Is this Barry Goldwater’s party? On the heels of a bizarre poll that shows that Republicans almost unanimously want to bar openly gay men and women from teaching in government schools, we get a strange and scary outburst from Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council.

Who is Peter Sprigg?

Peter S. Sprigg is Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. Mr. Sprigg joined FRC in 2001, and his research and writing have addressed issues of marriage and family, human sexuality, the arts and entertainment, and religion in public life.

And tonight, in the year 2010, Mr. Sprigg called for the criminalization of homosexuality:

Matthews: Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?

Sprigg: Well, I think certainly..

Matthews: I’m just asking, should we outlaw gay behavior?

Sprigg: I think the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas which overturned the sodomy laws in this country was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place in this country for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.

Matthews: So we should outlaw gay behavior?

Sprigg: Yes!

Beneath the gloss, our current big tent lays on a gossamer foundation. How can we reconcile the fact that Dick Cheney and Rudy Giuliani share the same party as Peter Sprigg? We can fuse our factions on certain issues — tax cuts, deregulation of business, anti-jihadism– but what do we do when we come to an issue so fundamental to liberty as personal autonomy? Worse yet: this is what the Spriggs of the world are involved in politics for in the first place. If the political environment suddenly were only to be about clashes over capitalism and anti-jihadism, these people would exit the political scene. For them, this is fundamentally a crusade to take the government for Christ — and the Republican Party is the best vehicle to hijack to get there.

This is no delusion, and it has nothing to do with our main enemy, modern liberalism. It has to do with the clash between the traditions that emerged from the Enlightenment and the Middle Ages. The former holds Adam Smith, David Hume, and Edmund Burke in esteem; the latter are more disposed toward a centralized authority operating from religious motives. In modern terms: it’s the clash between those who identify with Friedrich Hayek — and those who identify with Phyllis Schlafly.

Indeed, Sprigg’s remarks are not unprecedented. There is an entire wing of the party that is deeply hostile to personal liberty. Take Mike Huckabee:

“[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards,” Huckabee said…

The word “God” is not found in the Constitution. This is because the founders wanted to keep a wall between the authority of the church and the authority of the state — both so the church would not corrupt the state and the state would not corrupt the church. It was rooted in an abiding skepticism toward power. Huckabee has no such reservations about power.

More frighteningly, Huckabee has called libertarianism — which Ronald Reagan famously called the heart and soul of conservatism — anti-American, and worse than liberalism:

The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it’s this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it’s a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says “look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don’t get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it.” Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it’s not an American message.

Huckabee’s toxic collectivist blend means managing your social life according to God’s standards — as he understands them, of course — and what’s “good for the children” — again, as Huckabee understands it.

Former Senator Rick Santorum, like Huckabee a 2012 contender, has also displayed disturbing anti-liberty sentiments. Jonathan Rauch chronicled the worst of his offenses, finally deeming him “the anti-Reagan“:

Quite different is “the conservative view of freedom,” “the liberty our Founders understood.” This is “freedom coupled with the responsibility to something bigger or higher than the self.” True liberty is freedom in the service of virtue—not “the freedom to be as selfish as I want to be,” or “the freedom to be left alone,” but “the freedom to attend to one’s duties—duties to God, to family, and to neighbors.”

This kind of freedom depends upon and serves virtue, and virtue’s indispensable incubator and transmitter is the family. Thus “selflessness in the family is the basis for the political liberty we cherish as Americans.” If government is to defend liberty and promote the common welfare, then it must promote and defend the integrity of the traditional family. In doing so, it will foster virtue and rebuild the country’s declining social and moral capital, thus fostering liberty and strengthening family.

…

Santorum seems to sense as much. In an interview with National Public Radio last month, he acknowledged his quarrel with “what I refer to as more of a libertarianish Right” and “this whole idea of personal autonomy.”

Anyone seeking to cloak their hatred of the good always steals the language of the good and prefaces it with “true” or “actual.” Thus, what rank-and-file small-government advocates take to mean liberty is actually not “true” liberty — not any of “this whole personal autonomy” stuff. Notice the horrifying manipulation of language:  liberty means “the freedom to attend to one’s duties.” And there’s no skepticism toward power to be found here, either: indeed,  it’s the government’s job to foster virtue. (And the power will only be used benevolently, by those that philosopher-king Rick Santorum approves of.)

How many people have thought ‘If only people did exactly what I told them to, the world would be a better place’ — and believed themselves?

The question now becomes: is there any ‘there’ there? Do these forces of authoritarianism have any sway amongst the crowd following Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh — two voices that are far more classically liberal — or, for that matter, those following Sarah Palin? From my vantagepoint, it looks as though their paths rarely cross. The Family Research Council-style “conservatives” rarely intersect with the leave-us-alone Tea Party movement. But they occupy the same party based upon loosely-related goals that they’ve reached independently, and with different motives.

Still, it ought to be distressing to any lover of liberty that we count these fellows as our compatriots. The fundamentals are conflicting: one side harbors skepticism toward power, the other wants to use it to attain Christian ends; one side supports the idea of personal autonomy, the other dismisses it as a myth of modernity. One side values reason, the other side values force. These are irreconcilable viewpoints. In the final analysis, the real question at hand is: how long until we clash?

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

If Republicans winning statewide elections in New Jersey and Massachusetts wasn’t proof enough that there’s change afoot in the country and in the Republican Party, this story about the grassroots attempt by Tea Partiers to create a new “Contract for America” should remove all doubt:

(Former Rep. Dick) Armey quit a lucrative lobbying job to head up FreedomWorks, a small nonprofit that’s been at the center of the tea party movement. Last weekend, FreedomWorks hosted a group of 60 leading Tea Party activists in its downtown D.C. office to chart the future of the movement headed into the 2010 midterm elections and to discuss what should go into a new contract.

For tea party activists across the country, who turned out by the thousands to protest big spending initiatives pushed by the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress, there’s no love lost for Republicans, either. Nor is there much consensus on where to try to steer the decentralized and occasionally chaotic movement.

The Contract for America is intended to help remedy that, said Ryan Hecker, the developer of the contract idea and a board member of the national umbrella group Tea Party Patriots, which sponsored a website that allowed people to submit and vote on ideas for inclusion.

“The goal of this document is to create the biggest tent around economic conservatism as possible,” said Hecker. “This is a bottom-up document. It is from the people, and that is a very powerful idea,” he said, implicitly contrasting his contract to the original, which was pulled together by politicians and operatives using polling and focus groups.

The foundation of the new coalition, then, seems to be economic freedom and fiscal sanity (and the two, of course, are related, as you can’t have economic freedom without fiscal sanity, as fiscal insanity eventually has to be paid for). Given recent developments, I would add to this new tent a third pillar, and that’s a strong foreign policy that provides for a secure America. As the Scott Brown campaign showed, in the wake of the underwear bomber and with Iran posing a large enough security threat to make even President Obama pay attention, a Republican can win an outright majority in Massachusetts while running in support of Gitmo and enhanced interrogation techniques.

This Republican tent is quite different from the one erected by President Bush during the previous decade. That tent was built on the pillars of a strong social conservatism and the idealistic pursuit of spreading freedom and democracy throughout the world. And that was a tent that had no chance of taking root in Massachusetts or New Jersey or anywhere else in the Northeast (not to mention the snowier parts of the Midwest and pretty much every state that borders the Pacific). But with that tent folded up and shelved after the race for 2008 eradicated President Bush’s Republican Party, the new party that is being built at the grassroots level is one with a very different focus, which will lead to a different substance, and a different coalition. The 2009 and 2010 elections thus far have shown just that.

What’s interesting is that not only is the new big tent a national one, but it is succeeding in electing Republicans in blue territory who are much farther to the right on economics and national security than most pundits ever thought possible. The Frum/Brooks theory that was developed in the wake of 2008 — which suggested that the only way the GOP could ever go national again would be to go Rockefeller — has been pretty much eviscerated by the election of Christie and that of Brown. And the theory that many Giuliani ‘08 supporters touted on this blog several years ago turned out to be correct: blue states will elect a hard-right Republican on fiscal and defense issues as long as that Republican is supportive of personal and social freedom.

The new Republican tent, then, is built on a foundation of economic freedom rather than cultural preservation, and is determined to keep America strong and secure rather than being an international Good Samaritan. None of this could have happened without President Obama and a Democratic Congress, of course, which, like the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come, showed Americans the end result of a government that was big enough to give them everything that they wanted. Additionally, the election of a new president changed the foreign policy dichotomy in the country. In 2008, the GOP was the party of the Bush Doctrine, and the Democrats were the party of a foreign policy other than the Bush Doctrine. Because NeoConservatism had largely been discredited in the minds of the majority of Americans, the party running against the Bush Doctrine was going to win the argument. But now, Obama is the one formulating the nation’s foreign policy, and the current dichotomy consists of Obama’s weak and hapless foreign policy on one side and the Republican alternative on the other side. And as Scott Brown showed, running on a strong and competent foreign policy, while jettisoning the Bushie idealism, defeats a weak and hapless one even in Massachusetts, despite its Democratic tribalism, its blue-as-a-blazer hue, and its distinct New England isolationism.

