You can listen to Rudy’s interview on Hugh Hewitt’s show here, or read the transcript here.

The money quotes from the interview are regarding Rudy and judges:

HH: You know, you picked up Ted Olson’s endorsement, taking a digression. That’s a big deal. Will he be playing a role in your campaign?

RG: He sure will. I mean, Ted Olson is someone I havefirst of all, he’s a very, very good friend. I mean, he’s someonehe’s been my friend since those days, and we’ve been through a lot together. Yes, Ted will play a very big role in my campaign, and I mean, if Ted weren’t my very, very good friend, he’d be somebody I’d still want to rely on as probably one of the biggest experts on the Constitution in this country, and the person who probably has argued before the Supreme Court more than anybody I know.

HH: Will he help you pick judges if you are the president, and you’re making Supreme Court selections?

RG: He’d be one of the first people that I’d turn to for advice and help and assistance. And I was involved in the Reagan administration in the judge selection process, although that was run by the deputy attorney general, and I was involved in the U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals. But I watched all of it, and I appointed 100 judges myself. And it’s something I thought of, when I was the Mayor, as one of the most important things that I did.

HH: Did you have a litmus test for those hundred?

RG: No. No, not a litmus test on a single issue, a philosophical test, meaning what I wanted to know was what’s their view of how you interpret the Constitution and laws? Are theydo the Constitution and laws exist as the thing from which you have to discern the meaning and the intent? Or are you going to superimpose your own social views? And I want, I like the first kind of judge, who is a judge who looks to the meaning of the Constitution, doesn’t try to create it.

HH: A pro-life voter looking at you, knowing that you’re pro-choice, but not concerned that presidents really matter so much in that, except as far as judges are concerned, what do you tell them about who you’re going to be putting on the federal bench?

RG: I’m going to say I’d put people likeI mean, the best way to do it is to just say I would, I could just have easily have appointed Sam Alito or Chief Justice Roberts as President Bush did, in fact. I’d have been pretty proud of myself if I had been smart enough to make that choice if I were the president.

HH: Do you expect justices like Roberts and Alito to come out of a Giuliani administration?

RG: I hope. I mean, that would be my goal. I mean, they’re sort of a very high standard, and so is Justices Scalia and Thomas. That would be the kind of judges I would look for, both in terms of their background and their integrity, but also the intellectual honesty with which they interpret the law.

(All emphasis mine)

So what kind of SC appointments can we expect from President Giuliani? Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Sam Alito.

To be honest, Rudy is exactly the kind of man that I want to be making SC appointments. Rudy believes in the kind of judge “who looks to the meaning of the Constitution” and doesn’t “superimpose” their own social views, even though this may lead to an outcome that he may personally disagree with. It is Rudy’s intellectual honesty and commitment to core conservative values that draws Pro-Lifer’s like myself to him.

Like I have said before, I would rather have a candidate honestly disclose those points on which there may be a disagreement with the Republican base (and clearly state the remedy) than to simply tell us all what we want to hear.

From the AP:

LOUISVILLE, Ky., Feb. 23 /PRNewswire/ — Spalding Group announced today that it is teaming with the Rudy Giuliani Presidential Exploratory Committee, as licensee, to launch the Official Rudy 2008 Online Store. Throughout the campaign, http://www.Rudy2008Store.com, will serve as the official online location for everyone wishing to further display their support for Mayor Giuliani’s candidacy.

Spalding Group created, owns and is managing the new website which will be linked directly from http://www.JoinRudy2008.com. Spalding Group served as the official licensee to the campaign of President George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004, and is credited with creating the award-winning George W. Bush Online Store.

Ted Jackson, Founder and CEO of Spalding Group commented, “We’re excited about joining the Rudy Giuliani team and the opportunity to work with a proven leader who has incredible grassroots appeal across the country. Rudy Giuliani’s popularity is unparalleled in American politics today.”

Team Rudy supporters will be able to purchase everything from Rudy ‘08 apparel, stickers, signs and “Rudy Gear.”

You can visit the store at www.rudy2008store.com

This is something I take no pleasure in…

(Graph and data were compiled by Co-founder of MMM, Justin Hart. )

…Well, actually I do. This is by no means scientific. We are probably missing some people, if you know of any let me know. For a list by names (didn’t want to clog up the front page here) see here.

There are many who don’t care too much about endorsements, they generally appear to be Guiliani supporters I for one feel that there is a strong case for rounding up endorsements. An endorsement generally opens the doors up to the endorsers donor list, staff, local structure, grassroots network, etc. It also demonstrates the ability of the candidate to get movers and shakers behind him . For instance, Jeb Bush’s tacit endorsement of Romney really has given him an “in” into Florida grassroots politics, as does McCain’s endorsements in South Carolina.

Also, large endorsements to folks like Romney and McCain serve the appearance of invincibility. They have really got to leave lesser candidates feeling like they are eating the crumbs from the table.

Rep. Jim Nussle, a staunch conservative and a leader of the 1994 Republican Revolution, discussed his decision to support Mayor Giuliani on Red State Radio earlier today.

Click here to listen to the broadcast.

The Hotline is reporting that Senator John McCain, who will be in the Middle East, and Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has an unspecified scheduling conflict, will not be participating in the CNN hosted and broadcast April 4, 2007 Republican presidential debate at Saint Anselm College?in Manchester, New?Hampshire. They are also reporting that both Senator McCain and Mayor Giuliani have agreed to participate in the Republican presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California hosted and broadcast by MSNBC on May 3, 2007. Other planned Republican presidential debates include May 15, 2007?(Columbia, South Carolina), hosted by the South Carolina Republican Party; September 6, 2007?(somewhere in New Hampshire), hosted by Fox News; September 27, 2007?(Baltimore, Maryland), hosted by PBS; October 14, 2007?(Manchester, New Hampshire), hosted by ABC; January 22, 2008?or earlier (somewhere in New Hampshire), hosted by Fox News; and February 1, 2008?(Columbia, South Carolina), hosted by the South Carolina Republican Party.

Scott Rasmussen has released some new numbers on 2008, and things are looking quite good for Rudy, and not so good for Hillary. Here’s a quick summary of Scott’s findings:

2008 General Election

Rudy: 52%
Hillary: 43%

McCain: 47%
Hillary: 42%

Rudy: 46%
Edwards: 44%

Rudy beats Hillary among independents by 37 points.

Incidentally, Rudy’s 9 point lead over Hillary is almost identical to both Bush 41’s margin of victory in 1988 and Bill Clinton’s spread in 1996. Such a win almost guarantees a minimum of 350 electoral votes in the victor’s column. So much for concerns about Rudy’s “electability.”

It’s funny how two people can read the same article and walk away with a different perspective. Kavon reads the NRO Editorial on Romney as the bottom falling out. I read it (with a different bias of course) to mean that the NRO still believes Romney is the choice despite some setbacks this week. Let me address a few things:

1. This wasn’t the best week, but it was by far from the worst. Romney’s detractors fail to mention that he unrolled a huge South Carolina infrastructure, announced a great Georgia Leadership Team, named his Florida Finance Committee and began pressurizing the New York Politiciansto toughen up on Iran. Along with this, Romney shored up a massive majority of the Utah State GOP Legislatures as endorsements (no surprise), thus making Utah the third state with the majority of GOP legislatures endorsing Romney( along wth MI and MA). This kind of stuff doesn’t happen when you’ve lost your bottom end!

2. The NRO article made a great point for the Romney campaign, not to be forgotten:

George W. Bush moved right in preparation for his presidential run in 2000, but also thought through a new brand of conservatism that he figured would be attractive in the post-Gingrich, post-impeachment era. We have never been particular fans of “compassionate conservatism,” but Romney would be well advised, in a similar fashion, to figure out a distinctive way to apply his conservatism to the challenges of our time. (Alliteration is not necessary and probably should be avoided.) This individuation could help deepen and authenticate that conservatism, and make it sufficiently compelling to prevail in the general election.

Romney is a conservative. He needs a conservative theme, and I think he has found it to some degree. At what appears to be a great speech in South Carolina, Romney said this:

“The work that goes on within the walls of a home is the most important work that is ever done in America. And if we want to strengthen America, we need to strengthen the American family.”

The Family is indeed the “Cornerstone” of our society and our society will either succeed or fail based on how we treat it. Our President we need a role model for the american family, someone who will make the family the top priority. His family is a stellar example for the rest of America. Of course on it’s own it’s not enough to only focus on the family. We need an all around conservative. With Romney we are accordingly granted: Strong on terrorist, stong on the economy and strong on the family.

So while the NRO editorial may have provided a fun first paragraph for the anti-Romneyites, the Editors also had a great point: Romney is far from over. He will no doubt be the one candidate who is the position to make a credible conservative crusade.

??????? I will admit that I am torn when it comes to the debate over climate control. Intuitively it makes sense to me that the increasingly rapid industrialization of the planet is adversely impacting the environment. But on the other hand there seems to be a strong body of evidence that the doom and gloom global warming alarmists like Al Gore have overstated their case in order to scare citizens into joining their crusade.

What has always made sense to me is the idea that the Republican Party has badly fumbled away the issue of the environment to Democrats. I know of no Republicans who fail to cherish clean water, fresh air, beautiful coastlines, lush forests, magnificent mountain and desert vistas, and a vibrant park system. Yet Democrats have successfully portrayed Republicans as against and a danger to all of those things.

Republican governor Mark Sanford from South Carolina authors an interesting piece today in which he calls for conservatives to make a case for protecting?the environment as a matter of stewardship and personal responsibility before liberals convince the public at-large that intrusive, government-led solutions are required. Given the fevered pitch at which the scare mongers are working (and can anyone doubt that liberal Hollywood is about to bestow an Oscar on Al Gore for his documentary?) and the degree to which the public is beginning to realize how energy concerns are impacting the global war on terror, the time seems ripe for the Republican Party to get in the game when it comes to environmental issues. Both Mayor Giuliani and Senator McCain have campaigned recently about the need to address climate change; Speaker Gingrich has always spoken out on the need to protect the environment. I think there is a strong chance that environmental issues?will play a pivotal role in the 2008 presidential contest – on both sides of the political aisle.

According to The Hotline, sources indicate that former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack will drop out of the 2008 Democrat presidential field today. No reasons were given, but it seems prudent to conclude that he lost confidence in his ability to raise the enormous amount of money (many pundits estimate $100 million will be necessary by the end of the year) needed to compete in?all the states that are quickly compressing into?a two-month national primary. It would not surprise me to find these presidential primary races boil down to a small group of realistic and serious candidates on both the Democrat (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama) and Republican (Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, John McCain, and Mitt Romney) sides based on those who have a practical chance to raise the money and attract enough media attention.

Kavon invited me to be the MittMan here while the illustrious HeavyM takes a little R&R. So I am excited. For those who may not know me, I am the co-founder and director of www.mymanmitt.com.

A little on me:

I grew up in Mission Viejo, California. I did my Bachelors in Music Performance at Brigham Young University and my Masters of Music Performance at Northwestern University. I am a professional violist and am currently a member of the Fort Wayne Philharmonic and a substitute member of the St. Louis Symphony. In 2000 I married my wonderful wife Aimee and we have 2 kids born on the same day 3 years apart. We also have a 3rd child on the way, due in April.

I am also a big fan of muscle cars and own a 1967 Buick Special which you can view at www.1967buickspecial.blogspot.com. She’s a dandy, and much beeter than any Dodge or Chevy.

Politically speaking I am a precinct committeeman here in the north Suburbs of Chicago and am the Illinois State Director for Legacy, a non-profit grassroots organizations that focuses specifically on the family.

I am excited to be here at www.race42008.com. This is a great site which I have been following for quite a while. Kavon is a first class site-owner and is tough but fair. I look forward to making the case for Mitt Romney and watching you all pull the lever for him in 2008.

…when even the National Review appears to be bailing?

The current narrative about Mitt Romney’s political positioning driven by both the media and conservative critics has put in jeopardy the candidate’s plan to be a credible conservative alternative to the current frontrunners. In staking out positions to the right of John McCain and Rudy Giuliani on issues important to conservative voters, the former Massachusetts governor is also to the right of his former self. Skeptics see more naked ambition than sincere conversion in Romney’s shifts on multiple issues, including abortion, gun control, gay rights, and taxes. His campaign should make no mistake: His introduction to the public has gone badly, and a few early TV ads isn’t going to fix it.

Conservatives should hope Romney’s campaign does not fizzle. For three decades, candidates who have moved to the right in Republican presidential primaries have been rewarded rather than punished. Conservative openness to converts has made it possible for moderate Republicans who found themselves moving rightward to prosper, and given ideologically malleable Republicans an incentive to adopt conservative positions. In both cases, the effect was to facilitate the country’s rightward move.

Conservatives should want to keep it that way. Thus, the gleeful pounding away at Romney’s changes from some on the right is counterproductive. Do any of these critics really wish that Romney had remained pro-choice? Pro-choicers didn’t object when Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, and Jesse Jackson moved their way on abortion they welcomed the converts.

Still, there is a sense that Romney has moved too far, too recently, on too much. A conservative Republican would be unelectable in liberal Massachusetts, so it is understandable that such a badly outnumbered politician would emphasize some issues and soft-pedal others. It is natural that he might say he is personally pro-life, but would not try to change laws in Massachusetts; that he would oppose same-sex marriage, but otherwise promote gay rights; even that he would duck the Reaganite label. In any case, Romney is a career businessman who spent far more time thinking about management and government reform than social issues and political philosophy.

George W. Bush moved right in preparation for his presidential run in 2000, but also thought through a new brand of conservatism that he figured would be attractive in the post-Gingrich, post-impeachment era. We have never been particular fans of “compassionate conservatism,” but Romney would be well advised, in a similar fashion, to figure out a distinctive way to apply his conservatism to the challenges of our time. (Alliteration is not necessary and probably should be avoided.) This individuation could help deepen and authenticate that conservatism, and make it sufficiently compelling to prevail in the general election. At the moment, Romney is running on a businessman’s typical theme of competitiveness along with a paint-by-the-numbers collection of conservative positions that seem to have no deeper rationale than getting to the right.

That was enough to get him into the top tier of candidates, but won’t be enough for him to thrive there. Romney is in many respects a talented and impressive man. We believe he can have a significant and healthy role in this race, but probably not by simply checking all the conservative boxes.

What is happening to Mitt was described as one of the pitfalls to avoid in ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin’s seminal work on the next presidential election, “The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008“. In this book, Halperin cautions prospective candidates that they must have a plausible and convincing explanation for any inconsistencies between their past and present political views or they will simply not survive the intense scrutiny that is driven by the New Media (or “The Freak Show” as he refers to it).

One’s view of abortion is arguably one of the most longstanding and deeply held beliefs that a person holds in American Society. Mitt has simply not given a convincing reason for his conversion to being Pro-Life at the age of 57 years old. Until he does, the charges of political opportunism will continue.

The latest meme coming out of the folks on the Right not yet committed to Rudy concerns the Mayor’s ability to cobble together an electoral college majority. Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review and Phil Klein of the American Spectator sparred over this very topic last week. This week, it’s Terry Jeffery who’s making the case against Rudy’s electability in the general:

The Christie Todd Whitman Republicans have long promulgated the myth that the GOP can expand its appeal by dropping the social issues. The truth, as Kate points out, is the opposite. The Republican Party expands its appeal through social conservatism. Not only does social conservatism help keep the South where there are many evangelical Christian voters solidly Republican (this was one of Zell Miller’s arguments for why national Democrats cannot win in that region), but it also helps the GOP win Catholic voters in Midwestern swing states that are likely to determine the outcome of the 2008 election just as they determined the outcome of the 2004 election…

In the key swing state of Ohio, whose electoral votes determined the outcome of the 2004 election, Bush had an added advantage: Thanks to Ken Blackwell, there was a marriage amendment on the ballot that won 62% and helped turn out socially conservative voters. Nonetheless, in that rust-belt state, the economy was more important with voters than it was nationwide. Twenty-four percent of Ohio voters told the exit poll the economy was the most important issue deciding their vote, while 23% said it was moral values. Kerry won 83% of Ohio’s economy voters, and Bush won 85% of its moral-values voters. Significantly, Catholic voters made up 26% of the Ohio electorate, and Bush beat Kerry among these voters by 11 points.

