Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Rudy's Congressional Backing

Congressional endorsements are the flimsiest of all endorsements in a presidential race. While a select few members can have an impact due to their home state's primacy in the nominating process (Iowa, New Hampshire etc.) or a particularly well organized grassroots operation in either their district or region, any single endorsement from a Member of Congress is relatively meaningless.

So, when former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani announced yesterday that Pennsylvania Reps. Jim Gerlach and Phil English were endorsing his presidential campaign, it passed without notice.

But then we glanced at all of Giuliani's congressional endorsers (which are listed at after the jump) and noticed an interesting trend -- all but two of the 20 are from states won by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004 and four hold districts that Kerry won.

Some of those sitting in Kerry districts won't face serious challenges from Democrats in 2008 but people like Gerlach, Rep. Jim Walsh (N.Y.) and Dave Reichert (Wash.) are high on Democrats' target list. Other members hold districts that were won by Bush in 2004 but are clearly mixed politically. Rep. Frank LoBiondo's 2nd District in New Jersey went for Bush 50-49 in 2004 as did Rep. Jon Porter's 3rd District in Nevada. While Bush won the district of New York Reps. Vito Fossella (N.Y. 13) and Pete King (N.Y. 3) easily in 2004, former Vice President Al Gore carried both of those districts just four years earlier.

Those numbers mean that an endorsement of Giuliani's presidential campaign may well be an attempt at self-preservation for each of these members. President Bush is decidedly unpopular in most of these areas and the sooner a GOP Member can wrap their arms around someone other than the current chief executive the better -- from an electoral perspective. Giuliani is the best bet for members sitting in swing districts -- especially in the Northeast and California -- due to his moderate/liberal issue positions on abortion, gay rights and gun control.

The string of endorsements from members in narrowly divided seats also lends credence to the argument long made by the Giuliani camp that he alone among the top-tier Republicans can expand the potential playing field in 2008 -- making places like New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and even Illinois and California competitive for Republicans.

Because the argument is hypothetical at the moment, it's hard to know whether it would ultimately be prove true. There's little question that Giuliani is the most moderate candidate among the frontrunning Republicans and that his roots in New York could make the Northeast potentially more competitive for the party.

But presidential elections, by their very nature, are the most partisan of all contests. The race goes on in the public eye for far longer than the average congressional election and, as a result, people tend to form stronger opionions about the candidates and/or have their own pre-existing ideas and views reinforced.

As a result, the presidential race is likely to be a 52-48 or 51-49 affair no matter who wins the party nominations. Even in Giuliani's best case scenario he could never imagine winning with 60 percent of the vote in 2008. (Well, maybe he could, but we can't.)

Regardless, Giuliani's reception of early endorsements certainly help him make the argument that he alone at the top of the ticket can protect endangered incumbents and broaden the map. Whether that argument hold water is something we won't know unless he becomes the nominee.

Here is a list of congressional endorsers who have committed to Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, and John McCain.

GIULIANI

Rep. Mary Bono (Calif.)
Rep. David Dreier (Calif.)
Rep. Jerry Lewis (Calif.)
Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.)
Rep. George Radanovich (Calif.)
Rep. Ed Royce (Calif.)
Rep. Judy Biggert (Ill.)
Rep. Jerry Weller (Ill.)
Rep. Charles Boustany (La.)
Rep. Candice Miller (Mich.)
Rep. Frank LoBiondo (N.J.)
Rep. Jon Porter (Nev.)
Rep. Vito Fossella (N.Y.)
Rep. Peter King (N.Y.)
Rep. Jim Walsh (N.Y.)
Rep. Jim Gerlach (Pa.)
Rep. Phil English (Pa.)
Rep. Charlie Dent (Pa.)
Rep. Pete Sessions (Texas)
Rep. Dave Reichert (Wash.)

FRED THOMPSON

Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)
Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.)
Rep. Gresham Barrett (S.C.)
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.)
Rep. Dan Burton (Ind.)
Rep. Steve Buyer (Ind.)
Rep. David Davis (Tenn.)
Rep. John Duncan (Tenn.)
Rep. Don Manzullo (Ill.)
Rep. Thad McCotter (Mich.)
Rep. Jeff Miller (Fla.)
Rep. Adam Putnam (Fla.)
Rep. Zach Wamp (Tenn.)

MITT ROMNEY

Sen. Larry Craig (Idaho)
Sen. Bob Bennett (Utah)
Sen. Wayne Allard (Colo.)
Sen. Jim DeMint (S.C.)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah)
Rep. Dennis Hastert (Ill.)
Rep. Jim McCrery (La.)
Rep. Dave Camp (Mich.)
Rep. Buck McKeon (Calif.)
Rep. Robert Aderholt (Ala.)
Rep. Mike Rogers (Ala.)
Rep. John Campbell (Calif.)
Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (Fla.)
Rep. Tom Feeney (Fla.)
Rep. Phil Gingrey (Ga.)
Rep. Tom Price (Ga.)
Rep. Mike Simpson (Idaho)
Rep. Ron Lewis (Ky.)
Rep. Hal Rogers (Ky.)
Rep. Ed Whitfield (Ky.)
Rep. Rodney Alexander (La.)
Rep. Pete Hoekstra (Mich.)
Rep. Joe Knollenberg (Mich.)
Rep. Ralph Regula (Ohio)
Rep. Bill Shuster (Pa.)
Rep. Mike Conaway (Texas)
Rep. Lamar Smith (Texas)

JOHN MCCAIN

Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.)
Sen. Trent Lott (Miss.)
Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.)
Sen. Gordon Smith (Ore.)
Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine)
Sen. Susan Collins (Maine)
Sen. John Thune (S.D.)
Sen. John Warner (Va.)
Sen. Richard Burr (N.C.)
Rep. Spencer Bachus (Ala.)
Rep. John Shimkus (Ill.)
Rep. John Shadegg (Ariz.)
Rep. Mark Kirk (Ill.)
Rep. Fred Upton (Mich.)
Rep. Dan Lungren (Calif.)
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.)
Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (Fla.)
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.)
Rep. Ric Keller (Fla.)
Rep. Jeff Flake (Ariz.)
Rep. Ray LaHood (Ill.)
Rep. Steven LaTourette (Ohio)
Rep. Chris Shays (Conn.)
Rep. Chip Pickering (Miss.)
Rep. Mike Castle (Del.)
Rep. Todd Platts (Penn.)

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 1, 2007; 12:56 PM ET
Categories:  '08 Endorsement Elite , Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Parsing the Polls: First and Lasting Impressions
Next: Wag the Blog Redux: Overlooking Obama?

Comments

it is time to elect a democrat as president. the conservatives will tell the american people that dems will raise taxes, but it is really them that raise taxes on the middle class and poor folks. They will cut taxes for the richest americans. if you want four more years of another bush like admin vote romney,McCain,Thompson,or guiliani. Now if you want change vote either obama, edwards, clinton.

Posted by: milfred | August 27, 2007 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Politicians ignore bloggers at their PERIL!

http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | August 4, 2007 9:37 PM | Report abuse

"And all you Liberal Democrats that think you can "TAX US INTO PROSPERITY" are equally ignorant, irrational, and, I dare say it, stupid."

And the World is a free lunch that the privileged get to dine at. We, the few, the privileged demand protection by the evil nanny government and don't have to pay for all that we take.

Ain't life grand. Ahh, to live in lalaland. No taxes, but all of the benefits. Martini anyone?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Wow, Mike.

People like you are clearly the reason why there is a filter. I just wish you hadn't got past it. You may have valid points. I might, too. But calling someone names isn't going to validate your point further. Merely make you look like a rather unpleasant person. Do try to be civil, please.

I don't think that we need to be taxed into oblivion. Believe it or not, I actually run toward the fiscally conservative side of Democrats. But, as Mark in Austin pointed out, we are spending more than we did when the first round of tax cuts were passed and taxes need to come more in line with our spending.

