The Candidates
Race 4 2008 is proud to feature the following op-ed from guest blogger Matt, who advises us that Mitt is well-positioned to buck the history of Republican nomination process.-KWN
_____________________________________________________________
We think elections need to be examined in context. The context of primary/general election polls, that sample the entire population, is a context that isn’t favorable to candidates with low name recognition. This is a large part of the reason why we see Bill Richardson losing by 20 points to Rudy in Rasmussen general election polls and the like. Bill Richardson is the strongest Democratic candidate bar-none. He’s a gun man and a supply-sider with impressive credentials. He’s from a swing-state among swing states (one of only 3 to swing between 2000 and 2004). He’s from an increasingly swing region. And he would pose a formidable challenge to the Republican nominee, whoever he happened to be. What sort of context created a situation where Richardson did considerably worse in general election polls then Obama, Edwards, and Hillary? Looking at other Rasmussen polls shows us that Richardson is considered closer then the other top Democrats to the American center. So he’s not too liberal. So we have to assume Richardson’s general election failure is a result of name recognition troubles. These same types of truths apply equally to the primaries.
This is why Romney supporters tend to place more stock in polls which take what we believe to be the confounding factor in primary polls (name recognition), out of the equation. Now even these polls have to be looked at in context of course. The CPAC poll for instance, was populated by college aged activists. Grassroots supporters and the like. So for us to press them into service as indicative of general primary results or even future primary results, would indeed be unjustified. Fortunately, I’ve yet to see any evidence that we’re doing this. Oddly enough though, polls of activists and college aged supporters are remarkably indicative of ones support among activists and college aged supporters. That’s really as far as we go. That Romney is gaining support from people who care about politics. We see this in other polls such as the LA Times insiders poll. And to the extent that this will increasingly describe the general public as the election season wears on, Romney is in good stead. Furthermore, to the extent that passionate support breeds future support, Romney is also aided. Finally, if organization leads to fewer mistakes, more carefully calibrated events, a more focused message, and better damage control operations, Romney’s well served. So again, we’re considering these polls fully in context. Now of course, the idea that Romney will become increasingly viable if he gains increased name recognition, is useless if he’s not capable of gaining that name recognition. Surely Bill Richardson’s considerable general election strengths would be meaningless if people were asked to choose between Richardson and Rudy today. There are 3 main ways to gain name recognition:
1. Free media- Appearances on Sunday Morning News shows, Hardball, Letterman and the like. Will Romney be able to excel in this aspect of improving name recognition? Well, he’s a presidential candidate, so that helps. But so are all his competitors. Luckily, he’s also been placed, artificially or not, into the “top-tier” of candidates. Appearances he makes will be prefaced with “You’ve been considered one of the top Republican candidates along with Giuliani and McCain” a standing invitation for viewers to pay attention. This is something that sets him apart, if not from McCain and Giuliani, surely from every other current candidate in the field. So he’ll do fine there, though so far he’s (smartly I think), tended to avoid the MSM.
2. Campaigning: How is Romney likely to fare here? Well, he’s lucky in the sense that his first target (McCain), and chief gadfly (Brownback), both hold elected office at the moment. Romney can and does spend virtually every moment canvassing the country, giving speeches, conducting fundraisers, visiting inns and taverns. They’re, to a significant extent, constrained by the duties of office. Campaign events are also only helpful if you’re able to generate crowds to attend these events. Tommy Thompson can live in Iowa (he’s been there every week for months), but if his mother is the only who shows up, he’s not going to make any progress. So how DO you get people to attend early campaign events? Well, the most obvious way is through sheer starpower ala Giuliani and Obama. But the more common way, and the one that differentiates the serious candidates from the also-rans, is by gaining the support of activists and local elected officials. They’re capable of stocking events with substantial numbers of people through their contacts within the community. Here Romney’s endorsements will be extremely useful.
3. Advertisements: Romney is, by all indications, going to have more money then any second tier candidate, and he’ll be competitive with both McCain and Giuliani. This will allow him to introduce himself to large numbers of people on his terms.
My ultimate conclusion: Context matters. It’s not flashy, or exciting. But it’s the only way we can get a serious grip on the complexities that go into a presidential race. And in Romney, we have a candidate who has all of the needed tools to overcome his initially low showing in scientific polling. Whether he will or not is anyone’s guess. But the context hardly supports the conclusion that he’s going to be perennially stuck at 8%.
March 12th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Kudos Matt. I think you’re assessment is spot on.
By the by. Happy Birthday to Gov. Romney who turns 60 today.
We’re collecting Birthday voice mails. Call: 206-202-3383
See here
March 12th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Matt,
I still fail to understand why we should support someone who is clearly the weakest of the Big Three.
Yes, if all the stars aligned correctly, Romney could get elected.
But in this tough political climate, I think it would be more prudent to just nominate our strongest candidate and be done with it.
Fortunately, according to the polls, most Republicans agree with me.
March 12th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Nice post:
“Oddly enough though, polls of activists and college aged supporters are remarkably indicative of ones support among activists and college aged supporters. That’s really as far as we go. That Romney is gaining support from people who care about politics.”
This is also demonstrated by the fact that Romney is ahead with endorsements. Political insiders who do nothing but eat, drink, breathe, and live politcs favor Romney so far. Also, the states where Romney dose have decent name recognition (MA, UT, MI) he has already locked up a majority of Republican elected endorsements. This is deap support. Those who know Romeny, like him as support him. Those who get tho know Romney as his name recognition increases, will most likely do the same.
March 12th, 2007 at 10:22 am
To all fellow Mitt supporters - if you are not yet on MittLink or have not heard of the newest grassroots supporters website created and run by the campaign send me an email at rbrun79@gmail.com and I will send you links to sign up.
Ray B
Portsmouth, NH
March 12th, 2007 at 10:28 am
TM - It depends what you mean by strongest.
The only category where Romney is lacking right now is public polling. The organization is solid, the state endorsements are his, the fundraising is really good, the ideas are right, the insiders like him, the persona is there, personal problems are almost zero.
Again, recall that Carter, Clinton, Dukakis and McCain were all polling half of what Romney is at this stage in the game. Rudy has the poll numbers right now but his organization is seriously lacking, endorsements are far and few between, the ideas are about half-way there and personal problems are abundant. Is that strongest?
March 12th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Man are you Slick Mitt fans whistling in the dark.
March 12th, 2007 at 10:34 am
TM doesn’t seem to understand your point about current polls Matt. If by “strongest candidate” you mean most popular, then Rudy is the man. If you mean most qualified and capable, that’s a totally different story. The primary nomination process will let the people determine who is the strongest candidate. TM doesn’t decide who that is, and neither do I. Of course, I think that’s going to end up being Romney for all the same reasons that Matt described in his post. Good writing Matt.
March 12th, 2007 at 10:36 am
DB - good rebuttal
No one likes to deal with substance after all in furthering the discussion.
March 12th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Nate,
Rudy’s appeal is not just name recognition. As a 911-hero, he is an extraordinary candidate.
Rudy has the ability to remind us of why we need to win the War on Terror and why the War in Iraq is critical to this struggle.
March 12th, 2007 at 10:44 am
TM,
I think you’ve missed the point of my post. My point is that Rudy supporters use polls to infer that Mitt can’t win either the primary or the general election. I would have absolutely no problem if Rudy supporters said something like “it’ll be an uphill battle” or “Rudy’s still the stronger candidate right now”, because of course those statements are true. But my reference to Bill Richardson’s current standing in polls should be enough to dispel the notion that because a candidate trails in polls currently, he’s necessarily likely to trail permanently. You can’t conclude that on the basis of polls in March 07. All you can conclude is that he lacks name recognition (if he does in fact lack name recognition) and that if he’s unable to name recognition he’s going to lose. But this post shows that Romney is ideally situated to gaining name recognition. The only question remains, for general election and primary purposes is, what will the new people who recognize him think of him? And for that, we need to use our traditional modes of analysis. Is he closer to the center of the electorate he’s participating in then the other leading candidates? Well, in the primary, he’s not as conservative as Tancredo, Paul, and the like, but he’s more conservative then Giuliani and McCain. So I think it’s fair to say that he’s at least as close to the Republican party’s center as Giuliani and McCain. In the general election, all three Republican candidates are closer to the American center then all three Democratic candidates. Giuliani and McCain in obvious ways. Romney through the types of compromises he made in Massachusetts (crafting a universal health care plan being the most obvious). Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are straight down the line liberals. No deviation whatever. Next, we want to ask about identity politics. Is it easy to identify this type of candidate as a particular of individual? And if so, does this characterization help or hurt them in the election? I.e., Massachusetts Democrats=elitists. Texas Republicans=good old boys. Again, here Romney is perfectly well situated. Because the first thing that comes to mind with Massachusetts Republicans is “moderate” or even “liberal”. Something for him to overcome in the primary, but a significant asset in the general. Next, we come to surface factors. Does the candidate look presidential? Does the candidate articulate their positions clearly? Are they persuasive? To all of those answers, moreso then any other candidate, Romney is an emphatic yes. All these reasons and more inform the impression we might reasonably expect Romney to make when he enters the limelight. My friend’s mother is a relatively intelligent woman I’m sure. Her son is going to the top liberal arts school in the country. And she voted for Bush twice SOLELY because she was attracted to him. Too many people in this country vote on such shallow factors. And Romney’s got loads to offer to both the shallow and deep.
