After being attacked by conservative figure Brian Camenker for his supposed flip-flops on social issues, Mitt Romney’s campaign lashed out against Camenker last Friday, unleashing a press release entitled “The Real Brian Camenker,” signed under the Governor’s name.? The press release was quickly rescinded, but, unfortunately for Team Romney, in the modern age of up-to-the-second information sharing, Mitt’s statement was copied, re-posted, and distributed across the Internet in the blink of an eye.? Several major conservative organizations have come out against Romney for attacking a private individual, including the Family Research Council.? The debacle seems to be the first major sloppy goof of Team Romney, after Team Rudy was given much heat a couple weeks ago for letting a campaign playbook fall into enemy hands.
This week was supposed to catapult Mitt Romney to a new level — one rivaling Sen. John McCain for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. And no question, the week had its high points — the $6.5 million fundraising haul on Monday and Sen. Jim DeMint’s (R.-S.C.) endorsement on Tuesday. However, communications blunders have left Romney looking very un-presidential.
The most significant occurred today when the Romney campaign released an official “Research Briefing” calling on reporters to “Meet the Real Brian Camenker.” Camenker has caused more than a few headaches for Romney with his 28-page report attacking Romney’s claims to be a social conservative. When the Associated Press wrote about Camenker today, Romney’s campaign churned out the 706-word report.
Romney’s report calls Camenker “not a credible voice.” But then why bother putting out a hit piece on the guy? Granted, Camenker is most certainly an annoyance to Romney, but will Romney’s campaign attack every Tom, Dick and Harry who criticizes him?
January 15th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
What is fascinating is that the Romney and McCain 2008 presidential campaigns have already shown that they will engage in old school, status quo attack style politics, which may well be exactly the last thing voters are looking for in their leaders next time around. I am convinced that Giuliani and Gingrich, who I assume will both eventually get in this race, will have a distinct advantage in the Republican primaries and caucuses if they refuse, as they have thus far, to engage in such destructive Washington, D.C. insider tactics. We’ll see.
January 15th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Can we keep the over-heated rhetoric off this site and over on DailyKos where it belongs?
(Gee, where did I read that before. Hmmm, and who started that thread as well. And what publication were they quoting? Hmmm, I wonder if I can detect a pattern here? I think I can. Howabout you, Woodrow? Can you?)
Okay, let’s look at this piece shall we? What words do we see?
“Debacle” The campaign is barely getting started, there is soon to be forgotten glitch, and suddenly it is a Debacle. That kinda cheapens the word, don’t you think? What word are you going to use when a real ‘Debacle’ shows up?
“Communications blunders” Blunders — plural. Where are all these “communications blunders”? The article only mentions one.
“Most significant” See ‘blunders’ above. Just out of curiosity, what was the least significant?
“Churned out” Not wrote, issued, created, but ‘Churned out’. What image is that meant to convey?
“Un-presidential” Well possibly. I suppose right now that his communications team is being told in no un-certain tearms that nothing goes out without senior staff approval. Sounds kinda like that happened to Barbara Boxer and that CAIR award last week.
You want to see Presidential. This mistake will not be repeated. That’s Presidential.
I repeat, can we please leave the overheated rhetoric over at DailyKos?
January 15th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
stupid open tags. That’s two this week already.
January 15th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Texas Conservative, I will put you down as a vote for Romney. But I am not impressed, frankly, by your apparent analysis that however you go so goes the entire Republican Party. First, there is plenty of polling data that suggests Mayor Giuliani will get plenty of support from conservatives if he runs, even though you are one conservative who won’t support him. In addition, the same data shows that Speaker Gingrich would attract a lot of conservative support if he runs. Finally, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Governor Romney is anathema to many conservatives due to his Mormon faith.
The bottom line is that while you have your own standards, projecting them onto the GOP as a whole without any evidence to support such is less than compelling. The data we have to date shows that conservatives will support Giuliani and Gingrich in much larger numbers than you suggest and that there are conservative concerns with Romney far greater than you are willing to admit.
Of course this may well change during the dynamics of a campaign. But I see no evidence that any of the Big Four (Gingrich, Giuliani, McCain, and Romney) either have the conservative vote largely locked up or cannot compete well for the conservative vote, regardless of their positions on specific issues. All the data seems to indicate that GOP voters in 2008 are looking for results and resolve rather than rhetoric on specific issues.
January 15th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
I don’t see the big deal here. This guy attacks Romney, Romney responds, then Romney probably decided to not respond. I can see why any candidate who gets attacked would want to respond hard and quick. Sometimes it is best not to respond at all to these schmucks. If these attacks to damage, defense is justified. It is very regrettable that this thing even took place.
Nonetheless, this is a decent attempt to try to take the wind out of Romney’s sail to distract from his record fund raising and key endorsements. I don’t think that this will amount to much. Next topic please…
How about the Mittster topping the latest 2008 Blog poll?
