




Founders
Managing Directors
Blogger Pool
- Scott Allan
- Jason Bonham
- Dave Burris
- John Cordiero
- Tim Cross
- Jeff Fuller
- Aaron Gulbransen
- Kyle Hampton
- Maurice Harris
- Justin Hart
- Julie Johnson
- Neal Jones
- Bill Knowling
- Mike Laub
- Devon Murphy
- Ben Wren
- Andrew Quinn
|

Monday, November 12, 2007
posted by Publicola | 8:44 PM | permalink
The Plank's Ben Wasserstein assesses Giuliani's campaign strategy and arguments of inevitability: I don't buy the arguments in the Giuliani campaign's recent conference call outlining their candidate's inevitable path to the Republican nomination--and not for the reasons suggested by the Romney campaign. On The Stump, Noam Scheiber argues that if Romney comes out ahead in the early primary states, Mitt could start picking up states in the Midwest and West, even Florida, Rudy's supposed "firewall." But another looming problem, seemingly unaddressed in campaign’s conference call, is the South. If Fred Thompson continues his swan dive, while Rudy keeps playing the supposed-frontrunner-who-gets-beaten, isn’t it possible that a high-spending family man like Romney could make a play in states like Mississippi and Virginia? Someone’s got to get those voters who are fleeing from Fred--why not the guy with the momentum? And with the RNC granting additional delegates to states that have voted red, Dixie has disproportionate clout. Maybe Giuliani can get away with basically ignoring Iowa and conceding first place in New Hampshire, but if Romney makes a strong showing in the South, he won’t get very far at all.
(One more note: On the call, Rudy’s aides reportedly said that they feel good about their current second-place position in New Hampshire. What if McCain keeps climbing?) I think Wasserstein has the right idea. Giuliani's projections assume a static situation once voting begins. As Justin's historical example of Mo Udall shows, there is little predictability once you get past the early states. Votes will be fluid up until the day to vote based on voter assessment of the race at that time. That's one of the reasons why winning early and often is so important: voters' conceptions of the candidates and the dynamics of the race can change quickly (due in part to free media reports of how the voting went). The candidates gain a reputation and sense of viability based on performance. The race is, thus, more fluid than what can be gained from looking at polling in states that don't vote until February. In a sense, the Giuliani campaign is trying to (if you'll permit a sports metaphor) flip a switch for the playoffs. He figures that the early states don't really matter and that he can somehow shift gears at a later date. The logic for that kind of argument, especially in electoral politics, is flawed to say the least. Labels: Giuliani
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
posted by Scott Allan | 10:29 AM | permalink
Is nothing sacred? Former New York Mayor, Rudy Giuliani is a self-professed Yankee fan. Last week he even joked about making Joe Torre his running mate. Yesterday in Boston, when asked who he was rooting for in the World Series, Giuliani stated, "I'm rooting for the Red Sox". This is a pathetically obvious pandering for votes which no true Red Sox fan/voter would ever fall for. This is the biggest flip-flop in political history. Yankees fans are enraged. Giuliani has been known for his questionable loyalty in the past however as his ex-wife, Donna Hanover, accused him of "notorious adultery" during their divorce proceedings. What's next? Is he going to start cheering "Yankees Suck" at the Republican Convention? Mitt Romney would NEVER, EVER root for the Yankees in any game ever played. The Romney campaign's response to the scandal? "I guess if Colorado wants Mayor Giuliani to root for the Rockies, they’re going to have to move their primary up." This leaves carpet-bagger Hillary Clinton as the only "true" Yankee fan in the race even though she grew up in Chicago. Go Sox! Scott AllanLabels: Giuliani, mitt romney
Thursday, September 20, 2007
posted by Justin Hart | 1:53 PM | permalink
The AFA (American Family Association), one of the largest social conservative advocacy groups, just sent out a poll to its massive email list (P. Ruffini estimates its to be about 3.2 million - surpassing MoveOn.org). Here's a quick snapshot of the email I received:  click to enlargeThe poll currently ( found here) is running 25 to 1 against Rudy. Together with the Dobson slam... is this the SoCon death knell for Rudy? Will FRC weigh in more heavily? Or does this demonstrate the waning influence of the SoCons as they vie for their key issues among of host of unknown and unfriendly Presidential candidates? Labels: afa, Giuliani, rudy, rudy giuliani, social conservatism
