Rudy Giuliani is slipping. And unless there’s a major new attack on U.S. soil sometime soon, the rationale for his candidacy in the GOP presidential primary dissipates to practically nothing. And I’m not just talking about among social conservatives. Gun rights conservatives, civil libertarians and anti-illegal immigration voters have major problems with the party’s front-runner. This could be Dead Candidate Walking.
Mitt Romney is treading water. While he’s not losing ground, he’s not gaining ground either. Which in politics means you’re losing ground. Romney’s Mormon speech, while important and probably necessary for his campaign, hasn’t resulted in many changed minds, let alone “big mo’.” The anti-Mormon prejudice in the Bible belt could still be his undoing. How…un-American. But it is what it is.
John McCain missed his shot in 2000. Time has passed him by. So have his donors. And too many Republican primary voters will never forgive him for the anti-free speech McCain-Feingold boondoggle. Stick a fork in him.
Mike Huckabee is rising at the reported expense of Fred Thompson. But Huck will soon prove to be a shooting star. He rose fast and furious, but will eventually flame out and fall unceremoniously back to the ground. He doesn’t have the money for the long haul and his true record and positions on issues are finally being exposed to voters who were initially tricked into thinking he was the real deal. The more Republican voters learn about Mike Huckabee the less there is to like about Mike Huckabee. Democrats aren’t calling him the “Glass Jaw” for nothing. This flash-in-the-pan’s 15 minutes are almost up.
Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter are mired in political quicksand. They’re not going anywhere electorally, but their presence in the race continues to assure that their pet issue of illegal immigration stays front and center. That said, the Republican presidential nomination for them just isn’t in the cards.
Neither is it for Ron Paul, though Sunday’s “Boston Tea Party” online fundraising project could well add several million more dollars to his campaign coffers. Alas, it would take a miracle for Paul to pull off a major upset, though if his enthusiastic online supporters come out from behind their laptops and actually show up to vote, he could do extremely well in New Hampshire and Nevada, maybe even break into a Top Three finish. Alas, Paul’s destiny most likely lies in a third-party run than in snaring the GOP nomination.
Which leaves us with Fred Thompson.
His was the only memorable debate performance in the last and final debate in Iowa this week. His positions on issues are pretty consistent and rock solid with a wide array of conservative voters. He’s been endorsed by the right-to-life folks and is an ardent state’s righter to boot. Indeed, the great promise of the Thompson candidacy may well start to be realized as others drop off the scope in the early contests. Plus he’ll get back the support that temporarily went over to Huckabee. Slow and steady could still win this race and Fred-Heads might end up backing this year’s “Comeback Kid.”
Or I could be completely wrong.
Posted on December 14th, 2007 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: National
Now way is it going to be Fred…if it is, we don’t stand a chance against any wet diaper democratic challenger. It’s going to be Romny.
All politics are local and Fred is blowing all the locals off; he seems as lazy as has been talked about. Tells people he’ll be there and then doesn’t show. Dashing expectations has a negative effect.
But, if your right, he may make Reagan look energetic!
I think it will be Romney. Fred would make a great VP though.
His complete lack of management experience has been proven by the horrible campaign that he has run. Why would you not want someone that may be the greatest leader/manger that has ever run for Manager in Chief?
As a VP Fred just needs to bring in the southern vote for a northern candidate and not bring anything that would harm the ticket. He is perfect for that.
I just can’t get excited about Romney. He could easily bore the enemy to sleep, and perhaps win a war that way. For my money it has to be either Fred or Paul, and I would prefer Paul. Everybody else is either boring or a non-conservative Republican, which unfortunately, is not an oxymoron.
I thought Fred would ignite the race…but he hasn’t. Huckabee had some good qualities at first, but then more of his positions became known. TBH, about the only thing that is less exciting than the Republican field this year is the Democrat field. Every election cycle the politicians talk about bringing out the young vote. This time the winner will have to bring out the yawn vote.
