Why Giuliani Is Winning

Even after all his great work showing the lengths that Republicans will go to keep power, Josh Marshall still doesn't get the right:

"I'm really not convinced Giuliani can win the GOP nod as a pro-choice, pro-gay rights candidate."

Like a lot of us, he thinks that Republicans base their political judgment on issues, ie. gay rights, abortion, national defense, taxes, etc.  He makes the same mistake that a lot of Democrats make, assuming that conservatives think the way that we do.  They don't.  They are authoritarians.  Gay marriage, abortion, taxes, national security, none of it really matters to them.  What they are looking for is an authoritarian to look like he's taking charge, and the way an authoritarian takes charge is to attack liberals and stomp on people who aren't like them.  Giuliani did this in New York, so he's a rock star in Alabama.  It's the same thing with Mitt Romney - he's not even being the least bit subtle about reversing everything he 'believed' in Massachusetts, but it doesn't matter.  The right-wing base is entirely unprincipled, subduing any concerns they might have over political issues to a sheer authoritarian impulse.

According to the latest Q-poll, Giuliani is at 40%, McCain's at 18%, Gingrich is at 10, and Romney is at 7%.  This shouldn't be a surprise.  I spoke to a high level Republican establishment person, and she said that McCain reminded her of Dole, that even though it's 'his due', he's old and past his prime. In 1996, she said no one thought Clinton could be defeated, so the primary wasn't competitive. And the Republican establishment is McCain's base, so this is very bad news for him.

As for Giuliani, she argued that he was great 'on taxes' in New York, and that national security could be seen as the big moral issue of our time.  Don't fall for the nonsensical idea that the right-wing decides their contest based on issues, or has any principles that we would recognize.  To them, it's all about demonstrating a tribal authoritarianism.  Giuliani does this.  Ask anyone in New York who ever had to deal with him.

And please please please stop assuming that they think like we do.  They don't.  Right-wingers are right-wingers for a reason.  If they thought like us they'd be Democrats.

Tags: GOP, Rudy Giuliani (all tags)

Comments

91 Comments

Giuliani vs Clinton

is the worst matchup democrats could have.

none of Giuliani's personal skeletons would come into play if he ran against clinton.

by TarHeel 2007-02-24 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Giuliani vs Clinton

Yeah, it would come into play. And they will come into play, particularly in the GOP primary. Rudy's getting a nice, easy ride now. Wait until a dyed-in-wool social conservative like Sam Brownback gets started on Giuliani.

He's got a very ugly personal life.

by PsiFighter37 2007-02-24 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Giuliani vs Clinton

A lot of Republicans will not vote for Giuliani. That is the problem they will face if he is the nominee. That also opens the door to a right wing third party run by someone like Judge Roy Moore or Michael Savage. It also could perhaps open the door to a Unity Party ticket of John McCain.

If Giuliani is the nominee it could make some red states competitive (or near competitive) that have not voted for a Democratic nominee since Bill Clinton. Democrats will be in good shape if McCain, Giuliani, Romney, or Gingrich is the nominee since they all have major package. My fear is someone like Huckabee who could attract swing voters.

by robliberal 2007-02-24 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Giuliani vs Clinton

That should read "major baggage" not "major package".

by robliberal 2007-02-24 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Giuliani vs Clinton

I'm just not seeing that.  Sean Hannity has turned his radio show into a daily 3 hour campaign commerical.  Furthermore - as digby noted yesterday - the theocrats are not that difficult to fool.  All Rudy needs to do is say an magic words "judges like scalia and alito" (apparently Thomas has been kicked to the curb)

That combined with the eventual message machine getting in lock step and Rudy will win in a walk because he is the 'tough guy daddy' that they all want and need.

In the general election, however, he is screwed because the second he wavers on "victory in Iraq" the others like McCain and Brownback will drop on him like a ton of bricks.

It's why, no matter who eventually wins the nomination the GOP is screwed in '08

by Fledermaus 2007-02-24 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Giuliani vs Clinton

Clarence Thomas HAS been kicked to the curb by conservatives, because unlike his fellow "strict constructionist" Scalia, Thomas actually bases his decisions on what he thinks the Constitution means, while Scalia throws out the actual words if a "compelling government interest" (meaning "compelling presidential interest") strikes his fancy.  Roberts and Alito are along the same lines as Scalia, deferring to presidential power rather than to the actual text.

by Lex 2007-02-24 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Giuliani vs Clinton

I could not disagree more with that statement.  

Let's be clear:  All of Giuliani's skeletons will be on display, regardless of who the candidate is.  However, he is strong in the NorthEast, and that is where the crux of the issue is.  Edwards has been polling terribly particularly across the NorthEast.  NY polling shows him at 6%, Connecticut polling:  8%.  NH: 13%.   At least going by current polling, the worst thing that could happen would be a Giuliani-Edwards GE.  It would jepoardize New York and New Jersey as well as Connecticut for the Democrats, and when was the last time THAT happened?

Giuliani-Clinton gives us the best shot, Giuliani-Obama puts the North East still within reach, Giuliani-Edwards would be a disaster for us in the North East, IMHO.    

by georgep 2007-02-24 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Giuliani vs Clinton

Let's also not forget Rudy's little association with corruption via Bernie Kerik.

by PsiFighter37 2007-02-24 11:47AM | 0 recs
You so full of it

Edwards and Elizabeth look like Puritans in their personal life compared to Bubba and Giuliani.

Giuliani has committed adultry twice and called the wife of his child a "pig" in public.

He also was married to his second cousin and later had the marriage annulled.

While a state like NJ might be closer than normal if it were Edwards v Giuliani states like VA  would be in play too.

the point is, Giuliani's personal improprieties will be washed out by bill-hill's scandals.

FYI since your such a big "pollster" the polls show Hillary losing to Giuliani currently.

by TarHeel 2007-02-24 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: You so full of it

Not true at all.  The latest NY poll shows Hillary beating Giuliani by 10 points:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/n ewyork/ny-bc-ny--clinton-giuliani0214feb 14,0,4339314.story?coll=ny-region-apnewy ork

Would Edwards do as well in the North East?  I know you are a die-hard supporter, but even you should see that it would be a very tough task for Edwards.  