I'm not sure why you threw up a straw man in the form of your luxury tax rant. I never said anything about a luxury tax. Income taxes (people aren't going to stop working right?) that were cut should go back to their levels in 1999 if we are to continue spending at the current rate.

Roo's anecdote can be valuable for its common sense approach. If you have more debt but make more money you need to look ta the two relatively. As I mentioned, debt as a percentage of GDP has down nothing but rise since 2000.

Instead of using logical fallacies, Mike, why don't you respond to my points (not ones that you just plain make up) in a reasonable manner. Please. I like friendly debate as much as anyone here, but your bringing the level of the discussion down.

Posted by: JasonL | August 2, 2007 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Hi Aggie -

I completely understood the first round of GWB's tax cuts. The 39.6% bracket was the result of a "temporary" surtax to balance the budget and was due for repeal. Further, the slowing economy could and did use the boost.

But the subsequent tax cut came during a military buildup and a reheating economy, and I completely agreed with McCain who opposed it and sent me and his other contributors a near-rant about it.

I really do think that circumstances should dictate fiscal policy - and sending the message that we could fight two wars AND cut taxes was a sure way to disconnect the wars from the rest of us and leave the burden completely on you volunteers. BAD PSYCHOLOGY, and not just bad fiscal policy.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 2, 2007 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Mike
Why bother trying to educate the hopeless?

Posted by: chuck m | August 2, 2007 9:10 AM | Report abuse

JasonL is a MORON. I'm sorry to be blunt, and a name caller. This is what he posted:

" None of the reasons [for all-time high tax revenues] can possibly be explained by Bush being in the White House.

Imagine how much higher the revenues would be if Bush had not lowered taxes. Then revenues would be really high."

The first hint was the first comment. "NOTHING GOOD COULD POSSIBLY HAVE EVER COME FROM BUSH". What a close-minded hack you are JasonL.

But let's be fair and examine your understanding of the real issue.

Not just because I have studied finance, economics, and accounting that I know you to be a moron - but because I am a common-sense CITIZEN who is not a ditto-head ignoramous.

Every time in modern history that we have had tax cuts, we have increased revenue to the Fed. Without fail, without exception.

JasonL, let's use a really simple example that I pray you can understand.

Let's say you are looking to buy a boat. And, let's say, CARTER decides to raise the luxury tax on boats (his sophisticated analysts tell him doing so will raise millions in tax revenue).

The ONLY way your fantasy world can work, is if people (specifically, "rich people") don't change their behavior.

But, news flash JasonL, they do.

So what happened. No one bought boats. I sure as heck wouldn't have.

Big deal, right? Wrong. Liberal-unintended-consequences - the one constant in American politics.

No one bought boats. So there wasn't a demand for wood, and other products, that went in to them. So people got laid off. Not to mention the boat builders.

All in all, this raise in taxes to increase revenue ended up DECREASING federal revenue by countless millions.

JasonL, I hate to break it to you like this, but you have shown yourself to be the hack that you are by opening with, "Well even if that's true, it can't possibly be because of Bush - because we all know he's the worst President of all time".

JasonL, you know nothing about taxation or macroeconomics. You are a hack. A fake. A brain-donor.

And all you Liberal Democrats that think you can "TAX US INTO PROSPERITY" are equally ignorant, irrational, and, I dare say it, stupid.

Posted by: Mike | August 1, 2007 11:34 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - I just saw that the I35W bridge collapsed. I hope you and yours are safe.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 1, 2007 10:40 PM | Report abuse

McCain's senatorial buddies seem to really still be behind his candidacy. Romney has won quite a few as well. Of course both of the Utah senator's endorse him. The Mormon church actually believes Romney is a savior to America, that's right...a modern day Jesus. John Smith suggessted that someday America's constitution would hang on the brink of destruction and a Mormon would ride in on a theoritical white horse n save America! Well, these folks believe Romney to be that man. Now, he downplays that idea...but do ya really think he keeps it secret while in Utah collecting cash? I doubt it! No wonder Utah politicians endorse Romney! Most of Fred's endorsements come out of Tenn...big deal. McCain has some great endorsements, however. Which group of these endorsers have the best "get-out-the-vote" operations? Tell us that, CC.

Posted by: reason | August 1, 2007 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Quite close, Bokonon. Nixon balanced one in '70. 24 consecutive deficit budgets by R presidents (and likely two more on the way).

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous, good trivia: "(1) who was the last Republican president to balance a budget; (2) how many consecutive deficit budgets have Republican presidents submitted since then?"

I haven't been able to find the answers, although I will admit that I am tired of looking at a computer screen all day... I will guess that Eisenhower was the last Republican president to balance a budget, and so between 27-30 budgets unbalanced (on GOP watch) since then?

What's the answer? I'm curious.

Posted by: Bokonon | August 1, 2007 10:08 PM | Report abuse

McCain's senatorial buddies seem to really still be behind his candidacy. Romney has won quite a few as well. Of course both of the Utah senator's endorse him. The Mormon church actually believes Romney is a savior to America, that's right...a modern day Jesus. John Smith suggessted that someday America's constitution would hang on the brink of destruction and a Mormon would ride in on a theoritical white horse n save America! Well, these folks believe Romney to be that man. Now, he downplays that idea...but do ya really think he keeps it secret while in Utah collecting cash? I doubt it! No wonder Utah politicians endorse Romney! Most of Fred's endorsements come out of Tenn...big deal. McCain has some great endorsements, however. Which group of these endorsers have the best "get-out-the-vote" operations? Tell us that, CC.

Posted by: reason | August 1, 2007 9:24 PM | Report abuse

"Consider that you personally make $100K per year and owe 10K on credit cards. Next year you get a raise and now make $120K per year and your debt has gone up to 11K. Are you better off?"

Not by as much as you would be had you paid down your credit card debt.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Good point that the Republicans now use much the same excuse for deficit spending that Dems once did, to the obvious result.

Trivia questions: (1) who was the last Republican president to balance a budget; (2) how many consecutive deficit budgets have Republican presidents submitted since then? Yet some still gullibly swallow the line that we will easily pay it off later ... just over the next hill.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Trotsky--"Consider that you personally make $100K per year and owe 10K on credit cards. Next year you get a raise and now make $120K per year and your debt has gone up to 11K. Are you better off? you technically owe more. that sounds bad. ( the Dem line) but you make more so that sounds good. the only way to compare is to look at the relative ratio."

Consider one year you take out hundreds of millions of debt. Next year, you take TWICE that. But fear not, a purple unicorn appears and poops diamonds. All your debt is gone and now the leprechauns bring you pots full of gold!

--Introduction to Republican Fiscal Policy, Meeker Press 2005.

Posted by: roo | August 1, 2007 8:51 PM | Report abuse

The followup article on the NBC/WSJ poll is on MSNBC. Not suprising, Hillary is gaining in this one as well. I am more convinced as time goes by, Hillary will be the dem nominee with not more than one loss in the primary/caucaus season. I am still hopeing for a win in Iowa to make it a clean sweep.

Posted by: lylepink | August 1, 2007 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Fickin republicans

"Instead of making it easier to vote, maybe we should be making it harder. Why not test people about the basic functions of government? Immigrants have to pass a test to vote; why not all citizens?A voting test would point the arrow of civic engagement up, instead of down, sending the signal that becoming an informed citizen is a valued accomplishment.

Golly gee whillikers, Mistah Goldberg, why don't we have tests at the polls here in America? Although, I seem to remember a historical precedent for just such a thing. Why did this noble experiment not continue through until the modern day? Let's go on to the Internets and check it out. Oooh, here we go Mister Goldberg, here's the historical precedent for your idiotic moronic stupid-ass idea the Los Angeles Times printed up in a newspaper they actually sold to people for actual federally-backed U.S. currency: Read on...
"

Jonah Goldberg, editor of the right-wing National Review

Posted by: first test before blogs, then tests before voting | August 1, 2007 6:48 PM | Report abuse

rufus/REMF - You've obviously never connected to our site: http://www.va.gov/rcs/


Try it. We're here for you!

