The Fall of Rudy

This will be a very brief post, as I just want to share with you a poll I came across. Rasmussen Reports has been testing hypothetical match-ups for the general election. Typically, Giuliani has done the best among the Republicans (even managing to beat Hillary and Obama in some polls), while Romney has done the worst. Well, these results show something interesting.

In a hypothetical match-up of Obama v. Romney, Obama garners 45% while Romney snags 39%. A pretty hefty defeat, if I do say so. However, when we consider Obama v. Giuliani, Obama garners 47% while Giuliani only gets 37%. So what does this mean? It would seem to mean that independent voters or wary Republicans are more likely to support Romney than Giuliani. This could be because Giuliani's approval rating has dropped 30% (from 70% to 40%) in less than a year.

I'm ready to make another prediction: Rudy Giuliani will not be the Republican nominee for President.

On the Quality of Candidates

The New York Times has an article about a strange phenomenon happening in Iowa. Democrats are happy with their options. Indeed, perhaps they're even too happy. While Republican Iowans seem either set on Huckabee or Romney (they've been snubbed by McCain and Giuliani), Iowa's Democrats, even those committed to a specific candidate, seem willing to consider other options. I've been experiencing much of the same, to be honest. While I consider myself part of the Obamanation, I recognize that there are other compelling candidates. This really is a strong group of candidates we've got. If the Dems can't pull a victory out of this bunch, they ought to just dissolve themselves as a party. Let's consider...

First, we have the possible History Makers, Clinton and Obama (maybe I should throw Richardson in here, but I think he belongs in a later group). Even though I am rooting against Clinton perhaps even more than I am rooting for Obama, the notion of a female President is, at the very least, interesting. It may not be "compelling," but it adds an element of excitement to the race. The same goes for Obama. The fact that we could have a black President being inaugurated in about a year is very exciting.

Next, we have the Resume (there should be an accent over that e, I know) Kings. These guys (Biden, Dodd, and Richardson) have long lists of accomplishments and probably "deserve" to be President more than the front-runners. The fact that candidates of this caliber are being snubbed should speak to the level of excitement among Democrats.

Then, we have the Wannabe RFK -- John Edwards. He's bringing back (or trying, at least) a style of populism that we haven't seen in mainstream politics since the death of RFK. I'm not too keen on Edwards these days, but I think this style of politicking is pretty compelling and makes for exciting television.

And there's the Token Kill-'em-with-Kindness, All Carrots, No Sticks, Hippie Dippie Lover of the Trees -- Dennis Kucinich. Always fun when he's around.

These folks have made for what I think is a fantastic group of candidates. Let's consider the Republicans for a moment.

First, we have Mr. 9/11. As we all know, Rudy is only in this race because he happened to be the Mayor of New York on September 11, 2001. That's his only "qualification." He claims that this "qualification" makes him the Anti-Terror Candidate. Sorry, Rudy, but having your city attacked doesn't count as military experience. You're no John McCain. Giving patriotic speeches doesn't count as valuable foreign policy experience, either. You're no Joe Biden. You're Rudy, the scumbag from New York who has grotesquely turned a national tragedy into a political windfall. For shame.

Next, we have The Latter Day Flip-Flopper who Saved the Olympics. Seriously, when your biggest accomplishment is putting on the Winter Olympics, should you really be President? Oh wait, apparently Mitt's running an ad about how he saved his friend's daughter! Mitt is a national hero!

Then there's the Varicose Frog Man. Reading about Thompson's sad romps through Iowa have made me pretty depressed. I mean, it's great that Thompson seems to be realizing that he has no business being in this race, but it's sad that even 1% (let alone 9%) of Iowans haven't caught on.

And we can't forget The Chuck Norris-Approved Pastor of Disaster. Huckabee shouldn't be lumped in with these other three, because he is slightly compelling. He brings a kind of economic populism that is unheard of in Republican circles and hey, he's funny. Kind of. Relatively speaking. Sure, generally speaking he is just a pawn of the evangelicals, but he's more compelling than most evangelical pawns.

Alas, a candidate worth supporting: John McCain. Now, if he somehow gets the nod, I sure as hell won't vote for him, but at least his candidacy makes sense. When we ask "why should you be President?" he can respond with something other than a blank stare and a line about the sanctity of family. His moderate politics are refreshing in a Republican party (and really a broader political scene) dominated by extremists.

And there are some others, but they're really not important.

So, congratulations Democrats. You've got a wide range of good choices. And Republicans, you have one, so go ahead and pick someone else. It just wouldn't be becoming to pick the good guy, right?

