GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Here’s is Rudy Giuliani related news from today that is worthy of note.
First off, the complete roster of his judicial advisory committee:
Chairman of Justice Advisory Committee:
Ted Olson, former Solicitor General of the United States
Members:
Miguel Estrada, former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States
Steven Calabresi, Co-Founder of the Federalist Society
Larry Thompson, former Deputy Attorney General of the United States
Charles Fried, former Solicitor General of the United States
Carol Dinkins, former Deputy Attorney General of the United States
Maureen Mahoney, former Deputy Solicitor General of the United States
Doug Cox, former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the United States
Marc Mukasey, former Assistant U.S. Attorney
Dan Webb, former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois
Bart Schwartz, former Chief of the Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney?s Office for the Southern District of New York
Michael Mukasey, former Chief Judge , U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Ron Cass, former Dean, Boston University School of Law
Jason Barclay, former Counsel and Policy Director to Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN)
Randy Mastro, former Deputy Mayor of New York City
Howard Wilson, former Commissioner of Investigation for New York City
Daniel Rodriguez, former Dean, University of San Diego School of Law
George Priest, Professor of Law and Economics, Yale University
Walter Olson, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute
This list includes conservative stalwart Ted Olson (who chairs the committee), a member of the “Conservative Dream Team” for future SCOTUS appointments-Miguel Estrada, Co-Founder of the Federalist Society-Stephen Calabresi, and two people who were rumored to be on Dubya’s short-list to replace Harriet Miers- Larry Thompson and Maureen Mahoney. Add to this list the past statements from Olson regarding Janice Rogers Brown and it would appear that Team Giuliani has done much to assuage the fears of conservatives regarding the judge issue.
Next up, Jeanne Cummings (for Politico) writes on the progress the Giuliani campaign has made since their late start:
While Republicans John McCain and Fred Thompson grab headlines for the foundering of one 2008 presidential campaign and the promise of another, Rudy Giuliani’s campaign fundamentals are growing stronger.
Giuliani captured the Republican fundraising winner’s title in the second quarter, reporting more than $17 million in campaign donations. Only Mitt Romney got close to him, raising more than $14 million from contributors.
But underneath those broad sums there is even greater evidence of strength in the former New York mayor’s camp than in other Republican operations. Giuliani has raised more than a million dollars in five states: California, Florida, New Jersey, New York and Texas. Romney has just two million-dollar states: California and Utah.
A review of Giuliani’s fundraising pace also shows a steady operation that is bringing in a consistent flow of cash, unlike the sporadic big-dollar days that pop up throughout the other candidates’ reports.
Giuliani raised more than $100,000 on 51 of the second quarter’s 91 days, often raising upward of $300,000. In contrast, Romney had just 33 days when he raised more than $100,000. At the end of that quarter, Romney reported $12.1 million in cash in the bank — more than half of it from loans he has made to his campaign. Giuliani had $18 million in the bank, and all of it came from other people.
“They are amassing significant amounts of cash,” said Anthony Corrado, a campaign finance expert at Colby College. “He will be in a position to do a significant amount of advertising and campaigning later this year.”
In these early months, Giuliani also appears to be the lone Republican front-runner who is organizing his campaign machinery with an eye on expenses. McCain’s campaign has burned through about $24 million since January, taking into account the candidate’s $1.8 million in debt.
Romney has spent even more, issuing checks for more than $30 million. His payroll is nearly $2 million, and he has already spent about $5 million on television ads. Another $1.8 million of Romney cash went to “finance consulting,” which usually means fundraising help. Overall, the former governor of Massachusetts is spending about $4 million per month on his campaign.
After the late start to his campaign, Giuliani has begun aggressively building his operation, but he’s spending at a slower rate so far. His monthly “burn rate” in the second quarter was about $3.6 million. His payroll is $1.6 million, the only expenditure area that exceeded a million dollars in the third quarter. Overall, he has spent just $17 million since January.
Of course, things can change quickly, as McCain’s dramatic fall from front-runner status has shown. Giuliani’s internal numbers show he is building one of the biggest campaign networks among the notable Republican candidates, which could send his costs soaring and test his ability to maintain his fundraising pace.
Like his competitors, he has opened offices in New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina, the three traditional early-primary states. But Giuliani also is basing his campaign in New York, which carries big leasing costs, and he’s now renting spaces in some of the big states that have moved their primaries. According to his reports, he has opened offices in New Jersey, Florida, Illinois and California. Even the free-spending Romney camp has not extended his campaign operations — and financial obligations — that far across the primary map.
