In the last few Presidential elections the majority of candidates have been incumbents to some office (Governor, Senator, Vice President) when they ran for office.

However it looks like none of the 2012 Republican candidates will be officeholders.

Palin has bowed out.

Huckabee, Romney, Pawlenty will all be former Governors.

Haley Barbour’s term as Governor ends in 2011. Jindal’s term ends the same time making it unlikely he’d run for re-election _and_ the GOP nomination at the same time.

Are there any realistic 2012 nominees who may run from a sitting office?

I’ve heard Rudy mentioned but I think it’s unlikely he’ll run for Governor then leave his state to run for President a few weeks after being sworn in. That’s ignoring the likelihood that he isn’t Governor of New York in 2011.

Marist New York 2010 Gubernatorial Survey

Republican Gubernatorial Primary

• Rudy Giuliani 77%
• Rick Lazio 16%

Democratic Gubernatorial Primary

• Andrew Cuomo 69%
• David Paterson 24%

Gubernatorial General Election

• Rudy Giuliani 54%
• David Paterson 37%

• Andrew Cuomo 51%
• Rudy Giuliani 43%

• David Paterson 41%
• Rick Lazio 40%

• Andrew Cuomo 68%
• Rick Lazio 22%

Would you rate the job Governor David Paterson is doing in office as excellent, good, fair, or poor?

• Excellent 3%
• Good 18%
• Fair 39%
• Poor 37%

Do you agree or disagree with the statement: Governor David Paterson is a good leader for New York State?

• Agree 31%
• Disagree 65%

Do you agree or disagree with the statement: Governor David Paterson is changing the way things work in Albany for the better?

• Agree 27%
• Disagree 68%

Do you approve or disapprove of how Governor David Paterson is handling the economic crisis?

• Approve 31%
• Disapprove 61%

Do you approve or disapprove of how Governor David Paterson is handling the crisis in the New York State Senate in Albany?

• Approve 43%
• Disapprove 49%

Would you rate the job New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is doing in office as excellent, good, fair, or poor?

• Excellent 21%
• Good 46%
• Fair 22%
• Poor 5%

Republican Senatorial Primary

• George Pataki 51%
• Peter King 36%

Survey of 1,003 registered voters was conducted June 23-25. The margin of error is ±3 percentage points; for the subsamples of 441 Democrats and 281 Republicans, ±5% and ±6%, respectively.

First, a word about what elitism is not. I’m not sure whether it’s my lack of clarity in writing or because populists have preconceived notion about what an elitist is that they have trouble discarding — perhaps it’s a little of both — but there seems to be a lot of misconceptions about my line of thinking.

In my last post, I tried to clarify my thoughts on Sarah Palin’s populism in relation to Benjamin Franklin’s elitism. I went to great lengths to assure Adam Graham that it had absolutely nothing to do with her lack of formal education — which I think is largely a waste of time to the self-motivated man — but everything to do with her lack of pursuit of excellence. Kavon immediately replied to me, saying that I would probably think less of him (or of Ronald Reagan) because of his lack of formal education.

Um…

Elitism, in its virtuous form, is a state of mind. It is about setting one’s self apart from the masses to pursue intelligence, wisdom, achievement, and excellence. It is not content with simply being satisfied with one’s birth lot, but is always striving to reach the next step on the ladder. It is self-reliant. It is morally searching and fearless, and rejects misguided notions of egalitarianism. A professional truck driver who philosophizes on the side, partakes in learned and intellectually honest political debate online, and builds a comfortable life for himself can potentially be an elitist. A professor who advocates reparations for slavery, postmodern Marxism, and single-payer health care may not be.

Modern liberalism and virtuous elitism are incompatible. Modern liberalism spits upon productive achievement, fetishizes egalitarianism, and celebrates the average rather than the exceptional.

So does populist ‘conservatism.’

There is nothing wrong with being a ‘Joe Six-Pack,’ necessarily, but why glorify his experiences? Why say that being a professor, a senator, a political consultant, a reporter — is not a “real job”? Despite the abundance of high-profile exceptions, most people actually work their way up from the bottom to be senators, governors, and even presidents. Instead of using her position to speak of the virtues of exceptionalism, Sarah Palin has used her position to tell the lower classes to, essentially, be content with their lot. That there’s something virtuous in their experiences. [Edit: And that Adam Graham thinks that Veterans' Day is not a celebration of excellence is appalling.]

It’s ironic that populist conservatives claim to admire the Founding Fathers — they were no Joe Six-Packs. They were penetrating thinkers, accomplished authors, philosophers, seasoned statesmen.

The point is not, to echo my earlier statement, that there are lots of neo-Franklins running around. It’s that Sarah Palin shows absolutely no desire to emulate the ideal of Franklin. She’s not even bothering, according to people like William Kristol, to consult with foreign policy experts in preparation for her 2012 run. So I suppose she’s just going to wing it. I don’t think it makes me some sort of snob to suggest that our commander-in-chief should know a thing or two about foreign policy before entering the Oval Office. (Note that I said know a thing or two. I did not say have served in a high-ranking university position concerning foreign policy.)

Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina — these men and women have shown that they care about the Franklin Ideal. They are men and women of excellence, regardless of what you want to say about their politics. They have their low points — both personally and in their politics — but they do not rebuke the virtuous elitist ideal; they have an unquenchable desire to excel.

That is what I want to see in our candidates: a desire to excel.

And that’s what makes me so depressed about the rise of Sarah Palin.

As far as I’m concerned, the state is responsible for the death of virtuous elitism: meritocracy, the pursuit of excellence, productive work and achievement. Once the state instituted its system of education, the hierarchy of what constituted an “education” was put into place, and the self-made, self-educated men of old were utterly forgotten as exemplars of greatness.

So when Adam Graham makes his argument that today’s “party elites” fixate on “formal education,” I must admit I’m rather confused. I have a strong distaste for formal education. I think it’s largely a hamster-wheel-style charade that prevents real education — the kind that takes place in libraries and living rooms (and now on computers) — from being able to actively take place. I don’t want anyone to ever mistake my education to have come from a university. It is coming from books. I’m at a university primarily to “play the game.” My educational experience thus far has been rather lackluster.

So why this dissonance? Could it be because my argument actually has nothing to do with formal education — and everything to do with the pursuit of excellence?

Adam asserts that my argument falls flat because I have not put forward anyone in this era who compares even somewhat favorably next to Benjamin Franklin. Rudy Giuliani, my preferred candidate, he says, hardly emulates Franklin, either. And on this count, he’s somewhat right. I could fill volumes with the aspects of Rudy Giuliani I dislike. But for all of his flaws, there’s so much to love about him, and he’s accomplished many great things in his life. He comes far closer to emulating the ideals of Franklin than someone like Sarah Palin does.

