A great resource for McCain bloggers and other supporters is Kathy's site at: http://mccainbloggerresources.blogspot.com. Please visit it.
Note: C-Span has honored me by asking that I participate in its coverage of the Pennsylvania Primary, and I've agreed to do so. Thanks C-Span! As many of you know, I have a blog that concentrates on the state: http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com.
Today (Wednesday), I received the following from Patrick Hynes, a key political operative for John McCain:
Gallup Poll: “Sizable proportion of Democrats” would vote for John McCain over Clinton or Obama . . .
Clinton supporters who would vote for McCain over Obama = 28%·
Obama supporters who would vote for McCain over Clinton = 19%
“The data suggest that the continuing and sometimes fractious Democratic nomination fight could have a negative impact for the Democratic Party in next November's election. A not insignificant percentage of both Obama and Clinton supporters currently say they would vote for McCain if he ends up running against the candidate they do not support.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx
If you'd like to receive regular updates straight from the McCain Campaign, please e-mail Patrick Hynes at: phynes@calypsocom.com. He's as good as it gets.
Later today I'll write on this blog about the national implications of the information from Gallup. On my three state blogs, I'll write about what the Gallup information means in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Jersey:
http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/
http://ohioforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/, and
http://newjerseyforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/.
Why are these three battleground states so critical to McCain? Because if he can win two (or three) of them, he will almost certainly be the next President of the U.S. Your comments are always welcome.
The Gallup Poll's findings have national implications, particularly in the many battleground states, including: Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, Virginia, Florida, Michigan, Colorado, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. John McCain has a decent chance to win all (or at least most) of those states, and if he does, he will win the presidency.
Between now and the election, McCain and the national Party should focus heavily on Florida and Michigan. The message will be that Democratic Party bosses (especially Howard Dean) have denied residents of those says a say in which candidate gets the nomination. Michigan and Florida Democrats are likely to desert the nominee (probably Obama) in droves. Remember, Hillary Clinton "won" both primaries -- with Obama being on the ballot only in Florida.
Remember, right now neither Clinton or Obama has the nomination. When one of them does become the nominee, many of them (as Gallup indicates) will desert the Party. That is very bad news for Democrats -- and good news for McCain.
If Obama does get the nomination, as seems likely, one thing McCain should do in the national campaign is to focus on states Hillary Clinton has won in the primary. He should even take a close look at two big states, California and New York, where a lot of Clinton supporters will vote for McCain.
Showing posts with label New Jersey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Jersey. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Thursday, October 25, 2007
How Republicans Can Win: The Cases of Christy Whitman, William Russell, and Melissa Hart
"Money is the mother's milk of politics" (Thomas "Tip" O'Neill)
"In politics, money isn't everything" (Steve Maloney)
Bulletin at end of column: FOX Poll Shows Giuliani Surging, Thompson & Romney Failing
This afternoon (Thursday, October 25) I'll be writing about ways that Republican candidates with limited resources can run effective campaigns against well-funded Democrats. I'll be thinking specifically about William Russell, an Iraq War veteran, who is running against Jack Murtha in Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district.
(In 2006, Murtha raised $3.5 million, one of the highest totals of any congressional candidate in the U.S. In 2008, Russell may raise at most a few hundred thousand dollars. Always the optimist, I believe Russell can win the race against Murtha, although he'll have to conduct an extremely smart, low-cost campaign to do so.)
Look at it this way: in 2006, Murtha got about 120,000 votes and spent almost $300 per vote. Diana Lynn Irey, Murtha's opponent, got almost 80,000 votes, which meant she spent $110 per vote. Diana's campaign expenditures were just under $900,000 -- about $2.6 million less than Murtha. On election day, he got roughly six-out-of-ten votes, and she got four-out-of-ten
One race contemporary Republicans with modest campaign funds can learn from is the campaign in 1990 by Republican Christine Todd Whitman (who eventually became governor of New Jersey of New Jersey) against Senator Bill Bradley. In the race, Whitman spent approximately $900,000. Bradley spent more than $11 MILLION.
Bradley won, but by a razor-thin margin, 50% to 48%. Christy Whitman did just about everything right -- relying mainly on inexpensive radio ads rather than costly TV spots -- and Bradley did most things wrong. In terms of campaign funding, Bradley spent moer than $10 for every vote he received. Whitman spent about 90 cents per vote. Yes, if she'd had more money, she could have won, but she nearly did so anyway -- and she built a foundation for a very successful political career.
Whitman was twice elected Governor of New Jersey and later served as head of the EPA in the Bush Administration. She's known as a champion of the environment in a state that has more than its share of pollution problems. She's a moderate Republican who has argued that the Party needs to include more individuals, including pro-choice women and gays, who have tended to vote mainly Democratic.
New Jersey was then, as it is now, a "Blue" state. Specifically, in modern times, it's always had a large Democratic majority in registration -- a situation similar to the one Russell will face in Pennsylvania. The Whitman-Bradley race also has implications for people like Melissa Hart, who will be running for Congress in the PA 4th District against Jason Altmire.
Like Christy Whitman, I'm not a great fan of candidates' spending huge amounts of money on TV advertising. Even a relatively modest TV effort, like the one conducted by Diana Irey in 2006, can cost hundreds of thousands. In Rick Santorum's U.S. Senate campaign in 2006, he spent at least $10 million on ads. Apparently, they didn't win him more than a few percent of votes, if that.
If Christy Whitman had relied on TV advertising against Bradley in 1990, she wouldn't have had any money left to buy stamps or pay phone bills. On the other hand, she was extremely effective on radio, especially the all-news station in New York City, WCBS. That station (like others she used) had many New Jersey listeners, especially during drive-time programming. She portrayed herself as someone deeply committed to New Jersey, while Bradley -- she said -- was a "Beltway-type." Obviously, the approach worked, as her vote totals surprised all the so-called "experts."
Where do I think someone like William Russell should spend his money? It shouldn't be on TV, where he won't be able to finance a "saturation" campaign. Instead, he should spend it on PEOPLE. He needs to pay modest sums to students, veterans, and Republican activists who will lead a strong word-of-mouth campaign, make phone calls, and go door-to-door.
If William could get a dedicated corps of 1,000 people -- or even a number approaching that -- they could contact as many as 100,000 people (100 contacts for each supporter). Compared to TV ads, talk -- in support of the Russell candidacy -- truly is cheap.
Let's ask a basic political question: How do you get people to support your candidacy? A very simple answer is: You (or your representatives) ask them for it. Russell is a dynamic young man who happens to be a military veteran. He should have strong appeal to young people, especially high-school and college students, as well as veterans, active duty soldiers, AND THEIR FAMILIES.
There are thousands of active military and veterans in the 12th congressional district, and they have families totaling tens of thousands of people. Russell needs to ask all of them, directly or indirectly, for their support. He also needs to ask them for small contributions, which in the case of a few individuals, will turn into very large contributions.
He need to remain active constantly. If he goes to the drug store in Johnstown (his home-town), he needs to ask everybody there, including the pharmacist and the cashier, for their support. Also, he needs to go to college campuses, such as the University of Pittsburgh-Johnstown and Washington and Jefferson College (Washington, PA), and ask the student and faculty for their support.
Russell should emphasize three points: (1) He, unlike Murtha, supports General Petraeus and the troops on the ground; (2) he, unlike Murtha, is honest and committed to representing the real values of people in the 12th District; (3) most of Murtha's contributions come from lobbyists in Maryland and Virginia, not from people in the District. He should say these things over and over again, making them in essence his mantras.
(The second part of this column will appear tomorrow, Friday. It will emphasize three types of individuals -- connectors, mavens, and salesmen -- that Russell needs to bring into his camp.
Connectors are individuals who know a lot of other people, both as friends and acquaintances. Mavens are people who are experts on a variety of things -- from who's the best candidate to who's the best plumber in town -- and who are willing to share their knowledge with others who come to them for advice. Salesmen are people -- like Adam Brickely of http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/ -- who are very good at selling ideas, products, and candidates.
All these concepts are from Malcolm Gladwell's superb book, The Tipping Point. Any candidate who can line up as supporters many of the Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen in a particular district is well on his (or her) way to winning.
Note: I wrote the following comment to Cindy at her wonderful ThePinkFlamingo blog site (see my blogroll).
Cindy, I love your columns, especially the comments about "Dickie" Scaife, who funds many conservative causes and is still a thoroughly evil man. Here are a few Dickie stories: (1) he regularly has lunch with John Murtha, and his newspaper (the Tribune-Review) didn't even bother to interview Diana Irey before it came out (surprise) for the Prince of Pork; (2) one of his political writers (a female) got mad at me for writing an e-mail containing a four-letter word referring to doo-doo. She told me that her editor (Colin McNickel, I think), a Scaife devotee, read EVERY e-mail that came to her. So much for protecting one's sources! I made a deal with her -- she would never write an e-mail to me and I would never write one to her. On gay people: I know quite a few and some of them are devoted Republicans. My deal with gays is that I will let them live as they wish, as long as they do the same for me. By the way, George W. Bush got tens of thousands of votes in Florida in 2000 from gays. Gee, it sounds as if the gay vote was crucial to his becoming President of the U.S. Imagine that! -- Steve
-----------------
Watch: Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll2 hours ago in race42008.com
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll 10-25-07 GOP Nomination (trends since Oct. 10 poll) Rudy Giuliani 31% (+2) Fred Thompson 17% (+1) John McCain 12% (even) Mitt Romney 7% (-4) Mike Huckabee 5% (even) Duncan Hunter 3% (+2) Tom Tancredo 2% (even) Ron Paul 1% (-1).