And speaking of fundraising… In what has started as a difficult fundraising period for the GOP candidates, one bright spot has been Florida, where Mayor Giuliani has outpaced not only his Republican competitors, but the entire Democratic field as well:
Republican Rudy Giuliani busted out of the presidential pack and carried off more Florida money than any other candidate over the past three months, helping his party resist a national trend that shows the Democratic field pounding the GOP.
Giuliani raked in $1.6 million from April through June, twice as much as he raised during the first three months of the year. His success in Republican primary fundraising reflects his latest national fundraising total — the best of any Republican candidate — and his front-running status in the Florida polls.
”Florida is a tremendously important state for the campaign, and it’s a state where we are well positioned to win the primary,” said Giuliani spokesman Elliott Bundy. “Our success there is borne out in the numbers for both the polls and fundraising.”
Nationally, the Republican field is lagging behind Democratic counterparts in the money chase, hamstrung by voters’ misgivings about President Bush and the war in Iraq. The gap is tighter in Florida, suggesting that the state will once again serve as a key battleground for the White House in 2008.
Leading the Democratic field is New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, who collected more than $1.2 million in Florida, plus another $260,000 she can use only if she wins the nomination. Next up was the top national fundraiser, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, with $908,441. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards raised $503,522, while New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson took in $210,606.
In past elections, Florida was a stopover for raising money to be spent in the traditional early states of Iowa and New Hampshire. Now it hosts more Giuliani staff than any other state.
Hat-tip to Aron on that last story.
July 17th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
If Only he were a Conservative.
July 17th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
He is. He just doesnt blow with the wind.
July 17th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
He is a conservative in the sense that he doesn’t want to change the status quo. I would say that he’s a foreign relations conservative, not a social conservative, possibly a fiscal conservative.
July 17th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Rudy has money and a decent organization but what is his game plan concerning the primaries? Does anybody have a handle on his strategy? Is he expecting on winning NH or is he going for Florida? Is he committed to a large state strategy or is that a last resort?
July 17th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
This article is definitely biased toward Rudy. It lied about Rudy’s financial quarter and put down Mitt by claiming that Rudy has earned 17 millions, and Mitt only 14 millions. Rudy’s contribution includes *GENERAL* fund, which he cannot use this round of election. Rudy has earned only 15 millions.
And the article also emphasized on Rudy’s so-called “wise” spending — while it ignores why he did not have to spend as much as other candidates. He received a free image from 9/11.
But, other than that, it does well in covering Rudy’s strengths elsewhere.
July 17th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
The presence of Mahoney on that list is really worrying. She’s brilliant, but she’s also the sort of justice one could appoint, and be fairly confident she’d uphold Roe. In fact, she’s bar-none, the obvious choice for a Republican who wants Roe upheld, but wants to more or less mollify the base. Conservatives wouldn’t be able to reject her as they did Miers, because she has sterling qualifications, but she’d still disappoint us quite a bit. The only snag is, Mahoney’s great offense to conservatism, was arguing in favor of affirmative action in Grutter, and implying that she believed in the cause. And whatever you might say about Rudy, he’s certainly not in favor of affirmative action.
July 17th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Mahoney gets unfairly targeted because of Grutter. We have to remember that she is a lawyer who represents clients. To say that Mahoney would without a doubt uphold Roe says more about the person making the claim than it does about her.
Here is SCOTUS expert Jan Crawford Greenburg on Mahoney:
All emphasis mine.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Translation of post 1: If only he opposed abortion.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Kavon,
I didn’t say Mahoney would without a doubt uphold Roe. I’d doubt she’d consider it justly reasoned as an original matter. But, there are plenty of indications that O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and possibly even Ginsburg and Breyer don’t believe it was correct as an original matter. Practically no one agrees with Roe in the sense of agreeing with it’s reasoning. But, I doubt that she’d be willing to reverse it at this late date. And I certainly didn’t suggest Mahoney was Anthony Kennedy, or anything like. I despise Anthony Kennedy, and his incoherent philosopher-king jurisprudence. Mahoney is brilliant, and likely to construct decisions that are much more coherent. I wouldn’t mind having her on the court (though preferably as the 6th vote in the new conservative coalition, as opposed to the 5th). I simply think she’d disappoint us, with respect to certain issues, with respect to general philosophy and reasoning, and that there are significantly better choices for the next justice. Roberts and Alito exuded judicial restraint and Bickelian minimalism through their very pores. Mahoney doesn’t, and the distinction matters. I wouldn’t throw a tantrum over her, but I’d certainly feel as though we’d tossed away our one opportunity to truly revolutionize the court. Estrada, Sykes, Clement, Corrigan, Brown, Eid, and Garza all have that sort of potential. I’m extremely skeptical in Mahoney’s case.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I guess I just don’t see the foundation for your concern re: Roe in this instance.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Matt,
You beat me to the punch. Amongst several impressive names that should hearten originalists is the name Mahoney. Just when Giuliani starts to excite me again, he lays an egg. Why does the Mayor’s campaign have such a self-destructive streak?