As such, I suspect that in November, the party of economic freedom and to-hell-with-them hawkishness will triumph over the party of national bankruptcy, international incompetence, and of the new road to serfdom. And once it does, the question is whether a national leader will arise to take the reins of this new coalition in 2012 and potentially dramatically re-draw the electoral map. And a big part of me wonders whether this once and future candidate hails from the Big Apple…

Whenever I mention Rudy Giuliani to Republican colleagues, I’m always met with “Why doesn’t he run against Kirsten Gillibrand?” I have some stock answers: he doesn’t want to be a legislator, there are plenty of other candidates on the bench (George Pataki, Pete King), and besides — he might want to run again in 2012.

No, he can’t run again in 2012! I always hear. Why can’t he just take out Gillibrand? But why, oh why, is there a Rudy double-standard? Why doesn’t anyone instinctively reply to mentions of Mike Huckabee with Why doesn’t he take on Blanche Lincoln? — Huckabee’s a surefire winner, and the bench is fairly weak in Arkansas. There are other candidates that can win, to be sure — but there are others in New York, too. Do people just grant Mike Huckabee a free pass because everyone simply assumes that he’s going to run for president again? Is Mike Huckabee entitled to run for the presidency? He doesn’t have to put in any more time? — Can someone address this?

Usually, when I mention this double-standard to friends, they concede the point and say that Huckabee should run against Lincoln, leaving the presidency to others. But it’s not natural for people to think of it that way. Huckabee has kept up his 2012 profile, and people give him a free pass. Rudy, despite his hints, despite his ubiquitous presence on the ‘09-’10 campaign trail thus far, is not getting that same kind of treatment.

Former NYC Mayor also berates Barry for bad manners during SOTU; chastises CinC for baseless criticism of SCOTUS. Rousing response for Hizzoner in SLC prompts Cavuto to raise prospect of Rudy-Romney technocratic ticket in 2012.

Paul Streitz, the Connecticut activist whom I called out previously for his Buchananite leanings, has turned on the woman he loves. He now wants no part of the Draft Sarah 2012 movement he helped begin. Why?:

She has now chose to align herself with several bad actors. What should this be called, the Rinoization of Sarah Palin.

At the time of the election, perhaps Sarah Palin could have been forgiven for her ideas on immigration (and lack of knowledge) because she was governor of Alaska, not Arizona. But in the intervening months, she has done little but promote herself as a celebrity, known because her brief time on the national stage..

She is certainly entitled to write a book and make money for her and her family, but other than what has she has done to support Republican and patriotic candidates.

Where was she in VA?
Where was she in NJ?
Where was she in Mass?

Giuliani showed up in Mass because he knew what was at stake. Perhaps, Sarah was too busy talking to her agent about her Fox deal. Where the hell was Sarah?

Napoleon once said that he wanted Generals that went to the sound of the cannon. That they instinctively were fighters. He also said he wanted generals that had bon chance, good luck. Well, Sarah has had good luck, but she has not gone to the sound of the cannon, where critical battles were fought in 2009.

Sarah Palin, he says, is turning into a RINO, looking out for herself and not for the conservative movement.

To be fair, none of those candidates wanted her near their campaigns. She’s toxic in those states, where Giuliani is not. But that’s no excuse. Because that only begs the question: why is she toxic? And why is Giuliani wanted everywhere? More than Romney, more than Palin, more than Huckabee, it’s Rudy who has been a GOP campaign staple post-Obama.

Activist leaders — even this paleoconservative — are taking note of what Rudy has been doing for the party. Our own DaveG suggests that Rudy could become a favored candidate of the Tea Party movement should he run again in 2012, which is looking increasingly probable. I have dismissed this sentiment as ludicrous; he’s not populist enough. He’s a city-slicker, appeals to moderates, and is not a crusader for “the people” against “the powerful.”

But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe that’s too two-dimensional a view of the Tea Party crowd. Maybe their definition of a RINO is someone who puts himself first, before any principles. Maybe 2012 can be a perfect storm for Rudy if he keeps up this sort of work.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

Derek Jensen of The Salt Lake Tribune reports:

At turns charming about his New York mayoral stint then chippy toward President Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani delivered a red-meat speech on leadership to a receptive Utah audience Wednesday before a direct question made him pause.

“Could there be a Romney-Giuliani ticket in 2012?” Sen. John Valentine, R-Orem, asked the failed 2008 presidential candidate.

Giuliani waited for the anxious laughter to fade, then framed a toothy grin.

“There could be anything in 2012, who knows?” he told a crowd of nearly 1,000 at the Sheraton Hotel in downtown Salt Lake City. “Things change in American politics almost instantly.”

He should know. The one-time 2008 Republican front-runner became a campaigning cautionary tale after staking all his hopes on winning Florida, before finishing third. Giuliani said he never thought “in a million years” Obama would eclipse Hillary Clinton to top the Democratic ticket.

But if Utahns assembled for the Utah League of Cities & Towns “local officials day” at the Legislature are any measure, perhaps “America’s mayor” (after his post-9/11 leadership) has a political future.

“He’s a genius. He’s a guy you would follow to the ends of the earth because you trust him,” Douglas Wixom, a Ph.D. who runs after-school programs for South Salt Lake, said after the speech. Wixom said he is partial to Mitt Romney, but would not object to a President Giuliani. “They’d make a great ticket. Obama’s a con man.”

Winking, Sen. President Michael Waddoups also offered an endorsement of sorts. “He’s obviously a leader. We could certainly do worse than a president like him someday.”

Invoking Ronald Reagan, and arguing government cannot be efficient without making people accountable, Giuliani recounted successes in cleaning up New York, while transitioning the city’s 1 million welfare recipients to “workfare.” Leaders, he said, must have a set of beliefs, courage and communication skills.

But the former prosecutor from the Reagan Justice Department had stern and sober words for Obama regarding the war on terrorism.

“I try not to be partisan; I’m just saying this as an American,” he offered. “The president has done some things that have hurt our intelligence gathering. The president has finally acknowledged we’re at war.”

Later, Giuliani said the nation must stay one step ahead of terrorists by taking the war to them. “When we capture one of them, we should interrogate them forever,” he said. “Not just for 10 hours, 12 hours. Most of them are professional liars.”

Giuliani said he is not talking about torture.

“To try to treat this thing as a criminal-justice matter makes no sense,” he added. “The president’s got to get around to that way of thinking.”

The line drew whoops and applause.

“I actually love this guy,” Brighton High’s Christina Bracken said. “He’s really informative.”

Classmate Jeremy Ashby said Giuliani’s address taught him a key principle of leadership: “It’s better to have ideas than to ask for ideas,” he said. “Don’t follow.”

Or, “Change.”

Once the frontrunner for the 2008 Republican nomination and the favored candidate to become the 44th President of the United States, Rudy Giuliani exited the race for 2008 with a single delegate committed to nominating the Mayor at the Republican National Convention. But with a dramatic shift occurring in the political winds, in all regions of the country and especially among independents, towards a small government consensus, it’s possible that Rudy’s performance in 2008 had more to do with the year than with the candidate. As such, following are five reasons that a Rudy run might actually go as planned a second time around:

1) Small government is cool again. Both in NYC and during his presidential run, Rudy ran as a pro-freedom Republican, meaning that he was in favor of minimal government in both the economic and cultural spheres. But this formula wasn’t what either the GOP or the country wanted just two years ago. The Bush Establishment which had taken over the GOP had been molded in the image of its president; after eight years, President Bush had most certainly placed the Republican Party on a Christian Democrat trajectory, and candidates were charged with the task of running against their party’s president without running against their party. And while conservatives roasted Rudy over social issues, independents had not yet made the connection between government and the nation’s economic woes. Independents were still blaming the Bush Administration for spending, the rising costs of health care, and the financial sector’s collapse, when in reality they should have been blaming the big-government foundation for the policies of the last two decades which culminated in all of this. Big government creates problems that can only be solved with more big government, and that cycle continues until Social Democracy is achieved and freedom is lost. Independents were right that Bush had added to the problem, but he did so by abandoning conservatism, not by governing in accordance with it.

