Category — Rudy Giuliani

Tennessee: Thompson Leads Clinton But Clinton Leads Giuliani, Romney

If former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson is the Republican nominee in 2008, the Volunteer State is likely to cast its Electoral College votes for the home town boy. A Rasmussen Reports statewide survey finds that Thompson leads Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton by fifteen percentage points (54% to 39%). He leads John Edwards by twenty-one points (56% to 35%) and Barack Obama by thirty points (60% to 30%).

However, if the Republican nominee is Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney , Tennessee’s eleven Electoral votes could conceivably end up in the Democratic column. Clinton has a statistically insignificant two-point edge over Giuliani (46% to 44%) and a six-point lead over Romney (46% to 40%). Clinton also has an edge over Republican hopefuls in three other southern states Arkansas, Virginia, and Florida. If any Democrat is able to win Southern states in Election 2008, it will be a long night for the GOP. [snip]

This is good news for the vast right-wing conspiracy. Not so good news for the RINO’s and those sheep who call themselves moderates. The wearers of the old gray flannel suits now have reason to worry about how they appear to the voters. Let us see how they twist their voting records to look different.

By the way, have you seen the Bush helps Clinton stories making the rounds. Searching for the Legacy, it is called. Maybe she’ll give him the W’s back for the computers.

A lot of people naturally assume the Democratic Party has the biggest, most ideologically diverse tent. However, an analysis of the parties’ 1^st tier presidential candidates implies otherwise. The Democratic candidates lean so far left they’re practically horizontal. Hillary Clinton’s main governmental “accomplishment” is a failed attempt to socialize our medical system. Barack Obama thinks 5 year olds need sex education. And John Edwards wants to expand the nanny state because he thinks we all live in broken down trailers with a car on cinder blocks in the front yard.

On the other hand, the Republican presidential field is dominated by squishy moderates trying to convince the party faithful they’re conservatives. Rudy Giuliani is a social liberal who supported making New York a “sanctuary city”. Mitt Romney is trying to explain his abortion flip-flop and ran as a centrist in MA. John McCain takes great pleasure in annoying the party’s base on issues like immigration and campaign finance reform.

I’d wager that a socially conservative Democrat could not achieve the front runner status that a socially liberal Giuliani has in the Republican race. Could a Democrat ever be pro-life? Democrats talk about diversity, but they’re all died in the wool liberals.

Speaking of Mayor Bloomberg, he’s leaving the Republican Party and registering as an independent.  The move certainly heightens speculation he’ll make a 3rd party presidential run.  People who think this is a problem for Rudy Giuliani or Republicans don’t have a clue.  Mayor Mike doesn’t have a conservative bone in his body.  The only reason he ran as a Republican was because Democrats already had an anointed candidate.

Now if I were a Democrat, I might be worried.  Republicans aren’t counting on New York’s electoral votes anyway, but if Mayor Mike draws enough support, could he put the state in play?  I think it’s an intriguing possibility.  Additionally, he seems like a much more interesting candidate to the left, kind of like a wealthier Ralph Nader, and not like a Ross Perot.  If I were at the RNC, I might offer him a little seed money to get going (not like he needs it).

I can’t remember a time when a party’s presidential candidates leveled such strong criticism at their own sitting president.  Some people probably thought they’d accidentally tuned into the Democratic debate.  Here’s a sampling:

“It’s a typical Washington mess,” former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said of the immigration bill Bush wants Congress to approve. 

“I think we were underprepared and underplanned for what came after we knocked down Saddam Hussein,” former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said on the topic of Iraq.

“The president ran as a conservative and governed as a liberal,” said Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado. “That is what has really been the basis, I think, of the distrust that has developed among the Republican base. It’s well founded.” 

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas said: “The president ran on a program of a humble foreign policy, no nation-building and no policing of the world, and he changed his tune.”

“We went to Washington to change Washington, and Washington changed us,” said former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, once a member of Bush’s Cabinet. “If we’re going to spend money like as foolishly and as stupidly as the Democrats, the voters are going to vote for the professional spender _ the Democrat _ not the amateur spender _ the Republican.” 

