There's one point I should make about the recent boomlet for Giuliani: despite my preference for Romney, I definitely think Giuliani has eclipsed McCain as the front runner.
Lingering discontent about the Senator from Arizona coupled with his lackadaisical performance as of late continues to leave the door open. Moreover, at this early stage national name ID is what drives most polls. Giuliani obviously does well in that category, though no matter whom one might support I would caution against viewing national primary polls as anything other than an interesting yardstick.
One need only to recall the ebb and flow of the 2004 Democratic primary season when Kerry was the early frontrunner, nearly collapsed under Dean's meteoric rise, then came roaring back with "surprise" wins in Iowa and New Hampshire that created unstoppable momentum and a feeling of inevitability. There's likely to be even more of that roller coaster in this race.
Indeed, consider this column, and in particular this passage:
And get this: A USA Today poll released Wednesday shows that 24 percent of Americans would not vote for a Mormon (Romney), 30 percent would not vote for someone who has been married three times (Giuliani) and more than 40 percent would not vote for a "generally well-qualified person" for president who was 72 years old (McCain's age by Election Day 2008).Welcome to the meat grinder, fellas!
No kidding. In between the straw polls, fundraising announcements and early debates that will drive news of the race in 2007, each major candidate is going to be run through the media wringer. Given that they each have faults it won't be pretty, and may make '04's ups and downs look like a kiddie coaster by comparison.
What does help Giuliani is the trend toward a "Super Tuesday" on steroids that may occur February 5th next year. If large states like California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, etc. all vote shortly after Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina then candidates with better name ID obviously benefit. A candidate like Romney (or Edwards) would have to win a couple early states to develop the same sort of momentum Kerry had at the same point in 2004. Absent that, the leading "national" figure at that point in the race will win on Super Tuesday.
The real wildcard until then is how will candidates perform in a campaign of unparalleled intensity and scrutiny in the coming months? I don't think anyone truly knows.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 15, 2007 07:34 AM | Email ThisSo here is the problem for Republicans, as I see it. We only get the candidates that the media will promote.
There's no doubt that the media is conflicted now between Hillary and Hussein Obama, but how do Republicans promote the candidates they want to win the nomination when the media is going to decide it by focusing their attention on the Republicans they prefer over the real conservatives they don't.
I remember election day 1996 after Dole had just been defeated, wondering how in the world Bob Dole was the best the party could come up with, and already the media was going to work talking about George W. Bush. Bush had not demonstrated that he was conservative, and my great fear was that he was another globalist like his father. But in 1996 it was apparent that the old media had already decided which Republican they wanted to win the nomination in 2000.
Now less than 2 years from a critical 2008 election, where the Democrats will no doubt be nominating a poll-chaser who'll govern based on the swaying of public opinion polls driven by uninformed and misinformed voters the media has helped create, are they going to determine who Hillary or Obama will be running against? Will they be blessing Giuliani, who is not and nowhere near conservative? Will they be blessing McCain who also seems to suffer an identity crisis every once in a while?
My bottom line is that until Republicans can promote their candidates with equal volume as the candidates preferred by the liberal and biased old media, I don't see how the party will ever nominate another Reagan again.
At the same time I think it's important that Republican pundits and bloggers ignore what the old media prefers and focus all their attention on the candidates they want, and not allow the media to determine who is viable and who is not.
I also prefer Mitt Romney, but his announcement to run was met by the media with almost complete silence. Why? Could it be that perhaps the media fears a Romney far more than a Giuliani or McCain and this is their way of burying his candidacy before it's really begun?
Posted by: MJC on February 15, 2007 07:56 AMfor example:
regarding the invasion of iraq:
"Most important, he added, the United States, which has had 120,000 to 160,000 troops at a time in Iraq, should have gone in with "maybe 100,000 to 130,000 more."
uhh, the u.s. didn't have an additional 100-130k troops at the time.
there are more examples of this in his performance last night. see his description of what a "strict constructionist" judge is or his silence regarding roe v. wade.
it seems that politicians of both stripes are going to have a hard time living down their past words/actions, which, back when originally made, were catering to a more narrow audience.
Posted by: dinesh on February 15, 2007 08:59 AMOften the media darlings end up crashing and burning such that it can be a curse to be the media darling early on. Just ask Howard Dean about that.
Posted by: pbj on February 15, 2007 09:51 AMIs this true? Is our country defended by a total of fewer than 250,000 troops? I find it more and more alarming that we depend on reserve and national guard troops to fight what is basically a low-level police action in Iraq, leaving -- what? Nothing? To deal with a MAJOR enemy with massive manpower (China, Iran, Vietnam, North Korea, etc.).
What in the hell are our hundreds of billions of dollars in defense spending buying us if not an overwhlemingly powerful military, able to take on all enemies, anytime, anywhere?
And this is with a REPUBLICAN administration, for chrissakes. Will a President Hillary basically adopt a strategy of turning our military into armed grief counselors?
Anyone want to wake up and smell the cordite?
Posted by: Rey Smith on February 15, 2007 10:01 AM"And I just think it's very, very important that a judge have a judicial philosophy that says I am going to try to figure out what the framers of the Constitution meant when they wrote this or what the people who amended it meant when they put it in, not what I'd like it to mean, not what I feel it means."
I hate to be a broken record around here, but how could any conservative have a problem with this?
Posted by: DJ on February 15, 2007 10:01 AMHere's a clue for you DJ, politicians lie.
''I'm a uniter, not a divider.'' - George W. Bush
Posted by: Cato on February 15, 2007 10:20 AMRumsfeld was exactly right that this would be enough to overthrow the Saddam regime. He was spectacularly wrong that this strategy would stabilize the country and minimize anti-war sentiment in this country.
In hindsight, Giuliani and almost every other American realizes this. Rumsfeld, of course, didn't have the benefit of such hindsight.
Posted by: DJ on February 15, 2007 10:22 AMThe Democrats have a good way to tear down the Republicans. Don't do it to our (I am saying that not as an R, but as someone who can't vote for the current crop of Ds) own.
We can expect it from dinesh and Cato.
Cato, as far as the uniter, not divider quote, get real. Bush had no chance. He is a uniter but the other side needs to want to unite. The Ds and the country would have been better off working with Bush rather than against. See Oemig for latest tomfoolery.
Posted by: swatter on February 15, 2007 10:33 AMTrue, after South Carolina McCain was pretty much sunk.
As for the uniter quote, there is no unity anymore. Why should the Dem's or even the GOP work with a President who's approval rating is the on par with Richard Nixon during Watergate. You can only defend a sinking ship for so long before it goes under.
Even if that's true, why do we need to keep recycling guard and reserve forces to Iraq?
And perhaps more importantly -- how many Eric Watadas are hiding out in the service, ready to expose their yellow bellies when things get hot?
I am deeply concerned about this.
And the prospect of a nation governed almost exclusively by women (i.e., Democrats) makes me even more concerned.
Posted by: Rey Smith on February 15, 2007 12:26 PMhttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat.htm
Posted by: dinesh on February 15, 2007 12:50 PMI for one would agree with those who believe we need to build up our Reserve forces and have those trained in ways that that would help in the future. Higher pay and benefits could be part of that. We have about 17 million men of fighting age, over 30 million, counting women... if they need more reservists they can tap into that in a way that is completely voluntary.
I would think the Pentagon would know when they need more regular service members, but this country has been moving more towards using reservists rather than regular servicemen, and rightly so in my opinion. If there is ever a need to arm the masses for war, rather than rely on the specialty trained reservists or regular army, then that is when our politicians have failed to nip a threat in the bud at an earlier stage.
Posted by: Doug on February 15, 2007 01:39 PMLove,
Timmy
Agreed. It's hard to be a united when the other attacks you at every turn and has no interest in uniting with you on anything. I'd like to see a list of Democrats who've genuinely extended a hand to the President in the interest of bi-partisanship on anything in the past 6 years? I think Leiberman has, and that's about it. Conversely, the President has been very civil and dimplomatic when talking to and about his political adversaries, when he could be tearing them all a new one.
It's like saying Israel is a divider not a uniter. Hard to be a uniter when your adversaries are screaming for your demise.
As for Oemig, funny you mention him, he is my brother-in-law. I had a post about him on his bit of grandstanding attempt to try to impeach the President. I didn't find out about it until yesterday, so I think that thread was dead when I posted. But suffice to say, I know Eric well, and he's as committed a Bush hater and a lefty as there is. It's sparked some very contentious debates between us (and his wife) in the past few years and have made family get togethers...well...a little "frosty" to say the least. I think Eric tried to disguise some of his more radical positions on the President and such to get elected. Appently it worked, which is what I was afraid of. He's certainly a high-tax, universal Heathcare, more government entitlement programs, pro-estate tax, pro-gun control, pro-abortion liberal. He's actually not a bad guy, just PAINFULLY liberal and has that sort of haughty liberal elite attitude that's common among the type. But he's personable enough that you don't notice it right away. (Brown-noser would be another term for it)
But I digress. If anyone wants to see the other post, it's over on the thread about his impeachment proposal.
But Giuliani's danger vs. Hillary is this. He has the potential to delivery some blue state votes, but Hillary has no chance of delivering any red state votes. I can't think of a state that she could pick up unless the Republicans try to run Tom Delay or something. Giuliani can potentially delivery states like New York, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Hampshire and perhaps even Washington (Kerry and Gore didn't win Washington in landslides, and Rossi and Gordon lost by very narrow margins.)
States that are swing or "light blue".
Hillary can fight for swing states, but I don't see her gaining any "red" state, even "light red" states.
Myself, I like Giuliani. I like McCain and Romney too. I see McCain and Giuliani being the two primary contendors for the Nomination, with Giuliani winning. He's just a better speaker and more Charismatic than McCain. Romney will probably end up a VP candidate, as he's a little more conservative than the other two, and he'd be tapped to get some of the more hard-core conservative votes.
Whoa there, I don't hate Eric. Don't make the family get togethers even colder than they already are. ;-)
He's just wrong on a lot of issues, and unfortunately, has gone from a position of just bloviating about crazy ideas to a position of being able to implement them. He's a very personable guy, and if you talked to him face-to-face, he comes accross very "moderate" and level headed. You gotta realy dig down and debate the guy (which I have, many, many times) before his Left-wing views really come out. I've known him since 2003 when he met and started dating my wife's older sister. (Who's a lawyer when graduated from Berkeley...so needless to say, they were a good match, and she's very political too)
The main problem with them is, admittedly, they'd see half the country burned to the ground if it meant their views and ideas won the day. It's all about -being right-, as opposed to being responsible in their words and actions.
Posted by: Brent in Spokane on February 16, 2007 08:07 AM