Roger L. Simon: The Presidential Election of 2/07

The new Rasmussen Poll shows Rudy Giuliani "schmicing" Hillary Clinton 52% to 43% in a head-to-head of the current Republican and Democrat poll leaders. That's an extraordinary lead (and would be an electoral vote landslide), considering Rudy is running at the top of George Bush's party - and we alll know his numbers. Captain Ed agrees with his "good friend" David Geffen that this does not portend good things for Hillary. Her unfavorables are too high ever to win.

But what the Captain doesn't note is that Guiliani seems to be lapping the Republican field as well. If I were Rudy I'd be a bit nervous. It's waaay early. And the press will have to go after him - they will have no choice. Otherwise they won't sell newspapers. The Conventional Wisdom is that Rudy's numbers will go down after the public knows his naughty personal life. But will they? I'm skeptical that a large proportion don't know about it already. Rudy has been a hugely famous person for some time. One thing is certain, this latest poll is good for Obama. In the short run, Hillary doesn't look like a winner. She's got Geffenitis.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, things do not look so good for Gingrich, according to the maestro.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

Hillary is loaded with negatives but Giuliani has one big negative himself: the Republican base. He is a big government social liberal. The Republican base, malign it if you will as the reactionary religious right, has been burned for the last 8 years by a "Christian" President. They're not about to vote for 4 more years of the same, or worse. And when you add to that Rudy's less than stellar private life...

A significant percentage of the Republican base, faced with a choice between Hillary/Obama or Rudy, will sit it out. Having failed to secure his base, Rudy will lose.

Most of the posters on this forum, ex-Democrats who have a nodding acquaintance with conservatism, at best, may give short shrift to conservative principles; the Republican base does not. Rudy may be flying high with you. The perception genuine conservatives have of him is another matter entirely.

So what you're saying is that, using your term, the conservative base, would sit on their vote, not come out and ensure a Hillary/Barak victory. Be happy with a continued assurance of a liberal federal court system. Passage of laws that would further limit their 'conservative base' principles.

Is that what you're saying? Now I know a lot of these people, and I just don't find them that stupid.

But than again I've always used Prager's lovely little ditty "Democrats are the party of the danegerous and Republicans are the party of the stupid". And unfortunately, we are experts on the stupid part when mano a mano with the Dems.

That is ridiculous. This is a big country, there are all kinds of people in it. If the religious right actually thinks Bush is not Christian enough for them then no one they would tolerate could possibly win anyway so we might as well forget about them.

But I don't think you are right about that. So far Rudy is doing pretty well across the board and that includes the religious right who may be surprised to know you take it upon yourself to speak for them.

I agree with those who believe that there's a huge submerged bloc of votes: those who are sick and tired enough of the harsh, destructive political climate that they will just plain "like" whoever--in as much conjunction as possible with their 'base' beliefs--best treats that issue. Me, for instance, I disagree w/ Rudy on many issues, but he's a good guy, he'll listen to me, and I like him.

Of course, I'd prefer to design my own candidate, but that ain't all that likely to be a feasible project.

"Far from being a liberal, he ran New York with a conservative's priorities: government exists above all to keep people safe in their homes and in the streets, he said, not to redistribute income, run a welfare state, or perform social engineering. The private economy, not government, creates opportunity, he argued; government should just deliver basic services well and then get out of the private sector's way. He denied that cities and their citizens were victims of vast forces outside their control, and he urged New Yorkers to take personal responsibility for their lives."

"The Republican base, malign it if you will as the reactionary religious right, has been burned for the last 8 years by a "Christian" President. They're not about to vote for 4 more years of the same, or worse."

Or malign it as you will. This might be the most clueless thing I've read here. If this is your idea of insight, please stop posting forever.

Yes, how can anyone call for ideological purity, when just months ago that very call turned congress over to the juvenile-delinquent caucus?

If the religious right actually thinks Bush is not Christian enough for them then no one they would tolerate could possibly win anyway so we might as well forget about them.

My family contains some of those evangelical Christian sorts. Oddly enough, they are staunch Democrats, no doubt leftovers from the days when the Democratic party was the party of southern populists and religion.

The "reactionary religious right" is a general-purpose and comforting fantasy for the secular left and the hard-edged, brutish and libertarian-inclined right. It fulfills so many simplifying needs, from unwinding conspiracies to explaining voting trends to detecting sinister plots brewed by neo-cons, and "fundamentalists". They're indistinguishable from Black Helicopter loons, Kissinger-as-Bildeberger frighteners and numerologists. It's even funny, in a truly pathetic way.

chuck has a point here. I grew up in Oklahoma. My family were all southern Baptists and Ronald Reagan was the first Republican any of them had ever voted for. They still vote Democrat if they possibley can for the sake of tradition. Religious people are just like everyone else, some go right and some go left. They are not as clearly defined as some would have it.

I doubt that I am the only "base" Republican who reads Roger's blog, but I'll be happy to share my opinion of Rudy in light of being an NRA Life Member, weekly attender of church services, daily Bible reader and long-time staunch Republican (I did vote for somebody named McGovern when I was 20, but that was a momentary over-reaction).

I'm not sitting any election out. There is no Democrat (including Bill Richardson) who does not appear to be completely out of his/her element in terms of becoming President. I certainly have the problems with Rudy that stereotypists would expect of me (guns, gays and abortion), but I am not entirely comfortable with Mitt and I have never liked John McCain (I voted Libertarian instead of for him when he ran for Senator for the first time in 1986).

I do not know of one person at either my church or on my favorite shooting range who will allow a Democrat to win this election without even bothering to vote. As Rudy noted on Hugh Hewitt yesterday, you can't get 100% of what you want. Rudy's pledge to appoint judges who make rulings based on original intent of the Founders is one of the best things he could say at this point.

I'd have to see Lincoln Chafee as the Hillary/Barak alternative before I'd ever sit out a November dustup.

There's no reason for the MSM to attack Rudy. The real story is how the Social Conservative/Religious Right are being rejected as the majority of the GOP is choosing Giuliani.

Alan, if you read JMP the way I do, you'll see that it's less a matter of GOP rejecting its right than it is a matter of the GOP right itself moving the war forward relative to the social issues.

From the minute after the WTC came down until the threat is demonstrably over, there will be no other issue for me in a presidential election except national security.

If I cannot visualize the candidate as the Commander in Chief, he or she does not get my money or my vote.

Party, social issues, religion and "values" all are subservient to that issue so far as I am concerned.

You may have a point Buddy. But we're talking about potential candidates nearly two years out from the election. Rudy isn't the only candidate the right can gravitate toward who supports the war. Why not McCain? It's because he won't end the ridiculous GOP pandering to the Religious Right/Social Conservatives. Voters care more about government ensuring our individual liberty than passing laws that control a woman's body or stifling embryonic stem cell research, etc. ad nauseam.

I feel like a cuckoo clock at times, so I hesitate in making the same old, same old. But you stated my position exactly.

I will just say that I find it absurd that anyone would 'sit out' an election because they did not get everything they want. This Country was built on compromise. We have often settled for much less than we desire. Many would perhaps like drastic change, for a particular danger, but as a Country we do not work that way. For better or for worse.

Why not McCain? It's because he won't end the ridiculous GOP pandering to the Religious Right/Social Conservatives.

Oh, nonsense. I'm not even Republican and I wouldn't vote for McCain for two major reasons, neither having anything to do with religion. One, I view McCain-Feingold as a dangerous attack on the first amendment. Two, and somewhat related, I don't trust his judgement and commitment to liberty. No doubt he is a fine man, but I don't want him leading the nation.

These reasons are also apply in spades to all the Democratic hopefuls currently out there, especially to Edwards and Obama. And who knows what Hillary stands for? In the case of the Democrats their craven pandering to the left in the pursuit of power, their elitist snobbery, and their adherence to outmoded multicultural ideals is a major turnoff for me. And this is where I stand before the war is thrown into the balance.

Buddy, you have it exactly right about me. I am willing to suspend a great deal of what I consider to be very important to make sure that we prevail against jihadists that want to kill all infidels (and I am certainly one in their eyes as well as most if not all of Roger's readers).

Alan: McCain may be trying to pander to me and people like me, but his participation in the Gang of 14 proved to me that in the long run, I could never depend on him to support originalist judges, and McCain-Feingold proved to me that the intent of the First Amendment was over his head. In short, pandering on his part is a waste of time because he is either transparently phony or completely self-deluded.

Overall Alan, you might give the whole idea of the GOP pandering to social conservatives a rest. I (and most of my friends) are a good deal more complex than you may suspect. Most of all, we value original intent. This "Compassionate Conservative" stuff is silly, as I do not need the Federal government to instruct me about morals or charitable giving. I get sufficient guidance from the Bible and from Church, and if we went back to caring for the poor through our individual Churches and Synagogues, we'd be much better off. The Government is a poor distributor of charitable services because it does not demand any reasonable standard of behavior from the recipients (look at the welfare state in New Orleans which has created a completely disfunctional society).

I am looking first of all for a President who will not falter even when various poll-driven spineless politicians put their own preservation before that of our nation. I am looking for a President who is able to articulate why we fight and is willing to do so 7 days a week if necessary. I am looking for a President who has executive experience (that includes Romney and Rudy, but excludes McCain). If I have no other option, I will vote for McCain if he gets the nomination, and I'm confident that the base will too (even if we have to hold our noses).

I don't trust McCain's "judgement and commitment to liberty" either. But that wasn't the suggested point. The point was how the war matters above all other issues. McCain is the only out there supporting the surge. Why then are so many Republicans gravitating toward Giuliani? I gave my opinion....and I'm pretty sure I'm right. Giuliani is the logical choice for those sick of social conservatives.

well, I think social conservatives make a whole lot less noise than the people who don't like them make in the not liking of them.

For better or for worse, US popular opinion is fairly well in favor of the various sexual liberties we have acquired. Do these ninnies think that somehow social conservatives are going to be able to overcome that and install a bunch of unpopular laws? Puh-lease.

Now this does happen, but the offenders have generally gone in the other direction, by creating law that is *more* liberal than Americans would choose.

Right--the aggressive authoritarian religious right if not a myth is pretty close to one, imho.

Where are their rabble-rousers? Their politicians? Their influential media? Their celebrities & public figures? Their street demonstrations? You really have to search long and hard to find any evidence of untoward behavior. Maybe there's a book or two calling for rightist religious authoritarianism, but i dunno of any.

OTOH, to listen to our 'normal' celebs, the witch trials are on every street corner, and the Moralists are BOO! gonna getcha if ya don't watch out!

"OTOH, to listen to our 'normal' celebs, the witch trials are on every street corner, and the Moralists are BOO! gonna getcha if ya don't watch out!"

You got that right. But then, the easiest way to "speak truth to power" and pat yourself on the back for living dangerously is to be "oppressed" by someone that wouldn't hurt a flea.

I think Alan above apparently has similar needs in his portrait of social conservatives but I'm not sure of the reasons. Where ricpic is coming from, I have no idea.

Of the "social conservatives" I know, even the ones that would avoid Rudy in the primary would crawl through broken glass to vote against Hilary. There is no "sit out" to them, no matter how unpleasant a particular vote may be.

But haven't we had this discussion recently? I noticed that no one that was so sure Rudy would be unacceptable to "social conservatives" has yet bothered to address my point that "social conservatives" are also a huge part of the "fiscal conservative" block.

On the 'acceptability' thing, '08 being for the White House, neither base is likely to pout (06-wise), meaning that the WH goes to whoever best appeals to a few--maybe one or less--percent of swing-voters.

Meaning, the two bases are both likely to hurt themselves if they don't kinda take it easy.

But if BOTH hurt themselves, then we're right back to square one--a mean, nasty, square one.

Seems there ought to be an opportunity here somewhere--an opportunity formerly known as "the high road".

February 24, 2007: The Presidential Election of 2/07

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post