As for Bill/Hill scandals:  Bill Clinton is the most popular politician on the planet.  His popularity now tops 63% with very low unpopularity.  The "scandals" from the BC years are a non-issue.  They are known elements.  Giuliani's scandals were known to New Yorkers only, but not the general population at large, which makes him vulnerable for scandal stories that turn off voters in Florida, New Mexico, Ohio, etc.   Equating the two parties on that front makes little sense, IMO.  The country at large knows all there is to know about Bill/Hill's past and have decided that they like 'em anyway, a lot.  

by georgep 2007-02-24 12:28PM | 0 recs
You know I'm talkin

national polls not NY..

or do you think CA and NY are really in jeopardy of going Red in a general.

Hillary may win the nomination but she will be the weakest candidate in a general..David Geffen is right

by TarHeel 2007-02-24 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: You know I'm talkin

There is no evidence to support that. Polls so far have shown Clinton to be stronger than anyone expected. When the Hillary and Bill campaign hits full gear it would be unlike anything ever seen in American politics.

by robliberal 2007-02-24 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: You know I'm talkin

When the Hillary and Bill campaign hits full gear it would be unlike anything ever seen in American politics.
 --- "unpleasant to watch, but effective" -David Geffen

by TarHeel 2007-02-24 02:15PM | 0 recs
unpleasant and effective

I've been thinking the same thing about the GOP side. When McCain and Huckabee and Brownback decide they have to take out Giuliani, it will uuuugggllyyy. I''m stocking up on popcorn.

by BlueinColorado 2007-02-24 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: You so full of it

The public knows all about the smears against the Clintons going back some 30 years and the polls show  that will not be the kind of factor that so many on the right and left hoped it would be.

Voters, especially conservative GOP voters, do not know much about Giuliani. When they learn more during the GOP primaries it will not be a pretty scene.

by robliberal 2007-02-24 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Giuliani vs Clinton

Don't be ridiculous. Those figures are for primary polling. You think those voters are going to turn around and vote for Rudy just because Chris Dodd didn't get the nomination? Are you high?

Giuliani would do better than other Republicans in the north-east, but there's nothing about Edwards' message that is anathema to north-eastern Democrats and in 2004 there was a 17 point margin in New York. I realise your entire purpose here is to shill for Clinton, but this isn't a line of attack that's credible.

by Englishlefty 2007-02-24 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Giuliani vs Clinton

Geez.  Forget NY polling TODAY that shows Giuliani would beat Edwards there, it is insignificant.   Makes a ton of sense.  :rolleyes:  

Please dispense with the personal attacks.  They weaken any point you may have.   In other words:  Your accusation that I am a "shill" for Clinton is a bald faced lie.  Play nice and it can turn into a fun discussion.    Thanks.  

by georgep 2007-02-24 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Giuliani vs Clinton

Since I've never seen you post a comment not related to the 2008 race and since all your comments either extol Clinton or slate her rivals, I'm fine with considering you a shill.

General election polling now is of dubious value, as it's nearly two years early. Two years of campaigning against Giuliani and kowtowing to the right wing will bring his numbers down in a blue state like New York.

by Englishlefty 2007-02-24 01:28PM | 0 recs
georgep is

intentionally avoiding the question.

in a general election,  all democrats will win NY and CA...

by TarHeel 2007-02-24 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: georgep is

WHAT question?  

First of all, in a general election Edwards would have major problems holding onto New York and NJ against Giuliani.  You would realize that danger for Edwards (and the Democratic party) if you weren't so Edwards-enthralled.  

Secondly, your point is false and easily debunked.  Almost every poll with a head-to-head question regarding Clinton and Giuliani is showing a close horserace with no winner:

1. ABC News/Washington post poll:  Clinton leads Giuliani by 2

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/pol itics/polls/postpoll_012007.htm

2. Newsweek:  Clinton leads Giuliani by 3

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16829011/sit e/newsweek/

3. Siena:  Giuliani leads Clinton by 1

http://www.siena.edu/sri/FirstWomanPresi dent/07_FWP_Poll_xtabs.pdf

4. USA/Today Gallup:  Giuliani leads Clinton by 2

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/table s/live/2007-02-13-2008-poll.htm

5. Marist:  Giuliani leads Clinton by 2

http://maristpoll.com/

6. Quinnipiac:  Giuliani leads Clinton by 5

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?Rele aseID=1019

---------------------------------------- --------------------

Except for the Quinnipiac poll, which shows a thin 5 point lead, EVERY other poll conducted shows Clinton either slightly in the lead or Giuliani slightly in the lead, all within the margin of error.    Your point is utterly incorrect, thus false.

Besides, if you HAD a point and Giuliani were to beat Clinton strongly in all polls (not the case, obviously, in fact, totally false, but for argument's sakes,) where would that leave YOU for the Democratic primaries?   Clinton is beating Edwards in every poll, badly.  Edwards is getting pummelled, it is not even close.   Using your logic Edwards has no chance whatsoever.  Is that the point you are trying to make here about horse-race numbers as of today?  

by georgep 2007-02-25 03:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Giuliani vs Clinton

But this forgets the fact that the NE is heavily Dem to begin with, and most of them would still vote for Edwards before they would vote for Giuliani. I don't buy the Giuliani would take a single NE state, not even NY. Hell, especially not NY--people there have him figured out.

by Elakazal 2007-02-25 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Giuliani vs Clinton

Eh.  That Edwards might not be the first choice of Northeast Dems does not mean he's not an acceptable choice.

by Adam B 2007-02-25 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Giuliani vs Clinton

What are you talking about?  All the dirt that the repubs can throw at the Clintons has been thrown, its gonna just be a re-hash.  (Everyone has heard everything and still both he and she are the most popular man and woman in our Nation)

Rudy wanted and tried to run against Hillary before and had to run away from her like a coward - after HIS life story came out and made him look crackers - he had to claim he was leaving the race because he got butt cancer. Bull.