Bottom line question: If the GOP runs a candidate such as Rudy Giuliani, who mirrors the Democratic candidate’s liberal positions on key social issues, and who will not benefit from the presence of a marriage amendment on the ballot, does the GOP increase or decrease its chances of winning Ohio?

Running against a senator who just won a landslide reelection in New York, Giuliani is far more likely to paint Ohio blue than his home state red.

Again, Jeffery is a very smart guy who says very smart things about politics. But I’m still not buying the argument that Rudy will underperform Bush in the electoral college. I think the Jeffery argument, which last week was the Ponnuru argument, is suspect for three reasons.

First, I disagree vehemently with one of the major premises of the Jeffery/Ponnuru argument.
The notion that Rudy Giuliani will, as Jeffery put it, mirror the Democratic nominee on social issues is just not correct. If we Rudy supporters were contemplating running Christie Whitman for president, Jeffery would be on point in this aspect of his analysis. But we’re not. Instead, we’re running a candidate who, while personally not conservative on many social issues, will govern as a functional social conservative on most of the big issues cultural conservatives care about. On the Second Amendment, Rudy has stated he will oppose additional federal gun laws. Neither Hillary nor Obama have made that pledge. On abortion, Rudy has promised to appoint jurists who will uphold abortion laws made by the people and their elected representatives. Hillary’s judges will overturn those laws. Rudy supports the partial birth abortion ban. Hillary voted against the ban. No, Rudy won’t sign a blanket ban on abortion if Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow, but such an initiative hasn’t a chance in Purgatory of getting through either house of Congress. And no, he doesn’t support the FMA, but again, if the GOP Congress of 2005 and 2006 couldn’t push that initiative through, does anyone expect Speaker Pelosi’s House to act on it? Social conservatives are smart enough to know what their feasible goals are at the federal level. Rudy will help them to advance those goals. Hillary and Obama won’t. As such, the idea that there will be no real difference between Rudy and the Democratic nominee on social issues becomes a very difficult claim to make.

The second flaw I find in the Jeffery/Ponnuru analysis lies in the assumption that Rudy would underperform Bush in the industrial midwest. Given that, as discussed above, Rudy will be running as a functional social conservative, it seems that those midwestern voters in states like Ohio that only pull the lever for the Republican because of social issues will have a few very good reasons to vote for a Rudy-led GOP, not the least of which being the replacement for Justice Stevens. Sure, Rudy will lose a few votes here and there because he’s not as proactively socially conservative as Bush, but he’ll also gain votes — lots of votes — from urbanites and suburbanites in northern Ohio, the same sorts of industrial voters and northern ethnics that Rudy has been winning throughout his political career. Rudy will be far better at communicating the GOP message to these voters than Bush, a fellow from the deep south who seemed just as foreign to them as the patrician from New England. I would argue that Rudy will actually outperform Bush ‘04 in Ohio, as well as in comparable states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. All of these states came within a whisker of turning red in 2004.

Finally, the Jeffery and Ponnuru theories really seem to downplay Rudy’s chances in the northeast and on the west coast. Again, Rudy’s been winning elections in the northeast for his entire political career. He has a personal connection with voters in New York’s neighboring states, New Jersey and Connecticut, both of which were moderately blue in 2004. Rudy has a real shot to flip both states. He’d also almost certainly bring New Hampshire back into the fold, which Kerry won by a hair, and Delaware and Maine would be on the table. And the real prize that no one seems to be talking about, California, is a must-win for the Democrats. A pro-freedom Republican like Rudy, who favors limited government, low taxes, and free markets, would definitely put the Golden State in play.

Given all of these considerations — the fact that Rudy will be running as a functional social conservative, the Mayor’s ability to connect with suburban Kerry voters in the industrial midwest, and Rudy’s ability to flip blue coastal states — it seems to me that Rudy is far more likely to add electoral votes to the GOP column than to lose them. Rudy may not be the choice of many conservatives for president, but to attack him on this front makes little sense.

I can’t help but wonder when I read stories like this:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger offered his most lavish praise yet Wednesday for any 2008 presidential candidate, calling John McCain a “great senator” and “very good friend” who shared his views on critical issues like the environment.

The celebrity governor stopped short of a formal declaration of support for McCain’s budding candidacy, but their appearance together in the Port of Los Angeles was a strong reminder that the two maverick Republicans share a well-developed friendship.

The Arizona senator joked that he was endorsed by Schwarzenegger. Then Schwarzenegger said their joint appearance wasn’t about politics.

“We share common philosophy and goals for this country,” McCain noted.

The governor called McCain a “great, great leader

Coming off a decisive re-election in November, the governor appears eager to assume a more prominent role in national affairs. His push to move California’s presidential primary to Feb. 5 from June could give the state _ and by association him _ much greater influence in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes.

With McCain at his side, Schwarzenegger called for a national low-carbon fuel standard for transportation fuels, similar to standards in California intended to make fuel burn cleaner. It wasn’t clear how such a standard would be put in place, or if it would become a centerpiece of McCain’s nascent campaign.

“I know that Senator McCain sees the value of bringing to Washington the same kind of programs that we have put into place right here in California,” Schwarzenegger said.

The senator and Schwarzenegger have shared a bond going back years. McCain has headlined fundraisers for Schwarzenegger in California, and they’ve campaigned together. The governor’s 2006 campaign manager is now a senior adviser to McCain’s campaign.

Even though Giuliani has been campaigning up and down California for the past couple of weeks, the governor saved most of his praise for McCain. If Schwarzenegger ends up endorsing McCain, that could up end the entire dynamic of the campaign and could help McCain make up a tremendous amount of ground in the CA polls.

Also, Newsweek has more.

Courtesy of Dave Wissing.

PRESIDENT – IOWA – DEM PRIMARY
John Edwards 24%
Hillary 18%
Barack Obama 18%
Tom Vilsack 14%
Joe Biden 5%
Bill Richardson 3%
Wesley Clark 2%
Chris Dodd 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1%

PRESIDENT – IOWA – GOP PRIMARY
Rudy Giuliani 29%
John McCain 22%
Newt Gingrich 11%
Mitt Romney 9%
Chuck Hagel 5%
Tommy Thompson 3%
Tom Tancredo 2%
Sam Brownback 2%
Mike Huckabee 2%
Jim Gilmore 1%
Duncan Hunter 1%

PRESIDENT – CALIFORNIA – DEM PRIMARY
Hillary 34%
Barack Obama 24%
John Edwards 16%
Bill Richardson 7%
Dennis Kucinich 4%
Joe Biden 4%
Chris Dodd 1%
Tom Vilsack 0%
Mike Gravel 0%

PRESIDENT – CALIFORNIA – GOP PRIMARY
Rudy Giulaini 41%
John McCain 17%
Mitt Romney 10%
Duncan Hunter 6%
Sam Brownback 4%
Tom Tancredo 4%
Mike Huckabee 2%
Ron Paul 1%
Jim Gilmore 0%

The Iowa numbers come to us from Strategic Vision. Check out the full poll results here.

On the Democratic side, Edwards maintains his lead in Iowa, with Hillary and Obama closing hard. The former North Carolina senator’s tepid numbers in California mirror the preferences of Democrats in almost every other state, leading me to suspect that Edwards’ Iowa numbers are more of a lagging indicator of the strength of his candidacy than anything else.

On the GOP side, look at Rudy’s numbers in the Golden State! Giuliani leads rivals John McCain and Mitt Romney by 24 and 31 points, respectively, and appears poised to clean up in delegate-rich California, which plans to hold its presidential primary on February 5th, 2008, along with a number of other delegate-heavy, Rudy-friendly states, such as New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and Florida. If Rudy’s numbers continue to take off as voters in these states and elsewhere get to know him, the converse of what some predicted, the race for the GOP nod may be essentially over by next February’s Super Duper Tuesday.