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
posted by Devon Murphy | 11:09 PM | permalink
Ramesh Ponnuru at The Corner this evening: So I finally read Wayne Barrett's Giuliani takedown in the Village Voice (I linked to it a while ago). It goes through Giuliani's five big lies about 9/11. The first three are, if true, pretty devastating. It appears that Barrett's reporting was pretty meticulous. But he does have an axe to grind —see this Barrett hit on Giuliani's personal life, for example—so I'm not sure whether he is leaving anything out that exculpates Giuliani. Having thus far read through the first three (out of five) topics, and even keeping in mind that there is no love lost between Barrett and the former Mayor, devastating is exactly the word I would choose for it. It will be interesting to see whether Team Giuliani addresses these concerns head on, or hopes they can worry about it after the GOP primary. Labels: Giuliani, national security, rudy, terrorism
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
posted by Publicola | 1:12 PM | permalink
- From abortion to nuclear pork projects, Thompson's lobbying record leaves much to be desired for conservatives. Kenneth Vogel over at the Politico has the extensive details on the nuclear blemish on Thompson's bona fides.
- "It sounds like an effort by Giuliani to make himself seem like a hawk on immigration when, in fact, he's been a dove all along," the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, Mark Krikorian, said. More here.
Labels: brownback, fred thompson, Giuliani, news
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
posted by Publicola | 11:12 AM | permalink
The top three McCain campaign operatives are out. The LA Times reports on Fred Thompson’s not so distinguished conservative record in the Senate: "During his eight-year Senate career, his only stint in elected office, Thompson was far from a champion of the party's conservative core." The Boston Globe reports on Giuliani’s unconventional campaign: "Giuliani is not devoting the same level of staff or resources in [early] states as other candidates. Even a lesser-known foe, Kansas Sen. Brownback, has more staff in Iowa." Labels: fred thompson, Giuliani, John McCain
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
posted by Publicola | 6:31 PM | permalink
Apparently Giuliani made a poor choice for a state chairman in South Carolina. Thomas Ravenel was indicted on a cocaine charge on Tuesday. From The Greenville News: [Larry] Sabato said the incident reflects on Giuliani, who accepted Ravenel's aid when he was first putting his campaign together and most of the state's top Republicans had committed elsewhere.
Giuliani, he said, has "egg -- no, omelet -- all over his face. To say this was a poor choice for his state chairman is an understatement," Sabato said. Hat tip to South Carolina '08.com. Labels: Giuliani, Greenville News, south carolina
Monday, March 5, 2007
posted by Ben Wren | 8:40 PM | permalink
The Politico has an incredibly in depth story on Romney's Race towards the White House. First is Romney's plan to game the primary system, in other words, play it smart: Republican primaries are winner-take-all. Whoever wins statewide gets all the delegates at stake. This favors front-runners, who, with their early money and early support, can wrap up the nomination quickly. But, in a barely noticed move, California Republicans have changed the system. Now it is winner-take-all by congressional district. That means a candidate no longer needs to win the whole state to get delegates. This mean  s that California's primary is now 53 individual contests and the candidates will be able to cherry pick which districts they want to be competitive in, limiting the expense of advertising in CA. Romney also plans to bring a new kind of politics to CA: he intends to treat California as if it were a "retail" political state instead of a tarmac state. (Because California is so large geographically, candidates spend most of their time flying from airport to airport, standing on the tarmac, doing a sound bite for local TV and then flying on.) Romney intends to emphasize more intensive, face-to-face campaigning in select congressional districts in which he has the best chance of winning delegates. He is going to spend money.