If this keeps up, President Bush’s Republican Convention speech will be at noon on local cable access channels.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like anybody at the White House is listening.

Romney leads in Iowa according to a Des Moines Register poll:

Romney was backed by 30 percent, ahead of Arizona Sen. John McCain with 18 percent and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani with 17 percent, according to the poll in the Des Moines Sunday Register.

But John McCain brings up an interesting point in a crass way:

Republican John McCain accused presidential rival Mitt Romney of flip-flopping on immigration Monday and said with sarcasm: “Maybe his solution will be to get out his small varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his lawn.”

First, nobody will accuse McCain of flip-flopping because he’s just consistently wrong. Second, does John McCain realize he’s running for President of the United States and not a slot on the Jerry Springer Show? Between his f-bombs and real bombs (Singing “Bomb, Bomb Iran” with the troops), you really have to wonder if he has the temperament to lead the free world.

But back to the larger point—how sincere is Romney’s “conversion”? It wasn’t too long ago that his political philosophy was centrist (some might say RHINO). His current positions are certainly very attractive: strong on defense, active against terrorists, against current amnesty bill, etc. However, once centrists are elected or appointed, like justices on the Supreme Court, they tend to revert to the squishy middle. Unfortunately, looking to his stint as MA governor won’t help you a lot since the legislature is in firm control of this state, ask Deval Patrick if you don’t believe me. Mitt did support what I think is a first step toward socialized medicine when he signed the mandatory health insurance bill, so that’s certainly not a good sign.

Romney is the most attractive candidate in this field, but I have real concerns about his positions. Is it positioning to get elected, or what he’ll do once elected?

I don’t agree with Rudolph Giuliani’s views on abortion, but you have to give him some credit for facing it head-on. Most candidates would have ducked the issue hoping it’d go away. Although I appreciate his honesty, his reasoning is convoluted and raises more concerns for me than his actual position:

“One, I believe abortion is wrong,” he said, adding he would counsel a pregnant woman to keep the child and put him or her up for adoption rather than abort.

And secondly, he said abortion supporters, especially women, are “equally moral, equally decent, and equally religious” and fervent in their beliefs as abortion foes, yet have come to a different conclusion.

“So therefore,” Giuliani said, “I would grant to women the right to make that choice.”

But how can that be if you believe that abortion is wrong? This is analogous to saying I believe the Nazis were wrong when they killed millions of Jewish people, but they fervently believed they were right so we’ll give them a pass this time. Bin Laden believed he was right when he killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11, but we know he was wrong.

This just isn’t an issue where you can say everyone is equally good and right. Your a Yankees fan or a Red Sox fan, not both. The idea that Giuliani is a subjective moralist bothers me a lot more than his support for pro-choice policies.

Things are looking up for the Romney campaign: 

The poll, conducted by Survey USA for WBZ-TV, was taken after the first debate among Republican presidential candidates last week. It shows 32 percent of likely GOP voters in New Hampshire favor Romney, compared with 23 percent for former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and 22 percent for Arizona Senator John McCain.

None of these candidates is Ronald Reagan’s legatee.  Mitt’s campaigning to the right of his rivals, but was previously a “compassionate” conservative.  Giuliani is socially liberal, and McCain took great pleasure in tweaking the party’s conservative base. 

The door is open for a real conservative to grab this nomination.  However, I don’t see anyone with the money, organization, and name recognition to oust the current frontrunners.  Unless something happens to shake this race up, we’ll be choosing between the lesser of 3 “compassionate” conservatives. 

Filling the GOP presidential contender ranks are individuals whose ideological home is very left of center. Pandering to the conservative side of the GOP is job #1; we get all sorts of ridiculous positions asserted. Giuliani fractured his spine, holding polar positions on the abortion and gun issues. Romney does the same. The rest are no better.