Chuck –
Your analysis is strikingly similar to one I gave my wife last night. Let me point to one thing, though.
The ev idence that Huckabee is the Republican candidate of the mainstream media is how starkly they have ignored what an awful week The Huckster had. He was called out for urging isolation of AIDS patients, which was always the Attila-the-Hun position on that issue, and was roundly chastised by Ryan White’s mom. He endorsed — again — the position that women should be subservient to their husbands. He was exposed for making stupid comments about Mormons in an interview, and his “aw, shucks, Mitt” apology rang phony because it’s hard to believe that an ordained minister never had a course in comparative religion. A Thompson commercial in Iowa slams his record on illegal immigration. All in all, the week from hell. Best of all was the “apology” Huckabee got from the Thompson campaign for exposing his clearly-unRepublican positions on issues like illegal immigration, taxation, and others.
But did you read any of this in the Washington Post or the New York Times? No — and you won’t. The Huck is their Republican candidate of choice, the straw man who, they believe, can easily be set afire and burned by any Democrat in the fall.
welllll, i sure hope you are wrong. the only viable candidate is romney. let’s hope he american people wake up and see who possesses all qualities to become president.
Romney-Hunter. Dream team!
As far as I am concerned, there are three issues a candidate has to be for to get my vote.
1. Get us out of the ultimate foreign entanglement, the U N.
2. Push for an Enumerated Powers Act. It is in the House right now. But who would have thunk it, the republican leadership (still an oxymoron) is against it. What actually follow the Constitution, what a novel idea.
3. Repeal of the 68 gun control act and abolish the the Jack Booted Thugs (AKA ATF). Remember they brought us Waco and Ruby Ridge.
I believe Ron Paul is the only one who backs these items.
I don’t know why you keep saying that Southerners (you call them “the Bible Belt”) will not vote for a Morman. As a Southerner myself who is very familiar with how Southerners think and act (having been one all my life), I do have not found all that many Southerners who would not consider voting for a Morman semi-conservative over a liberal woman with a very questionably-honest background, or a liberal black man who was raised by an Islamic father and an atheist mother.
Frankly, I think most of the anti-Mormon talk has come from northerners and westerners–not Southerners. We don’t have that many Mormons down here in the South, and what we know about them consists mostly of their going door-to-door in neighborhoods witnessing Or is that the “Watch Tower” folks? Or are they one in the same? I don’t know!
Most Southerners I know believe that Mormons are 1) very dedicated to their religion, 2) very family-oriented, 3) very faithful to their spouses, and 4) tend to have large families, and 5) generally trustworthy because of their traditional beliefs. Having served in the Army with a few Mormons, I know that they wear strange underwear that they call their “garment”, but you can’t really hold that against them!
I frequently talk politics with many of my Southern friends and relatives, and everyone with whom I have personally spoken has told me that Gov. Romney’s “Mormonism” does not affect their vote one way or the other–it is other questionable political acts he has done that make them question his conservativeism. I can guarantee you that the Southerners I know would sooner vote for a Mormon than a Muslim or an atheist, and they would sooner vote for a conservative black than a liberal white, except for the ones who want Big Government to care for them from the cradle to the grave. Most Southerners are an independent lot.
Another thing you need to remember is that Southerners come in all races, all colors, and all religions, although the vast majority are Christians. Southern blacks and Southern whites tend to have more similarities than they do differences–certainly more similarities than we do with, say, New Yorkers or Californians.
Although my above-stated opinions are not in any way a scientific survey, I believe I know more about Southerners than most non-Southerners do, and these are my impressions.
As a last comment, even though I am a Southern Baptist just like Gov. Huckabee, I am supporting Dr. Ron Paul as the Republican candidate. I am more interested in maintaining my individual freedoms, a small Federal government that adheres to its Constitutional limitations, and a national foreign policy that believes in trading and and communicating with other nations while keeping our noses out of their personal business.
