Presidential Election October 3, 2007 Snapshot

It has been a few months since I have written a snapshot on the Presidential election. Since there are only a few months before the primary voting starts, I think it is prudent to add a couple of snapshots beforehand. Things have been unusually slow regarding the primary election coverage of GOP candidates. This could be for several reasons - my first choice of course is the favoritism by the media bestowed on Hillary and Barack. The other reason could be the lack of exceptionalism in the slate of GOP candidates. Not that there are not good qualities in these candidates, but that it is difficult without an MSM PR campaign (unlikely to happen) that to find traits to latch onto with strong passion.

Since the last snapshot, Fred Thompson has officially entered the race, Newt Gingrich has given official word he is going to pass this time and surprisingly John McCain is still in the race contrary to my prediction. McCain has admitted his poor standing to be directly related to his co-sponsorship to the comprehensive immigration bill and has even taken some steps of reversal in his position. It is far too little and too late. He also is still living down his part in the Campaign Finance Reform bill that was passed and gave rise to groups like MoveOn.Oink and other 527s entities. McCain was also one of the Senators that prevented the nuclear option that would allow simple up or down votes for court nominees without the harassment of a filibuster. Finally, McCain will continue to have trouble living down his MSM granted label "Maverick" which is a code word for spineless compromiser with Democrats. His campaign is now carrying a heavy debt. I know he has assets he can liquidate in order to continue the pain. It seems he is determined to make it to the first primaries, so we will need to see him a little longer.

Gauging the rest of the GOP field is very difficult. I think it is more a matter of momentum and direction each campaign is progressing rather than actual standing in the polls. I have seen any recent polls anyway. Giuliani and Romney have either been static or slightly falling in their standing. I still think Romney has a good shot in Iowa. That may jump-start his momentum again, but it is not likely to be enough to get past the South unless he makes significant progress in the next few months.

I know there is a recent flap about some Christian conservative groups threatening to form a third party if Giuliani is the nominee. I don't intend to spend much time on it because I do not think he will be the nominee. It was a premature and foolish statement that will really only result in leaving a bad taste in people's mouths against the favorite target of the media. I will say that I think the whole notion of groups that tell their members who to vote for is ridiculous. This goes for Dobson's group, unions and AARP. Just give people information and let them make up their own minds. On a somewhat related topic, I heard on the radio today that Monica Lewinsky has decided to vote GOP because the Dems left a bad taste in her mouth. (rimshot)

The long shot with some current promise is Mike Huckabee. He came in second in the Iowa Straw Poll, but he and Romney were the only ones seriously contending for it. Regardless, Huckabee's momentum is in a positive direction and he is definitely a prime choice for the more conservative wing of the party. Should his candidacy reach a point of perceived viability, he would have a strong shot. He would do exceptionally well in the South in that case.

My current prediction for the South, however, goes to Fred Thompson. Thompson is another candidate with momentum in the right direction. This is to be expected after announcing. I think it is not as strong as he had hoped. Of the top tier candidates, Thompson is the least likely to suffer from fatigue - people getting tired of him. This leaves him in the best position to continue a positive trend. Every time Thompson makes a significant commentary on a current topic (such as his videos) it comes across very well. He should not over-do it but it is a very sharp tool in his arsenal.

If I had to put money on it today, I would say Thompson will get the nomination. That victory is less than half way, though. We will need to hope that the Dems keep shooting themselves in the foot and that the GOP nominee doesn't.

Great Sucking Sound in New York

If you hear a great sucking sound in the direction of New York City, in my opinion it will be the presidential hopes of Rudi Giuliani going down the drain. Rudi has made such an incredible gaffe on the subject of funding abortion that I do not think he can recover from the momentum he will lose over it. Right now, the maximum I see for him is a shot at V.P.

