RSS 2.0 FeedIs Giuliani Simply A Placeholder?
by Brad WarbianyRudy Giuliani is currently the clear front-runner on the Republican side for the nomination. He leads in every major poll, he’s got a 13-14 point lead on Romney on Intrade, and in a fairly weak Republican field, very few of his opponents seem to have the strength to mount a significant challenge to him.
Yet, despite all that, there’s a lot of uneasiness on the Republican side. Very few Republicans actively wish Giuliani to gain the nomination. Outside of the neoconservatives, there are a lot of people who are praying for anyone but him to win the nomination. Yet he still leads by a wide margin in the polls. How can a candidate who generates such little excitement, and who is anathema to the social conservatives and the libertarians in the Republican base, lead the race?
Well, much like the relative obscurity of Ron Paul in major national polls, the “popularity” of Giuliani may simply be that nobody knows him beyond his service as the mayor of New York under 9/11. In fact, I was surprised to find that many in the Republican base know very little about him:
Some of these social conservatives are nonetheless so appalled by Mr Giuliani that they threaten to back a third-party candidate if he wins the Republican nomination. Others think that would be foolish, since it would virtually guarantee victory for the Democrats. But many Republicans fall into a third category—they are simply unaware that Mr Giuliani is socially liberal. A recent Gallup poll found that only 37% knew he was pro-choice and only 18% knew he favoured civil unions for gays.
This makes the race for the Republican nomination extremely hard to predict. As the primaries draw near, will voters learn more about Mr Giuliani and reject him?
…
Civil libertarians, too, distrust Mr Giuliani. He is worryingly vague as to what constitutes torture. He tried unsuccessfully to stay on as mayor beyond his term limit, citing the emergency of September 11th 2001. Washington Monthly, a Beltway journal, predicts—on the evidence of his record in New York—that if Mr Giuliani were elected president he would grab even more executive power than Mr Bush has.
I increasingly believe that the Republican primaries are going to be a lot more exciting than many are currently predicting. Republican voters may currently have Giuliani sitting in first place, but I think quite a large number of them do so not because they admire his policies, but because they don’t know anything about him or any other candidates.
Ron Paul appears to be catching the hearts and minds of the civil libertarians, and although he’s not polling well, he’s bringing in money. Mike Huckabee– the evolution non-believer that he is– seems to be collecting the social conservatives, and while he’s got very little money, he’s polling better than expected. Might it be that as we approach the primaries, we begin to see a mass flight away from Giuliani, as the Republican party fractures between the neocons, libertarians, and social conservatives?
I see the potential for some major fireworks, and the time might have finally arrived where the Republican party has to have some debates about what it is and what it stands for.
Does that mean that I’ll predict a Giuliani defeat? It’s possible, but a lack of excitement doesn’t preclude him from winning the nomination. Nobody liked or was excited by John Kerry in 2004, but he got the nod simply because it was expected that he was the most “electable”. It may be that Giuliani squeaks through because Republicans think he’s the only one that has the power to stand up to Hillary, but I think that is misguided. If Republicans are forced only to vote against something, I don’t see the necessary numbers making it to the polls to stand a chance. I, for one, would rather stay home that vote for Giuliani, even if it means that Hillary will win. And if Republicans can’t come to enough of a consensus to agree on voting for a candidate and platform, perhaps it’s best to take the time in the minority to figure it out.
http://my.ronpaulspace.com/alexmerced/blog/
Yes, your on the money in a few things, read my post at the link above about National Polls and what to take away from them.
Alex Merced – A Civil Paultard
Comment by Alex Merced — November 7, 2007 @ 2:40 pm——————————————————————
ThisNewYearsDay – A Ron Paul Fundraiser
http://merced2012.ning.com/group/thisnewyearsday
http://bgsu.facebook.com/group.php?gid=9719196153
http://my.ronpaulspace.com/thisnewyearsday
Why Ron Paul is not showing up in the polls. Here is an excerpt from a survey article.
http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0052/t.9541.html
“The old-fashioned landline phone, by contrast, is quite literally yesterday’s
technology for many Bedroomers. Even older participants in the project,
including a married couple in their later 20s, shunned the landline in
favor of the ubiquitous mobile phone.
From a researcher’s perspective, Jacobs says that’s bad news, making it harder
Comment by Eric V. Berger — November 7, 2007 @ 2:45 pmto track down people under 30 to take part in ratings and other surveys.”
Giuliani has never had any chance to win the Republican nomination, despite the polls. He is out of step with the party base that actually votes in primaries, and unlike Ron Paul, he hasn’t been generating the excitement to bring new voters into the primaries.
With McCain finished and Thompson fizzling, it’s really a race between Romney, Huckabee, and Paul. Will voters trust that Romney is really a conservative now (as he says), despite his past voting record and speeches? Will conservatives forgive Huckabee for increasing spending faster than President Bush, and for being soft on illegal immigration? Will enough voters consider Ron Paul a viable contender to take him seriously? After November 5th, it would be hard to make the case that he’s not a serious candidate.