Second Choice for Republican Nominee Rudy Giuliani 22% John McCain 20% Fred Thompson 14% Mitt Romney 11% Mike Huckabee 4% Ron Paul 3% Duncan Hunter 3% Tom Tancredo 2%.
If the United States were suddenly in an extremely serious crisis, which presidential candidate would you want to be president at that moment? (Republicans Only) Rudy Giuliani 39% John McCain 12% Fred Thompson 11% Mitt Romney 3% Mike Huckabee 2% Ron Paul 1%.
Among Independents (Only included Republican candidates) John McCain 17% Rudy Giuliani 12% Fred Thompson 3% Mike Huckabee 2% Ron Paul 1% Mitt Romney 0% Polling was conducted by telephone October 23-24, 2007, in the evenings.
The total sample is 900 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of ±3 percentage points. Results are of registered voters, unless otherwise noted. LV = likely voters Republicans n=303.
"In politics, money isn't everything" (Steve Maloney)
Bulletin at end of column: FOX Poll Shows Giuliani Surging, Thompson & Romney Failing
This afternoon (Thursday, October 25) I'll be writing about ways that Republican candidates with limited resources can run effective campaigns against well-funded Democrats. I'll be thinking specifically about William Russell, an Iraq War veteran, who is running against Jack Murtha in Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district.
(In 2006, Murtha raised $3.5 million, one of the highest totals of any congressional candidate in the U.S. In 2008, Russell may raise at most a few hundred thousand dollars. Always the optimist, I believe Russell can win the race against Murtha, although he'll have to conduct an extremely smart, low-cost campaign to do so.)
Look at it this way: in 2006, Murtha got about 120,000 votes and spent almost $300 per vote. Diana Lynn Irey, Murtha's opponent, got almost 80,000 votes, which meant she spent $110 per vote. Diana's campaign expenditures were just under $900,000 -- about $2.6 million less than Murtha. On election day, he got roughly six-out-of-ten votes, and she got four-out-of-ten
One race contemporary Republicans with modest campaign funds can learn from is the campaign in 1990 by Republican Christine Todd Whitman (who eventually became governor of New Jersey of New Jersey) against Senator Bill Bradley. In the race, Whitman spent approximately $900,000. Bradley spent more than $11 MILLION.
Bradley won, but by a razor-thin margin, 50% to 48%. Christy Whitman did just about everything right -- relying mainly on inexpensive radio ads rather than costly TV spots -- and Bradley did most things wrong. In terms of campaign funding, Bradley spent moer than $10 for every vote he received. Whitman spent about 90 cents per vote. Yes, if she'd had more money, she could have won, but she nearly did so anyway -- and she built a foundation for a very successful political career.
Whitman was twice elected Governor of New Jersey and later served as head of the EPA in the Bush Administration. She's known as a champion of the environment in a state that has more than its share of pollution problems. She's a moderate Republican who has argued that the Party needs to include more individuals, including pro-choice women and gays, who have tended to vote mainly Democratic.
New Jersey was then, as it is now, a "Blue" state. Specifically, in modern times, it's always had a large Democratic majority in registration -- a situation similar to the one Russell will face in Pennsylvania. The Whitman-Bradley race also has implications for people like Melissa Hart, who will be running for Congress in the PA 4th District against Jason Altmire.
Like Christy Whitman, I'm not a great fan of candidates' spending huge amounts of money on TV advertising. Even a relatively modest TV effort, like the one conducted by Diana Irey in 2006, can cost hundreds of thousands. In Rick Santorum's U.S. Senate campaign in 2006, he spent at least $10 million on ads. Apparently, they didn't win him more than a few percent of votes, if that.
If Christy Whitman had relied on TV advertising against Bradley in 1990, she wouldn't have had any money left to buy stamps or pay phone bills. On the other hand, she was extremely effective on radio, especially the all-news station in New York City, WCBS. That station (like others she used) had many New Jersey listeners, especially during drive-time programming. She portrayed herself as someone deeply committed to New Jersey, while Bradley -- she said -- was a "Beltway-type." Obviously, the approach worked, as her vote totals surprised all the so-called "experts."