January 15th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Rebuplis:
What evidence or specific polling data are your referring to with this statement:
“First, there is plenty of polling data that suggests Mayor Giuliani will get plenty of support from conservatives.. ”
I like Rudy, don’t get me wrong – He’s not my #1 pick because he’s too liberal socially. I’ve written off his decent polling numbers to liberal republican vote , voters not familiar with his liberal social positions, and his celebrity to some extent. Which conservatives have endorsed him?
The most liberal Republican will not win the primary. I think the same can be said of the most conservative Republican also. I think the best candidate is someone to the right of center.
January 15th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
marK,
If you’d like to point out exactly what part of my post on either the Romney-Camenker OR the McCain-Eisenberg entries were “over-heated rhetoric” and not simply reporting on what’s actually going on in the 2008 playing field, then I’ll gladly change my post to make them more objective.
Let’s take a look, shall we?
“Debacle” — I have an American Heritage dictionary here with me, and it describes a debacle as “a ludicrous failure.” If even you can’t admit that caving in under the heat of one little “conservative gadfly” and unleashing a scathing personal attack on him in the Governor’s name, then realizing that it went too far and trying to erase it after it had already been copied and redistributed over the Web isn’t a ludicrous failure on Team Romney’s part (ludicrous = “Laughable or hilarious because of obvious absurdity or incongruity, syn. foolish” … failure = “The condition or fact of not achieving the desired end or ends”), then your biases must surely be blinding your judgment.
I love Mitt Romney, and while I’m currently undecided on whom exactly to support in 2008, Romney is one of my top choices, and I’m seriously considering throwing my support behind him. If you had actually paid attention to the tone of my post, you’d see I even compared this goof by Team Romney to the goof by Team Rudy not too long ago–basically to lessen the blow of the Human Events article (if an 800 lb gorilla like Rudy can make a goof like that, then anyone can).
As for all the other “rhetoric of my post,” that was just part of the article I quoted. The article is on a very significant situation that’s currently taking place on the ‘08 playing field and it deserves to be reported.
I think the only overblown rhetoric going on here is stuff like: “the only nomination Rudy would have a chance of winning is the Democratic one. NO social conservative would EVER vote for Giuliani.” That’s the kind of harmful stuff that basically tells a person: “If you don’t agree with me on abortion and flag burnin’, then you might as well get out of our party.” For the record, I am a social conservative who is very much open to supporting Giuliani. I’m against all abortions (even in the case of incest, rape, 1st trimester, what-have-you), I’m against gay civil unions and marriage, I’m against gun control, etc. but that doesn’t mean I can’t make a sophisticated value judgment. Those who are counting on social conservatives to vote strictly down the line and reject anyone who doesn’t agree with them 100% are going to be left out in the rain.
The 2008 election is going to be about leadership, and goofs like Rudy’s playbook incident and Romney’s Camenker incident reflect upon that, and that is something that needs to be discussed, even if it involves our favorite candidates. There’s nothing overblown about it. Human Events is a respectable conservative publication, and it’s hardly deserving of having to be compared to a propaganda spoutmachine like DailyKos.
January 15th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
What I cannot understand (re: Romney folks like Texas Conservative) is how they state emphatically that the weaknesses that Mitt and Rudy share will sink a transcendent national hero like Rudy, but will have no affect on Mitt whatsoever.
Geesh, there’s no videotape of Rudy campaigning against the Reagan legacy for crying out loud is there?
Mitt has all of the same weaknesses regarding gay rights, gun control, and abortion that Rudy has. Please someone explain to me how it’s no problem for Mitt to change his stance on some issues, but for Rudy they are terminal flaws?
January 15th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
I personally think that the reason that some people see Romney’s social views as more acceptable than Rudy’s to Social conservatives is that Romney’s were much more Federalist-based. See the Imus interview; he clearly states that Gay marriage and abortion should be state-by-state issues, at least for now, since the country is so clearly divided. That’s a lot different from Rudy’s quote in which he says that even Partial-birth abortion should be legal.
Just my 2c.
January 15th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Kavon,
I disagree with some of your statements. You make a good point, but Romney and Rudy are not two peas in a pod when it comes to social issues.
“Mitt has all of the same weaknesses regarding gay marriage…”
As you know, Mitt pushed the legislator to allow the people to define marriage. He did this against the wishes of the homosexual lobby. Has Rudy ever done anything which could be construed anti-gay marriage?
Second thing, Rudy is not even moving to the center at all. He is what he is. I respect him for that as I’m sure many do. But I maintain that he is too liberal to get the nomination.
Personally, I think Romney has always had conservative leanings. He had to run to the left of center to seriously compete. I think that you are seeing the true Romney now although I can understand why some may be skeptical. Wait to the debates, hear him out, then decide for yourself then.
January 15th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
“Has Rudy ever done anything which could be construed anti-gay marriage?”
Other than coming out against gay marriage and calling traditional marriage between one man and one woman “inviolate”?
January 15th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Certainly, Kavon, as soon as you show us where Romney has changed his stance on Gay Marriage and Gun Control.