It’s ironic that as tough on crime as Rudy was as Mayor of NYC, he doesn’t want to do anything about the steady stream of criminals from the south.
Ron Paul would be a dream for me, but I agree Thompson is more likely, even though I don’t see him overcoming the others you dismissed above.
I think the fact that the Bible belt doesn’t like Romney may endear him to the mainstream media enough to pull out the primary in the end. Huckabee’s their man, but they seem to treat Mitt with a little more respect that most of the other GOP field. Plus he’s a Nor’easter, which puts him closer to their hearts, like Rudy.
He’s not my ideal candidate, but he beats the heck out of Rudy, Mike, or John. Any of those 3 on our ticket against Obama would give me a hard time choosing which is more conservative.
www.teaparty07.com
Ron Paul will be the highest GOP fundraiser for Q4. His message is popular with independents and smart democrats (I know…I know…
) What’s Ann Coulter’s book again? 
I think Dr Paul’s supporters WILL come out from behind their laptops. If he takes third in Iowa and second or first in NH he’ll gain a lot of momentum.
As you said though, there are too many big government, nanny-statist, anti-Constitution Republicans. Right now none of them can settle on a candidate.
With momentum the other candidates don’t have, and the rest of them splitting the base - I think Dr Paul has a better shot than anyone wants to give him credit for. For our country’s sake, I hope he makes it through on the GOP ticket. If not, I will fervently pray he will run 3rd party.
I’m DONE voting for the lesser of two evils. Now that I’ve had a taste of what a true freedom candidate looks like, no WAY will I go back. If he doesn’t get the GOP nom, the GOP can wander in the desert for all I care.
Had to comment on what Martina said.
There will be cries that by voting for Paul as a 3rd party candidate we’re giving the election to the democrats.
If the choice is between Obama and Huckabee, McCain or Rudy I don’t see how handing the election to the Dems makes a heck of a lot of difference. I’ll vote for Paul as an independent and pray that enough others do the same.
YES on the Dream Team–Romney/Hunter. There is a lot of silent support out here for Romney. Anything a Mormon says, can be taken to the bank. Mitt has be very successful in business. Everything Duncan Hunter says is pure 100% Grade A Beef-no fluff. Plus Hunter has been shot at in combat(only McCain can say that) and has years on the HASC. His son is on his 3rd tour in Iraq.
Jack, you obviously have never had any dealings with Mormon Rep. Chris Cannon. Mitt’s word might be good as gold, but Cannon’s isn’t worth a tinker’s damn.
Chuck, I like your thinking. It’s the scenario I’m hoping for. Huck is a Republican Jimmy Carter and I sure hope your right about a shooting star. Fred demonstrated leadership at the debate and great courage taking on the NEA, a very non-politically correct thing to do. He’s conservative in all respects and is passionate about conservative judges. He’s just now getting into full stride and it will be like watching a thoroughbred coming to the finish line! That’s my Christmas wish, anyhow. We have too much at stake to nominate those RINOs.
Huck is indeed the Republican Jimmy Carter. You may be right about Fred, but I don’t see him beating any of the three Dems, particularly Edwards if the “Breck girl” is the nominee after Clinton and Obama kill each other off. Romney is by far the most viable candidate, and would be a far better President (regrdless of a couple of his stands with which I disagree) than any of the Dems, and all of the Repubs with the possible exception of Hunter. I too think Romney-Hunter would be the dream team. Additionally, I fervently hope Hillary doesn’t flame out, because she would be easier to beat than Obama, and far easier than Edwards.
I realize that Duncan Hunter is what we used to call a dark horse candidate, but as a a veteran of lots of elections I have seen many candidates come and go, some I must admit I wish had been elected. This is the case with Duncan Hunter, he’s one I’d like to see elected.