One of the last people in this world who would be expected to jump on the Rudy bandwagon, social conservative Maggie Gallagher is contemplating such a move:

I’ve never voted for Rudy Giuliani in my life. But I’m thinking hard about it now.

In both cases, I surprise myself.

The rest of America may know Rudy as “America’s Mayor” for his ceremonial performance post-9/11, but for New Yorkers who lived through the Dinkins years, Rudy Giuliani is more than a guy who stands tall when the skyscrapers fall. By the late ’90s, people were beginning to say that New York City was ungovernable: Remember the court-driven interest group spending, the disorder, the bums taking over the parks and the playgrounds and the street corners, spiraling welfare costs, the crime, the small business disaster, the high taxes, rent control, the South Bronx? New York was a disaster area, a poster child for what liberalism hath wrought.

The glittering cosmopolitan New York City we now live in, the one seemingly every college student in America dreams about moving to, is largely Rudy’s gift, forged in the face of intense, daily, nasty invective from those who at the time insisted that to demand order and civility in a large city was to be a fascist.

I never voted for Rudy when I lived in New York City for one simple reason: abortion. I don’t look for purity in politicians, just for some small pro-life reason to vote for a guy: Medicaid funding, parental notification, partial birth abortion. Throw me the slightest lifeline, otherwise I assume he just doesn’t want the vote of people like me. Rudy never did. So I never gave him my vote.

And of course it doesn’t help now to recall the way Rudy treated his second wife, nor do I particularly want to imagine the third Mrs. Giuliani as Laura Bush’s successor. So I could have sworn, even a few months ago, that I’d never vote for Rudy Giuliani, in spite of my deep respect for his considerable achievements as mayor.

So why would I even think of changing my mind? Two things: national security, and Hillary Clinton’s Supreme Court appointments.

When I ask myself, who of all the candidates in both parties do I most trust to keep me and my children safe? The answer is instantaneous, deeper than the level any particular policy debate can go: Rudy Giuliani. And when I look ahead on social issues like gay marriage, the greatest threat I see is that the Supreme Court with two or more appointments from Hillary Clinton, will decide that our Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, created a national constitutional right to whatever social liberals have decided is the latest civil rights battle.

It’s hard to see a state that George Bush won in which Rudy Giuliani will not beat Hillary Clinton. And he will put a whole slew of new blue states into play: Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, to name just three. (The latest Quinnipiac poll shows Giuliani in a dead heat with Clinton in Connecticut.)

Which puts people like me, who care very deeply about marriage and life issues, in the position of thinking hard about Rudy.

This is the perfect example of why my description of Rudy as ?”transcendent” is correct. Rudy’s accomplishments, leadership, and honesty draw in?people who may not agree with him on some?important issues, but trust him to make the right decisions in leading our party and our country.

Chuck Todd has released his latest GOP?White House rankings, and a major change has taken place.

Click the link?to see who has risen and who has dropped and then?come on back to discuss it here.

PBS will sponsor and broadcast live Democrat and Republican presidential candidate forums that focus on minority issues. The forums will be moderated by Tavis Smiley, with questions being posed by three journalists of color to be determined later. The Democrat forum will be on June 29, 2007?at Howard University in Washington, D.C. and will commence at 9:00 p.m. local time. The Republican forum will be on September 27, 2007?at Morgan State University in Baltimore and will commence at 9:00? p.m local time.

The Hotline has the details:

An insurgent candidate when he last ran for president, John McCain is hoping to win over the establishment crowd from Wall Street and big media at a three-day conference in Deer Valley, Utah, next week. Among the 165 chief executives expected to attend — “the chiefs, not their deputies,” says one insider — are media mogul Rupert Murdoch, ad firm chief Ann Fudge of Young & Rubicam, CBS executive Les Moonves and Sirius radio CEO Mel Karmazin.

The Arizona Senator had some of these big establishment names in his corner in 2000, when he challenged President George W. Bush for the Republican nomination. Viacom and Goldman Sachs employees gave the Senator $96,000 seven years ago, for example, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. But they gave even more generously to Democratic nominee Al Gore: $166,000. Fully one-third of McCain’s fund-raising in 2000 came in the form of small donations under $200.

The Senator’s entrée to next week’s high-level networking event is James B. “Jimmy” Lee Jr., vice chairman of JP Morgan Chase, which sponsors the annual conference in Utah mountain country. Lee is also co-chairing McCain’s presidential exploratory committee, and he has arranged time in the schedule for important people to get to know the Senator. An overnight stay, a keynote address by McCain and a fireside chat with PBS interviewer Charlie Rose are on the itinerary.

With so many New Yorkers attending the conference, which begins Feb. 28, it’s significant that one will be absent: former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. McCain supporters are consciously trying to make inroads into Giuliani’s presumed fund-raising base. McCain will follow up with a fund-raiser in Phoenix on the evening of March 2, and then jet into New York for a March 8 gala.

With the minimum entry into the primaries expected to be between $100 and $150 million, all the candidates are trying to raise the requisite amount of money to compete. The fact that McCain’s holding such major fundraisers in Utah and New York is definitely not a coincidence, as the article points out. But not to be outdone, Rudy plans to hold his own fundrasier on March 9th (a day after McCain’s one in NY) down in Phoenix.

But looming just over the horizon is the March 31st FEC first quarter filing deadline. That’s the day when we’ll get our first clear picture of how the money race is shaping up. Since it’s still about 5 weeks away, I’m going to hold off speculating on what order the Big Three will come in. But if you want to be adventrous, take a guess in the comments.

It appears Ron Paul is still alive and (probably) still intending to run for President!

Today, RonPaulExplore.com came up with this:

Of course, one little thing that this new website forgets to mention is…well…ANY information at all about its candidate.? … How much is Paul paying for his web design team, anyway??

But, hey, it’s still a big improvement over the previous version of RonPaulExplore.com:

Well, Team Paul certainly delivered on its promise to get up a viable campaign website “soon”?(38 days to be precise), ?so now all we have to do is wait for that official announcement that was supposed to happen during the third week in January fourth week in January?first week in February second week in February third week in February.

Welcome to the race, Ron!

Fellow R4′08 writer HeavyM touts James Bopp Jr.’s endorsement of Romney below as a reason “why social conservatives should support Mitt Romney.”

Hmm. Well, perhaps next time the S.S. Romney could vet their people a little bit more so that they don’t go around telling a high profile political reporter this:

“I don’t know yet about Romney,” Bopp admits. “I’m not really sure where [abortion] will ultimately fit in his agenda. He’s still on a journey.”

Oh, Mitt!

Keep your chin up, there’s always next time!

UPDATE: James Bopp Jr. responds in the comments:

The last four paragraphs of Johathan Martin’s blog combines answers to several questions to me creating the erroneous impression that I am uncertain about Romney’s pro-life position. I am not. To the question: “will any of these candidates really advocate an end to abortion or were they just paying lip service to an important issue,” my view is that “Romney is sincere about advocating an end to abortion he is not paying lip service to it.” If I had been asked further about this, I would have said that he will promote and sign pro-life legislation, oppose and veto pro-choice legislation (as he had done as Governor) and appoint strict constructionist judges. My statement about Romney in the last sentence of the Martin’s blog (which is correctly viewed by commentators here as “strange,” “odd,” and “bizarre,” if made to the question “is he paying lip service” to it) was about where does the abortion issue fit in his agenda, in other words what priority would he give it, and I think that it is important now and is growing in importance to him (that is the “journey” I was referring to).

In today’s Washington Post, Ruth Marcus writes about a early 2005 interview that she and Dan Balz conducted with Mitt Romney on abortion. If you’ve been following Romney’s statements for a while, this might be old news. But it is interesting nonetheless:

Precisely two years ago, Mitt Romney, then the governor of Massachusetts but already eyeing a 2008 presidential bid, sat in the coffee shop of a Washington hotel, doing his best not to explain his views on abortion.

Romney was speaking to a few of us from The Post, and my colleague Dan Balz noted the similarity between Romney’s expressed views on abortion rights and the stance of another Massachusetts politician, Sen. John F. Kerry: Both men said they were personally opposed to abortion but did not support making it illegal.

From there, Romney proceeded to expound one of the odder positions I’ve heard in years of listening to politicians talk about a subject most would prefer to avoid: “I can tell you what my position is, and it’s in a very narrowly defined sphere, as candidate for governor and as governor of Massachusetts,” he said. “What I said to people was that I personally did not favor abortion, that I am personally pro-life. However, as governor I would not change the laws of the commonwealth relating to abortion.

“Now I don’t try and put a bow around that and say what does that mean you are — does that mean you’re pro-life or pro-choice, because that whole package — meaning I’m personally pro-life but I won’t change the laws, you could describe that as — well, I don’t think you can describe it in one hyphenated word.”

Got it? I didn’t, and I asked, “Do you support making abortion illegal? I’m not talking about what you would do as governor of Massachusetts.”

Romney: “But that’s the furthest I’m going to take you right now. I’m governor of Massachusetts, and I’m telling you exactly what I will do as governor of Massachusetts, but I’m not going to tell you what I’d do as mayor of Boston or a congressman or any of those positions.”

But I wanted to make note that the interview was conducted on February 28th, 2005. That date is extremely important when discussing the chronology of Mitt’s transformation. Why is that day, exactly 103 weeks ago today, so important, you ask? Well, because by the end of February of ‘05, that was already 3 months PC* (or post-conversion).

Romney’s campaign and his supporters in the blogosphere have a slight bipolar complex when it comes to discussing their man Mitt. Often times, perplexing and/or contradictory statements that Mitt’s made in the past are dismissed because because he said them BC (or before conversion) and therefore they somehow aren’t a valid representation of Mitt Romney Version 9.6 of 2007.

The Romney revisionist history states that once the conversion took place and he realized at the tender age of 57 that Roe v. Wade had “cheapened the value of human life,” he became a champion for the unborn and grand protector of traditional values. This is an incredibly flimsy argument and has rightly been ridiculed by lots of people on both sides of the aisle, including Romney “Chief Disciple” Kathryn Jean Lopez who said that it wasn’t “very compelling.”

But there appears (surprise, surprise) to be more than meets the eye here. Because here we have an interview a full three months after Romney saw the light and yet he was still recycling his old line about being pro-life, while pledging not to touch Massachusetts law. What happened to standing up for human life, Mitt? Things take an even more bizarre turn when in June of 2005, Romney’s chief political strategist said that Romney had “been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly.” But the coup de grace comes a month later when on July 26th, 2005 he vetoed a bill providing from emergency contraception, or the “morning after pill.” So, there was a definite shift in Romney’s rhetoric and actions between the day of conversion and when he fully embraced his culture warrior role. What happened during those months? Romney says his beliefs “evolved and deepened.” Perhaps they did, or perhaps he just decided to run for President.

* The exact date of Mitt’s conversion was November 9th, 2004 when he and his chief of staff Beth Myers met with Harvard stem cell researcher, Doug Melton.

It seems Rudy Giuliani’s lead over his next closest challenger in Republican nomination polls has really taken off, quite similarly to George W. Bush’s after he declared himself a candidate in 2000 (and quite similarly to virtually every other eventual Republican nominee in recent history).? In fact, where once Hillary Clinton was once a sure bet who broadly led her party’s polls in comparison to the tight horserace going on in the GOP, it is now Rudy Giuliani who is the head-and-shoulders-above frontrunner of the two major parties.? His lead over the next closest challenger in the latest Quinnipiac Poll is 22 points, compared to Clinton’s 15 points on her side.? Quinnipiac also puts Rudy at 40%–the second survey to do so in the last?week?(USA Today/Gallup did so as well).

Here’s how the race is shaping up, according to the latest poll:

Quinnipiac University Poll. Feb. 13-19, 2007. N=578 Republican voters nationwide. MoE ? 4.1.
					.
“If the 2008 Republican primary for president were being held today, and the candidates were [see below], for whom would you vote?”
					.
		%	?	?	?	?
	Rudy Giuliani	40	?	?	?	?
	John McCain	18	?	?	?	?
	Newt Gingrich	10	?	?	?	?
	Mitt Romney	7	?	?	?	?
	Duncan Hunter	2	?	?	?	?
	Mike Huckabee	2	?	?	?	?
	Sam Brownback	1	?	?	?	?
	George Pataki	1	?	?	?	?
	Ron Paul	1	?	?	?	?
	Tom Tancredo	1	?	?	?	?
	Tommy Thompson	1	?	?	?	?
	Jim Gilmore	-	?	?	?	?
	Chuck Hagel	-	?	?	?	?
	Other (vol.)	1	?	?	?	?
	Unsure	15

Whilst a mere few weeks ago it was Rudy and McCain that inhabited the upper tier, with Gingrich and Romney jostling in the second tier, and everyone else fighting for scraps, it now appears that McCain is beginning to slide into league with the second tier candidates while Rudy gets closer to laying claim to the title of frontrunner.? McCain’s slide is becoming evident in other recent polls too.? While, in late January, McCain was enjoying big leads over usual third-placer Newt Gingrich (17 pt. lead-Gallup, 10 pt. lead-Rasmussen, 18 pt. lead-ABC/WaPo, 17 pt. lead-CNN, 16 pt. lead-Time), McCain has now begun settling in the teens category, just a few points above Gingrich.? (See the RCP record)

Indeed, Rudy’s lead and McCain’s decline appears to be extraordinarily similar to Bush’s lead and Elizabeth Dole’s decline in the 2000 election cycle polls, as noted not too long ago in another post on this site.? Republicans value consistency and predictability in their nominating process, and those who are the polling frontrunners at this point in the election cycle almost always become the nominee, despite who has the most money or best campaign staff.? There are a lot of factors about 2008 that are different than the past several election years, but there is something to be said for long-established patterns in the GOP.

Rudy’s aura of inevitability also seems to be swelling a bit thanks to his superior general election polling numbers.? The former Mayor seems to have clearly established himself as the best Republican candidate to field in the general election.? Against Hillary Clinton, Rudy gets 3 more points than McCain.? Against Barack Obama, Rudy does better than McCain by 7 points (in fact, Obama ties McCain).? Also, against John Edwards, Rudy once again scores 7 more points for the Republicans than McCain does.

On a sidenote, Mitt Romney also seems to be making gradual improvement in the general election polls.? (Romney went from a devastating 26 point deficit behind Hillary in a December Newsweek poll to a more hopeful 12 point deficit in the lastest Quinnipiac poll):

Quinnipiac University Poll. Feb. 13-19, 2007. N=1,536 registered voters nationwide. MoE ? 2.5.
?	?	?	?	?	.	?
“If the 2008 election for president were being held today, and the candidates were [see below] the Democrat and [see below] the Republican, for whom would you vote?”
?	?	?	?	?	.	?
?	?	Rudolph Giuliani (R)	Hillary Clinton (D)	Someone Else (vol.)	Wouldn’t Vote (vol.)	Unsure
?	?	%	%	%	%	%
?	2/13-19/07	48	43	1	2	5
?	3/2-7/05	44	43	2	1	10
?	12/7-12/04	45	43	3	2	6
?	?	?	?	?	.	?
?	?	John McCain (R)	Hillary Clinton (D)	Someone Else (vol.)	Wouldn’t Vote (vol.)	Unsure
?	?	%	%	%	%	%
?	2/13-19/07	46	44	1	3	6
?	11/28 – 12/4/05	44	40	3	3	11
?	3/2-7/05	43	41	2	1	13
?	?	?	?	?	.	?
?	?	Mitt Romney (R)	Hillary Clinton (D)	Someone Else (vol.)	Wouldn’t Vote (vol.)	Unsure
?	?	%	%	%	%	%
?	2/13-19/07	37	49	2	4	9
?	?	?	?	?	.	?
?	?	Rudolph Giuliani (R)	Barack Obama (D)	Someone Else (vol.)	Wouldn’t Vote (vol.)	Unsure
?	?	%	%	%	%	%
?	2/13-19/07	47	40	1	3	10
?	?	?	?	?	.	?
?	?	John McCain (R)	Barack Obama (D)	Someone Else (vol.)	Wouldn’t Vote (vol.)	Unsure
?	?	%	%	%	%	%
?	2/13-19/07	43	43	1	4	10
?	?	?	?	?	.	?
?	?	Mitt Romney (R)	Barack Obama (D)	Someone Else (vol.)	Wouldn’t Vote (vol.)	Unsure
?	?	%	%	%	%	%
?	2/13-19/07	29	49	2	5	15
?	?	?	?	?	.	?
?	?	Rudolph Giuliani (R)	John Edwards (D)	Someone Else (vol.)	Wouldn’t Vote (vol.)	Unsure
?	?	%	%	%	%	%
?	2/13-19/07	48	40	2	3	8
?	?	?	?	?	.	?
?	?	John McCain (R)	John Edwards (D)	Someone Else (vol.)	Wouldn’t Vote (vol.)	Unsure
?	?	%	%	%	%	%
?	2/13-19/07	43	42	2	4	9
?	?	?	?	?	.	?
?	?	Mitt Romney (R)	John Edwards (D)	Someone Else (vol.)	Wouldn’t Vote (vol.)	Unsure
?	?	%	%	%	%	%
?	2/13-19/07	32	48	3	5	12