But because Republicans, exhausted from eight years of being in power, were unable to make this argument to the country, the nation voted for yet more big government, hoping that growing government just a tad more would be the easiest path to normalcy. As such, Giuliani was in the absolute worst position in 2008. He was too small government for both the socially conservative base of the GOP and for independents who were prepared to take the mighty hand of Social Democracy instead of plunging into the unknown. Just a year into Obama’s presidency, though, all of this has changed. Obama’s presidency, being an all big government, all the time administration, has sparked a citizen revolt of small government types, and all the energy in the room is now on the side of killing the Leviathan. These are the folks who will be standing in line in Granite State snow in 2012 to cast ballots for the next Republican nominee. And their choice will be the candidate who is the most supportive of freedom. Further, independents, after realizing that a Faustian bargain with Social Democracy means the gradual but inevitable end to individual autonomy in the United States, have instead selected to plunge into the unknown knowing that whatever awaits them has to be preferable to serfdom.

2) Health Care Reform. Nothing moved the nation to the right on fiscal issues quite like health care reform. At first, the president’s attempt to enact a sort of national RomneyCare on the nation seemed like a sensible centrist compromise. But once voters started thinking the issue through, it became clear that this bevy of new regulations would ultimately require yet more new regulations, which in turn would lead to more new regulations, and eventually Sarah Palin’s death panels, or at least the rationing of care, would become inevitable. New regulations on insurers sounded great until folks found out they couldn’t be enacted without an individual mandate. Expanding access sounds good until the basic principles of economics kick in, meaning that an increase in demand for a good or service without an increase in supply raises the cost for everyone. As costs increase, access decreases, and subsidies increase, meaning debt increases, meaning taxes increase. At the end of the day, ObamaCare looked like it would take away a lot of freedom and raise the cost of medical care while providing the average American with the same product he has now, if that. It doesn’t take an Obama-level education to reject a deal like that.

All of this would allow a small government candidate supportive of economic freedom and fiscal prudence to make the connection between these principles and true health care reform that would lower costs and expand access by reducing government, removing regulations, and allowing the market to work. Rudy’s views on the issue do just that: allowing for interstate competition between insurers, providing a big tax credit so that Americans can buy insurance, and essentially creating a market for health insurance that doesn’t exist now thanks to big government. This makes Rudy the candidate with small government solutions to the nation’s problems, and allows him to contrast himself with establishment candidate and New Hampshire favorite Mitt Romney, who cannot escape the albatross of RomneyCare. And speaking of New Hampshire…

3) If he can make it there… In the race for 2008, being from the Northeast was a liability for any Republican presidential candidate. The Bush GOP was based in the buckle of the Bible Belt, and the Northeast viewed any and all Republican candidates as quislings of the new Dixiecrat party, which is why Northeasterners threw out scores of GOPers in 2006 and 2008. But now, the Republican Party, re-organized around the small-government Tea Partiers, is actually winning elections in the Northeast again, and doing so with candidates far more economically conservative than David Frum and David Brooks would have thought possible after the 2008 elections. Both Chris Christie and Scott Brown are well to the right of the Rockefeller-esque dinosaurs that remained in the Northeast after 2008, and there may be many more to come in 2010. A nationwide Republican wave in 2010 would end the notion that the GOP is a Southern party and would allow potential GOP presidential candidates from every region to claim that he or she is capable of drawing a new electoral map in 2012.

4) A strong America that protects its interests. This is, I think, what the foreign policy consensus will be in America in 2012. Gone are the utopian dreams of Middle Eastern Thomas Jeffersons rising from Baghdad and Tehran to usher in carbon copies of the U.S. in those regions. But Obama’s rejection of the Bush/McCain fantasy, while saying goodbye to all that, said hello again to Clintonite small wars fought for humanitarian reasons under the wrong rules of engagement without any meaningful benefit to the United States. At least Iraq, for geopolitical and economic reasons, is an important ally for the U.S. to have in the Middle East. Afghanistan was, is, and probably always will be a sleepy tribal society of no interest to anyone. Further, Obama’s foreign policy has probably been the most hostile to Israel since the Carter years. Israel, of course, remains America’s strongest ally in the region.

Rudy has always been a strong pro-Israel candidate, and, while lumped in with the NeoCons during 2008, was never actually one of them. I still remember Rudy’s characterization of his Iraq policy back during the race for 2008; he viewed success in Iraq to mean that the country was made stable and made an ally of the U.S., not an enemy. This never sounded like the Bush/McCain American Idol style search for the Iraqi Thomas Paine. And rightly so. If Rudy comes out as the strong on security, pro-military candidate who supports using the military to defend the United States and advance U.S. interests on the world stage, that type of candidacy could probably win the majority of Americans who don’t want a return to Bushism but who also fear the isolationism of the Paulites as well as the Carter/Clinton medley that is Obama’s foreign policy.

5) It’s the charisma, stupid. In politics, style as well as substance matters. At the end of the day, the competent uberwonk who “looks good on paper” almost never gets to be president. I seem to recall Orrin Hatch claiming during the 2000 presidential campaign that he couldn’t understand why he didn’t have more support, as he had more governmental experience than anyone else in the field. The political graveyard is filled with the Bob Doles of the world who have been salivated over by the chattering classes as men and women who “would’ve made a good president.”

But before you can govern, you have to win, and before you can win, you have to connect. Even a failed President Obama will still be one who is personally hard to dislike. Republicans will also need a candidate who is able to personally connect with voters. Giuliani has that personal touch that many other candidates don’t. He is a natural when placed against the backdrop of today’s high-tech right-wing media, which will be important if the GOP nominee is going to connect with voters via forums led by O’Reilly, Hannity, and Beck. I still remember Dick Morris proclaiming, “That’s a president!” after a Rudy interview on Hannity & Colmes back in 2006 or 2007. That’s a quality that can’t be purchased and it is innate to Rudy, who will have to sell himself and his ideas to the nation and best Obama in several presidential debates.

For all of these reasons, I suspect that that a second Rudy presidential run could be more successful than the Mayor’s initial endeavor. I think that Rudy, freed from the baggage of Bush’s GOP, and fueled by a growing small government movement, could be the candidate who unites the Tea Partiers and takes the GOP nomination and the presidency. There are other candidates who could potentially do the same, and Rudy may not even run. But if he does, those who were laughing over his single delegate finish in 2008 may find that it’s Rudy who will have the last laugh.

Click here to watch News 4 WOAI’s Randy Beamer’s full interview with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is in San Antonio to speak at the San Antonio Economic Outlook Forum.

Democratic pollster, Public Policy Polling, is once again inviting everyone to help determine who will be the fourth Republican to join Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin in their upcoming 2012 presidential survey.

The six candidates being considered:

• Rudy Giuliani
• Dick Cheney
• David Petraeus
• Mitch Daniels
• Rick Perry
• Glenn Beck

Click here to peruse PPP’s previous presidential polls pairing prospective GOPers against President Obama.

Today on Good Morning America, the Mayor erred badly by stating:

“What [Obama] should be doing is following the right things Bush did. One of the right things he did was treat this as a war on terror. We had no domestic attacks under Bush. We’ve had one under Obama,” Giuliani said.

TPM comments:

Even if you don’t count 9/11, there were several domestic attacks during the Bush presidency. In the fall of 2001, anthrax sent through the mail to senators and news organizations killed five people. And in December 2001, Richard Reid attempted to blow up a commercial plane with explosives packed into his shoes.

I wouldn’t consider this as much of a big deal if it didn’t come from Rudy, someone who has used his leadership after September 11th as an integral selling point in his post 9/11 campaigns. Although I don’t think that this will by any means kill his hopes for a future run for office, it will open him up to biting attacks from Democrats. Not the best day for America’s Mayor.

UPDATE: A spokesman for the former Mayor clarifies, saying that the remark “didn’t come across as it was intended” and that he was “clearly talking post-9/11 with regards to Islamic terrorist attacks on our soil.”

By “on our soil,” the former mayor is not including either Umar Farouq Abdulmutallab’s failed Christmas Day attack or Richard Reid’s December 22, 2001 attempt to blow up American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami.

So the spokesman says that the “one” attack that Giuliani says took place during the Obama administration was a reference to the alleged Fort Hood shooter, Major Nidal Hasan.

The Giuliani spokesperson says the former Mayor does not consider the events with Hadayet, Muhammed, or the anthrax attacks Islamist terrorist attacks since “he was referring to what are known Islamic terrorist attacks.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As always, I’m ranking the likelihood of a candidate running for President, not their probability of winning:

Likely Candidates:

1) Tim Pawlenty: 78% (+5):

Everything looks full speed ahead for Pawlenty.

2) Mike Huckabee-67% (-3):

I don’t think the Maurice Clemmons matter had much of an effect on whether he would run. However, the number should be dialed back slightly because of the rise in Sarah Palin’s popularity.  My general view is if Palin runs, Huckabee won’t, and I think his recent talk confirms that.