He will exploit the differences between him and his chief rivals:  Romney intends to exploit what he perceives as two of McCain's great vulnerabilities in the Republican primaries: the McCain-Feingold law, which restricts campaign contributions, and the McCain-Kennedy bill, which would change immigration laws and allow for a guest-worker program. And while Romney disagrees explicitly with Giuliani on issues such as abortion, gun control and gay rights, he implicitly draws distinctions between Giuliani's rather turbulent personal life -- he has been married three times -- and Romney's own marriage of nearly 38 years. In Iowa he is going to go all out at the Ames straw poll August 11th Finally, he is going to try to talk about the Mormon issue thusly: Romney intends to recast the issue by emphasizing that he is a person of faith and that that is more important to voters than what faith he is. Second, his Mormon faith has been fundamental to his commitment to family, which he believes people of all faiths can respect.
And realize he can be funny about it: Romney quoted Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, a Mormon, telling other senators the difficulty he has raising money among members of his own faith. "You'd have had trouble raising money, too, if all the people you were asking money from were sober," Hatch said. Mormons generally do not drink. Of course, Mittheads, he can't do it alone. If you haven't already please go to Mitt's Website and sign up to volunteer and prepare for the battle ahead. There is much to do and barely a year to do it in. Also make sure all of your friends and family who support Mitt have done the same. YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!! Labels: California, Giuliani, iowa, McCain, mitt romney
Saturday, March 3, 2007
posted by Scott Allan | 3:43 PM | permalink
The New York Times is reporting that Mitt Romney hit a homerun with his speech at CPAC whereas Giuliani left the attendees a bit lukewarm. Mr. Giuliani arrived to a rousing reception, but the room grew silent and restless as Mr. Giuliani wandered through a speech that lasted 40 minutes. By contrast, Mr. Romney arrived to a much more subdued reception but left to rousing applause.
“The governor knocked this speech out of the park,” said Paloma A. Zepeda, a marketing consultant and conservative blogger who said she came into the room with “serious doubts” about Mr. Romney, and left saying she was leaning toward supporting him. By contrast, she said, Mr. Giuliani “took a risk by coming to C.P.A.C., and he managed to not allay a single conservative fear about a Giuliani candidacy.” Labels: cpac, Giuliani, mitt romney
Thursday, March 1, 2007
posted by Ben Wren | 7:45 PM | permalink
 In an interview with KDKA TV News out of Pittsburgh, PA and an interview with The Politico my former boss and Senator Rick Santorum said the following on John McCain, signing onto the ABM(Anybody But McCain) idea: “The only one I wouldn’t support is McCain,” Santorum said during an interview in his office at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, where he is a senior fellow. “I don’t agree with him on hardly any issues,’’ Santorum said. “I don’t think he has the temperament and leadership ability to move the country in the right direction.” Interesting too from the pro-life stalwart: Santorum suggested that McCain also wasn’t as solidly anti-abortion as he would like. “He may be pro-life, but I served with him for 12 years, and I know how pro-life he is,” Santorum said.
From the KDKA interview he said on Giuliani: In a different time maybe I'd have taken him out of the game too but I think we are in a different time. That national security is the issue. He's someone who has impressive credentials on national security. I don't agree with him on some of the other issues and I'm going to wait and see how he deals with those. On Romney: Mitt is a guy who has recently come to my side on some issues of importance to me but I want to see how he holds up under the pressure. See how he deals with his governing of Massachussetts particularlyhis health care plan, which is under increased scrutiny right now, let's just say that, its not working out so well. He indicates he is not planning on endorsing anyone anytime soon. Labels: Giuliani, John McCain, mitt romney, Santorum
posted by Ben Wren | 9:23 AM | permalink
 Rudy Giuliani has promised to appoint judges in the mold of Roberts and Alito. This is to assuage conservative fears over his pro-abortion and pro civil union views. The Politico took a look at his 75 appointments to the judiciary in New York City. Their findings are interesting. Bullets from the article: - Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 8 to 1
- One of his appointments was an officer of the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges.
- Another ruled that the state law banning liquor sales on Sundays was unconstitutional because it was insufficiently secular.
- A third, an abortion-rights supporter, later made it to the federal bench in part because New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a liberal Democrat, said he liked her ideology.