It isn’t so much that Palin comes off unfavorably when compared to Franklin. It’s that Palin seems to have no interest in becoming like Franklin; she knowingly and consciously lives a life diametrically opposed to the ideals of the man — and then glorifies it as an ideal. She celebrates Joe Six-Pack,  not Ben Franklin. She celebrates the hockey mom, not the political-theorist-investor-scientist-diplomat.

Quite obviously, I was not defending ‘elitism’ defined as ‘whoever’s in charge’ — a facetious strawman argument. Anyone who has gone over my essays with even the breeziest intentions can discern that what I celebrate is not power — an ugly concept — but excellence. We should strive to  nominate candidates who come as close as possible to that ideal.

Is it because Charles Rangel and Al Sharpton have put pressure on him, lest he make a black man look bad? Or could it be because he can’t win?

The Village Voice ran an article roughly one year ago claiming that this whole subprime mortgage mess rests, in very large part, on the former Housing and Urban Development Secretary’s shoulders:

Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis. He took actions that—in combination with many other factors—helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded “kickbacks” to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.

What he did is important—not just because of what it tells us about how we got in this hole, but because of what it says about New York’s attorney general, who has been trying for months to don a white hat in the subprime scandal, pursuing cases against banks, appraisers, brokers, rating agencies, and multitrillion-dollar, quasi-public Fannie and Freddie…

While many saw this demand for increasingly “flexible” loan terms and standards as a positive step for low-income and minority families, others warned that they could have potentially dangerous consequences. Franklin Raines, the Fannie chairman and first black CEO of a Fortune 500 company, warned that Cuomo’s rules were moving Fannie into risky territory…

Oh my.

No wonder Rudy is now openly considering a run.

Quinnipiac 2010 New York Gubernatorial/Senatorial Survey

Gubernatorial Race

• Rudy Giuliani 52% (54%)
• David Paterson 34% (32%)

• Andrew Cuomo 51% (47%)
• Rudy Giuliani 39% (41%)

Democratic Senatorial Primary

• Carolyn Maloney 27%
• Kirsten Gillibrand 23%

Senatorial Race

• Kirsten Gillibrand 44%
• Peter King 28%

• Carolyn Maloney 42%
• Peter King 26%

Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]

• Andrew Cuomo 63% (51%) / 15% (13%) [+48%]
• Rudy Giuliani 55% (56%) / 36% (32%) [+19%]
• Carolyn Maloney 24% / 8% [+16%]
• Kirsten Gillibrand 25% / 10% [+15%]
• Peter King 22% / 11% [+11%]
• David Paterson 28% (24%) / 54% (55%) [-26%]

Do you approve or disapprove of the way David Paterson is handling his job as Governor?

• Approve 28% (28%)
• Disapprove 61% (61%)

Looking ahead to the 2010 election for Governor, do you feel that David Paterson deserves to be elected to a full 4 year term, or do you feel that he does not deserve to be elected to a full 4 year term?

• Yes/Deserves 22% (21%)
• No/Does not 64% (64%)

(more…)

The fact that he published an op-ed in the New York Times with campaign talking points suggests that he is.

NEW YORK STATE government is not working…

There are more New Yorkers unemployed than at any time in 33 years, and the poverty rate is rising. Our combined state and local tax burden is the highest in the nation after New Jersey. Our business tax climate is rated the second worst in the country. And in the face of the worst recession in a quarter-century, the State Legislature decided to increase spending by 9 percent while increasing taxes and fees by $8 billion. No wonder a recent poll showed that more than 20 percent of New Yorkers are thinking of leaving the state in search of lower taxes and fewer government mandates…

He goes on to call for a new constitutional convention, and gives some of his own suggestions for what would go into a new state Constitution: term limits, a budget reform process, judicial pay reform, a supermajority requirement for tax increases, and a clear succession for lieutenant governor.

Et tu, Andrew Cuomo?

Siena College 2010 New York Gubernatorial Survey

• Rudy Giuliani 57% (59%)
• David Paterson 27% (31%)

Among Democrats

• Rudy Giuliani 44% (47%)
• David Paterson 43% (45%)

Among Independents

• Rudy Giuliani 60% (57%)
• David Paterson 18% (28%)

 

• Andrew Cuomo 49% (53%)
• Rudy Giuliani 40% (41%)

Among Independents

• Rudy Giuliani 52% (41%)
• Andrew Cuomo 38% (51%)

Among Men

• Rudy Giuliani 47% (43%)
• Andrew Cuomo 42% (52%)

Among Women

• Andrew Cuomo 54% (53%)
• Rudy Giuliani 35% (40%)

Among Whites

• Rudy Giuliani 47% (46%)
• Andrew Cuomo 43% (49%)

Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]

• Andrew Cuomo 71% (66%) / 17% (20%) [+54%]
• Rudy Giuliani 62% (61%) / 33% (35%) [+29%]
• David Paterson 31% (27%) / 57% (60%) [-26%]

(more…)

Siena College 2010 New York Gubernatorial Survey

• Rudy Giuliani 59% (56%)
• David Paterson 31% (29%)

• Andrew Cuomo 53% (53%)
• Rudy Giuliani 41% (39%)

Siena College 2010 New York Senatorial Survey

• George Pataki 43%
• Kirsten Gillibrand 43%

• Kirsten Gillibrand 48%
• Peter King 26%

Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]

• Andrew Cuomo 66% (66%) / 20% (18%) [+46%]
• Rudy Giuliani 61% (55%) / 35% (41%) [+26%]
• George Pataki 53% (49%) / 36% (43%) [+17%]
• Kirsten Gillibrand 33% (33%) / 21% (23%) [+12%]
• David Paterson 27% (27%) / 60% (63%) [-33%]

Survey of 622 registered voters was conducted May 18-21. The margin of error is +/- 3.9 percentage points. Click here for crosstabs. Results from the poll conducted April 13-15 are in parentheses.

Mitt Romney – 99%

Is there any question that Mittens is in?

Barring unforeseen family matters, he’s running. He’s been writing up articles, showing up on television, appearing on conservative radio shows, keeping his PAC running smoothly, and remains an active Republican voice. He’s got the support of the establishment at this point, and, quite frankly, 2012 is his last chance. He’s an ambitious man and he very well could win the nomination — which, like the 1992 Democratic nomination, may be worth having after all.