The Clintons are ready for this guy, theyve got his number and the way they will handle him will be fierce and effective.

by timlhowe 2007-02-24 05:21PM | 0 recs
Clinton is the *best* vs. Guiliani

Some people seem to forget - Hillary wasn't doing interesting things with cigars in the Oval Office.  She's the wronged woman. She can play the "wronged woman" card with moral authority, has the ruthlessness to play it, and has the political skills to squeeze every last bit of political advantage.

She won't say a philanderer shouldn't be in the Oval Office. She will say how it hurts to be cheated on. She will say how thankful she is that Bill had the morality and Christian values to beg her forgiveness, to stay with her, and to give up his sinful ways. She will  speak of how awful it is for any man to not merely cheat on his wife, but then to desert her and his own children - without mentioning names, of course. She will speak of how important it is to have a President you can trust, who won't drop his own family for temptation.

When she's through, there won't be a woman in the country who could vote for Guiliani.

by curtadams 2007-02-25 05:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

What they are looking for is an authoritarian to look like he's taking charge, and the way an authoritarian takes charge is to attack liberals and stomp on people who aren't like them.

precisely so

by Alice Marshall 2007-02-24 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

If by right-wingers you mean the "activist basis" of the Republican party, then I rather suspect you're right. But I don't think the argument applies to the Christian right - the fundies who prefer to stay away from politics unless you give them a pseudo-religious reason to vote. I think what's really happening right now is that Dobson & Co. have taken a look at the annointed candidate, i.e., at McCain, and have said no thanks. So now Giuliani and Romny are benefitting from that. That's going to continue until the leaders of the American Taliban signal to the faithful that they have chosen another standard bearer or that they are going to sit 2008 out.

by brainwave 2007-02-24 11:39AM | 0 recs
You're being logical. That's the problem.

 Rightwingers do not operate in a logical universe, and that's every bit as true of the rank-and-file as it is of the activist base. Heck, it's probably more true of the rank-and-file; the high-level activists are largely aware it's all a con job.

  Check out my post a bit further down. My religious-right parents are not "activists", but they're well into the process of rationalizing Rudy.

 

by Master Jack 2007-02-24 01:21PM | 0 recs
If they can take back Haggard

They'll accept anything as long as he's perceived as being "on our side". Issues are so much smoke...any excuse to attack liberals & democrats & progressive values in general.

by Coral 2007-02-25 04:09AM | 0 recs
Re: If they can take back Haggard

While this is true about conservatives in general, it's not necessarily true about the Dobson et al. crowd, who have spent a lot of time and resources programming their followers that gay rights = evil, Mormon = evil, gun control = evil, etc.

They're not going to want to undo that, because that doesn't get them where they want to go. The average Republican may want an authoritarian president, but the religious right wants their social agenda, first and foremost.

And without a Dobsonian candidate, a small but substantial segment of Republicans will stay home.

by Elakazal 2007-02-25 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

by brainwave 2007-02-24 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

Boy, I dunno. After all the comments I heard canvassing about how people would vote for a Democrat if they weren't so pro-choice, I can't help but think that maybe they mean it. Though Giuliani's "strict constructionist" talk may mitigate that.

by Mullibok 2007-02-24 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

All that a lot of people know about Giuliani is that he's the man who made New York safe for Whitey again. And his cavalier attitude towards civil liberties is a feature, not a bug, with the mean Republican primary voter

If I were running his campaign, I'd make damn sure the median primary voter knew all about Amidou Diallo and Abner Louima.

He's the perfect GOP candidate for the post-Bush era -- one part Benito Mussolini, one part Senator Bilbo.

by Davis X Machina 2007-02-24 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

Sorry, but I lived there.  David Dinkins was the mayor under whom crime fell (i.e., made it safe for whitey to live there).  Rudy only took the credit for everything his predecessors did -- he actually was ineffectual, unless you count getting rid of the squeegee guys an important point.  The biggest thing that Rudy SHOULD be remembered for is threatening to stay in office after Bloomberg was elected because of the 9/11 crisis.  "The city needs me" he proclaimed.  Well -- no, it didn't.  It needed somebody SANE, and Bloomie fit the bill.

As for Rudy, he never saw a good idea he couldn't take credit for; and he never had a good idea on his own.

And, yeah, I lived in Manhattan through all of it.

by Youffraita 2007-02-24 01:20PM | 0 recs
Bloomberg is "sane"?

  Man, the NYC mayor-candidate pool is thin indeed.
by Master Jack 2007-02-24 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg is "sane"?

Yes, Bloomie is sane when you compare him to his predecessor, Rudy Giuliani.  We in Manhattan used to call him Rudy Mussolini because he is such a fascist.  Perhaps you are pro-fascist; I am not.

by Youffraita 2007-02-24 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg is "sane"?


  Oh, man, don't misunderstand me -- that was NOT a defense of Giuliani. I agree that the man is a thug.

 But saying Bloomberg's better than Giuliani is kind of like saying the Ayatollah Khomeini was an improvement on the Shah...

by Master Jack 2007-02-24 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg is "sane"?

Giuliani is truly pathological. The more you watch the guy, the more apparent is that the many really is nuts. And an asshole.

by Elakazal 2007-02-25 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

That he tried to remain in office after the election is a point that is not often mentioned by the media now.

by robliberal 2007-02-24 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

Perhaps Dinkins and Bratton deserve the credit for reducing crime in NYC, but they don't get it in the popular imagination, Rudy does.  And all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about how unfair that is, is so much wasted breath.

I agree with the comment above: Rudy can help himself at least in the primaries by reminding people of the people he had the balls to have executed (albeit indirectly), Diallou and Louima.  

There is a strong pro-fascist element in the GOP, probably that 3x% that Bush's numbers won't go below, for whom Herr Giuliani is the perfect candidate.

