SurveyUSA Alabama Presidential Election

• Rudy Giuliani 50%
• Hillary Clinton 45%

• Rudy Giuliani 55%
• Barack Obama 38%

• John McCain 52%
• Hillary Clinton 42%

• John McCain 56%
• Barack Obama 35%

• Hillary Clinton 47%
• Mitt Romney 47%

• Mitt Romney 51%
• Barack Obama 41%

• Mike Huckabee 47%
• Hillary Clinton 46%

• Mike Huckabee 48%
• Barack Obama 41%

Survey of 532 registered voters was conducted November 9-11. The margin of error is +/- 4.3 percentage points.

One year ago, Americans asserted by a 2 to 1 margin that things were going poorly in Iraq. As a consequence, Republicans lost the House, lost the Senate, lost the majority of governorships, and George Bush was forced to scrap the false choice of “staying the course” or “cutting and running” to embrace a third way: installing greater numbers of American troops in Mesopotamia to crush the opposition. This strategy was championed by Sen. John McCain, and thus was naturally rejected by the Bush Base as just another flawed strategy from the secular candidate that tried to deny them their evangelical president back during the 2000 primaries. Well, it’s November of 2007, and public opinion on Iraq is, shall we say, just a bit more favorable to Republicans than it was a year ago. Drumroll, please…

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Schulman, Ronca, & Bucuvalas. Nov. 20-26, 2007. N=1,399 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“Now, thinking about Iraq — How well is the U.S. military effort in Iraq going . . . ?”

Very/Fairly Well: 48%
Not Too Well/Not Well At All: 48%

A year after some were calling for Americans to leave the green zone in helicopters, the unthinkable has happened. American public opinion is now evenly divided on Iraq. And this happened because neither Bush nor the Democrats got their way, but because John McCain, the sole voice of reason in this whole endeavor, was actually listened to for a change. If Bush had “stayed the course,” we would have lost the war. American public opinion would have continued to sour on the war, and we would have been forced to pull out. Why Bush presented America with this false choice is something I’ll never understand. Maybe it’s a class thing. I’ve never been an aristocratic WASP, but I imagine that someone like Bush, who grew up as one, is used to getting his way without being questioned. Whatever the case, Bush has been an abysmal war president, and the American people rightly intuit as much, which is why his approval rating remains mired at 30 percent despite the improvement in Iraq. Sorry Bushies, your man is not making a comeback. Americans have rejected him. He’s done.

But before Democrats take this opportunity to celebrate, they should recall their own recommendations on the Iraq situation just one year ago. Democrats calling for the withdrawal of American troops from Mesopotamia were willing to allow thousands if not millions of innocent Iraqis to be slaughtered via ethnic cleansing and sectarian struggles. Moreover, they were willing to let Iraq and her resources fall into the hands of al Qaeda, and thus be used in the terrorists’ war against us. And all for what reason? To prove George Bush wrong? Are American security and Iraqi lives worth less to Democrats than simply being able to say, “I told you so” to conservative relatives, friends, and coworkers? Only in a fat and happy (and spoiled and naive) society like ours do people have such petty priorities.

But John McCain, mature and empirical, studied the situation in Iraq, discovered that more troops would solve the problem, and then unwaveringly endorsed the logical path to victory. McCain was right where both Bush and the Democrats were wrong. That makes me feel a lot better about McCain’s judgment, and it makes me wonder what other things McCain has been right about that both Bush and the Democrats have been wrong about. With the Republican race tightening due to the GOP base’s response to the siren’s song of yet another southern evangelical promising to usher in Heaven on Earth, the fight for the nomination is still wide open, and anything could happen. I’d like to think that Rudy can’t fail, but he can, especially if Huckabee wins Iowa and South Carolina and McCain wins New Hampshire and Michigan. If Super Tuesday rolls around and we’re left with a McCain/Huckabee race, or a McCain/Romney race, or a McCain/Thompson race, or some combination thereof, I would have no problem enthusiastically backing Sen. John McCain for the Republican presidential nomination. He has proven himself to me by doing what even I thought was impossible: by changing history and preventing Iraq from becoming another Vietnam.

Mike Huckabee is, for better or for worse, the man of the hour, and the coverage here has reflected that. DaveG, a fellow contributor, has written much over the past few months comparing Mike Huckabee to William Jennings Bryan’s traditionalist populism. His latest piece does just that. While I’m inclined to agree with most of DaveG’s arguments, it occurs to me that a more thorough journey through the historical landscape is warranted; if Huckabee isn’t Bryan, who is he? What other possible historical comparisons are available to us? For expediency sake, I will only consider politicians who’d plausibly be considered somewhat heterodox within the “conservative movement” (I’m not here concerned to declare Bush 43 heterodox or orthodox, simply because he’s currently the “face”of conservatism and this muddles the issue).

Working backwards chronologically, this brings us to Ford. What sort of politician was Ford? On the issues, he was a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. Using even the most expansive definition of those terms, Ford hardly seems a good analogue positionally. But, what sort of man was he personally? What was his political style? Ford had been a jock in high school, an eagle scout, and a Lieutenant in the US Navy. Unlike Huckabee, he was quite private about his religious beliefs (indeed, this contributed to his lost to another evangelical Southern Baptist). In terms of political style, Ford might be best considered a technocrat, and he campaigned largely on this bases. To the extent that he talked about values at all, he campaigned on the sort American (rather then family) values that had been common before World War II and immediately afterwards (values emphasizing hard work, thrift, etc). So let’s cross Ford off the list.

Next, we ought to consider Richard Nixon. Politically, Nixon was a pragmatic cypher. Right away, this seems a poor match; whatever Mike Huckabee believes, he believes it deeply. Nixon was an extremely hard-worker, who excelled in school, and moved up quickly throughout life; he was the consummate “life-long politician”. Huckabee spent his early years as a pastor, and then as a President of a religious station. Nixon was also widely thought to be insecure and somewhat paranoid. When confronted with charismatic figures, he worked assiduously to hone his image. Huckabee seems very comfortable in his skin, and likely relies more on instinct then calculation. Though, we do see one similarity, religion meant a great deal to Nixon, it’s hardly sufficient to make Tricky Dick a good parallel. Dwight Eisenhower fares little better. Despite essentially being drafted in 52′, Eisenhower was the opposite of a populist. He was down-to-earth, but deeply authoritative. His was a top-down leadership.