Potential VPs: Jindal, Huckabee, Thune, Whitman, Cantor

Mike Huckabee- 92%

If Mike Huckabee doesn’t run, it will only be because he thinks that it’s better to wait. Hey, he’s young — why fight Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney for the chance to run against an incumbent? But waiting is risky. Even assuming that President Obama is re-elected in 2012, more religious leaders will inevitably emerge in the interim. And it’s pretty hard to sustain your profile for a full decade. Huckabee has a high-profile media gig and remains an active voice for religious conservatives. The probability of him not running seems ridiculously low. He also needs a split primary to win the nomination, so he’ll probably just hope that Palin fizzles out early. Huck’s in.

Potential VPs: Romney, Jindal, Sanford, Thune, Kyl, Cantor, Ridge

Sarah Palin – 88%

Now this woman is a novelty. She’s got legions of adoring fans ready to crawl over shattered glass for her, and she needs to tap into that energy before it goes away. She’s young and needs time to mature, but who cares? Not her. Not her fans. Certainly not the media. You can’t blink, man. It’s probably 2012 or never for Palin. She’s going to need to get re-elected governor by a landslide (which is likely), get a host of credible foreign policy hawks on her team, and she’ll be good to go for a credible run.

Potential VPs: Giuliani, Romney, Sanford, Perry, Ridge (Her dream VP would be Petraeus, but keep dreaming, Sarah)

Mark Sanford – 85%

Sanford has emerged as one of President Obama’s most vocal critics on spending policy. Think that’s an accident? Already a favorite of the libertarian right, he’s endeared himself even more by getting on board with the Tea Party crowd. Make no mistake about it: Sanford is going to run as the outsider, take-no-prisoners free marketeer. The big question mark is whether he’s willing to shift right on foreign policy to appease that plank of the party. If he manages to win the nomination — which isn’t completely crazy — might he want to tap a Giuliani type as VP? Hmm…

Potential VPs: Thune, Giuliani, Kyl, Crist, Ridge

Tim Pawlenty...

(more…)

Hey, this might strike some as completely random, but I was — as I’m prone to do — thinking about politics this evening and something struck me: why do we call certain politicians by their first names? Sarah Palin is “Sarah.” Hillary Clinton is “Hillary.” Condoleezza Rice is “Condi.”

It’s not TeamPalin.org, for instance: it’s TeamSarah.org.

Hillary Clinton’s signs proclaimed “Hillary for President!” rather than “Clinton for President.”

My gosh, those are all women — this is clearly sexist! Nobody dreams of calling Governor Sanford or Senator McCain by their first names!

Woah, woah — slow down there, horsey. Many of us call Rudy Giuliani “Rudy” and Mitt Romney “Mitt.” Nobody would dream of calling Senator McCain by his first name because there are approximately ten billion “Johns” in the world. We call politicians by their first names when their names are distinct. You can’t speak of, for instance, “Michael.” Michael Steele? Michael Bloomberg? Michael, uh, Huckabee?

In contrast, there’s only one Sarah. There’s only one Condi. There’s only one Mitt — thank God. (Sadly, there are two Clintons, so we call her “Hillary” in order to differentiate.) Ike for President! There’s only one “Ike”! (And only one “Eisenhower,” for that matter.) And when it doesn’t work to use a last name — John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy — we’ll even go so far as to abbreviate! JFK and RFK. Phew! The bullet of potential momentary confusion, dodged. [EDIT: Oh my...bullet...Kennedy...wow. Didn't even catch that! And we all know that mentioning bullets in the same sentence as a Kennedy gets you a public whipping, right, Hillary?]

But what of Obama? No one ever calls him “Barack.” Why is that? They always call him “Obama.” But there’s no other Barack out there to confuse him with. Ah, but you forget, dear reader, that “Obama” is such a catchy last name! That’s the science to that.

And that’s my important post for today.

It will never happen, but with at least one recent poll showing Giuliani in a five-way tie for the Republican nomination in 2012, and actually leading the other candidates among independents (who won’t have anywhere else to go in the primaries this time), I am compelled to make the case for a second Rudy presidential candidacy.

In many ways, Rudy ‘12 makes a lot more sense than Rudy ‘08. Four years ago, lots of young, ambitious idea guys, including Patrick Ruffini and Kavon Nikrad and myself, tried to fit a square peg into a round hole by attempting to morph the former New York Mayor into a Bush-style Republican, a logical response to the political environment of the time, where the nation seemed to be an ebullient red and where Republicans’ most immediate concern was winning an additional point or two in states like Wisconsin and Michigan, states that Bush probably would have won in 2004 had he been less culturally foreign to voters in those states, i.e., had he been from Ohio instead of Texas. But this strategy was bound to fail because Rudy wasn’t George Bush. And thank goodness for that! Who knew at this time in 2005 when the RudyBots were having their initial conversations that Bush and Co. would hand the country over to the Democrats for possibly a generation?

In any case, turning Rudy into a better-spoken GWB with a cultural appeal to Midwestern ethnic Catholics was an inherently flawed strategy. A far better strategy in the environment of four years ago would have been to field a candidate who actually fit this profile, such as Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. But that was then and this is now, and ironically, while the guy who we wanted Rudy to be in 2008 was never going to win either the nomination or the presidency for a host of reasons that we discussed in detail on this site last year, the guy who Rudy actually is could turn out to be the best possible presidential candidate to bring the Republicans back from the dead in 2012.

In the race for 2012, Rudy can finally be Rudy. In the early stages of Rudy ‘08, it made perfect sense for Rudy to try and harness the political leviathan that was the Bush Coalition. When you have a clear majority of the country aligned in a certain manner, you don’t destroy that coalition, you embrace it and try to build on it. Now, the Bush Coalition lies in tatters. Everything that Republicans once owned is gone, from congressional majorities to governorships and legislative seats. There is no Republican majority. There is a one-party Democratic state. The red states aren’t red anymore. In 2006 and 2008 huge chunks of the country became blue. And as a new Gallup Poll demonstrated, the voters Republicans lost over the past eight years are just who you’d expect: moderates, college-educated voters, lower and middle income voters, young people, single voters, and secular Americans.

As such, Rudy doesn’t have to try to change in order to lead the Republican coalition, because there’s no electorally viable Republican coalition to lead. Instead, Rudy is free to form a new Republican coalition, one based on the idea that he so eloquently articulated in the race for 2008 — the notion that America should be a nation premised on the primacy of the individual, and that government exists to let individuals be individuals, live their own lives, and to make their own choices. This is exactly the message that Republicans will need in 2012 in order to present a stark contrast with Obama’s collectivism, and it is the most logical orientation for the next Republican coalition given that Obama, like every president, is re-defining the conversation in American politics. During the Bush years, the conversation was social conservatism and foreign interventionism versus something other than that. If you supported the former you were a Republican, if you supported the latter you could be a Democrat. Under President Obama, the conversation is now one about collectivism versus individualism, and more government and debt versus less of those things. Rudy is an excellent candidate to lead the individualist, fiscally resposible side of that war.

Rudy should’t worry about offending blocs of the GOP coalition with any of his views, because again, the remaining GOP coalition is only slightly more politically relevant than our nation’s many minor parties. Rudy needs to build a new Republican Party, an alternative to Obama-ism. Clearly that coalition will include cultural conservatives since Obama-ism is anathema to them. But so-cons no longer get to frame the debate nor make demands, and neither are they in the position to do so. Instead, so-cons can be included to the extent that Rudy’s GOP promises to defend the freedoms that Obama would deny them. The contrast with President Obama gives Rudy a lot of leeway here. President Obama will force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. Rudy and the GOP won’t. The president will allow a situation to develop where churches will lose their tax-exempt status for failing to marry same-sex couples. Rudy and the GOP will never allow that to happen. President Obama’s Supreme Court Justices will have records that speak for themselves by 2012. Rudy’s Justices will be eons better. The thought of Obama replacing Anthony Kennedy will have the so-cons running for the phone banks provided that Rudy simply continues to promise to appoint conservative judges as he did in 2008.

In exchange for that though, the country will get a more modern GOP. Same-sex unions will not be disallowed. The upper echelons of the party will not get into public spats over religion, as Michael Steele and Ken Blackwell did when the latter accused the former of not reading his Bible enough due to Steele’s less than hostile words about gay people. Rudy should run to Obama’s left on Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell. There won’t be anymore silliness in the White House with bones being thrown to anti-contraception forces or the sex police in order to milk donations and votes out of people on the margins of political and social thought. This isn’t a party for the margins. It’s a party for the majority.

Given Rudy’s Northeastern cultural identity and familiarity with the North’s politics, not to mention his natural charisma, Rudy would be the ideal candidate to win over the scores of terrified blue state voters who assumed that by voting for Obama they were getting another Bill Clinton. The 10 trillion dollars in new debt that Obama has proposed for the nation will not go over well in the flinty Northeast once the reality of these policies are explained to voters up there by a candidate other than the tattered Newt Gingrich and the insufferable former VPOTUS, Dick Cheney. Need I remind readers once again that even as late as 1992, Northern voters were still very wary of Democratic presidents, giving Bill Clinton basically the same percentage of the vote that the North gave Michael Dukakis four years earlier. The difference was that the disaffected Bush ‘88 voters went for Perot, the anti-Obama when it comes to spending, deficits, and debt. Big, frivolous government spending has never been part of the political culture of the Northeast. The problem is that the GOP has no spokesperson who can communicate with these voters, nor does the current iteration of the GOP present these voters with an acceptable alternative to Obama. Rudy does both.

Finally, Rudy will be unlikely to fall into the trap that McCain did last year, where the Arizona senator seemed decidedly disinterested in and downright clueless about domestic issues, including the economy. To the contrary, Rudy will put forth an aggressive domestic policy platform that will address the economy and bread-and-butter issues in a high-tech, free-market, fiscally responsible manner. The theme of Rudy’s campaign can be “You Choose,” where you are liberated and empowered to make your own choices. This will be evident in the alternative health plan, education plan, etc, that Rudy proposes in response to Obama. These policies will be real, well thought out, and easily explained, not like the half-hearted attempts at domestic policy that McCain’s policy shop cranked out, none of which the senator seemed to understand.

As I said before, it will never happen. But given the seeming dearth of a viable political alternative in this country to Obama and the Democrats, maybe Rudy should give a presidential run another shot.

Rasmussen 2010 New York Gubernatorial Election

• Rudy Giuliani 58%
• David Paterson 30%

• Andrew Cuomo 55%
• Rudy Giuliani 37%

Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]

• Andrew Cuomo 65% / 29% [+36%]
• Rudy Giuliani 57% / 38% [+19%]

Governor Paterson Job Approval

• Approve 31%
• Disapprove 67%

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted May 14. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.

H/T: Tommy Boy

In late 2007, I came within inches of endorsing Rudy Giuliani.  As Kavon Nikrad was kind to report in November 2007, I decided to endorse Fred Thompson.  I was a Fred-head.  Actually, I remain one, and, man, do I wish either KMBZ 980 or KCMO 710 in Kansas City would pick up Fred Thompson’s radio program (I did discover that one can download, for free, large portions of the program on iTunes).

I am pro-life, and I was elected with help from the pro-life community, and after consulting people whom I respect, I decided against endorsing Giuliani, primarily because of the issue of unborn life.  And that was too bad, because I believe a President Giuliani would be, mostly, a functional pro-life president.  I believed him when he promised to appoint judges in the mold of Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts; I will hope that Ted Olson would not have supported him, if this were not the case.  I also believed his pledge to uphold the Hyde Amendment, barring the direct federal funding of abortions (of course, abortion providers unfortunately still find ways of securing federal tax money, and I do not find involuntary takings to be “pro-choice” with regard to any cause).

My recollection is that, as a presidential candidate, Giuliani distanced himself (I don’t recall how formally) on the partial-birth abortion ban that he had originally opposed during his 2000 US Senate run.  My expectation is that a future President Giuliani would veto any pro-abortion legislation.

On most other issues, I find Giuliani to be rock-solid.  The Club for Growth is certainly a fan of his on economic issues.  Nobody doubted his willingness to confront terrorism.  Government reform:  Giuliani has an record in New York that most politicians would love to have.  I remember seeing Giuliani quoted in an article, saying that the federal government could easily be reduced by 15% — what a bold statement to make in today’s Republican party.

I acknowledge that Giuliani’s record was not perfect.  I’m not sure the NRA ever warmed to him, for example.