3) Mitt Romney-66% (-2)

Romney has been keeping a low profile this quarter and with good reason: The Senate health care bill is shaping up to be too much like Romneycare. While, I think Romney will make a 2012 run, I can’t help but dial back his chances a little bit because he didn’t become a success in business without a good healthy dose of pragmatism.

Unlikely Candidates

4) Sarah Palin 41% (+3)

This was a fairly good quarter for Palin with the successful release of “Going Rogue.” and some media appearances that allowed her to get a bit of a bounce back in her image. My concern with Palin has been the “want to” factor and I still don’t think that’s going to be there.

5) Gary Johnson-40% (+2)

A little bit of re-emergence for Johnson as well as some net buzz behind his potential candidacy lead to an upgrade.

6) John Thune and 6) Haley Barbour-38% (-2)

Nothing makes me think either of these two oft-mentioned potential candidates will actually pull the trigger.

8: Rick Santorum-33% (+3)

Santorum continued to make some noises, but I’m doubtful of the money being there for him. His best shot would be a Palin-Free/Huckabee-free field.  I don’t see him putting his family through the ordeal of a Presidential run if there’s no chance.

9) Jon Huntsman-29% (NC)

10) Newt Gingrich-28% (-4)

Someone who pedantically lectures the base is either not too smart or not planning on running for President.

11) Mike Pence -18% (-2)

I think Pence is more likely to run for Governor. Plus a HuckPAC  endorsement that Pence received for re-election could be the start of Pence and Huckabee working together.

12) Mitch Daniels-15% (-2)

13) Bobby Jindal-14% (-2)

14) John Cornyn-13% (-1)

Cornyn realizing that it was a bad idea for the NRSC to stick its nose into primaries was too little too late.

15) Jim DeMint-9% (-2)

16) Charlie Crist-7% (-5)

Winning the Senate Primary looks dicey, let alone getting “Good Time” Charlie nominated for President.

17) Jeb Bush-6% (-2)

Chances are greater of me getting a tongue ring and the Cubs winning the World Series on the same day candidates…

18) Ron Paul-4% (-1)

Chances reduced slightly because of Gary Johnson talk.

19) Tom Ridge-3% (-1), 19) Rudy Giuliani-3% (-6), 19) David Petraeus-3% ()

Ridge has done nothing to indicate running. As for Rudy Giuliani, if his consulting for Brazil’s 2016 Olympics makes a Senatorial run out of the question, that’d seem to go for a Presidential run, too. As for Petraeus, there’s little reason to think he will run.

Dropping off our list: Mark Sanford, who ought to have had the decency to resign from office, but who there is simply no conceivable chance he’ll run for PResident.

Hopefully, this is the last we here of Rudy Giuliani. I truly hope this is not about another run for president and instead about enjoying private life.  If he wanted to run for president, winning this senate seat would have been the appropriate path. It would’ve only been the remaining 2 years of Clinton’s term, and he could have turned right around and ran in 2012.  I’ve wasted too much time defending the former Mayor, but with him passing up two potentially huge pick-ups for our party, I can do nothing but hope for his long, healthy, and permanent retirement.  Time to dust off Al D’Amato.

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

Quinnipiac New York Political Survey

(Among registered Democrats) If the 2010 Democratic primary for United States Senator were being held today and the candidates were Kirsten Gillibrand and Bill Thompson, for whom would you vote?

• Bill Thompson 41%
• Kirsten Gillibrand 28%

If the 2010 election for United States Senator were being held today and the candidates were Bill Thompson the Democrat and Rudy Giuliani the Republican, for whom would you vote?

• Rudy Giuliani 52%
• Bill Thompson 36%

Among Independents

• Rudy Giuliani 60%
• Bill Thompson 28%

If the 2010 election for United States Senator were being held today and the candidates were Kirsten Gillibrand the Democrat and Rudy Giuliani the Republican, for whom would you vote?

• Rudy Giuliani 50%
• Kirsten Gillibrand 40%

Among Independents

• Rudy Giuliani 57%
• Kirsten Gillibrand 32%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Rudy Giuliani 59% {57%} [53%] (55%) / 32% {32%} [33%] (36%) {+27%}
• Bill Thompson 25% / 10% {+15%}
• Kirsten Gillibrand 26% (25%) / 15% (10%) {+11%}

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Kirsten Gillibrand is handling her job as United States Senator?

• Approve 40% {32%} [33%] (37%)
• Disapprove 21% {20%} [19%] (15%)

(Among registered Democrats) If the 2010 Democratic primary for Governor were being held today and the candidates were David Paterson and Andrew Cuomo, for whom would you vote?

• Andrew Cuomo 60% {61%} [61%] (57%)
• David Paterson 23% {19%} [15%] (20%)

If the 2010 election for Governor were being held today and the candidates were David Paterson the Democrat and Rick Lazio the Republican, for whom would you vote?

• David Paterson 41% {38%}
• Rick Lazio 37% {38%}

If the 2010 election for Governor were being held today and the candidates were Andrew Cuomo the Democrat and Rick Lazio the Republican, for whom would you vote?

• Andrew Cuomo 62% {61%}
• Rick Lazio 22% {22%}

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Andrew Cuomo 57% {61%} [52%] (63%) / 14% {13%} [12%] (15%) {+43%}
• Rick Lazio 19% {15%} / 13% {13%} {+6%}
• David Paterson 38% {28%} [26%] (28%) / 44% {52%} [53%] (54%) {-6%}

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

• Approve 40% {30%} [30%] (28%)
• Disapprove 49% {57%} [59%] (61%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Andrew Cuomo is handling his job as State Attorney General?

• Approve 74% {71%} [74%] (73%)
• Disapprove 12% {11%} [10%] (12%)

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 28% {23%} [20%] (22%)
• No/Does not 59% {63%} [67%] (64%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Charles Schumer is handling his job as United States Senator?

• Approve 62% {62%} [58%] (63%)
• Disapprove 27% {24%} [27%] (23%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?

• Approve 59% {62%} [60%] (67%)
• Disapprove 36% {32%} [35%] (26%)

Survey of 1,692 registered voters was conducted December 7-13. The margin of error is +/- 2.4 percentage points. The survey includes 719 Democrats with a margin of error of +/- 3.7 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 14-19 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 10-13 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 16-21 are in parentheses.

Rasmussen New York Senatorial Survey

• Rudy Giuliani 53%
• Kirsten Gillibrand 40%
• Some other candidate 4%
• Not sure 2%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Rudy Giuliani 63% {58%} [55%] (56%) / 33% {38%} [44%] (39%) {+30%}
• Kirsten Gillibrand 46% {40%} [39%] / 41% {37%} [42%] {+5%}

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted November 23. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 17 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 22 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 14 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Giuliani leads among male voters by 28 points and breaks almost even among women. He also picks up 35% of the Democratic vote and carries voters not affiliated with either major party by more than two-to-one.

Knepper contra Graham here; I believe that Rudy Giuliani would be a solid vote with the Republican Party about 85% of the time in the Senate. He’d likely only stay for one term if he were elected — maybe two, unless the polls looked bad — and we already know that he’s willing to buck his Democrat constituents to get something done. It’s absolutely preposterous to say that he’d only vote with us 50% of the time.

Right now, he’d be a solid vote against cap-and-trade, the health care scheme, and — looking back — the stimulus.

Once he’s elected, he has three options in front of him.

1. Run for President

Yes, he could. New reports today indicate that he wants to, and he refused to rule it out both on CNN and The View.

Oh, but Mitt, but Mitt — stop wetting your pants, people. Mitt Romney is “the center-right candidate” only when looked at next to Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin. Romney does not have much room to maneuver, given his past shifts. Rudy could suck up all of the McCain voters in the room. Plus, in New Hampshire, there’s no Democratic contest this time around, so he could come in a respectable 2nd place (to Romney) or perhaps even eke out a 1st-place win, if Romney underperforms — there are pitfalls all over for him (what if an individual mandate passes, for instance?). That would give him enough momentum to hit up Florida and then Super Tuesday this time. And a split field could do wonders for him in South Carolina and Nevada. He just can’t come in sixth place this time.

It’s not a crazy idea. He could run again, and he could win now that John McCain is gone. And if 2012 is about size-of-government issues, then watch out. He can run, and he can win. His vice-presidential picks would include Pawlenty, Ryan, and Jindal. (Giuliani-Ryan would be literally the greatest ticket in Republican history.)