Jacob Sullum | April 11, 2007

Rudy Giuliani’s narrow reading of the Second Amendment

Despite his promise to appoint “strict constructionists” to the Supreme Court if he is elected president, Rudy Giuliani recently said he has no interest in overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that discovered a previously unnoticed constitutional right to abortion. Offending social conservatives (and strict constructionists) even further, he told CNN this constitutional right may require government financing of abortions for women who otherwise cannot afford them.

Since Giuliani also claims to support “the right to bear arms” (a right that is actually mentioned in the Constitution), he should, by similar logic, advocate the use of taxpayer money to buy guns for poor people. But the idea would never occur to him, because his sudden interest in the Second Amendment, like his sudden interest in strict constructionism, is merely an affectation intended to allay the concerns of Republican primary voters. [snip]

Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has joined the ranks of gun control advocates willing to employ the brute force of litigation as an end run around democracy. “[F]ollowing the lead of many of the nation’s other large cities, [Giuliani] announced yesterday that his administration would file its own lawsuit against handgun manufacturers, seeking tens of millions of dollars to compensate New York City for injuries and other damage caused by illegal gun use.” Maybe he wouldn’t have made such a good Senator after all (Eric Lipton, “Giuliani Joins the War on Handgun Manufacturers”, New York Times, June 20).

Since John Lindsay, no elected mayor in NYC sported a conservative label. One must be a democrat or if republican, be as liberal as them. Giuliani fits this mold. Bloomberg was a Donk who changed party but not doctrine. Giuliani supported him.

Like Giuliani, Romney has switched positions, even recently buying a life membership in the NRA to buttress his hyaloid change in dogma. Thank God, he’s a lifetime hunter.

Like Daschle, McCain says one thing at home, a very different set of positions in DC. Unlike Daschle, he’s avoided firing. With Feingold, he assaulted free speech, voted against conservatives on abortion and guns. He resisted cutting taxes and works with Kennedy on many fiscal pacts.

Match the purported leaders’ votes with any of the Democrat candidate; you won’t find too many degrees of separation.

Where are the true Republicans, those of the same credo of Reagan and Goldwater?

We need choices, not sound bites.

Soon to be ex-Governor Mitt Romney has mapped out his campaign strategy for grabbing the GOP’s presidential nod in ‘08:

In an interview with The Examiner, Romney described himself as more conservative than Republican rivals McCain, R-Ariz., and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani on a variety of issues. “We’re in a different place on immigration; we’re in a different place on campaign reform; we’re in a different place on same–sex marriage; we’re in a different place on the president’s policy on interrogation of detainees,” Romney said.

Running as the conservative candidate is great a strategy.  The field of moderates is already crowded with both McCain and Giuliani preparing runs.  It’s a Howard Dean strategy focused on the conservative elements of the party except that Mitt won’t implode like Howard Dean.

Governor Romney declared today that the Commonwealth will contribute nothing to the visit of Iranian President Mohammed Khatami’s visit to Harvard University. No logisitics, no State Police motorcade, no nothing! I hope he has to stop and pay the toll coming from the airport.

Read the press release here or below:

ROMNEY DENOUNCES KHATAMI VISIT TO HARVARD
Declines to provide escort, or offer state support for trip

Governor Mitt Romney today ordered all Massachusetts state government agencies to decline support, if asked, for former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami’s September 10 visit to the Boston area, where he is scheduled to speak at Harvard University.“State taxpayers should not be providing special treatment to an individual who supports violent jihad and the destruction of Israel,” said Romney.

Romney’s action means that Khatami will be denied an official police escort and other VIP treatment when he is in town.  The federal government provides security through the U.S. State Department.

Romney criticized Harvard for honoring Khatami by inviting him to speak, calling it “a disgrace to the memory of all Americans who have lost their lives at the hands of extremists, especially on the eve of the five-year anniversary of 9/11.”

Said Romney: “The U.S. State Department listed Khatami’s Iran as the number one state sponsor of terrorism.  Within his own country, Khatami oversaw the torture and murder of dissidents who spoke out for freedom and democracy.  For him to lecture Americans about tolerance and violence is propaganda, pure and simple.”