Finally, we move all the way back to turn of the 20th century, and a president named Teddy. Here, we see real surface similarities, many of which Huck’s supporters will no doubt trumpet in the coming months. Roosevelt was a protectionist, a conservationist, and a trust-buster. This is comparable, some will contend, to Huckabee’s emphasis on mainstreet over wallstreet, his passion to fight global warming, and his “fair trade” rhetoric. But, despite these policy positions, Roosevelt was really a substantially different sort of figure. Teddy Roosevelt was not a politician who’s political positions were based on Christianity. He took it seriously, to be sure, but it didn’t define him (he was the only President to not swear in on the Bible).

Indeed, in many ways, Roosevelt was actually precisely the opposite of men of Huckabee’s ilk. He was a voracious reader devouring, among other things, the Classics and heroic yarns. He particularly loved to read Military strategy. He was also a ferocious intellectual, who wrote nearly 3 dozen books, including an absolutely first rate History of the War of 1812 (the standard on the subject for more then 50 years) and a 4 Volume history of the West. He was, more then anything else, fiercely American, and his patriotism manifested itself in very particular ways. He was deeply knowledgeable about foreign affairs and military conflict (he might reasonably be called an Imperialist). This contrasts sharply with Huckabee’s record, which has no foreign policy experience to speak of, and his rhetoric which, until he became a contender over the last few months, emphasized the need to return us to the “humbler” foreign policy Bush had promised.

In terms of personal background and style, there’s virtually no comparison. While he was a fiercely popular president, he was no populist. Teddy was, at heart, a metropolitan elitist; a background which wasn’t entirely bred out of him, even after his years in the rough and tumble American West. His popularity stemmed from a whirlwind personality, but there was always something slightly distant about him. It’s likely no coincidence that he was renowned for an incredibly quick hand-shake; as though he couldn’t focus too closely on anyone in particular. Where Huckabee is “The Great Commoner”, Roosevelt was a benevolent and jolly King.

Secondly, his fierce Americanism led him to say famously “we will have no hyphenated Americans” (or something to that effect). Immigration wasn’t the issue it is currently, but Roosevelt articulated a position that might well have been the pre-cursor for a good deal of the toughness the GOP has adopted on illegal immigration. Huck’s immigration record is indefensible. And despite his concern for trusts, Roosevelt didn’t arbitrarily attack Big Business. He attacked very specific dangerous and unfair practices, with very specific and targeted policies and regulations. He knew an absolute TON about the issues involved. Huckabee, in contrast, rails against the evils of CEO’s, but hasn’t begun to articulate a solution to the problem (or the potential consequences of such a solution). Thus far, his interest in the issue seems to represent class warfare for the sake of class warfare.

People forget, because history often goes down easier when it’s simpler, that Teddy Roosevelt was actually generally a friend to business. While considered a progressive Republican, he was among the more conservative of progressives. Indeed, by the time of his presidency, a good number of the “progressives” had already abandoned the Republican Party, convinced as they were, that it was a hopelessly conservative organization. They stormed out of the convention en masse to protest Blaine’s nomination. Teddy stayed, and campaigned vigorously for Blaine (though Teddy had been friends with Cleveland early in his career).

On a few issues, Roosevelt and Huckabee have surface similarities. But, the animating principles that drove the two men were hardly comparable. Teddy wasn’t a perfect president, in terms of policy. But, he was the most thoroughly able President we’ve ever had, and the best advocate for Americanism. Those qualities can, to some extent, overcome ideological differences. And Huckabee, fine man though he may be, has shown little sign of possessing them. So ultimately, I still agree with DaveG. Though, it’s a flawed comparison, as all are inevitably, William Jennings Bryan is closest parallel to Mike Huckabee; he certainly comes closer to the mark then even the most heterodox Republicans.

Datamar GOP California Primary

• Rudy Giuliani 28.0%
• Mitt Romney 16.1%
• Fred Thompson 14.0%
• John McCain 9.9%
• Mike Huckabee 7.8%
• Ron Paul 4.3%
• Duncan Hunter 1.6%
• Undecided 17.3%

Survey of 514 Republican voters was conducted November 23-27. The margin of error is +/- 4.3 percentage points.

A great non-endorsement for the Romney and Thompson campaigns today. The Secessionist Party is alive and well:

Columbia, SC (AP) - A group that supports flying the Confederate flag is calling two Republican presidential candidates “scalawags and carpetbaggers” for criticizing the flag during this week’s GOP debate.

Sons of Confederate Veterans is offended by remarks made by former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

The group issued a statement Friday that said the road to the White House hits a dead end when candidates “smear the good name of our Southern ancestors.”

Romney says he doesn’t recognize the flag. Thompson said he doesn’t believe everyone who flies the flag is a racist but says for many Americans, it’s a symbol of racism.

The flag once flew atop the state Capitol.

Oh well…

As the election nears, things will get even more hostile here, and everywhere else. However, I don’t think it’s a good idea to criticize someone for an endorsement or speaking positively about one candidate. Hey, I even kept my mouth shut about Paul Weyrich, and that wasn’t easy after a certain comment that he made.

Now, back to my post. Let’s put up the transcript from Rush Limbaugh’s radio program, which was broadcast around the world to some 30 million willing listeners:

RUSH: It was fascinating to me, as I said, to watch this because it hit me upside the head - even though, as I say, I instinctively knew this - that all of the top-tier candidates, because of these questions… See, there’s always a silver lining in everything. There’s always an upside. Some of you might not think of this as an upside or a silver lining, but the genuine moderate as opposed to conservative aspects of three of the top-tier, four of the top-tier candidates were on full-fledged display last night. There was one candidate who did not display any moderateness or liberalism or have any of his past forays into those areas displayed, and that candidate was Fred Thompson. Now, this is not an endorsement. You know, I don’t endorse during primaries. I just point out: These are things I noticed, and I’ve told you during the course of this one campaign year that one of the things that’s bothering me, is I’m a Reagan conservative, and I believe in conservatism. It’s in my soul and it’s in my heart, and I know it is the best way for us to manage our affairs to ensure the most prosperity for the most, to continue our freedom, to protect our country.

You can be 80%, but it depends on what the other 20% are, and I’m just telling you that last night, it was Huckabee and Rudy and Mitt Romney, because of these questions, who were all faced with the reality - and everybody watching saw it - that they’ve got some governance in their pasts that is not conservative, and this is something that just hit me. While everybody is talking about Fred Thompson, “He’s too lazy. He’s too lackadaisical. He doesn’t seem to have whole lot of energy.” Fine and dandy. I’m not going to argue with people about your perceptions of attitudes and so forth. I will say this. I don’t think anybody would get into this mess running for the presidency, the media and all of these things. You can’t imagine what these people go through. You wouldn’t want to go through it, and I can’t imagine somebody put themselves through it if they really don’t want it.