2. Endorse Sarah Palin, Become Sarah Palin’s Vice-Presidential Nominee

Oh yes, it could happen. Rudy and Sarah are pretty close, and Rudy is definitely a Palin fan. Rudy could help shore up her appeal amongst college-educated whites, especially in early states like New Hampshire and Florida. He could help craft her platform, fundraise for her, campaign with her — and as a trade-off, become her VP. She’s rural, he’s urban. She’s inexperienced, he’s experienced. She has no foreign policy gravitas, he’s got the moral vision Americans trust. She’s too lightweight, he’s America’s Mayor. She isn’t connected, he was elected to the Senate and has made new friends. They share small-government principles, William Kristol-approved foreign policy ideas, and don’t bother with social crusades. It’s a match made in heaven.

Palin-Giuliani ‘12. If Palin runs, the odds of that ticket coming into fruition are good.

3. Be a Good Senator and Build a Lasting Legacy

Well…this is technically an option…

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

I’m glad that America’s Mayor is probably running for Senator in New York. And as since 2000, he’s dropped his support for Partial Birth Abortion, he’ll almost certainly get the Conservative Party line. It’s New York and given the records of all of New York’s Senators since Al D’Amato, people will take what they can get.

Now, the downside. The word is out that Giuliani is planning on using this for a 2012 stepping stone. Hopefully, Giuliani will dispel this notion. If not, it’s problematic.  If Giulini wins in 2010, his term would be good until 2012. If instead of defending the Senate seat, Giuliani opts for a Presidential run, it really raises a question as to how much a Rudy win is worth.

As a Republican in the Senate, Rudy would probably be somewhere to the right of Olympia Snowe and to the left of John McCain, but could probably counted on most big fiscal issues, and foreign policy issues, and probably most social issues if he’s running for President. However, if he’s running for President, he’s going to miss a lot of Senate votes, maybe most of them. Thus, a Giuliani win could succeed in taking Kirsten Gillibrand’s vote away from the Democrats, but not adding a vote for the Republicans, making a Giuliani win worth about half a Senate seat for two years.

In addition, the situation that has allowed Giuliani to delay a decision will still exist. The Republican bench in New York is still absolute garbage.  When Republicans have to look to old war horses like Pataki, Giuliani, and Lazio, you know they don’t have a strong future that can win statewide. So, Giuliani mounting up for a Presidential run gives the Democrats a good chance to recapture the seat in 2012 if Giuliani wins it. Of course, the same disorder that could allow a Giuliani win in 2010 won’t exist in 2012 as the unpopular Paterson would be gone along with Paterson’s ill-considered pick for U.S. Senate.

My greatest concern in this race in John Cornyn and the NRSC. Giuliani’s presence in the race means the NRSC could lay out some serious dough to capture this seat. However, with the cost of advertising in the New York Metro Market, the bills would be phenomenal. A million would be chump change in New York, but could sure help out in smaller states where the GOP also has legitimate pick-up opportunities like Delaware and Arkansas.

Bottom line?

If Rudy wants this to be a coming out party for his 2012 Presidential bid, then let Rudy’s presidential backers pay for his campaign. The NRSC should not spend one dime on this race unless either their coffers overflow or Rudy Giuliani’s pledges to stay the Senate and seek a full term representing the people of New York. To spend money to elect a Senator who’s going to be with you around 50-60% of the time and won’t run for re-election and may not even show up to vote that much would be an inexcusable mismanagement of resources when you’ve got a lot of Senate seats out there that you could win for six full years.

Rasmussen New York Political Survey

2010 Gubernatorial Race

• Rudy Giuliani 57% [50%] (55%)
• David Paterson 30% [39%] (33%)

• Rick Lazio 41% [38%]
• David Paterson 37% [38%]

• Andrew Cuomo 49% [58%] (48%)
• Rudy Giuliani 46% [37%] (41%)

• Andrew Cuomo 57% [65%]
• Rick Lazio 29% [26%]

2010 Senatorial Race

• Kirsten Gillibrand 45% [44%]
• George Pataki 42% [41%]

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Andrew Cuomo 56% [68%] (64%) / 34% [25%] (32%) {+22%}
• Rudy Giuliani 58% [55%] (56%) / 38% [44%] (39%) {+20%}
• George Pataki 51% [46%] / 44% [48%] {+7%}
• Kirsten Gillibrand 40% [39%] / 37% [42%] {+3%}
• Rick Lazio 36% [33%] / 44% [49%] {-8%}
• David Paterson 36% [38%] (38%) / 59% [57%] (60%) {-23%}

How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?

• Strongly approve 40% [48%] (39%)
• Approve 18% [13%] (24%)
• Disapprove 10% [11%] (10%)
• Strongly disapprove 31% [27%] (27%)

How would you rate the job David Paterson has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 10% [14%] (5%)
• Approve 28% [25%] (27%)
• Disapprove 29% [27%] (31%)
• Strongly disapprove 30% [33%] (36%)

Should Paterson drop out of the Governor’s race?

• Yes 43% [44%]
• No 36% [41%]

Terrorist suspects linked to the 9/11 attacks will now be tried in a New York City civilian court rather than in a military tribunal. Do you agree or disagree with the decision to try these terrorist suspects in a New York City civilian court?

• Agree 35%
• Disagree 55%

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted November 17. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 22 are in brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 14 are in parentheses.

Note: The survey was taken Tuesday night prior to news reports that former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is planning to run against Gillibrand.

Marist New York 2010 Political Survey

Republican Senatorial Primary

• Rudy Giuliani 71%
• George Pataki 24%

Senatorial General Election

• Rudy Giuliani 54%
• Kirsten Gillibrand 40%

Republican Gubernatorial Primary

• Rudy Giuliani 84% [83%] (77%)
• Rick Lazio 13% [13%] (16%)

Gubernatorial General Election

• Rudy Giuliani 60% [60%] (54%)
• David Paterson 35% [34%] (37%)

• Andrew Cuomo 53% [53%] (51%)
• Rudy Giuliani 43% [43%] (43%)

Survey of 805 registered voters was conducted November 12, 16-17. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points; for the subsample of 216 Republicans, ±7.0%. Results from the poll conducted September 8-10 are in brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 23-25 are in parentheses.

The New York Daily News is reporting:

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani has decided not to run for governor next year – but will run for U.S. Senate instead, sources told the Daily News.

A source familiar with Giuliani’s thinking said the failed presidential candidate has been telling people he plans to run against Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in 2010 to fill out the remaining two years of Hillary Clinton’s term.

If elected, the source said, he could use that as a stepping stone to run for President in 2012 – rather than run for re-election to the Senate.

A Giuliani spokeswoman downplayed the reports. “Rudy has a history of making up his own mind and has no problem speaking it,” she said. “When Mayor Giuliani makes a decision about serving in public office, he will inform New Yorkers on his own.”

Former Staten Island Borough President Guy Molinari, a close Giuliani pal, said the former mayor had been privately sharing doubts with him for months about running for governor.

“What he said to me is that he doesn’t think he’s going to do it,” Molinari told The News about an early November conversation with the former mayor.

“It just didn’t make any sense to him.” Molinari said the ongoing circus in the state Senate, combined with Democratic Assembly Speaker Shelly Silver’s iron grip on Assembly matters, had convinced Giuliani that a Republican governor would have little ability to get things done quickly in Albany.

“The big drawback for him was — could I really be effective?” Molinari said.

“He saw too many hang-ups there. He’s not running for the title, that’s for sure.” Molinari said he favors the idea of Giuliani running for U.S. Senate. “Some of us, including myself, feel like that would be a better fit because he could use his talents there almost immediately,” Molinari said.

“You get the sense that he’d be a major player [in the U.S. Senate] from day one.”

The NY Times has the scoop:

Former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani has decided not to run for governor of New York next year after months of mulling a candidacy, according to people who have been told of the decision.

His decision is a blow to many Republican leaders, who had viewed Mr. Giuliani as the strongest potential candidate in a year in which voter anger and anti-Albany sentiment appear to be swelling.

Contenders from both parties have been waiting for months to hear what the former mayor would decide.

I really hope he decides to run for the Senate now that the conventional wisdom holds that George Pataki will sit out that race.

Siena New York 2010 Political Survey

Democratic Gubernatorial Primary

• Andrew Cuomo 75% (70%) [66%] {65%} (69%)
• David Paterson 16% (20%) [20%] {23%} (16%)

Gubernatorial General Election

• Rudy Giuliani 56% (56%) [52%] {56%} (57%) [59%]
• David Paterson 33% (33%) [35%] {33%} (27%) [31%]

• Rick Lazio 42% (37%) [35%] {37%}
• David Paterson 39% (39%) [39%] {38%}

• Andrew Cuomo 53% (50%) [52%] {53%} (49%) [53%]
• Rudy Giuliani 41% (43%) [39%] {40%} (40%) [41%]

• Andrew Cuomo 67% (66%) [64%] {66%}
• Rick Lazio 22% (21%) [18%] {16%}

Senatorial General Election

• Rudy Giuliani 49% (53%) [46%]
• Kirsten Gillibrand 43% (36%) [38%]

• Kirsten Gillibrand 45% (41%) {39%} [43%]
• George Pataki 44% (46%) {42%} [43%]

How would you rate the job that David Paterson is doing as Governor?

• Excellent 2% (1%) [2%] {3%} (2%) [2%]
• Good 19% (18%) [16%] {20%} (18%) [16%]
• Fair 40% (43%) [41%] {38%} (39%) [43%]
• Poor 39% (36%) [39%] {38%} (39%) [38%]

(Among registered Republicans) Would you like Rudy Giuliani to run for Governor of New York in 2010, or United State Senator from New York in 2010, or would you prefer that he not run for either of those two offices?

• Run for Governor 50% (46%) [41%]
• Run for Senator 24% (34%) [35%]
• Not run for either 18% (14%) [19%]

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Andrew Cuomo 70% (67%) [66%] {70%} (71%) [66%] / 20% (20%) [21%] {14%} (17%) [20%] {+50%}
• Charles Schumer 60% [63%] / 30% [25%] {+30%}
• Rudy Giuliani 62% (60%) [56%] {57%} (62%) [61%] / 34% (35%) [38%] {35%} (33%) [35%] {+28%}
• George Pataki 55% (53%) {53%} [53%] / 36% (34%) {35%} [36%] {+19%}
• Kirsten Gillibrand 34% (28%) [29%] {29%} / 24% (26%) [24%] {20%} {+10%}
• Rick Lazio 29% (23%) [22%] {21%} / 22% (27%) [25%] {22%} {+7%}
• David Paterson 33% (27%) [29%] {32%} (31%) [27%] / 56% (61%) [59%] {55%} (57%) [60%] {-23%}

Survey of 800 registered voters was conducted November 8-12. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. Click here for crosstabs. Results from the poll conducted October 14-18 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted September 13-17 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 17-20 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 15-18 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted May 18-21 are in square brackets.

Ambinder notices that Pawlenty ‘12 seems to be treading water, and opines as to the possible reasons why:

Even Mitt Romney doesn’t like to be called “Romneyesque” these days. The word has a legacy albatross from the 2008 Republican primary, when Romney, a can-do pragmatic governor of a relatively liberal state, swerved to the right to prove himself acceptable to conservative primary voters. “Romneyesque,” as an epithet, conveys a willingness to abandon one’s core convictions — in Romney’s case, temperance and modesty on social issues — in order to pander. It was always kind of unfair in that Romney didn’t shift his positions much, just his tone. But the label stuck.

It’s no surprise that no potential 2012 aspirant wants the Romney-esque tag. Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) is in danger of acquiring the label. Dan Balz, an influential and well-respected political journalist, pointed to Pawlenty’s flip-flop on climate change, his seeming eagerness to plunge into the tea party crowd’s daily obsessions — whether they be the president’s address to schoolkids or the notion that health care mandates violate the 10th amendment or the idea that Sen. Olympia Snowe isn’t sufficiently conservative to be a Republican.

No, no no no, say Pawlenty aides. No. No, and no again. Pawlenty is and has always been a conservative, they insist. He never liked being called a “moderate,” they insist. His Sam’s Club populism doesn’t require an expansive role for government. Unlike Romney, Pawlenty has A+ credentials with Christian conservatives, and so on.

But it’s not the issues. It’s the tone. It’s the symbol management. It’s the willingness to be comfortable in one’s skin — to be a conservative who doesn’t have to prove to the world that he is conservative. Effortless conservatism, in other words, does not require a temperate person like Tim Pawlenty to become a red meat rabble rouser. Absolutely, this is a standard that is imposed on the Republican presidential field by the media, but it’s a standard that derives its strength from the reality that conservative primary voters don’t want a phony and don’t need to be pandered to.

The real issue with both Romney ‘08 and Pawlenty ‘12 is not that the Republican base demands pandering or phoniness — heck, if anything, the race for 2008 proved that the GOP base will reject rump-kissing, even if it’s the rump of the base that’s being kissed. Instead, the reason that Romney (and to some extent, Rudy and Huckabee) failed in 2008 and the reason that Pawlenty doesn’t seem to be going anywhere this cycle has to do with the delicate balancing act intrinsic in the candidacy of a hyphenated conservative.

The political class loves to play up the chances of hyphenated conservatives due to the supposed contradictions that lie within these candidates. “Sam’s Club Republicanism” gives pundits something to write columns about. “Compassionate conservatism” does the same. Rudy’s hawkish, soft libertarianism made Beltway types scratch their heads and think for a moment. So did Huckabee’s populist conservatism and Ron Paul’s hard libertarian realism. Folks who think about politics for a living find little to get excited about in a run of the mill, down-the-line conservative. It’s the heterodox that are interesting.

But while the chattering classes benefit from presidential runs by hyphenated conservatives, the Republican Party doesn’t. That’s because the hyphenated conservative comes out of the gate as a candidate who is by definition unacceptable to at least one segment of the Republican coalition, forcing the candidate to either change his views on those issues, making him inauthentic, or requiring the candidate to spend months and months emphasizing all the ways in which he is a “true conservative,” resulting is so much red meat thrown in so many different directions that swing voters become convinced they’re being asked to vote for Glenn Beck. The result is that a once perfectly respectable candidate ends up being branded a phony or a lunatic in the American political psyche.

We saw this with Rudy in 2008. There was no way Rudy could run away from his views on social issues, so instead, he tried really, really hard to emphasize his views on economic and security issues. The solutions-oriented former mayor ran a campaign light on economic solutions and heavy on the abstract idea of economic conservatism, while the mayor’s toughness on law and order became translated into an uber-hawkishness on a war on terror that Americans were having doubts about. All of this made the center less favorable to the mayor, while the base still wanted answers on abortion and judges. By changing his emphasis and tone on the issues, Rudy made the folks who found him interesting because of his heterodoxies less inclined to vote for him, while making those who might consider voting for him in spite of his heterodoxies no more inclined to vote for him. That’s because no amount of red meat on terror or economics could cancel out Rudy’s support for abortion, and all of that red meat just made swing voters ask “where’s the beef?” when it came to actual solutions to economic and security problems.

Romney made similar missteps in 2008, though not only was Mitt ‘08 far too light on economic solutions, it also attempted to prove that Romney really was a social conservative by converting on abortion and by frequently mentioning things like adult pornography on the Internet, which no one really cares about. So not only did Romney’s campaign become too abstract and fail to focus on solving public problems, it also seemed phony with misplaced priorities.

Pawlenty is having similar problems in his quest for the 2012 nomination due to his introduction as a hyphenated conservative — a Sam’s Club Republican — which has forced T-Paw to prove his conservatism by going down the same road as past Republican candidates, one which will probably lead to a similar destination. Excessive red meat and an abrasive tone do not a winning candidate make, and as Ambinder notes, effortless conservatism and a comfort in one’s own skin are what’s needed. Governor-elect Bob McDonnell’s victory in Virginia provides an excellent example of such a candidate. McDonnell is a down-the-line conservative who is such a good conservative that he didn’t have to prove his conservatism to anyone, and that allowed him to run a campaign entirely focused on applying that conservatism to the issues that were important to voters, using his principles to find solutions to public problems. Not only did this sort of campaign get out the GOP vote, it won Independents by a large margin.

All of this makes me believe that the best candidate for the GOP in 2012 would be a down-the-line conservative whose conservative credentials no one questions, and who, like Fred Thompson in 2008, is so widely presumed a conservative that said candidate will never once be asked to defend his or her conservatism. This candidate would also presumably have a non-threatening demeanor and excellent communication skills and would have a record, probably as a governor, of using conservative principles to solve public problems, particularly economic problems. This candidate would then go on to run a campaign as a governing conservative based on the issues that voters care about, such as the economy, the budget, health care, education, and energy. It would be this formula that would allow the GOP to emulate the McDonnell campaign at the national level. The candidate who best fits the above description is probably Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who has the added benefit of being Syrian-American and who is from the highly contested Great Lakes region. Unfortunately, Daniels has expressed little interest in running, and I still expect the race to come down to a Romney/Huckabee fight to the finish. Still, if Daniels or another candidate got into the race with the ability to run as an effortless conservative and thus focus on the issues without all of the distractions of past or present heterodoxies, Republicans may have to give their preference for nominating the guy next in line a second look, especially with the president looking vulnerable less than one year into his term.