Where do I think someone like William Russell should spend his money? It shouldn't be on TV, where he won't be able to finance a "saturation" campaign. Instead, he should spend it on PEOPLE. He needs to pay modest sums to students, veterans, and Republican activists who will lead a strong word-of-mouth campaign, make phone calls, and go door-to-door.
If William could get a dedicated corps of 1,000 people -- or even a number approaching that -- they could contact as many as 100,000 people (100 contacts for each supporter). Compared to TV ads, talk -- in support of the Russell candidacy -- truly is cheap.
Let's ask a basic political question: How do you get people to support your candidacy? A very simple answer is: You (or your representatives) ask them for it. Russell is a dynamic young man who happens to be a military veteran. He should have strong appeal to young people, especially high-school and college students, as well as veterans, active duty soldiers, AND THEIR FAMILIES.
There are thousands of active military and veterans in the 12th congressional district, and they have families totaling tens of thousands of people. Russell needs to ask all of them, directly or indirectly, for their support. He also needs to ask them for small contributions, which in the case of a few individuals, will turn into very large contributions.
He need to remain active constantly. If he goes to the drug store in Johnstown (his home-town), he needs to ask everybody there, including the pharmacist and the cashier, for their support. Also, he needs to go to college campuses, such as the University of Pittsburgh-Johnstown and Washington and Jefferson College (Washington, PA), and ask the student and faculty for their support.
Russell should emphasize three points: (1) He, unlike Murtha, supports General Petraeus and the troops on the ground; (2) he, unlike Murtha, is honest and committed to representing the real values of people in the 12th District; (3) most of Murtha's contributions come from lobbyists in Maryland and Virginia, not from people in the District. He should say these things over and over again, making them in essence his mantras.
(The second part of this column will appear tomorrow, Friday. It will emphasize three types of individuals -- connectors, mavens, and salesmen -- that Russell needs to bring into his camp.
Connectors are individuals who know a lot of other people, both as friends and acquaintances. Mavens are people who are experts on a variety of things -- from who's the best candidate to who's the best plumber in town -- and who are willing to share their knowledge with others who come to them for advice. Salesmen are people -- like Adam Brickely of http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/ -- who are very good at selling ideas, products, and candidates.
All these concepts are from Malcolm Gladwell's superb book, The Tipping Point. Any candidate who can line up as supporters many of the Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen in a particular district is well on his (or her) way to winning.
Note: I wrote the following comment to Cindy at her wonderful ThePinkFlamingo blog site (see my blogroll).
Cindy, I love your columns, especially the comments about "Dickie" Scaife, who funds many conservative causes and is still a thoroughly evil man. Here are a few Dickie stories: (1) he regularly has lunch with John Murtha, and his newspaper (the Tribune-Review) didn't even bother to interview Diana Irey before it came out (surprise) for the Prince of Pork; (2) one of his political writers (a female) got mad at me for writing an e-mail containing a four-letter word referring to doo-doo. She told me that her editor (Colin McNickel, I think), a Scaife devotee, read EVERY e-mail that came to her. So much for protecting one's sources! I made a deal with her -- she would never write an e-mail to me and I would never write one to her. On gay people: I know quite a few and some of them are devoted Republicans. My deal with gays is that I will let them live as they wish, as long as they do the same for me. By the way, George W. Bush got tens of thousands of votes in Florida in 2000 from gays. Gee, it sounds as if the gay vote was crucial to his becoming President of the U.S. Imagine that! -- Steve
-----------------
Watch: Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll2 hours ago in race42008.com
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll 10-25-07 GOP Nomination (trends since Oct. 10 poll) Rudy Giuliani 31% (+2) Fred Thompson 17% (+1) John McCain 12% (even) Mitt Romney 7% (-4) Mike Huckabee 5% (even) Duncan Hunter 3% (+2) Tom Tancredo 2% (even) Ron Paul 1% (-1).
Second Choice for Republican Nominee Rudy Giuliani 22% John McCain 20% Fred Thompson 14% Mitt Romney 11% Mike Huckabee 4% Ron Paul 3% Duncan Hunter 3% Tom Tancredo 2%.
If the United States were suddenly in an extremely serious crisis, which presidential candidate would you want to be president at that moment? (Republicans Only) Rudy Giuliani 39% John McCain 12% Fred Thompson 11% Mitt Romney 3% Mike Huckabee 2% Ron Paul 1%.
Among Independents (Only included Republican candidates) John McCain 17% Rudy Giuliani 12% Fred Thompson 3% Mike Huckabee 2% Ron Paul 1% Mitt Romney 0% Polling was conducted by telephone October 23-24, 2007, in the evenings.
