Zogby N.H. poll: McCain 25, Giuliani 19, Romney … 25; Update: Rudy to social cons — love me for who I am

posted at 2:18 pm on April 5, 2007 by Allahpundit

It’s Zogby so the results are presumptively wrong, but compare them to the RCP numbers for New Hampshire and you’ll see they aren’t that wrong. Mitt’s the local boy up there and he’s riding a wave of good buzz right now from his fundraising numbers. He was only six points off the lead in the American Research Group poll conducted last month. Given Z’s usual margin of error, figure he trails McCain in reality by five points or so at the moment.

Emphasis on “at the moment.” Because he’s gone and said something that further damages his credibility as a supposedly committed, red meat conservative.

Ace thinks Rudy finished himself off yesterday with his abortion remarks, but this wish list from Gallup makes me wonder:

gallup.png

Leadership, competence, integrity. Rudy. And on the left: soulful isolationist populism. Silky Pony.

They’ve got something in common, in fact: Hillary’s picking up points against both of them.

Update: I gave Zogby too much credit. In New Hampshire, CNN has it Rudy 29, McCain 29, Mitt 17.

Update: South Carolinians say Rudy’s “toast” for pro-choice welfare position:

Conservatives and political experts in South Carolina said Giuliani’s moderate stance abortion will hamper his ability to win votes here.

“He’s toast,” said Clemson University political scientist Dave Woodard. “I think it’s going to be really hard for him to overcome this in South Carolina.”

While Republicans in South Carolina oppose abortion by degrees — allowing abortions in certain circumstances, such as a mother’s health, rape or incest — there’s little room on public financing, said Oran Smith, executive director of the Palmetto Family Council, an anti-abortion group.

“That’s usually one of the first things off the list when you talk about things related to abortion,” Smith said.

Update: Take it or leave it, says Rudy. To which the entire southern half of the country says, leave it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

i like that only 12% of democrats look for a leader. its sad that only 10% of either party care if the guy is competent or not. Nice.

lorien1973 on April 5, 2007 at 2:22 PM

Can I get me a hunting license here?

Slublog on April 5, 2007 at 2:22 PM

Wabbit hunting, Slubbo?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=D74Bk3uvGj4

Bad Candy on April 5, 2007 at 2:27 PM

I’m not sure it even matters who wins the New Hampshire primary anymore. Winning sure didn’t help McCain, Buchanan or Tsongas all that much.

Slublog on April 5, 2007 at 2:28 PM

In the GOP nom, its probably less important, but it could give a boost to a second tier guy looking to score the VP chair.

Bad Candy on April 5, 2007 at 2:31 PM

33% of all polls are horsesh*t, 33% of polls are rigged, and 33% of polls state the obvious. 1% are a suprise.

right2bright on April 5, 2007 at 2:33 PM

Well at least he didn’t shoot a lawyer. He’s a successful 2 for 2 as far as I’m concerned.

I also heard that Mitt racked up a total of 7,264 kills on just two hunting trips. Left a trail of death and distruction wherever he went!

I also heard that on his second hunting trip he was hunting for Bin Laden’s!

Zetterson on April 5, 2007 at 2:37 PM

In the GOP nom, its probably less important, but it could give a boost to a second tier guy looking to score the VP chair.

I think you’re right, but I’ve long been a NH primary hater. Especially after volunteering there in 2000. It was miserable.

But I did get to meet Jeff Greenfield, so that was kind of cool.

Slublog on April 5, 2007 at 2:37 PM

Do folks in New Hampshire care that much about the money? Because that’s all that’s really changed for Romney in the past couple of weeks. We just found out that the guy’s campaign is rolling in green (and not the enviro-whacko kind). So NH voters must be really, really impressed by that.

aero on April 5, 2007 at 2:38 PM

Romney is by far our strongest candidate. I’m really not sure why so many of you are reluctant to support him…he really is that sharp and that good. He isn’t your standard snake oil political, and there’s no need to try to find something that’s not there.

Patriot33 on April 5, 2007 at 2:40 PM

The Mormon thing is the big ‘X’ factor for Romney. What effect would that have is the big question. Would people be so squeamish about electing a Mormon that they’d let a socialist into the White House?

And please for the love of God can this not decend into a theological debate about Mormons, please?

Bad Candy on April 5, 2007 at 2:47 PM

Mormons?

Oh, they’re a big cult.

Kidding.

To answer your question, Patriot33, I think a lot of it has to do with calculation. I’ve talked to a lot of people that seem to believe much of what Romney presents to the public is a calculated public image, not a real person.