Romney cited a litany of hateful actions by Khatami, including his support for violent jihadist activities:

• During the period of time he was in office, from 1997 to 2005, Khatami presided over Iran’s secret nuclear program.  Currently, the Iranian Government under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is snubbing the international community’s request to cease nuclear weapons production.
• In the recent conflict along the Israel-Lebanon border, Khatami described the terrorist group Hezbollah as a “shining sun that illuminates and warms the hearts of all Muslims and supporters of freedom in the world.”
• Khatami has endorsed Ahmadinejad’s call for the annihilation of Israel.
• During Khatami’s presidency, Iran refused to hand over the Iranian intelligence officials who were responsible for the attack on the Khobar Towers that killed 19 U.S. military personnel.
• In his own country, Khatami oversaw the torture and murder of Iranian students, journalists, and others who spoke out for freedom and democracy.  Khatami relaxed freedom of speech laws giving democracy reformers a false sense of security only to engage in one of the largest crackdowns in the country’s history.
• In Khatami’s Iran, there was no religious tolerance.  According to the U.S. Office of International Religious Freedom, Iran was one of the worst offenders of religious persecutions.  Minorities, such as Evangelicals, Jews, Catholics and others, have suffered.

“Khatami pretends to be a moderate, but he is not.  My hope is that the United States will find and work with real voices of moderation inside Iran.  But we will never make progress in the region if we deal with wolves in sheep’s clothing,” said Romney.

This reminds me of the time then New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani ejected (via NYPD I believe) Arafat from an event at the Lincoln Center in New York City.

I know it was a political move meant to show Romney can be tough on terror, but goddammit it is a good one.  If he would only go one step further and have the Massachusetts State Police drop the guy on 95 at the Rhode Island line and make him find his way out of Pawtucket!!!! I am sure my friends on the State Police will be more then happy to oblige.

Go Mitt!!!

 Real Deal

Rudy Giuliani is testing the Republican nomination waters in Iowa:

“I’ve got a lot of places to go and a lot of people to talk to and a long process of figuring out whether it makes sense to run for president in 2008,” Mr. Giuliani said before speaking at a fund-raiser here for a Republican Congressional candidate. “I don’t know the answer to that yet.”

At first blush, I am inclined to support Giuliani. Who could forget his decisive leadership in moving New York City forward after the horrific events of 9/11? Additionally, he played an instrumental role in turning NYC around after decades of Democratic neglect. Those are major accomplishments that form the building blocks of a strong national candidacy.

However, Rudy Giuliani is liberal on most social issues:

But his trip to Iowa came very close to real politicking, as Mr. Giuliani ruminated about the presidency and argued that if Republicans are to be a majority party, they need to accept politicians, like Mr. Giuliani, who support for abortion rights, gay rights and gun control.

Will the party support a Giuliani candidacy knowing it is turning its back on some core issues just to retain power? I doubt a President Giuliani appoints Supreme Court Justices in the Alito/Roberts mold given his stand on important social issues. Having a “big tent” is important, but there still has to be some canvas holding us all inside. The Democratic Party operates under the “big tent” theory, and John Kerry paid the price in the last election for it too. Kerry could not articulate positions as simple as saying he would vigorously defend the country for fear of losing the Cindy Sheehan crowd.

Where is the Republican’s Hillary Clinton? We need a raging conservative who pretends to be a moderate until after the election just like Hillary is pretending not to be a raging liberal. I guess time will work it all out, but for the moment, I am not real excited about John McCain or Rudy Giuliani.

I listen to talk radio. I read the blogs. I’m hip. I’m with it. But I just don’t understand why so many republicans are against John McCain for his assured 2008 presidential campaign. I see myself as a conservative on most issues, but most hardcore conservatives bristle at McCain in general. I’m thinking especially of Limbaugh and Hannity here.