Fred’s platform is the platform of a movement conservative. As we speak, Thompson is preparing to unveil his plan for cutting waste and government programs. This might be the most important policy proposal he puts forward because it will be the one that will tie all of his proposals together, and can help define the conservative agenda for years to come, whether or not he is successful in his quest for the GOP nomination. If he does not capture the nomination, the republican party would be wise to adopt his policies and programs, which can have a lasting legacy on American politics, and help define the party for years to come.

There have been times that many have wondered out loud about why Thompson decided to seek the nomination. As his campaign continues to go forward, it seems more and more clear that the answer is right in front of his critics’ faces. When he first announced his candidacy on Jay Leno, he said something to the effect of “I want to be able to help make this a better world for my young children.” What likely would’ve been his lasting legacy of his years in the senate was never acted upon in the aftermath of September 11. If President Bush had followed up on Thompson’s “Government On the Brink” platform, it would have helped save his (Bush’s) legacy among the pure conservatives as one of their own, dedicated to reducing the size of the federal government. Thompson’s proposals were a sacrifice of the War on Terror, and now, conservatives have a second chance to see them through. Right now, the republican nomination is up in the air. Thompson has as good a chance as any to win, and if he does, conservatives have an opportunity to have a platform that is fresh, new, and inspiring. Even if the man does not inspire you, the ideas are strong enough for inspiration among true conservatives who believe it is past time to reduce the size of the federal government. Thompson was right, all along, and Rush Limbaugh recognizes that.

Note: I like this post enough that I think I’m going to keep it and update it as FDT unveils more and more red meat

One last thing: Thompson and his wife will be the guests on Larry King Live tonight at 9 pm ET. Think he’ll get a lot of softballs?

Marc Ambinder reports these numbers for Iowa…

For his [Mike Huckabee] troubles?

$327,000, approximately, according to his campaign.

How much has Mitt Romney spent?

$7 million.

Talks about bang for your buck!

Jon Martin makes an interesting point…

Asked what had become of Reagan’s 11th Commandment about not attacking fellow Republicans, Romney said he was only hitting back.

“Well, when you take incoming fire day after day, sometimes you decide you’re going to return fire,” Romney explained, adding that he was keeping the differences on issues from being “personal attacks.”

But its not been Romney who has been on the receiving end of intraparty attacks. Until last weekend, Giuliani had largely avoided criticizing the former govenor by name.  And besides a few quips in interviews, Huckabee had not gone after Romney in the fashion most underdogs toward front-runners.   

Rather, it’s been Romney who has hammered Giuliani for months on New York being a “sanctuary city” and, more recently, targeted Huckabee on immigration issues.  Romney was also the first candidate to contrast his issue positions with those of his rivals in the mail.   

Here’s Joe Carter’s apology to the Club for Growth:

In a post on their website, the Club for Growth takes me to task for an email I sent to Matt Lewis calling the organization a group of “dishonest hacks.” While I don’t often agree with the CFG, they are right when they say, “Carter is entitled to his opinions, but if he wants to throw around the word dishonest, he ought to back it up with some concrete evidence.”

In my email I also said, “The CFG sold out their credibility when they allowed Steve Stevens–an earmark loving AR businessman–to use the group to get back at his political rival.” While I believe that Mr. Stevens, chairman of the CFG.net, paid for political attack ads in Iowa, I should not have made the claim without more evidence. CFG has neither confirmed nor denied that this was the case, so I should not have made the charge without gaining additional details.

I apologize to the Club for Growth and its members for resorting to such base name-calling. It was not only unprofessional but, I hope I can claim, uncharacteristic of me to resort to such insults.

I also apologize to my buddy Matt Lewis for using his forum to vent my frustration. Rather than responding harshly–as was certainly warranted–Matt overlooked my rudeness and answered with his typical civility. His friendly response made me even more ashamed of the way I had acted.

There are other points, both errors of fact and interpretation, in the CFG’s post that I feel need to address. But since it would be improper to bring them up in this mea culpa I will save them for another time.

-Joe

Maybe the rest of the campaign should tell it’s supporter’s to tone down the rhetoric?

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics GOP New Hampshire Primary

• Mitt Romney 29%
• John McCain 21%
• Rudy Giuliani 19%
• Mike Huckabee 7%
• Ron Paul 4%
• Fred Thompson 4%
• Duncan Hunter 1%
• Don’t Know 14%

Second Choice

• Mitt Romney 20%
• Rudy Giuliani 19%
• John McCain 12%
• Mike Huckabee 9%
• Ron Paul 4%
• Fred Thompson 3%
• Duncan Hunter 2%
• Tom Tancredo 2%
• Don’t Know 26%

Regardless of how you plan to vote, who do you believe will be the next president of the United States?

• Mitt Romney 19%
• Hillary Clinton 17%
• Rudy Giuliani 13%
• John McCain 6%
• Barack Obama 3%
• Mike Huckabee 2%

Among Men

• Mitt Romney 29%
• John McCain 23%
• Rudy Giuliani 16%

Among Women

• Mitt Romney 28%
• Rudy Giuliani 21%
• John McCain 20%

Among Independents

• Mitt Romney 29%
• Rudy Giuliani 21%
• John McCain 21%
• Ron Paul 9%
• Mike Huckabee 4%
• Fred Thompson 4%

How confident are you that your candidate can beat the Democrat in 2008?

(Extremely/Very/Somewhat/Not Very)

• Giuliani voters 29%/32%/29%/7%
• McCain voters 19%/35%/31%/10%
• Romney voters 15%/36%/39%/7%

Survey of 500 likely Republican primary voters was conducted November 27-29. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.

A man has walked into a Hillary campaign office in New Hampshire with a bomb and is taking hostages.

Great Article by Charles Krauthammer…Here is an Excerpt…

The embryonic stem cell debate is over.

Which allows a bit of reflection on the storm that has raged ever since the August 2001 announcement of President Bush’s stem cell policy.

The verdict is clear: Rarely has a president — so vilified for a moral stance — been so thoroughly vindicated.

Why? Precisely because he took a moral stance. Precisely because, as Thomson puts it, Bush was made “a little bit uncomfortable” by the implications of embryonic experimentation. Precisely because he therefore decided that some moral line had to be drawn.

In doing so, he invited unrelenting demagoguery by an unholy trinity of Democratic politicians, research scientists and patient advocates who insisted that anyone who would put any restriction on the destruction of human embryos could be acting only for reasons of cynical politics rooted in dogmatic religiosity — a “moral ayatollah,” as Sen. Tom Harkin so scornfully put it.