Personally, I don’t believe that. When he was governor of MA, he’d often go on Howie Carr’s radio show and was funny, engaging and seemed extremely intelligent. He’s definitely one of the candidates I’m considering.

Slublog on April 5, 2007 at 2:53 PM

Many of the Catholic blogs have written off Giuliani because of his support of public funds for abortion. Also it is being reported that Giuliani, despite his promise to appoint constuctivists to the bench, has stated that he would appoint justices that would go either way on Roe. That comment definitely finishes him for Catholics.

januarius on April 5, 2007 at 2:55 PM

Romney and Giuliani in a race to the bottom here or what?

bj1126 on April 5, 2007 at 2:56 PM

Well pat33, Romney doesn’t help himself when he pretends he’s Mr. Big Game Hunter(make sure you where a pith helmet when you say that), when he’s only been on two hunts evah, and one was a fenced in bird hunt.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4689235.html

Bad Candy on April 5, 2007 at 2:57 PM

Speaking as someone who IS in NH, yeah…we care about the money. In fact, we care about it all.

All this polling really has me scratching my head because SO many people are turned off to McCain around here. Partly because of age and partly because of his stance on illegal immigration/amnesty. This isn’t the Johnny Mac of 2000 and it’s not going to be.

Lastly, I’d love to know who the heck these organizations are polling in New Hampshire because it doesn’t seem all that accurate to me. The UNH/CNN/WMUR poll seems a little closer to the true sentiment around here, but time will tell.

ConBlog_NH on April 5, 2007 at 2:58 PM

Plus he isn’t backing away from Masschusetts gun-grabby policies, or Assault Weapons Bans. Not smart.

Bad Candy on April 5, 2007 at 2:59 PM

And please for the love of God can this not decend into a theological debate about Mormons, please?

Bad Candy on April 5, 2007 at 2:47 PM

Why bring it up then? Hey, did you know that Barack Obama’s middle name is Hussein? No, really. I’m so cereal.

Romney is by far our strongest candidate. I’m really not sure why so many of you are reluctant to support him…

Patriot33 on April 5, 2007 at 2:40 PM

They will. Romney is playing his hand aggressive conservative. Keeping the money for the primaries, hitting the early primary states hard. He’s building up steam, allowing the early press to blow where it wants, not trying to force anything except those things he can control.

Giuliani is erratic, moving in fits and starts. McCain is counting on the media to put him into power. Thompson has no money and is likely presenting himself as Veep material. Romney is the only candidate to my mind that is working at a steady pace, aggressively grabing ground when he can and not over-extending himself. Basically, he’s the only guy in the race behaving like a good businessman because, well, he’s the only businessman in the race.

Expect the rumble around the end of the year with the 13-inch punch somewhere in Feb. ’08.

spmat on April 5, 2007 at 3:08 PM

Take it or leave it, says Rudy. To which the entire southern half of the country says, leave it.

I wouldn’t be so sure. He visited Florida recently, and getting out of his car, he was swarmed by supporters, who know very well his positions.

Besides that, however, that other poll you posted about 1/2 hour ago, puts honesty/straightforwardness at 30%, and family values at 8%. He’s being honest. So, which is it that’s more important? The poll you posted said honesty.

amerpundit on April 5, 2007 at 3:12 PM

I found a great old video of the Krazy Kucinich, just go to youtube and search “bugs bunny falling hare” The little Gremlin does a perfect Krazy Kucinich impersonation!!!

bobeast on April 5, 2007 at 3:14 PM

Change my above post: constuctivists constructionists

Mixed up a liberal education term with the legal term. The thing about Giuliani promising to appoint judges who go either way on Roe was reported on Laura Ingraham.

He is finished. If Giuliani still manages to get the nomination, hello third party candidate and President Clinton.

januarius on April 5, 2007 at 3:15 PM

It has been several hours, where is the new poll?

right2bright on April 5, 2007 at 3:19 PM

He is finished. If Giuliani still manages to get the nomination, hello third party candidate and President Clinton.

I’m not being sarcastic, but if he gets the nomination, why would Clinton, or a 3rd-party candidate be the one left? It’s about the number of electoral votes, not popular ones.

amerpundit on April 5, 2007 at 3:23 PM

I’ll leave it. Thanks Rudy. Why vote democrat lite, if I can get the whole package with hillary?

lorien1973 on April 5, 2007 at 3:24 PM

spmat at 3:08

Why bring it up then? Hey, did you know that Barack Obama’s middle name is Hussein? No, really. I’m so cereal.

I didn’t bring up any theological issue, I brought up the political issue which is a different can ‘o worms, the theological merits of Mormonism bear no importance on the political implications, they’re two different debates.