The total sample is 900 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of ±3 percentage points. Results are of registered voters, unless otherwise noted. LV = likely voters Republicans n=303.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Rudy Giuliani Among the Evangelicals
The short answer is he feels they're unreliable, dogmatic, and toxic when it comes to attracting "normal" Republican voters and independents. He believes the far "right-edge" of the evangelical movement is a liability – a band of sanctimonious hypocrites.
The major issue confronting Rudy Giuliani is whether he can attract a big chunk of evangelical votes. At some point (soon) Rudy is going to challenge people who don’t grasp the significance of Mike Huckabee’s saying that “Life begins at conception, but it doesn’t end at birth.”
That’s a criticism of supposed pro-lifers who talk a lot about the subject, but don’t actually DO much about it. They also seem to lose interest in children after they’re born.
Mike can’t (currently) express such unpleasant truths in stark terms, but Rudy can -- and probably will. Sometime during the primary season, you may hear Rudy uttering such sentiments out loud.
He will try -- and perhaps succeed -- putting the far right element of evangelicals on the defensive and even marginalize them. And when he speaks out, don't be surprised if he doesn't get a resounding "amen!" from many evangelicals. He will get affirmative responses from those evangelicals who have reflected deeply on implications of Mike's statement about life's beginning and continuation.
Let me get personal. I am strongly pro-life (from conception to its end in natural death). I have been sending money to the National-Right-to-Life organization for decades. I've written dozens of articles promoting the sanctity of life.
But in recent years, I've become suspicious of some elements in the Movement. Occasionally, it seems more about raising money, issuing press releases, and uttering maudlin statements.
Yes, it is a very emotional issue, but it's also one with some profoundly practical elements: specifically, reducing the number of abortions and increasing the number of adoptions. Which of the candidates has the BEST RECORD of achieving those ends?
It MAY (key word) just be Rudy Giuliani. In getting pro-life RESULTS, it could be the supposedly pro-choice individual. In his tenure as Mayor of New York, abortions declined and adoptions increased. That happened on his watch.
The right-edge of the evangelical movement chronically underestimates Rudy. He's one of the great coalition builders -- and one of the great Mayors -- of all time. He won election twice as a Republican in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than a four-to-one margin.
Rudy Giuliani's presidential strategy is to compete vigorously in several Blue States. He believes he can win in Pennsylvania (went 51-49% for Kerry) and New Jersey (went about 55-45% for Kerry). He also believes he can be very competitive in the critical state of New York. (In 2004, George W. Bush, who spent no money in New York, was polling nearly 45 %. at one point)
At the same time, Rudy believes he can hold states in South and the Mountain West, mainly because he would be the conservative alternative to Mrs. Clinton. The current polls (and hey, it's early!) suggest the strategy could work.
In response to such situations, what might the right-edge of the evangelical do? A thoughtful Baptist preacher in Houston suggested this approach: that devoted evangelicals form a third political party, one with a (Christian) theocratic flavor.
He suggests that the evangelical party's nominee might be Mike Huckabee, whom he assumes won't win the Republican nomination. It's an eminently bad idea, but -- perhaps perversely -- I'm not totally against it.
Frankly, Mike Huckabee doesn't possess a death-wish, so he would pass on the nomination, because it would be a time-consuming, expensive process that would end with him winning zero electoral votes. He knows all about being the cutest fat boy at the dance.
Ross Perot, who's filthy rich and spent money like a drunken Naval Academy grad (which he is -- not the drunk part) ran as a third-party candidate. He succeeded in tipping the election to Bill Clinton, and won zero electoral votes. (He came close to winning Maine but not any other state.)
The recent condemnations of by evangelicals (like the Romans) of Mike are sad to see. However, the souring of a few extremists on Mike reflects this fact: in his effort to win the nomination (and also the election), Mike is becoming slightly more like, well, Rudy Giuliani.
Specifically, Mike realizes that it's essential for him to appeal voters who've been turning away from Republicans: Blacks, Hispanics, "security moms," and younger people. He also knows that to get votes you have to give something in return.
Far-right evangelicals (I call them the "I'm right and you're not" crowd) proceed under the illusion that in politics you can somehow get something for nothing. Good luck!
Both Mike and Rudy have similar assumptions about what evangelicals will do in the general election. If Mike loses a handful of evangelicals, well, so what? If Rudy loses a bigger handful of evangelicals, well his motto might be: "Don't let the door hit you in the butt."
Almost strangely, the polls continue to suggest that Rudy is doing well among evangelicals. He's getting a higher percentage of them than the supposed "evangelical favorite," Mike Huckabee. (That may change somewhat.)
Admittedly, a candidate like Rudy Giuliani doesn't want all or most evangelicals out of the Party. Instead, he wants to purge the far-right corps of evangelicals, people like the Romans, the Dobsons, and Pat Robertson (the "Prince of Smarm"). He knows their choices either will be to stay home or vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Giuliani assumes that if he runs against Hillary Rodham Clinton, he'll get a large chunk of evangelical votes. Again, the polls suggest he's correct. What he does want is to shove aside single-issue and single-candidate evangelicals.
In other words, Giuliani is NOT looking to attract people who despise moderate candidates like him. He believes there aren’t enough of them to cost him the election. To people who say, "If Mike doesn't get the nomination, I'm outta here," Rudy is saying, "It's been nice knowing you."
(As the day goes on, I'm going to write about gay and lesbian people and their role in the conservative movement.)
NOTE: I'm informed the Romans persist in making bogus statements about my being a Giuliani backer. Many months ago, after the first debate I did endorse (on another blog site) Giuliani because I thought he was the candidate most likely to beat Hillary Clinton. Since then, partly because of my Palin work, I've backed away from an endorsement.
At times this week, I've considering endorsing Mike Huckabee. I regard Giuliani as an authentic American hero with a superb record as Mayor of New York. Mike is, for me, "the candidate of the heart." He certainly has a way of growing on people., and his appearance today (Sunday) on CNN was very impressive.
Granted, I regard Hillary Clinton as NEARLY unbeatable, partly because of the clumsiness of some evangelicals in understanding what's at stake.S ometime in November perhaps I'll endorse someone.
As for 2012 and 2016, the person I endorse for President is Gov. Sarah Heath Palin. I also recommend her as keynote speaker for the 2008 Republican National Convention. She can send a powerful message: that the Republican Party doesn't consist mainly of angry, aging white guys.
On Sarah and the vice-presidency, I know there have been some contacts with the Giuliani and Huckabee campaigns, but I don't know their exact nature or significance. I also know the Arkansas Republican Party says, "Sarah is now on our radar." Look for more and "Sarah sightings" as the primary season unfolds.
(For my column tomorrow about gay conservatives -- and how GWB's win in 2000 depended on his getting hundreds of thousands of votes from gay people, paticularly those in Florida -- please take a look at today's (Sunday's) Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Forum (opinion section). You can find Timothy Patrick McCarthy (gee, he's as Irish as I am) writing about, "Homos, Hypocrites, Haters." Apparently, he's the "homo," whereas we Republicans are the hypocrites and haters.
Unlike Stephen Richard Maloney, Timothy Patrick McCarthy appears to be rather strongly on the Left. Here's his salute to the GOP: "The Republican Party is clear about its 'values' [he puts it in quotes] when it comes to gays and lesbians: They oppose our right to raise children, to live in safety, to work in peace, to serve our country, or to marry our loved ones."
I believe he's accusing us of coming up short in our adherence to Jesus' Second Great Commandment. As to gay marriage, I'm a "civil union" type of guy, but like a good Republican, I believe it's primarily up to the several states.
My essay will not be about Mr. McCarthy but rathr about the hundreds (yep) of CONSERVATIVE gay and lesbian bloggers, with emphasis on http://gaypatriot.org/ and http://tammybruce.com/. In general, I like gay people, but Mr. McCarthy and I are off to a rocky start.
IMPORTANT NOTE: I'M PROUD OF THE FACT THAT I'VE HELPED BRING DOZENS OF SUPPORTERS TO THE DRAFT SARAH PALIN EFFORT. HOWEVER, I WANT TO WRITE HARD-HITTING MATERIAL ON CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES -- AND CONTROVERSIAL CANDIDATES -- AND THAT CAN SOMETIMES CONFLICT WITH ADVANCING THE BLOGGERS-FOR-PALIN EFFORT. I WILL CONTINUE TO WRITE ABOUT SARAH FROM TIME-TO-TIME, BUT I'D LIKE TO DIRECT ALL ENQUIRIES ABOUT LEARNING MORE ABOUT HER -- OR ABOUT JOINING THE BLOGGERS' GROUP -- TO ADAM AT HTTP: //PALINFORVP.BLOGSPOT.COM. HE STARTED THE PALIN EFFORT AS A "COALITION" OF ONE, AND ITS SUCCESS IS LARGELY A RESULT OF HIS EFFORTS. SO, PLEASE CONTACT ADAM ABOUT ANY IMPORTANT PALIN MATTERS. I UNCONDITIONALLY SUPPORT SARAH FOR VICE-PRESIDENT, AND I SUPPORT THAT REMARKABLE WOMAN FOR EVEN HIGHER OFFICE AS EARLY AS 2012, AND NO LATER THAN 2016. THE V-P MOVEMENT WILL BE IN GOOD HANDS WITH ADAM. -- STEVE (AS YOU'LL NOTE, I HAVE CHANGED THE FOCUS AND MY PROFILE SOMEWHAT. )
The major issue confronting Rudy Giuliani is whether he can attract a big chunk of evangelical votes. At some point (soon) Rudy is going to challenge people who don’t grasp the significance of Mike Huckabee’s saying that “Life begins at conception, but it doesn’t end at birth.”