Siena New York 2010 Political Survey

Democratic Gubernatorial Primary

• Andrew Cuomo 70% [66%] {65%} (69%)
• David Paterson 20% [20%] {23%} (16%)

Gubernatorial General Election

• Rudy Giuliani 56% [52%] {56%} (57%) [59%]
• David Paterson 33% [35%] {33%} (27%) [31%]

• David Paterson 39% [39%] {38%}
• Rick Lazio 37% [35%] {37%}

• Andrew Cuomo 50% [52%] {53%} (49%) [53%]
• Rudy Giuliani 43% [39%] {40%} (40%) [41%]

• Andrew Cuomo 66% [64%] {66%}
• Rick Lazio 21% [18%] {16%}

Senatorial General Election

• Rudy Giuliani 53% [46%]
• Kirsten Gillibrand 36% [38%]

• George Pataki 46% {42%} [43%]
• Kirsten Gillibrand 41% {39%} [43%]

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Andrew Cuomo 67% [66%] {70%} (71%) [66%] / 20% [21%] {14%} (17%) [20%] {+47%}
• Barack Obama 65% [65%] {70%} [72%] / 31% [31%] {23%} [23%] {+34%}
• Rudy Giuliani 60% [56%] {57%} (62%) [61%] / 35% [38%] {35%} (33%) [35%] {+25%}
• George Pataki 53% {53%} [53%] / 34% {35%} [36%] {+19%}
• Kirsten Gillibrand 28% [29%] {29%} / 26% [24%] {20%} {+2%}
• Rick Lazio 23% [22%] {21%} / 27% [25%] {22%} {-4%}
• David Paterson 27% [29%] {32%} (31%) [27%] / 61% [59%] {55%} (57%) [60%] {-34%}

How would you rate the job that David Paterson is doing as Governor?

• Excellent 1% [2%] {3%} (2%) [2%]
• Good 18% [16%] {20%} (18%) [16%]
• Fair 43% [41%] {38%} (39%) [43%]
• Poor 36% [39%] {38%} (39%) [38%]

If David Paterson runs for Governor in 2010, would you vote to elect him or would you prefer someone else?

• Elect Paterson 15% [14%] {15%} (15%)
• Prefer someone else 72% [71%] {68%} (70%)

(Among registered Democrats) Would you prefer to see Attorney General Andrew Cuomo run for re-election as Attorney General next year or would you prefer to see him run for Governor instead?

• Re-election as Attorney General 36% [33%] {30%} (28%)
• Run for Governor 56% [49%] {53%} (56%)

(Among registered Republicans) Would you like Rudy Giuliani to run for Governor of New York in 2010, or United State Senator from New York in 2010, or would you prefer that he not run for either of those two offices?

• Run for Governor 46% [41%]
• Run for Senator 34% [35%]
• Not run for either 14% [19%]

Do you support or oppose the President’s approach to reforming health care in the U.S. or do you need more information in order to say?

• Support 36% [36%]
• Oppose 27% [21%]
• Need more information 37% [43%]

Survey of 624 registered voters was conducted October 14-18. The margin of error is +/- 3.9 percentage points. Click here for crosstabs. Results from the poll conducted September 13-17 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 17-20 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 15-18 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted May 18-21 are in square brackets.

As always, when I make these rankings, I’m not concerned about whose leading for 2012, but rather who is most likely run based on what happened last quarter:

Likely Candidates

1) Tim Pawlenty-73% (+15)

Pawlenty removed a lot of ambiguity from his 2012 plans by delivering a well-received speech at the Values Voter summit, starting a PAC and hiring top drawer talent to run it. There are many questions about the viability of Pawlenty’s campaign, but whatever those questions, it looks like a go.

2) Mike Huckabee-70% (+10)

Huckabee had a few things go right this quarter. His win at the Values Voter Strawpoll and his trip to Israel.  In addition, I think the chance of Huckabee running increase at half the rate that Palin’s chances of running decline. Huckabee has hedged his bets. He’s made it clear that he’s not running if there’s not a chance of victory. Whether we see a Huck-repeat will probably have a lot to do with how the Obama Administration fares, and potentially the success or failure of Bob Vander Plaats in Iowa.

3) Mitt Romney-68% (+8)

Nothing appears to indicate that Romney’s not running for President again and the word came out this quarter that Romney’s expected to write a 2012 book.

Unlikely Candidates

4) Haley Barbour (-2)-40%
4) John Thune (-3)-40%

Both of these men have been out of the spotlight and nothing indicates that they are running, other than speculation about it. I downgraded Thune more because  he’s had more opportunity to get national press in DC hasn’t availed himself of it.

6) Sarah Palin-39% (-10)

There are two sides to this equation. On one hand, Sarah Palin hasn’t done anything that would show interest in 2012. She skipped the Values Voter summit, and hasn’t at any events that woul indicate interest in the election. On the other hand, she could be planning an unconventional campaign that will go away from the endless and ultimately useless nine digit campaigns to instead go back to a Front Porch style of campaign where the candidates doesn’t throw herself out there every night and spend her time constantly fundraising. My bet at this point is that Palin lacks interest in a campaign, however, Palin is the one unlikely candidate who changes everything if she gets in.

7) Gary Johnson-38% (+2)

This bump is based solely on Kristopher’s rumor report.

Newt Gingrich-32% (+2%)

9) Rick Santorum-30% (not ranked)

The Santorum possibility is interesting, but I wouldn’t bet him on pulling the trigger. He was far more popular inside the beltway than outside of it and he’s going to need a lot of money to get this done. My bet is that Santorum is trying to raise issues and draw attention but won’t pull the trigger.

10) John Huntsman-29%  (NC)

11) Mike Pence-20% (Not Ranked)

Pence says he has no plans to run for President.  I tend to believe him, but that leaves some wiggle room.

12) Mitch Daniels-17% (-2)

13) Bobby Jindal-16% (-3)

His Star has come back to Earth a bit in Louisiana. I still think on balance, he’d make a good VP and if Republicans still don’t hold the White House come in 2016, Jindal could look very good.

14) John Cornyn-14% (-5)

Who needs the Presidency when you feel that you can dictate to every state GOP in the nation who their senate candidates will be.

15) Charlie Crist-12% (+3)

Crist’s talk of a Carteresque defeat for Obama could indicate that Crist is interested in doing the deed. Too bad for him, he committed himself to this race with Marco Rubio that lessens his national stature and ensures whether he wins or loses in Florida, the party base will have a bad taste in their mouth when it comes to him.

16) Jim DeMint-11% (-2)

17) Rudy Giuliani-9% (NC)

18) Jeb Bush-8% (+3)

Do polling companies know something we don’t know when Jeb Bush starts getting included in trial heats? Probably not, but perhaps Jeb is way too low.

Chances are greater of me getting a tongue ring and the Cubs winning the World Series on the same day candidates…

19) Ron Paul-5% (+4)

Okay I concede that despite the fact I don’t see Paul running for President,  there’s a greater than 1% chance of him running. Happy?

20) Tom Ridge 4% (-11)

Memo to Ridge: If you thought the book was going to improve your chances of being seen as a Presidential candidate, think again.

21) David Petraeus: 3% (-)

22) Mark Sanford-1% (-1)

Yeah, it’s unlikely, but who knows if running for President could become part of Mark Sanford’s “secret agent mission?”

Rudy Giuliani, quiet of late, is making some interesting stops:

Rudy Giuliani was in town as a guest speaker for the Get Motivated! seminar Tuesday at Freedom Hall, but the former New York City mayor and 2008 GOP presidential candidate didn’t leave without visiting a few Louisville hot spots.

“It was terrific,” said Giuliani, a serious New York Yankees fan. “I got to see Mickey Mantle’s contract, Yogi Berra’s contract, Joe DiMaggio’s contract and their bats. I got to see how you make a bat, which was great.”

The Buzz caught up with Giuliani just after he ate lunch Tuesday at Otto’s Cafe in The Seelbach Hilton.

“I love Louisville!” said Giuliani, who also praised his “wonderful dinner (Monday) night” at Jeff Ruby’s Steakhouse.

After his speech Tuesday, Giuliani also visited the Louisville Slugger Museum & Factory.

Hizzoner is a notorious Yankees fan but still…when politicians in New York start visiting baseball sites, it usually means something’s up.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com or at his Pawlentyesque blog

A lot has been said lately about the idea that Sarah Palin is positioning herself as a the libertarian in the 2012 field – and I have been laughing…a lot. This is exactly I have been saying for months, and exactly how I have seen a potential Palin run shaping up for years (VP  run or no VP run).  So, now that we are seeing a lot more of the original, pre-McCain Sarah Palin, I think we need to take a step back and reevaluate where Sarah sits in the field. I’ve been thinking about this for a while, and I think that Palin’s actual trajectory is very different from what most observers are predicting. So, here are some things to keep in mind.