It seems on this board alotta times that the mere mention of Mormons automatically dredges up a a long-ass, drawn out, theological debate with mile long biblical and scholars quotes and anger, so I’m asking we bypass it is all. And I’m tired of the tired of the stupid “hussein” thing too because its the same general crap, so yeah,super serial.

Bad Candy on April 5, 2007 at 3:25 PM

He is finished. If Giuliani still manages to get the nomination, hello third party candidate and President Clinton.

I’m not being sarcastic, but if he gets the nomination, why would Clinton, or a 3rd-party candidate be the one left? It’s about the number of electoral votes, not popular ones.

amerpundit on April 5, 2007 at 3:23 PM

Nah, he’s saying that some conservative will run 3rd party and get strong support, and the split will open the doors for Hillary’s coronation. Think TR, Taft and Wilson.

Bad Candy on April 5, 2007 at 3:27 PM

Hey, at least Rudy isn’t suing a pro-life group for having the audacity to criticize him.

Not trying to minimize the foolishness of Rudy’s position, but that story makes it a heck of a lot tougher for McCain to stake out the pro-life high ground. Sure, he’s pro-life – he just doesn’t want anyone to talk about it.

Slublog on April 5, 2007 at 3:27 PM

The real ironic thing here is that his remarks about hunting also won’t endear him to that portion of his co-religionists who see hunting solely for sport (solely, mind you, as in “I don’t need the meat: I just like killing things”) to be a rather bad thing.

Confession: I’m more or less in that camp (more, since I don’t hunt; less, because I love reading Peter Hathaway Capstick’s books about big game hunting), but since I couldn’t care less about other people hunting, the reason I’m giving a demerit to Romney and giving a corresponding merit to Giuliani (McCain gets nothing) is because I HATE to see one of ours pull a John Kerry.

“Been a hunter all my life,” my Mormon ass. Hey: Grace Slick was in the audience at a couple of gigs I played in Malibu a few years ago, but I ain’t gonna say she’s a friend because of it.

ccwbass on April 5, 2007 at 3:30 PM

Yeah that ‘love me or leave me’ attitude gonna really help you…he oughta lose the primary for his political ineptness alone for that bit of stupidity.

Bad Candy on April 5, 2007 at 3:31 PM

Update: Take it or leave it, says Rudy. To which the entire southern half of the country says, leave it.

This was as dumb a move as Walter Mondale’s promise to raise taxes.

It was one thing to be pro-choice in the Republican party, but Rudy has now effectively told pro-lifers to f— off.

Mitt could win by default the way things are going (assuming Fred doesn’t jump in, which I hope he does).

thirteen28 on April 5, 2007 at 3:45 PM

Thanks Rudy. Why vote democrat lite, if I can get the whole package with hillary?
lorien1973 on April 5, 2007 at 3:24 PM

Because with WholePackageHillary, when it comes to the GWOT, you’ll have someone whose Prime Directive is now, and always has been, “How am I going to look coming out of this?”

eeyore on April 5, 2007 at 3:54 PM

It’s not just “social-cons” who should avoid Rudy. Rudy wants the government to pay for these abortions. Add that to his opposition to welfare reform and the “fiscal-cons” should be able to get a clue about this guy as well.

Perchant on April 5, 2007 at 3:59 PM

I don’t see Giuliani’s position as pro-choice. I see him as looking to the executive branch as executing the law and like it or not that is the law right now. His personal opinion and opinion on judges as well as states rights regarding abortion give me a different take on it beyond “HOLY CRAP HE WANTS PUBLIC FUNDED ABORTIONS!”.

bj1126 on April 5, 2007 at 4:10 PM

It was one thing to be pro-choice in the Republican party, but Rudy has now effectively told pro-lifers to f— off.

IMO, this is something they should be told early and often. It’s precious that pro-lifers imagine that they’re still relevant to the national political conversation, when the only real power they have is to ensure that the Republican Party nominee is someone who’ll get absolutely crucified in the general election by a center-left Dem.

Centerfire on April 5, 2007 at 4:40 PM

IMO, this is something they should be told early and often. It’s precious that pro-lifers imagine that they’re still relevant to the national political conversation, when the only real power they have is to ensure that the Republican Party nominee is someone who’ll get absolutely crucified in the general election by a center-left Dem.

Centerfire on April 5, 2007 at 4:40 PM

Yeah, like the way Reagan (pro-lifer) got crucified in ’80 and ’84, Bush I (pro-lifer) got crucified in ’88, and Bush II (pro-lifer) got crucified in ’00 and ’04.