Romney has always been for non-descrimination against Gays. He has never been for Gay Marriage, ever. Now if you wish to think that being against Gay Marriage is descriminatory against Gays, then in that case, he has always been against descrimination against gays except in the area of same-sex marriage. Either way, he hasn’t changed his stance vis-a-vie Gay Marriage in the slightest.
Romney has always been for gun ownership and against assult weapon ownership. The line here can be honestly argued many different ways, but he has been consistent in the line he has drawn. So in what way has he changed his stance on gun control?
January 15th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Woodrow Eisenhower:
I was not aware of this. Has Rudy pushed traditional values legislation or just rendered an opinion?
January 15th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
cwpete,
I’m not sure if Rudy has pushed traditional values legislation (though I don’t think he really had power in that kind of area as a crime fighter/mayor), but I do know that, opinion-wise, he’s come out very strongly against gay marriage whenever he’s been asked.
January 15th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
I meant to say “Gay Rights” instead of Gay Marriage. I have made the edit.
January 15th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Rudy Giuliani has never, ever supported Gay Marriage. He has supported civil unions, which would bring him in line with the current Republican President and the majority of American citizens.
January 15th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
marK,
“In his 1994 US Senate run, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons.
“That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,” Romney told the Boston Herald in 1994.
At another campaign stop that year, he told reporters: ‘I don’t line up with the NRA.‘”
January 15th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Kavon,
He still supports the assault weapons ban. The ridiculous Boston Globe article even mentioned it. You may not like it, but I do believe it’s still the case that a flip or a flop, or a flip-flop actually requires you to, you know, CHANGE your position.
I have a theory about why people are consistently accusing Romney of flip-flopping when, 95% of the time he’s simply choosing to emphasize different issues in different venues. Did Romney go up the NRA while he was at that convention and say, “you know, I really think that assault weapons ought to banned and you guys are really in the wrong here”? No, he didn’t. Is that what you wanted to hear? Is that, you know, some sort of smoking gun? Anyway, here’s my theory.
I think there are two main reasons Romney detractors find themselves so eager to criticize Romney over absolute inanities. Disbelief and Envy. Here’s a guy with a million watt smile, central casting looks, an affable demeanor, a picture perfect family, including a wife who may well have been the first and only woman he’s ever dated. He doesn’t smoke, drink, or curse. Heck, he won’t even have coffee. And on top of this really exemplary personal life, with no hint of anything untoward, he’s been phenomenally successful in a manner that has seemed almost effortless, yet reveals an unwillingness to take the easy road. He could have stayed in Michigan, become a CEO of a major car company or perhaps followed his father into the political real where he could have won any office he wanted with a mere word. Instead, he does something totally unexpected like make a life for himself on his own merits. Mitt Romney simply seems too good to be true. And we’re all too eager to believe that he is, because, let’s face it, who likes a goody-to-shoes? This where I think Romney is going to likely find the most trouble. Because while there’s alot of truth to the idea that we vote for people we like, we also vote for politicians we’re like. And Romney may suffer from a humanization problem. I’d argue that some sort of light scandal would likely help him a great deal in the general election.
January 16th, 2007 at 12:01 am
[...] Update: The Romney campaign has put the article back up! They call it "a glitch". However, they have removed the article from the list of press releases or a list of "All News". I agree with Race42008, which called this, "Team Romney first big goof" and Rob Bluey says it may be a "flip-flopping on a flip-flop". [...]
January 16th, 2007 at 12:26 am
I agree – this was a huge goof by the Romney camp. However, it shows little else other than the fact they have a little ironing to do before they hit primetime. A month from now, no one’s going to remember this episode. A year from now it will be buried in the trash bin of history.
And for the love of Pete, Romney never flip-flopped on taxes, gay marriage, or gun control. The things he’s changed positions are, are two: abortion and stem cells, and those issues are directly related. Sheesh.
January 16th, 2007 at 1:35 am
He hasn’t even flipped on stem-cells. During his gubernatorial campaign he supported embryonic stem cell research but declined to take a position on stem-cell cloning or fetal farming. He still supports embryonic stem cell research using discarded embryos, but when presented with issues like stem-cell cloning, he’s used his veto pen. Again, just like his position on gun control, this isn’t one that endears him to me. I’m against all embryonic stem-cell research. But it’s certainly consistent.
January 16th, 2007 at 1:40 am
Seems like Camenker has not looked back to 1994. Romney gets hit from both sides. On the left, he is anti-gay marriage enemy #1 and on the right he’s not tough enough. Sounds like an electable moderate to me.