As a bonus, though, he’s far ahead of his time on school vouchers.  One of the funnier moments of the past few years occurred during a Giuliani fundraiser in Hallbrook, Kansas (think Beverly Hills without the nearby ocean), where the candidate voluntarily brought up the merits of school choice.  Giuliani had been going through a talking-points list of major Republican issues about which everybody in the room had agreed — judges, how health care insurance should be modeled after auto insurance, etc.  But prior to the fundraiser at the suburban mansion, Giuliani had not been properly advised that Leawood, KS, is not Le Roy, KS.  With Johnson County elites, criticizing government-run education is perhaps THE most controversial action that a politician can take.  The fundraiser was full of liberal-socialist, wealthy Republican politicians.  Many of them are influential within the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce, whose current chairman was Kansas City’s first bank bailout recipient, and which cheers on one of the most oppressive school districts in the nation — the 64% black, 20% Hispanic Kansas City (MO) 33, “Where Achievement is the Standard.” All of those present at the Giuliani fundraiser could afford to practice school choice.  But dare to question the effectiveness of the $12,000/student tax dollars now going to Kansas government schools — that is a no-no.  There were maybe three of us in attendance who were school choice proponents, and for about one minute, as he talked about school vouchers, Giuliani was campaigning to a brick wall.

To be clear, I would have enthusiastically supported Giuliani, if he had won the nomination.  He had a proven record and a mostly-consistent record.   Perhaps most importantly, there was little question with regard to Giuliani and the rule of law:  as George Will repeatedly pointed out, the Republican party’s eventual nominee’s chief domestic policy achievement — McCain-Feingold – is unquestionably unconstitutional.

But the primaries are the time to sort out one’s ideal candidate, and I decided that Sen. Thompson was the best man for the job (again, I viewed Giuliani to be, ”functionally” pro-life — mostly.)

I believe that he would receive stronger support among pro-life voters if he would clarify and/or adapt his pledges in the following areas.  Note my use of the word “pledges.”  What I mean:  While I do generally prefer candidates to “walk the walk” with regard to voting according to their worldview/convictions, I would rather a candidate be honest and state “I pledge to do X, even though I might personally prefer Y,” rather than disingenuously stating, “I’ve completely changed my opinion on X.”

1. Roe v. Wade:  Giuliani repeatedly stated that a constructionist judge could either overturn or uphold Roe.  I realize that there is a SMALL argument to be made among the conservative legal community that the idea of “precedent” carries some weight.  But, really, a bad law is a bad law, and bad laws need to be overturned.  I also realize that there is likely a small political liability to any presidential candidate committing to overturning Roe — certainly, the liberal media will try to damage any pro-life candidate on the issue of abortion, but, at the end of the day, I’m not sure this matters:  candidates must decide whether or not to stand on principle, regardless of “what might happen.”  Perhaps an acceptable compromise is for Giuliani to not explicitly commit to overturning Roe, but to at least STOP re-stating that Roe is an acceptable court decision.
2. Signing pro-life legislation:  If pro-life legislation were put on a President Giuliani’s desk, would he sign it?  Does this include limitations on the destruction of human embryos?
3. Taxpayer funding of research involving the cloning and the destruction of human embryos:  My recollection is that Giuliani never committed fully one way or the other on this issue.  I do remember reading a quote from him, indicating that he questioned the purpose of creating/cloning life, merely to destroy/research it, but I don’t recall a firm commitment.

Regarding points (2) and (3) above:  ESCR may soon be entirely unnecessary, if I have correctly understood this New York Times article, “Man Who Helped Start Stem Cell War May End It.”

If the stem cell wars are indeed nearly over, no one will savor the peace more than James A. Thomson.

…..

[H]is laboratory was one of two that reported a new way to turn ordinary human skin cells into what appear to be embryonic stem cells without ever using a human embryo.

The fact is, Dr. Thomson said in an interview, he had ethical concerns about embryonic research from the outset, even though he knew that such research offered insights into human development and the potential for powerful new treatments for disease.

“If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough,” he said. “I thought long and hard about whether I would do it.”

…..

Now with the new technique, which involves adding just four genes to ordinary adult skin cells, it will not be long, he says, before the stem cell wars are a distant memory. “A decade from now, this will be just a funny historical footnote,” Dr. Thomson said in the interview.

…..

More work remains, but he is confident that the path ahead is clear.

“Isn’t it great to start a field and then to end it,” he said.

A new Fox News poll just came out:

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll / May 12-13, 2009

4. I’m going to read a list of potential candidates for the 2012 Republican nomination. Please tell me which one you would like to see as the Republican presidential nominee:

Among Republicans:
Mike Huckabee – 20%
Mitt Romney – 18%
Newt Gingrich – 14%
Sarah Palin – 13%
Rudy Giuliani – 12%
Too soon to say – 7%
Don’t know – 4%
Mark Sanford – 4%
Jeb Bush – 3%
Bobby Jindal – 3%
Someone else – 3%

Among Independents:
Rudy Giuliani – 19%
Mike Huckabee – 16%
Too soon to say – 14%
Mitt Romney – 12%
Sarah Palin – 10%
Don’t know – 9%
Someone else – 9%
Newt Gingrich – 5%
Jeb Bush – 2%
Bobby Jindal – 2%
Mark Sanford – 2%

Overall (which seems to include Democrats):
Rudy Giuliani – 16%
Mike Huckabee – 15%
Mitt Romney – 14%
Don’t know – 11%
Someone else – 10%
Sarah Palin – 9%
Too soon to say – 9%
Newt Gingrich – 7%
Jeb Bush -3%
Mark Sanford – 3%
Bobby Jindal – 2%

Polling was conducted by telephone May 12 – 13, 2009, in the evenings. The total sample is 900 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of ±3 percentage points. Results are of registered voters, unless otherwise noted.

LV = likely voters

Democrats n=375, ±5; Republicans n=274, ±6; independents n=213, ±7

Yes, the margin of error is large, even after combining the two, but…

Don’t forget, everyone: there’s no Democratic primary competition in 2012. Independents are going to mean a lot.

Can Rudy resist?

Quinnipiac 2010 New York Gubernatorial Survey

• Rudy Giuliani 54% (53%)
• David Paterson 32% (32%)

• Andrew Cuomo 47% (53%)
• Rudy Giuliani 41% (36%)

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Andrew Cuomo 51% / 13% (+38%)
• Rudy Giuliani 56% / 32% (+24%)
• David Paterson 24% / 55% (-31%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way David Paterson is handling his job as Governor?

• Approve 28%
• Disapprove 61%

Survey of 2,828 registered voters was conducted May 5-11. The margin of error is +/- 1.8 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted April 1-5 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Independent voters have shifted from 49 – 38 percent for Cuomo April 8 to 44 – 40 percent for Giuliani today. In this latest survey, Giuliani leads 80 – 9 percent among Republicans while Democrats back Cuomo 78 – 16 percent. Cuomo leads 76 – 13 percent among black voters and 52 – 40 percent among Hispanics, as white voters go to Giuliani 47 – 42 percent.