A Giuliani administration could be quite scary.

by Taylor26 2007-02-25 03:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

Nah...New Yorkers have figured it out. And the rest of the country is waiting to hear the rest of the story. And with much of the news media based in New York, the stories will come out.

by Elakazal 2007-02-25 07:48AM | 0 recs
this article is relevent

Christian Right Labors to Find '08 Candidate in the Times.  

by John DE 2007-02-24 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: this article is relevent

Which is some evidence against Matt's argument, I think.

by jallen 2007-02-24 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: this article is relevant

I disagree.

"But in a stark shift from the group's influence under President Bush, the group risks relegation to the margins"

IMO Dobson and his cohorts don't want to be relegated to the margins and will do anything to stay in the policy  and power mix.

From 1992-2000, they were out of power and biding their time until the termination of Bill Clinton's Presidency. Under Bush life has been sweet, those faith based initiatives are gold mines.  Further, they have come into their own as as kingmakers in the Republican Party.  Now they claim they feel used and abandoned by Bush, but they still have his ear and he gave them Alito and Roberts.  

The article makes clear that they don't think that any of the true conservatives can raise enough money to compete, so that leaves them with choosing a 3rd party, as Dobson said he did in 1996, or holding their noses and voting for someone less conservative.  I think they choose to vote.  In 1996, Bill Clinton was on his way to crushing Bob Dole, so Dobson could take that principled 3rd party stand without any real consequences.  He hadn't had a taste of the good life yet and power is addictive.

The Christian Conservatives are not going to risk sitting out the election and have 2 things happen:

  1.  Rudy or some other "non social conservative" is elected without their input, so the whole quid pro quo thing they had with George Bush isn't there.  Hence they are relegated to the margins
  2.  A Democrat is elected and for sure they are back out in the wilderness.

From all that we've heard about Guidy's, as I like to call Rudy, authoritarian tendencies,  if he wins without the Christian Conservative support, or if they bad mouth him and he wins, he will not be so welcoming of them or their ideas, which he is willing to give lip service to now.

As far as the big business wing of the party, they have a friend in Guiliani.  McCain has got to get on it.

by Kingstongirl 2007-02-24 03:40PM | 0 recs
God Is The Ultimate Authority

I think Matt makes a very important point about right-wingers and the authoritarian style.  As Mayor, Giuliani was as authoritarian as any Mayor could be, especially his cultivation of the everyday authority figure New Yorkers see most, the Police.

However, for an awful lot of GOP caucus & primary vothers the ultimate authority can never be a politician.  God is the great authority figure, GOD!  And for many, Rudy's stand on many issues defy, in GWB's words, "The Higher Father."

"God said it.  We believe it.  That settles it." read the sign on a church near my boyhood home in Glencoe, Missouri.  It is going to be very tough for Rudy to win God's vote.

by howardpark 2007-02-24 12:02PM | 0 recs
no, many anti-choicers vote on that one issue

Matt, do you actually know any people who believe abortion is murder? I don't mean the GOP talking heads who don't care about anything but preserving power for the Republican Party. I mean the rank and file Republican voters.

Sadly, I have met too many people who vote Republican solely on the abortion issue. They "should" be Democrats and they even admit this (for instance, they may be strong environmentalists), but they cannot look past the fact that the Democratic Party, in their eyes, wants to continue allowing the murder of thousands of helpless babies.

Many of these people vote in primaries. And even some of the pro-choice Republicans will be repulsed when they learn more about Giuliani's personal life. He has no chance in hell to get the nomination.

by desmoinesdem 2007-02-24 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: no, many anti-choicers vote on that one issue

Sadly, I have met too many people who vote Republican solely on the abortion issue.

Again, you are making the mistake of assuming they vote based on an issue.  They don't, they are just telling you this because that's how they've trained themselves to justify their authoritarian impulse.  They will vote for Rudy after they find out that he will appoint Alito-like judges, justifying their lack of principle with whatever rationale the GOP establishment settles on.

by Matt Stoller 2007-02-24 12:19PM | 0 recs
wow, you know a lot about these people

you've never met or talked to. You can read their minds!

Matt, many Republican voters do have an authoritarian impulse, but I wouldn't kid yourself into thinking that they don't really care about any issues. When was the last time you talked to someone who believes abortion is murder?

Read the literature on priming sometime. People can be "primed" to vote on certain issues that might not have been decisive for them if they were not salient in the media. That doesn't mean people don't really believe those things, or don't really vote on those things.

If Giuliani is the nominee, which I don't think will happen, I would expect many right-wing religious voters to stay home.

by desmoinesdem 2007-02-24 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: wow, you know a lot about these people

I agree with Matt, although he is generalizing to make the point about what motivates the Right. If a gay preacher can be cured in 6 weeks then Giuliani can also be conveniently absolved of past sins. The pattern is consistent: self-interest by the leaders and self-deception by the followers. Giuliani will say and do what is necessary and the party will find a way to justify their support.

by anothergreenbus 2007-02-24 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: wow, you know a lot about these people

Yeah, but Haggard is willing to say all the right things. Giuliani still has yet to say that he is now anti-abortion, or anti-gay rights or anti-gun control. And he won't, if only because he's too full of himself to feel he needs to. Giuliani believes that he is the savior of NYC and that everyone should simply recognize how amazingly awesome he is and that ought to be enough.

by Elakazal 2007-02-25 07:54AM | 0 recs
As Matt once told me, this ain't black & white

In this thread both sides are right and wrong.

1st- Matt is letting his contempt for the contemptable Republicans overrule logic. While power is a huge issue in the Publican party it ain't 100%.

2nd- everybody is forgetting that McCain has pissed off the right and in a poll none of those folks are ever gonna say they will vote for him.  However in a Hillary - McCain race they will hold their nose a vote for McCain.

3rd- in a similar fashion, 95% - 98% of all Republicans will show up in Nov. 08 to vote for the Party's candidate no matter who it is. But, that's not the issue - Repubs win because of Independents and crossover voters not because of Republican voters.  Rudy will attract those voters especially in a race against Hillary so he is a real threat.