Yes, my goodness, we must support Rudy who has taken a position on abortion that is to the left of even Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, none of whom has come out in favor of publically funding abortion. Yes, Republicans must nominate somone like that, lest they be crushed in the general election.

Color me scared.

thirteen28 on April 5, 2007 at 4:50 PM

… Start the countdown. Rudy has, what, 11 hours left according to the Clinton model? 11 more hours before this is permanently in the meme and there’s no way to fix it.

I hope (though I don’t suspect) that this is some kind of egregious fumble or something and that he’ll come out with “I really meant … of course I wouldn’t use your money to kill babies.”

Lehosh on April 5, 2007 at 4:54 PM

Reagan ran against Carter and Mondale. Bush I ran against Dukakis and Clinton. Bush II ran against Gore and Kerry. Guess which one of those six was the center-left Dem? Hint: he was president for eight years.

And let’s also note that Bush II’s election and re-election — where both times he barely managed to squeak past the biggest tool in the Democratic shed — hardly argue for the proposition that pro-lifers are driving the national conversation.

Centerfire on April 5, 2007 at 5:02 PM

I’ve talked to a lot of people that seem to believe much of what Romney presents to the public is a calculated public image, not a real person.

As opposed to who, Slu? Honest to gaia some of you guys make me want to gouge my eyes out. Tell me a politician who wasn’t calculating, didn’t massage his poisition, hasn’t “flip flopped”…ever.

I’ve been on the Romney bandwagon for a long time because 1) he can win and 2) that really matters to me. Neither Rudy nor McCain can. Politics is the art of the possible not the mystical ability to wish up the perfect candidate.

JackStraw on April 5, 2007 at 5:05 PM

As soon as I see “Zogby”, my BS meter goes ape$hit!

csdeven on April 5, 2007 at 5:05 PM

Reagan ran against Carter and Mondale. Bush I ran against Dukakis and Clinton. Bush II ran against Gore and Kerry. Guess which one of those six was the center-left Dem? Hint: he was president for eight years.

And let’s also note that Bush II’s election and re-election — where both times he barely managed to squeak past the biggest tool in the Democratic shed — hardly argue for the proposition that pro-lifers are driving the national conversation.

Centerfire on April 5, 2007 at 5:02 PM

And by the same token, those election results from 80, 84, 88, 00, and 04 demonstrate that the pro-choice position isn’t driving the national conversation either.

The Republicans have won running as the pro-life party, the democrats have won as the pro-choice party. Conversely, neither party has won by taking the opposite position, and Republicans certainly aren’t going to win by nominating a candidate that within the last 24 hours has endorsed the idea of publically funding abortions.

And telling the pro-life wing of the Republican party (read: a solid majority of Republicans) to f— off so that you can appease the center-left during primary season is about as politically stupid a move as they come.

thirteen28 on April 5, 2007 at 5:18 PM

I don’t live in the South, and I’m saying leave it to Rudy. He’s right there with Johnny Mac now, another dead candidate walking.

Over the horizon comes a man named Fred…

jaleach on April 5, 2007 at 5:25 PM

And telling the pro-life wing of the Republican party (read: a solid majority of Republicans) to f— off so that you can appease the center-left during primary season is about as politically stupid a move as they come.

Actually I’m telling the pro-life wing of the Republican party to f- off so as to attract the moderates who’ll eventually decide the general election. That “solid majority of Republicans” has nowhere else to go except stay home or stand behind an unapologetically pro-life but thoroughly unelectable retard like Brownback, and if they do that then, when a Dem wins the White House as a result, they lose on all of their issues rather than just this one.

The national argument about abortion is over. They lost. In the immortal words of Skippy Moulitsas, “Screw ’em.”

Centerfire on April 5, 2007 at 6:07 PM

Actually I’m telling the pro-life wing of the Republican party to f- off so as to attract the moderates who’ll eventually decide the general election.

Exactly what I said you were doing – appeasing the center left. However, Rudy’s position on abortion can’t even be called center-left anymore – it’s hard, hard left.

That “solid majority of Republicans” has nowhere else to go except stay home or stand behind an unapologetically pro-life but thoroughly unelectable retard like Brownback, and if they do that then, when a Dem wins the White House as a result, they lose on all of their issues rather than just this one.

Or, they could nominate someone else. But nominating a liberal like Rudy will give the solid majority of Republicans, who you would stupidly take for granted, no choice but to stay home.

After all, what’s the difference when Rudy is further to the left on the abortion issue than Hillary, has no respect for the right to bear arms (a constitutional right that is explicitly stated therein, unlike the judicially created “right” to abortion) and is pro-illegal immigration (as evidenced by his sanctuary city policies while NYC mayor).