Bush got it right. Not because he necessarily drew the line in the right place. I have long argued that a better line might have been drawn — between using doomed and discarded fertility-clinic embryos created originally for reproduction (permitted) and using embryos created solely to be disassembled for their parts, as in research cloning (prohibited). But what Bush got right was to insist, in the face of enormous popular and scientific opposition, on drawing a line at all, on requiring that scientific imperative be balanced by moral considerations.

As indicated yesterday, ACU President David Keene endorsed Mitt Romney. Here’s Keene on the Laura Ingraham show talking about his decision:

One more clip where Keene discusses the importance of keeping the conservative coalition together:

The Following is a rebuttal to CFG attacks, written by Joe Carter of the Mike Huckabee Campaign.  The Truth Shall Set You Free.

Since January, the Club for Growth has attacked the Governor Huckabee’s credentials as a fiscal conservative. The first salvo came with the release of their white paper, “”Is Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee a Pro-Growth, Economic Conservative?” An honest examination of Huckabee’s tenure as governor would have to conclude that he is the most pro-growth, economic conservative with executive experience in the race. Instead, CFG used the paper to slander the Governor’s record and deceive numerous trusting conservatives. Even more surprisingly, journalists have accepted the CFG’s claims without question, even though more than 80% of the “analysis” consisted of out-of-context news clippings.

Troubled by this unwarranted attack, the Huckabee campaign recently sent Andy Roth, the author of the white paper, a series of clarifying questions:

“ Does the CFG believe that state tax monies should be used for infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, and highways?

“ Does the CFG believe that state tax monies should be used for education?

“ Does the CFG believe that state tax monies should be used for Medicaid?

“ When, if ever, does the CFG consider a tax hike to be legitimate?

“ Does the CFG believe in balanced budgets?

“ If yes to #6, should taxes be raised when cuts in non-discretionary spending are not enough to cover the budget shortfall?

Unless the answer to each of these questions is an emphatic “no” the analysis by the CFG does not make sense.

The Arkansas constitution, in a measure that should be lauded by all fiscal conservatives, requires that the state budget be balanced. More than 90% of the state’s budget is spent on education, Medicare, prisons, and human services. Naturally, cutting spending is always the first response of conservatives, as it was for Governor Huckabee. But that solution is inadequate when there is a shortage of elasticity in the budget. Unable to resort to deficit spending (as other candidates are able to do) the Arkansas Legislature was forced to raise taxes to pay for infrastructure repair, conservation efforts, court-mandated education expenditures, and federal mandates.

The purpose of this rebuttal is not to convince everyone that Governor Huckabee is their kind of candidate. Anti-tax radicals will never be convinced that tax monies can be legitimately spent on highways, bridges, schools, and Medicare. Instead, our aim is to prove to true fiscal conservatives-those that expect responsible governance, low taxes, reduced spending, and balanced budgets-that Governor Huckabee has the most consistently fiscal conservative record of any Presidential candidate.   

The following is a point-by-point response to the “Taxes” section of the CFG’s white paper. The portions from the CFG’s paper are in bold.

Governor Huckabee touts himself as an economic conservative, writing in his biography that he “pushed through the Arkansas Legislature the first major, broad-based tax cuts in state history” and “led efforts to establish a Property Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights” early on as governor, but he only offers a small piece of the picture. It is true that Governor Huckabee fought for an $80 million tax cut package in 1997 that was passed by the Arkansas Legislature; cut the state capital gains tax in 1999; and passed the Property Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights in the same year, limiting the increase in property taxes to 10% a year for individuals and 5% per taxing unit.

Before the CFG attempts to downplay these significant actions, let’s take another look at what they’ve admitted he was able to accomplish:

“ Pushed through a Democrat legislature the first, major broad based tax cuts in the state’s history.

“ Pushed through a Democrat legislature an $80 million tax cut package.

“ Cut the state’s capital gains tax by 25%.

“ Established a Property Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights

“ Limited the increase in property taxes to 10% a year for individuals and 5% per taxing unit

Here are a few that they left off the list:

“ Eliminated the income tax for families below the poverty line.

“ Increased the standard deductions.

“ Eliminated the marriage penalty.

“ Eliminated bracket creep by indexing the income taxes to inflation, thereby preventing taxpayers from moving into a higher bracket when their paychecks increase due to inflations.

“ Doubled the child care tax credit.

“ Eliminated capital gains tax on the sale of a home.

However, his record over the rest of his 10-year tenure tells a starkly different story.

“ The CFG implies that Governor Huckabee made radical tax increases that offset the cut in capital gains, the $80 million tax cut, and the other fiscally conservative policies. As you’ll see, though, they have to misrepresent the Governor’s entire record in order to make such a specious claim.
Immediately upon taking office, Governor Huckabee signed a sales tax hike in 1996 to fund the Games and Fishing Commission and the Department of Parks and Tourism (Cato Policy Analysis No. 315, 09/03/98).

“ According to the Cato report cited:
“Upon taking office in July 1996, Huckabee immediately backed a 1/8-cent sales tax hike to fund the Games and Fishing Commission and the Department of Parks and Tourism. The voters enacted that hike as a constitutional amendment in November 1996.”

“ Governor Huckabee didn’t “sign a sales tax hike.” An overwhelming 80% of the voters chose to do so through an amendment to their state’s constitution. He supported the measure, however, because he believes that conservatives should be “conservationist” and that clean lakes, streams, rivers, and forests are a necessary expenditure.

Notice they also left off the rest of what Cato had to say:

“In his first budget, however, he redeemed himself by proposing a sweeping overhaul of Arkansas’s archaic income tax system. The $80 million tax cut package was enacted in 1997 and became the first broad-based state tax cut in more than 20 years. It increased the standard deduction, eliminated the income tax “marriage penalty,” and indexed the state tax brackets for inflation.”

He supported an internet sales tax in 2001 (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07).

“ Indeed, Governor Huckabee joined 43 other state governors in sending a “strong and unified message to Congress: deal fairly with Main Street retailers, consumers, and local governments.”

As the letter stated, “If you care about a level playing field for Main Street retail businesses and local control of states, local governments, and schools, extend the moratorium on taxing Internet access ONLY with authorization for the states to streamline and simplify the existing sales tax system. To do otherwise perpetuates a fundamental inequity and ignores a growing problem….The loophole creates serious budget problems for schools, states, and local governments. A study estimated that states could lose as much as $14 billion by 2004 if they are unable to collect existing taxes on Web-based sales. Nearly half of state revenues come from sales taxes.”