4th- the attitudes of the Repub's far right wingnuts will matter in the primaries and that's what will kill off Rudy.  Here abortion still matters and after his opponents get the whisper campaigns going about his views and private life in Iowa, S, Carolina and everywhere else it will all be over.  Remember the Bushies killed off McCain's campaign in SC with a rumor.  McCain's folks know the technique - expect 'em to prefect it this year.

All Huckabee (sp?) needs to do is stay alive and wait for the rest to implode.  He really is their best consensus candidate.

by mwfolsom 2007-02-25 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

As a comparison I could never vote for an anti abortio Democrat like Bob Casey Jr. for President, and I don't care who he was up against. Giuliani offers the hardest challenge for any Democrat because the MSM will talk up his lieral "credentials". Giuliani vs. Clinton or Obama is bad for both of them. However, you can be guaranteed that a lot of religoius voters won't show up.

by bsavage 2007-02-24 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

He ran from Hillary before and you gotta know that this has bugged him since.  But ego is not a winning strategy.  The Clintons have his number and they will, if hes the nominee, tie him up like a pretzel.

by timlhowe 2007-02-24 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

I think the assertion that a Giuliani-Hillary campaign would mean his personal skeletons are negated has it backwards. It means the Repubs can't campaign against Hillary's marital issues. The Dems wouldn't run against Rudy's three marriages anyway. There's plenty of other stuff. Besides, people seem to be missing a fundamental point: Rudy's unfavorables are 20 percent at worst right now because he's still living off 9/11. Those will at least double if he manages to get the nomination, because no nominee has negatives under 40 percent, even winning ones. nominees by definition are all "polarizing."

And in most polls, Rudy leads Obama by at least the same margin as he leads Hillary.

Frankly, Rudy has nowhere to go but down.  

by LancDem 2007-02-24 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

Let's hope he can only go down.  It's a horrible thought that he might win.  In NYC he ruled as an autocrat, taking credit where it wasn't due, and he's my worst nightmare as president:  worse than this one because he's actually intelligent.  But we in NYC called him Rudy Mussolini for a reason.  So if he gets elected, you can kiss your Bill of Rights good-bye.

by Youffraita 2007-02-24 01:39PM | 0 recs
You nailed it

Spot-on Matt...

You nailed it. Couldn't agree more. I'd add too that the prospect of Giuliani shaking up the blue/red state divide, watching Democrats scramble, trumps their need to have Giuliani check off box on the Conservative checklist.

And anyone who's seen Giuliani in motion knows he's a political opportunist -- he will give them their conservative wingnut judges, take a blind eye on guns -- as long as it gets him what he wants.

I mean this is a guy who endorsed Mario Cuomo for Governor and now spends his time endorsing religious right loons like Ralph Reed.

The upside is that there are piles of negative stories, video, etc. about Giuliani that could be exploited -- and he would not be inoculated -- even if Hillary is the nominee.

by GregNYC 2007-02-24 12:17PM | 0 recs
Q Polls are skewed

The Q Poll is a skewed poll; this was the same poll that showed lieberman winning the democratic primary.

alas.. lies, damned lies..

by heyAnita 2007-02-24 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

I posted this a few days ago. I'll repost, because it's a perfect example of what Matt's talking about:

 My parents are both theocon Republicans. Whenever we get together they ALWAYS try to bait me politically, and last Saturday was no exception. This time I took the opportunity to turn the tables and told them that "at least I know you'll never support Giuliani, given his personal history". I was fishing to see what kinds of mental gymnastics and rationalizations religious wingnuts would come up with to justify voting for Rudy Giuliani. My parents did not disappoint.

"He's admitted he's made mistakes. He's grown in his faith."

"He now admits he was wrong about abortion. He's seen the light."

"He's shown contrition. And anyway, the divorces were his wives' fault."

"He doesn't try to parse his way out of it like Clinton did."

 You get the idea.

 The thought that maybe all this sudden "contrition" might have an ever-so-slight correlation with his decision to run for president registers in their minds not at all.

 I don't think Giuliani would have the slightest problem attracting the theocon vote. These people can rationalize anything. If James Dobson signals that Giuliani is OK, they'll vote for him in droves. Even if Giuliani is caught in bed with an underage male stripper.

 For fundies, religion is a political club to swing, not an expression of faith in a higher power.

by Master Jack 2007-02-24 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

Interesting

by Matt Stoller 2007-02-24 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

"He's admitted he's made mistakes. He's grown in his faith."
"He now admits he was wrong about abortion. He's seen the light."

Pretty much what I've been expecting. I'm just waiting for the interview--Time, Newsweek, or Katie Couric--where he explains that 9/11 made him re-examine his faith and go back to his Catholic roots, blahblahblah. (Though I gather James Dobson has fatwahed him as unacceptable.)
Between that and the authoritarianism that he radiates and so many righties seem to crave instinctively, I think he's got a shot. I would just add one caveat to this and Matt Stoller's larger point: McCain has some very nasty people of his own, I'm sure the others do to. I'm not sure Giuliani can survive a full on assault from the Right.

by BlueinColorado 2007-02-24 04:32PM | 0 recs
Good Point

McCain has some very nasty people of his own, I'm sure the others do to

The Republican primaries could be a bloodbath. I can't wait. (seriously)

by LiberalFromPA 2007-02-24 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

Hayzeus, how many times must this be pointed out:  Rudy wants power for its own sake.  As mayor of NYC, he consistently claimed credit for advances made by his predecessor, David Dinkins, including the fact that crime was falling -- not because of anything that Rudy did.  He is a scumbag, a douchebag, a piece of human excrement.  I cannot put it more tactfully than that.  I endured 8 years of him as mayor, and frankly, it was a huge relief when Bloomberg took office.

One other point that you may have missed if you didn't live in NYC after 9/11:  Rudy threatened to stay in office because "the city needed him" even though Bloomie had already been elected.  Luckily for the city he backed down on that threat: but given his autocratic tendencies, he should not be allowed to run for dog-catcher, much less president.

by Youffraita 2007-02-24 01:50PM | 0 recs
a scumbag, a douchebag, a piece of human excrement

no arugment here, but all those things are also true of Dumbya.

