Mike Huckabee: The Real Threat to the Republican Coalition

Important catch by Erick regarding the candidates' appearance at the Values Voters Summit:

The social conservatives do not want to rally around Huckabee because he is as distasteful to fiscalcons as Rudy is to socons. Even Tony Perkins, the head of FRC, said he hoped the social conservative candidate would be palatable to the fiscal conservatives out there. Huckabee is not.

And here we arrive at the conundrum for the GOP and the Press. While the media has been filled with stories about the socons ready to bolt from the GOP if Rudy is the nominee, the real story and the untold story is that the business community is even more ready to bolt from the GOP. For the last eight years they've watched as the socons have scored every significant win on the right — stem cells, judges, etc. Only against Labor have the fiscal guys scored wins. But there have been no budget cuts, no culling of pork, steel subsidies, etc.

The fiscal guys see the writing on the wall. They see Hillary's position. And they are just about ready to cut a deal. And then you have the Republican libertarians who are just about ready to really vote for Ron Paul, doing to the GOP in 2008 what Ralph Nader voters did for the Democrats in 2000.

Huckabee breaks the coalition more than Giuliani because the socons fear Hillary more than the fiscalcons do. And that is why we won't see too many of the socon leaders rallying to the clear favorite of the socon base.

As a social and fiscal conservative, I distrust Mike Huckabee more than I do Rudy Giuliani.

Partly, it's because a Giuliani presidency won't move the party to the Left on abortion and gay marriage. For one thing, Giulani is trimming his sails on these issues to win the nomination. For another, one man -- even a Republican President -- cannot move the party's base from the south to the northeast. So after 8 years of a Giuliani presidency, the party would still be a socially conservative one -- albeit with more northeastern moderates and liberals.

But Mike Huckabee would not need to change the party to move it to the left on economic issues. There is already a significant strain of anti-Wall Street populism in the party. The candidacies of Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot tapped into it; Lou Dobbs reaches it each evening. It's one reason that trade votes are painful even for many Republican Members of Congress. A Huckabee presidency could move the populist faction in the party to dominance over the free-marketeers.

Further, I want to see the results of Huckabee's gubernatorial races in Arkansas. Specifically, I wonder if his social conservative populist message didn't bring in more low-income voters -- especially African-Americans. It strikes me that Huckabee might be able to bring African-Americans to the Republican line more than any other candidate of recent vintage. If that happened, it would strengthen the hand of 'fair-trade,' bleeding-heart conservatives -- weakening the hand of Republicans who would cut taxes and reduce the size of government.

That's not a risk I can take lightly, and it's why I fear Huckabee's candidacy.

Hat Tip: Soren

Giuliani's Shrewd Campaign to Mollify Social Conservatives

Ramesh Ponnuru hits on what I think is one of the more important events in the 2008 presidential campaign over the last week:

What was good was that Giuliani has now pledged to veto any attempt to weaken current anti-abortion policies, and in particular any attempt to expand federal funding for abortion. He has also said that he would support "reasonable" ideas to reduce abortion, which sounds like a promise to sign any restrictions that Congress could actually pass. These pledges are very good news. The pro-lifers who have criticized Giuliani so strongly over the past few months can take some credit for prompting them.

The last time I blogged about Giuliani's statements on abortion was May. That marked the end of a disastrous stretch where Giuliani could say nothing about abortion that helped his campaign, and little that seemed thought-out. At that time, his public statements left it an open question as to whether he would work to block expansion of abortion, or merely not encourage it. He had said for example, that he would not seek to revise or repeal the Hyde amendment barring public funding of abortions, but did not say whether he would veto such a measure.

Give him credit for staying away from the issue for months. And give him credit for now quietly reassuring people like myself that he will support measures to limit abortion. This promise is likely to help mitigate some of the agitation on the social right for a more conservative candidate, and it's likely to undercut the support for a third-party candidacy.

Influence Peddler on XM

I'll be appearing again tomorrow morning at 7:30AM on XM Radio's POTUS 08 channel -- talking about the presidential race. I'm betting the topic of the day will be the fight among the Republican candidates about who's the real conservative.

Hopefully I'll get a chance to talk about the surprising report from Bob Novak that churchgoing protestants and Catholics like Rudy Giuliani -- more than any other candidate:

But the situation is not a simple confrontation between the Christian right and Giuliani. The Gallup data suggest that Dobson and the Salt Lake City group may be out of touch with rank-and-file churchgoers. A well-known social conservative, who asked that his name not be used, is disturbed by Dobson's statement he could not vote for Giuliani under any circumstances. Instead of being considered the lesser of two evils in a possible race against Sen. Hillary Clinton, Giuliani seems to be the positive choice of millions of religious Americans.