1. The Huckabee Myth:  Sarah Palin is not, and has never been, competing for the same votes as Mike Huckabee.  Huckabee’s message is focused on  social/religious issues, and he is largely viewed as “compassionate conservative”. Yes, he has the Fair Tax,  but that’s not his selling point. Sarah Palin is far more hard-core on fiscal issues, energy issues, etc. She can compete for Huck-leaning SoCons but they are not her base…

2. Palinistas = Fredheads: Now that we’ve addressed what the Palin base isn’t (Huckabeean SoCons) – let’s look at what it is. It should be lost on no one that Fred Thompson has aligned himself closely with Palin, that their views match closely, and that Fred has no intention of making a 2012 run. It’s not an exact match, but if we are trying to model a race, it is pretty safe to assume that Palin enters the race as the heir to Fred’s more libertarian base rather than a competitor to Huck.

3. The Rudy Factor: This is where the whole “Sarah the Libertarian” argument REALLY kicks in. Has anyone seen Hizzoner palling around with Mike Huckabee at a Yanks game? Mitt Romney? Okay, Mitt’s probably a Red Sox guy anyway – but you get the point. Rudy Giuliani feels a kinship with Sarah based on her experience as a mayor and a corruption buster – and he knew about the “libertarian Sarah” long before the punditry caught on. Should Rudy decide against running himself (likely in my opinion), then he becomes Sarah’s ace in the hole. His endorsement will likely seal the deal with the libertarian wing of the party - and one could argue that aligning the Rudy vote and the Fred vote could create quite a force. If anyone doubts that Palin can appeal to Rudy supporters, I would also point out that three of the biggest early Palin advocates (myself, Steve Maloney, Eric Dondero) were ALL backing Giuliani backers in 2008 (although Steve shifted to McCain near the end). The Palin movement was birthed out of the Giuliani base – and I still think we are well positioned to get that vote.

4. New Hampshire, Baby!: Everybody assumes that Sarah will be making her stand in Iowa and Iowa alone. I think that’s ridiculous. Palin will start with strong numbers in Iowa, but New Hampshire is her state. Alaska has a strongly libertarian electorate, has a lot of registered independents, and understands political analogies based on ice hockey. The same is true of new Hampshire – those are the voters Sarah knows, those are the voters who formed her Alaskan base, those are the voters she can win over, and those are the voters she should target. Furthermore, New Hampshire has one thing Iowa doesn’t, a large number of people who supported McCain in 2008. Not all of those people are going for Sarah, but they are all up for grabs – and given Mitt Romney’s potential for last-minute implosion, I like Sarah’s chances. Not that she shouldn’t try to win Iowa, but a dramatic win (or even a strong second) in New Hampshire would give her far more momentum.

 So – that is my view of the brave new world of “Sarahtarianism” – which is really nothing more than the classic Sarah Palin finally emerging on the national stage. We’ll see just how libertarian she can get when we see her upcoming memoir Going Rogue, but I’m guessing that she will use that book to complete the transformation we’ve all been talking about.

Here’s to the future – because it’s looking great from this Palinista’s point of view.

Rasmussen New York Political Survey

2010 Gubernatorial Race

• Rudy Giuliani 50% (55%)
• David Paterson 39% (33%)
• Undecided 2% (5%)

• David Paterson 38%
• Rick Lazio 38%
• Undecided 11%

• Andrew Cuomo 58% (48%)
• Rudy Giuliani 37% (41%)
• Undecided 3% (6%)

• Andrew Cuomo 65%
• Rick Lazio 26%
• Undecided 5%

2010 Senatorial Race

• Kirsten Gillibrand 44%
• George Pataki 41%
• Undecided 4%

Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]

• Andrew Cuomo 68% (64%) / 25% (32%) [+43%]
• Rudy Giuliani 55% (56%) / 44% (39%) [+11%]
• George Pataki 46% / 48% [-2%]
• Kirsten Gillibrand 39% / 42% [-3%]
• Rick Lazio 33% / 49% [-16%]
• David Paterson 38% (38%) / 57% (60%) [-19%]

How would you rate the job David Paterson has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 14% (5%)
• Approve 25% (27%)
• Disapprove 27% (31%)
• Strongly disapprove 33% (36%)

Last week the White House told Governor David Paterson that he should not run for Governor in 2010. Should the White House get involved like this in New York state politics?

• Yes 29%
• No 60%

Should Paterson drop out of the Governor’s race?

• Yes 44%
• No 41%

How likely is it that Paterson will drop out of the Governor’s race?

• Very likely 17%
• Somewhat likely 31%
• Not very likely 31%
• Not at all likely 8%

Does the White House’s pressure on Paterson not to run in the 2010 Governor’s race make you more likely to vote for Paterson, less likely to vote for Paterson or have no impact on your vote?

• More likely 18%
• Less likely 16%
• No impact 64%

How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?

• Strongly approve 48% (39%)
• Approve 13% (24%)
• Disapprove 11% (10%)
• Strongly disapprove 27% (27%)

Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?

• Strongly favor 34%
• Somewhat favor 24%
• Somewhat oppose 6%
• Strongly oppose 32%

If the health care reform plan passes, will the quality of health care get better, worse, or stay about the same?

• Better 37%
• Worse 34%
• Staying the same 15%

If the health care reform plan passes, will the cost of health care go up, go down, or stay about the same?

• Cost of health care will go up 36%
• Cost will go down 20%
• Stay the same 30%

Is the health care reform legislation being considered by Congress likely to increase the deficit, reduce the deficit, or have no impact on the deficit?

• Increase the deficit 56%
• Reduce the deficit 8%
• No impact on the deficit 24%

To cover the cost of health care reform, how likely is it that taxes will have to be raised on the middle class?

• Very likely 51%
• Somewhat likely 21%
• Not very likely 16%
• Not at all likely 6%

In reacting to the nation’s current economic problems, what worries you more….that the federal government will do too much or that the federal government will not do enough?

• Federal government will do too much 38%
• Federal government will not do enough 43%

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted September 22. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted July 14 are in parentheses.

Paterson is being stabbed in the back by Obama, Rudy is out-polling Gillibrand and Pataki is acting VERY political.

I have not seen Pataki this engaged since…

Watch the last 30 seconds.

He should have been asked if he was running for President.

_________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

Siena New York 2010 Political Survey

Democratic Gubernatorial Primary

• Andrew Cuomo 66% {65%} (69%)
• David Paterson 20% {23%} (16%)

Gubernatorial General Election

• Rudy Giuliani 52% {56%} (57%) [59%]
• David Paterson 35% {33%} (27%) [31%]

• David Paterson 39% {38%}
• Rick Lazio 35% {37%}

• Andrew Cuomo 52% {53%} (49%) [53%]
• Rudy Giuliani 39% {40%} (40%) [41%]

• Andrew Cuomo 64% {66%}
• Rick Lazio 18% {16%}

Senatorial General Election

• Rudy Giuliani 46%
• Kirsten Gillibrand 38%

Among Independents

• Rudy Giuliani 48%
• Kirsten Gillibrand 36%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Andrew Cuomo 66% {70%} (71%) [66%] / 21% {14%} (17%) [20%] {+45%}
• Rudy Giuliani 56% {57%} (62%) [61%] / 38% {35%} (33%) [35%] {+18%}
• Kirsten Gillibrand 29% {29%} / 24% {20%} {+5%}
• Rick Lazio 22% {21%} / 25% {22%} {-3%}
• David Paterson 29% {32%} (31%) [27%] / 59% {55%} (57%) [60%] {-30%}

How would you rate the job that David Paterson is doing as Governor?

• Excellent 2% {3%} (2%) [2%]
• Good 16% {20%} (18%) [16%]
• Fair 41% {38%} (39%) [43%]
• Poor 39% {38%} (39%) [38%]

If David Paterson runs for Governor in 2010, would you vote to elect him or would you prefer someone else?

• Elect Paterson 14% {15%} (15%)
• Prefer someone else 71% {68%} (70%)

(Among registered Democrats) Would you prefer to see Attorney General Andrew Cuomo run for re-election as Attorney General next year or would you prefer to see him run for Governor instead?

• Re-election as Attorney General 33% {30%} (28%)
• Run for Governor 49% {53%} (56%)

(Among registered Republicans) Would you like Rudy Giuliani to run for Governor of New York in 2010, or United State Senator from New York in 2010, or would you prefer that he not run for either of those two offices?

• Run for Governor 41%
• Run for Senator 35%
• Not run for either 19%

Survey of 792 registered voters was conducted August 17-20. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. Click here for crosstabs. Results from the poll conducted August 17-20 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 15-18 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted May 18-21 are in square brackets.

(more…)