Hell, I can’t stand John McVain, but I’d take him over Rudy any day. At least he conservative on some positions. Rudy is indistinguishable or worse than Hillary on three key conservative positions: abortion, gun rights, and border security.

The national argument about abortion is over. They lost. In the immortal words of Skippy Moulitsas, “Screw ‘em.”

Centerfire on April 5, 2007 at 6:07 PM

When you start quoting Kos to suppoort your argument, you are (pardon the pun) a lost cause. You might as well go over to the left now, since you are already in essence supporting a left-winger for president anyway.

thirteen28 on April 5, 2007 at 6:31 PM

Hewitt just said thatyou have to do mushrooms to believe a Zogby poll.

Stephen M on April 5, 2007 at 6:32 PM

Oh, this is going to be such a fun primary season.

Slublog on April 5, 2007 at 6:36 PM

I would also add, centerfire, that the time to start courting moderates is after you have the nomination. McVain tried to court them in the primary season in ’00 (and other have before him) … tell me how they did in getting the nomination.

thirteen28 on April 5, 2007 at 6:38 PM

Someone get Centerfire a helmet and a pudding cup. Moderates don’t do you a bit of good without the pro-life people, in your political bubble scenario, sure, but this is reality, that sword is double edged, and you lose reliable voters for wishy washy ones. And do I need to remind you that most people are in favor of certain forms of abortion restriction, things like partial birth bans and later abortions? It’d be easy to pretend that the pro-life people are some crackpot fringe, but aren’t, they’re a major part of the population, and you’ll never change that. The GOP argument over abortion is over. You lost, Screw you.

Bad Candy on April 5, 2007 at 6:38 PM

I would also add, centerfire, that the time to start courting moderates is after you have the nomination. McVain tried to court them in the primary season in ‘00 (and other have before him) … tell me how they did in getting the nomination.

Actually, given his machinations to change the rules in a number of states in 2000 and again this year to allow independents to vote in a party primary, he’s still counting on them.

Slublog on April 5, 2007 at 6:41 PM

The national argument about abortion is over. They lost. In the immortal words of Skippy Moulitsas, “Screw ‘em.”

Centerfire on April 5, 2007 at 6:07 PM

Rudy hasn’t destroyed his chances in the primary. He’s destroyed his chances in the general. If you think that a Republican can get elected without the pro-life base, you’re are sadly, sadly mistaken.

As I’ve said before, the last Republican President that was this stridently pro-choice wasn’t elected. You’re basically saying that a Republican can win without the South, which is so ignorant as to be almost quaint.

With this kind of position, Rudy has guaranteed a viable 3rd party candidate in the general. No pro-lifer will ever believe him now that he’ll appoint strict constructionists to the bench. His flank was already weak on that issue. Now it’s just a gaping wound.

Pure idiocy, IMO. That dog won’t hunt.

spmat on April 5, 2007 at 6:42 PM

To be quite frank, I wouldn’t vote for a 3rd party candidate, but I wouldn’t blame the pro-lifers one bit if they did. Rudy’s gonna crack the Republican party wide open for the sake of his prideful intransigence.

Stupid stupid stupid stupid.

spmat on April 5, 2007 at 6:48 PM

Guess which one of those six was the center-left Dem? Hint: he was president for eight years.

Centerfire on April 5, 2007 at 5:02 PM

Guess which one never came close to a clean majority of votes? Hint: He got impeached.

Thanks for making my point about the inevitability of a viable 3rd party in the general should Rudy take the nomination, by the way.

spmat on April 5, 2007 at 6:53 PM

Rudy is a gun grabber.

That’s the end of that story.

JackM on April 5, 2007 at 6:55 PM

To be quite frank, I wouldn’t vote for a 3rd party candidate, but I wouldn’t blame the pro-lifers one bit if they did.

I would. To do so would lead to a Democrat presidency and the total loss of their influence. If they supported the party while disagreeing with its candidate, they would still be able to have some say in keeping pro-life causes in the party platform.

If they are spoilers and cause the Republicans to lose the presidency, it would be game over for them, politically. They would have no party and no way to influence policy other than through a few select political figures.

A third party spoiler is a bad, bad idea.

Slublog on April 5, 2007 at 6:58 PM

The important thing about the early primaries is that it will create a roll. Imagine if Rudy had always been pro-life? He would have it locked up. Too bad. I liked him except for that believe it or not.

Bad Candy,

I said early on that I liked Mitt, but I was shocked at the reaction I was getting from people I knew that thought Mormonism was a cult. It made me seriously think that Mitt couldn’t overcome that. I said it a long time ago. I don’t agree with that, but there it is.

