission--which the WH resisted--in the first place. Many people, including myself, view Guilliani's accountability bill as way past due and will be looking to collect should he ever decide to run for president.

It's always hard to predict what will and won't stick in an oppositional campaign, but just don't forget, part of the reasons Dems settled on Kerry was because they were sure his service was their ace in the hole. Was it coincidental that his party was the Republican party's main point of attack? I kind of doubt it.

And with that I will bow out and return to my lurking ways. I appreciate the exchange. May the best candidate for all of us win.

Jane,

I'm from NYC as well, midtown Manhattan to be exact.  My internet has been down for the last few days, so I couldn't respond sooner.

Before we go any further, I'm curious about who you voted for in the recent mayoral election.  If you voted for Ferrer, I don't care what you think anout Rudy.  If you thought that parasitic race pimp (Ferrer, not Rudy) would do a good job as mayor, then you're truly clueless about national politics.  If you voted for Bloomy, there might be a reasonable discussion to be had.  In any case, your talk of a Rudy Prez run being some major moment of accountability makes me think you've been writing Al Sharpton's talking points.

I generally agree with the last poster who said none of these points was a very big deal.  I will, however, add a few thoughts of my own.

• I have major issues with the credibility of the 9/11 commission.  That said, you can find 9/11 family members who support every political cause known to humanity.  I think the moment in time where they can seriously effect our politics has passed.
• John Lehman idolizes Rudy.  I know this because his daughter is a friend of mine.  For her sake, I won't mention her name on a public website; although its probably available via a google search.  Try "lehman pitzer college".
• As for the communications problems on 9/11, I'd chalk that up to bureaucratic, not mayoral, incompetance.  If Rudy really wants to piss off the Dems, he'll throw in Civil Service reform as part of his campaign.  (Bonus: Newt's also big on CSR, would be great for them if Newt's the veep)
•  As for deficits when he left office, let's not forgot that when he left office, 9/11 had just happened.  That cost A LOT of money.  Any attempt to make a blanket comparison here is disingeuous at best.