So, will Rudy’s aura of inevitability and recognition by the MSM as the Republican frontrunner (if not at least a co-frontrunner with McCain) eventually become plain to all?? Possibly.? Things could still change though, and that’s what keeps the GOP horserace interesting.

This is a piece penned by James Bopp, Jr. for National Review Online this morning. For those of you don’t know who Bopp is, he is one of the nation’s foremost lawyers fighting for pro-life causes. He has represented groups such as National Right to Life Committee, Focus on the Family, Christian Broadcasting Network, Catholic Answers, and the Christian Coalition. He has argued cases before the Supreme Court and is a GOP Committee Member from Indiana. And on January 30, he endorsed Mitt Romney for President.

Here are excerpts from his commentary from NRO, entitled “The Best Choice is Also a Good Choice,” and subtitled with the heading of this article (read the whole thing here – it’s well worth your time):

…

“Romney’s conversion was less abrupt than is often portrayed. In his 1994 Senate run, Romney was endorsed by Massachusetts Citizens for Life and kept their endorsement, even though he declared himself to be pro-choice, because he supported parental-consent laws, opposed taxpayer-funded abortion and mandatory abortion coverage under a national health insurance plan, and was against the Freedom of Choice Act, which would have codified Roe v. Wade by federal statute. In 1994, NARAL’s Kate Michelman pronounced him a phony pro-choicer. “Mitt Romney, stop pretending,” she demanded. “We need honesty in our public life, not your campaign of deception to conceal your anti-choice views,” she said. Some conservative Boston newspaper columnists view it similarly. As Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe put it: “Romney’s very public migration rightward over the last few years is . . . intended not to hide his real views but to liberate them. In 1994, Romney struck me as an extraordinarily bright, talented, and decent man and a political neophyte who fell for the canard that the only way a conservative could win in Massachusetts was by passing for liberal.

“In 2001, Romney said, in a letter to the Salt Lake Tribute, that he believes that “abortion is the wrong choice, but under the law it is a choice people have.” And in the 2002 governor’s race, Romney made clear that “on a personal basis, I don’t favor abortion,” that he opposed lowering the age at which minors could obtain abortions without parental consent to 16, and that he supported a ban on partial-birth abortions, but that, as governor, he would “protect the right of a woman to choose under the law of the country and the laws of the commonwealth.” As one Boston commentator observed, Romney’s “abortion statements sound as much like someone trying to wrestle with the issue as someone trying to weasel his way out of it.

…

“Yet how is the sincerity of a conversion to be measured? There are two salient considerations in this regard: first, some defining moment that prompted a change of heart; second, the fact that deeds speak louder than words. Romney’s conversion exhibits both. First, Romney has had a life-changing event. It was when he was governor and researchers were proposing embryonic cloning at Harvard. As he recounts it, one of the researchers said that there “wasn’t a moral issue, because . . . they destroy the embryos at 14 days.” Romney said that “it struck me that we have so cheapened the value of human life in this country through our Roe v. Wade decision that someone could think that there is no moral issue to have racks and racks of living human embryos and then destroying them at 14 days.”

“This was not a trivial matter for Romney and his family. As he told the New York Times at the time, “My wife has MS and we would love for there to be a cure for her disease and for the diseases of others. But there is an ethical boundary that should not be crossed.

“And Romney, as governor, acted on these convictions. He vetoed an embryonic cloning bill; he vetoed a bill that would allow the “morning after pill” to be acquired without a prescription on the grounds that it is an abortifacient; he vetoed legislation which would have redefined Massachusetts longstanding definition of the beginning of human life from fertilization to implantation; and he fought to promote abstinence education in the classroom. One should not underestimate the tremendous political price that Governor Romney paid in Massachusetts for these acts. Both conviction and courage are necessary for effective pro-life leadership, and Romney, in office, displayed both.

…

“These actions as governor have lead leaders of the most important social conservative groups in Massachusetts, including Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Massachusetts Family Institute, and the Knights of Columbus, to observe that, while previous comments by Romney “are, taken by themselves, obviously worrisome to social conservatives including ourselves, they do not dovetail with the actions of Governor Romney from 2003 until now and those actions positively and demonstrably impacted the social climate of Massachusetts.” They conclude that Romney “demonstrat[ed] [his] solid social conservative credentials by undertaking” these actions, and has therefore “proven that he shares our values, as well as our determination to protect them.”

…

“There is the simple question of whether social conservatives want someone who is currently on their side or someone who currently opposes them.”

It looks like Israel can stop waiting by the mailbox for a belated Valentine’s Day card from John Edwards. According to NRO’s Hillary Spot, John Edwards had this to say about our strongest ally in southwest Asia.

There are other emerging fissures, as well. The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the “I” word Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.

Is it just me, or did it just get weird in here?

Of course, all of this means that I am going to be served much crow in the coming months over my New Years’ prediction that Edwards would be the 2008 Democratic nominee. I was excited about facing Edwards in the general due to my awareness that he is, at core, a paleoliberal of the worst order. The Left already knows this, and that’s why they like him. His popularity in the middle is due exclusively to packaging, with Edwards’ nice hair and southern demeanor screaming, “mainstream” and “moderate.” I thought that Edwards could probably make it through 2007 with the charade intact, and I found myself relishing the imminent oppo dump once the general election got underway.

What I didn’t take into account was the accelerated nature of the primary season. It’s only February of 2007 and already Edwards has been revealed as a tax-hiking collectivist who is opposed to free trade, has no love for Israel, and surrounds himself with surrogates who hate religion. A fellow with these positions does not get to be POTUS in 21st Century America. As such, Edwards’ stock is plummeting among Democrats, especially those in the Democratic base states of the northeast. With Hillary now in the lead in pretty much every poll of Democrats, the only question that remains is whether Obamamania is a potent enough elixir to prevent what many are beginning to feel is inevitable: the nomination of Hillary Rodham.

This isn’t really a surprising announcement, but anytime a candidate get majority support in a state legislature it is newsworthy.

According to the Boston Globe (yes, them again), Romney has the support of 17 of the 21 state Senators and 49 out of the 55 state Representatives – including the Senate President, Majority Leader, Majority Whip, and Assistant Majority Whip, as well as the House Speaker, Majority Leader, Whip, and Assistant Whip.

This gives Romney majority endorsements in Utah, Michigan, and Massachusetts (his three “home states”). McCain has the majority of endorsements in South Carolina.

Since my comments were quoted in a front page piece yesterday, I felt it prudent to respond in a front page article, just to make sure everyone knows where I stand.

A couple of my comments yesterday were misconstrued and held up as examples of people who were ready to jump into the S.S. Romney’s lifeboats and paddle to a bigger, better boat. Our ship, according to DaveG, is getting too nicked and dinged. No cannonball fired in our direction from the S.S. BoGlo has scored a direct hit, but enough of them have knocked a hole in the deck or taken out the putt-putt course and the cocktail lounge – so why should the passengers want to remain on board? The S.S. Rudy and the S.S. J-Mac are nicer, larger, newer ships. And they serve free cocktails.

