GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Two key advisors on George Pataki’s Iowa staff are leaving the outgoing-Governor’s team, citing their differences with Pataki on the abortion issue.??Loras Schulte and Ed Failor Jr. said they were stepping down as advisors to 21st Century Freedom PAC.? Consequentially, this could be either great news or horrible news for Rudy Giuliani, because it means one of two things for Rudy: 1). It’s going to be severely difficult for pro-choice presidential Republican candidates to keep pro-life supporters, or 2). Because Rudy hasn’t been having this same kind of fall-out as Pataki by this point, then it won’t be an issue for him.
November 28th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
I’d be more inclined to believe your #1. Pataki had raised more of a network in Iowa than Giuliani, making Giuliani invulnerable to losing staff he never had in the first place.
Has Rudy even hired anyone who’s known for pro-life views?
November 28th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
Murphy. . .interesting question. Rudy may not want to deal with the issue but it will come up and he’ll need some pro-lifers on his side to show he can appeal to them.
November 28th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
This doesn’t make a whole lotta sense — it isn’t as if Pataki’s pro-choice views were secret beforehand . . .
November 28th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Remember, people seldom do things for only one reason.
PGiuliani has many fine points that can balance his pro-abortion leanings. Pataki does not. So why should someone with strong pro-life scruples want to actively support someone who has nothing else to offer?
November 28th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
I tend to agree with Sean here. It seems a little disingenuous for the staffers to pledge their support for Pataki in the first place if they weren’t willing to tolerate his none-too-secret position on abortion.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
Could this be the Rudy worst-case scenario coming true (for Pataki)? Schulte and Failor didn’t know Pataki was pro-choice before signing on and upon discovering it, dropped out. And in fairness, why would they necessarily? Pataki’s pro-choice stand is not discussed nearly to the extent Rudy’s is.
This is in contrast to people knowing perfectly well what Rudy’s position is (practically every news article that mentions the words “Giuliani” and “2008″ mentions it… I’ve read enough to know). That’s not to say Rudy won’t have problems with some, but it is to say that others in the field have far more serious base problems than Rudy, as evidenced by even his own advisers discarding Pataki as a conventional RINO.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Rudyblogger,
Really? The first time I heard about Pataki, he was called the “pro-choice Republican governor of New York.” Subsequently, he’s been called a RINO very often. It seems that the advisers had to have heard about his positions. If they didn’t, why would you sign onto a campaign without knowing where he stood on the most important social issue in the country? Isn’t that a bit like signing onto Hillary’s campaign and being shocked that she advocates universal health care?
November 28th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
Advisors and staff always say they’re working with people to help the party in the midterms and play coy about the presidential race 2 years out. Maybe these folks actually meant it. How unusual.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:38 am
Because Rudy hasn’t been having this same kind of fall-out as Pataki by this point, then it won’t be an issue for him.
This is just at the very beginning. It’s not as if this has been going on for so long that anything like this should have happened months ago. These committees haven’t been formed for all that long to begin with. But the even stranger thing about this suggestion is that if it applies to Giuliani then it would also apply to Pataki. If it should already have happened long ago to one, then it should already have happened long ago to the other. The fact that it just happened for one means it could very well happen for the other.
If Giuliani gets the nomination, it will be because there aren’t any decent pro-life candidates. A very large portion of primary voters are virtually one-issue voters on abortion. They care about other issues, but they will stay home if there is no pro-life candidate. If there is one (and there are several at this point), those votes will go to them. At this point Romney is the leading contender, and the fact that general election polls give Giuliani and McCain leads against Democratic contenders doesn’t give any indication who the party will nominate any more than head-to-head polls for the general election with Hillary in the lead means the party faithful even consider her a real Democrat. As far as they’re concerned, she’s a DINO.
There’s also the fact that governors virtually always get the nomination when any are running. So far Thompson and Romney are the only ones who have that who have announced.
November 29th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Jeremy,
Romney hasn’t announced yet. So it is possible that he might not run.
(And if you believe that, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.) (-: