Posted on 07/11/2007 7:59:23 AM PDT by hardback
Candidates are like brands, and always have been, even before modern marketing existed. Well, consider this:
Brand A has been doing well in a state (we'll call it "Marketland") for 12 years.
Brand B (produced by GOP Industries) wants to penetrate Marketland and become the dominant brand, replacing Brand A, prduced by Dem Industries.
Brand B's new formula is only minimally different from Brand A, and considers that part of its strength.
Brand B runs ads saying "All the features of Brand A, but with new tax cut and anti-terror features."
Brand A runs ads saying "New and improved with tax cut and anti-terror features."
What happens in that fight? Looks to me like Brand A keeps most of its customers, and some of the people who bought Brand B's old formula stay home. Blue states stay blue...so if Rudy can't change the map, why back him?
That an article discussing McCain's ultimate implosion doesn't mention the amnesty bill is proof that the author has MSM blinders, and nothing else he says is credible.
McCain was sputtering along, trading above 15% at Intrade, until the day the White House agreement on the immigration bill was announced June 17th. From that day forward, the McCain campaign has been in a death spiral.
And that worries me. He needs to understand that the enemedia will use all their resources to beat up on any candidate to the right of Hillary. Guilani is getting a pass for now, because they really, really want him to be the Republican nominee. But we really haven't begin to hear the dirt they will throw at him. Until Fred gets his head out from behind the fortress, we really can't judge how he will handle things.
That, plus summer re-runs of L&O would be dumped, screwing all his fellow cast members out of residuals. Wait until the new season starts.
Same thing forced George Takei (Per a conversation w/George about 3 years ago.) to drop a bid for office in CA. The Star Trek reruns would have been taken off the air, screwing the rest of the cast.
I agree with what you are saying. Rudy has the potential to win the middle votes which are most Americans. I think Romney is the same way. Both are talking about using America’s strengths to prosper in the global economy for example. I like Romney’s reform agenda more personally but Rudy isn’t bad. Something that is very important to people in the megalopolises. And somewhere the Dems fail miserably.
I think there is some element of regionalism where southern conservatives have been at the top positions, like George Bush and Trent Lott. So they want to hold on. And I like Fred Thompson I’d vote for him as Senator.. but I think he will have trouble outside of the south, against a metro democratic party. Look at the last congressional wipeout, the republican candidates were getting wiped out in so many of America’s great urban areas.
Don’t forget the Keating Five.
First off, McCain was never ‘the front runner’.
Second, Guiliani was in fact ‘the front runner’ and given the history of those that were designated as such, his odds grow slimmer with each passing day. The bottom line remains the same with Rudy, his anti gun, pro abortion, pro gay rights stances make it impossible for him to gain the nomination as President. Vice President - maybe. But not the top of the ticket.
I suspect this race is now all about Fred Thompson v Mitt Romney. Thompson’s done a good job of lowering expectations from just a month ago, which was deftly done in my opinion. Now we will see when he gets around to announcing formally what happens. Again, in my opinion, his strategy to ignore this ‘new conventional wisdom’ about starting the campaign a year early seems to be paying off big time. He’ll pick up the McCain financial supporters, and the Rudy supporters that aren’t in reality moderate Democrats when he comes out for the job.
Duncan Hunter....a long shot for VP is his fate. Its not due to his positions, many of which I fully support. He just doesn’t give a ‘spark’ to anyone that isn’t already in his corner.
On the democrats side....they’ve got a major problem. Nobody likes Hillary Clinton beyond the brain dead straight ticket types in the Dem party. The far left is furious with her, the Dem old boy/girl network despises her and her husband and they understand she can’t overcome the historical high negative number she brings to the table. Toss onto that heap the history of seated Senators running, and a general feeling that we’ve had enough of political dynasties, be it the Bush’s or the Clinton’s, and she has no chance of winning a general election, and I still don’t think she’ll actually show up for the primaries. She seems annoyed she even has to go through the process....(chuckle)
We’ll see. Right now, I like the GOP’s odds in the race for the Whitehouse and regaining the Senate. The House...doubt that will result in more than a possible small gain of seats.
McCain’s Campaign Crumbles
And there was much rejoicing.
Here is a partial record:
BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Giuliani supports campaign finance "reform." He also banned the New Yorker's ads on public buses because the ads poked fun at him. Even though he is a public figure, he actually tried to claim authority over how his name is used -- imagine the precedent that would set if he had won.
Amendment II: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Non-renewal of gun permits for law-abiding New Yorkers whom even Dinkins allowed to remain armed; lawsuits against gun manufacturers; pushing national gun liscensing; responding to a terrorist attack during his watch (attack at Empire State Building) by calling for more restrictive gun laws; stating that people should have to demonstrate a good reason to have a gun.
Amendment III: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
I know of nothing that Rudy has said or done on this front. It's possible that he supports Amendment III.
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
He supported unreasonable searches based solely on anonymous tips (and was overturned by the courts). He proposed collecting the DNA of all newborns. That's just off the top of my head -- Rudy does not have a good record on Amendment IV.
Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Rudy supports seizure of property from those acquitted of a crime. Rudy repeatedly used eminent domain for the benefit of private developers. It's a big NO on Amendment V.
Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Many people whose property he seized in NYC did not receive trials at all; the city later had to return many of the vehicles because the courts ordered immediate hearings and backlog made it impossible to satisfy the ruling. I believe there may also be some problems reconciling Rudy's use of RICO and his support of a more extensive PATRIOT Act with Amendment VI. This requires additional research.
Amendment VII: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Need more research on this one. There may be problems both with property forfeiture and with RICO similar to Amendment VI.
Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Losing one's property upon being accused of a first offense, even when acquitted, can be considered imposing excessive fines.
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
See my tagline. Rudy doesn't believe you have the right to do anything the Constitution doesn't explicitly say you can do (i.e., his understanding is the complete opposite of the way our Founding Documents actually work).
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Federal gun laws are just one example of his antipathy to federalism and states' rights, not to mention individual rights.
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS
Article I, Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
He supported seizure of property belonging to those acquitted of crime, which is the definition of bill of attander.
Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress
-snip-
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
-snip-
AND Article 6. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
He defied the feds on immigration, even though the Constitution clearly defines anything related to naturalization as a power of the federal government; and anything that is explicitly declard a power of the federal government by the Constitution trumps state and city action via the Supremacy Clause (the Supremacy Clause is greatly abused, but in this case immigration is the lawful responsibility of the feds).
What are you basing your Senate/House numbers on? Seems to me, getting the house back is not very difficult and getting the senate back would take a miracle. What are you seeing that I’m not?
The fiscal conservatives who only care about taxes might vote for him. Many fiscal conservatives who have a broader libertarian philosophy won’t hold their nose to vote for an anti-Constitution, authoritarian candidate like Giuliani.
‘What are you basing your Senate/House numbers on? Seems to me, getting the house back is not very difficult and getting the senate back would take a miracle. What are you seeing that I’m not?’
The narrow margin in the Senate to begin with, and the fact there are more vulnerable Dems in 08 than there were last fall for starters. When the biggest name on the Dem side running for the Senate is Al Franken...well draw your own conclusions (Franken has gained quite a bit of Hollywood cash, but he’s losing by double digits to Coleman in the polls).
In my view, Dingy Harry Reid’s stating ‘we’ve lost’ is also going to come into play. He’s reminding me more and more of tiny tommy daschle with each passing week - except dashle wasn’t quite this politically STUPID. He just thought his constituents back home were in fact dumber than dirt.
Oh, also, a lot of Kennedy democrats will rule out Giuliani based on race issues. The media has not even begun to resurrect all the police brutality stories from Giuliani’s tenure in NYC, but if he wins the nomination, expect to see wall-to-wall coverage. Many independents and dems will run from him on that issue alone.
Have you looked at the number of Republican seats that are up in 2008?
I’m not a gloomer on 08. In fact, I think many things are headed decidedly in our favor. I still see a huge uphill battle for the Senate. With the house, after the sheer number of seats that were won by trickery in very red districts and the number of seats where the Dem ran to the right of the Rep and will now have to face the music for the leftist agenda of congress, I think we’ll see a lot of success.
The senate, on the other hand, is where we’ve got a big RINO infestation. Little progress is being made on getting rid of guys like Graham in the primary. Make no mistake, guys like that will lose to the Dem if we don’t get rid of them in the primaries.
We’ve got a lot of guys up for re-election and some of them are being really stupid about waffling on core principles. That’s not a recipe for a good outcome.
That isn’t to say that things can’t change and I haven’t written anything off, but I do have to say that I’m not quite as optimistic about the senate as you are.
The House is a lost cause for the time being in my view, but you never know this far out.
I suspect in 2008 Rob Portman will run here in Ohio for Voinovich’s seat - he’s retiring (thank God, I hate Georgie Girl with a passion). While that won’t gain a seat, it will remove a RINO in favor of a Conservative.
Right now, the Dem controlled Senate hasn’t produced anything that will appeal to Independents, for example. All we get is a daily soundbite from Harry Reid about Bush being the devils spawn, etc etc etc. I think the American people are already fed up with it, as the polls seem to indicate. Add to it the far leftwingnuts have refused to learn the lesson of Joe Lieberman, and you have the makings of a good showing by the GOP in relation to the Senate.
The House....if the GOP nominee for President comes off well, perhaps it can be carried, and perhaps Pelosi and company will be every bit as incompetent as that idiot Denny Hastert was last year.
We’ll see.
“Mitt the Mormon will both crumble...too much baggage”
huh? Mitt’s gonna hack a heck of a lot less baggage than Fred and all the tail he’s been chasing in Hollywood.
More deep thoughts from the Rudybots.
I read two newspapers a day, peruse the internet for useful stories daily, and even make sure to read all the anti-Giuliani stuff I can find just to make sure I get both sides. Based on my careful analysis, I lean toward Giuliani at this stage.
I find the term "Rudybot" suggests someone who doesn't think for himself and blindly follows a candidate. That is not the case with me. I find the term offensive.
Well, BOO HOO FOR YOU! You don't find that term half as offensive as I find your cynical dismissal of the pro-life plank of the political party you claim to support.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.