Too bad.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
There is just no pleasing people who look as hard as they can to find any reason to fault Mayor Giuliani on this issue.
The guy gets Olson, Estrada, and the Co-Founder of the freaking Federalist Society of his team, and you guys are picking on one person out of 19 who has been described by SCOTUS watchers a “a female John Roberts” for concerns re: abortion of which you cannot point to any specific reason for concern on the issue other than you just don’t like her.
Geesh!
July 17th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
As a side note, I’ll note what I’m looking for in a justice.
1. Brilliance. The incredible rapidity with which the new court is sweeping away many of O’Connor’s biggest contributions to the law, is a testament to something key that’s often overlooked: the way you vote on any given case, is less important then the legal reasoning you employ. Poorly reasoned decisions will stand up to little historical scrutiny. If Lawrence Tribe, a brilliant liberal intellectual, had written Roe 34 years ago, we wouldn’t be discussing the case with nearly as much fervor today. The issue would be, well and truly, settled. Not because, Tribe would have been right about the constitution protecting a right to abortion. He wouldn’t have. But, he would have written a much stronger opinion, routed in the constitution more seriously (liberals have been making “what Roe should have said” arguments for decades, almost all of which are more persuasive then the actual Supreme Court decisions on the issue). And that, combined with precedent, would likely have been sufficient to weather the storm of criticism in the long run. If we want our precedents to have lasting value, and to impact law school debates in a serious way, we need brilliant intellectuals like Scalia and Roberts, even if a slight degree of conservatism is sacrificed in the process.
2.) Modesty- This is simply explained. Judges who have respect for the minimal role the judiciary was intended to have in our constitutional process are never going to fly off the sort of philosophical diatribes justices like Kennedy are so inclined towards. I can respect a conclusion I don’t agree with, as long as I have a sense that the justice is doing his or her very best to follow a process that’s discernible and shows a proper respect for the Democratic branches.
3.) Collegiality- I love Justice Scalia, and literally find myself shivering when I read his dissents in key cases like Casey, and Lawrence v. Texas. I can’t recall a single opinion of his I’ve disagreed with. He’s eminently persuasive in the purest sense of the word. But he throws sharp elbows, which, while interesting for me and you, tend to alienate some of his colleagues. I sense that Roberts is a justice more in the Brennan mold: oodles of charm, combined with a general and serious respect for his colleagues. That helps. Alot.
4.) Originalism- Finally, I want a justice who’ll abide by the original meaning of the constitution. Roberts and Alito aren’t purists in that regard., but they match the other traits so well, it becomes almost a peripheral issue.
The reason Mahoney doesn’t frighten me, and why I’d consider her an “ok” choice for a Republican president, is she fits my first trait perfectly, and 2-3 fairly well. That’s enough for me to be convinced she’d be an asset on the court.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
K,
As a devotee of Confirm Them, you know better than most that MM is one name that strikes fear in the heart of originalists as the next incarnation of Justice Souter. She is likened to the CJ because of her impeccable credentials, not because of her jurisprudence.
MM is exactly the type of Justice originalists fear from a President Giuliani.
Make no mistake, over all I am impressed by the list. I am merely pointing out that the Mayor did himself no favors by the inclusion of one of the few candidates that keep originalists up at night. It is symptomatic of a campaign that seems to fumble at the goal line.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Goal line = giving conservatives peace of mind.
July 17th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Gary,
You know that no one beats Consuelo Callahan for that title.