That’s a criticism of supposed pro-lifers who talk a lot about the subject, but don’t actually DO much about it. They also seem to lose interest in children after they’re born.
Mike can’t (currently) express such unpleasant truths in stark terms, but Rudy can -- and probably will. Sometime during the primary season, you may hear Rudy uttering such sentiments out loud.
He will try -- and perhaps succeed -- putting the far right element of evangelicals on the defensive and even marginalize them. And when he speaks out, don't be surprised if he doesn't get a resounding "amen!" from many evangelicals. He will get affirmative responses from those evangelicals who have reflected deeply on implications of Mike's statement about life's beginning and continuation.
Let me get personal. I am strongly pro-life (from conception to its end in natural death). I have been sending money to the National-Right-to-Life organization for decades. I've written dozens of articles promoting the sanctity of life.
But in recent years, I've become suspicious of some elements in the Movement. Occasionally, it seems more about raising money, issuing press releases, and uttering maudlin statements.
Yes, it is a very emotional issue, but it's also one with some profoundly practical elements: specifically, reducing the number of abortions and increasing the number of adoptions. Which of the candidates has the BEST RECORD of achieving those ends?
It MAY (key word) just be Rudy Giuliani. In getting pro-life RESULTS, it could be the supposedly pro-choice individual. In his tenure as Mayor of New York, abortions declined and adoptions increased. That happened on his watch.
The right-edge of the evangelical movement chronically underestimates Rudy. He's one of the great coalition builders -- and one of the great Mayors -- of all time. He won election twice as a Republican in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than a four-to-one margin.
Rudy Giuliani's presidential strategy is to compete vigorously in several Blue States. He believes he can win in Pennsylvania (went 51-49% for Kerry) and New Jersey (went about 55-45% for Kerry). He also believes he can be very competitive in the critical state of New York. (In 2004, George W. Bush, who spent no money in New York, was polling nearly 45 %. at one point)
At the same time, Rudy believes he can hold states in South and the Mountain West, mainly because he would be the conservative alternative to Mrs. Clinton. The current polls (and hey, it's early!) suggest the strategy could work.
In response to such situations, what might the right-edge of the evangelical do? A thoughtful Baptist preacher in Houston suggested this approach: that devoted evangelicals form a third political party, one with a (Christian) theocratic flavor.
He suggests that the evangelical party's nominee might be Mike Huckabee, whom he assumes won't win the Republican nomination. It's an eminently bad idea, but -- perhaps perversely -- I'm not totally against it.
Frankly, Mike Huckabee doesn't possess a death-wish, so he would pass on the nomination, because it would be a time-consuming, expensive process that would end with him winning zero electoral votes. He knows all about being the cutest fat boy at the dance.
Ross Perot, who's filthy rich and spent money like a drunken Naval Academy grad (which he is -- not the drunk part) ran as a third-party candidate. He succeeded in tipping the election to Bill Clinton, and won zero electoral votes. (He came close to winning Maine but not any other state.)
The recent condemnations of by evangelicals (like the Romans) of Mike are sad to see. However, the souring of a few extremists on Mike reflects this fact: in his effort to win the nomination (and also the election), Mike is becoming slightly more like, well, Rudy Giuliani.
Specifically, Mike realizes that it's essential for him to appeal voters who've been turning away from Republicans: Blacks, Hispanics, "security moms," and younger people. He also knows that to get votes you have to give something in return.
Far-right evangelicals (I call them the "I'm right and you're not" crowd) proceed under the illusion that in politics you can somehow get something for nothing. Good luck!
Both Mike and Rudy have similar assumptions about what evangelicals will do in the general election. If Mike loses a handful of evangelicals, well, so what? If Rudy loses a bigger handful of evangelicals, well his motto might be: "Don't let the door hit you in the butt."
Almost strangely, the polls continue to suggest that Rudy is doing well among evangelicals. He's getting a higher percentage of them than the supposed "evangelical favorite," Mike Huckabee. (That may change somewhat.)
Admittedly, a candidate like Rudy Giuliani doesn't want all or most evangelicals out of the Party. Instead, he wants to purge the far-right corps of evangelicals, people like the Romans, the Dobsons, and Pat Robertson (the "Prince of Smarm"). He knows their choices either will be to stay home or vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Giuliani assumes that if he runs against Hillary Rodham Clinton, he'll get a large chunk of evangelical votes. Again, the polls suggest he's correct. What he does want is to shove aside single-issue and single-candidate evangelicals.