“ Governor Huckabee supported the federalist position of allowing the states-not Washington, D.C.-to decide whether sales taxes were collected from goods sold within an individual state. Why should the federal government be allowed to say that Amazon.com must be given a 7% tax break over a local Arkansas book store owner?
He publicly opposed the repeal of a sales tax on groceries and medicine in 2002 (Arkansas News Bureau 08/30/02).

“ The CFG fails to note  that Arkansas law prohibits deficits and requires that the state budget be balanced.

“ According to the article cited, the reason Governor Huckabee opposed abolishing the food tax was because it would drain $168 million from the state’s Medicaid budget by eliminating the soft drink tax. The article also notes that the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce and Associated Industries of Arkansas also opposed abolishing this particular tax, saying approval would likely lead to an increase in the general sales tax.

He signed bills raising taxes on gasoline (1999), cigarettes (2003) (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07), and a $5.25 per day bed-tax on private nursing home patients in 2001 (Arkansas New Bureau 03/01/01).

“ The CFG fails to note that 90% of the state’s budget is spent on education, Medicare, prisons, and human services.

“ The CFG fails to note that the gas tax was used to fix 1,300 miles of highway, much of which was considered the worst in the country.

“ The CFG fails to note that the cigarette tax was used to cover a budget shortfall. In 2003 the state’s chief financial officer projected a $62.3 million revenue shortfall that would result cuts in state services, possible layoffs, tax increases or the possible repeal of late 1990s tax cuts. The Legislature was presented a series of options and chose to increase the tax on tobacco.

“ The CFG fails to note that the bed-tax on private nursing home patients was instituted to generate revenue for a nearly 3-to-1 match in federal Medicaid funds. Without this revenue low-income patients would not be able to find beds in nursing homes.

In 2004, he allowed a 17% sales tax increase to become law (The Gurdon Times 03/02/04).

“ Notice the odd wording, “allowed…to become law”? Here is how the Cato Institute report describes the incident:

“In response to a court order to increase spending on education, Huckabee proposed another sales tax increase, and the Legislature sent to him a smaller sales tax increase with a corporate franchise tax to make up the difference. Huckabee let it become law without his signature.”

“ Governor Huckabee had three options: sign the bill into law, veto the bill, or let it become law without his signature. As the Governor told the Arkansas News Bureau (1/28/2004), “If this is what they want to put their signature on and their stamp on, then I should let them do it, even though I think that’s pathetically less than what we ought to be shooting for, it will let the public see that that’s the best they could offer.”

He proposed another sales take hike in 2002 to fund education improvements. (Arkansas News Bureau 12/05/02).

“ In Arkansas, 49% of the tax revenue comes from Sales/Use taxes. Such increases were required to meet the legal requirement to balance the budget. The citizens of Arkansas, like most true conservatives, the benefit of having an educated populace far outweighs a 7/8-cent tax increase.

By the end of his 10-year tenure, Governor Huckabee was responsible for a 37% higher sales tax in Arkansas, 16% higher motor fuel taxes, and 103% higher cigarette taxes according to Americans for Tax Reform (01/07/07),…

“ As noted above, the Governor allowed the sales tax to increase from 5.125% to 6% (+7/8 cent) to increase funding for education.

“ As noted above, the 3-cent higher fuel tax was used to make needed repairs to the state’s dilapidated highway system.

“ As noted above, the cigarette tax was used to cover a budget shortfall of $62.3 million. …garnering a lifetime grade of D from the free-market Cato Institute.

“ The CFG doesn’t explain why fiscal conservatives should care how a libertarian think tank grades a candidate. Perhaps they were unable to find a fiscally conservative group that would aid them in their hit piece.

“ Unfortunately, Cato’s analysis is as weak as CFG’s:

“Thanks to a final term grade of F, Huckabee earns an overall grade of D for his entire governorship. Like many Republicans, his grades dropped the longer he stayed in office. In his first few years, he fought hard for a sweeping $70 million tax cut package that was the first broad-based tax cut in the state in more than 20 years. He even signed a bill to cut the state’s 6 percent capital gains tax-a significant progrowth accomplishment. But nine days after being reelected in 2002, he proposed a sales tax increase to cover a budget deficit caused partly by large spending increases that he proposed and approved, including an expansion in Medicare eligibility that Huckabee made a centerpiece of his 1997 agenda. He agreed to a 3 percent income tax “surcharge” and a 25-cent cigarette tax increase. In response to a court order to increase spending on education, Huckabee proposed another sales tax increase.”

“ After praising his accomplishments, Cato bashes Governor Huckabee for proposing a sales tax to “cover a budget deficit caused partly by large spending increases that he proposed and approved…” Again, 90% of the Arkansas state budget is on education, Medicare, prisons, and human services. Obviously, the radical libertarians at Cato consider it blasphemous to have the state funding schools or paying the medical bills of the poor. But complying with state law in order to balance the budget and pay for such entitlements does not make a governor a “big-government conservative.”

Finally, Governor Huckabee opposed further tax cuts at a 2005 gathering of Iowa conservatives.[15] On January 28, 2007, Governor Huckabee refused to pledge not to raise taxes if elected President, first on “Meet the Press”[16] and then at the National Review Conservative Summit.[17] The evidence suggests that his commitment to protecting taxpayers evidenced in his early gubernatorial years may be a thing of the past.

“ Governor Huckabee has signed the Americans for Tax Reform’s Presidential Taxpayer Protection Pledge which states he will, “oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses … and oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.”

“ It should be noted that Sen. Thompson and Mayor Giuliani have refused to sign this pledge.

A final word about the motivation for the CFG’s attacks:

“ In January when Governor Huckabee announced he was forming an exploratory committee, the CFG released a white paper on his tenure in Arkansas. Governor Huckabee was the first candidate scrutinized even though he entered the race after Sen. McCain, Mayor Giuliani, Sen. Brownback, and Governor Romney.

“ What was the reason the CFG thought he was worthy of moving to the head of the line? The tax burden during his time in Arkansas was better than under Mitt Romney’s in Massachusetts. Likewise, his record on spending was better than Mayor Giuliani, who increased spending more than under his Democratic predecessor. So why was Governor Huckabee singled out as inconsistently conservative?

“ The reason is that one of the CFG’s biggest donors and organization officials is a longtime political rival of Governor Huckabee.