Let me make this as clear as I can: I love being a passenger on the S.S. Romney. I love it because this ship is clean, this ship’s captain offers fresh, innovative ideas, and this ship – although smaller than a couple others – is well suited to lead an entire fleet. It is swift and nimble, and it is unafraid to go into uncharted waters if it means finding a better route to its destination. Being on the S.S. Romney gives one hope that perhaps, someday, the rest of the fleet will understand the brilliance in its design structure.

I will remain a passenger on board this boat until the last possible moment. I hope that she is docked for the last time in January 2016. If so, I will step off the deck with my original ticket stub in hand from its maiden voyage way back in 2006. I have no intention of getting off this ship until then – unless, of course, someone discovers there is a massive breach in the integrity of its frame or something along those lines.

My recent comments about the S.S. Rudy and the S.S. J-Mac had nothing to do with my ship. They had everything to do with how unappealing a ride on the S.S. Rudy was becoming to me. I had heard that the ship didn’t really have all the amenities of the others in this fleet, and had hoped that the captain might try to encourage us as to why that was. Instead, all we’ve heard thus far has made the situation even worse. After saying that he would never, ever, put in a piano bar and that he would never waver on that opinion, the S.S. Rudy has now added one – saying that he only opposed its addition prior to this because there would have been no cover charge. Funny thing is, he had the opportunity several times in the past to put one in with a cover charge and spoke out against them even then.

And that’s just one of many areas that makes me uneasy about joining the other passengers on the S.S. Rudy. There’s many, many more. And of course, there’s the S.S. McCain where there actually was a piano bar, just without the piano. Until two days ago. Despite having spoken out against the need for a piano in a piano bar on several different occasions in several different venues, the captain of the S.S. McCain evidently realized he was losing too many passengers to the newly installed piano bar on the S.S. Rudy. So he, against his history, installed one on his ship as well.

Look, the S.S. Romney hasn’t always had a piano bar. But we have had one since 2003. And we’ve had a piano for longer than that, sitting in the entryway for everyone to see as they walked by.

The despicable thing about this whole fleet of ships in my mind is the fact that hostile ships oftentimes sail into our friendly waters, led most of the time by the S.S. BoGlo, and begin taking aim at the S.S. Romney. Rather than come to the aid of a friendly companion, however, the other ships in the fleet oftentimes either cheer on the S.S. BoGlo and its companions or simply sit there and say, “Oooh…. that one looked bad….” There has not been a single instance that I am aware of where a passenger on another ship of our fleet has swam over to help us patch up the holes in the sides of the boat, or put the mast back up, or repair the putt-putt course. Instead, they high-five the captain of the BoGlo as it sails away, confident that the damage caused the S.S. Romney will allow them to lead the fleet next year.

These attacks on the S.S. Romney lack substance. The attempt to sink our ship with a death of a thousand cuts is intellectually dishonest. The BoGlo, and its fleet behind them, know every time they sail into our waters that they cannot score a direct hit. But they figure with enough minor damage to our ship, passengers will start to get off. And what good is a ship with no passengers? The fact that the other captains and passengers not only allow these attacks, do nothing to stop them, and even encourage them by firing salvos of their own toward a friendly ship every now and again, disgusts me.

And watching it happen time and time and time again only strengthens my resolve. You see, the S.S. Romney is one of the grandest ships I have ever set foot on in my 8 years of sailing. Maybe that makes me too young to understand what boats are really supposed to be about. But I think this ship has unmatched potential to chart new courses for our fleet and find new waters to sail in. It has rooms large enough to hold more passengers than any other boat in our fleet, and the ability to fill them. And seeing these attacks on our ship rouses in me a sense of justice and makes my stance more firm. I will do everything I can to see this ship lead the fleet. Nobody’s jumpin’ ship around these parts.

In Wednesday’s National Review Online, Evans & Novak reporter David Freddoso hammers former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani as a man with a mean streak. Freddoso’s piece recalls some of Giuliani’s more colorful moments in office including his once saying, “If you tell me off, I tell you off — that’s my personality.”

Freddoso repeats the often-stated myth that Giuliani was hated by the end of his term, until the September 11 terrorist attack rehabilitated his supposedly tattered reputation and rocketed him to global fame and acclaim. On the contrary, a key survey showed that New Yorkers regarded Giuliani very highly less than a month before al-Qaeda agents demolished the Twin Towers.

An August 5-12, 2001 poll by the New York Times — perhaps Giuliani’s most bitter critic during his eight-year administration — showed that among 1,353 New Yorkers surveyed, Giuliani was very popular and widely credited for having rescued Gotham from the flames in which he found it in 1994. As Adam Nagourney and Marjorie Connelly reported that August 15:

Only 25 percent said they believed that the city would become a worse place to live in the next 10 to 15 years, the lowest percentage since The Times first asked the question 28 years ago. Eight years ago, before Mr. Giuliani was elected, half of city residents were pessimistic about the long-term course of the city.

And 4 in 10 said Mr. Giuliani’s policies had a lot to do with the improvements. Overall, 55 percent said they approved of the job he was doing, compared with 30 percent who disapproved.

So, the man who the conventional wisdom still says would have vanished into a rain of rotten tomatoes had September 11 not occurred, in fact, enjoyed a 55 percent approval rating one month before al-Qaeda struck.

Naturally, The West 43rd Street Gazette entombed news of Giuliani’s popularity in paragraph 30 of Nagourney and Connelley’s story — the very last paragraph.

Freddoso does concede that, “Maybe a hard, mean man was what New York City needed after decades of feel-good, politically correct thinking had made the place unlivable and nearly ungovernable.”

This is one reason why Giuliani is exactly the presidential candidate around whom conservatives and libertarians immediately should coalesce.

While Giuliani differs with many social conservatives on abortion, gay rights, and gun control, the fact is he is positively Reaganite on taxes, spending, public order, quality of life, welfare reform, school choice, racial preferences, privatization, shrinking bureaucracy, Americanization of immigrants, fatherhood, moving foster kids into adoptive families, pulverizing Islamo-fascism, and maintaining peace through strength. Giuliani also says he would appoint federal judges and Supreme Court justices akin to Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Sam Alito. Former Solicitor General Ted Olson’s endorsement of Giuliani last week speaks well of the ex-mayor’s judicial temperament.

Beyond being solid on eight or nine of any 10 issues that motivate conservatives and free-marketeers, however, a bit of the “meanness” that Freddoso criticizes is exactly what the next president of the United States should bring to the Oval Office.

Washington Republicans suffer from endemic niceness. Top GOP leaders believe that if they simply smile and work hard not to upset their opponents, everything will be just fine.

For example, President Bush did not press the GOP Senate to hold a vote on retaining John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Such a roll call, presumably, would have rendered Bolton’s archenemy Chris Dodd (D.-Conn.) uncomfortable. So, the speeches were not given, the troops were not rallied, and the yeas and nays were not tallied. Republicans stuck their tails between their legs and scurried away yet again as poor John Bolton quietly resigned with nary a peep from the White House. Invertebrate former Senate majority leader Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.) adjourned the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body for the rest of the year last December 7 so senators could go Christmas shopping.

How nice. How sweet. How pathetic.

President Giuliani would have made senators stick around to vote on Bolton, and likely much more of his agenda. (Why not harness congressional majorities when you have them?) Giuliani would have stood by Bolton, spoken on his behalf, and stirred the GOP base to call, write, and demonstrate on the ambassador’s behalf.

“Do Senate Democrats want to help keep America safe from Iranian and North Korean nukes, or not?” Giuliani might have asked bluntly before news cameras. “I want a yes/no vote on John Bolton by Friday so he can get back to work. Any questions?”

Giuliani and Bolton might have won that vote, or they might have lost. But everyone on the Right could have held our heads high and proudly said that we all did what we could do to keep John Bolton on duty. And if that effort made Chris Dodd late for lunch, well too damn bad.