March 12th, 2007 at 10:49 am
You guys (Romney supporters) are just completely full of yourselves. (Sounds very “Romneyesque”, doesn’t it?)
March 12th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Matt,
As I stated in #9, Rudy’s appeal is not just name recognition.
911 is the defining moment of this century. Rudy has the ability to communicate that story to our country and the world, and remind us of why we need to win the War in Iraq.
This is what makes Rudy an extraordinary candidate.
March 12th, 2007 at 10:59 am
TM,
Rudy did a superb job with 9/11. That by no means makes him the strongest for the presidency. If that were all he had going for him than he’d be sunk.
KT,
Good tactic. When you can’t think of anything bright to say - resort to insults.
Substance. Both Romney and Giuliani have it. I think the scale tips in Romney’s favor.
March 12th, 2007 at 11:04 am
I agree Nate G. KT ( whom is also over at mymanmitt under a different name, and probably here under several different names) should try to say something constructive! Quit throwing bombs at Romney.
March 12th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Nate,
I disagree, 911 had a tremendous impact on our country. Many people like myself became active in politics due to 911.
Rudy has the ability to re-tell the 911 story and focus our attention on the core reason for winning in Iraq.
March 12th, 2007 at 11:13 am
TM
I became active in politics because Mitt turned around the Olympics in SLC, and went on to become govenor of liberal Massachusetts with ol’ Ted Kennedy.
March 12th, 2007 at 11:16 am
MT,
That may be true, but that story does not inspire a nation or rebuild support for the Iraq War.
March 12th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Again, Iraq will either be finished by the end of 2008, or we’ll have succeeded to such an extent that the American people are content to leave a small contingent (maybe 20k troops) of forces in the country as a transitional team of sorts. If you think Bush is going to be able to stop the Democrats from withdrawing all troops if things get substantially worse then they are now…well, then you have significantly more faith in him then I do.
March 12th, 2007 at 11:22 am
TM,
I like Guliani. But I don’t think he is as smart as Romney. Look at his accomplishments. True, he wasn’t actually at the sight at 9/11. But he is capable of running this country, AND dealing with national security. He’s no dummy.
March 12th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Matt,
It sounds like you have already given up on 2008.
March 12th, 2007 at 11:25 am
TM,
Not at all. I think the surge is showing remarkable signs of progress. I think there’s a fairly strong likelihood that it’ll succeed to such an extent that none of the three Democrats will have near an even chance of beating Giuliani, McCain, and Romney. I’ve simply given up on the notion that somehow we’re going to get another crack at this if the surge fails.
March 12th, 2007 at 11:25 am
“He’s no dummy”
This is not going to win elections.
In this tough political environment, our candidate will need an extraordinary story to tell.
March 12th, 2007 at 11:32 am
TM,
Romney IS an extraordinary story.
March 12th, 2007 at 11:43 am
TM,
You’re not giving your own man enough credit. 9/11 didn’t make Rudy great, it only proved it and made him extremely popular. But none of that means he’s the strongest the country has to offer. Being strong in one category doesn’t give him the nomination. He is more than what the one-issue voters make him out to be.