Rightwingsparkle on April 5, 2007 at 7:10 PM

If they are spoilers and cause the Republicans to lose the presidency, it would be game over for them, politically. They would have no party and no way to influence policy other than through a few select political figures.

A third party spoiler is a bad, bad idea.

Slublog on April 5, 2007 at 6:58 PM

On this you are right – it would hurt politically in the long-term. But in the short term, I can at least understand the impulse.

Nevertheless, this underscores the need to nominate someone who is, at least, not hostile to pro-lifers or outright stupid on the position as Rudy is showing himself to be.

thirteen28 on April 5, 2007 at 7:11 PM

On this you are right – it would hurt politically in the long-term. But in the short term, I can at least understand the impulse.

Nevertheless, this underscores the need to nominate someone who is, at least, not hostile to pro-lifers or outright stupid on the position as Rudy is showing himself to be.

Haha. I do agree with that. I just don’t want to see the pro-life issue get sidelined becuase 10% of those who agree with it decide to sit out “on principle.” Political parties are vindictive beasts when they lose, and if pro-lifers are the ones who cause that loss, then it’s not going to be a happy time.

Slublog on April 5, 2007 at 7:13 PM

Guys,

Did you think I was insisting that McCain would win the nomination Just because I liked him? It wasn’t just that. This is politics. McCain has been in this game a long time. He knows how to play it. I don’t see this going any other way. Like I said many times, you want me to give you a reason to vote for him in the general election? I will. I will when the time comes.

Rightwingsparkle on April 5, 2007 at 7:13 PM

I would. To do so would lead to a Democrat presidency and the total loss of their influence. If they supported the party while disagreeing with its candidate, they would still be able to have some say in keeping pro-life causes in the party platform.

Someone said earlier, I think in the other Rudy thread trying to make the case that the pro-life position is politically dead, that we’ve had a committed pro-life President in office for nearly 8 years and there’s been very little progress on that front. Given what Rudy is saying now, there’s even less of a chance of progress being made should he be elected. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if any and all executive orders regarding embryonic stem cell research would be summarily reversed should he be elected.

Given the choice between one candidate that guarantees that he’ll do exactly what you hate, another candidate that guarantees to do exactly what you hate and a third candidate that guarantees to do exactly what you believe is most important, which would you chose? The argument of political pragmatism only holds water if you actually had some chance of getting what you wanted.

If Rudy’s using language like this in the primary, do you actually think he’ll listen one iota to their concerns even in the general, forget about after he’s elected?

spmat on April 5, 2007 at 7:15 PM

McCain has been in this game a long time. He knows how to play it. I don’t see this going any other way.

Suing pro-lifers doesn’t seem an effective way to play the game, honestly. What happens if he wins and a pro-life organization goes under because of his stupid lawsuit?

Slublog on April 5, 2007 at 7:20 PM

Guys,

Did you think I was insisting that McCain would win the nomination Just because I liked him? It wasn’t just that. This is politics. McCain has been in this game a long time. He knows how to play it. I don’t see this going any other way. Like I said many times, you want me to give you a reason to vote for him in the general election? I will. I will when the time comes.

Rightwingsparkle on April 5, 2007 at 7:13 PM

He didn’t play it that well in ’00 when he ran towards the center during the primaries. Pretty big strategic mistake, although to give him due credit, he’s at least showed some signs of learning from it. Still, considering many of the things he’s done since then and his abhorrent stand on closing the borders, he’s only marginally better than Rudy. I’d vote for McVain over any democrat, but I can’t vote for him in the primary anymore than I could vote for Guliani.

But the real underlying point to all of this for me is … please, Fred … run … please!

thirteen28 on April 5, 2007 at 7:21 PM

Someone said earlier, I think in the other Rudy thread trying to make the case that the pro-life position is politically dead, that we’ve had a committed pro-life President in office for nearly 8 years and there’s been very little progress on that front. Given what Rudy is saying now, there’s even less of a chance of progress being made should he be elected. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if any and all executive orders regarding embryonic stem cell research would be summarily reversed should he be elected.

I understand that, which is why I believe focusing on politics alone is the wrong way to go about this. I think crisis pregnancy centers and organizations like them are the most effective way to further the cause – one person at a time. Meet the needs.

The way to change the law is to change the population. If the pro-life movement had focused on that in recent decades rather than the politics, it would have been less polarizing and we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

Slublog on April 5, 2007 at 7:25 PM

Someone said earlier, I think in the other Rudy thread trying to make the case that the pro-life position is politically dead, that we’ve had a committed pro-life President in office for nearly 8 years and there’s been very little progress on that front.