“ In August the Club for Growth began running attack ads in Iowa on Governor Mike Huckabee. Salon.com found after checking disclosures through the IRS that the ads had been paid for by “a Little Rock neighbor and political rival of Huckabee’s named Jackson T. “Steve” Stephens Jr.” Not only did Stephens provide the $125,000 to Club for Growth.net, he serves as the chairman, along with his Arkansas business associate, Gary Faulkner. Stephens has contributed over $1 million to CFG

“ CFG President Pat Toomey recently hinted that more context-less attack ads that distort Governor Huckabee’s record will soon run in Iowa. We’ll be ready with the truth.

Hizzoner repsonds to the debate day controversy in a interview with Katie Couric for CBS News:

See here to read the CBS article in it’s entirety.

The most important ‘traditional value’ in this election is keeping the Clintons out of the White House,” says Greg Alterton, an evangelical Christian who writes for SoConsForRudy.com and counts himself among Rudolph Giuliani’s social-conservative supporters.

People like Alterton are important, if overlooked, in the Republican presidential sweepstakes. Anti-Giuliani Religious Rightists are far more visible. Also conspicuous are pundits whose cartoon version of social conservatism regards abortion and gay rights as “the social issues,” excluding other traditionalist concerns.

New York’s former mayor “has abandoned social conservatism,” commentator Maggie Gallagher complains. He “is anathema to social conservatives,” veteran columnist Robert Novak recently wrote. Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson has said: “I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008.” Dobson and a cadre of Religious Right leaders threaten to deploy a pro-life, third-party candidate should Giuliani be nominated.

This “Rudyphobia” ignores Giuliani’s pro-family/anti-abortion ideas, his socially conservative mayoral record, and his popularity among churchgoing Republicans.

While Giuliani accepts a woman’s right to an abortion, he told Iowa voters in August: “By working together to promote personal responsibility and a culture of life, Americans can limit abortions and increase adoptions.” Among Giuliani’s relevant proposals:

“My administration will streamline the adoption process by removing the heartbreaking bureaucratic delays that burden the current process.” Giuliani notes that sclerotic court schedules, exhausted social workers, and tangled red tape prevent moms and dads from adopting some 115,000 boys and girls in foster care.

Giuliani wants the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to promote organizations that help women choose adoption over abortion.

He would like to make permanent the $10,000 adoption tax credit.

Giuliani also would encourage states and cities to report timely and complete statistics to measure progress in abortion reduction.

This is no sudden conversion on the road to Washington. As mayor, Giuliani did nothing to advance abortion. On his watch, total abortions fell 13 percent across America, but slid 17 percent in New York. Between 1993 and 2001, Gotham’s tax-funded Medicaid abortions plunged 23 percent.

Giuliani’s campaign for personal responsibility created a climate that seemingly discouraged abortion. Moving 58 percent of recipients from welfare to work may have encouraged women and men to avoid unwanted pregnancies. New York’s 57 percent overall-crime reduction and 67 percent homicide drop probably reinforced such self-control.

Compared to the eight Democratic years before he arrived, adoptions under Giuliani soared 133 percent.

Giuliani also proposed eliminating the city’s $2,000 marriage penalty. He chopped it to $400.

Giuliani opposed gay marriage in 1989. “My definition of family is what it is,” Giuliani told Newsday 18 years ago. “It does not include gay marriage as part of that definition.”

He jettisoned New York’s minority and women-owned business set-aside program. Giuliani explained: “The whole idea of quotas to me perpetuates discrimination.”

Giuliani sliced or scrapped 23 taxes totaling $9.8 billion and shrank New York’s tax burden 17 percent. This left parents more money for children’s healthcare, private-school tuition, etc.

Giuliani could have governed comfortably as a pro-abortion, pro-welfare, pro-quota, soft-on-crime, tax-and-spend, liberal Republican. Instead, Giuliani relentlessly pushed Reaganesque socio-economic reforms through a City Council populated by seven Republicans and 44 Democrats.

These accomplishments may explain why he leads his competitors and impresses churchgoers. Among Republicans in an Oct. 3 ABC/Washington Post poll, Giuliani outran former Sen. Fred Thompson, 34 percent to 17, versus Sen. John McCain’s 12 percent, and Mitt Romney’s 11. As “most electable,” Giuliani scored 50 percent, versus McCain’s 15, Thompson’s 13, and Romney’s 6.

An Oct. 3 Gallup survey found Giuliani enjoying a 38 percent net-favorable rating among churchgoing Catholics, compared to McCain’s 29, and Thompson’s 25. Among Protestant churchgoers, Thompson edges Giuliani 26 percent to 23, with McCain at 16, and Romney at 7.

Religious Right leaders should study Giuliani’s entire, socially conservative record, not just the “socially liberal” caricature of it that hostile commentators and lazy journalists keep sketching. Social conservatives should not make the perfect enemy of the outstanding. Ultimately, they should recognize that a pro-life, third-party candidate would subtract votes from Giuliani in November 2008.

This would raise the curtain on a 3-D horror movie for social conservatives: “The Clintons Reconquer Washington” — bigger, badder, and more vindictive than ever.

______________________________________________________________________________________

New York commentator Deroy Murdock is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

Summary: The next U.S. president will face three key foreign policy challenges: setting a course for victory in the terrorists’ war on global order, strengthening the international system the terrorists seek to destroy, and extending the system’s benefits. With a stronger defense, a determined diplomacy, and greater U.S. economic and cultural influence, the next president can start to build a lasting, realistic peace.
____________________________________________________________________________________

Strengthening the International System

The next U.S. president will share the world stage with a new generation of leaders, few of whom were in office when the attacks of 9/11 occurred but all of whom have been influenced by their impact. This will be a rare opportunity for American leadership to make the case that our common interest lies in defeating the terrorists and strengthening the international system.

Defeating the terrorists must be our principal priority in the near future, but we do not have the luxury of focusing on it to the exclusion of other goals. World events unfold whether the United States is engaged or not, and when we are not, they often unfold in ways that are against our interests. The art of managing a large enterprise is to multitask, and so U.S. foreign policy must always be multidimensional.

A primary goal for our diplomacy — whether directed toward great powers, developing states, or international institutions — must be to strengthen the international system, which most of the world has a direct interest in seeing function well. After all, the system helps keep the peace and provide prosperity. Some theorists say that it is outmoded and display either too much faith in globalization or assume that the age of the sovereign state is coming to a close. These views are naive. There is no realistic alternative to the sovereign state system. Transnational terrorists and other rogue actors have difficulty operating where the state system is strong, and they flourish where it is weak. This is the reason they try to exploit its weaknesses.