Still, I personally have issue with his social views and the baggage in his personal life. I believe it is utterly important for our country to cling to moral values which I feel would be weakened by a Giuliani presidency, and in turn weaken the nation. That is my most important issue, but not my only one. I’m impressed by Romney on where he stands on all the issues. National Defense is only one of those issues that is up there, and I think Romney would be just as strong as Giuliani. Add in economy, taxes, education, technology, and all the social issues and Romney is clearly the “strongest candidate”. But that is only my opinion. Let the people decide.
March 12th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Justin,
Actually I have engaged in ” subststantive discussion” numerous times on this
site. I am simply tired of the tortured arguments by Romney supporters that he
“is well positoned” to win. Let’s face reality: he is not registering with the
american people, and for good reason. His change of positions on abortion and
gay rights and gun control and taxes ( and his apparent willingness to pay for
support–March 11 NY Times ) makes him out to be a very opportunistic politican.
The american people are much smarter than some people believe.
March 12th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Nate,
You are correct that Rudy has many other good qualities, but in this tough political environment, only National Security will win for the GOP. According to the polls, security is the number one issue for Republicans and social issues came in 6th.
As a 911-hero, Rudy has the unique ability to break through the MSM barrier and remind us of the importance of winning the War in Iraq.
March 12th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
What exactly did Rudy do after 9/11 that made him a hero and makes him qualified to fight the war on terror? I mean really, what did he do? I don’t know enough about him to have the answer. From my perspective, it appears that he was good at cleaning up the rubble of two buildings that fell down. I understand he told the Saudis to take their money and shove it, but again I’m not sure how this shows that he is qualified to fight the war on terror. Are Rudy’s terror credentials really nothing more than good feelings from 9/11 without any substance to back them up?
It seems that if Rudy is really the guy to fight the war on terror then he should have some specific proposals now that the other candidates don’t. From what I have seen, Rudy is pretty much saying the same thing as the other candidates. I hate to admit this because I really don’t like McCain, but it appears that McCain is the candidate that really has what it takes to fight the war on terror. McCain has been advocating an increase in troops for a long time - long before it was really popular.
March 12th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
dblagent007,
This may help you understand the significance of what Rudy did on 911.
http://www.time.com/time/poy2001/
McCain is very unpopular with the base of the Republican Party and has very little chance of winning the nomination.
March 12th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
As a New Yoker whose watched Guiliani closely and appreciatively since 1992 I can tell you I think he’s
out of energy - he doesn’t have the old fire in the belly to do nationally what he did in NYC. This will soon become apparent. I think Romney’s intention is to use many of Rudy’s ideas to transform the federal goverment. A
And Romney’s got the energy and drive (that Rudy once had) to do it. I actually believe once McCain is
dispensed with (thanks Rudy), and Romney rises above the spent Rudy, Romney may choose Rudy as his running=mate
- to accentuate the transforming goverment theme, and to actually employ Rudy as an important helper in that job.
March 12th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
TM, I went to the link you gave and started reading. However, the article is huge and I could barely find anything about what he did after 9/11 other than some references to going to the scene early on and being in the media spotlight while Bush was off at NORAD (or some other highly secured location). I confess that I didn’t read the whole thing. If you could just distill out a few of the key points that can be used as evidence that Rudy is more qualified than the other candidates to fight the war on terror, I would appreciate it.
I agree on McCain, but like it or not the evidence seems to be that he is the one that is qualified to run the war on terror. McCain is the only one that seemed to advocate an idea (the surge) when (1) it was not very popular and (2) appears to be the right course of action (the jury is still out on this one, but early returns on the surge are good). To my knowledge, none of the other candidates have done that.
March 12th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Dave,
I think it is going to be very difficult to substitute a 911-hero.
People want the real thing.
March 12th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Romney agreed with the surge.
March 12th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
DB - thanks for sticking to the issues. Now I, in turn, will refute your comments.
1) Yes, Romney publically affirmed pro-choice stances and has since changed his views. He is now pro-life. That being said he vetoed legislation for emergency contraception, opposed destructive embryonic stem-cell research, vetoed efforts to weaken parental notification laws, and spoke out against cloning efforts.
2) Gay rights - Yes, Romney has affirmed that homosexuals should receive the same treatment under the law as other citizens. That is just dignity under the constitution. He has however absolutely opposed gay marriage from the start
3) Gun Control - Yes, Romney did support the assault weapons ban as did President Bush. But he loosened the laws in Mass. for farmers to use shotguns and vetoed legislation to ban handguns
4) Taxes - Governor Romney never raised taxes during his 4 years in office and he campaigned with Bush on his tax policies in 2004.