Also, Shrubb in Texas took credit for all kinds of things he had nothing to do with. Interesting parallel.

by BlueinColorado 2007-02-24 04:33PM | 0 recs
Rudy wants power for its own sake.

That is what they are all about in the end. For them all moral issues are fungible--power is absolute.

by anothergreenbus 2007-02-24 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

Giuliani and Brownback will be the last two guys standing on the GOP side.

by Davis X Machina 2007-02-24 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

I am no Hillary fan, but I have to say this. If Giuliani is the candidate in 2008 for the Republicans, I'm by far most comfortable with her running. Whoever runs against him will have to run AGAINST him, and she's the only one who'd be able to run and survive in a dirty, brutal, no holds barred campaign.

That said, I think any of our candidates have a good shot at winning in 2008, Giuliani or no.

by Zephyrus 2007-02-24 02:41PM | 0 recs
Is there ANY factual basis for this post?

Gotta say I think Matt is wrong on this one.  While I agree that the christian right leadership will likely support anyone to stay in power, rank and file theocons are different.  There are districts out there where pro-choice candidates literally can't win b/c there are so many single issue abortion voters.  Many of those same voters are ALSO authoritarian in nature, but won't vote for ANY candidate that doesn't check the right boxes on the social issues.

Obviously Republican primary voters don't think like Democrats.  And clearly the GOP is full of voters attracted to authoritarian candidates.  But if Rudy wins the nomination a ton of rank and file voters WILL sit out the election or vote for a third party candidate.  National polls at this point do little more than measure name recognition.  To prove that, all you have to consider is that JOE LIEBERMAN was leading Democratic primary polls at this point in the 2004 cycle.  Rudy's numbers will fall as voters learn more about him.  Ironically, we should hope they don't.  If Roy Moore or some other christian right third party candidate picks up 8% of the vote, whoever we nominate will win.  

by HSTruman 2007-02-24 03:53PM | 0 recs
But are Dems so different?

I remember how Dems were led into voting for John Kerry "because he can win," without further investigation.

And I watch the current top 3 Democratic candidates, each with only a couple years of experience in political office, none with executive experience, and the bloggers who apparently think that's just fine.  Even as they complain about the incompetents who the Bush administration has been appointing based solely on their "issues" not their experience.

And I wonder how different we are.

by catherineD 2007-02-24 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: But are Dems so different?

catherine, Hillary was sitting home baking cookies during those two terms.  I was there she was an equal partner in policy.  She also was the voice inside the administration for progressives...thats why the hatred of her by some here upsets me so, they dont know what the hey theyre talking about. If was question over policy , fine.  But this hatred is pathological and I feel, in some way, is based upon feelings about her as a woman and wife.

by timlhowe 2007-02-24 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: But are Dems so different?

oops i meant Hillary WASNT sittin home baking cookies - sorry!

by timlhowe 2007-02-24 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: But are Dems so different?

If she is so progressive, why does she run away from us?  She won't even pay us lip service.  Hell, as much as Tom Collins might be a jack ass(and had a lackey posting for him), they still took a minimum of time to post at DKos.  It was a weak attempt, but still an attempt.  If HLC is so progressive, why is she part of the DLC?

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-02-24 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: But are Dems so different?

Except for Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich there are no non-DLC candidates in the race.

by robliberal 2007-02-24 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: But are Dems so different?

lordie ...whats with you folks and the dlc?  its like the right wing nuts and the trilateral commision. its not as important a group as you guys pretend.  just one of many.

hillary does reach out to progressives.  many, many , many union leaders think she is the second coming.  do you think emilys list is a progressive org? she may not ever reach out herself to these sites, youre right, but i wouldnt recommend that she should...right now there is little chance shed get a fair chance from what ive seen.  politics is a team sport - but many here seem not to know this.

by timlhowe 2007-02-24 10:45PM | 0 recs
Re: But are Dems so different?

If it is a team sport ... why doesn't she reach out?  Do you think people here are that hard headed that we won't give her props for coming by? .. Lets get real ... as much as I think Tom Collins is a buffoon ... at least they stopped by .. I mean it's better than nothing ... besides .. all her DLC surrogates can do nothing but bash the "netroots" at every opportunity .. or have you been sleeping the past few years

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-02-25 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: But are Dems so different?

Im being sincere here.  Do you honestly think that if Hillary would write something for this site (or Kos)that there wouldnt be many who would just use her posting as an opportunity to write snide comments meant only to embarras her and her campaign. Right now, there seems to be a kind of political road rage whenever her name is mentioned.  Attacks for her and contempt for all the good works of the Clinton administration. (full employment, peace on earth yada yada)  Heck, I keep reading people quoting stuff that reads like it just came from Drudge or NewsMax or something.  Heck, Ive been here for less than a week and Ive been told I cant write or think!  Heck, Ive even been WARNED to be careful.  Funny stuff...and I consider myself - your FRIEND.  There are many people I know who, as you may guess, do Not respect the work or fear the power of the Net Roots.  I know that inside this echo chamber there is the perception that the last election was won by their work.  Others, of course, dont think so. When it comes to these sites, I think that political veterans are intrigued by its enthusiasm and fearful of its overt emotionalism.  Me, im interested in a polite and excitement filled dialogue.  Hell, I love politics.  I like a good skirmish.  I just dont want a death cage match between campaigns that are, in actuality, a helluva lot alike.

by timlhowe 2007-02-26 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: But are Dems so different?

I personally would recommend that the Clinton campaign have someone post on dkos from time to time.  I see a lot of misinformation spread by so-called "haters" and it leads to a pile-on effect.  They may still start posting on progressive sites, if they can put someone up who can handle the vitriol.  If you follow the rhetoric on the stump, it is 99.9% progressive ideals that are being advanced (on immigration, energy, health care, taxes, poverty, abortion, civil rights, etc.)

by georgep 2007-02-25 03:29AM | 0 recs
Re: But are Dems so different?

And what exactly does HRC stand for? .. as someone said on DKos(It might have been here too) .. why is it that a lot of the candidates on the right embrace  their base ... but the Dems don't?  Hell, even Jim Webb has stopped by and he's not part of the unwashed masses

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-02-25 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: But are Dems so different?