Hunter is a 28 year Reagan Republican Congressman with a pretty solid and outspoken record even when the White House or the Socialist left are dishing out their worst, Duncan Hunter stands his ground. Go to Hunter’s website for direct access to issues, of importance www.gohunter08.com
Based on positions; I am most favorable to Congressman Duncan Hunter over all the rest in the race. He is solid on all the basic issues that matter most to me. I like his positions on Immigration, Troops, Taxes, Trade, Family, and Life and other important issues.
Having met, listened to and researched Congressman Hunter’s background and positions, I have decided to support his candidacy in this Presidential race.
Some of Hunter’s profile for consideration:
* A + National Rifle Association
* 100% Eagle Forum
* 100% National Right to Life
* 92% Lifetime Rating, American Conservative Union
* 100% Concerned Women for America
* 100% Christian Coalition
* 100% Campaign for Working Families
* Veterans Issues count with Duncan Hunter. Hunter is a Vietnam Veteran, having served with the 173 Airborne and 75th Army Rangers, Son of a WW2 Marine and Father of an OIF/OEM Marine.
I found Hunter to be an excellent candidate. It is bothersome that his poll numbers are not high yet, but I am convinced if more knew of him and his positions, they would support him. I am a local precinct captain and an alternate delegate. I will be talking up Hunter’s campaign now through the Caucus and into the 2008 campaign. If he does not make it in the GOP primary process, I may switch my registration to Constitutionalist Party and support who ever they nominate.
Sincerely
Rick Shuster
Sparks, Nevada
rgsjesshuster@charter.net
I think Romney or Gulliani are the only ones capable of beating the Democratic candidate.
Both are moderate enough to attract independent voters.
I like Hunter’s views but he is too obscure to be elected.
Ron Paul is another Goldwater who has solid Conservative principles but would get steamrollered in the national election. like Goldwater was.
Thompson seems to lack the charisma necessary to excite voters. I remember when he chaired a senate sub-committee investigation and the Dems led by John Glenn make him look totally ineffective.
Although I would prefer a solid Conservatiive, I will take a moderate Republican over any Democrat.
I hope you are. Fred Thompson is no more qualified to be President than is Obama. In my view, you _have_ to have been a governor or big-city mayor — have executive experience — to be President.
Every conservative out there should vote that way. There are 3 real conservatives running: Hunter, Thompson, Romney. Tancredo is a one issue candidate. Paul is the most unlikely as he doesn’t really support the military and his positions on taxes, while sounding good, are just not practical or realistic.
If we don’t elect a strong conservative candidate, or if a third party candidate enters the main race, we will be handing the presidency to the Dems, none of whom are even the very least bit conservative in their views.
Stick with conservatives and back them all the way. Discourage third parties and get the vote out for the conservative nominee.
“Oh, we just HAVE to support the ELECTABLE republican candidate”
This argument is the same flail that has been used for the last several elections to force us to vote the anointed “Lesser of two evils” candidate of the party elite.
Each of the last several elections won by an alleged “Conservative” has ushered in a worse level of liberal big government.
Even when we allegedly had control of both houses AND the presidency there was no genuinely conservative agenda enacted, no liberal legislation was repealed.
Quite the opposite.
Actual legislation was virtually indisdinguishable from the liberal agenda, not even at a slower pace.
The executive branch is only one third of our legislative process, we are not choosing a new dictator, or at least we are not supposed to be.
It’s time to dump the liberal “Compassionate conservative”, Neo’s!
No more “Reaching across the isle”, I demand a genuine constitutionalist conservative.
If the Republican party overall cannot support such a candidate I refuse to support a republi-crat “Conservative” sham any longer.
Call me a Paleo-Conservative, I am voting THIS election on principle!
There is no way on earth that I will vote for Gouliani, McPain, the Huckster, etc.
I’m in general agreement with Chuck on this - at least with his assessment of the current situation. The keyword here is “current.” It ain’t over ’til the mass-and-gravitationally-challenged person of indeterminate gender sings.