As for the NY Times article - are you really saying that $110,000 over numerous years bought Romney conservative support? Should we look at other efforts in the conservative movement lined up in the same way?
In short, what you cite are mere caricatures of what you think Romney is rather than what his record shows.
For more see here:
http://www.mymanmitt.com/romneyinteractive/issues.asp
March 12th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
dblagent007,
This is another link:
http://www.time.com/time/poy2001/poyprofile.html
March 12th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
TM, What in that massive article you link to shows that Rudy is more qualified to fight the war on terror than the other candidates?
March 12th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
dblagent007,
This sums it up:
“What Giuliani succeeded in doing is what Churchill succeeded in doing in the dreadful summer of 1940: he managed to create an illusion that we were bound to win.”
March 12th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
People are sick and tired of 9/11. And of Bush, Clintons, old guys like McCain and soon even Rudy. Us political junkies can juggle all these familiar old names until the sun goes down, but the country as a whole wants to exact revenge on the whole bunch. They want a break with the past and the tired old hands. That in a way is why Rudy is on top. But when Romney comes onto their radar screens they are going to be very pleasantly surprised to see that a guy like him is there and available. Politics has become truly repulsive to people and they are going to enjoy taking their revenge. Believe me, the pent up anger is going to blow. And good guy, smart guy, happy guy, competent guy, energized guy Romney is going to reap this whirlwind. And for those nostalgic for 9/11 and the war on terror I think that’s another reason Romney may pick Rudy to run with. Just my sense - as a ploitical junkie who imagines he can see things from outside the political junie sandbox! (I picked Carter to win the first time I saw his name published in the NYTimes!) I think we are in a similar political environment now. In that sense Romney is Carter (yes a little kooky - Mormonism - too!) — but Carter with REAL brains, with REAL competence, with real gubinatorial achievements, with real non-political achievements, and with a non-neurotic (I think) personality! I’m putting my money on his (at present) dark horse. And I’m also thinking Richardson for the same reasons on the Dem side (with Obamaman as his running-mate.)
March 12th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Dave,
I agree with your blog. I don’t care for your Romney-Carter comparison. Although you were giving Romney the positive attributes, Jimmy Carter was probably the worst president in American history.
March 12th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
“People are sick and tired of 9/11″
Really?
911 is the worst attack on our soil and the reason for our War on Terror.
I do agree that not all candidates have the ability to talk about 911 in the way the Rudy can.
March 12th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
No one will have to rely on 9/11 like Rudy will. I’m certain now TM, you ARE a one issue voter.
March 12th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Rudy’s a liberal so the 9/11 thing is the only thing he can talk about because all his other positions would scare people away in a flash.
March 12th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Oh I agree. Clinton should be considered the worst, except he was at least interesting! Carter was bad and unbearably BORING. I voted for Carter - being a rabid Democrat at the time. Oh yes, I know what it’s like to be deluded by the NYTimes/MSM propaganda machine too - but I survived! Romney’s main hurdle is the mainsteam media sabateurs as he well knows. I thought it was hilarious that he said in an off-hand way in some interview I saw, “The media has singled me out as the conservative they need to beat. That’s why I’m going to win.” He knows who his real enemy in this is going to be, and from what I’ve seen of him, he probably has a pretty good plan to defeat them.
March 12th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Nate,
National Security is the only issue that we can win on in 2008.
March 12th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
National Security is what Bush used for his scare campaign of ‘04. We really need to branch out.
March 12th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Peter,
Yes and it worked, he was re-elected.
With the Iraq War continuing in 08, National Security will continue to be the most important issue.
Rudy is the best candidate to run on that issue.
March 12th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Dave
YOU voted for Carter?? Now that’s flip-flopping! Glad ya saw the light man!
March 12th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
The country is jealous of the Muslims. The Musilman gets all the attention. They want someone to think about them for a change - to think about and talk about and act upon OUR country for a change. You know and I know national security is important, but if people get pounded over the head by it again they are going to SCREAM! Romney’s got it covered sufficiently by being able to talk about it - with plans - articulately in a way that you can actually listen to with some interest….and he secured the olympics in a way that has become a template since. But enough with the Muslims. Americans want to believe THEY are important - and that they may be allowed to think for a moment about ways to actually improve OUR OWN COUNTRY for just a little while anyway!