P.S. Here's a great op-ed about the ridiculousness of the Iowa caucuses. I was going to write a post about my hatred of the caucuses, but this summed it up better than I could.

To come: The promised discussion of primary reform and an update on Michael Bloomberg.

Some predictions and their unimportance.

I hope you readers and, perhaps more importantly, DC, will forgive my unexplained absence. Like my cohort, I too will make an effort to blog more often this year. On with the post.

The Des Moines Register (which made the nearly unforgivable mistake of endorsing Hillary for no other reason than that she is a Washington insider -- but I suppose that is irrelevant to this post) released their final poll before the Iowa caucuses. For the Democrats, it shows Obama in the lead with Clinton and Edwards lagging seven and eight points behind, respectively. For the GOP, it shows Huckabee in the lead with Romney six points behind. McCain is coming in third, thirteen points behind Romney. So, it looks like we've got a three-way race for the Democrats and a two-way race for the Republicans. My predictions, even before seeing this poll, were that Obama and Huckabee would win (I swear). But, I'm not sure how important these predictions are; I don't know that Iowa is worth all of this hype.

In short, I'm not convinced that the winners on Thursday night will be the eventual nominees. I think the Democratic race will turn into a two-way race between Hillary and Obama, while the Republican race will remain pretty wide open. I imagine a four-way race between Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, and McCain. It pains me to say it, but I think Hillary will eventually get the nod, but I'm not prepared to make a prediction for the Republicans. They're all (except for McCain) such terrible candidates; I can understand why the race is so wide-open.

So, really, I think the only thing that Iowa will show is that Edwards isn't a viable candidate. He is the only one of the "Big Seven" who seems to need a victory in Iowa in order to survive in this race.

Look for an upcoming post about primary reform. It's nice to be back.

Edit: I forgot to mention one of my hopes for Iowa. I hope that the caucus results reflect how much of a joke Fred Thompson is. I've made a point of saying (or at least implying) how my least favorite person in this whole race is Mitt Romney, but I think I want to amend that. At least Romney tries. Granted, his "trying" shows that he is both a cry-baby, a scumbag, and a liar, but at least he tries. Thompson hasn't tried. He has just hoped that people would think Romney, McCain, and Giuliani are all too liberal. He's presented no substance. As much as I disagree with Mike Huckabee's politics, I'm glad he has taken over the mantle of the "conservative candidate" from Old Man Thompson. I'm already pretty cynical about American politics, but I still retain some hope; a Thompson nomination would've shredded that last bit of hope.

Although, a Hillary nomination risks doing the same. Oh well.

Judith Giuliani Fights Back, Ineffectively

Rudy Giuliani's wife, Judith, has received overwhelmingly negative press coverage thus far in the campaign, like this Vanity Fair article. The reasons range from her strained relations with campaign staffers to the fact that she had an affair with Giuliani while he was still married to Donnna Hanover. So Judith has recently set out to turn her image around. From her interview in the New York Times:

A daughter of small-town Pennsylvania, a former nurse and working mother who struggled to raise a child on her own, she cuts a figure that Mr. Giuliani’s aides say will appeal to Republican voters. Husband and wife agree that Laura Bush is a model for Mrs. Giuliani.

But Judith carries some distinctly un-Laura baggage. Like her husband, she has been married twice before. They also had a secret affair for a year before Mr. Giuliani announced it to the world — and to his second wife, Donna Hanover — at a news conference.

Her relations with Mr. Giuliani’s children by Ms. Hanover are by all accounts deeply strained, despite her efforts at rapprochement. And his son and daughter, ages 21 and 17, have said they do not plan to campaign for their father.

Sharply critical articles, most recently in Vanity Fair, have described Mrs. Giuliani as an imperious striver who shops extravagantly, demands a separate seat on the campaign plane for her Louis Vuitton handbag and has compiled a hit list of campaign aides she wants fired.

Now, with his wife’s public role scaled back, at least temporarily, strategists are asking dueling questions: Can he win over socially conservative voters if his wife is not by his side? Can he win them over if she is?

Maybe, maybe not. The Giuliani strategy is to send out Rudy and Judith to speak candidly about the details of their romance and the problems their marriage has caused on the campaign trail. The goal: to humanize them. I don't know it that will help, though. Check it out:

Until now, the Giulianis have declined to discuss the matter, calling it “a romantic secret.” But in the interviews, the couple provided their version of their introduction, saying that they met at Club Macanudo, a cigar bar on East 63rd Street, in May 1999. They said they were introduced by Dr. Burt Meyers, a specialist in infectious diseases at Mount Sinai Hospital who was there with Mrs. Nathan and had met Mr. Giuliani when his mother was a patient there.