Posted by: Elias | August 1, 2007 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Seek life elsewhere, elias. You have nothing but snide remarks. I laugh at you, monkey (I don't say troll I say monkey)

Posted by: rufus | August 1, 2007 6:39 PM | Report abuse

rufus - bsimon has some advice. We do too. Call us!

Posted by: Elias | August 1, 2007 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Trotsky, I don't think ti's fair to say "tax revenues are at an all time high" without examining the reasons for this. None of the reasons can possibly be explained by Bush being in the White House.

Imagine how much higher the revenues would be if Bush had not lowered taxes. Then revenues would be really high. Maybe then we could pay for the war in Iraq, or at least pay for body armor and IED resistant APC's.

Public dept as a percentage of GDP steadily declined for the most part during Clintons terms but has been on the rise since 2000.

In 2003, about 16% of all tax revenue ($318 billion) went to the interest on the national debt. Since we all know that spending has increased at a rate that revenues could possibly meet, we're left with a ballooning debt that becomes ever harder to pay off. Thanks, Republicans!

I know it's not saying much, but if you want a fiscal conservative, the Dems are the only ones with any kind of track record in the past decade and a half.

Posted by: JasonL | August 1, 2007 6:24 PM | Report abuse

This evening on NBC News, there is supposed to be a new polling result just finished/conducted. I hope an in-depth result will be posted on the web somewhere. I saw some polling data that showed Hillary and Richardson gaining and Edwards and Obama losing some support among I's. Again, I know these polls are interesting to look into, but at this stage I don't give them much credit for anything except they have been consistant.

Posted by: lylepink | August 1, 2007 6:23 PM | Report abuse

"The important statistic for you undereducated and economically challenged Libs is the debt as a percentage of GDP."

Zouk, when Democrats took that stand the GOP economists used to lambast them. Balanced budgets were the way to go. When VooDoo economics (G. Bush, Pittsburgh, 1980) didn't work, balanced budgets actually did (see W. J. Clinton). I don't disagree that deficit spending has a place, but don't lecture me on economics, I've seen both parties claim both sides of the discussion and both act responsibly and irresponsibly.

Right now the Democrats make more sense given what we face. The Republicans are lucky that they don't have to answer to the people who gave them their Party.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 6:22 PM | Report abuse

"Your contribution would be much more appreciated over at a fashion or sports blog, where they don't pay attention to politics. thanks in advance.
"
Again, you don't like it YOU go elsewhere. I'm not talking sports or fashion. I am talking politics. You must not watch fox if you think the gop is in the know. You must not listen to rush. i do. I know what is being left out.

Like the sunni bloc leaving today. I saw it on one mainstream site (msnbc)

You got a problem bsimon you got two choices.

1. leave

2. help me ge Fox hannity and rush coulter off the air. Until that happens I'm afarind your stuck with me. Stop the belly-aching and the childish whining and take action ,if you got a problem

Posted by: rufus | August 1, 2007 6:16 PM | Report abuse

"But, the Conservative Republicans have more to answer for, because they betrayed their common sense heritage in doing what they've done."


so you are saying we can forgive the Dems because they don't know better? I guess I can go along with that sentiment.

Posted by: Trotsky | August 1, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Mike - I know people who have been laboring in the vineyards on this issue since the early '90s. Co-incidentially (or maybe not) they had loose connections to Ed Meese.

You don't think that organizations like FAIR just popped-up overnight, do you?

There has been a well-funded, well thought out effort underway for years. They haven't been hiding, they just didn't have the public presence. When the opportunity arose, they were more than ready.

Can't blame them on being organized and ready, that's effective politics.

But, wasn't it a Pyrhic victory? The problem is still there, unchanged; but unless they can stokes the fires again, they may have lost their opportunity to effect at least some change.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 6:10 PM | Report abuse

The important statistic for you undereducated and economically challenged Libs is the debt as a percentage of GDP. I will explain it to you.

Consider that you personally make $100K per year and owe 10K on credit cards. Next year you get a raise and now make $120K per year and your debt has gone up to 11K. Are you better off? you technically owe more. that sounds bad. ( the Dem line) but you make more so that sounds good. the only way to compare is to look at the relative ratio.

On that measure, you can grow your way out of debt. the percentage of debt/GDP is lower now than the average for the last 50 years. It is realy that simple and all your Dem spin can't change the underlying facts. yes we spend too much, the government seems incapable of ever cutting anything. so just don't add new stuff on top. and they always spend more than they get, even with the underhanded treatment of SS included as a pot of free money. One must strangle the beast and deprive it of its sustenence if your goal of lower spending is the same as mine. Raising taxes just shifts the entire graph up with all the relative inputs remaining the same.

Our kids are going to be so rich they will only have to make sure we don't get blown up.

Posted by: Trotsky | August 1, 2007 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Trotsky - I'm saying that both parties are spenders and cutters. There are times when Defense should be cut: the elimination of a major threat (when another true threat arise increases should be proportional to the threat), irresponsible weapons systems, overuse of costly marginal technology when simpler troop oritented equipment works as well, etc.; just as there needs to be common sense used in the social programs: welfare reform seems to have worked well in spite of the weeping and gnashing of teeth prior to its enactment, means testing is legitimate is some cases, etc.

I think that both Republicans and Democrats are guilty, and I think that both Conservatives and Liberals are guilty. But, the Conservative Republicans have more to answer for, because they betrayed their common sense heritage in doing what they've done.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

"Black's had used the "classic" definition edition after edition until "illegal immigration" became an issue. Hmmm, do you think that it's possible that somebody at Black's maybe slipped in the change for political purposes?"

Whoever this unnamed culprit was, he must have had incredible foresight.

The 8th ed. being printed in 2004 and all.

Posted by: Mike | August 1, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

"Black's had used the "classic" definition edition after edition until "illegal immigration" became an issue. Hmmm, do you think that it's possible that somebody at Black's maybe slipped in the change for political purposes?"

Whoever this unnamed culprit was, he must have had increadible forsight.

The 8th ed. being printed in 2004 and all.

Posted by: Mike | August 1, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

"the deficit is way down,"

A little economic sleight of hand perhaps Trotsky, knowing full well that The Debt is still way up and will continue in the upward direction as long as there are deficits.

The GOP started loosing it's fiscal resposnibility soul when they threw out the admonitions of Ev Dirksen and Charlie Halleck to "not mortage our grandchildren's future." Using "spend and don't tax" to bring the Federal government to its knees didn't work for Reagan and hasn't worked for Bush either.

Our kids are going to have to pay a heck of a price.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

The locals relected Rudy by wide margins. Were you referring to the NYT editorial board when you said locals?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

So if I always vote to add on funds to 79% of the bills presented and always vote to curb spending on the remaining 21% you are saying I can't be called a spender. and in the opposite situation I'm not a saver?

why only cut military budgets? Is it because you prefer to remain weak on defense, the other absolute truism of Dem politics? Promising to invade pakistan and talk cute with cuba isn't fooling anyone. Examine the votes.

example du jour:

Edwards estimates that his plan would cost $90 billion to $120 billion per year

Obama estimates his plan would cost $50 billion to $65 billion per year,

Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani on Tuesday offered a consumer-oriented solution to the nation's health care woes.

so the choice is simple - do you want a nanny state or american individualism.

Posted by: Trotsky | August 1, 2007 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Mark - I began to notice an effect when Georgians I knew complained about Jimmy Carter during his campaign. It seems that the "locals" know the warts of candidates who governed and don't see them as the shining star that the rest of the country may. Even with 24/7 news now, how many politicians do we really know well; other than the ones in our own areas?

Yes, there are some exceptions, but it seems more often than not, the "locals" are more than ready to point out those warts.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

"Trotsky, have you ever heard of the Protection of Marriage Amendment to the Constitution? "


Ummm no, which number amendment was that?