It seems that in recent weeks there’s been a leveling-off among the major GOP’ers - most oddly, there have emerged a whole lot of people who are seriously confused as to whether this is a campaign for President of the United States or Pastor of the National Church - and are willing to accept Huckabee’s strident leftist politics as long as he’s talking plenty of God. I’d recommend these types contemplate the *difference* between church and state - perhaps then the concept of their *separation* won’t be so rough. And perhaps they’ll no longer be “making a political hobby-horse of their religion,” as Thomas Paine famously told the Quakers.
So the early primaries are indeed a toss-up, but I think ultimately it will be Rudy with the nomination. If it’s Rudy, and if his pick for Veep is sane (Fred Thompson would be ideal, if completely unlikely,) the result in November ‘08 will be a GOP victory by at least a huge margin, probably by a landslide, along with shirttail GOP gains in both houses of Congress.
I don’t like any of the candidates, but I submit Giuliani is the most rational choice.
- Romney is a RINO, basically a repackaged G.W. Bush with a better barber and more polished image. He showed conclusively that he is no defender of individual rights - therefore of Western Civilization - with his statement in this week’s debate about “not losing sleep” over the tax rates of “the rich” (which subject I blogged about a couple days ago.) We got a further glimpse into his intellectual and strategic ineptitude when even McCain had to correct him that the surge was “working, not ‘apparently’ working” in Iraq.
- Fred Thompson was the one I’d expected to be enthusistically supporting last spring - when he did that great ‘back atcha’ video to Michael Moooore on Cuba - but he has shown himself to be all style and no substance. We haven’t heard a solitary peep out of Thompson on any Reaganesque commitment to reducing the size, scope, intrusiveness and expense of government - and likely never will. I don’t even get an indication that Thompson even *believes* leviathan government is a problem. Which blows his “next Reagan” conceit all to hell;
- Paul is easily the closest thing we’ve got to a committed, government-cutting Reaganite. Which makes the disappointment all the more bitter in that his foreign policy is pure leftwing/pacifist lunacy. National defense is the absolute Go-NoGo test for fitness as the President, and Paul fails it miserably, right out of the chute.
A desperately-needed return to strict limits on government is of zero value when you’re a smoking lump of radioactive, carboniferous sludge baked onto the ground beneath you by al-Qaida (or Chinese or Russian) nukes.
- Giuliani has demonstrated a shocking disdain for economic liberty (he’s the one, recall, who engineered the witch-hunts against Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky and dozens of other people - for the heinous crime of …succeeding at the American Dream); He’s got a position against the Second Amendment that appears to be moderated only by the need to appear palatable to GOP voters; He’s just as confused on the illegal immigration problem as the rest of the pack- specifically, the failure to see that the “problem” is the welfare state, not foreigners (see George Reisman’s blog on this) - which makes it a “push” on that issue.
Giuliani, however, is the one GOP candidate with the broadest cross-partisan appeal - which means he is a virtual lockout to any of the Democrat-Socialist candidates in the general election - assuming no catastrophic screw-ups.
He’s solid where it’s crucial that any President must be solid - national defense in time of crisis.
We can rest assured that a Giuliani Admin will nominate sane, Constitutionalist candidates for the expected SCotUS vacancies with the probable retirements of Kennedy, Ginsberg and Souter. Those judges, recall - as well as the gobs of vacancies remaining in lower courts, which a Demo-Socialist President would load up with 9th Circus loons - are people who influence American law, for better or for worse, for *decades.*
I just finished reading Reason magazine’s Dec. ‘07 cover story on Rudy - posted online at http://www.reason.com/news/show/123019.html - and it actually solidified my decision to back him, which is odd given that the article is supposed to be a critique. The guy is a mixed bag and a loose cannon, but he’s clearly the best choice we’re left with.
Finally, there’s the added, peripheral bonus of the psychological dig that a Giuliani Presidency represents against Islamofascism. The prime NYC hero of 9/11, right in-your-face, Osama. That’s just too good to pass up.