“If the Republicans nominate Mayor Giuliani, he beats Paterson by a lot. Cuomo beats Giuliani but that lead is shrinking as independent voters shift to the Republican. That’s a trend to watch,” said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

I. On What a Secular Republican Is

The Secular Republican, when in office, need not be pro-choice, pro-gay rights, or of a liberal denomination of Christianity. He may actively support figures like James Dobson, in fact. What distinguishes men like Ronald Reagan, certainly a secular Republican, and even Newt Gingrich, who is fairly secular, from men like Mike Huckabee is their ability to embrace pragmatism, party-building, and push a multi-faceted agenda that caters to more than abortion, homosexuality, and “faith in the public square.” He will never be mistaken for a “religious right” figure, even if he is able to garner support from that base.

This is not to say that irreligious men or social moderates are not also secular Republicans: Rudy Giuliani is clearly a secular Republican, as are John McCain and Fred Thompson. But overall, their credo tends to be: no litmus test. Abortion is not a litmus test. Religious belief is not a litmus test. It’s okay to believe in evolution. What unites Republicans — as even Mike Huckabee has admitted recently, if only by accident — is their belief in capitalism and a strong national defense.

II. On Religious Conservative Dominance

To be quite frank, religious conservatives are playing the party bully right now. With the exception of the Club for Growth, the party-purifying elements come solely from the religious right, which attempts to ‘weed out’ unacceptable candidates. Even John McCain and Rudy Giuliani felt compelled to suck up to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, despite their blame-America-first comments on the 700 Club shortly after 9/11. Mitt Romney felt that he needed to defend his Mormon faith in a speech in which he proclaimed that “freedom requires religion.” Mike Huckabee was catapulted to prominence after his wins in Iowa and throughout the South. Thanks to our own Aron Goldman, we know that, Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, and Mike Huckabee don’t believe in evolution. Huckabee doesn’t even know what it’s about (”if you want to believe you came from apes, go ahead and believe that”). Ron Paul also doubted evolution later on, contending that it was “only a theory” (yeah, like…gravity).

And let’s not forget that Tom Ridge and Joseph Lieberman were scratched off of the McCain short list for the vice-presidential nomination because of contentions by McCain aides that the social conservative base would surely revolt if a pro-choicer were put onto the ticket. Despite McCain’s consistently pro-life voting record, the religious right did not trust him on the issue, due to his lack of zeal on the matter.

And as commenter MetroIndependent pointed out: why is there a post on this site about religious belief? What does it have to do with Republican politics? The answer is clear.

III. The Coming Secular Republican Revival

Hot on the heels of the religious right’s denunciation of the secular nature of the wonderful National Council for a New America, our 2010 candidate recruitments (and prospects) are noticeably lacking in religious conservatives. George Pataki, Rudy Giuliani, Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Rob Simmons, Charlie Crist, and perhaps John Kasich — these are not religious conservatives. Even Rob Portman, arguably our most conservative recruit,  is a fairly down-the-line conservative, but hardly a religionist. He is a former trade representative, White House budget manager, and alumnus of the 1994 Republican Revolution. Pat Toomey himself was formerly pro-choice, a la our friend Mittens.

Noticeably lacking are Huckabee-style conservatives. They’re running on empty right now. Who is their leader? Well, Huckabee is the king of the hill. And Sarah Palin is queen. They’re biding their time for 2012, not looking to 2010. While the moderate and center-right factions of the party rebuild, the religious right is biding its time. And that’s just fine. We’ll be a big tent again, with new representatives for the secular right, once these fine men and women assume office.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

Video

ALBANY, N.Y. — Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani headlined a GOP dinner in Albany. It was his second such fundraiser over the course of two weeks. This, as more polls suggest he would beat Governor David Paterson if Paterson were to run as the incumbent.

Giuliani says he’s not running for anything right now, but America’s mayor did take a shot at Paterson’s budget:

“You gotta squeeze that budget all the way down so you don’t have to raise taxes. So instead you can lower some taxes, that will encourage businesses to come to New York, that’ll encourage businesses to expand. I can’t emphasize how it is exactly the opposite approach from the budget that was passed, which I believe completely contradicts what Governor Paterson first said he was going to do,” said Giuliani.

The criticism of Paterson comes as a new poll released by Siena College shows Paterson’s ratings reach a new low.

Just when you though New York Governor David Paterson’s approval rating couldn’t get any lower, a new poll has come out.  According to Siena College, just 27% of the people survey approve of Paterson.  It says only 18% like the job he’s doing.  But the most damaging part of the poll came in the form of a question, “which of the recent governors would you like to lead the state?”  Paterson finished last behind Mario Cuomo, George Pataki, and even disgraced former governor Eliot Spitzer.

Rudy is on track to capture the governorship of New York, but he must make his mind up on the gay marriage issues.  The former mayor is taking hits from the left and right on this issue, as he continues to explain his position.

The former mayor didn’t exactly sound like he was waging war on gay marriage, saying he thinks the GOP should let a grassroots movement in opposition to Paterson’s bill develop on its own.  As to whether he would perform the marriage of Howard Koeppel and Mark Hsaio – the gay couple with whom he lived for six months in 2001 when his own (second) marriage was on the skids – Giuliani said:

“I have many friends and some are gay, some are lesbian, some are heterosexual. I don’t make determinations about friends that way, and I would not officiate at an illegal marriage because, because…Well, I certainly hope it doesn’t become legal.”

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com on Facebook, or Twitter Race42012.

Yes, yes, this is all subject to change, but still…

With the latest Siena poll showing state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo clobbering Governor Paterson in a hypothetical Democratic primary for governor, Cuomo says he is heartened to know the people feel good about him as Attorney General, and he plans to run for re-election to the post next year.

He does not plan on running for governor, though, saying he thinks Paterson will seek and win re-election.

Might just be politician-speak, but a Rudy fan can hope, no?

UPDATE: Hmm…

“The polls go up the polls go down,” he said. “I’m very happy being attorney general.”

He did not answer directly a question as to whether he is ruling out a run for governor.

“I believe Governor David Paterson is going to run for re-election as governor,” Cuomo said. “I believe he’s going to be re-elected as governor.”

And here’s video and more remarks…

Addressing the Siena poll, Cuomo said he is “very happy to be attorney general, and it heartens me to know the people feel good about me as attorney general.” He said he “believes Paterson will run for governor and he will also be re-elected.”

Still, Cuomo sounded like a candidate for governor in his opening remarks, LaCerais said. She called his comments a campaign speech.

Hmm…

It’s hard to imagine that Cuomo would pass up an opportunity like this, no?