Further, Giuliani won praise from NYC NARAL head, Kelli Collin: "They were decent, moderate people," she said.
In the mayors defense, he had to choose from only 3 candidates. From the article: Under the system, the mayor appoints members of an independent panel. Aspiring judges apply to the panel, which recommends three candidates for each vacancy. The mayor chooses among the three. Yet, surely, the mayor could have avoided those applicants whose records and pedigrees were that of extreme judicial activists.  Giuliani's pledge to appoint judges like Roberts and Alito comes under question when you consider his record of appointing extreme judicial activists onto the New York courts. Consider that one judge: Charles Posner, a Brooklyn judge appointed by Giuliani, made the kind of decision that keeps conservatives up nights when he was asked to levy a fine against a shopkeeper, Abdulsam Yafee, who had illegally sold beer at 3:30 a.m. on a Sunday. In an unusual, lengthy 2004 ruling, Posner found that "there is no secular reason why beer cannot be sold on Sunday morning as opposed to any other morning." Noting that Sunday is only the Christian Sabbath, Posner continued, "Other than this entanglement with religion, there is no rational basis for mandating Sunday as a day of rest as opposed to any other day." Yet another: Sonberg's other affiliation: When he was appointed in 1995, he was already an officer of the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges, a professional group. After his appointment, he became the group's president. Two were appointed to federal seats: one of them, Richard Berman, by President Bill Clinton. The other, Dora Irizarry, was a Bush nominee considered so liberal that (Chuck) Schumer pushed her nomination through.... "Temperament is not at the top of my list," Schumer explained at the time, when asked why he supported the former Giuliani appointee. "Ideology is key." Giuliani spent a great deal of time with his nominees: "He took it very seriously -- he spent a lot of time with these candidates," recalled Paul Curran, a Republican and former U.S. attorney who chaired Giuliani's Commission on Judicial Nominations. Yet he allowed these wreckless nominees through? This is troubling and hopefully answers can be provided when he speaks tomorrow at the CPAC conference.
Labels: Giuliani, judges
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
posted by Ben Wren | 9:27 AM | permalink
There has been some confusion as to where Rudy stands on Immigration. Over at Ankle Biting Pundits they looked into this. They found this speech on the Welfare Reform law given September 11th 1996. There are aspects to the Welfare Reform Bill that, as just a matter of policy, I disagree with and I think could pose very serious problems, and although I do think the bill does some good, in the end I believe it does more harm than good.
Which aspects did he disagree with so much that he decided to go to court over it? In the welfare bill it required Cities to turn over the names of illegal immigrants over to the INS. From the speech: New York City's Executive Order 124, signed by Mayor Koch in 1988 protected people in that endeavor by instructing employees of New York City that they are not to turn in those names into the Immigration and Naturalization Service....
What do you do about it, do you revoke Executive Order 124? It is my conclusion and Corporation Counsel's conclusion that this raises such serious constitutional questions that we will challenge it in court.
Giuliani defends his decision by saying that: The tenth amendment reads: "The power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution not prohibited by it to the States is reserved to the States respectively or to the people." So what the Constitution says is unless a power is given to the national government, to the federal government, and unless you define those powers in the enumerated powers of the federal government, those powers are retained for the states for their local subdivisions and for the people.
He says that Police power is a local authority and therefore the bill is unconstitutional by dictating what a local police force must do when in violation of local laws.. I would counter that while Police power is a local authority the integrity of our borders and the security that integrity provides is a federal one. It being a federal power therefore means that local authority cannot supersede it.This is another area with stark differences between Governor Romney and his two leading opponents. While McCain and Giuliani both favor policies to coddle and give aid to those whose first action in this country is to violate this country's laws Governor Romney has advocated tough enforcement of our immigration laws.  We need to make America more attractive for legal immigrants -- for citizens -- and less attractive for illegal immigrants. I want to see more immigration inour country, but more legal immigration and less illegal immigration." Labels: Giuliani, Immigration, Romney
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
|
Show/Hide 0 Comments | Post a Comment