"Cutting taxes from millionaires now and running up massive deficits is merely shifting the tax burden"

More shreiking from the Dems? Tax cuts for tax payers - what a novel idea. we could go back to tax cuts for non-payers as the Dems seem to like. And I suppose the unborn (if they survive hillarys not-so rare abortions) will appreciate that we spent what was needed to guarantee that there is a country here when they arrive. What a concept. In case you didn't notice the good economic news (for you NYT readers) the deficit is way down, unemployment is at record lows, confidence is way up, over all the economy is booming along and quite stable and soild. Tax revenues are at an all time high. It would seem that your griping is out of place and must be motivated by emotion and desire and not reality. Par for the course in Dem circles.

Posted by: Trotsky | August 1, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin writes
"I detect that you have become ever less hospitable to the HRC possibility."

I've never much thought of her as presidential material, perhaps I have become more vocal in expressing that. I think all the major party candidates have major flaws, so clearly I'll have to figure out which flaws I can overlook.

Posted by: bsimon | August 1, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Trotsky - just found it in a Post article from February. A graphic showed Defense and Social Security the same at 21% of the proposed 2008 Budget. I don't see how you can look at just the other 79% in any discussion, especially when it includes how the two parties act differently on bills.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

rufus, I look forward to the ban becoming fully effective. until then, please note this is a political blog. People that post here pay attention to political news, therefore you don't need to post about it here. Your contribution would be much more appreciated over at a fashion or sports blog, where they don't pay attention to politics. thanks in advance.

Posted by: bsimon | August 1, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

MikeB - I got a laugh from "abortion as ...holy sacrament". RG was pilloried by Rs for saying he would not make Roe a litmus test but that he would appoint restrainist judges. He was correct to say that a restrainist might well believe in stare decisis and leave Roe "as is". Has HRC said she would appoint without a litmus test?

bsimon - I detect that you have become ever less hospitable to the HRC possibility. I think I have, too. But I cannot say what I know about her today that I did not know about her four months ago. My diminished
view of BR, and of Romney, are easy to quantify, however. In fact, Romney cannot rehab himself enough for me to vote for him. Maybe it was the dog story; maybe it was Bokonon.

So many New Yorkers on this blog are adamant that RG was a bad Mayor, even though I can remember NYC in 1989 and 1999 as being two very different places to visit, and much cleaner and safer in '99. But they have caused me to be cautious and skeptical about him, and his wife is the only spouse who cannot buy any decent publicity at all.

I think back to 1999 and if I had been posting to a blog I would have said:

"GWB was a good Governor his first term, who reached across the aisle to get things done. His second term fell to below ordinary when he started to run for President, but Laura has been an effective advocate for education, throughout. He has a decent sense of humor and can admit a mistake, but I do not think he is up to being President. I am for McCain."

A lot of what I would have said was correct about GWB as governor but he really never did display his gubernatorial strengths as Prez, only his weaknesses. I voted for Gore after the Rove machine savaged McCain.
Then I was glad GWB appointed some old hands: Cheney and Rumsfield. Missed that, I guess.

My point is that while I trust others to give their honest assessments of RG the Mayor, what they cause me to do is become more "wary." I am not buying anyone at "face value". I am not assuming anyone but McCain, Biden, and Dodd are actually predictable, and I am not sure about them.

Indecisively yours, Mark.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 1, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Trotsky - I'd replace "low spending" with "spending which is paid for." Balanced budgets. A good GOP goal. One which keeps the government out of the borrowing market, the benefit of which is it keeps the Economy's largest borrower from skewing the market.

Unfortunately balanced budgets may require a level of taxes which offend the taxophobes, but it seemed to work nicely in the mid to late 90's.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Conservative in the GOP make a lot of noise about tax cuts.

They are dishonest in their claims.

Cutting taxes from millionaires now and running up massive deficits is merely shifting the tax burden.

The GOP has unfairly and inequitably shifted the tax burden from people whose support they are soliciting to people who are too young to vote or who not yet even born.

Thanks to the GOP conservative tax SHIFT, future generations will pay for the War in Iraq, and our excess spending WITH INTEREST.

Thanks Trotsky.

Posted by: robert chapman | August 1, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Mike - I said the "classic" use of Amnesty. You may note how Ed Meese is now referenced in there.

Black's had used the "classic" definition edition after edition until "illegal immigration" became an issue. Hmmm, do you think that it's possible that somebody at Black's maybe slipped in the change for political purposes?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

low spending, cutting taxes and stay out of social issues. this is a winning combination

So which of these do the GOP support?

Neither GOP Presidents, with Dem Congresses, nor GOP Congresses with Dem Presidents, nor GOP Presidents with GOP Congresses have lowered spending.

Taxes, interesting, my federal taxes dropped $6 a check under Bush- while millionaires and other high earners got big $$$$. If that isn't a targetted tax cut, tell me what is? The GOP can claim no credit with for cutting taxes.

Stay out of social issues? Trotsky, have you ever heard of the Protection of Marriage Amendment to the Constitution?

The GOP wants Big Brother at the foot of everyone's bed!!!!!!!

Trotsky, dude, you need to get out more.

Posted by: robert chapman | August 1, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Hypocrite gop'ers. Silence and regulate non-gop's only. Frickin republcians.

O'Reilly loves to tell you what is permissable and not. Who makes these rules? I have a HUGE problem with Fox News and right-wing talk radio. Does that give me the power to silecne them? No.

Why? Gop makes the rules, then ignore them themselves.

CC is scared of O'REilly and his minions. That's what it boils down to. Does the street run both ways? No.

This is the patriot act in work ladies and gentlemen. I say WE ALL LEAVE. That would hurt CC and his blog real fast, wouldn't it.

What a waste. Good luck everybody. I'm going to a site where free speah is permissable. All you that praise cc's gastapo technics can have this site. Just know that Fasc*** will not win. Your children will revolt.


AS for the news today. The lasrgest sunni block withdrew from the Iraq government, that means the Iraq consolidation is done.

Other news. The pat tillman investigation. "I don't recall" by rumsfeild. They are going to take the perjery charge rather than the cover-up charge. Hopefully the dems have some backbone and give these people REAL jail time

Posted by: rufus | August 1, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

"look at any bill that comes before congress except defense bills"

Trotsky - how much of the budget is Defense?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

I spoke with several members and they have told me that they can't wait to be released by McCain so they can go over to Rudy. Still the old way of doing things around here. how is it that Fred has people when he isn't even running (yet)?

I have a fundamental question perhaps you can help me with. why do I care about iowa or NH? Isn't this old tradition ready for the trash can?

Posted by: Trotsky | August 1, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

I hate to go off topic (the filter may stop this post from realization anyway)...

Black's Law Dictionary

8th Edition 2004

AMNESTY - a sovereign act of forgiveness for past acts granted by a government to all persons or a certain class of persons who have been guilty of a crime or a deceit.

So let me get this straight.

NOT enforcing the law of the land (which would require jail/deportation),

and instead giving a fine to "a certain class of persons" (illegals)

"who have been guilty of a crime" (illegals)

by "a government"

doesn't qualify under this definition.

My mistake.

http://ConservativeStandards.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Mike | August 1, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

robert c. - It's not just Hillary's crowd among whom abortion has been considered inviolate. It's been a large segment of the Democratic party as a whole for decades.

Once the McGovern reforms gave pressure groups power, taking pro-life stands became the equivalent of touching the third-rail in Democratic circles. Silencing the late Gov. Bob Casey at the 1992 Convention may have been the low point.

There seems to have been a recovery since then, but most pro-life Democrats still tread lightly.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

that's because many of us conservatives don't think Bush W. a "conservative".

That statement is indicative of the American Right's unwillingness to accept responsibility for the consequences of their choices.

Bush ran as a "Compassionate Conservative," has governed as an advocate of conservatism.

Face it conservatives: your philosophy is bogus.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

Posted by: robert chapman | August 1, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Chris's list shows that approximately one third of the GOP members of Congress have endorsed a Presidential candidate.

McCain seems strong in senatorial courtesy.

Romney's endorsements are an eye-popper though, he has a lot of them and they are from the people whose names are most closely associated with the defined policy and practice of the GOP.

If endorsements have any value, Romney wins because: a), he has the most and b), he has them from the right endorsers.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

Posted by: robert chapman | August 1, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

"Plus, have you noticed that by shooting down reform, the immigration situation continues to be the same as it has been for over 20 years."

Actually last week congressed passed an emergency funding bill of several billion (I believe) for more border patrol agents, and other things.

Posted by: Mike | August 1, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Sak - look at any bill that comes before congress except defense bills. the R s alwasy want to trim them and the Ds always bloat them up. this has been going on a long time and hence, the moniker is correct. don't confuse the president with congress. the R congress was responsible for clinton's good fortune, along with the internet, cell phones and many other highly productive devices. You can't lay that at clinton 1s feet. Likewise, you can't place the blame for compassionate conservatism (code for spending) solely on bush. the R congress passed these laws. and as a result they got spanked for wandering too far off the reservation last year.

If they learned anything, it should be to go back to low spending, cutting taxes and stay out of social issues. this is a winning combination and is what rudy represents.

Posted by: Trotsky | August 1, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

in the case of some of Hillary's crowd, evidently abortion as some sort of holy sacriment

As First Lady and as Senator, Mrs. Clinton's position on abortion has been unwavering: SAFE, LEGAL and RARE.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

Posted by: robert chapman | August 1, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Mike - I wish you'd let go of that amnesty bit. Elements of Amnesty are the abolition and forgetfullness of the offense. [That's from Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.] Neither of those were part of anybody's immigration reform bill that I could tell.

All of the bills that I saw required an admission to the offense by the Illegal and payment of a fine.

You may still not like it, but it wasn't Amnesty in the classic use.

The use of the word was enough to people riled-up though wasn't it. Feel a little used by the leaders of the opposition to reform?

Plus, have you noticed that by shooting down reform, the immigration situation continues to be the same as it has been for over 20 years.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

I'm back. CC had silenced all posts from me today. I was communicating directly to him, that's the above post. I accused him of fearing O'Reilly to the point he was blocking all non-gop parrots.


I guess I scared his backers enough to put me back on.

Alright. Give me some time to read the posts :)

Posted by: rufus | August 1, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Your making me nervous CC. You silence me the day when all this stuff happens. Are you in the know and don't want me spreading truth or what? The right-wing consipicy goes deeper than I thought. Even the media? Man chris. Your children will revolt against fascsim

Posted by: rufus | August 1, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

To Trotsky:

You are complaining about FDR's socialism...

Do you know what socialism is?

It is what Mr. Trotsky staged a revolution to institute, what FDR's New Deal saved us from.

Posted by: robert chapman | August 1, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

MikeB writes
"Instead, they will likely do a swing to the left and elect some turkey like Clinton"

I fear you're correct, but am optimistic that cooler heads will prevail. I suspect that overall the pendulum will likely continue to swing leftward in the 2008 election. I just hope the primary voters pick a good candidate - a threshold the Senator from New York does not meet.

Posted by: bsimon | August 1, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Golgi - I thought that it was working, I hadn't seen rufus' post at that time.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

I find it ludicrous that people think Rudy has strong national security credentials.

Especially given that NYS Governor George E. Pataki brought out the National Guard, issued benefits to see the survivor families through, and dealt with the fiscal nightmare that engulfed the State in the aftermath of the attack.

Giuliani may have been the face on TV, but Pataki was the man on the ground.

It is indicative of the GOP rank and file's gullibility and susceptibility to manipulation by the media that Giuliani- the phoney- is one of their front-runners while Pataki's Presidential campaign is a non-starter.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

Posted by: robert chapman | August 1, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Golgi - whatever it is, it's seemed to have helped today.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Mary, The Fundimentalist's AND corporate ties have made the Republican Party toxic. The problem is, the Democrat have tied their kite to appeasing gays and "abortion right" nuts (meaning, no restrictions at all: no parental notification, no limits on partial birth abortion, abortion as a means of birth control, and, in the case of some of Hillary's crowd, evidently abortion as some sort of holy sacriment) AND "globalization" that will invevitably sink them as well. Most voters don't quite know it yet, but they really want moderates. Instead, they will likely do a swing to the left and elect some turkey like Clinton and be screaming for her head within a year of the election.

Posted by: MikeB | August 1, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

There are a lot of comments about censoring and Why did my post get blocked when it was OK.

I'm guessing the WP isn't censoring, they are just trying out some buggy software that should have been tested better. Or someone turned on the filter screen accidentally but nobody's watching it, or something.

Posted by: Golgi | August 1, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

sak -- that's because many of us conservatives don't think Bush W. a "conservative".

Not after his spending habits

Or his failure to make the tax cuts permanent

Or his failure to enforce immigration laws (and his support of Amnesty)


Sure, we expect the government to spend more in war. But no child left behind, and other failed, broken programs are not consistent with "conservatism".

http://ConservativeStandards.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Mike | August 1, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Trotsky, how can you possibly complain that Democrats spend and spend and spend and increase the defecit when the facts prove otherwise. Last time I checked, Bill Clinton increased spending tremendously compared to Reagan/Bush Sr, yet the federal surplus grew steadily for 8 solid years. Now, you have W who has arguably spent as much as, if not more than, Clinton, yet we have seen the federal defecit and national debt balloon over the past 7 years.

Yet somehow the Democrats are the party blamed with spending. Strange.

Posted by: sak | August 1, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

The evangelicals have made the Republican party so toxic that they cant find a mainstream candidate. They have demanded anti abortion and have eaten their young. Who would be willing to caste their lot with them, except the ultra right?. It will take a generation for the Reps to recover from this ethnic cleansing.

Posted by: Mary | August 1, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Hi,

Just got blocked and am curious why... did I do something wrong (I am not a regular poster, but I don't see anything offensive)?

Interesting, my comment that was on-point got censored and my tangent made it in. Neither was negative (although the tangent could be viewed that way). In the mildest possible terms, my 2 cents:

I agree that endorsements are of limited value. However, unlike some I think Rudy's cross-over appeal is strong. Many independent and democratic voters in New England seem to like Giuliani and plan to vote for him. Whatever losses he has in certain traditional Republican voting blocks will likely be offset by those who see him as moderate socially, tough on crime, and easy on your wallet. The only real skeleton I see turning people off (and I don't know them all) is Giuliani's children don't hold him in the highest regard. A good future post might be one on candidate crossover appeal...

Hope this makes it past the gate...

Posted by: Sean | August 1, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

As angry as the voters were in '04, how can you possible think the Reps are going to recover those lost seats? OK, the Dems are getting nothing done, but the unparal-led corruption of the Bush admin. is frightening. Giuliani just said the Dems are losers; how could he possibly be expected to get any co-operation from the Dem. Congress? This would just lead to 4 more years of gridlock. As unappealing as I find Mrs. clinton, I believe the Dem faithful will rally after 8 years of stupidity and arrogance. I'd rather see Obama- Richardson, but can't picture any scenario where Rudy would be a good idea.

Posted by: mary | August 1, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Interesting, my comment that was on-point got censored and my tangent made it in. Neither was negative (although the tangent could be viewed that way). In the mildest possible terms, my 2 cents:

I agree that endorsements are of limited value. However, unlike some I think Rudy's cross-over appeal is strong. Many independent and democratic voters in New England seem to like Giuliani and plan to vote for him. Whatever losses he has in certain traditional Republican voting blocks will likely be offset by those who see him as moderate socially, tough on crime, and easy on your wallet. The only real skeleton I see turning people off (and I don't know them all) is Giuliani's children don't hold him in the highest regard. A good future post might be one on candidate crossover appeal...

Hope this makes it past the gate...

Posted by: Sean | August 1, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

"he said with finger wagging. Who made you the Fix police today? Sheesh!"

fair enough, I just get sick of people on both sides that would rather score cheap shots than oh, i don't know, post on topic. I've been guilty of it in the past, I know, it just ets tiring to hear 'Kos Koward', 'Lib Math', 'Right wing Hate Machine' and 'Rethugs' over and over and over again.

Posted by: DCAustinite | August 1, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Never base the state of a campaign on its Congressional endorsements. These guys and gals are just shills trying to curry favor with the potential nominee.
http://political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | August 1, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Regarding FDR, and the no-name poster.

I don't agree with your thesis, that things aren't as bad now as they could have been.

I liked listening to Reagan, and to some degree Romney is always about this - that our future is (and must be) brighter than our past.

http://ConservativeStandards.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Mike | August 1, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to see the censor tweaked so it stops any post containing "Lib"

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 1, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

There was an implied "I" in, "Don't say that there aren't problems,"

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Article in the Des Moines Register today that religious conservatives are saying they aren't happy with many of the leading GOP candidates... it's a question of morals.

Romney would pass the morals test, but his Morman religion doesn't sit well with them.

As for Brownback and Huckabee, the religious conservatives feel they don't have a chance in the general.

Endorsements won't change the minds of these voters.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 1, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

"And tone down the rhetoric and snark" he said with finger wagging. Who made you the Fix police today? Sheesh!

Posted by: football is so neanderthal | August 1, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Hey censor:

Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed

Posted by: troll | August 1, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

"Out of control spending increases in Medicare/medicaid in OK? failing schools is swell? a black underclass that will never get out of poverty is cool with you? a retirement system based on a failing ponzi scheme is super?"

I've been hearing those same complaints for decades now. And I don't necessarily disagree with them as problems, but certainly not as "End of the Republic" disasters waiting to happen.

I'm amazed at how bad our schools are in one report, yet the next one shows them doing well. At how "fixes" to Social Security have managed to keep it solvent through the next couple of decades - though I agree the clock is ticking on the "solution, not a fix." At how the Black underclass continues, but note the emergence of the Black Middle Class (and there is that in the Metropolitan are where I live, plus the start of a Black Upper Class).

Don't say that there aren't problems, but the economic changes made under FDR have weathered well. The Greatest Generation's changes to all of Social Security with their "there is a free lunch" approach is what got Social Security off track, not FDR.

Still, no Revolutions, economic swings are less and less severe, people below the Middle Class are able to live with better medical care and die with some dignity. I don't see that The Sky Has Fallen.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

My ip has been blocked by cc the propogandist fascist. I guess O'Reilly's censoring of web content scared him. I see mike and the other right wing propogandists are still here. I have to assume it is because CC doesn't aprove of my views. So he silencing me. It's ok he's digging himself deeper, the coward.

Again, The reason I had been coming here is to be the furtherest lesft. To take the heat from the trolls, and give everybody else an open forum free of fear. With my posts out there it opens it up for less radical ideas. CC can't have that. He would rather have you people parrot republican talking points all day. What's the point if you are parrots? How can you grow?

So it looks like I'm done everybody. Your on your own. I would encourge all of you to leave the site. If we are not free to discuss our opinions what good is this site?

This won't save you cc. I'm much bigger than this site. I was helping you and other's here. No more. good luck all. I've been censored by bush's patriot cronies, here at least. You cannot silence freedom/truth.

Posted by: rufus1133 | August 1, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

"Out of control spending increases in Medicare/medicaid in OK? failing schools is swell? a black underclass that will never get out of poverty is cool with you? a retirement system based on a failing ponzi scheme is super?"

as if any of these things were something you could hang on one party's shoulders. Please. Don't be so myopic.

and lest ye cast stones, the fed has grown at an alarming rate in the last 8 years, under republican stewardship.

And tone down the rhetoric and snark, otherwise you're just another troll.

Posted by: DCAustinite | August 1, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Here-here Blarg! A party for evangelicals, by evangelicals would be an excellent addition. While the Greens haven't attracted the entire fringe of the Democratic party, they are at least a start. Living in the New England (essentially a one-party "state"), one wishes for a competent Republican party (to serve as a reality check, if nothing else). If Rudy for Prez can accomplish this task, he'll have my vote (in the primary anyway...)

Posted by: Sean | August 1, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

I have a more fundamental question. why should I care what happens in Iowa or NH? can't I simply ignore them as anomolies and vote on super duper day for my guy/gal? Isn't this quant idea a little outdated?

Posted by: Trotsky | August 1, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the comments (both CC's and others) that endorsements don't add up to much. While I agree Giuliani has skeletons (especially problamatic is the low esteem his children have for him) I think he is the only Republican (other than, maybe, McCain) who has cross-over appeal. I don't fully agree that his past will turn off enough voters in red or purple states to throw those states to Democrats. In casual conversations with folks in the North East (RI, MA, NH, CT) people seem warm to Giuliani. I think he gives Democrats real problems in their "home turf" if he wins the nomination. As a suggestion to CC, perhaps a separate entry on cross-over appeal is appropriate? I've heard some ancillary stories that Obama is well received by religious people who tend to vote Republican and Edwards has made claims of cross-over appeal. McCain is another...

Posted by: Sean | August 1, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

"Polling has come a long way. they currently show that rudy is the one to beat hillary."

Polling indeed has come a long way, but have the voters? When does the political climate begin to reflect what November 2008 will be?

Although the polling trends were somewhat Democratic in 2006, critical mass wasn't reached until September/October when the Mark Foley scandal broke and was so badly mishandled by the Leadership. Absent Foley would the shift has been as significant.

In August 2005 would anybody have predicted a Democratic House or Senate?

None of my eggs go into anybody's basket until next February at the earliest.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

"If it comes down to Hillary or Rudi, I'm voting for a fringe candidate."

An interesting question, that ...Which will have more impact on the results of '08, the fringe (throw-away) voter, or the swing voter?

Will bsimon's vote for (insert fringe candidate here) put Rudy in the WH? Or will Mark in Austin's vote for fiscal conservatism put Rudy in the WH?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 1, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

All in all not too bad

So impending bankruptcy is not too bad in the Lib world. Out of control spending increases in Medicare/medicaid in OK? failing schools is swell? a black underclass that will never get out of poverty is cool with you? a retirement system based on a failing ponzi scheme is super? and all we ned to do to fix it is to create even bigger government? Yep, that's the Lib view allright.

Posted by: Trotsky | August 1, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

If Giuliani is the Republican nominee, I expect to see a religious third-party candidate. Ideally he'd start an actual third party, not be a one-shot candidate like Perot. That way the evangelicals can leave the Republican Party, so there are actually two sane parties in this country again.

Posted by: Blarg | August 1, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

The worst case scenario may be HRC, RG, and Bloomberg. Big turnout in NY, I guess.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

"we are still stuck with FDR's socialism"

Wow! I thought that Bubba had replaced FDR as the Boogeyman.

All things considered, after over 70 years of FRD's socialism and 35 years of Richard Nixon's, we really aren't doing too bad. No Revolutions (the Great Unwashed are being cared for enough to keep them from thinking that they have to revolt), market swings are not catastrohic, general Economy downswings are far from Depressions. If we could find a legitimate way to pay for Social Security instead of playing games on how to do it; things would be even better.

The march to socialized medecine may be led by Ted Kennedy, but right there behind him are the corporate CEO's who want to shift the health care burden off their companies and the only place it can be shifted is to the government.

All in all not too bad. Thank you Franklin.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

"Do you think Rudy is the only one with a chance to beat her?"

I think Senator Clinton is better stopped at the primary level. Not giving her the nomination is the best move. If it comes down to Hillary or Rudi, I'm voting for a fringe candidate.

Posted by: bsimon | August 1, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

That's a good point.

It's hard to measure which factor will be greater - the anti-Hillary vote or the anti-Bush-Never-Vote-GOP-Again vote.

And DC -- I don't appreciate you trivializing Texas football =)

Posted by: Mike | August 1, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

so DCAustinite - will you vote for Hillary or Rudy given your views and only those choices? or stay home? or just vote local? I think there are a lot of you.

I made an error in the last election and discounted solid and repeating polls. I will not make that mistake again. Polling has come a long way. they currently show that rudy is the one to beat hillary. he is also in the lead and continues to remain there. all the flak about "once the base finds out his views" is simply false. they already know his views. this is the sound of Dems trying to influence the R base with the MSM press a willing lackey.

i can't personally support Mc Cain after feingold. don't know anything about fred and probably never will. Mitt is too MA for me and my flip-floppy avoidance. that doesn't leave much. I expect the tax lowering record of Rudy will play extremely well for those like me and the abortion and gay thing is simply not my issue, as I think is the same with many conservatives. It is a state thing.

Posted by: Trotsky | August 1, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

"do you really not mind higher taxes?"

It depends on how its spent. I mind if its spent on Ag subsidies for dead farmers. I mind if its spent on bridges to nowhere. I don't mind if its spent on getting 8 million uninsured children healthcare. I don't mind if its a couple percent. If we're talking about a 50% tax rate, yes, I mind. In short, theres not a yes-or-no answer.

Posted by: bsimon | August 1, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

"Are there not a large number of Hillary-Haters on the left?"

Haters? Not likely. Don't like or trust her is more like it.

After 2000 and 2004 they will vote for anybody the Democrats put up; no matter what the name.

But as usual, it will still come down to the Independents. Hillary (any Democrat) can count on the base Democratic vote.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Hook 'em by God. We are THE university of TEXAS.

now back to issues slightly less important than Texas football:

There are plenty of people on the left not too fond of Hillary. I am one. Obama, Biden, Edwards, they still ahve a shot with me, as does Bloomberg, and I am a liberal, but Hillary does not.

Posted by: DCAustinite | August 1, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Trotsky -- you've compelled me. I will vote for a ham sandwhich to stop Hillary.

I just hope I can feel good about my vote.

Do you think Rudy is the only one with a chance to beat her? Are there not a large number of Hillary-Haters on the left?

Posted by: Mike | August 1, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

I only see a handful of endorsements from the first 3 caucus/primary states (Nevada excluded), are most of those Senators and Reps just waiting to back a winning horse or are they truely neutral?

Posted by: ct | August 1, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Personally, I *might* just abstain

Isn't that how we got the first clinton? If she gets in and enacts socialized medicine, 100 years of R rule won't get it gone. we are still stuck with FDR's socialism. do you really not mind higher taxes?

Posted by: Trotsky | August 1, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

"We need a candidate that will take the best ideas from both sides & build consensus"

No such candidate.

Posted by: Trotsky | August 1, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

"OK mike, then you get hillary. good strategy there."

Maybe you're right. Most likely, most of the social conservatives will swollow hard and avoid the path to socialism.

I guess my comment was really saying that I wouldn't appreciate being forced into a position that would require a sacrafice of principles. Personally, I *might* just abstain - and I wonder how many other social conservatives would do the same.

Then again, if we give the country what half of it seems to want (Another Clinton White House), it very well may result in an assured GOP white house for decades in her wake.

"DCAustinite - Aggies rule!

Civil enough?"

Gig 'Em.

Posted by: Mike | August 1, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

"Moreoever, if you really think that Giuliani would have as high of a turnout as a more conservative opponent, then you are strongly mistaken."

I am counting on the anti-hillary vote to draw in the flock. she may not draw in her flock properly. that leaves a rather large middle which is probabaly skewed left, that is more lefties are up for grabs. given that pro-abortion is a traditional lefty position, some or many of them may go over to rudy.

I think it is a very interesting trade-off. the question of its success lies in the relative distaste for the opponent. hillary has about the highest level of distaste we have seen in a long time. Seems like a winning position to me. and I do not suffer from bias as others do.

Posted by: Trotsky | August 1, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Trotsky - Not meant as a comment on you personally, but "you are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils" has to be the most tired of political cliches.

I've been hearing it now for a dozen Presidential elections.

All of us on this blog, know that there is no Perfect candidate. We should feel sorry for the people who cannot get beyond the faults of the candidates, yet are forever demanding the Perfect candidate and complaining when none are chosen.

That phrase should be retired permanently, at least on this blog.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

trotsky writes
"Especially given the current approval rating of the Dem congress."

perhaps. though I think you are mistaken in predicting the Dems will suffer due to low approval ratings. The low approval ratings are a result of failing to stop the Bush admin's war in Iraq. This implies that the public will send more Dems to congress to further punish the repubs for the Bush admin's policies. Obviously a lot can change in 15 months, but that's what it looks like to me.

Posted by: bsimon | August 1, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Please continue to ignore the unnecessary commentary. The petulant ones will grow weary of inattention soon. Thank you.

Posted by: roo | August 1, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

"Aggies rule"?

Mike, I never heard an Aggie say that, and I am sure that was not you. Sooners don't even say that. I think Quaker girl's schools say that.

RG's endorsements come from pro-choice Rs who have no other place to go. And there may be enough pro-choice Rs to give RG the lead going into the R N Convention.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 1, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

My post that's lost in moderation is about Giuliani's alleged 'moderate'ness. I think he's a very divisive candidate that will not bring the country together. He has views that aren't traditionally conservative, but in my view that does not make him a moderate. We need a candidate that will take the best ideas from both sides & build consensus. Giuliani is not that kind of leader.

Posted by: bsimon | August 1, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

do the math - more with the Lib math? If the Dems lose the 11 seats that are strong R districts, that translates into a change of 22. that means that only 16 seats must flip to melt the 31 seat advantage. that is not alot in a wide open election with lots of money flowing around and many issues that can be manipulated. good Luck. you are going to need it. Especially given the current approval rating of the Dem congress.

Posted by: Trotsky | August 1, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

DCAustinite - Aggies rule!

Civil enough?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Mike - Local parties come into play in getting out the vote.

We'll probably see an effort to get items on state ballots which will bring out Conservatives. If they can be enticed to come out, they may hold their noses but will vote for the GOP candidate, more often than withhold their vote, because they'll see the name of somebody they dislike even more on the ballot.

CC could be a big help for us here, if he periodically provides information on those propositions, referenda and initiatives that the parties will try to get on the statewide ballots.

Check out David Broder, he loves that stuff and how it affects elections.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

OK mike, then you get hillary. good strategy there.

It is clear that the security of the country trumps all other issues in many voters minds. the evangs are not threatened by rudy, much more so by Hillary or Quada.

When you are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, as in most Pres elections, you make choices you'd rather avoid.

Posted by: Trotsky | August 1, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

"tidal wave of hope through the pro-war camp and a chill down the backs of the Democratic Party defeatist."

how does this kind of junk make it through the censor?

try and stay civil, please.

Posted by: DCAustinite | August 1, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Trotsky, the Democrats currently have a +31 advantage in the house. So even if several freshman Dems from strong and traditionally GOP districts end up losing, and not a single Dem beats an incumbent Republican, the Democratic party will still have a +25-30 lead, just like I mentioned. Do the math.

And yes, I am speculating when I say that social conservatives will stay home if Rudy's at the top of the ticket. But what in these comments isn't speculation? That's why we're all amateur posters instead of reporters. Moreoever, if you really think that Giuliani would have as high of a turnout as a more conservative opponent, then you are strongly mistaken.

Posted by: sak | August 1, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Will Gravel Ever Get To Make This Point in a Debate?

Okay, maybe I want Mike Gravel to stick around for a few more debates:

DORIAN DAVIS: Earlier, we talked about the HRC/LOGO debate on August 9. Senators Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have opted out of another controversial debate, the Fox News debate, in September. Will you be there?