In an aggregation of 1,690 interviews with Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in four Gallup surveys during August and September, Giuliani led with 27 percent (to Fred Thompson's 24 percent) among those who said they attended church at least once a week. Even more startling was the result of interviews with voters without regard to party preference. Among churchgoing Catholics, Giuliani led with a plus-38 favorable rating (trailed by Sen. John McCain at plus-29, with Clinton bringing up the rear at minus-9).

Just as a point of reference, Georgetown University has found that 63 percent of all Catholics voted in 2004, with 52 percent of those supporting Bush and 47 percent backing Kerry. One has to imagine that the bulk of the 'churchgoing Catholics' voted for Bush.

If Giuliani really has a 38 point net favorable rating among a cohort of Catholics that would tend to be more conservative -- far more conservative than he is -- that would be stunning. Is it because these Catholics tend to be more receptive to Giuliani's message of security and effective government, or is it because they share a cultural touchstone with Rudy? Recall that in 2000, George W. Bush went to great lengths to speak the same language as Roman Catholics; he recognized the importance of embracing the Catholic culture by adopting its language. Is it possible that Rudy already has that -- even as he supports abortion rights, and has favored other liberal positions?

It also suggests a real challenge for Giuliani's primary challengers. How will Romney, Thompson, and McCain break Giuliani's strong lead in this important primary voting bloc?

Fred Thompson: Master of Detail

The dominant image that critics of Fred Thompson have noted and/or created is one of a half-hearted candidate, not particularly interested in the rigors of a presidential campaign. It's therefore worthy of note that the Annenberg Center's Factcheck.org gives him high grades for accuracy on the specific claims he made during the recent presidential debate.

Thompson: Just the Facts

Thompson stuck to the facts in his rookie outing. A number of his statements attracted our interest, but they all checked out.

Corporate Taxes 2nd Highest in the World: Thompson was correct when he said of the U.S., "We have the second highest corporate tax penalty in the world." According to a study produced by the global consulting firm KPMG, the U.S. top corporate tax rate of 40 percent is just slightly below Japan’s 40.6 percent. The United States is resisting a worldwide trend that has seen most nations reduce corporate taxes during the last decade. As of Jan. 1, 2007, the German rate was 38.36 percent; the Italian rate was 37.25 percent; and the Canadian rate was 36.1 percent. The average for the 30 major industrial democracies was 27.8 percent.

WMDs in Iraq: Thompson corrected moderator Chris Matthews, who wrongly implied that the former senator had said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction "right before" the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq:

Matthews: You made a statement a couple of days ago, I believe, that alluded to the fact you believed that there were such weapons [WMDs] in Iraq. Do you believe they were there right before we got in – they were moved out somewhere? ...

Thompson: No, I didn't say that. I was just stating what was obvious and that is that Saddam had had them prior. They used them against his own people – against the Kurds.

Thompson was correct. Matthews referred to remarks the senator made to about 60 persons in Newton, Iowa, last week. Both MSNBC and the Des Moines Register quoted him as saying, "We can’t forget the fact that although at a particular point in time we never found any WMD down there, he clearly had had WMD. He clearly had had the beginnings of a nuclear program..."

Economic Growth: Thompson erred – but on the safe side – when he said, "We're enjoying 22 quarters of successive economic growth." Actually, the U.S. economy has grown for 23 successive quarters, according to the most recent figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. And when preliminary figures on gross domestic product for July, August and September are released later this month, the official total is expected to reach 24.

Restraining Future Social Security Benefits: Thompson also was correct about the effect of restraining growth of Social Security benefits for future retirees:

Thompson: And then, lastly, one of the other things that could be done would be to index benefits to inflation. Index benefit to inflation for future retirees. It would not affect current or near retirement people. [It] would be indexed to inflation instead of wages, as it is today. And it would solve the problem for several years; it wouldn't solve it indefinitely, but it would give us a window of opportunity to get our arms around the problem. It would be a major step in the right direction.

The Social Security actuaries calculate that it would require a tax increase of 1.95 percent of taxable payroll to pay benefits promised under current benefit formulas for the next 75 years. But most of that "actuarial imbalance" would disappear under various proposals to peg benefits of future retirees to inflation rather than to wage growth. One form of so-called "progressive" indexing would allow future retirement benefits for the lowest 40 percent of wage earners to keep growing under the current formula, which is pegged to wage growth, but slow down the growth of benefits for higher-income workers retiring after 2012 according to a sliding scale. Benefits for those at the very top would rise only enough to keep pace with inflation. Actuaries calculated that this would remove 1.21 percentage points from the 1.95 percent actuarial imbalance...

Playing devil's advocate, I could point out that it doesn't actually require a lot of intellectual heft to memorize three or four talking points. A critic might suggest that's what Thompson has done here.

But his point about Social Security -- as well as comments he's made on the program in other venues as well -- demonstrates an interest in it, and a depth of understanding that speak well of him.