I do too...but it remains to be seen if they would be given a fair shake.  We all agree on 90% of the same things. (my policy belief that incomes over $250,000 should be taxed at a ninety some percent rate not included) I have written a few things asking for fair treatment of Hillary, rhetoric and coverage wise and Ive been told that I cant write and I cant think! Yikes! If I dont get discouraged by the abuse, Ill try to post some things about Hillary that may make you understand my simplest of wishes, that she be treated with the respect that she deserves for the good work that she has done.  That is all I ever ask for myself and Im sure you feel the same way too

by timlhowe 2007-02-26 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: But are Dems so different?

Actually all except a couple of the Democratic field have 20 to 30 years of experience each - Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Gravel, Kucinich, and Richardson.

by robliberal 2007-02-24 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

    Look. Republicans in the primaries will go with whoever can retain the White House. As long as Guliani is seen as the man for that job, he will coast through the primaries, even if he had been screwing a prostitute a day every years since getting to the mayor's office. Matt Stoller is right. Its about power. Also, Guliani has promised the religious right the supreme court nominees they want. And big business the tax cuts and deregulation. Remember how much they love Reagan. Well, Reagan signed a law allowing divorce in California. He was divorced at least once. He never denied the right to choose explicitly (although he did implicitly, like his nod wing racism), and the right loved him anyways.

by liberal2012 2007-02-24 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

Hillary scared Rudy so bad before that he had to run crying he had to drop out of the race cause he had butt cancer.  Bull.  Most men who have prostate trouble go directly on with their lives.  It was an excuse...he didnt wanna lose to a woman.  Welll, now that he thinks he's a hero (oh he does) his ego wants to defeat her so he can live down that disgrace.  But the Clintons got his number, we oughta WISH he's the nominee, he is soooo beatable.  McCain is the one to fear. You betcha - no doubts - oh boy.  Pray for Rudy, really do.

by timlhowe 2007-02-24 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

Josh is assuming that both Democrats and Republicans are intellectually alike.

He(and all Democrats) need to read Bob Albermeyer's new book which explains how the Republicans (who are also Right-wing Authoritarians) differ from Democrats.

Albermeyer is posting his new book online, one chapter at a time. He has six chapters up and the 7th (and last) is due tomorrow. I found this when Digby recommended it after reading the first three chapters, and it is superb. Social Science identifies the Right-wing Authoritarians and the Social Dominators, then shows how they work with each other to create the Authoritarians. They are NOT LIKE DEMOCRATS!

Go read The Authoritarians. The book is outstanding as well as being an easy read.

Then you will understand what we are up against. Josh needs to read it, also.

by Rick B 2007-02-24 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

Forgive me for posting this twice but I probably put it in the wrong diary.


POLL: Rasmussen Giuliani Survey February 23, 2007

A new Rasmussen Reports automated survey of 800 likely voters (conducted 2/21 through 2/22) finds:

    * Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (at 52%) leads Sen. Hillary Clinton (43%) in a nationwide general election match-up.

    * A similar general election match-up pitting Giuliani (at 46%) against former Sen. John Edwards (44%) shows a statistical dead heat.

I certainly found this result surprising.  Maybe the independents just aren't ready for a black or woman as president?  The difference is significant.

I watched Rudy's career in NYC over the years and we are missing the whole point with the social conservative agenda, as Matt said.  This guy is as tough as nails.  As Federal Prosecutor he took on the Mafia in NYC and beat the crap out of them and lived.  That was serious turf war and while it is true in some ways the Mafia's time had come Guiliani made it happen.  He shook them like a puppy.

And as mayor he didn't make a lot of friends but he had them all standing to attention.  He scares the crap out of people and he is a take-no-prisoners type.  Three strikes and your out and this guy is throwing fast-balls.  He may not be able to get elected mayor again there but he left an indelible impression.  And NYC has a bigger population than half of the states, so he kinda' has the governor thing going on executive experience without having had to deal with a legislature.  Like a baron and fiefs.

I think the Republicans love that kind of stuff.  Social issues may pale compared to the desire for leadership among Republicans and Rudy can do that, no worries.  His career is paved with those who stood in his way, and if he can't get through he goes around.  If he can rally the GOP on the leadership issue he will be difficult to beat.  And unfortunately hitting him head-on is costly, and he loves it, the best way to deal with Rudy's brand of political machismo is to outmanoeuvre him and get him off balance.  He gets respect, ya' know, in the Rocky tradition.  And comes across as a real straight-shooter.

Having said that he probably has never seen a tractor or a sucker-rod pump in his life before this campaign so the rural heartland is going to have to get used to him.  But I think they will get over it once he gets warmed up.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-24 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

Every regular poll conducted in the last 40 days has shown the race to be extremely tight, either Clinton leading Giuliani slightly or Giuliani leading Clinton slightly, a true horse race.    Rasmussen, being a Republican poll, is off on basically anything they poll.  For instance, they show Bush routinely in the 40s (sometimes as high as 44) when every other poll claims that Bush is in the mid-30s or even breaks previous futility records.   The problem with Rasmussen is the voter screen.  For some odd reason Rasmussen pretends that a noticeable shift in voter self-identification towards the Democrats did not happen.   Thus, they skew their voter sample routinely to be almost exactly even with Democrats and Republicans making up half the country each.   That is not realistic and skews the results.  Thus, Bush gets 45% approval ratings when every other poll shows him in the 30s and Hillary Clinton, who is more unpopular with Republicans, is further behind Giuliani than a realistic voter screen (not heavily skewed towards Republicans) would have shown.

In my opinion Rasmussen at this point (until they fix their sample screen to reflect reality) is an extremely poor poll in regards to national numbers.  There simply AREN'T 50% Republican or Republican-leaning people out there right now.  The true number is closer to 60% Democrats, 40% Republicans (including leaners) which makes all the difference when analyzing poll numbers.

by georgep 2007-02-25 03:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

Maybe so, I am assuming they asked both questions to the same group of people, that's the idea, right?  It's the relativity which is significant, not the absolute percentages.  That's how polls work.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-25 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

Giuliani appears to be doing well because he doesn't have to open his mouth. Once he has to start doing that - in public, not just at funders - he'll be sunk.

