Centerfield

Could it be true? A centrist who can attract the support of the institutional right? Gawd let's hope so, before the wheels start coming off this bandwagon.

Posted by: wavemaker at May 3, 2005 03:21 PM

Is it possible Pat Robertson is more of a partisan than an ideologue?

Could it be?!?!?!

Actually, I think the answer would be: That's what you get for reading the New York Sun.

Robertson has no problem playing presidential campaign tactical hardball to remain influential in the post-Bush era, but that doesn't mean he's not toxic for centrism in general. So wondering if he's not so much of an ideologue misses the point.

Posted by: Stygius at May 3, 2005 04:34 PM

Maybe Rudy hasn't been long enough on the "national stage" to have his bridges burned. I don't know if the polls would agree but to me Pat Robertson is to the Republican Party as Dennis Kucinich is to the Democratic Party. In a word: irrelavant.

Posted by: c3 at May 3, 2005 04:52 PM

I am a John McCain supporter, and would love to see him become President. However, I am starting to see the merits of a Giuliani candidacy. The Mayor may be the best chance to nominate a Republican moderate because Conservatives, although they don't agree with him, still love him. Take a look at this survey by Patrick Ruffini that was completed by visitors of various conservative and/or Republican leaning blogs:

http://www.patrickruffini.com/results042605.php

Out of 5000 votes Giuliani won easily over Senator George Allen, then Bill Frist, then McCain. About half of the respondents called themselves conservative, 1/4 where moderate, and another 1/4 identified as libertarians... I would argue that this is close to the current makeup of Republican primary voters. You can view the resutls by the Blog that participated, top issue, ideology, or overall.

Patrick admits that this is not the most scientific of surveys and that Senator Allen may jump in the polls once conservatives know his name, but this is still pretty interesting.

Posted by: Mathew at May 3, 2005 04:58 PM

There's only two ways to look at ANY Pat Robertson comments: a) Either there is financial incentive for him to make them, or b)He might get some press coverage.

Nothing else matters.

Posted by: AH at May 3, 2005 05:38 PM

One thing to remember: Robertson only made his positive comments about Giuliani in reponse to a direct question from Stephanopoulos about whether religious conservatives would break off and form a third party if the GOP nominated a moderate like McCain or Giuliani. To a prior question about who he'd like to see run in 2008, Robertson mentioned Brownback and Allen (and stuck a knife into Bill Frist). So first of all, I think we ought to be very careful drawing any conclusions from what he said just because he didn't completely attack Giuliani.

Second thing to remember: Everything else Robertson said during that interview. Sunday Morning Talk has a good deal of the transcript available here. Is it fair of us to give credence to the one comment that makes Robertson sound, even remotely, reasonable when the rest makes us cringe?

All that being said, I agree with what Mathew said above: I think that a Giuliani candidacy does have the potential to bring the various wings of the GOP together.

- JBD (Charging RINO)
www.chargingrino.com

Posted by: Charging RINO at May 3, 2005 07:28 PM

I'm from Missouri, remember? I'll believe Robertson endorsing Rudy for President when I see it.

Posted by: Blue Jean at May 3, 2005 10:29 PM

Robertson didn't just refrain from "completely attacking Giuliani," he outright praised him and said he'd make a good president! If that's not an endorsement, I don't know what is.

Of course Robertson wants Brownback or Santorum or someone like that ideally, but those guys are too far to the right to even take off during the primary. As Ruffini's poll showed, Rudy is going to start off as the frontrunner. And if it's between Rudy, Frist, and McCain, Robertson is prepared to throw the millions of dollars and ground troops that comprise the Christian Coalition behind Rudy. Unless a center-right conservative like George Allen is able to build enough prominence in the next few years to derail the Rudy bandwagon, I think we're looking at the next GOP nominee.

But why would Robertson support Rudy over McCain? Probably for the same reason that religious conservatives supported Bush the Elder back in 1988 despite his pro-choice past even though pro-life Bob Dole was running. Back in 1988, Dole was sort of like McCain is now --- a contrarian in the Senate who didn't approve of a lot of what Reagan was doing. Bush 41, even though everyone knew he was actually pro-choice, had shown enough loyalty to Reagan that so-cons trusted him more to continue Reagan's socially conservative policies.

Robertson is the Don Corleone of the Religious Right, which controlls the Southern GOP primaries. He's basically closed the door on McCain in the South and is close to knocking Frist off the ledge as well. Like I said, unless a mainstream conservative like Allen or Romney is able to really make a name for himself in the next couple of years, it's gonna be Rudy!

Posted by: Dave at May 3, 2005 10:46 PM

I don't disagree with most of that analysis at all, Dave, I just am not quite sure that we should take Robertson's vote of confidence in Rudy now as any guarantee of support in 2008. Clearly Frist doesn't have his support, but I'm afraid you overestimate Republican primary voters in many states - I think Allen or Santorum or Brownback would have a definite shot at getting a very large number of southern delegates if they were in the race (and Robertson would be rather unlikely to support Giuliani instead of one of them, I suspect).

As for his visceral dislike of McCain, that comes from McCain's 2/28/2000 Virginia Beach speech in which he blasted Robertson, Falwell & Co. as "agents of intolerance" and said:

"I am a pro-life, pro-family, fiscal conservative, and advocate of a strong defense. And yet, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and a few Washington leaders of the pro-life movement call me an unacceptable presidential candidate. They distort my pro-life positions and smear the reputations of my supporters. Why?

Because I don't pander to them, because I don't ascribe to their failed philosophy that money is our message. I believe in the cause of conservative reform. I believe that because we are right we will prevail in the battle of ideas, unspoiled by the taint of a corrupt campaign finance scheme that works against the very conservative reform of government that is the object of our labors. The Republican Party will prevail because of our principles—because that's what it's about, my friends—principles, not special interest money or empire or ego."

All still true today :-)

- JBD (Charging RINO)

Posted by: Charging RINO at May 3, 2005 11:32 PM

Charging,

I don't really disagree with anything you've said either. The only thing I would point out is that, IMO, there's a major chasm between the level of support someone like Allen could get in the primaries and the amount of support a Brownback would receive. Allen is sort of a Bush-style, center-right Republican. A candidate like that would do quite well in red state and closed primaries and, if interesting or charismatic enough, would be Rudy's toughest challenge to the nomination. Brownback and Santorum are well to the right of the political center of gravity even within the GOP. I see them as being marginal candidates at best.

Posted by: Dave at May 3, 2005 11:45 PM

the same Pat Robertson engaged in mining operations with Liberia's dictator.

Boy what an endorsement.

Posted by: Marcus at May 4, 2005 06:18 AM

What a great discussion! Excellent points Dave. RINO, although I to fear the South's roll in the primary process, I do NOT see the candidates you mention as Presidential contenders. Brownback is a dark horse at best, and Santorum might not even get re-elected to the Senate. The Conservative candidate, IMO, has not appeared and probably will come from a stathouse. Romney in Mass, Pawlenty in Minnesota, or Sanford from South Carolina are all possiblities, with the edge going to Mitt, I think. These guys along with Allen would be an extension of Bush, which makes sense, but they are all untested in the spotlight which gives Rudy a big advantage. Furthermore, II am not so sure that Republicans, or even Conservatives, are going to be looking for an extension of Bush in '08. I suppose that will be an important factor come New Hampshire.

I can't believe Frist or Allen will be the Republican nominee. Frist, IMO, is a horrible Majority Leader with little accomplishment on the big issues. With no executive experience, I would dare say he is unqualified for the job. Allen, who is qualified as a former Governor and current Senator, was absolutely horrible in defense of the nuclear option in Congress and other current hot button issues on Meet the Press this week. Chris Dodd made him look like an amateur. If you saw the show, you know what I mean. Part of what makes Bush, Bush, is that he gets away with being avereage on the stump because he is disciplined and carries a huge likeability factor. Allen has neither. A great Virginian gentlemen, nice guy, and a above average public servant he is, but a national candidate he is not.

Again, if I where the only voter, John McCain would be President, but I am not. I love what you had to say about Conservatives not liking him because he doesn't pander, RINO. I absolutely agree. Conservatism used to be intellectually based in the early nineties, but power has corrupted the movement and Conservatives do not no longer take kindly to those politicians who think before they vote. It's become a fall into line or get left out in the cold mentality. McCain is a Conservative, but a Conservative (right of center) who thinks about the issues. IMO, Robertson finds his independence dangerous to the cause.... Let's not mention the fact that McCain has made it his personal goal to knock Robertosn and Falwell down a few notches, which in my book makes him a hero.

The other problem with McCain is that if he runs and Rudy runs we may be losing our chance to nominate a Republican with centrist credentials, because they will split the moderates. Rudy's star power after 9/11, and the fact that he probably has a better relationship with the right may make him the better choice. I sat in a room with a bunch of wing nut conservative, think-tank types a year or two ago, and watched as they heaped praise on Giuliani and gave him an award for his job as Mayor. They don't always agree with him, but they love him, and will vote for him regardless of his viewpoint on certain social issues. You can't say the same about McCain, the relationship simply never recovered after 2000. Would I vote for my second choice in order nominate a moderate Republican, although my heart is truly with McCain? Absolutely!

Posted by: Mathew at May 4, 2005 08:43 AM

I know, I love this discussion! It's great to be able to have honest, real back-and-forth on an issue without things devolving into partisan nastiness (I think it helps that we all pretty much agree in principle helps, but still, it's awesome).

Dave and Mathew, I think (and hope) you're both right about Brownback and Santorum - and yes, if Bob Casey runs a good race in PA Santorum may find himself out of the running before the race even starts (making him the Roy Barnes of '08?).

I also think Frist is pretty much out of the running already. Allen I'm not sure about - Mathew's got it completely right about his performance on MTP this weekend ("in over his head" was about the nicest description I've seen) - but he's definitely got some conservative support out there. Sanford, Pawlenty and Romney certainly are possibilities from the states, as is Haley Barbour from MS.

The big question will be, as Mathew said, does the GOP want an echo of Bush (great point!). And if not, will they go to the moderate side, or the other way? I think the overreach (on so many things) in recent months, if it continues, will tend to swing it in the centrist direction.

Totally agree on McCain, Mathew (especially since I value my own independence of party so much). Lockstep doesn't really appeal to me! I watched that Virginia Beach speech four years ago and literally was jumping out and down with joy at what he was saying (even though I knew that it probably wasn't the wisest move politically). I also agree on the "if McCain runs" scenario - and I'm not convinced that he will just yet. The worst thing we could do is split the moderate vote.

Let's keep talking!
- Jeremy (Charging RINO)

Posted by: Charging RINO at May 4, 2005 09:25 AM

I find myself in a weird position ideologically with regard to these two guys. Giuliani is clearly more my kind of leader on the issues, and I almost always vote for the guy who agrees with me. McCain is more my kind of leader tempermentally, however. I love a centrist with a backbone.

I look at these two guys, and have a relatively easy time imagining McCain as an excellent president, and don't quite get that same feeling from Giuliani. I think McCain knows exactly what he wants, and does it. He has those strong fundamental leadership qualities, even if I don't agree with him about everything.

Posted by: William Swann at May 4, 2005 10:40 AM

FYI -- I actually added this as a poll question on the CC site. It's a little early for 2008, certainly, but people love to speculate.

Posted by: William Swann at May 4, 2005 11:24 AM

William,

You kind of hit the nail on the head for me. On the issues, Guiliani is my man. He is my type of moderate Republican. Domestically, he's in this century, but strong on defense.

That being said, I'm just not sure you leap from Mayor of NYC to the Presidency. I guess I try to look at it from the angle of "What if 9/11 had never happened? Would Guiliani have been considered a great mayor?" That's a tricky, tricky question. There's no doubt that NYC turned a major corner in regards to development, crime, corruption, etc. That being said, there was also a lot of bitterness in regards to Guiliani. He tended to be very rough around the edges--the minority communities in particular found fault with his methods of leadership. While all of that was lost post 9/11, I'm not so sure but that a national campaign in 2008 wouldn't see all of that fleshed to the surface rather quickly by a media that delights in both making celebrities and tearing them down.

Posted by: AH at May 4, 2005 01:15 PM

Would Giuliani have been considered a good Mayor if 9/11 never happened?

Absolutely, he would have left New York with a dramatically reduced crime rate, financial solvency, and economic growth. I think before 9/11 he is at least in the top ten, probably in the top-three afterwards.

How do you leap from NYC Mayor to the Presidency?

Aren't both NYC and the USA in the top five of the largest economies of the world? I am not answering the question... It is a good one. However, I tend to think that job of Mayor in New York, Los Angeles, or other similiar metropolitan areas is perfect training ground to be the Commander in Chief, probably more so than the United States Senate or the Governorship of a small state. Giuliani, as Mayor, was in charge of one of the biggest economies, Police forces, and school systems in the world. Furthermore, I think it would help, not hurt, to have someone in the White House who has the perspective of a former local government official.

Rudy's problems?

They will definetely be talked about; however, I think we have come a long way since Gary Hart. Furthermore, I would think this would mostly be a problem in the primaries and not the general election, and again, I think Conservatives have forgived Giuliani for what they already know and don't like about him. I can't imagine the party of Bill Clinton playing the character card against Rudy Giuliani. I am not saying they will not try, but I doubt seriously that it will work. Especially if Hillary Clinton is the nominee.

As far as his attitude, I think the things that Rudy's critics pointed out, mostly that he is an over-bearing, micro-managing hot head, are exactly the same qualities that made him such a beloved leader after the 9/11 tragedy. It is kind of hard to question the leadership abilities of Rudy Giuliani since it is pretty much excepted that he lead the city through it's toughest time. Furthermore, although I admit this is a personal opinion, I kind of like the idea of having a President who is willing to shut the door and not have a problem with the fact that everyone behind it hates his guts.

Your comment about minorities opposed to Rudy in NYC, although it is valid, is a little out of context. First of all, he was the Republican in a liberal Democrat city with large minority populations. He simply could not have won twice without the support of a significant number of minority voters. Second, the groups opposed to him where mostly opposed to his law and order policies, and they where liberal minority interests in the most liberal city in the country. I think as far as law and order, what some New Yorkers are opposed to, is probably going to be popular with most everyone else across the nation. Also, I don't see how this hurts him in the Republican primary as most of those voters will be voting Democrat. Furthermore, Rudy can point to results... It is not debateable that under his watch the crime rate in New York plummeted. The balloon that he is a hard nosed racist when it comes to law enforcement kind of gets deflated when one points out that his policies worked.

Yes, celebrities get torn down, but I would argue that Giuliani's star power is above celebrity status. The man is beloved by many people, and he is often referred to as America's Mayor. I think attacks on his leadership or his character might have a Bill Clinton effect and actually make him more popular. I guess that is a hard argument to prove though.

Posted by: Mathew at May 4, 2005 02:28 PM

You could argue that a major mayorship is the perfect training ground for the Presidency, on the basis of the old wisdom about what makes a good mayor, someone who gets the buses to run on time and gets the potholes fixed quickly.

If Guiliani runs on the platform that he want's to be "America's mayor" in just that way, focusing on nuts and bolts responses to common problems all Americans share and staying away from divisive social issues and catering to special interest sub-groups, he could dominate the center, IMO. That would be a very strong marketing story, one that the fed-up middle would respond to...

I like McCain much better though, There's something about Guiliani I find a little weasely.

Posted by: bk at May 4, 2005 03:32 PM

Re: Rudy or McCain?

The question is probably academic, as Rudy is the only one of the two that the GOP will nominate. McCain has pretty much succeeded in convincing the GOP base that he's either a) a closet liberal, b) a maverick who can't be trusted, or c) both. And McCain ain't making things easier for himself as he breaks with his party on procedural votes like the filibuster rule change. The only way McCain becomes president is by running third party. But the chances of such a move working out are minimal due to the realities of politics, especially the electoral college.

Rudy, though, has a very good chance of winning the nomination for all the aforementioned reasons. Rudy would likely be our generation's Teddy Roosevelt, reforming some of the major institutions of our time (for TR it was trustbusting, for Rudy, maybe Social Security and Medicare, education, etc) while staying away from any major attempt to remake his party. TR came and went with his moderate image and the GOP basically remained the same. I imagine Rudy would do the same thing. By refraining from engaging in any kind of crusade to transform the GOP into the party of social libertarianism, Rudy will remain acceptable to the GOP base for a term or two while being able to have a real impact on the big issues of our day, none of which are cultural issues IMO.

Posted by: Dave at May 4, 2005 04:14 PM

Great points, Matthew...just wanted to clarify one thing. By "Rudy's problems" I was in no way referring to his personal life. Of all people on this board, I probably am the one who can cast no stones...lol. I won't say that I could care less, but I think he has conducted himself well...everyone is entitled to a slip up now and then, it's how they conduct themselves afterwards that shows their true character. In that regard, he has scored high with me.

Posted by: AH at May 4, 2005 04:46 PM

One thing which no one picked up on in Robertson's quasi-endorsement of Giuliani:

Rev. Robertson's comments represent the result of Mr. Giuliani's personal reaching out to other Republicans in addition to the halo effect from his leadership after the attacks of September 11 and subsequent honor as Time magazine's Man of the Year. These factors have made him a valuable celebrity surrogate for Republican candidates across the country. Without ever backing off his core principles, Mr. Giuliani has been a tireless good soldier for the Republican Party in the last two election cycles, and contributed considerably on the ground to their gains in Congress and the Senate. In the process, he has created personal loyalties in unexpected places and proven that this former New York City mayor can play nationally.

This is evident in events like an upcoming fund-raiser for longtime Christian Coalition leader and influential Republican operative Ralph Reed in his campaign for lieutenant governor of Georgia, where Mr. Giuliani has been asked to serve on the host committee.

The question is: how commited can Giuliani be to centrism while transforming himself into a hack?What effect would his going to bat for Reed now have in a general election in 2008 (ie., the Moore effect on Kerry)? Polls now aren't going to show any effect from Reed because voters don't know about it, but if the Giuliani does get the nomination, you can bet that the Democrats will test whether or not association with Reed would hurt him and drive the point home if it does.

BTW, I had a higher opinion of Giuliani when he put service to his city above service to his party (recall his endorsement of Cuomo in 1994). However, in the past election cycle, he has started to put service to his party above service to his country, or at least above service to the ideals he is believed to have.

Posted by: Scott Smith at May 4, 2005 04:53 PM

Because someone is a loyal Republican who supports the nominee of the party and campaigns for Congressional or major statewide candidates candidates, does not make him a hack, and I find the insinuation that it does offensive and ridiculous. By that standard no moderate Republican could stay true to their centrist principles while still calling themself a Republican, which I dare say is your point Scott. This was typical rhetoric after the Republican convention from the Democrats... Arnold, McCain, and Giuliani aren't really moderates because they support Bush. Is this true for the Democrats also? Were not Evan Bayh and Harold Ford at the Democratic Convention? Are they any less loyal to centrist values because they are loyal Democrats who supported John Kerry? Should moderates not try to reach out beyond their own ideology and campaign for those in their party who are more liberal or conservative, especially in a state like Georgia where there isn't a viable centrist alternative? Should we give up electing moderates in either party because in order to be nominated they have to compromise, negotiate, and work well with others who may be more conservative or liberal? Or is this just another Democratic line about moderates not having a voice within the Republican Party?

Posted by: Mathew at May 4, 2005 05:17 PM

Just as long as another Bush doesn't enter into the equation. I think the combined deficit total so far of the 2 Bushes is over 2 trillion dollars.

Giulliani - if he's only riding on 9/11 he's toast.
McCain - too liberal for many Republicans however 2 more years of Bush should change that.
Frist - Lost the election the other Sunday

god can you guys draft Kemp?

and as for Kerry, he's a lot more moderate than he was painted to be by Karl Rove so centrists like me had nothing to compromise.

BTW..there's another try to get Clark to run...hmmmm Clark vs McCain...McCain would win.
Giulliani vs Clark...more of a tossup

Posted by: Marcus at May 4, 2005 05:34 PM

McCain - too liberal for many Republicans however 2 more years of Bush should change that.

Huh?! Don't get me wrong, I like the guy but I don't think he qualifies as liberal, even in the Republican Party. Posted by: c3 at May 4, 2005 07:44 PM

I was watching Brit Hume tonight on FOX and he and his regulars were talking 2008. When the topic of Rudy came up, both the left-leaning Mara Liason and the moderate independent Mort Kondrake dismissed his chances in a GOP primary right off the bat. And who came to bat for Rudy? None other than Fred Barnes, the panel's staunch conservative, who seemed fairly optimistic of Rudy's chances.

I think what we have here is an interesting divide. Liberals fear Rudy because he'd likely mean four to eight more years of Republican rule, thus they are attempting to convince themselves that he has no shot at the nomination. Independents like Rudy, but view Republicans as a bit more conservative than they actually are (or perhaps less pragmatic than they tend to be when push comes to shove) and simply don't think Rudy can win in a conservative primary. The irony is that Republicans --- including some of the most conservative ones --- are Rudy's prime backers right now due to their utter fear of a Hillary presidency. The notion that it'll take one rock star to defeat another is causing many Republicans to look for a giant in their own party to take on who they see as the likely Democratic nominee. A Hillary presidency is anathema to almost every Republican and many, many independents and if there's anything that would unite 60 percent of the country behind a Rudy candidacy, it's a Hillary nomination.

Posted by: Dave at May 4, 2005 08:04 PM

The core power base of the GOP is more conservative not more moderate. That's why Rudy appeals to the moderate republicans and the pragmatic hard core conservativew sho folow the win at any cost rule.

Posted by: Marcus at May 4, 2005 08:14 PM

Dave, I think that's a very good point. For all of her "centrification" attempts, Hillary would do exactly as you say and galvanize people behind a candidacy like Giuliani's. The bigger worry, perhaps, would be that the Republicans nominate someone more conservative (perhaps much more conservative) than Giuliani. Then where do the moderates and independents go? Hopefully wouldn't be an issue if a moderate took the GOP nod, but otherwise, somethig might have to happen in the middle.
- JBD (Charging RINO)

Posted by: Charging RINO at May 4, 2005 09:41 PM

JDB

The problem is that the more conservative elements have a near stranglehold on the GOP due to a rather Faustian bargain. The chances of someone significantly more moderate being nominated as far as I can see are nil, unless the GOP sustains heavy losses in the midterm elections. There's also the unspoken sentiment around the country that a Clinton in the White House may not be a bad idea. Certainly many people look upon those times as being more moderate and more financially stable. Recent poll regarding the 25th amendment shows Bill ahead of George 53% to 43%. IF Hillary hooks enough people onto the Bill Clinton cachet she could be unbeatable against all but the most moderate of liberal of Republicans.

Posted by: Marcus at May 4, 2005 10:01 PM

Yeah Marcus I think that's a good analysis. All the more reason to pick one :-)

- JBD

Posted by: Charging RINO at May 4, 2005 11:04 PM

Hillary is facing a double-edged sword. On one hand, she understands red state voters (heck, she lived in one for a couple of decades) and knows how they tick. On the other hand, she already has 40 percent of voters in moderate states like Ohio and Michigan saying they'd vote against her under any circumstance.

If Hillary is able to position herself the way Nixon did in '68 --- a candidate in the tradition of the last president of her party whose darker impulses will be tempered by the Congress of the other party --- she could very well squeak by. OTOH, if Hillary turns out to be a modern day Goldwater, exhibiting a mixture of interesting new ideas that are more than cancelled out by tired old ones, she'll be eviscerated.

My guess is that Hillary would beat a far-right Republican like Brownback but be easily defeated by a mod like Rudy. A mainstream conservative like Allen would probably give her a 50/50 race.

Posted by: Dave at May 4, 2005 11:33 PM

McCain... the press loves him, but the fundies don't, and they're the ones who are going to voting in the primaries. While he's shown a remarkable lack of bitterness about 2000, I wouldn't blame him if he refrained from going through the meatgrinder again.

I think the primary voters would love Brownback, but let's face it, he's from Kansas. Kansas would vote Republican even if Mr. Ed was on the top of the ticket. There's nothing to gain from a Brownback For President slate.

Rudy, on the other hand, is from New York; a good gain if he could carry it in a national race. Frankly, it would be nice if he ran for Senate of governor first, before he took on the top job. Lots of people think he can defeat Senator Clinton--I'm not so sure. He had a chance to run against her when she first came out, but he didn't. In fact, I'm not sure if Hillary will run for President either. She's the front runner now, but so was Mario Cuomo once upon a time.

The only thing that's certain is that the eventual nominees will surprise most of the pundits. ;)

Posted by: Blue Jean at May 5, 2005 12:58 AM

This was typical rhetoric after the Republican convention from the Democrats... Arnold, McCain, and Giuliani aren't really moderates because they support Bush. Is this true for the Democrats also? Were not Evan Bayh and Harold Ford at the Democratic Convention? Are they any less loyal to centrist values because they are loyal Democrats who supported John Kerry?

Compare McCain's speech at the convention with Giuliani's. Giuliani engaged in much more distortion of Kerry's record than did McCain. Example, the line that Kerry voted on some measures before turning around and voting against exactly the same thing. Now there is room to debate whether the changes between what Kerry voted for and what he voted against are significant enough to warrant a change, but to suggest that they did not exist is an out-and-out LIE that Giuliani engaged in and McCain did not. So no, I am not saying that the other moderates sold out on centrism by backing Bush.

As for working with more conservative Republicans, it's one thing to support them once they receive the nomination, but Giuliani is supporting Reed now, during the primary campaign. As an aside, all this pandering to the party bases is one more reason to scrap the weeding out process and allow anyone who can get the signatures to run in the general election.

Posted by: Scott Smith at May 5, 2005 09:48 AM

The only thing that's certain is that the eventual nominees will surprise most of the pundits. ;)

So true. Best bet is always to look to the governors. They carry less smearable baggage than Congresscritters, and as "chief executives" instead of legislators they don't generally have long vote records of being on both sides of all the issues. They're forced to take positions and stick to them.

Posted by: Tully at May 5, 2005 10:16 AM

Notice that a lot of this speculation relies on the continuation of partisan bases exclusively driving the primary process. I think this discussion reinforces the importance of centrists encouraging fellow moderates and independents to examine their states voting rules in order to participate in whichever primary they think provides the best opportunity for their voice to be heard.

