I'm telling you, the secret's getting out. The latest
The Monitor article from which I pulled that quote also says that Giuliani's approval ratings are at 62%. Sixty-two percent! That will change as the attack machine heats up. But I ask you, can anyone name another public figure with numbers over 60%? I can't think of one. That's unheard of in this age of hyper-negativity.
On the other hand, some analysts say that McCain's recent dip in polling is due to his more vocal support of the President's Surge plan. It's possible that not a lot of poll respondents knew Giuliani's position on the Iraq War is identical to McCain's. Or maybe they do, but they just trust Giuliani more.
That's my take. Even if I liked McCain, I would always favor a guy with executive experience over legislative experience. Theoretically, executives must work in the real world where results are expected. Therefore, they should be more results oriented. Legislators on the other hand, work in a world of theoretical projections, possibilities and imaginary outcomes. When they fuck up, they're rarely held to account because they simply blame the other party, the executive, or both.
For me it's a matter of trust. I know all of Rudy's warts. They have been on the front pages repeatedly. Ditto McCain's. I trust Mr. Mayor to be able to lead in a more honest manner than McCain. McCain has done too many things (campaign finance, gang of 14, Keating 5, for and against social security reform, etc). I would vote for him against Hillary or Obama or any other dem (except Lieberman) but in Rudy vs McCain it's not even close for me and I'm a rabid right wing nut.
Posted by: chris at February 07, 2007 04:51 PM (QZTLy)
Just wait till the straight talk express starts flinging mud. Nobody does mean like the Senator from Arizona.
Posted by: kyle8 at February 07, 2007 06:57 PM (yB636)
Don't count in it, Kyle. The R's are down to their last bastion right now; they need a win, and they know it. If BOTH are on the ticket, what happens then?
Well, there's your answer. I think they'll make nice in the end.
Think Kennedy-Johnson. Go back in time (I assume most of you don't remember, but can read about it)to 1960. Both Kennedy and Johnson appeared at a joint caucus of the Texas and Massachusetts delegations and Johnson vowed that he would NEVER accept the Vice Presidental nomination.
Twelve hours later, Bobby offered it, then withdrew the offer. Johnson was then begging for it and threatening what he'd do if he didn't get it.
One heartbeat away from the presidency, in this era ain't bad. Gore and Cheney changed that.
Posted by: shelly at February 08, 2007 04:21 AM (SLFj+)
I'm completely anti-Rudy and anti-McCain. Rudy, while talking a good game, still comes out looking like a Chicago liberal when it comes to many of the rights of the people. His stance on personal ownership of firearms keeps tracking back to "display a need," "register," etc.
If the (R) throw up Rudy/McCain against Hillary, we will have the floor wiped with us. It will either result in a heavy (D) win, or an independent is going to end up capturing much of the south and mountain states, but not winning the election, giving us Hillary in the end.
Rudy seems to resemble British conservatives; he's all for surveillance, authoritarian law and order, etc.
McCain is a no-go for a ton of reasons; he's like the (R) version of Clinton. He will say whatever, to whomever, to ensure that MTV likes him and the MSM calls him a "loose cannon," a "rebel," etc.
Posted by: Jmarsh at February 08, 2007 07:40 AM (J0G4s)
Rudy's got a lot of skeletons in his closet and much of them aren't known nationally. His negatives will start going up when they talk about his personal life, corruption and cronyism in the mayor's office, and his mistakes in the aftermath of 9/11.
Posted by: PoliticalCritic at February 08, 2007 09:29 AM (B9HSl)
"his mistakes" after 9/11."
That stuff is already starting: I saw a wire story on the so-called "mistakes" yesterday. They also mentioned a book taking the same position. Koch was interviewed in the wire story and said that Rudy deserved all the positives he got after 9/11, but that NYC was over him on 9/10. In other words, 9/11 rejuvinated him as a politician.
So far, he hasn't taken many hits. You are right to say that it will start soon. We'll see if he can handle it.
Please explain how the candidate with the highest negatives from either pary is going to "wipe the floor" with either McCain or Rudy, both of whom are fairly articulate and experienced men with solid GWOT credentials? I'm not saying either is the perfect Rep choice, but that Hillary has a ton of political problems to overcome. Suggesting she is going to wipe the floor with these two in a general election makes no political sense to me. Now if you were talking about somebody like Brownback, I'd probably agree.
Posted by: blu at February 08, 2007 09:57 AM (duPNB)
Agree with Koch (and Blu). If September 11 hadn't occurred, Giuliani wouldn't even be running for dogcatcher today. I'm starting to hope for a Tancredo - Kucinich election; perhaps we'd have some discussion of issues.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 08, 2007 10:08 AM (YWsCw)
I agree w/Blu on Rudy, NYers & 9/10.
As for a positive 60+ rating, only Obama & Rudy have them right now. However, Rudy's stuffed closet will eventually be opened. The dems are saving the salvos for when they can do the most damage.
A private poll that will be released this weekend, shows that in a contest between Obama & Hillary, it's Hillary that would win by a large margin. So a Hillary/Obama might be a possibility. However on the Rep's side its still too early to tell. A lot can happen in 18 months
Posted by: michele at February 08, 2007 10:43 AM (Po6a+)
I have been editing this to try to make this less gun-centric, but it's not working
. I'm not trying to get into a 2A debate, and hopefully what I'm getting at will be apparent.