We should therefore work to strengthen the international system through America’s relations with other great powers, both long established and rising. We should regard no great power as our inherent adversary. We should continue to fully engage with Europe, both in its collective capacity as the European Union and through our special relationship with the United Kingdom and our traditional diplomatic relations with France, Germany, Italy, and other western European nations. We highly value our ties with the states of central and eastern Europe and the Baltic and Balkan nations. Their experience of oppression under communism has made them steadfast allies and strong advocates of economic freedom.

America is grateful to NATO for the vital functions it is performing in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Yet NATO’s role and character should be reexamined. For almost 60 years, it has been a vital bond connecting the United States and Europe. But its founding rationale dissolved with the end of the Cold War, and the alliance should be transformed to meet the challenges of this new century. NATO has already expanded to include former adversaries, taken on roles for which it was not originally conceived, and acted beyond its original theater. We should build on these successes and think more boldly and more globally. We should open the organization’s membership to any state that meets basic standards of good governance, military readiness, and global responsibility, regardless of its location. The new NATO should dedicate itself to confronting significant threats to the international system, from territorial aggression to terrorism. I hope that NATO members will see the wisdom in such changes. NATO must change with the times, and its members must always match their rhetorical commitment with action and investment. In return, America can assure them that we will be there for them in times of crisis. They stood by America after 9/11, and America will never forget.

As important as America’s Western alliances are, we must recognize that America will often be best served by turning also to its other friends, old and new. Much of America’s future will be linked to the already established and still rising powers of Asia. These states share with us a clear commitment to economic growth, and they must be given at least as much attention as Europe. Our alliance with Japan, which has been strengthened considerably under this administration, is a rock of stability in Asia. South Korea has been a key to security in Northeast Asia and an important contributor to international peace. Australia, our distant but long-standing ally, continues to assume a greater role in world affairs and acts as a steadfast defender of international standards and security. U.S. cooperation with India on issues ranging from intelligence to naval patrols and civil nuclear power will serve as a pillar of security and prosperity in South Asia.

U.S. relations with China and Russia will remain complex for the foreseeable future. Americans have no wish to return to the tensions of the Cold War or to launch a new one. We must seek common ground without turning a blind eye to our differences with these two countries. Like America, they have a fundamental stake in the health of the international system. But too often, their governments act shortsightedly, undermining their long-term interest in international norms for the sake of near-term gains. Even as we work with these countries on economic and security issues, the U.S. government should not be silent about their unhelpful behavior or human rights abuses. Washington should also make clear that only if China and Russia move toward democracy, civil liberties, and an open and uncorrupted economy will they benefit from the vast possibilities available in the world today.

Our relationships with other American nations remain of primary importance. Canada and Mexico, our two closest neighbors, are our two largest trading partners. With them, we share a continent, a free-trade agreement, and a commitment to peace, prosperity, and freedom. Latin America faces a choice between the failures of the past and the hopes of the future. Some look to the governments of Bolivia and Venezuela, and their mentor in Cuba, and see an inevitable path to greater statism. But elections in Colombia, Mexico, and Peru show that the spirit of free-market reform is alive and well among our southern neighbors. Cuba has long stood out in Latin America, first as one of the region’s most successful economies, later as its only communist police state. The death of Fidel Castro may begin a new chapter in Cuban history. But America should take nothing for granted. It must stand ready to help the Cuban people reclaim their liberty and resist any step that allows a decrepit, corrupt regime from consolidating its power under Raúl Castro. Only a commitment to free people and free markets will bring a prosperous future to Cuba and all of Latin America.

More people in the United States need to understand how helping Africa today will help increase peace and decency throughout the world tomorrow. The next president should continue the Bush administration’s effort to help Africa overcome AIDS and malaria. The international community must also learn from the mistakes that allowed the genocide in Darfur to begin and have prevented the relevant international organizations from ending it. The world’s commitment to end genocide has been sidestepped again and again. Ultimately, the most important thing we can do to help Africa is to increase trade with the continent. U.S. government aid is important, but aid not linked to reform perpetuates bad policies and poverty. It is better to give people a hand up than a handout.

Finally, we need to look realistically at America’s relationship with the United Nations. The organization can be useful for some humanitarian and peacekeeping functions, but we should not expect much more of it. The UN has proved irrelevant to the resolution of almost every major dispute of the last 50 years. Worse, it has failed to combat terrorism and human rights abuses. It has not lived up to the great hopes that inspired its creation. Too often, it has been weak, indecisive, and outright corrupt. The UN’s charter and the speeches of its members’ leaders have meant little because its members’ deeds have frequently fallen short. International law and institutions exist to serve peoples and nations, but many leaders act as if the reverse were true — that is, as if institutions, not the ends to be achieved, were the important thing.

Despite the UN’s flaws, however, the great objectives of humanity would become even more difficult to achieve without mechanisms for international discussion. History has shown that such institutions work best when the United States leads them. Yet we cannot take for granted that they will work forever and must be prepared to look to other tools.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Editor’s Note: This essay originally appeared in the September/October edition of Foreign Affairs, a publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, who retain all rights. It is republished here with the CFR’s consent. Race42008 obtained permission to reprint the essay as a seven-part series which will be published daily from Monday, November 26th, through Friday November 30th, concluding December 3rd & December 4th.

ARG GOP Iowa Caucus

• Mitt Romney 28% (26%)
• Mike Huckabee 27% (24%)
• Fred Thompson 14% (11%)
• Rudy Giuliani 9% (11%)
• John McCain 9% (10%)
• Ron Paul 3% (3%)
• Tom Tancredo 1% (1%)
• Undecided 9% (13%)

Survey of 600 likely Republican caucus-goers living in Iowa (512 Republicans and 88 independent voters) was conducted November 26-29. The margin of error is ± 4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 10-14 are in parentheses.

I don’t hold out much hope for Fred Thompson at this point, and I frankly think his supporters would be better off going elsewhere, but I’m holding off on dropping the axe because of how quickly this race has changed.  It’s now not difficult to imagine a scenario where Rudy isn’t even much of a factor by February 5th.  Let’s imagine he limps into Iowa, burdened by these sorts of scandals and poor debate performances.  Huck and Romney beat him easily there.   Romney then holds off Huck in NH, and McCain manages a surprise second or third place showing (with Rudy in fourth).

I don’t think Rudy can survive a third place finish in Iowa, and a fourth place finish in NH.  After such a scenario, Mitt probably wins Michigan, and Huck probably wins SC.  In some ways, a Romney vs. Huck narrative is more damaging to Rudy then a narrative that sees Romney winning all the early states.  Because, even if Romney wins all the early states, he still needs a rival.  Narratively speaking, the media and public will not let one figure “run away” with the race, without pushing someone forward as a clear challenger.  Rudy was the obvious choice for that role, in the event that Romney racked up big early state wins, for two reasons.  One, he was a national figure, and his numbers could conceivably sustain a series of losses.  Two, he was specifically casting his strategy as focusing on “Super Tuesday”.