As many others, I tend to stay away from the topic of the legality of abortion. My comments in this post do not address whether or not abortion should be legal. My position on that is obvious. My concern over Rudi's statements go deeper. Captain Ed at Captains Quarters provides a transcript on an interview with CNN's Dana Bash that includes a statement from a years old video(my emphasis in bold):

BASH: There's something on -- you know, on YouTube from 1989. It's flying around the Internet. It's -- it's a clip of you.

[tape]GIULIANI: There must be public funding for abortions for poor women. We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decision about abortion because she lacks resources. [applause] I have also stated that I disagree with President Bush's veto last week of public funding for abortions.

BASH: Is that also your -- going -- going to be your position as president?

[live]GIULIANI: Probably. I mean, I have to reexamine all those issues and exactly what was at stake then. It is a long time ago. But, generally, that's my -- my view. Abortion is wrong. Abortion shouldn't happen. Personally, you should counsel people to that extent. When I was mayor, adoptions went up. Abortions went down.

BASH: So, you...

GIULIANI: But, ultimately, it's a -- it's a -- it's a constitutional right. And, therefore, if it's a constitutional right, ultimately, even you do it on a state-by-state basis, you have to make sure that people are protected.

BASH: So, you support taxpayer money or public funding for abortion in some cases?

GIULIANI: If -- if it would deprive someone of a constitutional right, yes. I mean, if that's the status of the law, then I would, yes.

I think that Giuliani could have survived his pro-choice stance. He had stated he was against abortions and had promised to appoint constructionist judges. There are many in the GOP that are pro-choice and many others that put the war on terror as a higher priority than abortion. He could have weathered this position until this interview.

Like Mitt Romney, Rudi has past positions that would not sit well with the conservative base. Romney has reversed himself on these and actually has a public record of votes for this reversal when he was MA. Governor. While many may put other issues higher than abortion, one thing they cannot abide is the notion of their money going toward paying for abortions. Rudi's first mistake was to reinforce his position of public funding for abortions. In this interview, he could have ducked (weak, but surviveable). He could have made a promise not to vote for such funding without stating his current position. On the positive, he did not lie or evade. On the negative, he not only has an unpalatable position for the GOP primary - he underlined it.

Rudi's second mistake was to brand abortion as a "constitutional right". One may be in favor of legalized abortion - the passing of laws to make it legal. However, to claim abortion a constitutional right where no such right is even hinted at in the Constitution brands Giuliani as a liberal to the core. A liberal will take something they want where the law is against or silent and the Constitution is silent and they will create a court ruling out of thin air. Such was Roe vs. Wade. It is one thing to think the laws of the land should allow abortion. It is another to proclaim an abortion is a Constitutional right. It takes a serious legal process of interpretation and converts it into a ridiculous "magic wand" to get what you want.

Rudi's third mistake is to take an already serious breach on conservative principles and add something far worse. He adds the notion that since it is a "constitutional right" those that cannot afford it should be assisted with public funds. This is ludicrous. A local talk show host this week compared this warped thinking to public funding for guns. There is more in the Constitution to grant the right to own a gun than to have an abortion. By Rudi's thinking if someone is too poor to afford a gun, which is their constitutional right, public funding should spring for it. This analogy shows the folly of such thinking in clear terms.

Conservatives have been burned so many times by presidents, senators, congressmen and judges they have supported. Once in office, these have turned against the things they were voted into office for. The GOP president and congress had a strong opportunity to advance the cause of conservatism and strengthen the country. Instead, they sold us out by spending money like drunks no differently than their Democrat predecessors. They refused to enforce our borders from the invasion of illegal immigrants. They refused to enforce existing immigration laws creating a scenario where they present a false need to create new immigration laws. Bush '41 burned us when he said "Read my lips" and then raised taxes instead of cutting spending.

Having been burned so much, this stumble by Rudi Giuliani will cause enough fear of being burned again that the GOP will look elsewhere. Rudi will not survive the the primary unless some miracle happens to help him gain back the momentum he has lost here.