Rudy does not want to be President. he just wants to run for President for a while. He wants the money and the attention, but he's a sick man. McCain will be their nominee, or (if they pack it in) Romney - but by the time the election comes up, the story won't be who's gonna win, bu how will he get us out of this mess?

In other words we will have real problems to worry about.

As far as this talk about authoritarianism and what Republican people think, etc. - I thought Armando's use of that Nation of Dobson horseshit wa discredited enough. Matt and Chris appear to me to be image-blind. They can read (and cipher, too I reckon) but they can't SEE. I mean, look at how casually Stoller drops literally years of blogospheric CW off on poor Josh Marshall. For years everybody says they hate gays and love the nuclear marriage - now, whoops! Look out! It's tribalism (that's the one Digby and Poputonian are in love with). And you end up demonizing a group of people that are on the cusp of being approachable, who want help now.

It's cultural and social snobbery, I fear. It's just so bizarre to see Stoller slam the redstaters in a completely new way, as if making them for the long term punching bag they already are.

Cynicism thy name is Stoller...

by frenchman 2007-02-27 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

I haven't written Rudy off yet, we'll see.  I admit he hasn't said much.  They are all sick men, aren't they?

I must admit to being pretty confused about what the Republicans are doing, they seem to be too.

And as for Matt, well no point in being a netroots favourite if you can't have fun.  I think he's got a point about authority, read leadership, versus social conservatism.  The Republicans seem to be in disarray at the moment and need someone to rally them, besides Hillary I mean.

My favourite is Huckabee, he's got wit and all the right stuff on social conservatism just no money or visibility.  It's going to be a long election cycle.  Imagine Huckabee and Obama as nominees turning the election into a preaching competition, hell, Trinity and Baptist they are practically from the same congregation!  Damnation and the second coming, all just in time for the apocalypse.  And you are right, it is getting scarier by the day; have you read Seymour Hersh's latest in the New Yorker?  The Bush administration funding Sunni sunafis, including al-Qaeda, to take on Hezbollah and the Shi'ite jihadists in Iraq and elsewhere.  Yikes.  That's where all that $8B in cash went!  Deary, deary me.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-27 07:24PM | 0 recs
What about the NRA diehards

Unlike the Christian fanatics, these guys dont seem to be in a mood to give second chances even if they sucked up to after a "thought" crime has been committed against their interests?

If they treated Jim Zumbo for writing a fairly harmless article questioning assault rifles for hunting like someone who needs to disappear from the face of the earth despite an apology from him later on, what are they going to do with Guiliani? If I am a democratic party bigwig, I would look into funding a third party pro guns rights guy to take away votes from Guiliani in a General Election.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17307316/?GT 1=9033

by Pravin 2007-02-24 10:58PM | 0 recs
Guiliani can be destroyed on the war on terror

If you frame the argument well, you can make out a case how Guiliani , despite his "examplary leadership"(i personally thought he got too much credit for that, but good luck convincing people of the opposite in the next year) during the 9-11 incident, he hasn't had a clue on how to battle the war on terror. He has actually been more embarassing than McCain when it comes to holding Bush accountable on the Iraq war. The guy is so dense he is still in denial.

The guy also made some embarassing fan boy comments on how a leader should look and said how he got teary eyed when he saw Bush lead the war on terror with some media appearance. At that point, whatever respect I had left for Guiliani(and it was not much after his wretched attitude towards police brutality), I lost it.

by Pravin 2007-02-24 11:06PM | 0 recs
September 11th

I'll understand if this thread is dead....but in case Matt comes back...

...it's not any type of leadership it's the type of leadership. You can say well Republicans love an authoritarian figure...but that's not really true.

What Republicans want is a strong leader to keep the streets clear and the markets open...to protect them FROM something and allow them to believe that this enables them to be otherwise independent and free of the state. That's why Giuliani has strong support so far: as the hero of 9-11-01 he appears "strong" on national defense...etc....and has personal gravitas. He can win the nomination if he is seen as not the MOST SOCIALLY LIBERAL choice...regardless of what the truth is.

Giuliani CAN win the nomination but I am not sold on it.

by risenmessiah 2007-02-25 12:13PM | 0 recs
They want to a viable candidate to WIN!

The Republican nominee will meet with all of the consituencies and promise them whatever is necessary to gain their support.  It won't matter what the candidates said or believed beforehand, just as George H.W.Bush was able to change from pro-choice to pro-life in the few short months between when he was defeated in the 1980 Repub primaries and chosen as (pro-life) Reagan's VP.  

People snickered at the amazingly rapid and complete change of heart, but in the end they accepted him as pro-life and he returned the favor by appointing Clarence Thomas to the US Supreme Court.

The problem with Giuliani is not that he believes things that they don't, for that can be changed by him from one moment to the next, with sufficient motivation.  

The problem with Giuliani is that he blinked when he went up against Hillary in 2000 (he was going to run but ducked out) and he might well blink again in 2008.  (Authoritarian men don't like to be beaten by mild-mannered women.)

by francislholland 2007-02-25 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Giuliani Is Winning

I disagree a bit, Matt.

I do believe issues matter to conservatives, but they also seek an authoritarian father-figure at the same time.

At this point, in a post-9/11 world, they are willing to let up on their stringent social issues in order to feel safe. It could be, however, a conjunction of post-2006 defeatism coupled with the need to appear not racist, bigoted or homophobic to win the White House in 2008.

Conservatives believe Giuliani is tough on security. But belief is not synonymous with fact. Truth is, Giuliani is not tough on security. He made a serious security blunder by putting the emergency command center in WTC 7. His "leadership" on 9/11 has nothing to do with stopping terrorists. He earned that moniker after the towers fell. He didn't do anything to stop terrorism.

by Matt Ortega 2007-03-06 12:33PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads