ConfirmThem

These names certainly ease some of my concerns about Rudy, but I'm still uncertain. In the last two elections, I voted for Bush because I was only concerned about the Supreme Court. While Bush came through on the Supreme Court, he's been a disaster everywhere else. Right now, that's how I view Rudy. He may prove good on judicial selections, but I'm not sure anything else about him is conservative. I know there are plenty of Rudy supporters here, but we need more than just jusges. As I written before, I'm not sure what the attraction for him is without 9/11.

Actually, judges are about the only area that I have concerns over Giuliani. He has really emerged as the most rock-ribbed conservative on just about everything except social policy - where is is not just not-conservative or even moderate, but just as liberal as the other Democrats in the race, if not more liberal.

He is by far the most stridently free market, limited government candidate. It is his social policy that bothers me, and tied to that are the type of judges he would put on the court.

Miguel Estrada and Ted Olson are great, but I'm more skeptical of Larry Thompson. He worked at Brookings, which is a big red flag to me.

In the end, the nomination is made by the president, not a "Judicial Advisory Committee." While this advisory committee looks good in 2008, where will these people be in 2011 or 2015? Will they still be there? Who knows. What we do know is where Rudy will be - and we know that he thinks that abortion is a right enshrined in the constitution.

I really like Rudy and I think that he'd be a great president on many levels, but at the end of the day, I just don't feel that I can trust him on social policy.

I hope that Fred Thompson ends up being the candidate that some people are trying to make him out to be.

In short, New York City was unliveable before Rudy became mayor. He turned around the city in a way that most thought was impossible. He basically told the libs that wanted to continue failed policies to go screw themselves, and wore it as a badge of honor when the likes of the NY Times and Al Sharpton demonized him. Although I cant blame those who doubt he will be good on judges, I have no concerns.

Rudy is the rarity that sounds moderate but governs very conservative. The guys we are used to and many of the naysayers here support, talk conservative and govern moderate to liberal. Rudy is not afraid of a fight. Rudy-Fred or Fred-Rudy, either way I think that ticket can win it. We are so close to nailing the Supreme Court, let's not let it slip back to the libs for another 50 years.

SOUTHWICK MAY STYMIE SENATE
Barring an unlikely confirmation of Leslie Southwick to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by the Judiciary Committee this week, Senate GOP leaders have privately mapped out a retaliatory plan that involves blocking passage of Democratic legislation from now until the August recess.

I'd dearly love to hear from someone about the details of the article. Any of my commenter friends subscribe?

Republican Senators have been in discussions for weeks about how to get political mileage out of President Bush's stalled judicial nominees, but sources say talks in recent days have honed in specifically on the possibility of shutting down Senate business if Southwick fails to make his way out of committee to the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote this month.
...
"Mitch really wants this," noted one senior GOP Senate aide. "Not only is he intellectually pure on this, but the fringe benefit is that it's exactly the kind of issue that gets us to unite and it energizes our base, which is badly fractured in the aftermath of the immigration debate."
...
"We have more to lose because we have the rest of our agenda to pass, but if they want to pick a fight over this judge we are more than willing to do so," argued one senior Democratic aide. "Sen. Reid is anxious to move judges as quickly as possible, but that doesn't extend to judges whose rulings are outside the mainstream of traditional jurisprudence."
...

"Let the full Senate vote on it," Specter added. "That's what the Constitution says - the Senate, not the committee, has the power to confirm or reject. If he loses, I'll abide by the will of the body, but I'm not going to sit still and allow him to be bottled up in committee."

Well, if you care about the Court, you should try to find a Republican who can actually beat Hillary. It's going to be very, very, very hard. We may not be able to afford the luxury of conservatism.

I was very skeptical/critical of Rudy until about six months ago, when I didn't know much about him other than his gay/abortion positions and his 9/11 ethos. The more I tuned into this cycle, however, I came to see that he is the viable candidate who is most likely to govern as a conservative, despite his moderate image.

Just contrast Giuliani's NY record -- cutting taxes, replacing welfare with workfare, attempting school choice reform (although the office didn't have sufficient power, at the time), etc. (not to mention the number of abortions going down) -- with the other frontrunners... Thompson talks the talk on NRO, but while he was in office supported McCain-Feingold... McCain is aggressive on defense and is consistently pro-life but is still basically a populist... Romney just plain doesn't impress me...

What I am saying is that, even though Giuliani might not be ideologically in-synch with the base on social issues, he still has a record governing as a conservative, and also seems to support a conservative judiciary, which is the single most effective thing a president can do to influence social policy anyway.

Moreover, I am very leery of Thompson for reasons I can't quite put my finger on... maybe its the fact that he has a very short voting record to back up his NRO articles... maybe its that he has no executive experience to indicate how he might actually govern and respond to pressure... maybe its just that I don't like his apparent messiah-complex.

Just my two cents.

he'll be unveiling the entire committeee this afternoon

Thompson may have been at Brookings but he's also a member of the federalist society, was Ashcroft's #2 at DOJ, was heavily involved in shaping and defending the WH's WOT policies like the Patriot Act, the TSP, Gitmo, etc..., was mentioned as a possible Bush SC pick, and is very giid friends with Clarence Thomas. I doubt he's a liberal. In any event, at 60, he won't be a SC pick, but he's well known among the DC legal world and it doesn't hurt to have hom nboard.

Olson and Estrada speak for themselves and I think this certainly is a strong indicator that Estrada would be open to a SC appointment in the future. Given how hard he liberals and the left went after him, the fact that Rudy would bring him on board also shows he's not afraid of picking a fight or worried about their opposition.

It'll be interesting to see who else is on the committee, particularly the judges the article referenced

Rudy lost me for the PRIMARY with his rhetoric on abortion. For the general, yeah, I'd vote for him and know that it was easily the right thing to do over voting for the Dem.

The problem with Rudy for me in the general is can he get elected or will all of his baggage nail him.

I mean, Romney is getting pillored for tying a dog to the top of his car. Rudy was having an affair in his own home, rather openly. I suspect some conservatives will stay home rather than vote for Rudy (by which I mean that I know a few whom I'm working on).

Oz

www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com

I won't be voting for Rudy in the primary, but I'll be down there on the first day of early voting to vote for him in the general election if he is the GOP nominee.

The question about Rudy's electability is whether he will attract more swing voters than the Republicans who will stay home because of his social positions. If Hillary is the Democrat nominee, which is almost certainly going to be the case, I highly doubt that more than a negligible number of Republicans will stay home and let the Clintons back into the White House. They are so widely disdained (and for good reason) among Republicans that there will be a huge anti-Hillary turnout regardless of the nominee.

There is also the question of regional support. Giuliani might cause a lot of Southerners to stay home, but that would only matter if the Democrats had a nominee who would contest the south. He has strong support among northeast emigres in South Florida so he should be able to hold Florida, and he has a great chance to take NJ and PA, which would give him 38 extra electoral votes to work with. In 2004, Bush was 16 over 270 so with 54 extra EVs, he could lose Ohio, Iowa, Missouri and some southwest states like NM, NV, or CO, and still win the election. In fact, if Giuliani wins Florida and Pennsylvania, I don't see any way he could lose in the electoral college, even if Ohio flips which very well might happen.

My only question is what if there is some other Guiliani bombshell out there that we don't know about (same holds true for the others).

I suspect that if Guiliani were to take the nomination, he'd have to bring along Fred, Mike, or Sam as his VP to make sure the conservatives came out.

Oz

www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com

Forget Brownback, that was bs what he pulled on the immigration vote.

Rudy was mayor of New York City for eight years (with all its tabloids), and is going to be battling in a primary for over a year, so if it won't come out before the primary season, there's probably nothing to come out.

Of course, as we learned with Bush and drunk driving, bombshells can come out for anyone, and at any time. But I don't see why this should be a reason why anyone else is preferable.

Furthermore, the only two alternatives to Giuliani are Thompson and Romney. Both are bland and have no record of accomplishment to recommend them to the presidency. One was a one-term governor whose main accomplishment was socialized health care in his state, the other was a two-term Senator with a fairly, but not perfect, conservative voting record who didn't set himself apart from his colleagues, and we all know how great Senators do when running for the presidency. Why is there no groundswell for Senators Allard, Crapo, Sessions to run for president. They all spent more time in the Senate than Thompson and are all more conservative than he is?

I am not trying to denigrate Romney or Thompson, and would happily vote for them over any Democrat. I just don't see why the average American would do the same. And I don't see why we should settle for the mediocre, when we have a candidate, whose record of leadership and success is unrivaled among all the candidates in both parties.

Way to go. Vote for whomever you like in the primaries, but come on home for the general.

Every year the R starts off writing off CT, NY, NJ, and mostly PA. Rudy put all in play, maybe not NY. He may also flip NH.

W had 278 in 2004. Win just NJ or PA and it's over, even if OH flips.

I also agree with the person who said that he would have to go to the right for a VP pick. I don't thin that any of those guys will do. I know this may not be popular for what happened the last 2-4 years in the Senate, but what about Bill Frist. He nows how DC works and is generally well received by the base of the party. What about Rick Santorum? If he goes for states, he could always get the 10 EV's from WI by taking Tommy Thompson. BTW, this state and MN are also in play in Rudy is the nominee. These are ALL blue states. Another advantage of having him as the nominee.

Thoughts....

I agree with most of what you said -- that Rudy would open up NJ & PA, would hold FL, and would probably stand to lose Ohio, possibly lose Iowa and Missouri... however, CO and NV are not other states that immediately come to mind... maybe NM if Richardson becomes the Dem VP pick (which I do not think will happen anyway). More likely is that VA will also flip against any nominee (lots of Clinton holdovers in the DC suburbs). I also think Rudy may stand to win some of the northeastern microstates (say, NH and ME), and maybe someplace like WI, but I'm less stuck on those last views.

I would put the following three names on the top of Giuliani's VP list:

Barbour
Huckabee
Santorum

All three are social conservatives who are very well-spoken and would help in securing the base so Giuliani could hit the swing districts. Santorum might scare off social moderates in the Phillie suburbs, but most vote for the president anyway, and those in the base who care about VP would be very happy with him or any of those 3 at the VP slot.

Pawlenty- conservative governor in a swing state, who won an election in a terrible year for R's

I agree Rudy would have to go to the right for a VP pick, but I honestly don't know what you were thinking with the names thrown out there (no offense :) ).

Frist I've seen in small groups before, and about all I can say is he is a terrifically boring speaker and, I suspect, not much of a campaigner either. I absolutely adore Santorum (who I've also seen in small groups), but if we're talking about putting PA into play I think he might as well be written off the list. As far as T Thompson, I just don't see that happening.

More likely, I think, would be governors like Pawlenty (his state is hosting the RNC), Huckabee, or Sanford (I'm not sure who he has endorsed in the primary race...). Longshots might Gov. Rick Perry, Michael Steele, or Sen. Hutchison. Until about a week ago, I would have also added Vitter to that list.

Yes, I forgot to add Barbour.

It's true that most of those who stay home on election day will probably be in the south, and Rudy will carry the south anyway because they're not exactly going to be voting for Hillary. And if Rudy can win enough evangelical votes to with the primary (which he will have to do) then I don't see how he all of the sudden loses them in the general.

And then he does put Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New Hampshire in play. He probably sews up Florida. And if Dubya could make Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan close, Rudy could probably stand an even better chance of sealing the deal in those states.

If Rudy taps Kenneth Blackwell (Ohio), Mike Pence (Indiana), or Tim Pawlenty (Minnesota) as his veep, he could do some serious damage in the midwest/upper midwest.

Of course my favorite potential Giuliani running mate is Newt, but perhaps he could be the White House Chief of Staff and avoid hurting the ticket best that way in the general election and still wield great influence over White House policy - and judges.

In a Giuliani Administration, I'd like to see Santorum either be the next Secretary of State or be the UN Ambassador. Ted Olson looks like he has Attorney General locked up in a Giuliani administration.

Frist is boring. But he will make the base happy. ANd you said that people don't vote specifically for the VP. But, if we have some sore losers on our side, that could go a long way to help them get over it.

I do like Barbour. I just forgot to add him. I was thinking Pawlenty, too, but I didn't know his stance on some of the issues. He and Thompson, as I said, were strictly for flipping a blue state red. That's why I said those. I agree with you about Santorum. Great with the base, but does he scare off more moderates than Rudy brings in? I think Steele is off the list b/c he lost. However, Condoleeza Rice must be persuaded to run if Obama is on the ticket.

Let's not forget one person. This person won election in '02 and was supposed to be a very conservative person b/c of his record in the House and also where he's from. There's no doubt he would be at the top of the list. However, as we all know, he has strayed far off the reservation. Any guesses?

Lindsay Graham.

Huckabee is fiscally irresponsible. He's not with the program and needs to knock off Blanche Lincoln in 2010 if he's not going to run against Pryor this year. He may not be great, but she is a flaming lib who is WAAAAAAY to the left of Arkansas.

2010 would probably be an easy pickup for him. We're probably going to have to live with Pryor for a long time unless he can be persuaded to run for Governor of Arkansas at some point in the future.

I'd like to see Haley Barbour in the Senate, but he seems to be doing an outstanding job as governor of MS for the time being.

Also:

Sanford
Purdue
Thompson?

Never ever to Perdue. He is the governor of GA and he allowed high schools to have white proms and black proms. Never on earth.

Barbout is term limited. He could run for the Senate in 2014 when Thad Cochran hangs 'em up.

It was Guiliani the quitter who conceded a Senate seat to Hilliary Rodham.

Somehow, pointed advice for Huckabee to run for the Senate, not the Presidency, isn't consistently being applied to Guiliani.

Why is that?

The country has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand principled conservative leadership.

BananaR,

No offense, but I don't really care as much about the Senators from Arkansas as I do about the Presidency. And his fiscal irresponsibility is irrelevant since he is going to be VP not P (also, our current president isn't exactly Mr. Fiscal Conservative either).

If Huckabee can help secure the social conservative vote and whip Hussein Obama in the VP debate (which he's shown he can do), he would be a good fit for Giuliani.

I live in Georgia, and most people here think he's a great governor. He won his second term by a landslide. He has done an amazing job in keeping Georgia's economy strong compared to the rest of the country. In addition, he is a social conservative. His charming "aw, shucks" personality belies a sharp intelligence. He is not racist. I just don't know, however, whether his good ol' boy image will play well outside of the South.

If Giuliani is the nominee, at the end of the day it'll likely come down to Barbour vs. Huckabee.

I think Giuliani will need to get someone from the south who has excellent credentials with evangelicals, and who has some experience in national politics, so there would be no chance of a Dan Quayle. Barbour was RNC chair in the 90s while Huckabee is getting a lot of national spotlight this year. All the other southern governors are unproven and don't have national credentials. Santorum is unpopular even in his state, and wouldn't give regional balance. Pawlenty is a possibility, but he isn't really known as a social conservative. I am 100% sure that Fred Thompson would never agree to be VP for anyone.

Vice Presidents often run for President. Not to mention, if anything happens to the POTUS, the VPOTUS become POTUS, obviously.

Got to think LONG-TERM here. We want the VP to be someone who can help the ticket AND that we would actually like to see become president one day.

Huckabee? Not so much. Senate is as high an office as I can support him for. And even there, I'm sure that he'll frustrate me with all of the pork he'll be bailing home to Arkansas.

Pawlenty is certainly known as a social conservative.

Guiliani quit the race to undergo chemotherapy. Guiliani governed way more conservatively in a way more liberal locale than Huckabee.

bob,

I agree it's unfortunate that Giuliani's withdrawal from the NY senate race allowed Hillary to be in the position she now is in, but, uh, he did have cancer, after all. I'm not sure withdrawing to undergo cancer treatment constitutes "quitting."

Please, let's not have another thread hijacking about how there is no arch-conservative in the race and therefore conservatives should whithold their republican votes. This one is about Giuliani's campaign and what conservatives can do to... well... win. Which is a tall order, in 2008.

BananaR - Good point on the Huckabee and VP->pres succession... I personally don't care for him, but I do think he would be on a possible Giuliani short-list, for the reasons that others have stated above.

LMK - I agree 100%... Thompson just doesn't strike me as one who'd be interested in playing second-banana to someone he will probably try to rip apart in the nomination fight. And Barbour is a very real possibility, for the Quayle reasoning. He's done a fantastic job in Mississippi, and popularity-wise he's comparable to Jeb Bush.