March 12th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
TM, let me get this straight. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Rudy is more qualified than the other candidates on the war on terror because he was able to create the “illusion” after 9/11 that we would win. I am assuming then that you are implying that he is more competent than the other candidates on this issue because he can now create the illusion that we are bound to win the war on terror.
This is problematic on at least two levels. Number one, what has Rudy done so far to create the illusion that we are bound to win the war on terror? Has he done anything in this regard? If so, how is he different than the other candidates? If he has not yet started doing this, when is he going to start and how is he planning on achieving this?
Number two, the weakness with this argument is that it acknowledges Rudy did nothing more than act as a cheerleader. He didn’t actually come up with any new ideas to handle the situation, he just made people feel good. Don’t ge me wrong, I think it was important for someone to do that after 9/11. However, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the other fronts of the war on terror are not 9/11. The war on terror is slow and tedious, while 9/11 was a one time shock. Also, the entire country was behind Rudy (and President Bush) after 9/11. That is not the case with the war on terror.
Is this the best reason to explain why Rudy will be the strongest candidate on the war on terror? There has to be something more substantive.
March 12th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
As an independent I find it funny when you say Clinton was the worst President. While he was in office corporations were making massive amounts of money and unemployment was the lowest in decades. The average homeowner was making more money with lower inflation rates and the deficit was down down down.
Yes there was Lewinski, but Hillary stood by her man (thus guaranteeing the Democratic backing for 2008) and much of the country didn’t care other than for gossip. Their lives were good. Compared to Bush those were the golden years.
The Republicans need to show how they are going to make things better. What are they going to do about the squeeze on the middle class, the two-faced morality in Congress and, most important of all, what they are going to do about Iraq.
Talking the party line about terrorists isn’t going to get a Republican voted in. People want something different. The same ol’ same ol’ isn’t going to do it. That’s why the mavericks (Rudy and McCain) have the better numbers. People want change, period.
March 12th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
There IS more to Rudy - tho the country may never fully - or even slightly appreciate it. A New Yorker can. But what he did to New York goverment is exactly what Romney is planning to do to the federal goverment. I.e. what Romney did udy did in Mass with the health care issue and previously in his business re-organizations and at the Olympics. Transform the organizations. I actually think that’s going to be his main substantive issue. The personality and the values will also be there and will help get the votes, but the transforming goverment is what really drives him and will be his selling point to the “intelligencia” as Newt loves to say! If Rudy gets far enough into this thing that goverment transformation theme of his will emerge….but Romney’s already got it. But if Rudy sticks to it and hammers it home….he’ll be puting himself in a marvelous position … to be chosen as Romney’s running-mate. That’s how Romney will get those good goverment votes from independents and Democrats. Oh yeah. I got it all figured out! I actually think Rudy’s got t figured this way too! If he’s lucky - and that overly romantic and slightly insane brain of his doesn’t become an issue one of these days!! We’ll see.
March 12th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Casey:
“While he [Clinton] was in office corporations were making massive amounts of money and unemployment was the lowest in decades.”
That was as phoney as the dot comm bubble which burst in the Spring of 2000. They were all making massive amounts of money? Yeah, riiiiiiiiight
March 12th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
“most important of all, what they are going to do about Iraq”
I agree with Casey, we need to address this issue. We cannot just sweep it under the rug and pretend that it does not exist.
Rudy is the only candidate that can break through the MSM barrier and remind us of why we need to win in Iraq.
March 12th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
The dot com bubble was due to over inflated ratings anyway and didn’t affect many in the rest of the country. I’ll also take that challenge and put in Enron. Then I’ll toss in the Haliburton contract. Those went to the core of a very forgiving government.
March 12th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Exactly,
Those “over inflated ratings” did contribute to Clinton’s economic numbers. I think that correcton did affect a lot in this country.
March 12th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
“The same ol’ same ol’ isn’t going to do it. That’s why the mavericks (Rudy and McCain) have the better numbers. People want change, period.”
Casey does make a good point, nominating a traditional GOP candidate like Romney would be a disaster.
March 12th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
I posted this in another thread but it kind of got buried. Please compare the way
Giuliani reacted at 9/11 with the way Ray Nagin handled Katrina and you will see
immediately why Giuliani is held in such esteem - because most people expect a
politician to act the way Nagin did, that is, blame and point fingers. This also
points up that the “any mayor would have done the same thing” argument is false.
March 12th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
The most traditional candidate running is Edwards. McCain is the second most. Actually you could easily reverse that!There is nothing untraditional about McCain. Don’t buy the hype. Rudy is only non-traditional in that he’s a mayor running for president AND he got his hands dirty and actually accomplished something in office(I’m not talking 9/11 of course). Clinton’s a woman, Obama’s black. - That’s the extent of their non-traditionality. Romney’s non-traditional in that he’s primarily a business man who quickly accomplished things in a ploitical arena. Bloomberg is the same as Romney in that respect. Bloomberg would be considered the most non-traditional candidate if he ran. Like Romney he was a successful business man would quickly achieved gvermental effectiveness. And on top of that he’s a mayor. Rudy was a mayor, he was effective, but he wasn’t from outside the political world (he was an prosecuter). In this race now, Romney is thus the most non-traditional candidate.
March 12th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Peter,
How does a comparison of Guiliani’s and Nagin’s disaster management skills show that Guiliani is better than the other candidates on the war on terror.
1. Katrina and 9/11 were very different events. Guiliani was in no danger of being blamed for anything related to 9/11. Nagin on the other hand knew he was in deep trouble (he had five days or more warning).
2. Nagin is completely incompetent. This only shows that Guiliani is not as incompetent as Nagin. While a definite plus for Guiliani, it hardly distinguishes him from other competent politicians (such as his primary opponents).
3. I still have not seen any evidence from 9/11 or elsewhere that Rudy be better than the other candidates on the war on terror. I feel like I am asking the forbidden question about Guiliani. Apparantly it is so obvious to others that it is beyond question. Well, it seems like a good question to me.
March 12th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Dblag….you’re right. Rudy is criticized for his anti-terrorism preparedness pre-9/11. If anyone should have done certain things (there’s a whole book about this) the mayor of New york - esp. after the ‘93 attempt on the WTC - should have been thinking/doing something about it. It’ll be a problem for Rudy if he hangs in long enough. I think/hope he fades after doing in McCain. If Rudy actually takes the nomination, I think Romney will be running with him.
March 12th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
“Rudy is criticized for his anti-terrorism preparedness pre-9/11″
Rudy will be attacked just like Bush was with the 911 Widows. It didn’t work in 04 and it won’t work in 08.
Rudy would also force the Dems to debate on his turf, 911.
If the debate centers on 911, we win!
March 12th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
911, 911, 911, 911. That’s all we ever hear about Rudy. It’s tiring.
March 12th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
“How does a comparison of Guiliani’s and Nagin’s disaster management skills
show that Guiliani is better than the other candidates on the war on terror.”
I don’t believe I said it does. However, to answer the question, I believe that
Giuliani has a better understanding than the others that cutting off the
terrorists FUNDING - their money - is the first step. I’ve never heard John McCain
say this even once. Giuliani spoke about it on the Hugh Hewitt program, if I can
find the link.
March 12th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
The #1 issue with America right now is Iraq. If a Republican candidate can’t make the people happy with their plans for the war then a Democrat will win. So far John McCain, a war hero, can’t change people’s mind so I don’t see how a Mormon who never served will.
The Republicans need to figure out what they are going to do about the fact a large majority of Americans don’t like the war and want out. If they don’t Obama just might start looking better to a lot of people.
Rudy and McCain have the “cred” to argue the war, Romney doesn’t.
March 12th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
The great advantage that Rudy has with 9/11 is that it allowed his crisis management to be on display for the whole world. No one can question that he cannot lead in an emergency. His opponents do not have that luxury, and must point to less public examples of having a cool head in a crisis.
McCain is at a real disadvantage here because he has a very strong reputation of being a hot head. He tends to lead with his mouth. Perhaps LJ can provided better examples of his performance under stress.
Romney has a strong reputation of dealing with emergencies. In Massachusetts, there were the floods and the Big Dig Collapse. There have been other far less important emergencies that have arisen during his career prior to being Governor. His method has always been:
(a)Deal with the immediate problem.