Knepper is Correct: Palin Can Delivery Rudy

In his well written and honest Sarah Palin post, Alex Knepper hints at a possibility I have been considering for a long while.  Is Palin the only candidate that could deliver a moderate (albeit strict constructionist) Vice Presidential nominee, such as Rudy Giuliani, to the Republican ticket in 2012? 

Answer: Yes  

These are the reasons:

His age and standing with some pro-life voters:  His potential role as Vice President will never lead to a run for President (age), which was a major concern for many pro-life voters when the 71 year old McCain was hinting at a pro-choice running mate in 2008.  As well, Rudy does not have a poor standing with all Christian conservative voters.  His views on federal judges, the endorsements he received from pro-life leaders and his willingness to support the Republican party platform, makes Rudy a very unique pro-choice candidate. 

Rudy negates most of the attacks Palin will receive from liberals: Rudy’s shining success as mayor of New York, both from a crime prevention and economic standpoint and the heroism he displayed during the 9/11 attacks will counter-act the Democratic campaign against Palin, ‘that she is not ready for the job’.  Obama faced many of the same critiques in 2008, and his selection of Senator Biden silenced many of the ’not ready for the job’ detractors.  Obama will no doubt claim victory in Iraq, as well as a slew of other manufacturered foreign policy success during his first term.  Rudy is an elder statesman, with a proven record of handling a security crisis.  His consulting firm provides assistance, such as strategic security planning, to political jurisdictions around the world.  Rudy solidifies the pro-growth Republican base (he received the endorsement of the CFG in 2007), neoconservatives and suburban Catholics.   

Palin is the only candidate that can ’sell’ a socially moderate VP:  Although I have been frustrated at the media’s focus on Palin’s faith and socially conservative views (she is actually more of a federalist), no Christian Conservative can doubt her dedication to the ’life’ issue.  Palin is the first and only major political figure that can actually say; ’I not only talk the talk, but I walk the walk on life issues’.  Palin practices what she preaches and in 2012, Palin will receive stronger support from Christian Conservatives than Bush did in 2000 and 2004.  Not unlike McCain, the other potential 2012 candidates would have to select a pro-life VP, but Sarah’s flexibility with Christian Conservative voters affords her one get-out-of-jail-free card.  I am betting she uses this ‘card’ this to select her VP nominee.  Do not forget, G.W. Bush polled Republicans prior to the convention, when he was leaning towards selecting Governor Ridge.    

Saying all that, a more conservative and federalist politician, such as Fred Thompson would also make an excellent running mate for Sarah Palin.

Siena Poll

- Paterson’s Standing with Voters: from Bad to Worse

- 2/3 Prefer “Someone Else” in 2012; Gov Crushed by Cuomo, Giuliani

Paterson was viewed favorably by 29 percent of voters in the survey released today, the lowest since he took office a year ago. The rating is down from 40 percent in February, 54 percent in January and 63 percent in December.

“The speed of his falling numbers is staggering,” Steven Greenberg, spokesman for Siena’s New York poll, said in a statement. “The governor should be grateful he does not have to face the voters anytime soon.”

In a hypothetical 2010 Democratic primary, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo beats Paterson by 67 percent to 17 percent, compared with 53 percent to 27 percent last month. In a 2010 general election matchup, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani beat Paterson 56 percent to 33 percent, up from 51 percent to 36 percent last month. In December, Paterson led Giuliani 51 percent to 38 percent.

There was some bad news in this poll.

Cuomo leads Giuliani 51-41 percent, similar to last month’s 51-38 percent.

***We interrupt your scheduled intraparty feuds for this important announcement.***

New York’s 20th District should be ours with the Kirsten Gillenbrand moving to the Senate: An easy pick-up for the GOP given our registration edge in that district. The Candidate: The House Minority Leader. What could go wrong?

Well the latest Sienna poll shows Jim Tedisco up by 4 points at 45-41% with 19 days to go before the March 31st election.

According to jim Geraghty, it’s even worse:

Just in case there wasn’t enough pessimism about that special election for Congress in New York, a well-connected poll watcher confirms the worry I’ve heard from other sources.

“NY-20 is looking worse than some of the public polls show,” this poll-watcher says.”I am hearing that internals are showing the race basically within a point and Tedisco’s negatives are rising dramatically.”

Guys, this is a race we have to win. It will give Republican a great deal of momentum going into the off-year Governor’s elections. If those go well, that’ll build momentum for 2010. If Republicans lose a seat that there’s really no conceive excuse for losing, it really creates a sour tone for the rest of the year.

It doesn’t matter what type of Republican you are, it’s time to get with the program. Huckabee’s endorsed Tedisco, Romney’s endorsed Tedisco, Giuliani’s gone up to campaign for Tedisco. These three men disagree on many issues, but they all know how important it is to win this race.

Patrick Ruffini is holding an online fundraiser for JIm Tedisco and I would urge you, if you have not already given to support Tedisco’s efforts, contribute now! This is a pivotal race and victory is critical. We can’t afford to let this one slip away.

***We now return to your scheduled intraparty feuds already in progress***

Manhattanville College 2010 New York Gubernatorial Survey

• Rudy Giuliani 50%
• David Paterson 36%

• Andrew Cuomo 51%
• Rudy Giuliani 36%

Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]

• Andrew Cuomo 70% / 13% [+57%]
• Rudy Giuliani 61% / 34% [+27%]
• David Paterson 41% / 46% [-5%]

Survey of 505 registered voters was conducted February 28 – March 5. The margin of error is +/- 4.4 percentage points.

This has some great news for Hizzoner, as long as Andrew Cuomo takes a pass on the Governor’s race.

Mitt Romney 49.0%
Mike Huckabee 9.8%
Rudy Giuliani 6.9%
Sarah Palin 6.9%
Newt Gingrich 5.9%
Bobby Jindal 4.9%
Charlie Crist 2.9%
Aron Goldman 2.0%
Gary Johnson 2.0%
Tim Pawlenty 2.0%
David Petraeus 2.0%
Mark Sanford 2.0%
Haley Barbour 1.0%
Rush Limbaugh 1.0%
John McCain 1.0%
Undecided 2.0%

Thinking ahead to the 2012 Presidential election, who would you vote for as the next Republican nominee for President?

• Florida Governor Charlie Crist
• Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich
• Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani
• Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee
• Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal
• Alaska Governor Sarah Palin
• Texas Representative Ron Paul
• Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty
• Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney
• South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford
• Undecided
• Write-In ____________________________

Unfortunately, since we don’t yet have a polling function, card check rules apply. Please indicate your selection by writing the last name of your preferred candidate in the comments section.

