November 21, 2006

BERNIE KERIK WAS A HERO TOO (via Jim Hamlen):

Right Rudy: Giuliani's in a good position this November. (Deroy Murdock, 11/21./06, National Review)

In a nationwide Rasmussen Reports survey of 1,050 Republicans and 203 GOP-leaning independents, 24 percent backed Giuliani while 18 percent chose Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. McCain, at 17 percent, lags behind Rice, a declared non-candidate. [...]

A Clemson University poll of South Carolina Republicans and GOP-leaners revealed Giuliani’s enormous 68 percent net-favorable rating (78 percent favorable minus 10 percent unfavorable). McCain’s equivalent figure was just 42 percent (65 favorable, less 23 percent unfavorable).

These figures don’t surprise Rasmussen.

“Giuliani has the highest net-favorable ratings of any candidate on whom we’ve been polling,” he tells me. “Giuliani’s higher than McCain and higher than Hillary Clinton. He’s even higher than Bill Clinton.”

Some argue that Giuliani’s prominence in this and other polls merely reflects his high name ID. But this notion shatters beside McCain and both Clintons — three household names. [...]

Giuliani’s message was GOP meat and potatoes.

“Republicans are united by our belief in going on offense to win the war on terror,” he wrote in a November 5 Real Clear Politics column. “Republicans stand for lower taxes; Democrats stand for higher taxes — it’s as simple as that,” he added. “The successful appointments of Justices Roberts and Alito are signs of promises kept,” Giuliani observed. “They are principled individuals who can be trusted to defend the original intent of the Constitution rather than trying to legislate their own political beliefs from the bench.” And, as Giuliani concluded, “the issues that unite us as Republicans are the same issues that unite the vast majority of Americans: a commitment to winning the war on terror; a core belief in fiscal conservatism; and a faith in individual freedom. Advancing these principles, while staying on offense, can help keep the GOP a strong majority party.”


Mr. Murdock seems a bit confused--no one's arguing that the Mayor's numbers are a function of name recognition--they're a function of folks only knowing his name and not anything else about him outside 9-11. The McCain campaign will get to fill in the blanks and every one of them is ugly for a candidate in conservative primaries. Note how Mr. Giuliani implicitly suggests he too would name anti-abortion, anti-gay rights judges? He'll have to make that vow explicit just to get his campaign started.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 21, 2006 1:35 PM
Comments

I'm posting it here, too, hang it around Maverick's neck and sink him:

Hang this around Maverick's neck and be done w/him:

McCain-Soros Toppled GOP Candidates

The Republicans lost because they were too conservative." "No, not conservative enough." "They lost because they disappointed the religious right." "No, because they are too tied to the religious right."

Many of us feel the loss was due to what I call "McCain-Soros."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18025

Posted by: Sandy P at November 21, 2006 1:54 PM

They also know he cleaned up NYC and made it pleasurable to visit again.

Posted by: Sandy P at November 21, 2006 1:56 PM

"name anti-abortion, anti-gay rights judges"

Judges need to properly interpret the law and constitution. Whether they favor abortion or homosexual rights is irrelevant.

"I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, that it should remain that way, it should remain that way inviolate, and everything should be done to make sure that that's the case," Mr. Giuliani said in response to a reporter's question. "But I also believe that you should allow for the protection of legal rights for people who are gay and lesbian." (In Georgia this spring)

Does McCain have a different position than Giuliani?

Yes, if he runs for President he should reassure the social conservatives. He can do that.

Posted by: h-man at November 21, 2006 2:26 PM

I agree with Sandy P. I live in NYC and what Giuliani accomplished here while fighting against the City Council and the democratic establishment is absolutely phenomenal. They all called him a fascist and Hitler and demagogue but the city is now livable and people can go to Times Square any time of the day or night, something they certainly could not do before. 42nd Street used to be drug addicts and dealers and teenage hookers packed end to end in front of closed stores and dirty book shops. Now it is theatres and restaurants and clean bookstores and the sidewalks are crowded with tourists. This is all due to Rudy dragging the kicking and screaming democratically controlled city council into the idea that the city could be governed. I can still remember the NYT writing editorials that said that NYC was now ungovernable because of the state and federal restrictions on it. Then Rudy was elected and the NYT was shown up for being wrong.