After chatting for an hour, mostly about her work in the pharmaceutical industry, Mr. Giuliani asked for her phone number, they said. “She gave me a piece of paper to write it on,” he recalled. “One of our other romantic little secrets is I’ve kept it all these years in my wallet.”

After they began dating, Mrs. Giuliani had plans to fly to Hawaii on a vacation awarded to leading sales managers by her employer.

“He said, ‘Please don’t go,’ ” she recalled. “ ‘You’ve already become too important to me.’ ”

Personally, I don't find this little story endearing at all. I just can't sympathize with Giuliani when he's cheating on his wife. Now, I don't think his personal life is particularly relevant to the job Giuliani would do as president. (There are other reasons why he would be bad at that.) If I wanted to vote for him as president, this wouldn't stop me. However, it remains to be seen if Republican primary voters will be so forgiving.

Giuliani and the Iraq Study Group

The New York Times has an article about Rudolph Giuliani's early involvement with, and subsequent departure from, the Iraq study group. Apparently Giuliani missed a number of meetings because he was beginning the early stages of his presidential campaign (i.e. giving $100,000 speeches and the like).

Mr. Giuliani left the panel after being given an ultimatum to either show up for meetings or leave the group.

His explanation for leaving? He was planning on running for president. He said,

It seemed to me that it should be apolitical. The people who were on it are all people who have had very, very distinguished careers, but none of them are actively involved in politics or considering running for office.

So, he left the group because the partisan nature of his future presidential campaign might in some way tarnish what the group was striving for? That seems questionable, especially when one thinks about how great "I was a part of the Iraq Study Group" would sound as a part of a presidential campaign. I don't know what exactly happened behind the scenes, but I don't believe for one second that Giuliani left simply to preserve the integrity of the group.

Obama, Thompson take lead in South Carolina

African-America support has pushed Barack Obama in front of Hillary Clinton, 34% to 25%, in the latest Mason-Dixon poll in South Carolina. John Edwards is in third with 12%, and 24% of respondents are undecided. (Maybe they're going to break for Mike Gravel! Don't laugh... haven't you seen his new avant-garde campaign ad?
'Nuff said.)

Meanwhile, Fred Thompson has taken the lead on the Republican side, leading Rudy Giuliani 25% to 21%, despite the fact that he has yet to officially declare his candidacy. Mitt Romney is third with 11%. McCain really does look like he's finished, polling a paltry 7%.

Rudy Giuliani: Fear Monger

Rudy Giuliani recently announced his "Twelve Commitments to the American People." Take a look, there are some interesting things, but I only want to comment on the first: "I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us."

"War on Us?" Well, that doesn't sound as happy-go-lucky. Indeed, it sounds rather like, what's that phrase I'm thinking of? Oh yeah... fear mongering. Maybe I'm naive, and maybe I have too much faith in the American people, but six years after 9/11, I think the power of fear mongering has faded. And Rudy shouldn't be allowed to get away with it just because he was there. If I were Bill Maher, I would say, "New Rule: Rudy Giuliani has to get off the 9/11 train. We get it, you were there, you said some nice things to comfort some people, but honestly, any halfway decent mayor would have done just as good of a job. And let's face it, 9/11 is the only reason that you're politically relevant these days. You were lucky, Rudy. You're the Ringo Starr of the presidential race. So, stop pointing out that you're here for a really bad reason and just hope that no one catches on."

Bill Maher's funnier than I am. Oh well.

On a slightly different note, I was watching a Mitt ad, and something struck me.

When Republicans candidates talk about wasteful spending, they have to be talking about President Bush. So, when the Republican crowds cheer for these Republican candidates, they're really cheering against their Republican president, whom they probably still "strongly support" in polls. Perhaps this (i.e. suggesting that we need some rather vauge notiong of change) is the closest any of the Republicans will come to attacking Bush. We shall see.