They also contrast with the other candidate I like in this race -- Mayor Giuliani. In particular, I am disappointed that he has apparently been misattributing a quote to Senator Clinton that she hasn't said:

Misquoting Hillary: Giuliani wrongly attributed a quote to Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton, and he got the quote wrong as well:

Giuliani: And the leading Democratic candidate once said that the unfettered free market is the most destructive force in modern America.

Sen. Clinton, the "leading" candidate in public opinion polls, never said that. The quote is by Alan Ehrenhalt, author and executive editor of Governing magazine. Furthermore, Ehrenhalt didn't call the free market "destructive" but used the somewhat softer term "radically disruptive."

I'd prefer if she said the free market was destructive; to say it's extremely disruptive is merely accurate. Joseph Schumpeter coined the term 'creative destruction' to describe the dynamic process of eliminating outdated and inefficient economic arrangements in favor of ones that serve consumers better. I'm disappointed at the suggestion that Hillary understands this.

Oh well.

Maps I Like

Chris Bowers at OpenLeft has been preparing electoral maps for the 2008 presidential election, based on the current results of Survey USA polling. Approximate predictive value of these polls? Virtually zero. I think that the 2004 electoral map probably tells you more about the 2008 election than will polls of registered voters, with small sample sizes, more than a year before the election -- and months before we know the nominees.

That said, the maps with Giuliani as the nominee don't look that bad:



Bowers' maps (and Survey USA's polls) show Giuliani beating both Obama and Edwards. Of the leading Republican contenders, he holds Hillary to the lowest vote total. But he still loses.

The general election is a long way off.

Vice President Huckabee?

Bob Novak reports this morning that the Romney and Giuliani teams are impressed enough with Mike Huckabee to regard him as a strong possibility for the vice president, in the case of either winning the nomination:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's impressive performance in Republican presidential debates has advanced him as an ideal vice-presidential nominee, as judged by supporters of front-running GOP hopefuls Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.

The nomination of Giuliani, former mayor of New York City, or Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, would mark the first Republican nominated for president who was not from California or the South in 56 years (except for appointed President Gerald Ford). As a conservative Southerner, Huckabee is seen by Giuliani and Romney backers as an ideal ticket balancer.

Huckabee has been distrusted in the conservative movement because of his record of raising taxes in Arkansas. However, he has signed the anti-tax pledge circulated by Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform. He also has been vigorously supported by backers of the Fair Tax, which would repeal the federal income tax and replace it with a national sales tax.

Huckabee has called the Club for Growth the 'Club for Greed,' and framed his campaign as a battle against Wall Street. He's called for fair trade over free trade, and his record on taxes is not what I would like. If either Romney or Giuliani were to select Huckabee, there won't be any cheering here. A critical question may be whether he could actually bring Arkansas in a race against Hillary. If she is the Democratic nominee, and she carries the state, what's the point?

Novak also says that many Democrats in marginal seats are worrying about running with Hillary at the top of the ticket:

Many of the Democratic congressmen who ousted Republicans in marginal House districts last year privately express concern about the impact on their re-election prospects if Hillary Clinton is nominated for president.

Because of the strong possibility that Sen. Clinton indeed will be the party's candidate, these congressmen will not openly express their fears. But they dread her impact from the top of the ticket.

Clinton's opponents don't raise the question in public. But there is such underground talk in Iowa, the state opening the battle for convention delegates, questioning her "electability."

Novak however, has missed the best quote from a Congressional 'defender' of Hillary's. It was Congressman Earl Pomeroy who said:

“It’s way too early to conclude that Hillary would be a disaster downballot for the party”

With friends like this...

Clinton Crushes Giuliani, Romney -- But Gerry Ford Gives Reason for Hope

OpenLeft's Chris Bowers posts two general election maps that ought to blacken the heart of any loyal Republican. They are based on the most recent state-by-state polling results, and show Hillary crushing both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. The first matchup is a blowout for Hillary, and the second one is worse:



First off, I think I'll save this to look back on after election day. I am confident that the actual electoral map will look better than this, so no matter who wins, I'll be able to find a silver lining.

Second, there's no question that overall numbers for GOP candidates are dragged down by the unpopularity of President Bush. When voters say they favor Hillary Clinton over Giuliani, or Romney, or Thompson, to what degree is that judgment affected by a general dissatisfaction with Republicans because of President Bush -- and to what degree will that antipathy dissipate when Bush is no longer the face of the Republican party? I've not seen anyone take a stab at that question.

For example, look at the latest Quinnipiac poll. The generic Democrat beats the generic Republican by 12 points, while Hillary defeats Giuliani by 3. The well-regarded Battleground Poll (same link) shows the generic Democrat beating the generic Republican by 11 points, and Hillary trailing Rudy by 5, while tying Fred Thompson.

This suggests that the leading GOP contenders are running ahead of their generic partisan support -- something that has been true throughout this campaign season. To some degree, that's because right now, George Bush is the GOP brand. Come election day, he will not be. The nominee will. The Republican party is likely to be less unpopular, and the nominee is likely to gain because of that.

In other words, right now all the GOP candidates are artificially tied down by the unpopularity of George Bush. On election day 2008 that will be less true. Sure, Democrats will do their best to tie the nominee to Bush, and will succeed to a degree. But it won't be as bad as it is today.

I can't think of too many parallels -- where a President was very unpopular at the end of his second term and the party's nominee had to overcome that burden. The closest analogy in recent memory is probably that of Gerald Ford succeeding Richard Nixon.

When Nixon left office in 1975, Democrats had a whopping 25 percentage point advantage in partisan identification. Nixon's hand-picked successor pardoned him for his crimes, and still nearly won re-election just a year later.

Well, if Gerald Ford could nearly overcome the Nixon handicap, then all things being equal, a Republican nominee in 2008 -- with no close association with the incumbent -- can overcome the Bush handicap. The polls we look at today give us little indication of what the electoral map will look like once Thompson, or Giuliani, or Romney has actually gotten a chance to campaign. So Bowers' map might indicate that Hillary can win, but she sure isn't a shoo-in.

Rudy & the Firefighters

A must-read from Jim Geraghty.

Mike Bloomberg... Still a Republican?

At least if you believe that we vote with our dollars:

On June 19, shortly before Mr. Bloomberg announced that he was leaving the Republican Party, he telephoned the state’s most powerful Republican, Joseph L. Bruno, the Senate majority leader.

The mayor wanted Mr. Bruno to know the announcement was coming. But Mr. Bloomberg, a major contributor to New York Republicans, also sought to reassure the majority leader that despite the change, he would still back Mr. Bruno and his Republican colleagues in the Senate...

Mr. Bloomberg’s support for Republican candidates is critical; the mayor has been the biggest individual donor to Senate Republicans, according to state campaign finance records, giving $575,000 since October. He also gave the New York State Republican Committee $175,000 in the same period. (During that time, by contrast, he did not donate to any Democrats in the Legislature.)

The Bloomberg team portrays this as nothing more than his doing what he thinks best to protect the interests of New York City. However, Republicans in the State Assembly -- which is overwhelmingly Democratic -- regard him as an ally as well. Since they can do nothing to help New York City, what is his motivation?

Giuliani Blogger Call: We Like Where We Are

Read it at the Standard.

Fundraising Shows Romney's Campaign Sputtering

Soren is dead on. The thing is, the 'McCain campaign is failing' headline got written yesterday, and it's hard for the media to fit in two such headline simultaneously:

Ok. Mitt Romney was supposed to be the money king. But he only raised $2.8m more than John McCain, according to AP. Between Q1 and Q2 Romney raised, including the $9m from himself, about $44m. And now he has $12m COH.

That means that Romney spent $32m, with about $20m in Q2.

And CBS still puts him at 6% nationwide.

That is shocking. This is a failure to meet expectations on par or greater than John McCain’s. And there is no question at all that Rudy Giuliani will raise more and have more CoH than Romney.

Update: I found another way to think about this. If Mitt Romney hadn’t cut himself about $9m in checks, he would have $3m CoH. And having $2m CoH has been viewed as a meltdown for McCain, who was never supposed to be any good at fundraising anyways. The only reason Romney is in this race is that he can cut himself big checks. Combine that with the 6%, the campaign looks to be sputtering.

Question: if McCain had held his numbers until today (as Romney did) would we be talking about Romney and McCain both underperforming? That would have been a much better outcome for McCain than what he has now.

Romney's numbers are covered here and here.

Update: Rudy's team sends the following E-mail:

The Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee reported today it has outraised every other Republican campaign and has over $18 million cash on hand. The campaign raised over $17 million in the second quarter, for both the primary and general election, and ended the quarter with zero debt.

The second quarter fundraising totals highlighted the Giuliani campaign’s growing momentum and commitment to discipline and efficiency with campaign dollars.

The campaign both outraised first quarter totals by more than $2 million and doubled the number of individual donors. Contributions have been received from all fifty states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia.

“We are thrilled by our fundraising this quarter and are running a strong and efficient campaign. We are well positioned to win both the primary and the general elections,” said Giuliani Campaign Manager Michael DuHaime, “and we are serious about being good stewards with the money that has been entrusted to us.”

Deputy Campaign Manager Anne Dunsmore added, “Since joining Team Rudy, I have been increasingly encouraged by the response to Rudy’s message across the country. That strong support translates into an increase in the number of events, donors and dollars which will allow us not only to compete and win the primary, but to win the general election.”

$18 million cash on hand looks pretty good in this field. Does it point to a Rudy-Thompson showdown?

Update II: Hugh Hewitt thinks Romney had the best quarter of any GOP candidate (no surprise there), but I think Soren's point is inescapable.

Update III: Mr. Romney's campaign is paying close attention. They send the following comment:

"I saw your post on our fundraising numbers and wanted to point out the
crucial distinction between primary and general funds. See Jonathan
Martin's post below for details."

Here's an update: Of the $17 million Rudy raised this quarter, about $2
million was in general funds - money he can't use in the primarycampaign, an aide said.

Included in his $18 million cash on hand is around $3 million in general dollars.

So Rudy raised significantly more than Romney, and has more on hand to spend in the primary -- but he has to wait until a general to spend $2 million of what he has. Still sounds like a Giuliani advantage to me. Of course, nothing changes the fact that Romney has deeper pockets, and can probably write a check to his campaign that would erase the Giuliani edge in this area.

Electing an Outsider in 2008

The confidence rating for Congress is about as low as it's ever been. Americans view Congress as out of touch, resistant to change, and unwilling to tackle important issues. There's no confidence that Iraq will end well, and little chance that:

• Congress will take action on immigration, energy, entitlement reform, and ethics; AND,
• The American people will view those challenges as 'solved' in a meaningful way.
  

Unless things change dramatically in 16 months, the American electorate will be awfully restive come election day. They are likely to want significant change in Washington.

Now consider the candidates. Who's best situated to take advantage of that?

OUTSIDERS:

Michael Bloomberg: Bloomberg fits the bill. While a lifelong liberal, he hasn't been a (registered) Democrat in a while. He governed a Democratic city as a nominal Republican. He is seen as having solved big problems and gotten Republicans and Democrats to work together. He'll run as an Independent. Credentials on 'independence' and 'change?' Best in the field.

Barack Obama: As an African-American, he clearly is somewhat different. Plus, his style and manner seem a 'breath of fresh air.' He'd be more credible than some in talking about 'changing the tone' in Washington. Still, his record on the issues is that of an old-line Kennedy liberal. The GOP nominee would have fun contrasting the rhetoric and the substance.

Rudy Giuliani: Not shockingly, his profile is similar to Bloomberg's. His record is that of a problem solver (crime, budget, welfare, and the economy in NYC) who can bring Republicans and Democrats together. His high-profile unwillingness to shift on abortion enhances his credibility. The only knock on his outsider status is that he actually has been a defender of the Bush administration.

Fred Thompson: Outsider credentials? He's an actor; he served just one full Senate term and then showed no desire to return to elective office; and he sounds like the no-nonsense, maverick outsider (a persona that's heavily reinforced in his acting roles). Weaknesses? He will be painted as a DC lawyer/lobbyist, and there's more than some truth to the characterization. Can he promise to get Republicans and Democrats to work together? Perhaps not -- but he will probably strive to be the fed-up outsider who promises to shake things up -- and he might be the strongest in the field in that respect.

MIXED RECORD:

John Edwards: He hasn't served in office for several years, and his 'two Americas' message has a strong and inherent outsider flavor. His criticisms of Democrats in DC help him as well. Undercutting the outsider image is that he's been running for President since 2003 or so.

John McCain: Has spent a lifetime in Washington, fighting the establishment. Outsider credentials? Mixed. Bipartisan credentials are excellent, due to McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy. Those bipartisan credits also seem likely to prove fatal to his candidacy.

Mitt Romney: Pretty good outsider/change credentials. He is not of Washington; he solved problems in Massachusetts (health care), and he certainly worked with Democrats -- plus he's the closest thing to an 'Iraq critic' now in the GOP field. His achilles heel is the perception that he has dramatically changed position to get in line with GOP orthodoxy.

THE INSTITUTION:

Hillary Clinton: Outsider credentials? She's a woman. That counts for something, but apart from that she's the closest thing to a Washington institution in this race. Can she promise to 'change the tone,' or 'get Republicans and Democrats to work together?' Not a chance in hell. Plus, after 20 straight years of Bushes and Clintons, she's the only one in the field that offers more of the same. If she wins the nomination and the electorate wants change, she could get trounced in the general election -- particularly if Bloomberg runs.

Am I missing anything? It seems to me that if voters want change in DC -- and they will -- then the candidates best positioned to take advantage are Bloomberg, Obama, Giuliani and Thompson. This doesn't mean of course, that these are the best candidates overall -- they all have plenty of other strengths and weaknesses. But in a general election, 'outsider/change' credentials are likely to be a big boost.

Is the End Near for McCain

Bob Novak seems to think so, and it's hard to find reason for optimism. In particular, I suspect that the prevalence of the immigration debate right now is reminding primary voters that was one of the lead Republican backers of what they see as an amnesty. The President's prominent insults to conservative opponents of the deal earns him resentment, which probably transfers to McCain as well.

I'm not sure where he goes from here:

GOP Field: While Sen. John McCain claims that everything is "fine" in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, events strongly suggest otherwise. The former frontrunner is now in deep trouble. With respect to the positive signs a presidential campaign can point to at this early stage -- fundraising, national polls, state polls, endorsements -- McCain finds himself almost empty-handed.

For this and other reasons, the nascent campaign of former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson poses a challenge for McCain in particular. Thompson has reportedly raised millions in just days after filing an exploratory committee, and a new national Bloomberg poll puts him at 21 percent, in a strong second place against former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. McCain has plunged to 12 percent, just ahead of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, but at least Romney has some bright points in his favor: his lead in fundraising and his lead in Iowa and New Hampshire polls.

McCain has no such good news. If Thompson is the charging bear, McCain is the slowest of the three campers fleeing him -- the most likely to be devoured.

Read the whole article for Novak's dissection of McCain's multiple problems.

Giuliani v. Thompson?

With the anticipated entry of Fred Thompson into the presidential race quite soon, it looks like it ought to become a very interesting race. As I've said before, I suspect that Thompson will crowd out much of the field on the right -- reducing it to largely a two-man race with the Mayor. In his typically interesting Saturday column, Novak notes that Giuliani is getting important help from the New Jersey GOP:

WASHINGTON -- Supporters of Rudy Giuliani for president are changing New Jersey's longtime proportional representation rules for allocating national convention delegates to winner-take-all, seeking a coup to give the former New York City mayor the lion's share of the state's 52 votes.

A June 14 meeting of New Jersey's Republican State Central Committee is expected to adopt a Feb. 5 presidential primary procedure giving the first-place finisher all three delegates in each of the state's 13 House districts, and the statewide leader all 13 at-large delegates. In the past, delegates were divided among candidates according to their share of the vote (as in 1980, when Ronald Reagan and George Bush split New Jersey).

Giuliani's Jersey coup is engineered by his liberal supporters in the state allied with David Von Savage, conservative Republican chairman of Cape May County (also backing him for president).

Thompson meanwhile, is bringing on board Larry Lindsey -- who engineered George Bush's economic platform in the year 2000 -- which earned high praise from supply-siders and fiscal conservatives:

Lawrence Lindsey, George W. Bush's issues adviser in the 1999-2000 run-up to his presidential candidacy, is poised to play a similar role in Fred Thompson's imminent campaign.

A former Harvard economics professor and Federal Reserve governor, Lindsey was National Economics Council director in the Bush administration's first two years. He was fired following the 2002 elections after accurately predicting the cost of the Iraq war.

A footnote: Longtime Washington power broker Tom Korologos, who completed his service as U.S. ambassador to Belgium in February, is also expected to join Thompson's campaign.

Read the rest of the column for Democratic delays on Bush's nominations, and possible retirements in the House GOP.

Giuliani to be Forthright on Abortion

Frankly, I welcome this news:

After months of conflicting signals on abortion, Rudolph W. Giuliani is planning to offer a forthright affirmation of his support for abortion rights in public forums, television appearances and interviews in the coming days, despite the potential for bad consequences among some conservative voters already wary of his views, aides said yesterday.

At the same time, Mr. Giuliani’s campaign — seeking to accomplish the unusual task of persuading Republicans to nominate an abortion rights supporter — is eyeing a path to the nomination that would try to de-emphasize the early states in which abortion opponents wield a great deal of influence. Instead they would focus on the so-called mega-primary of Feb. 5, in which voters in states like California, New York and New Jersey are likely to be more receptive to Mr. Giuliani’s social views than voters in Iowa and South Carolina.

That approach, they said, became more appealing after the Legislature in Florida, another state they said would be receptive to Mr. Giuliani, voted last week to move the primary forward to the end of January.

The shift in emphasis comes as the Giuliani campaign has struggled to deal with the fallout from the first Republican presidential candidate debate, in which he gave halting and apparently contradictory responses to questions about his support for abortion rights.

We've noted many times that Giuliani has been inconsistent and contradictory on abortion. Let's start off by saying that if this means he is going to clear the air about what he thinks, so much the better. His problems in speaking about the issue were undercutting his effectiveness as a campaigner in general.

We'll see how much changes substantively. I don't imagine the Mayor is going to suddenly announce an intent to impose a pro-Wade litmus test on Supreme Court nominees. Nor does it seem likely that he will backtrack too much on the Hyde amendment. This could all wind up much more about style than substance.

In many ways, Mayor Giuliani is the strongest candidate in the GOP field. It's clear that he has tried to moderate his positions to appeal to social conservatives, and it wasn't working all that well.

Let's see the real Rudy Giuliani and find out whether his views are all that bad.

Giuliani on Civil Unions: No Flip Flop... So Far

The New York Sun reports that Mayor Giuliani has come out in opposition to New Hampshire's new civil union law:

"Mayor Giuliani believes marriage is between one man and one woman. Domestic partnerships are the appropriate way to ensure that people are treated fairly," the Giuliani campaign said in a written response to a question from the Sun. "In this specific case the law states same sex civil unions are the equivalent of marriage and recognizes same sex unions from outside states. This goes too far and Mayor Giuliani does not support it."

The Democratic governor of New Hampshire, John Lynch, has said publicly that he will sign the civil union law.

On a February 2004 edition of Fox News's "The O'Reilly Factor," Mr. Giuliani told Bill O'Reilly, when asked if he supported gay marriage, "I'm in favor of … civil unions."

He also said, "Marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman." Asked by Mr. O'Reilly in the interview how he would respond to gay Americans who said being denied access to the institution of marriage violated their rights, Mr. Giuliani said: "That's why you have civil partnerships. So now you have a civil partnership, domestic partnership, civil union, whatever you want to call it, and that takes care of the imbalance, the discrimination, which we shouldn't have." In 1998, as mayor of New York City, Mr. Giuliani signed into law a domestic partnership bill that a gay rights group, the Empire State Pride Agenda, hailed as setting "a new national benchmark for domestic partner recognition."

I don't think this represents a change in position - at least as far as I can see, based on what he said on the O'Reilly Factor. The key lies in the reason the Mayor gives for opposing the new statute - which I've italicized. Note the very significant and deliberate use of the phrase 'in this specific case.'

First, the New Hampshire legislation (text here) seeks to establish civil unions as the 'equivalent of marriage' - whatever that means. Giuliani has said that he favors civil unions as an alternative to marriage. That's a semantic difference, but words mean things. Giuliani may be clarifying his position here, against laws that claim to give civil unions the same status as marriages.

Perhaps more importantly, the New Hampshire legislation might be considered to encourage gay marriages elsewhere, by recognizing gay marriages performed in other states. This could easily justify Giuliani's statement that 'this goes too far.'

Like many other issues currently before the Presidential candidates, we'll have to look for more clarification as to exactly what this means.

Is the GOP Dead in 2008?

The Politico reports 'GOP Fears 2008 Meltdown:'

Republicans across the country are warning that increasing public discontent toward President Bush, the Iraq war and the GOP brand in general threatens to send the party's 2008 campaign planning into a tailspin.

Already, the problems are having tangible effects. Some of the party's top recruits in key races from Colorado to Florida are refusing to run for Congress. Business executives -- the financial backbone of the GOP -- are sending more and more money to Democrats. Overall Republican fundraising is down sharply from the same time frame during the past two presidential elections.

Then there are the voters.

Polling data released this month confirm what GOP officials are picking up anecdotally: Swing voters are swinging away from Republicans at high velocity. Most alarming to GOP strategists is a new survey by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center that found 50 percent of those interviewed consider themselves a Democrat or leaning that way; only 35 percent tilt Republican.

This should not be totally dismissed, but the panicky reaction is silly. Yes, voters form opinions of parties, and those opinions are not shed willy-nilly. Further, if low poll numbers discourage strong GOP candidates from seeking office in 2008, then those polls can yield a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But the GOP brand in 2008 is not George W. Bush - who will be more or less forgotten by the time of the election. Rather, the brand will be Giuliani, or Romney, or Thompson, or McCain. That candidate will - to a large degree - determine how voters view the party.

I remember prior to the 1992 election, when people debated whether the Democratic party would soon go the way of the Whigs and the Federalists. People reasoned that if the Democrats could only win one Presidential race in 20 years - and that one victory due to Watergate - that they could no longer compete. The Ross Perot phenomenon gave fuel to the discussion. Not only did the Democratic party not disband, but Bill Clinton won the Presidency.

It's silly for anyone - Republican or Democrat - to put much stock in election indicators for an election 18 months away. The GOP could win in a romp in 2008, and a Republican President could have broad coattails. To wit:

...So why, in poll after poll, including the new TIME poll, does that advantage seem to disappear whenever voters are asked to pick a president in hypothetical head-to-head match-ups among front-runners with solid name recognition. In our poll, Hillary Clinton loses to John McCain, 42-48%, and to Rudy Giuliani 41-50%. Even though Clinton maintains a 7% edge over Obama among Democratic respondents, Obama fares better in the general election match-ups. It's so close that it's a statistical dead-heat, but Obama still loses: 43-45% to McCain, 44-45% to Giuliani...