Click here to see the actual results from CPAC. (H/T: Falz)

FiveThirtyEight.com’s Nate Silver has peered into his telescope and discovered a rather fascinating Republican galaxy just a few political light years away.

Silver splits the prospective Republican presidential candidates into four quadrants:

Conservative Insiders/Technocrats

This is a very crowded space, although it could become more or less so depending on the behavior of two individuals: Mitt Romney and Bobby Jindal.

I think Romney has wasted an awful lot of time over the past couple of years trying to run as a social conservative, chasing voters he’s unlikely to obtain because they don’t trust either (i) his faith or (ii) his track record (and subsequent reputation for flip-floppery) as governor of Massachusetts. To the extent there’s any early indication about Romney’s direction for 2012, he seems inclined to continue playing to the right, having recently used his PAC to donate to stimulus opponents. Then again, that strategy wouldn’t be mutually exclusive with a campaign based on fiscal conservativism and social moderation, which is what everyone but Mitt Romney seems to think they’re getting from Mitt Romney, no matter what Mitt Romney says or does.

Because of his fundraising prowess, Romney should have the first mover advantage in deciding how he wants to position himself; everyone else will have to follow. But there would seem to be more open space to his left than his right if he is bold enough to go there. The one wild card is Jeb Bush, who seems cut from the same sort of cloth as Romney, but even Jeb would probably have to defer to the Mittster.

The whole appeal of Bobby Jindal is that he can play the part of both the technocrat and the populist, a fact perhaps symbolized by his Cajun-fried heritage. The question is whether Jindal will at some point have to decide between the two. Going the populist route would lead to an eventual high-stakes confrontation with Sarah Palin, either early in the primary cycle or perhaps even sooner. Jindal’s alternative is becoming the choice of the conservative cognoscenti, which could cut off oxygen from alternatives like Newt Gingrich, John Thune, Eric Cantor and to a lesser extent Kay Bailey Hutchison. Gingrich is the only one of those alternatives who might exert enough gravity on his own to alter Jindal’s strategy, although it’s a unclear how Gingrich would position himself in the event of an actually running, rather than merely threatening, a campaign.

Conservative Outsiders/Populists

This is Palin Country, and the ‘Cuda would appear to have a free ticket to the semifinals unless she is challenged aggressively on her populist credentials by Jindal or perhaps by Mike Huckabee (although I think that Palin and Huckabee can co-exist until a fairly advanced stage of the process). The other potential candidates in this category, such as Fred Thompson, are mere nuisances to Palin, and are probably just hanging around hoping she goes supernova. Mark Sanford and Haley Barbour also seem inclined to move in this direction following their threatened rejection of stimulus monies, but they are poorly-defined candidates in a field with plenty of name recognition, the Doddering Richardsons of the GOP hopefuls.

Moderate Outsiders/Populists

This quadrant is generally sparely populated by the GOP, whose liberal wing owes its heritage to the highly wonkish traditions of the Rockefeller Republicans. Several candidates, however, brush up against its fringe, most notably Huckabee, whose Main Street economic populism creates differentiation with almost every other candidate in the Republican field.

Tim Pawlenty fits vaguely into this category (especially if one believes that having a mullet gives you populist cred). But I’ve also never particularly understood what Palwenty’s appeal is supposed to be: he got a fair amount of free airtime during the Republican veepstakes last year and didn’t leave much of an impression.

This is also probably where Ron Paul belongs, although really Paul is in a sort of libertarian hyperspace that few of us can hope to understand. Fellow traveler and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who endorsed Paul in 2008, could provide for a more credible version of the libertarian message, but is probably too unorthodox a candidate for a party that lacks self-confidence and is groping to find a leader.

Moderate Insiders/Technocrats

This is supposed to be Charlie Crist’s space, but I just don’t get the sense that Crist is particularly serious about running, having cozied up to Barack Obama while teeing off the Republican establishment. If Crist does not run, or waits until 2016, that could vacate this space for Utah Governor John Hunstman, who perhaps sensing his opportunity is moving hard and to the left on issues like civil unions and the stimulus. A reform-minded candidate like Mitch Daniels could potentially fill this space, as could a recycled one like Rudy Giuliani; this is also where a wild card from the business or the military communities might wind up fitting in. But it will be filled by somebody, as it’s a valuable space to own in a year where the other party won’t be hosting competitive primaries, leaving independents and Democrats free to weigh in on the GOP contest. The Republicans could wind up with a moderate nominee on accident.

So, What Happens Next?

I don’t know. Ask me again in a year or so. But I think it’s not too early to be talking about this stuff, because the primary wars are also a proxy war for the future of the party.

Siena College 2010 New York Gubernatorial Survey

• Rudy Giuliani 51% (42%)
• David Paterson 36% (44%)

 

• Andrew Cuomo 51% (48%)
• Rudy Giuliani 38% (39%)

Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]

• Andrew Cuomo 69% (64%) / 18% (17%) [+51%]
• Rudy Giuliani 58% (60%) / 35% (35%) [+23%]
• David Paterson 40% (54%) / 47% (30%) [-7%]

Survey of 622 registered voters was conducted February 16-18. The margin of error is +/- 3.9 percentage points. Click here for crosstabs. Results from the poll conducted January 20-23 are in parentheses.

The good news? Rudy Giuliani does very well against sitting Gov. David Paterson.

The bad news? Gov. Paterson may not be the Democratic nominee if Andrew Cuomo jumps in the race:

Quinnipiac University 2010 New York Senate and Governor Poll, conducted Feb. 10th-15th, 2009

2010 NY Governor Race

• Rudy Giuliani 43%
• David Paterson 43%

• Andrew Cuomo 51%
• Rudy Giuliani 37%

2010 Governor Democratic Primary

• Andrew Cuomo 55%
• David Paterson 23%

2010 New York U.S. Senate Race

• Kirsten Gillibrand 42%
• Peter King 26%

1,065 registered voters, 3% margin of error. 450 registered Democrats, 4.6% margin of error. Mode: live telephone interviews.

Hizzoner starts off in excellent shape in a potential match-up with Kirsten Gillibrand:

Siena Research Institute New York Senate Poll, conducted 1/25-27/09

2010 Senate General Election:

• Kirsten Gillibrand (D) 44%
• Rudy Giuliani (R) 42%

• Kirsten Gillibrand (D) 46%
• Peter King (R) 23%

Favorable / Unfavorable:

• Sen. Gillibrand (D): 30 / 13 (+17)
• Rudy Giuliani (R): 60 / 35 (+25)

2010 Senate Republican Primary:

• Rudy Giuliani 69%
• Peter King 16%