ROMNEY ALLEGEDLY FAULTED GAYS IN TALK TO MORMONS Author(s): Scot Lehigh and Frank Phillips, Globe Staff Date: July 15, 1994 Page: 1 Section: METRO Speaking last fall to a Mormon Church gathering, Mitt Romney, then on the verge of launching a bid for a US Senate seat, expressed dismay at reports of homosexual behavior in the group and denounced homosexuality as ”perverse,” according to several people present at the meeting. Romney’s alleged comments on homosexual practices were part of a 20-minute address he delivered on November 14 to the Cambridge University Ward, which numbers about 250 to 300 single Mormons. “He said he was appalled at the incidence of homosexuals in the congregation,” said Rick Rawlins, a 32-year-old Mormon who had previously served as a counselor to the ward’s bishop. “He went on to say that he found homosexuality both perverse and reprehensible.” Romney, who as a candidate has crafted an image as a moderate on social issues, insists he never made those comments, but rather warned that both homosexuality and heterosexual sex outside marriage were immoral. Three other people who listened to Romney’s address, who asked that their names not be used, corroborated Rawlins’ account. Romney acknowledged he told the congregation that nonmarital sex, be it heterosexual or homosexual, is “an evil of our day.” Those comments, he said, were just a small part of a speech that emphasized the need for inclusiveness and stressed that Mormons should strive for integrity, spurn bigotry and discrimination, and not let the desire for money dominate their lives. “I did not make those statements you indicate have been attributed to me,” he said in a written statement issued to the Globe. “If someone in our church misunderstood what I said, I apologize and wish they had come to me at the time. I would be happy now to speak to them and clear up any confusion they may have.” At the time of his alleged comments, Romney had made clear he intended to run against US Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. He was president of the church’s Boston Stake, a position he held from 1986 to 1994. A stake is the Mormon Church’s rough equivalent of a Catholic diocese. The GOP candidate said in an interview on Wednesday that he was merely emphasizing church teachings that any sex outside of marriage is immoral. “I specifically said they should avoid homosexuality and they should avoid heterosexual relations outside of marriage,” Romney said. “I did not use the words perverse or perversion. I just said it was wrong. . . . That is what my church believes.” But Rawlins disputed Romney’s account, insisting he had singled out homosexuality for condemnation. “He specifically stated he was appalled at homosexuals in the congregation and called it perverse,” Rawlins said. Three others present at the meeting, who asked that their names not be used, questioned Romney’s version of events. “I believe that his general message was that sex outside of marriage is immoral, but on the other hand, I do remember that there was a specific remark that he was appalled at the incidence of homosexuality in the ward and he termed it perverse,” said one. “It was specific enough that I wanted to go see Bishop [Steven] Wheelwright right after that talk.” Another person present offered this account. “During the talk, President Romney began talking about families and family values, and he mentioned homosexuality as a perversity. He went on for some time.” This person didn’t recall the exact term Romney used to express his dismay at report of homosexual conduct, but said: “He certainly was conveying that he was appalled.” Said a fourth person: “He started going on about being upset about homosexuality in this ward. I remember him calling it a sickness and a perversion.” Wheelwright, who was bishop of the ward when he heard Romney’s speech, thinks Romney referred to both homosexual behavior and heterosexual sex outside of marriage as a perversion. “Mitt would have made a point that, either heterosexual or homosexual sex outside of marriage is something we don’t condone,” said Wheelwright, a Harvard Business School professor. “My recollection is that he described that practice as perversion.” Wheelwright acknowledged Rawlins and another member of the ward complained to him in the days immediately after Romney’s talk, though he said that he thought only Rawlins had been truly upset. As a candidate, Romney has said he would favor a national law forbidding discrimination against gays in housing or employment. In May, Romney refused to discuss with the Globe his work as a lay official in the Mormon Church, saying he had no policy-making authority in the church and that any questions about his church work were an intrusion into his personal religious life and beliefs. As part of his statement yesterday, Romney lamented the questions about his activities as a local Mormon leader. “I believe that my remarks in my church, in a religious context, where I am discussing church beliefs, have no place in a political debate. And I am certain that the voters will judge me on my record and my stands on the issues that I address as a candidate for United States Senate,” he said. The Mormon Church once taught that homosexuality itself is a sin, but in recent years has refined and softened that doctrine. Currently, having homosexual inclinations is not considered sinful in and of itself. But, according to the church’s public affairs office, intimate relations can only take place between a man and woman joined in marriage and “unnatural affections,” including those between people of the same sex, run counter to church doctrine. The church, which doesn’t recognize gay marriage, encourages homosexuals to be celibate. Romney apparently holds the same view personally. He said this week he believes “sexual relations are only appropriate inside of marriage, period” and said he does not “favor legal recognition of gay marriages.” Asked for his feelings about gays having sexual relationships, Romney said, “Under my eyes, people are entitled to do what they want to” and insisted: “I personally accept people and am tolerant of people regardless of the differences that exist between us.” But Rawlins, who remains a participating Mormon, said he felt that Romney’s comments had betrayed his underlying bigotry against homosexuals and had made him leery about Romney’s ability to represent a state that has a large, diverse population. “I’d like to live in a state where prejudice of all forms was being eliminated and I don’t feel that Mitt Romney as an elected official can transcend the personal bias he showed by what he said,” Rawlins said
January 16th, 2007 at 1:57 am
What is that old saying, “If you try to argue with a pig, you just end up all smelly and dirty and you confuse the pig”. It certainly seems unbecoming of presidential candidate to engage with Brian Camenker in like manner that he operates. By taking the bait of attacking him head on, it has made him into a type of martyr (in some eyes). This would have been best left to a proxy fight with dedicated frontline bloggers and thus decreasing the chance of it extending to the MSM. That being said, Brian is a really small fry with a big vendetta. Massachusetts has openly Pro-Gay Deval Patrick in the gubernatorial chair now and nary a wimper can be heard from MassResistance regarding him. Ok, from now on, I am referring to the organization as MittResistance.