(b)Calm the situation by letting people see you exercising leadership. (This is perhaps the biggest failing of our current President. Witness his seeming lack of interest with Katrina’s aftermath.)
(c)Identify the source of the problem.
(d)Correct the source of the problem.
(e)Take steps to see that the problem stays corrected.
I have little doubt that Romney could handle another 9/11 just fine. But I have the advantage of actually studying his career beyond the talking points and the soundbites.
March 12th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Casey,
You lost me. What does being a Mormon have to do with selling the American people on the rightness of the Iraq conflict? Either he can sell it, or he can’t. What does his religion have to do with it?
March 12th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Mark,
(a)Deal with the immediate problem.
(b)Calm the situation by letting people see you exercising leadership. (This is perhaps the biggest failing of our current President. Witness his seeming lack of interest with Katrina’s aftermath.)
(c)Identify the source of the problem.
(d)Correct the source of the problem.
(e)Take steps to see that the problem stays corrected.
“I have little doubt that Romney could handle another 9/11 just fine. But I have the advantage of actually studying his career beyond the talking points and the soundbites.”
Basically, you just rattled off basic managerial principles. I dont know of ANY governor or chief executive who wouldn’t follow the same exact sequence in a crisis situation. Furthermore, if you really have “studied” Romney’s career with regard to the Big Dig, you’ll find that the project is a tax-payers nightmare. Its billions of dollars over budget and has an abysmal safety record. Governor Romney only stepped in when safety truly became such an issue that further work on the project couldn’t be completed.
Thats not leadership, its bailing water from a sinking ship and calling it “crisis management”.
There is a difference. Again, Romney is a politician, not a leader.
March 12th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Casey,
If anything Romneys Mormonism is a strength. And by labeling him a “Mormon that has never served”, you my friend are a bigot! You can’t attack a black, or a jew, or a woman, or a muslim or even a catholic it seems. But Mormons…..sure, go ahead. Mitt can handle it.
March 12th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Geoff, are you trying to lay the fault of the big dig on Romney? The big dig was 70% constructed by 2001 (http://www.massturnpike.com/bigdig/updates/timeline.html) and 95% complete by Dec 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig). Most of the money was spent on the thing long before Romney even took office.
What did you want Romney to do? Go back and reclaim all of the money that was spent long before he became governor? Although that would have been impressive if he could have done it, I don’t think anyone is held to that high of a standard (can you imagine president Bush being criticized for all of the profilgate spending of earlier presidents).
March 12th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Geoff,
You have been reading the opposition talking points again.
The Big Dig has been around for years and years and years. It is synominous with bloated government mismanagement. From the very beginning of his term, Romney tried to take control of the Big Dig to bring it to heel. The legislature repeatedly turned him down. It was, after all, a big source of patronage. Then a ceiling panel fell and crashed a woman to death.
Suddenly the legislature was more than happy to pass this hot potato onto the Republican Governor. Romney grabbed hold and immediately set about fixing the problems. So how can you justify pinning its problems on Romney?
March 12th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Sorry to disagree but Romney’s Mormonism is not a strength. It’s looked on as a cult and distrusted by many that are religious and thought of as weird by those that don’t. Also, as an “inactive” Mormon and a vet (MP in the U.S. Army, where I converted to the religion) I refuse to be called a bigot.
I was trying to say that Romney, because of his religion, is already suspect. Add the fact he’s never served in the military his word on the war will weigh less on the American conscious than the words of a John McCain.
March 12th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Casey,
As an inactive Mormon, you should realize that Mormonism, if practiced, can be a strength to an individual, regardless whether the world views it as such. It made Ronmey who he is. A great individual, husband, father, and leader, etc.
March 12th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
I agree with that statement. I think the focus on family, education and service is one of the wonderful things I witnessed and participated in while an active member of my ward. BUT this is about the Race 4 2008 and most people hold Mormons suspect.
Iraq is a monster issue if you read any of the polls on what concerns people. Right now the Republican Party is out of step with the rest of America on this subject. Mitt appears as too much like the current administration, pro war and very conservative. Neither is going to endear him to independents, which both parties need right now.
March 12th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Casey,
I’m glad we agree on something.