Another GOP advantage in these match-ups is the way the party's top two candidates are viewed by the public. "Giuliani and McCain are not traditional Republicans," says Schulman. "Rather they both have an independent streak that plays well in certain traditional Democratic bastions, such as the Northeast and California, the left and right coasts." As anyone following the campaign knows, the perceived "independent streak" that helps both McCain and Giuliani with the general electorate could hurt them, and possibly doom them, with GOP primary voters...

Add that to the fact that Iraq is unlikely to be the top issue in 2008, and Republican candidates should compete quite well in 2008.

And with regard to the prediction that Iraq will not be the top '08 issue, I am absolutely going to write 'I told you so' quite often if it comes to pass. Because come on, I'm the only one saying it.

Giuliani's Political Ju-Jitsu

Yesterday while I was on Capitol Hill, Rudy Giuliani announced that Steve Forbes will be a campaign co-chair. This is right on the heels of an interview Giuliani did with Larry Kudlow, in which he enthusiastically embraced the low-tax supply-side mantle.

Interestingly, Mitt Romney strongly opposed Forbes' flat tax. This will create a little bit of heartburn for Romney, since he'll need to sound friendlier to this supply-side idea if he expects to win the nomination.

This helps round out his message to primary voters: 'I'm your guy in the war on terror, and on the economy. We may disagree on abortion, but we agree on judges and reasonable limits to abortion. I'm 80 percent of the perfect candidate.'

Why does this qualify as political ju-jitsu? Timing.

And what happens today? Mitt Romney debuts his economic plan. Think he'll get any questions about why he opposed the flat tax, and what he thinks about Steve Forbes backing his supply-sider opponent?

Is John McCain's Candidacy Over?

So there may soon be two new entrants into the Republican Presidential field for 2008. One is a John McCain wanna-be, who is nowhere near as popular as McCain among the rank-and-file. (And yes, that means he's awfully unpopular). Put him down as either an also-ran, or an independent candidacy. In that latter capacity, he might well hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans, by splitting the anti-Iraq war vote.

The other is a good friend of John McCain, who apparently stayed out of the race at least in part out of deference to him. If he steps in, he will instantly become the strongest conservative - and he may wind up sucking up all the oxygen that Mitt Romney is currently using, and leaving it a two-man race with Rudy Giuliani. Thompson would be a very serious contender.

But are these signs that McCain's candidacy is no longer seen as viable, or is it a signal (from friends) that he should get out?

Giuliani & Abortion

Analysts and activists continue to delve into Giuliani's views on abortion, and it's showing how tricky this issue is going to be for him. While he says he is pro-choice, that phrase does not in and of itself tell a lot about what he would do as President. There's a flip side to that - knowing that a candidate is pro-life doesn't necessarily tell us much, either. Those labels have been given more weight than they warrant, at least in the debate over what Republicans believe.

Giuliani is a pro-choice candidate who opposes taxpayer financing of abortions (now), opposes partial-birth abortion, and supports parental consent laws (with safeguards). He is signaling that he might be planning to nominate judges who'll overturn Roe vs. Wade. (And he seems to welcome it when conservatives like me, Ace of Spades, and Tucker Carlson hear him say more than he has). We'll have to wait and see where he stands on fetal tissue stem cell research, and any other pro-life priorities I may be missing.

So he is pro-choice, but on the top priorities of the pro-life movement, he seems to agree with them. So what kind of pro-choice candidate is he?

Note this interview with Giuliani-supporter David Dreier. Remember that Dreier is extremely smooth; there are few Republicans as sharp as he is at knowing what to say, and sticking to his message. The folks at the Corner are surprised that Giuliani is against taxpayer-financing of abortions; Dreier says it as well - demonstrating (I think) that he has made that clear at least, to his California supporters.

But even Dreier needs to work on how he talks about Giuliani's abortion views. He says that Giuliani has made clear that he is pro-life - and given the strong words Giuliani used in talking about it, that may be justified. But the Mayor said that he is pro-choice.

Well, which is it?

Further, Giuliani and his team should at all costs NOT remind Republicans of the 'Cuomo formulation;' the 'I'm personally pro-life, but I can't impose my religious beliefs' concept. Dreier specifically calls that phrasing to mind, and it will stick under the skin of pro-lifers and drive them crazy. While enough pro-lifers seem to be able to live with a pro-choice nominee - provided he's the right kind of pro-choicer - that whole 'I'm pro-life but...' thing carries the emotional weight to make Giuliani's chore a lot more difficult.

And Dreier describes himself as a 'libertarian conservative with a strong pro-life voting record, who doesn't believe the federal government has a role in abortion.'

Well, pro-lifers believe the federal government has a role - on things like the partial-birth abortion ban, for example. Dreier implicitly believes it as well, because he voted for the ban. If he intends to associate Giuliani with his pro-life libertarian, non-federal philosophy, then he will get tripped up in the same way.



This is going to be tricky.