July 17th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Kavon,
I’m not concerned specifically, and only, about abortion, and I’m sorry I made it seem that way. I simply have no reason to believe that Mahoney has the sort modest judicial temperament I look for in a justice. She might. She doesn’t seem like a philosopher-king in disguise, but she certainly looks like she has more potential to “grow”, then any of the people I mentioned in my previous post. And her comments on Grutter are not simply related to her role as an advocate. She said she agreed with the decision: or rather, that affirmative action was an issue she cared deeply about. That’s worrying for a couple reasons. 1.) I don’t want an advocate on the Supreme Court. I don’t care if they’re advocating for the conservative side or the liberal side, and it seems to me that a lawyer who says they’re deeply concerned about an issue involved in one of their cases, is by definition an advocate (I mean advocate in the sense of, of course, advocating for a position you believe in, because you believe in it). That can’t be entirely avoided of course, but I think it ought to be minimized. 2.) There was no good reason for Mahoney to comment on her personal feelings on affirmative action at all, and I’m concerned that her willingness to do so, reflects on a broader philosophy: i.e., that personal feelings can come into the equation.
Believe me Kavon, I wouldn’t be criticizing Mahoney like this, if I didn’t truly believe my concerns were valid. As far as a Supreme Court pick goes, she’s easily the most confirmable potential conservative in contention. And as I said, she’s brilliant. I have little doubt that a justice Mahoney would not only participate in the constitutional debate, but help shape it for decades to come. She’s such a tempting and obvious choice, for these reasons and others (her relative youth for instance), that the fact that so many conservatives are hesitant about her bid, really ought to tell you something.
July 17th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
One thing we can say about Rudy. Although he certainly hasn’t wrapped up the nomination yet, he has certainly started to translate name ID into a campaign network & money.
That point can be overlooked, but he has held up better than other frontrunners (McCain, & Edwards) although he was probably the favourite to collapse becuase of his social views.
Whether he can build on his position so far to take the nomination, well we’ll just have to see.
July 17th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
I’ll say this though. It’s a good list. I’m less concerned about Rudy and judges then I was previously. And this, combined with a few other things, has brought me to the point where, if Rudy Giuliani if the nominee, I’ll vote for him. He’s even my second choice, again, in the primary (but by a fairly large margin). I’m just offering some light criticism. There are three obvious Supreme Court possibilities on that list. Estrada, Mahoney, and Larry Thompson. And the last two aren’t the type of possibilities that conservatives have been fighting for.
July 17th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Kavon, you got me with #16. No doubt about it.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Mahoney may or may not have been given a bad rap. I still don’t want her on the Supreme Court unless something happens to Justice Stevens’ health in the next couple of months (in which case we take Mahoney and hope that we win in 2008 when I expect at least one more liberal vacancy to occur.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Kavon,
The list is very impressive, but if you spent much time at ConfirmThem when the COA filibuster and SCOTUS melees were in full swing, you’d understand the concern with Mahoney is more than just nit picking. The concern is that she is the opposite of Alito: a stealth candidate, with little paper trail, nothing to convince us that she would be a conservative justice other than a “trust me” from those who know her. That was the same reasoning we had with Souter and rejected with Miers.
Now Mahoney is completely differenet from Souter and Miers in her temperment and (by all accounts) her intellectual acumen, but contrary to what some others have posted here, being brilliant and collegial are necessary-but-not-sufficient criteria for choosing justices. Breyer, for instance, is collegial and brilliant: that doesn’t mean I would want a GOP President nominating him.
Why is all this important, and why is her name standing out as a point of concern when the list as a whole is so impressive? Precisely because, as Greenburg points out, she is so high on the list of possible nominees. She’s one of the few names on that list that won’t just be advising Rudy, but would likely be on his short list.
July 18th, 2007 at 11:52 am
[...] wants to believe in Giuliani but keeps finding something to trip them up (see yesterday’s curious inclusion of Maureen Mahoney in an otherwise sterling lineup of judicial [...]
July 18th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
If the issue re: Mahoney is that she is too much of a blank slate for some, then I will accept that.
However, if the argument is that she is a closet Souter because she represented the U of M in Grutter, than I will stick with my opinion on people’s motivations.
We also have to keep in mind that different candidates may need to be considered depending upon the makeup of the Senate. If we lose 5-6 more Senate seats in 2008 (which is probable), the JRB’s and Luttig’s are likely out of the question.
If we are down to 42-43 Senate seats, a Mahoney, Sykes, or Williams may be the only nominees we could get confirmed.
July 18th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
I doubt we could get Sykes or Williams through with only 42 seats.
July 18th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Yeah… You’re probably right.
July 21st, 2007 at 11:10 pm
[...] and fighting for strict constructionist judges on the Supreme Court, they need look no further than this sterling list of Rudy-supporters (and potential nominees in a future [...]