In other words, Giuliani is NOT looking to attract people who despise moderate candidates like him. He believes there aren’t enough of them to cost him the election. To people who say, "If Mike doesn't get the nomination, I'm outta here," Rudy is saying, "It's been nice knowing you."
(As the day goes on, I'm going to write about gay and lesbian people and their role in the conservative movement.)
NOTE: I'm informed the Romans persist in making bogus statements about my being a Giuliani backer. Many months ago, after the first debate I did endorse (on another blog site) Giuliani because I thought he was the candidate most likely to beat Hillary Clinton. Since then, partly because of my Palin work, I've backed away from an endorsement.
At times this week, I've considering endorsing Mike Huckabee. I regard Giuliani as an authentic American hero with a superb record as Mayor of New York. Mike is, for me, "the candidate of the heart." He certainly has a way of growing on people., and his appearance today (Sunday) on CNN was very impressive.
Granted, I regard Hillary Clinton as NEARLY unbeatable, partly because of the clumsiness of some evangelicals in understanding what's at stake.S ometime in November perhaps I'll endorse someone.
As for 2012 and 2016, the person I endorse for President is Gov. Sarah Heath Palin. I also recommend her as keynote speaker for the 2008 Republican National Convention. She can send a powerful message: that the Republican Party doesn't consist mainly of angry, aging white guys.
On Sarah and the vice-presidency, I know there have been some contacts with the Giuliani and Huckabee campaigns, but I don't know their exact nature or significance. I also know the Arkansas Republican Party says, "Sarah is now on our radar." Look for more and "Sarah sightings" as the primary season unfolds.
(For my column tomorrow about gay conservatives -- and how GWB's win in 2000 depended on his getting hundreds of thousands of votes from gay people, paticularly those in Florida -- please take a look at today's (Sunday's) Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Forum (opinion section). You can find Timothy Patrick McCarthy (gee, he's as Irish as I am) writing about, "Homos, Hypocrites, Haters." Apparently, he's the "homo," whereas we Republicans are the hypocrites and haters.
Unlike Stephen Richard Maloney, Timothy Patrick McCarthy appears to be rather strongly on the Left. Here's his salute to the GOP: "The Republican Party is clear about its 'values' [he puts it in quotes] when it comes to gays and lesbians: They oppose our right to raise children, to live in safety, to work in peace, to serve our country, or to marry our loved ones."
I believe he's accusing us of coming up short in our adherence to Jesus' Second Great Commandment. As to gay marriage, I'm a "civil union" type of guy, but like a good Republican, I believe it's primarily up to the several states.
My essay will not be about Mr. McCarthy but rathr about the hundreds (yep) of CONSERVATIVE gay and lesbian bloggers, with emphasis on http://gaypatriot.org/ and http://tammybruce.com/. In general, I like gay people, but Mr. McCarthy and I are off to a rocky start.
IMPORTANT NOTE: I'M PROUD OF THE FACT THAT I'VE HELPED BRING DOZENS OF SUPPORTERS TO THE DRAFT SARAH PALIN EFFORT. HOWEVER, I WANT TO WRITE HARD-HITTING MATERIAL ON CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES -- AND CONTROVERSIAL CANDIDATES -- AND THAT CAN SOMETIMES CONFLICT WITH ADVANCING THE BLOGGERS-FOR-PALIN EFFORT. I WILL CONTINUE TO WRITE ABOUT SARAH FROM TIME-TO-TIME, BUT I'D LIKE TO DIRECT ALL ENQUIRIES ABOUT LEARNING MORE ABOUT HER -- OR ABOUT JOINING THE BLOGGERS' GROUP -- TO ADAM AT HTTP: //PALINFORVP.BLOGSPOT.COM. HE STARTED THE PALIN EFFORT AS A "COALITION" OF ONE, AND ITS SUCCESS IS LARGELY A RESULT OF HIS EFFORTS. SO, PLEASE CONTACT ADAM ABOUT ANY IMPORTANT PALIN MATTERS. I UNCONDITIONALLY SUPPORT SARAH FOR VICE-PRESIDENT, AND I SUPPORT THAT REMARKABLE WOMAN FOR EVEN HIGHER OFFICE AS EARLY AS 2012, AND NO LATER THAN 2016. THE V-P MOVEMENT WILL BE IN GOOD HANDS WITH ADAM. -- STEVE (AS YOU'LL NOTE, I HAVE CHANGED THE FOCUS AND MY PROFILE SOMEWHAT. )
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