January 16th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Republius:
You and I have certainly had our differences in the past, but apparently we support the same candidate this time round, and your response to Texas Conservative, above, is absloutely spot on!
CWPete:
Anyone who, at this stage of the game, can seriously ask, to “[w]hat evidence or specific polling data” Republius is referring, is simply not paying attention. If indeed you mean this as a serious question, and not merely a statement of political opposition, then go to “Run Rudy Run” (http://lutherhardy.blogspot.com/), and read approximately every other posting. Focus particularly on the postings on 01 December 2006, entitled “The Frontrunning Underdog”, the one entitled “Polls, Polls, and More Polls”, on 04 October 2006, “Don’t Ignore this Poll” from 12 October 2006, “Another Poll to Remember” from 16 October 2006, “Politics, Polls, etc.” from 10 January 2007, and “More from New Hampshire” on 11 January 2007.
January 16th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Romney should have answered Camenker with his own words. You know, the one’s where he said. last March “If Romney hadn’t come along, Massachusetts would probably be like Havana right now,” he said. “I don’t despise the guy. He isn’t the devil to me or anything. I just wish he’d done things differently. If I had the 2002 election to do over again, I’d still pull the lever for him unless some sterling Republican miraculously appeared.” So I wonder, does Camneker usually make it a habit of writing 28 page dossiers attacking people he’d still vote for? People who’ve stopped Massachusetts from becoming Havana (presumably a good thing), and people he doesn’t despise? Aren’t there, you know, people he does he despise he could attack? I agree, Romney made a mistake here. Those words seem more then enough to destroy Camenker’s credibility.
January 16th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Matt, Camneker is saying essentially the same thing that many people say everyday
about Rudy, i.e., I personally like him, he was good for NYC, BUT I couldn’t
support for Pres. I don’t see how this destroys his credibility.
January 16th, 2007 at 10:51 am
“Texas Conservative” says something funny at the top of the thread.
“Once again however, the Giuliani folks at this site need to realize one thing: the only nomination Rudy would have a chance of winning is the Democratic one.”
Amen to that!
January 16th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Not at all. He said he’d vote for Romney unless some “sterling Republican showed up”. Since Camenker is a one trick pony, where is the sterling Republican seeking the 08′ nomination who has a more credible record then Romney on gay marriage? Certainly not McCain or Giuliani. And Camenker had every option to support sure losers for the gubernatorial nomination in 2002, something which he admittedly, even in retrospect, wouldn’t have done. He could have, for instance, run for Governor. So one wonders why how he might be willing to support sure losers with potentially stronger records then Romney on gay marriage like Sam Brownback, but wouldn’t for governor. It’s just lunacy.
January 16th, 2007 at 11:29 am
CWPete:
Further to your question about “spcific polling data” re: Rudy Giulian1, from 91 Decemeber 2006:
THE TALE OF THE POLLS:
Republican candidate
Broad Field
Poll Source Date Highlights
CNN Poll Nov 9-12, 2006 Rudy Giuliani 33%, John McCain 30%, Newt Gingrich 9%, Mitt Romney 9%, Bill Frist 3%, Tommy Thompson 3%, Sam Brownback 2%, Duncan Hunter 2%, George Pataki 1%
Pew Research Center Poll Nov 9-12, 2006 Rudy Giuliani 27%, John McCain 26%, Condoleezza Rice 20%, Mitt Romney 7%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Bill Frist 4%, Sam Brownback 1%
USA Today/Gallup Poll Nov 9-12, 2006 Rudy Giuliani 28%, John McCain 26%, Condoleezza Rice 13%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Mitt Romney 5%, Bill Frist 4%, George Allen 2%, George Pataki 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Sam Brownback 1%, Duncan Hunter 0%
McLaughlin & Associates (R) Nov 7, 2006 John McCain 28%, Rudy Giuliani 22%, Condoleezza Rice 13%, Newt Gingrich 5%, Mitt Romney 4%, George Allen 2%, Bill Frist 2%, George Pataki 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Sam Brownback 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%, Duncan Hunter 0%
Rasmussen Reports Poll Nov 4-7, 2006 Rudy Giuliani 24%, Condoleezza Rice 18%, John McCain 17%, Mitt Romney 9%
CNN Poll Oct 27-29, 2006 Rudy Giuliani 29%, John McCain 27%, Newt Gingrich 12%, Mitt Romney 7%, Bill Frist 6%, George Pataki 5%, George Allen 2%, Sam Brownback 1%
WNBC/Marist Poll Sep 18-20, 2006 Rudy Giuliani 23%, Condoleezza Rice 20%, John McCain 15%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Mitt Romney 4%, Bill Frist 4%, George Allen 2%, George Pataki 2%, Sam Brownback 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll Aug 29-30, 2006 Rudy Giuliani 27%, John McCain 25%, Newt Gingrich 14%, Mitt Romney 5%, George Pataki 4%, Chuck Hagel 3%, George Allen 3%, Bill Frist 2%
Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll Aug 25-27, 2006 Rudy Giuliani 32%, John McCain 20%, Newt Gingrich 10%, Bill Frist 8%, Mitt Romney 5%, George Allen 4%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Sam Brownback 1%, George Pataki 1%, Chuck Hagel 0%
Pew Research Center Poll Aug 9-13, 2006 Rudy Giuliani 24%, Condoleezza Rice 21%, John McCain 20%, Newt Gingrich 9%, George Allen 5%, Mitt Romney 4%, Bill Frist 3%, Sam Brownback 1%
Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll Jun 1-4, 2006 John McCain 29%, Rudy Giuliani 24%, Mitt Romney 8%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Bill Frist 5%, George Pataki 4%, George Allen 3%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Sam Brownback 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Mike Huckabee 0%
Gallup Poll Jun 1-4, 2006 Rudy Giuliani 29%, John McCain 25%, Newt Gingrich 8%, Mitt Romney 6%, Bill Frist 6%, George Allen 5%, Sam Brownback 2%, Mike Huckabee 2%, George Pataki 1%
Diageo/Hotline Poll Mar 16-19, 2006 John McCain 25%, Rudy Giuliani 23%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Bill Frist 5%, Mitt Romney 4%, George Allen 3%, George Pataki 2%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll Mar 14-15, 2006 Rudy Giuliani 29%, John McCain 22%, Newt Gingrich 8%, Bill Frist 5%, Mitt Romney 4%, George Allen 3%, George Pataki 2%, Chuck Hagel 1%
Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll Feb 23-26, 2006 Rudy Giuliani 30%, John McCain 30%, Newt Gingrich 11%
WNBC/Marist Poll Feb 13-15, 2006 Rudy Giuliani 22%, John McCain 22%, Condoleezza Rice 22%, Newt Gingrich 5%, Mitt Romney 4%, George Pataki 2%, Bill Frist 2%, George Allen 2%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll Feb 9-12, 2006 Rudy Giuliani 33%, John McCain 28%, George Allen 7%, Bill Frist 6%, Mitt Romney 3%, Sam Brownback 1%, Condoleezza Rice§ (Vol.) 1%
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll Dec 9-11, 2005 Rudy Giuliani 30%, John McCain 22%, Condoleezza Rice 18%, George Allen 7%, Bill Frist 3%, Haley Barbour 2%, Mitt Romney 2%
Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll Dec 8-11, 2005 Rudy Giuliani 25%, John McCain 25%, Newt Gingrich 12%, Bill Frist 5%, Rick Santorum 4%, Mitt Romney 4%, George Allen 3%, George Pataki 3%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Mark Sanford 2%, Chuck Hagel 2%, Sam Brownback 1%, Tim Pawlenty 0%
Zogby Poll Dec 6-8, 2005 John McCain 19%, Rudy Giuliani 17%, Condoleezza Rice 12%, Jeb Bush 4%, Newt Gingrich 4%, George Allen 3%, Bill Frist 3%, Mitt Romney 2%, Tim Pawlenty 2%, Fred Thompson 1%, Mike Huckabee 1%, Sam Brownback 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, George Pataki 1%, Rick Santorum 0%, Haley Barbour 0%, Mark Sanford 0%
Diageo/Hotline Poll Nov 11-15, 2005 Rudy Giuliani 22%, Condoleezza Rice 22%, John McCain 21%, Jeb Bush 11%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Bill Frist 3%
Rasmussen Reports Nov 8, 2005 Rudy Giuliani 26%, Condoleezza Rice 24%, John McCain 21%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Bill Frist 5%
NBC News/Wallstreet Journal Poll Nov 4-7, 2005 Rudy Giuliani 34%, John McCain 31%, Newt Gingrich 8%, Bill Frist 5%, Mitt Romney 3%, George Allen 3%, Sam Brownback 1%
Marist College Poll Oct 12-13, 17, 2005 Rudy Giuliani 21%, Condoleezza Rice 21%, John McCain 19%, Jeb Bush 5%, Newt Gingrich 5%, George Allen 4%, Sam Brownback 2%, Bill Frist 2%, George Pataki 2%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Tom Tancredo 1%
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll Sep 27-28, 2005 Rudy Giuliani 26%, John McCain 23%, Condoleezza Rice 18%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Mitt Romney 3%, Bill Frist 2%, Mitt Romney 4%, George Allen 2%
Gallup Poll Aug 5-7, 2005 Rudy Giuliani 27%, John McCain 24%, Condoleezza Rice 19%, Bill Frist 8%, Mitt Romney 4%, George Pataki 3%, George Allen 3%, Sam Brownback 2%
Zogby Poll Jun 20-22, 2005 John McCain 35%, Rudy Giuliani 19%, Bill Frist 6%, Newt Gingrich 5%, Rick Santorum 2%, Mitt Romney 2%, George Pataki 2%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Sam Brownback 1%
Zogby Poll Jun 20-22, 2005 John McCain 29%, Condoleezza Rice 11%, Rudy Giuliani 11%, Jeb Bush 7%, Dick Cheney 6%, Bill Frist 4%, Newt Gingrich 5%, Mitt Romney 2%, Rick Santorum 1%, George Pataki 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Sam Brownback 0%
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll Jun 14-15, 2005 Rudy Giuliani 29%, John McCain 26%, Newt Gingrich 9%, George Allen 3%, Bill Frist 3%, Mitt Romney 2%
Marist College Poll Apr 18-21, 2005 Rudy Giuliani 27%, John McCain 20%, Jeb Bush 10%, Newt Gingrich 8%, Bill Frist 3%, Rick Santorum 3%, George Pataki 2%, Mitt Romney 1%, Chuck Hagel 1%, Haley Barbour 1%
Marist College Poll Feb 14-16, 2005 Rudy Giuliani 25%, John McCain 21%, Condoleezza Rice 14%, Jeb Bush 7%, Newt Gingrich 5%, Bill Frist 3%, Rick Santorum 1%, George Pataki 1%, Mitt Romney 1%, Bill Owens 2%
CNN/U.S.A Today/Gallup Feb 10, 2005 Rudy Giuliani 34%, John McCain 29%, Jeb Bush 12%, Bill Frist 6%, Other 7%
CNN/U.S.A Today/Gallup Feb 4-6, 2005 Rudy Giuliani 33%, John McCain 30%, Jeb Bush 12%, Bill Frist 7%, Other 6%
Ipsos-Public Affairs Dec 17-19, 2004 Rudy Giuliani 29%, John McCain 25%, Bill Frist 7%, Jeb Bush 7%
Gallup Poll Nov 7-10, 2004 Rudy Giuliani 10%, John McCain 10%, Colin Powell 7%, Jeb Bush 3%
§ Candidate not included in poll options, but enough respondents answered thus that the candidate was included in the results
[edit] Two-Way Contest
Poll Source Date Republican % Republican %
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll Aug 29-30, 2006 Rudy Giuliani 46% John McCain 36%
Diageo/Hotline Poll Mar 16-19, 2006 Rudy Giuliani 42% John McCain 40%
Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates (R) Nov 14-16, 2004 Rudy Giuliani 42% John McCain 24%
[edit] Acceptability
Poll Source Date Republican Acceptable Unacceptable Unsure/Other
Gallup Poll Jun 26-29, 2006 Rudy Giuliani 73% 25% 2%
Gallup Poll Jun 26-29, 2006 Condoleezza Rice 68% 29% 3%
Gallup Poll Jun 26-29, 2006 John McCain 55% 41% 5%
Gallup Poll Jun 26-29, 2006 Newt Gingrich 45% 50% 5%
Gallup Poll Jun 26-29, 2006 Jeb Bush 44% 52% 4%
Gallup Poll Jun 26-29, 2006 Bill Frist 38% 44% 18%
Gallup Poll Jun 26-29, 2006 George Allen 36% 35% 29%
Gallup Poll Jun 26-29, 2006 Dick Cheney 34% 61% 5%
Gallup Poll Jun 26-29, 2006 George Pataki 33% 51% 17%
Gallup Poll Jun 26-29, 2006 Mitt Romney 31% 42% 27%
Gallup Poll Jun 26-29, 2006 Mike Huckabee 17% 40% 43%
Gallup Poll Jun 26-29, 2006 Sam Brownback 14% 43% 43%
January 16th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Luther C. Hardy:
I’m aware of how Rudys has been polling. I think you’ve misunderstood my point – Which is: The vast majority of the voters in support of Rudy are not conservatives. I don’t buy into the “Kredible Konservative Kandidate” notion that many are trying sell Rudy off to.
I see his numbers decreasing once his social positions and divorces become more known.
The conservative vote is holding out for the most part. Look at how Gigrich has been polling in SC and other places and he’s not in the race.
My question to specific polling evidence refers to conservative votes or the percentage of conservative votes Rudy has been getting. I don’t see how the Rudy camp can claim conservative backing with his record or with the polling data you have supplied.
January 16th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Oh, will the polling numbers change when Huckabee gets in the race.
January 16th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Well, that’s what the “Wise Men” say as well. Ho-hum! If you do read my blog, you will read as well about push polling that shows Rudy’s numbers so not drop significantly when the poll respondents are specifically presented with Rudy’s past position. In addition, you will read specific commentary, both from and about the Christian Right, by people who are very familiar with Rudy’s record and his past positions.
You asked for polling evidence, you got polling evidence. Now, you retreat to the same unanswerable dodge as the “Conventional Wisdom”, the MSM, and the Beltway Punditocracy: “Maybe so, but all those people are so dumb that they don’t really know Rudy’s positions, and when thay do know his positions, they won’t vote for him.” I actually grew up cheek-by-jowl with the Christian Right, and though I do not count myself among their number, I have enormous respect for them, indeed far too much to insult them in this way.
Don’t bother to respond, I know when to stop beating my head against a brick wall.
January 16th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
No matter how much you blog Luther, Rudy does not have the Christian right, and he will have difficulty locking it up. You have not proven a thing except that you are not comprehending my point Rudy’s liberal social policies and the difficulty he’ll have with So-Cos due to that. Didn’t his leaked memo verify some of these concerns?
Please continue to beat your head against the wall, Maybe it will do you some good. You may have last word here..
January 17th, 2007 at 7:43 am
No one, to the best of my knowledge, has ever said, least of all have I ever written, that Rudy will win outright the votes of the Christian Right and/or other soi disant “So-Cos”. In a post on 01 December 2006, entitled “The Frontrunning Underdog” for example, I wrote:
“Don’t forget, Rudy doesn’t actually have to win this bloc of voters. All he has to do is garner enough of their votes so that they don’t vote as a bloc for someone else and thereby deliver a primary win to that someone else.”
Below, I have reproduced a longer excerpt from that posting. If you want my take on “l’affaire de la pilfered memo”, you’ll just have to go to Run Rudy Run (http://lutherhardy.blogspot.com/), and read the post on 10 January 2007, entitled “Politics, Polls, Pilferings, and Pecadilloes”. If, after reading the excerpt below and indeed the full post from 01 December, you are still convinced that the Christian Right will deny Rudy the nomination outright, then you are truly into the territory of the old “Forty-Bishops Syndrome”.
Whatever! Please do not bother, however, to tell me that the polling numbers discussed are merely the result of name recognition! That is a response worthy of the WaPo or the NYT; here in the real word, however, such a responcse insults both my intelligence and your own. Most importantly, it insults the intelligence of “White Male Born-Again Christians”. Further to this point, read my posts on 12 January 2007, entitled “Not Like The Rantings of Savoranola”, 20 December 2006, entitled “Don’t Insult their Intelligence”, as well as the one on 13 December entitled “A Bargain is A Bargain is A Bargain” The larger excerpt from 01 December:
“At least as important as Mr. Murdock’s prose, however, is the chart (reproduced below) that he compiled from Quinnipiac’s “Thermometer Reading” poll (conducted 13-19 November 2006), in conjunction with his article on Rudy in National Review On-Line, yesterday, 30 November 2006. I don’t believe I have ever seen anything quite this astounding. One should study this chart carefully!
At the same time that the MSM and the “Conventional Wisdom” are loudly trumpeting John McCain as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2008, Rudy leads every current potential candidate in every category of potential voters! Let me say that again louder: RUDY LEADS EVERY CURRENT POTENTIAL CANDIDATE IN EVERY CATEGORY OF POTENTIAL VOTERS!
Even when non-candidates for 2008 are considered, Rudy still leads in 8 of 9 categories. The 9th category is “Republicans” where Rudy comes in a close 3rd to two non-candidates: 1. Condi Rice 72.3%; 2. President Bush 72.1%; 3. Rudy 71.7%. More importantly, however, even in this category, Rudy leads actual potential candidates, McCain (by 9.5 percentage points), Gingrich (12.8), and Romney (18.9), all by margins that are solidly above that category’s announced margin of error of +/-4.4%.
Most importantly of all, however, in the category of “White Born-Again Christians”, Rudy leads the entire field by substantial margins. Here again, Rudy leads actual potential candidates McCain (9.2), Gingrich (18.5), and Romney (19.9), by margins that are solidly above that category’s announced margin of error 0f +/-4.7%. What is most important here is that this is the very category that the MSM and the “Conventional Wisdom” say is supposed to deny Rudy the Republican nomination.
Moreover, that’s all they have to say against Rudy. Let me say that again louder: THAT’S ALL THEY HAVE TO SAY AGAINST RUDY! There is no other reason advanced by the MSM and the “Conventional Wisdom” as to why Rudy won’t win the nomination than that the Christian Right in the South won’t vote for him in the primaries. Yet, not only does Rudy lead every other name advanced in this category, he also leads Mitt Romney, supposedly the new “darling” of the Values Voters, by almost 20 percentage points! Don’t forget, Rudy doesn’t actually have to win this block of voters. All he has to do is garner enough of their votes so that they don’t vote as a bloc for someone else and thereby deliver a primary win to that someone else.”
June 30th, 2009 at 4:11 am
check out this one……
Keep up the g00d work man!…