I keep hearing from the McCain supporters that Rudy will not have the support of the South or the West or the religious or the pro-life. What I see in most of the blogs is that Rudy has the support of just about everyone.

Posted by: dick at November 21, 2006 2:36 PM

The idea that somehow Rudy's favorable ratings stem from ignorance of his social positions is just wrong. EVERYONE knows Rudy has been socially liberal on the issues -- he's from New York, for gossakes, and well before 9/11 he was already an international celebrity, frequently on the covers of magazines all over the US and Europe, the man who tamed the mean streets of NYC. (I remember being in Holland halfway thru his FIRST term as mayor and having Dutch folks asking me about him; a short time later I read that the tough new young mayor of a smaller Dutch city had been nicknamed "Giuliani" for his anti-crime initiatives.) I think people like him a lot because they know he cleaned up NYC, which had been previously (and correctly -- I've lived here since 1985) viewed as an ungovernable crime-ridden welfare state, that he's very tough and smart, that he took the fight to the lefties every day he was mayor on a 1000 issues, and obviously he's a hero of 9/11. As for the social issues, people are prepared to give him the chance to walk the cat back on a few things that are crucial -- the rest they can live with.

Posted by: Lisa at November 21, 2006 2:36 PM

Gov. Romney has made a few trips here (Michigan) to reconnect with GOP leaders & donors.

Posted by: Dave W at November 21, 2006 2:39 PM

I think many conservatives will respect Giulani's open libertarianism better than McCain's non-transparent maneuverings in alliance with liberals.

Personally, if Giulani commits to nominating judges who will uphold the ratified text of the Constitution, not false precedents or liberal agenda items, then I'll favor him over McCain.

Posted by: pj at November 21, 2006 3:11 PM

PJ:

"if Giulani commits to nominating judges who will uphold the ratified text of the Constitution, not false precedents or liberal agenda items, then I'll favor him over McCain."

Absolutely!

Posted by: Rick T. at November 21, 2006 3:46 PM

This is going to be a fun GOP campaign. OJ is right that McCain will paint Rudy as a "New York liberal" and that ordinarily this would be fatal in a GOP primary. But we will see if the "hero" can overcome it.

OJ: Assuming Rudy does overcome his problems and gets the nomination, is he better or worse for the GOP in the gneral election?

Same question about Mitt.

Posted by: Bob at November 21, 2006 4:02 PM

Both are likely to be great general election candidates and bad presidents. Rudy is dangerous though because he opposes Judeo-Christian morality. He could alienate the base, not just the frinmges of the party.

Posted by: oj at November 21, 2006 4:04 PM

This is going to be a fun GOP campaign. OJ is right that McCain will paint Rudy as a "New York liberal" and that ordinarily this would be fatal in a GOP primary. But we will see if the "hero" can overcome it.

OJ: Assuming Rudy does overcome his problems and gets the nomination, is he better or worse for the GOP in the gneral election?

Same question about Mitt.

Posted by: Bob at November 21, 2006 4:08 PM

OJ is catching some deserved flak for this post, but I'll pile on because I think this is another illustration of how OJ's theocratic conservatism goes wrong. OJ thinks Giuliani is "dangerous" because he "opposes Judeo-Christian morality" on these social issues, and thus isn't conservative enough. But there are lots of us who think cleaning up Manhattan in the face of entrenched liberalism was a huge, concrete, conservative victory. OJ should even consider it a victory for Judeo-Christian morality.

That victory over crime and disorder is far more important to most people than his stance on civil unions or even gun control and abortion. McCain has enough distasteful stuff on his own record that I hope he avoids mudslinging and namecalling. I am less concerned about what candidates did in the past than what they are going to do in the future.

Posted by: PapayaSF at November 21, 2006 4:20 PM

Giuliani didn't do anything but ride the demographic curve. Crime fell everywhere while he was mayor. Certainly his eagerness to kill 45 million Americans is more important than stopping the squeegee guys.

Posted by: oj at November 21, 2006 4:49 PM

Of course, the best part of the article is the bit about the Ohio grass-roots activist who was all fired up to attack Giuliani (via StopRudyNow) and then began to listen to him and turned 180 degrees.

OJ's catty remark does have a point on abortion, one that Rudy will have to address well, and he will have to tack on gun control in order to win, but that is a relatively easy move to make. After all, even the Dems don't talk about gun control anymore, and Sarah Brady is unlikely to be photographed with any of them over the next two years.

It will be quite a race. Giuliani is unlikely to go negative, and I believe McCain is constrained from doing so by all his high-sounding rhetoric and the BCRA. If he goes nuclear on Rudy, I suspect most Republicans will begin to view him as Jimmy Carter in October 1980 - petty, mean, and desperate (and washed up).

Posted by: jim hamlen at November 21, 2006 6:31 PM

Papaya:

"I am less concerned about what candidates did in the past than what they are going to do in the future."

Isn't that rather dreamy? After all, the best way to know if they WILL do what they are promising is to examine what they DID in the past, in comparison to what they said.

Posted by: ratbert at November 21, 2006 6:39 PM

OJ, the idea that simple demographics somehow cleaned up NYC is laughable. It probably helped a little, but the pre-/post-Giuliani difference is far too large to be explained by demographics alone.

Ratbert, point taken, and of course comparing past promises to actions is always a good idea. What I was trying to express, though, is a distaste for the simplistic namecalling and focus on the past we so often see in campaigns.

McCain has his good points, but a few huge negatives as well: the S&L scandal, McCain-Feingold, a reluctance to cut taxes, a bit of a temper problem.

Posted by: PapayaSF at November 21, 2006 8:04 PM

Less young, less crime. Mandatory sentences and the like helped reduce the number of young. It was all just demographics. Rudy was there to claim credit. Note that he has no other accomplishment as mayor.

Posted by: oj at November 21, 2006 8:57 PM

Giuliani unlikely to go negative? He'll be making the McCain has a black baby calls himself.

Posted by: oj at November 21, 2006 8:59 PM

OJ - you are too much. Rudy is taking the high road (perhaps all the way home). He doesn't need to go negative - McCain already has enough problems with the 'base'. Rudy just needs to speak softly, and let the echoes reverberate.

Rudy straightened out NYC's finances and started the schools on the road to (at least) some correction. Bloomberg has tried to do more.

And haven't you heard? The new rumor on McCain is that he and Olympia Snowe have a love child being raised in the backwoods by moose. Susan Collins is the godmother.

Posted by: ratbert at November 21, 2006 10:12 PM

He doesn't know anyway to fight but dirty. But that won't hurt him, what will is that the dirt on him is worse.

Posted by: oj at November 21, 2006 11:18 PM

So whose 'dark' side is darker, Giuliani's or McCain's? And what does that tell us about who should be President?

Meanwhile, if you want 50-0, how about McCain/Webb? I'll bet McCain could persuade Webb to switch if he put him on the ticket.

If Webb slugs Durbin or Levin on the floor of the Senate next year, McCain will be standing nearby, just smiling.

Posted by: jim hamlen at November 22, 2006 12:58 AM

McCain's dark side is made up. Giuliani's is real.

Webb doesn't help McCain balance the ticket.

Posted by: oj at November 22, 2006 7:07 AM
« NOT DIRTY ENOUGH: | Main | IF IT'S ABOUT THE VOICE, WHY DISTORT IT MECHANICALLY?: »