Bottom line: all of the Presidential candidates, of all Parties, suck.
Giuliani sucks a little bit less.
A dismal state of affairs, but for the moment we’re fresh out of Reagans and the opposition party is overrun with frothing maniacs who will get us all killed. Losing is not an option.
“We can rest assured that a Giuliani Admin will nominate sane, Constitutionalist candidates for the expected SCotUS vacancies with the probable retirements of Kennedy, Ginsberg and Souter.”
I had to read the above more than once, in order to determine that it is not missing a sarcasm tag.
The same cross-dressing “Gay Pride” parade leading, sanctuary city supporting, gun banning, U.N. loving, liberal who’s only claims to fame are once having been mayor of NYC, and taking credit for other’s brave work after 9/11?
That’s the guy we are to believe is going to make conservative appointments to the SCotUS?
I shudder to think of Gouliani ever making any court appointments, at any level.
So far as I can see, the only real difference between Gouliani ands the Beast is that he is more likely to wear a dress in public!
Ahh, Richard: So can we assume you’d prefer Hillary Clinton or Barack
O’BrienObama - because you lack a sense of humor? And of context? The only item you mention in your litany that has any weight as criticism is “gun banning.” Which I covered, ‘case you missed it. Can you honestly say that Giuliani is any worse on that score than any other of the dismal GOP crop? Ok, Paul, definitely, but - I…covered that too.Secondly, I didn’t say I expected Giuliani to make “conservative” appointments to the Court, I said “Constitutionalist” appointments. There’s a difference. Again, we are voting here for President of the United States, not Pastor of the National Church.
- The presence of Gays might be offensive to the religious, but they “neither pick my pocket nor break my leg.” I defy you or anyone else to present a valid, logical argument for appointing Supreme Court Justices that would deny the right of people to do whatever the hell they want in their own bedrooms. That’s not the kind of America I’d want, and not the kind of America the Republican Party has ever stood for. I have no particular affinity for homosexuality, but the essence of morality is choice, and the essence of ethics is persuasion, not force. You need to do some woodshedding on the concept of individual rights, I think;
- The illegal immigration “problem” is, again, not a problem caused by “sanctuary cities” but rather by thousands of “sanctuary welfare programs.” I invite you to read economist George Reisman’s article “Immigration Plus Welfare State Equal Police State” Eliminate the lure of free cash, and the only people who will want to come here are honest people looking to make a better life for themselves by productive work - in short, the kind of people who built this country;
- The International Tyrants’ Day Care Center, Manhattan Campus, a.k.a. the “UN,” is a festering sewer that will not change in status nor in location unless someone is elected who is willing to advocate openly the withdrawal of the USA from that sewer and the expulsion of it from American soil. So far none of the candidates has, or likely ever will, even thought of such a thing. Maybe Paul, but… Which means Giuliani is no better and no worse than the others;
- As for “taking credit for other’s[sic] brave work after 9/11,” let me ask a simple question: Were you down at Ground Zero shoveling human hamburger after the attack? Giuliani was, immediately. Would you prefer someone like Kathleen Blanco, whose response to crisis was to cry, then whine at the President for failing to uncork Federal loot fast enough? Or perhaps N.O. Mayor Nagin, whose response to crisis was to send jackbooted thugs door to door to confiscate people’s weapons just when they most needed them? I think you might want to revise your slander against Giuliani.
Again, I’m not even particularly thrilled with the man, but I’m a big fan of reason, of perspective, and most of all justice - which means I believe in giving people their due. Giuliani’s actions after 9/11 were courageous, even heroic, as was his pointed rejection of that $10 Million check from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. That is called “principle.”
Lastly, I notice that you’ve taken the wimpy way out: Lots of talk about who you won’t vote for, but nicely sidestepping the heavy lifting of identifying who you will vote for, and of constructing an argument as to why.
We’re all waiting…….
………….
………………………
………………………………………………….