They’ve said the pro-life position was politically dead every election cycle since Roe v. Wade. If that was the case, then Rudy’s comments wouldn’t have registered even a faint blip on the political radar screen.

thirteen28 on April 5, 2007 at 7:25 PM

President in office for nearly 8 years and there’s been very little progress on that front

This is simply not true. I won’t go into a long repeat that I did elsewhere here, but Bush signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. He signed The Unborn Victims Act. He signed The Born Alive Act. And he actively encouraged states to pass parental consent laws. These are NO SMALL THINGS. This is more than we have been able to do in decades. Don’t underestimate what Bush has done and what a future President can do on this front.

Rightwingsparkle on April 5, 2007 at 7:25 PM

Last night I spent an hour on Mitt Romney’s website learning about his stance on issues. I agree with him on just about every issue and I was amazed by his accomplishments of saving the 2002 Winter Olympics and saving Massachusetts from impending bankruptcy. The man has a clear vision and a strong set of values. Whether or not he could be as successful with the federal deficit remains to be seen. I have not been impressed with any of the other Republican hopefuls. I believe Romney is on the way up and will be the man to beat.

calirighty on April 5, 2007 at 7:27 PM

Don’t underestimate what Bush has done and what a future President can do on this front.

Not to mention the appointments of Alito and Roberts.

nico on April 5, 2007 at 7:28 PM

I’m not saying that Bush hasn’t made progress. I was using someone else’s arguments to that effect to show the depth of the problem with Rudy’s intransigence among the pro-life block. A number of people have described his position on abortion and the judiciary as “incoherent.”

It would not be a stretch for pro-lifers to expect a bait and switch on originalism, given that Rudy isn’t even trying to bait at all during the primary. Understand that three of the 5 left-leaning pro-RvW justices on the SCOTUS were appointed by Republicans. The most activist of which, JPS, was appointed by, you guessed it, Gerald Ford, the last pro-choice (unelected) Republican President, and the other two were appointed by pro-life Republicans (Souter and Kennedy). Heck, Bush nearly rammed a complete blanko on us in Miers.

Rudy is responding to the hole he’s in with furious shovel-fu. That’s just stupid.

spmat on April 5, 2007 at 7:47 PM

Rudy is responding to the hole he’s in with furious shovel-fu. That’s just stupid.

Heh. I’ve got to remember that line.

Slublog on April 5, 2007 at 7:52 PM

To be quite frank, I wouldn’t vote for a 3rd party candidate, but I wouldn’t blame the pro-lifers one bit if they did. Rudy’s gonna crack the Republican party wide open for the sake of his prideful intransigence.

You say this like it’s a bad thing.

Look, social-cons have three options:

(1) Support a candidate who, while unpalatable to them on so-called “life issues”, nonetheless can attract enough moderates to win in the general election.

(2) Support an uncompromising pro-lifer who’ll get creamed in the general election.

(3) Support a third-party candidate or sit out the election, and completely marginalize themselves.

Pro-lifers need to ask themselves if their principles are worth several years of Democratic Party rule, and/or the further diminuition of their political influence. If the answer to that question is “yes”, then I for one welcome their speedy departure from the Republican Party, because it doesn’t need political “allies” who’ll try to hold it hostage to their own narrow interests.

If, on the other hand, the answer to the question is “no”, then they should quit their bitching and start making some pragmatic political calculations, beginning with the realization that the people Republicans need to attract in order to win the general election probably have more in common with Giuliani on so-called “life issues” than they do with Kentucky-fried God-botherers.

Centerfire on April 5, 2007 at 7:55 PM

Heck, Bush nearly rammed a complete blanko on us in Miers.

True. But had the commonsense God gave a goat to back down and give us Alito.

nico on April 5, 2007 at 7:56 PM

Last night I spent an hour on Mitt Romney’s website learning about his stance on issues. I agree with him on just about every issue and I was amazed by his accomplishments of saving the 2002 Winter Olympics and saving Massachusetts from impending bankruptcy. The man has a clear vision and a strong set of values. Whether or not he could be as successful with the federal deficit remains to be seen. I have not been impressed with any of the other Republican hopefuls. I believe Romney is on the way up and will be the man to beat.