But, if Romney wins NH and MI and Huck wins IA and SC, there’s no longer a need for Rudy.  The media has their “two-man race”, and Rudy’s poll numbers could dissipate incredibly quickly.  Sure, he still wins NY and NJ, but he’ll gain no momentum from such wins.  Now is any of this likely?  It’s hard to say.  Rudy probably finishes no worse then third in NH, even with a Huck win in Iowa.  And if the race in Iowa isn’t close, the narrative might simply turn into “Big Iowa winner vs. National Front-runner” which could damage Romney significantly in NH.  Rudy’s still likely to be the big man on campus on February 5th.  But, with Romney up 15 points in the New Hampshire RCP (up 19 in the latest poll), even in the face of Rudy’s ad barrage (which was supposed to eradicate Slick Mitt), IA is looking losable for Romney.  And for the first time in months, I can imagine a race without much room for Rudy Giuliani.

Rasmussen GOP New Hampshire Primary

• Mitt Romney 34% (32%)
• Rudy Giuliani 15% (17%)
• John McCain 15% (16%)
• Mike Huckabee 14% (10%)
• Ron Paul 8% (4%)
• Fred Thompson 3% (7%)
• Tom Tancredo 1% (3%)
• Duncan Hunter 1% (2%)

Survey of 881 Likely Republican Voters was conducted November 29. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 5 are in parentheses.

ARG GOP South Carolina Primary

• Rudy Giuliani 23% (23%)
• Mitt Romney 21% (29%)
• Mike Huckabee 18% (5%)
• Fred Thompson 13% (10%)
• John McCain 10% (13%)
• Ron Paul 3% (4%)
• Duncan Hunter 2% (2%)
• Undecided 10% (12%)

Survey of 600 likely Republican primary voters living in South Carolina (500 Republicans and 100 independent voters) was conducted November 26-29. The margin of error is ± 4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted in October are in parentheses.

Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

• Rudy Giuliani 27%
• Mike Huckabee 13%
• John McCain 13%
• Mitt Romney 13%
• Fred Thompson 12%
• Ron Paul 5%
• Undecided 15%

Survey includes approximately 600-650 Likely Republican Primary Voters. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.

Roughly three-quarters of the interviews for today’s update were conducted before the end of Wednesday’s Republican debate.

I think the first article I ever read on Race42008 was one posted by DaveG on February 23rd of this year.  Entitled ”Rudy’s Electoral Math,” Dave commented that, “The notion that Rudy Giuliani will…mirror the Democratic nominee on social issues is just not correct…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.” 

The drumbeat since Rudy Giuliani announced his candidacy earlier this year is that he is wrong on the “big issues” for social conservatives: abortion, gay rights, and gun ownership.  However, consider:

On gun regulation, Giuliani has not proposed any new federal controls, and defers to the localities to determine what or whether to regulate firearms. On this, he is a solid proponent of states’ rights. So much for the “gun-grabber” charge.

Regarding gay rights, Giuliani is on record saying that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that this distinction is to be respected. When he did not support the defense of marriage constitutional amendment proposal in 2004, neither did a number of conservatives who do not believe that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to address this issue.  The voters in individual states – from Oregon, to California, to Ohio, to Michigan…27 states in all, so far – are stepping up to either affirmatively declare marriage as between a man and a woman, or are specifically banning gay marriage. Giuliani’s stance on states’ authority would oppose federal action to overturn the state-led initiatives on this issue.

The same with abortion. Despite his personal views, Giuliani has pledged to appoint originalists to the federal judiciary.  In the nearly 35 years since Roe v. Wade, there has been only one major pro-life legislative victory – the passage and signing by President Bush of a ban on partial-birth abortions.  One victory in nearly 35 years – a span of time that saw two strongly pro-life presidents in Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, and 12 years of Republican control of Congress.  The partial-birth abortion ban was challenged in the courts, upheld by the Supreme Court, which indicates that it is in the courts that these issues will ultimately be won or lost. Hence, Giuliani’s intention to appoint originalists to the courts should be considered the most important pro-life impact that the next president will have. 

Giuliani said that he would have signed a partial-birth abortion ban which includes an exemption for the life of the mother. The pro-abortion Democrats want an exemption for the “health” of the mother. There’s a big difference. “Life” would provide an exemption where the mother’s life is in danger if natural delivery proceeds (and this should be rendered a non-factor because of cesarean delivery in the event of an emergency). An exemption from abortion prohibitions for the “health” of the mother, as favored by the pro-abortion Democrats, has been used as a catch-all exemption as “health” has come to include “mental health,” meaning that if a pregnancy or having a child might create “stress” for the mother, this is enough to fall within the “health” criterion, and would lead to aborting the child.

Mayor Giuliani also supports parental notification before minors can obtain an abortion, which is a long-time goal of pro-life organizations. His position, from appointment of originalists to the courts, to the distinction in his position on partial-birth abortion from that of the pro-abortion left, is reason to calm the fears, and rebut the hysterical charges of some that he’s a “baby-killer.”

Rudy Giuliani’s approach to these socially conservative issues is to de-federalize the issues, take them out of the gridlocked politics of Washington, and allow the states to decide them. Rudy Giuliani is the most pro-states’ rights presidential candidate we’ve seen in decades…maybe ever. What’s not conservative about that?

It should be clear to all that our nation is deeply divided, right down the middle, ideologically. The presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 showed a deep schism among American voters, and that schism is getting harder and deeper. This division has turned America into two camps, and has made each election a nail-biter as results of the last two presidential elections could have turned on the shift of only about 1.5% of the vote. This divide has also imposed a rigid gridlock in Washington on the whole list of so-called “socially conservative” issues. There’s no budge on either side, and consequently the chances of enacting any of the social conservative agenda is worse than slim and none.

Perhaps the way to break this political and ideological gridlock isn’t to surrender socially conservative principles, but to move these issues through a different approach. It’s been said (as I recall, it’s an old Vulcan proverb) that “Only Nixon could go to China,” because of his life-long record as an anti-communist. It may well be that only Rudy Giuliani can move this nation away from the opposing political encampments it’s become, and allow the people – not the federal government, not the Congress – to make progress on issues that reflect what is the inherent social conservatism of the American people.

Rudy Giuliani

• Rudy Giuliani shows prosecutorial side in account<