The man takes the right side on most issues in my opinion, especially on national defense and abortion. His border security and anti-pork stances are sadly absent just about everywhere else in Washington. On the other hand, his campaign finance reform has proven to be a joke, and his role in the “Gang of 14” really pissed me off (though in the end I think that did more good than harm to the Republican agenda).

So though I appreciate both sides of the argument, I think the man’s pros far outweigh the cons. And at this point I don’t think the country is willing to elect another staunch conservative to the presidency. Too many independents are disgusted with Bush right now. Unless some major changes occur, and I’m not ruling that out since there’s more than 2 years until the election, I doubt any other Republican nominee except Giuliani could beat Hillary. Electability needs to be a factor in our vote for a nominee. Democrats realized they’d have no chance if Howard Dean was the nominee in 2004 and wised up at the right moment, though in the end all for naught.

I was originally supporting Giuliani for 2008, but I’m leaning toward McCain now due to his social stances and the vagueness concerning Giuliani’s possibility of running. I’m going to assume he won’t run for now since he has been so quiet on the issue, but hopefully I’ll be pleasantly surprised. My question is – why would McCain not be a good choice? I need a compelling argument to move far right toward Frist or Allen, and I leave that to those who would be willing to debate the matter. You never know, perhaps I’ll be swayed.

Former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani on the Senate’s failure to renew the Patriot Act:

I support the extension of the Patriot Act for one simple reason: Americans must use every legal and constitutional tool in their arsenal to fight terrorism and protect their lives and liberties. The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, made clear that the old rules no longer work……there is simply no compelling argument for going backward in the fight against terrorism.

HT: C-Log

I’ve decided to bring back an old feature that used to be a regular post here at New England Republican. Every couple of days I will post a series of links to blog posts and other articles that I think our readers might be interested in. I will also add some of my own comments to each topic.

Generally these links will come from sites listed on my blogroll but if you have a blog and want me to link to your post you can email me and I will consider it.

If anyone has a better suggestion for a title other than “Link Roundup” or any other comments on this feature please email me or leave a comment below.

Here are today’s links:

• The editors at National Review Online provide a good summary of the case (or lack there of) against Tom Delay. They say “the charges are absurd and should be thrown out of court”. I’m no lawyer but the case seems extremely thin to me. You should also check out Byron York’s piece on the prosecutor’s own questionable deals.
• Jonah Goldberg looks at the media’s irresponsible coverage of Hurricane Katrina as does Hugh Hewitt who calls the media’s performance “a disgrace, an emotion-binging joyride fueled by urban myth, rumor, and a deep desire to injure the Bush administration”.
• Gateway Pundit also takes a look at Hurricane Katrina’s media folklore vs. the actual facts. At this point I am surprised anyone in the mainstream media can look at themselves in the mirror.
• Mark at Massachusetts GOP News says Mitt Romney is running for president and can win. On the other hand Lorie Byrd thinks Rudy Giuliani is “looking good right about now”. I would gladly vote for either of them.
• Dennis Prager looks at the left’s use of hysteria to demonize their opponents. I’m sure he must have had a hard time narrowing down the list of examples.
• Louisiana Conservative has a humorous look at how his state wants to spend our money.
• Last but not least, mASS BACKWARDS compares female protestors from both sides last weekend. Needless to say ours are hotter!

That ’s all I have time for now. I’ll try and post more tomorrow.

The Latest Rasmussen poll shows that the latest round of Bush-bashing from the Democrats is failing like all of their previous attempts (via NY Post):

To hear the happy hyperventilation from the Howard Dean hard left (and at times Sen. Hillary Clinton), killer Katrina has already killed Bush’s presidency.

But polls don’t back up those Dem dreams. Independent pollster Scott Rasmussen, who accurately predicted the 2004 vote, has Bush’s job rating at 48 percent positive among adults and notes it would be 2 or 3 points higher in a poll of only likely voters, or 51 percent — his 2004 tally.

Polls also show that Americans — as opposed to TV types — blame Louisiana state and local officials more than Bush, and understand it’s not Bush’s fault that New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin is no Rudy Giuliani.

Once again Democrats appear to have overplayed their hand.