Thompson and Giuliani are Even

The still-officially-unannounced Fred Thompson is now tied with Rudy Giuliani as the Republican Party's front-runner, according to a new Rasmussen Reports poll. The change from a week ago is remarkable. Just a week ago, the polling stood as follows:

Giuliani: 23%
Thompson: 17%
Romney: 14%
McCain: 13%

And now:

Giuliani: 24%
Thompson: 24%
Romney: 11%
McCain: 11%

This isn't all that surprising, actually. It has been noted that the front-runners in the Republican field all lacked decent conservative credentials (which has to make us wonder how they became front-runners). And the conservatives in the Republican bunch (e.g. Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, etc.) are all insane. So, the Republicans (or at least the so-called "base") are desperately craving a reliable conservative who also has a shot at winning the general election. They think they've found that in Thompson.

I'm not so sure, though. When Thompson is making claims that Scooter Libby was the victim of a severe injustice and should be immediately pardoned, he seems to be suggesting that corruption would be A-okay in a possible Thompson White House. Defending the Bush administration in any way will not get a candidate enough votes to win in 2008. I've said it before; if a Republican wants any chance of winning in 2008, he will have to come out swinging - against Bush. In this case, the Republican Party should not worry about its base, because no matter who the Republicans pick, the base will come around (what, do they think they're going to switch up and vote for the Constitution Party?), but the moderates and unaffiliateds (according to another Rasmussen poll, the number of unaffiliated voters is at an all-time high) are unlikely to vote for a candidate who defends the actions of the Bush administration. Although, as a side note, it would be interesting if the Republicans did choose a conservative like Thompson and if the Democrats chose Hillary; such a match-up would probably free up the most votes for a third party candidate like Michael Bloomberg (some interesting Bloomberg polls here - keep in mind, the polling area is New Jersey, and we all know those savages are by no means representative of anyone else).

If there is anything surprising about this poll, it is that Thompson is doing so well without having even announced (although, he's made an "exploratory committee," so I guess that's close enough). I would not be surprised to see him take even more votes away from McCain and Romney and possibly even some away from Giuliani.

But, as I've probably said before, national polls about presidential primaries can be extremely misleading. So, take from this what you want.

A Thought Experiment, Part III (the Parties of the Right)

(In this thought experiment, I am imagining what the American political landscape would look like if America had some form of proportional representation, allowing third parties to flourish. Click here for a full explanation; click here for the parties of the left.)

Here are the parties of the right. The old fault line between libertarians and social conservatives will finally crack. The libertarians will flourish in their own party, while the social conservatives will divide themselves into economic liberals (concerned with the environment and poverty as well as abortion) and Christianists obsessed with "family values" issues. A strong anti-immigration party could surprise the political establishment. Meanwhile, country-club Republicans will be relieved to be rid of the more embarrassing elements of the old Republican coalition.

THE RIGHT:

Libertarian

Archetypical members: Ron Paul, Milton Friedman.

Base of support: Middle-to-upper-middle-class, college-educated voters. Strongest in the Mountain West and New Hampshire.

Policies: Libertarian (laissez-faire economics combined with social liberalism.)
Comments: The libertarian party, while popular among the educated classes, would probably have a vote ceiling of 10-15%, due to controversial policies like the flat tax and the legalization of marijuana. Would hope to prove wrong the old adage that “there are no poor libertarians.”

Grand Old Party

Archetypical members: Rudy Giuliani, John McCain.

Base of Support: Country-club Republicans, pro-war voters.

Policies: Hawkish, pro-business, socially moderate.

Comments: Intriguing possibility of coalition with New Democrats, if differences in foreign policy could be resolved.

America First

Archetypical members: Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo.

Base of support: Talk-radio listeners, subscribers to The American Conservative.

Policies: Anti-immigrant.

Comments: Shunned by other parties on the right, could shock the political establishment with a National Front-style electoral surge.

Compassionate Conservatives

Archetypical member: David Kuo.

Base of Support: Christian suburban and exurban voters.

Policies: Socially conservative, environmentalist, redistributionist, anti-abortion.

Comments: Economically liberal, socially conservative voters find their home. Strong supporters of faith-based initiatives. Could work with Greens and Social Democrats on a variety of issues.

New Moral Majority

Archetypical member: Pat Robertson.

Base of support: Southern, exurban Christian voters.

Policies: Socially conservative, paternalistic. Anti-gay rights, anti-abortion, anti-evolution, anti-birth control.

Comments: The party of "family values."

Rudy will stick to his guns on abortion

After a Republican debate performance most notable for his waffling on the issue of abortion, Rudy Giuliani has apparently decided that the best course is to stick to his guns and stand by his pro-choice convictions. It's a bold move. (Let's call it the anti-Romney.) This ABC News article reviews the polls and suggests that Rudy might just be able to pull it off. The editors of the National Review are not pleased.