There are a fair number of folks like me that have litmus tests for firearms. I think they're reasonable and simple: 1) No registration (other than the defacto form already in place with BATFE's form 4473) and 2) You don't need to display a need for a firearm, you can buy one just because, as guaranteed by the 2A.
They're articulate, and at least Rudy seems to generally believe he's doing the right thing, and he's got some convictions. No problems there, or with GWOT stances. But, there is something that looms larger, and that's freedom, as enumerated by the Constitution. Hillary wants to pillage my economic freedom, while Rudy would have no problems plastering millions of cameras throughout the US, a la the UK. Rudy seems very wedded to the anti-crime track, but there isn't a higher power (ie, the 2A) that he feels is important to respect. *That* is the problem. (McCain has issues with the 1A, among other things).
The basic problem we are faced with is, for instance, Hillary vs. Guiliani, maybe with a libertarian on the ballot. We've got Clinton/Dole/Perot all over again. I, and others, cannot vote for someone that is (insert your conservative litmus test of choice here) hostile to gun ownership as Rudy, even if it's to keep the human apocalypse that is Hillary out of office. Some surely will as the "lesser of two evils" strategy, of course. When a democrat (Richardson) has a friendlier approach to gun ownership than a republican, there is a serious problem.
Rudy and McCain have created negative groundswells throughout people that are pretty solidly (R) otherwise, via past documented action. How many of them will apply my version of the litmus test in 08? Don't know. But, there's not a lot of wiggle room to soften one's stance on gun control, for instance, when you've been quoted throughout your entire political career of note as solidly in one direction as he is.
Expanding a bit past gun control, I think the problem that many (R) will have is that they've taken what are traditionally democratic stances on too many issues recently. Supported medicare drug benefit? Got those. Supported McCain-Feingold? Check. Support amnesty for illegals? Yep. Trashed the GWOT/Iraq/WMD/etc? Yeah, those are (R) too. Agree with CEO pay "adjustment?" Check. Complained about oil profits? Those too. Supported continued ban of offshore drilling?
You see where I'm going? They're pretty indistinguishable from each other on "current events," which brings things like the support of second amendment that much more into the forefront. Frankly, Rudy, good virtuous man that he is, forces me to campaign against him (which I'm already actively doing).
Posted by: Jmarsh at February 08, 2007 04:08 PM (J0G4s)
Fair enough. Well articulated position. Thanks for taking the time to put it out there. In the end, we just have different priorities, which is why you have the primary and put those priorities out there for people to debate. My priorities are free market economics and the GWOT. The Reps are not always good on either, but generally they are much better than the Dems.
Posted by: blu at February 08, 2007 05:30 PM (duPNB)
JMarsh gets at what I think the purpose of Libertarians and true Conservatives should be, which is anchoring the right flank of the political spectrum. Meaning there should be a solid anchor to our viewpoints and policies, which is well known and unchanging. There may be people who vary from that conservative position depending on the issue, but once "Conservatism" becomes a sliding scale, all is lost because there's nowhere to go but left. Ronald Reagan understood this when he proposed that we get rid of the Energy and Education Departments. George W. Bush does not understand this when he proposed and got DHS and Prescription Drug Entitlements. What the Libertarians get right (and thank God for them, because these days they're the only ones making the case) is that there is such a thing as a slippery slope and somebody has to put the brakes on.
Of course, you might ask, so how can you support Rudy. First, I didn't say I'd vote for him in a primary. I feel free to vote my conscience in all primaries, which is why I never vote for a pro-choice candidate in primaries. But when the general comes, It's always a lesser of two evils thing. I know enough about the political situation nowadays that I'm a realist. I want a Republican in the White House, and so I will vote for whoever gets the nomination, unless it's McCain. I like Rudy because he can win. In a perfect world, we could tolerate a moderate Republican president if he is counterbalanced by solid conservatives in Congress. Unfortunately, that is not the case today. But the alternative is a phony centrist Democrat like Clinton/Bomber and a bunch of whacked out communist political appointees sneaking into the beauracracy who'll take years to ferret out, and only after doing incredible damage (e.g. Jamie Gorelick). That's what really scares me about a Democrat in office. There are a million Amanda Marcottes chomping at the bit for a low level appointment and if/when the next Democrat administration comes along they are going to flock to D.C. and someone is going to find a spot for them.
Posted by: annika at February 08, 2007 07:24 PM (JBltT)
Well said JM. The jist of Reagan's charisma was his willingness to differentiate between who we are, and who THEY are. We wandered in the wilderness from the Depression until 1980 because the accomodationists ran the party. Rudy and the McCainiac are a return to the wilderness years. There is only one heir to Ronaldus Magnus, and we all know who he is, and whatever the CW is about him, they said worse things about Ronnie.
Posted by: Casca at February 08, 2007 07:54 PM (2gORp)
I'm beginning to believe that none of the current Republican candidates can go the distance.
The true heir (according to Casca) has to be Newt. He says he'll run if his ideas are not being carried by some other candidate; a sure thing that he gets in when the others falter.
He led us to the biggest victories we've experienced since Reagan, and he can do it again, provided they get him a suit with no zipper.
But, what the Hell, it never affected Bubba, so let's all wait for Newt to come to the game.
Posted by: shelly at February 10, 2007 09:42 AM (SLFj+)
| Add Comment