Similarly, President Bush showed extreme niceness when he held a meeting just before the Senate switched from Republican to Democratic control, thanks to Vermont U.S. Senator James Jeffords’ defection from the GOP to independent status. The day before Trent Lott handed the Senate keys to then-minority leader Tom Daschle (D.-S.D.), Bush discussed education with various senators. To his left in the Cabinet Room sat Ted Kennedy (D.- Mass.) and, one seat over, none other than Jeffords himself.

That sent a clear signal around Washington: Go ahead and sabotage this president in public, and he will invite you to the White House for a photo opportunity.

President Giuliani might have told Jeffords not to bother dropping by the White House until the next administration. Even if Giuliani needed Jeffords’ vote on certain matters, he would have been wise and tough enough to handle him by phone, rather than to telegraph spectacular weakness by posing for photos with him after he torpedoed his own party’s control of the United States Senate.

Finally, the Bush Administration has been as stern as a box of puppies when it comes to prosecuting people for mishandling and leaking classified data, much of it vital to preventing America from suffering another deadly terrorist attack.

Sandy Berger, President Clinton’s national security advisor, notoriously stole classified documents related to Clinton-era efforts to neutralize (or not neutralize) Osama bin Laden. Berger stuffed those papers into his socks during the 9-11 Commission’s deliberations, hid them under a construction trailer across the street from the National Archives, retrieved them later on, then shredded them at home with scissors. Berger, a career foreign-policy professional, knew very well that this was no way to treat classified materials.

Berger was fined $50,000, sentenced to 100 hours of community service, and denied his security clearance — for three years.

How could Attorney General Alberto Gonzales allow such a cushy plea deal? Why didn’t he thrown Berger behind bars for a year or two? Well, that would be mean, and who wants that?

Similarly, The New York Times‘ revelation of America’s SWIFT anti-terrorist-financing program gave this country’s sworn enemies a blueprint of how the U.S. tracks their money. To date, no one has been prosecuted for leaking or publishing this life-and-death information. Nor has the Times suffered any consequences for this act of treason. At a minimum, this unpatriotic rag’s correspondents should have been booted from the White House grounds and Air Force One for 30 days. They could have practiced their First Amendment press freedoms from the comfort of the Times‘ Washington bureau, where C-Span and AP wire copy likely are available.

Tough? You bet. Mean? Not if it discourages the Times and other media outlets from making it easier for al-Qaeda to murder Americans and our allies.

The Bush Administration and the GOP congressional minority, in all their niceness, now find themselves foundering amid low approval ratings and an utterly demoralized political base. Beyond his broad smile, President Giuliani would employ his spine and an occasional snarl to make his administration worthy of conservatives’ pride.

_________________________________________________________________

This article originally appeared in Human Events on February 21st, 2007. It is reprinted here with the author’s permission.

Jennifer Rubin gives the frontrunners some free advice regarding their pursuit of the nomination:

Republicans are bemoaning the absence of an ideal presidential candidate. This one is too grumpy, that one is too liberal and another is too slippery. Dissatisfied with the current crop they keep casting about for alternatives. Democrats have a similar dilemma. One has no experience, another has no courage and the third is too slick. Rather than search for different candidates perhaps we could help improve the existing ones. We can always hope that the candidates would actually rise in our estimation during the campaign. What would that look like for the major presidential candidates?

For John McCain: He would need to demonstrate that he views his GOP opponents as worthy adversaries not moral inferiors. Perhaps their opposition to McCain-Feingold and defense of the First Amendment was genuine and not a ruse to preserve “corruption.”

For Rudy Giuliani: Republicans would take solace if he recognized that Americans may like to visit New York but not necessarily live there. Many in his party would be comforted if he acknowledged that needle exchanges, gun control and gay civil unions likely would not be acceptable outside the island of Manhattan. More Middle America and less Upper West Side.

For Mitt Romney: We would like him to know we’re smart enough to figure out when he is spinning and selling. It would be reassuring if he candidly told us that he disagreed on some issues with religious conservatives but believed brave and honest leaders don’t change their tune for the sake of some votes. As someone said about JFK, more courage and less profile.

For Newt Gingrich: We would like him to know that campaigning in cold coffee shops and state fairs two years before the election may indeed be the price one pays to be President and to see a revolutionary agenda enacted. Politics should be about great ideas but cannot be only about ideas. Ronald Reagan had great ideas but he understood great pictures helped him land the presidency. More Mike Deaver and less Heritage Foundation.

Be sure to click the link to read the rest of the story, which includes Jennifer’s advice to the Dem field.

During the 1992 presidential campaign, the Clintons assured us that a vote for Bill would also be a vote for his wife. Despite the fact that not a single ballot donned Mrs. Clinton’s name, Hillary’s aversion to baking cookies led her husband to quip that Americans would be buying one Clinton while getting a second for free.

Apparently, that two-for-one deal is still on the table:

Hillary Clinton hasn’t won a single primary yet, but that hasn’t stopped some well-known Democrats from booming her husband to fill her unexpired Senate term if she were elected president former Bill Clinton aide Harold Ickes is quoted by the Washington Examiner article as exclaiming, “as a senator, he’d be a knockout!”

Another former Clinton advisor, Paul Begala also thinks President Clinton would excel as Senator Clinton: “He excelled as attorney general and governor of Arkansas, he excelled as president and he’s been a model of the modern Senate spouse.”

Such a scenario is possible New York’s Governor Eliot Spitzer is a Democrat and if Hillary Clinton won the presidency, he would appoint her successor to finish out the final two years of her term.

That’s right, a Hillary victory in 2008 means that both Clintons will be back in Washington, each fully capable of wielding the power entrusted to their respective constitutional offices. Still plan to stay home and “send a message” if your preferred candidate fails to garner the GOP presidential nomination?

Piggybacking off of Kavon’s post from the other day regarding the imminent reduction of the GOP field to a two-man race, I am beginning to get the sense when sticking my finger into the political wind that a slow but significant shift is taking place. Perhaps I’m reading too much into recent comments from Romney folks, but I can’t help but feel that many vocal supporters of the former Bay State governor are starting to feel out the two GOP frontrunners in an effort to select a “second choice” of sorts. In other words, it seems that the Big Three are slowly being replaced by the Titanic Two of Rudy and McCain.

Take as evidence the gradual movement of the fair Kathryn Jean toward Rudy. K-Lo was once Romney’s most vocal supporter over at National Review. But in recent weeks she’s been saying some very nice things about the Mayor, and she sums up her current sentiments in her most recent column on the issue, where she indicates that she is still a member of Team Mitt, but appears open to a Rudy candidacy.

An alternative example can be found in the words of R4’08’s own HeavyM, who today shocked resident McCainiac LJ with his comments regarding McCain:

If McCain and Giuliani continue to poll this close to one another against the Dems, one of the main reasons to choose Rudy – his electability – will be taken off the table.

And later:

In a two-man matchup, I would now vote for McCain over Giuliani.

Still, I count my lucky stars those aren’t my only two choices, and I hope it doesn’t come down to that. But should it, count me on the side of Johnny Mac.

Again, both NR’s K-Lo and our man HeavyM seem to be sticking with Romney…for now. But both also seem to be feeling out the duo of Rudy and McCain in the event that Mitt just doesn’t make it to the finals. But if Romney’s such a strong candidate, why the need to put out the feelers?

I have a theory, and I am certain that much of our readership won’t like it. I submit to you that the aggregate of all of the beatings the S.S. Romney has taken over the last few months are starting to weigh down the ship. As I predicted before the holidays, the many flips and flops that have been documented regarding Romney have ended Mitt’s ability to position himself as the only orthodox conservative who can win. Instead, he is yet another heterodox Republican in a field of imperfect candidates, and one who decidedly loses to every viable Democrat. Romney supporters, while not jumping ship just yet, are cognizant of the polls that show Romney unable to break into double-digits in the multi-candidate Republican field, as well as those that suggest Hillary and Obama would trounce the Mittster while running even with both Rudy and McCain. Dare I suggest that if Romney continues to display such horrid numbers into the spring and summer, much of the crew of the S.S. Romney will begin deserting a sinking ship rather than go long on a candidate who probably isn’t an orthodox conservative anyway?