Completely Agree.

lan astaslem on April 5, 2007 at 9:02 PM

To those who like to play the Republican party loyalty card in defense of Rudy and / or McCain I would remind you that loyalty is a two way street. I sure haven’t felt much loyalty coming from the GOP for the last 6 years as a small government fiscal conservative. I also haven’t felt much loyalty from the GOP as someone up to his neck in illegal aliens in a suddenly crime ridden neighborhood fueled by a willfull disregard for our nations immigration laws. I didn’t feel the love when our supposidely conservative SCOTUS decided the government could take my property and give it to a Spanish company to build a mega private highway for Mexican trucks and I’m not feeling any love watching my neighbors jobs being shipped overseas, flat salaries for the last 6 years.

I only have one voice and one vote. To me the issues of abortion, guns and illegal immigration are very important so tell me again why I should vote for someone who is to the left or the same as Hillary and Obama on these issues.

Buzzy on April 5, 2007 at 10:00 PM

Buzzy, the SCOTUS isn’t conservative, at least not in an originalist sense. It’s cleanly 5-4 activist. Kennedy, RBG, and Breyer have all gone on record as supporting using foreign law in decisions. That leaves only JPS, who generally held to be the most liberal of the justices, and Souter, who is a “fairly reliable liberal vote.”

Even beyond that, Scalia has been known at times to go off the originalist reservation when he has an itch to scratch. Without sufficient knowledge of Alito and Roberts’s habits, the only true-blue originalist on the court is Thomas, as can be seen from his dissenting opinion in the case linked above.

spmat on April 5, 2007 at 10:38 PM

Sit down Rudy, your 15 minutes are up

John, you are in your 13th minute, start becoming conservative or find the lazy boy recliner

EricPWJohnson on April 6, 2007 at 12:09 PM

No Rudy, not now, not ever! We must do our responsibility and keep liberal republicans away from the nomination. Rudy makes a good private citizen, keep him there, or let him run for senator in his liberal state, but no way should he lead this country!

paulsur on April 6, 2007 at 12:26 PM

Let’s be fair about this. I am not God, I don’t have the omnipotency to know where life begins or a soul develops or whatever with that. For me, that whole abortion thing has to be a personal choice, unless you are God.
That said, my beef with Rudy, and McCain is arguably a one issue beef, but it is so woven into the fabric of our society, that it affects all of our lives every single day, and they are both on the wrong side.
I would just love to see statistics on crimes committed by illegal aliens, compared to crimes commited by legal immigrants, or compared to the population as a whole.
I would love to see the percentage of illegal aliens partaking of the public dole, as compared to the population as a whole.

paulsur on April 6, 2007 at 12:40 PM

Dear Rudy,

When you are seeing that all my Civil Rights are underwritten by the AMERICAN TAXPAYER…would you put me down for a handmade Weatherby MARK XXII? Super!

Viva la Second Amendment!

Gratefully yours,

C. Jane Stewart

seejanemom on April 6, 2007 at 12:48 PM

I would just love to see statistics on crimes committed by illegal aliens, compared to crimes commited by legal immigrants, or compared to the population as a whole.
I would love to see the percentage of illegal aliens partaking of the public dole, as compared to the population as a whole.

paulsur on April 6, 2007 at 12:40 PM

You need yo head over to SNIPER’S PLACE at .762justice he takes perverse pleasure in compiling and publicizing those VERY STATS!

seejanemom on April 6, 2007 at 1:39 PM

(2) Support an uncompromising pro-lifer who’ll get creamed in the general election.

When was the last time an uncompromising pro-lifer got creamed in the general election? Bush I and Dole both lost, but they hardly got creamed. In fact, in the last 7 presidential elections, the uncompromising pro-lifer is 5-2 over the pro-choicer.

In other words, your analysis sucks.

If, on the other hand, the answer to the question is “no”, then they should quit their bitching and start making some pragmatic political calculations, beginning with the realization that the people Republicans need to attract in order to win the general election probably have more in common with Giuliani on so-called “life issues” than they do with Kentucky-fried God-botherers.

Centerfire on April 5, 2007 at 7:55 PM

I honestly think you’d be more comfortable over at Amanda Marcotte’s blog. And no, those arent’t the people republicans need to attact.

thirteen28 on April 6, 2007 at 5:59 PM

(2) Support an uncompromising pro-lifer who’ll get creamed in the general election.

In the last 7 general elections, the uncompromising pro-lifer is 5-2 over the uncompromising pro-choicer.

Translation: your political analysis sucks.

… beginning with the realization that the people Republicans need to attract in order to win the general election probably have more in common with Giuliani on so-called “life issues” than they do with Kentucky-fried God-botherers.
Centerfire on April 5, 2007 at 7:55 PM

Honestly, you really belong over at Amanda Marcotte’s blog, they are much more your type of people. And no, those aren’t the ones republicans need to attract, as the 5-2 record attests to.

thirteen28 on April 6, 2007 at 6:06 PM