Comment by Craig — November 7, 2007 @ 2:49 pmRon Paul is undoubtedly in the “top tier”…
http://www.truthalert.net/Republican%20Presidential%20Candidate%20Rankings.htm
Comment by Mike — November 7, 2007 @ 3:25 pmAlthough you treat this subject with some respect, I hope you realize that ‘evolution’ is nothing more than a philosophical ideology of secular humanism/naturalism. There continues to be no proof of macro-type species to species evolution. In my opinion, common sense says that if everything came about by this process…wouldn’t we be able to find it somewhere? And there are many other scientist who don’t ‘believe’ that we crawled out of a mudpuddle! To our shame, these many, many scientist are silenced and shunned by “THE” ’scientific’ community.
Really, all said and done, I like Mike Huckabee, he’s for the people…I just hope that he’s able to do as good as a lot of people are praying for.
http://www.mikehuckabee.com
Go Huck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Paul Thompson — November 7, 2007 @ 4:12 pmTo add….and I really don’t want to get into this discussion on this topic. It seems to me that Ron Paul will take votes away from Hillary Clinton.
Ron Paul isn’t tapping into any conservative values, he’s all about anti-bush-war-in my opinion-america.
When he runs in the general election as a Libiterian, he will take many more votes from the Democrats than the Republican ticket.
Comment by Paul Thompson — November 7, 2007 @ 4:28 pmI don’t think Ron Paul intends to run independantly or in a third party. He’s already done that. I think his feeling is that if enough people admire his allegiance to the Constitution, they’ll vote for him in the primaries. I think that the polls’ sampling methods are fatally obsolete and he will quite possibly turn the polls on their collective ear this primary election.
Comment by Darryl Schmitz — November 7, 2007 @ 6:08 pmSo, are my buddies at TLP absolutely convinced that Thompson’s campaign is fizzling out? I think that perhaps his strengths are being underestimated – in part because the MSM is totally p.o.’d that he refuses to play politics the way they think he should – and thus are doing their best to ignore him and paint the Repub campaign as a “two man” campaign between Giuliani & Romney. Personally, I believe he’s slow and stupid like a fox – and I think we may see yet that he’ll come out on top.
Comment by Kay — November 7, 2007 @ 8:28 pmYep. Any enthusiasm there was for him over the summer has all but evaporated.
Comment by Kevin — November 7, 2007 @ 8:34 pmAlrighty then, all I can say is . . . don’t blink!
Comment by Kay — November 7, 2007 @ 8:38 pmKay,
There is absolutely nothing revolutionary, groundbreaking or impressive about Fred Thompson. He’s a standard big-government conservative Republican who took as much advantage of pork during his time in the Senate as every other Republican. He’s a consummate Beltway insider who’s only job outside politics has been acting, and he’s got a policy platform that’s basically just George W. Bush except with a little more bass in the voice. He’s virtually indistinguishable from McCain or Romney and he’s probably less-informed about foreign policy than Rudy Guiliani (which is saying a lot, because Rudy’s pretty damned dumb). The reason all the initial passion for the guy has waned is because the voters have figured out that he’s basically a fraud who’s got nothing to say that’s radically different from any of the other “favored” candidates in the GOP race. Ron Paul’s the only maverick in this race.
I did like him in “The Hunt for Red October” though.
Comment by UCrawford — November 7, 2007 @ 8:55 pm“Alrighty then, all I can say is . . . don’t blink!”
Why? Is he going to drop out the race that quickly?
Comment by UCrawford — November 7, 2007 @ 8:56 pmI can agree with you that Rudy’s pretty damned dumb – but frankly, it seems to me that Thompson is so far above McCain or Romney regarding what is good for our nation – and frankly, while he is, as they all are, politicians – he is the only one who seems truly ready to embrace federalist principles. Perhaps you need to take a look into what he espouses rather than the what the make believe media promotes. (And I first saw him and liked the character he played in No Way Out, LOL)
Comment by Kay — November 7, 2007 @ 9:02 pmThompson made a nice speech about federalism in a TV spot…unfortunately his voting record indicates he’s quite okay with intrusive government when it intrudes on issues that appeal to his voting base:
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm
He’s on the wrong side of drug legalization, free speech, federal involvement in education, and foreign policy (especially on Iraq). He originally supported pro-freedom stances on immigration but he’s since changed his position and is now for closed borders. He’s fairly pro-free trade but he’s still demonstrated a willingness to engage in trade wars with Japan and continue embargos against Cuba. Basically, he’s less ideologically shitty than the neo-conservatives but he’s still a lot closer to them than he is to us. And he’s a far inferior candidate to Ron Paul (who’s on the right side of every issue except immigration). I may have liked the guy’s movies, but that’s no reason to put him in the White House when his platform’s so often incompatible with individual freedom. And nothing he’s saying is new or exciting…he’s about as middle of the road and morally compromised as any of the other candidates.