SENATOR GRAVEL: I sure will. The Fox News debate is co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus. The fact that the others won't attend is rank hypocrisy. There is no question that Fox News leans conservative, but think about this: Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a greedy expansionist, who has dumbed down the world's media. He has held a fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton. Now, she won't go to the debate because Fox News is biased. Is there anything that rings truer with respect to Hillary's character?

In fact, why hasn't Obama gone after Hillary on the Murdoch fundraiser?

Posted by: NRO | August 1, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure how much "cross-over appeal" Rudy has, but it will certainly be outweighed by the massive number of Conservatives who won't get out and vote for him.

Some violations of principle aren't worth winning an election, at least in my mind.

http://ConservativeStandards.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Mike | August 1, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Trotsky/Zouk - What is irrational to the economist is quite rational to the psychologist.

That most people vote for those that candidates who make them comfortable as opposed to candidates whose economic intricacies may benefit them, makes sense - common sense.

Caplan may be absolutely correct in proving his theses, except that voting is not a three credit-hour course or an academic exercise.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

No, Trotsky is right. I've never seen any evidence to indicate that social conservatives have a problem with abortion or gay rights. Evangelicals love that kind of thing.

Posted by: Blarg | August 1, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

"Pure speculation. there is no indication they have a problem with this"

Posted by: Pure delusion | August 1, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

So this week's New York Times article by Brookings Institute experts arguing that we may yet be able to win the war has sent a tidal wave of hope through the pro-war camp and a chill down the backs of the Democratic Party defeatist. If it's true, the hinge of fate unexpectedly may be swinging -- knocking over many in its great arc.

Posted by: tony | August 1, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

There will probably be about the same divide there is today, with Democrats have around a +25-30 advantage.


what about the strong Repub districts who currently have a one termer Dem sitting there? you really don't think any of them will flip back? you don't understand local politics very well. there are several seats that are almost guaranteed to turn back - Delay, Ney, foley, etc.

Posted by: Trotsky | August 1, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Depending on which of the current crop of unelectables the Publicans decide on for the general: best case scenario they choose Rudy, their conservative base freaks out, forces a third party nominee, and Dems pick up 7-9 Senate seats (NH, ME, CO, MN, VA, NM, KY, AK and TX).

The R retirements will start to come fast and furious now that they realize they will be the minority party for the forseeable future, starting today with LaHood (IL), then moving to Regula (OH) and Hastert (IL) and then onto the corrupt dozen (Doolittle, Feeney, Renzi, Young, etc.) not to mention Warner and Domenici in the Senate. If it gets really bad for the Rs then Cochran also steps down and Mississippi gets put into play with Moore stepping up.

Worst case scenario they elect Fred the lazy, rally the base, and only lose 4-5 seats in the Senate (NH, ME, CO, MN and VA).

Either way Publicans lose 12 seats in the house, pick up 4 back from freshmen Ds (like in FL they'll likely grab back that seat they lost due to sheltering a pedophile), for a net pick-up of +8 D in the house.

Posted by: Ajax the Greater | August 1, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

I find it ludicrous that people think Rudy has strong national security credentials. All he did after 9/11 was walk in the streets with reporters and go to funerals. Had he gotten the firefighters proper radios after the 1993 bombing, many would still be alive. As for his idea to give tax credits to people to buy health insurance, it's laughable. If you're living payday to payday, you can't afford to buy insurance and then wait for your income tax refund next year.

Posted by: Bo | August 1, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

consider how many social conservatives and right wingers will stay at home if Rudy is on the ticket. Lots.


Pure speculation. there is no indication they have a problem with this, it is simply the Dems trying to fight the election in the press as usual. consider that many of the right base will vote for a monkey if that monkey is running against Hillary. I think it is an advantatious trade and one which will reap giant rewards for the Repub party.

Posted by: Trotsky | August 1, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

thanks to the censoring of hate speech, ignorant coward will no longer be recognizable. you may notice that the only thing left for him is the obsession with zouk. I predict at least 10 posts per hour pointing out who and where zouk is.

He will tire soon of not being able to insult and will go back where he came from. then we can have our blog back. thanks cc.

Posted by: Trotsky | August 1, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats will pick up at least 4 seats in the Senate (Colorado, NH, Oregon, Minnesota), while only losing about 1 (Louisiana). The Dems are inching closer to that magical 60, which seems possible over the next 4-6 years now that the GOP is crumbling as a national party.

As for the House, there is no way the Dems will lose 16 or more seats in order to throw control back to Boehner and the Republicans. There will probably be about the same divide there is today, with Democrats have around a +25-30 advantage.

And while you say Clinton can't even cover her entire party, consider how many social conservatives and right wingers will stay at home if Rudy is on the ticket. Lots.

Posted by: sak | August 1, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

How many of the people that endorse Rudy have read Vanity Fair's current article on his womanizing and what would be a pathetic First Lady? The article is worth reading and is on the web.

Posted by: Hal | August 1, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

very interesting


An economist at George Mason University, Bryan Caplan, says few people think about their vote or even see any benefit in doing so. His new book, "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies", argues that most voters cast their ballot on the basis of irrational biases about economic matters. That's why so many candidates hostile to free markets, profits, free world trade and immigration get elected. People tend to acquire their wrong opinions about economic policy packaged in worldviews they inherited while growing up. They never test their views against the evidence because that would be unsettling. No one likes having his worldview challenged. So people vote for candidates who make them feel good. They vote irrationally.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JohnStossel/2007/08/01/economic_illiteracy

Posted by: Trotsky | August 1, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Your prediction is noted - I'd like to see him promise again to leave The Fix if he's wrong, like he did before last November.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Do these endorsements (except in rare instances) actually mean anything, other than their own votes at the Convention?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

I think the house will shift back too and boehner will be the new speaker. the Senate is going to be right down the line with a total stalemate as far as the eye can see.

Posted by: Trotsky | August 1, 2007 01:38 PM

Posted by: Your prediction is noted | August 1, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Got zapped by the censor also. Tried to make it vanilla, but that apparently that wasn't good enough. Couldn't even get through a comment about Zouk using ill-founded positions and false premise logic in his posts.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 1, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

How did Romney get so many congressional endorsements, particularly from the South?

Posted by: MoJo | August 1, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I think they added a few more forbidden words. I had the same thing. If this sheds us of ignorant coward it will be worth it.

Posted by: Trotsky | August 1, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Compared to hillary - rudy's skeltons will look positively obese. this is going to be ugly. but rudy has some crossover appeal, hillary doesn't even capture all the Dems. a foregone conclusion. I think the house will shift back too and boehner will be the new speaker. the Senate is going to be right down the line with a total stalemate as far as the eye can see.

Posted by: Trotsky | August 1, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

all my posts are going into moderation. though if that cleans the blog up, I'm willing to live with it.

Posted by: bsimon | August 1, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Chris writes
"There's little question that Giuliani is the most moderate candidate among the frontrunning Republicans."

Perhaps there should be. Or perhaps there should be a question regarding what it takes to be labelled a 'moderate'. Is a moderate someone who has a couple conservative views and a couple liberal views? Or is a moderate someone that takes the best conservative ideas & the best liberal ideas & forges a consensus on the best way forward that attracts both types?

I saw a RG quote on health care lately, where he calls the Dem single-payer plans 'socialized medicine.' That kind of inaccurate, disingenuous antagonistic rhetotoric is not the sign of a moderate, its the sign of a partisan hack that's trying to build himself up by tearing down others. This country doesn't need that kind of leadership right now. This country needs a consensus builder that's willing to take the best ideas from both sides & bring us all together, instead of driving us further apart.

Posted by: bsimon | August 1, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

The idea that Rudy will provide a down-ticket effect that helps Congressmen win re-election is pretty weak. Rudy as the nominee will very effectively suppress the R vote as all of his skeletons come tumbling out of the closet. The Congressmen are trying to make the best of a bad situation in which their choices are either 'bad' or 'worse.'

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 1, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't Vitter support Rudy as well?

Posted by: TP | August 1, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company