I admit it is unlikely, but it's at least possible that the participation of greater number of independents and moderates in primaries could sway the results. If moderates and independents really are fed up with both partisan wings, they should particpate where their voices will do the most good. Participating in the primaries is a good way to get your voice heard, and to foster the possibility that the eventual finalists are reasonable choices. We COULD have had Lieberman and McCain running if this had happened before. Here's hoping...

If a solid 1/3 of the GenPub doesn't strongly identify with either party, and this group continues to show some growth, then a primary system that excludes this group becomes progressively irrrational unless it at least allows this centrist group to participate easily in one of the 2 primaries in each cycle.

Posted by: bk at May 5, 2005 12:14 PM

Giuliani engaged in much more distortion of Kerry's record than did McCain. Example, the line that Kerry voted on some measures before turning around and voting against exactly the same thing. Now there is room to debate whether the changes between what Kerry voted for and what he voted against are significant enough to warrant a change, but to suggest that they did not exist is an out-and-out LIE that Giuliani engaged in and McCain did not.

Agreed that Giuliani's speech was more politically combative than McCain's speech in regards to John Kerry, but he beat the hell out of Michael Moore. Although I wouldn't say Rudy lied, I would say that he held back on the whole truth. What he should have said, was: John Kerry isn't qualified to be President because he changed his mind on war funding at the same time that Howard Dean was up in the polls due in large part to a well orchestrated campaign against the Iraq war. What the Senator did, amounts to abandoning his initial position because he was getting his clock cleaned in the polls and needed to pander to the Birkenstock wearing, pot smoking, leftist, tie-died, hippy, Vietnam protesting, anti-war peacenik that is the political base of the Democratic Party. I personally give credit to Rudy for holding back.

I still have a problem with the standard. Are moderates not supposed to point out there opponent's faults? I would argue the reason that centrists are getting killed in both political parties because they lack teeth. Tom Delay would be a Houston insurance salesman if certain moderate Republicans told the truth a long time ago, and don't even get me started on the Harold Ford, Martin Frost, Nancy Pelosi race for Democratic Leader in the House or Dean's victory at the DNC. I still don't see why Giuliani's years of bucking his party to do the right thing should be erased because he supported his party's candidate, and yes, engaged in what IMO was defensible criticism of the Democratic nominee.

I still also don't get your beef with the Reed situation. Yes, he was Chairman of the Christian Coalition, but there is a HUGE difference between Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson; furthermore, it is Georgia! Is there a centrist I don't know about in the primary against Reed? The way I see it, Giuliani is engaging in smart politics. Georgia is a conservative southern state. Giuliani is a liberal New York Republican. He doesn't have a chance in hell if he doesn't make friends with conservatives in the south, nor does any moderate from either party. Reed is a player in the south and most importantly he is a leader within the "New Right" wing of the Republican Party. Of course you would do everything you can for him, and hope he would return the favor in '08. If Ralph Reed supports Rudy Giuliani for President, I see that as progress for centrists, not pandering.

If Giuliani were to comeout tomorrow and announce he was Pro-Life, for the FMA, and opposed to renewing the assault weapons ban, then I might agree with you, but he hasn't. All he's doing is making friends with people whose support would be valuable in a run for the Republican nomination.

Posted by: Mathew at May 5, 2005 03:20 PM

Quite right, Tully; there are TWO certain things. That whoever is nominated will surprise the pundits, and the next successful nominee will be a governor or a former governor. The win rate of former senators is spotty, at best, for the reasons you mentioned. Plus, the governors have more executive experience, which is a asset when it comes to the White House.

Posted by: Blue Jean at May 5, 2005 10:14 PM

Cheap generic bet--I bet the governor will beat the Congressman....

Posted by: Tully at May 7, 2005 03:48 PM

Now if they run a Congressman who used to be a governor, or vice versa, all bets are off.

Posted by: Tully at May 8, 2005 12:35 PM