Comment by UCrawford — November 7, 2007 @ 9:27 pmI hope not. If I had my way, we’d have even more clones in the race. This “vote-splitting” thing isn’t so bad when you’re on the right end of it. :-)
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 7, 2007 @ 10:04 pmKay! Long time no see there! Hope all is well with you… Thinking of coming back to the blogosphere?
And I’m sorry to say it, but I think Thompson is toast… The only reason he was so highly sought is because Republicans were so tired of their choices. He seemed like a fresh face. Now, he just seems like a tired face, and has done nothing to differentiate himself from the pack.
On the bright side, while he may not become President, I’ll bet he’ll do a good job of playing one on TV!
Comment by Brad Warbiany — November 7, 2007 @ 10:08 pmHiya, Brad! I’m not sure I’m ready yet for regular blogging – having a tween and a teen is keeping me busy right now with homeschooling and extracurricular activities, LOL – but the whole politics thing has got me reading again!
I hate to say it, but it seems to me that I’m seeing more “big L” Libertarian thought ’round here than I used to – UCrawford (we’re probably cousins as that’s my maiden name) I wouldn’t give a nickel for Ron Paul, as his stance on the war in Iraq alone would put this country in far more danger than we are now, but I reckon that’s the beauty of our system. We can disagree – and at some point in the next few months, we’ll have a clear determination of which of the lesser of all the evils that conscience dictates we must vote for!
Comment by Kay — November 8, 2007 @ 3:10 amYou may want to consider particpating in a carnival on BlogCatalog.com by posting on the topic
The Biggest Obstacle To Electing The Right Presidential Candidate
http://www.blogcatalog.com/group/skilled-political-debate/discuss/entry/the-biggest-obstace-to-electing-the-right-presidential-candidate
The topic would be a good fit for your blog and BC is planning to do a major PR push for entries received by mid month.
For questions or to submit your post link to the carnival e-mail libdrone at gmail dot com
Comment by Alan — November 8, 2007 @ 5:40 amUm………what do you really want to know about him?
He produced a civic miracle in NYC by finally standing up to the special interest groups that were actively destroying the city.He turned the city around without kissing any ass…….
Social issues? Must the hypocracy continue? Arent’ those issues best left in the private realm?
You want results, leadership? Then elect Giuliani
Comment by sage — November 8, 2007 @ 6:47 pmYou want America to descend into Socialism? Vote for Hillary- the choice has never been more clear
Dude, even if that wasn’t loaded with logical fallacies, it’s still wrong. We’re not even close to the point where we choose between D and R.
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 8, 2007 @ 6:55 pmSage,
You’re joking, right ?
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 8, 2007 @ 7:03 pmKay,
Actually, my last name’s not Crawford. UCrawford is just a random login name I created years ago to play video games online:) Sorry…but if it’s any consolation I picked it because I always thought Crawford was a cool last name.
I’ve actually found that our intervention in Iraq is actually making us less safe. Neoconservatives like to claim that the Iraq war is crucial because it’s the only thing keeping the terrorists from attacking here when in actuality there’s nothing to prevent them from coming here if they really wanted to…they just don’t need to because we ship them plenty of Americans to kill over in Iraq. Plus we give them excellent tactics training by giving them our troops to compete against so they become more and more lethal, we’ve removed the Iranians’ mortal enemy (Saddam) without them having to sacrifice any of their troops, we’ve created an Iranian friendly Iraqi government that has shifted the balance of power in the Middle East against countries allied with us, we’ve given Kurdish insurgents a safe haven in northern Iraq to run an bloody insurgency against our NATO ally Turkey, we’ve reduced Iraqi oil production to levels below pre-war thereby restricting supply and driving prices up for ourselves, we’ve been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousand of Iraqi civilians because we removed their government and disbanded their security forces allowing an insurgency and civil war to break out, we’ve provided the Sunni insurgents with weapons so they can destabilize the crappy Iraq government we built (and so they can attack us when we try to stop them), we’ve left our troops over there to be targets so a bunch of corrupt incompetent Iraqi politicians can continue to steal money out of their respective ministries and screw up the entire country under the protection of the U.S. military and on the U.S. taxpayer’s dime, and we’ve basically stretched the U.S. military to the point where it’s becoming both non-functional and a drag on our economy.
But other than that, invading Iraq was a great idea. Now we know for absolute certain that Iraq was never in any way a threat to attack us because they never had any nukes nor the capability to develop them and it’s only cost us around 4,000 American lives to find that out. Why wouldn’t I vote for a candidate who thinks invading was a great idea?
Comment by UCrawford — November 8, 2007 @ 7:35 pm