Again, I adore Santorum, but he would torpedo Rudy's appeal to independents if he were in fact to win the nomination.

Also, I agree that Ted Olson is well positioned for an AG nomination if Rudy wins out, and Newt would be a dream team CoS pick.

What is CoS?

as in White House Chief of Staff.

If conservatives are going to "win," then a conservative is going to have beat Guiliani in the Primaries.

Speculating upon whom Guiliani will select as a running mate is slightly less defeatist than measuring the drapes for Hilliary, but not by much.

The country has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives who support conservative Presidential nominees and oppose moderate ones.

We probably disagree on this, but I don't think the type of conservatives that you favor have enough votes to win the 2008 election on their own. In fact, I think the type of conservative candidate you dream for would lose most female and minority voters. Given that, the Republican Party most probably will have to rely on independent voters in order to get elected. Giuliani would do a better job of drawing those people in than say Tancredo.

(BTW, this is not an endorsement of Giuliani, merely an analysis on why the prospective Republican nominee will not likely fit most of your conservative criteria)

Perhaps Estrada as SG in a Giuliani administration?

I'm not sure Rudy would be competitive in PA. remember this is the state that held it against Santorum for supporting his colleague Specter. ther rural republican areas of the state are quite conservative, afaik. I'm also very concerned depressed republican turnout in the south could help the Dems pick up house seats and enlarge - and maybe just barely hold it as pathetic as they're doing - their majority. I'm not at all certain he has any coattails at all, and he might have negative coattails. If liberal Rudy brings in 55 Dem Senators and 260 Dem Congressman in his wake, does anyone think he won't capitulate to their leftist social agenda? It's possible he gives some coattails to some endangered moderate Republicans (Collins, Coleman, Smith), though as little opposition as they're getting I don't know they really need it, and he'd probably hurt our chances to keep CO, as well as making it tougher even here in Texas for John Cornyn.

Cornyn is safe regardless, IMO. I can't think of any democrat in the state that is positioned to mount a credible challenge.

I can see why you'd be concerned about Giuliani's coattails, however I don't think the risk is as great as you imagine it could be. I'm not saying he would sweep in Republican majorities (I doubt this will happen in the senate regardless of who the republican nominee is), however any negative coattails would be mitigated by the fact that even in a highly charged cycle there are only a handful of competitive seats, and the trend lately has been for the Democrats to target centrist-to-conservative Republicans in blue/purple states (where Giuliani would likely be competitive) -- not marginally competitive races in red states. In any case, important as coattails are, I think that they are slightly overrated in presidential years. Fielding strong candidates and focusing on message at the local level is what wins House races in any election year.

That said, I think that Giuliani's potential coattails might be what republicans need in '08. Coleman is drawing two strong, well-financed challengers, as are many vulnerable house members (Shays-CT has already been targeted). If he does have coattails, the party will need them to win back the swing districts it lost in '06 -- mainly in the northeast where Giuliani is the strongest potential republican nominee.

so we can kill off some real conservatives from the depressed south and replace them with rockefeller republicans from the northeast. I'm not so sure that's a trade I'm willing to make. considering many of the seats we lost were to Democrats running to the right of the Republican incumbent, I'm not sure liberal Rudy helps win any of them back, either.

to the last sentence: considering many of the seats we lost were because conservatives stayed home, the high probability that they do so again for Rudy doesn't hep win those seats back.

Since I was a child, I have repeatedly heard, and read, the moderate, establishment mantra that moderate Presidential candidates do better in Presidential elections.

It is a factoid that has no basis in empirical reality.

Since the sixties, the Republican candidates were Nixon, Goldwater, Nixon, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Reagan, HW Bush, HW Bush, Dole, W Bush, W Bush. By my count, real conservatives went 2/3, while moderate, establishment candidates went 5/9. Conservative *candidates* went something like 4/5 [Bush I and Bush II ran as conservatives], while moderate candidates, or candidates with moderate Presidential records, went 3/7.

Other facts: every moderate Republican who left office was replaced by a Democrat since WWII {Eisenhower}, while every conservative Republican President was replaced by another Republican{Reagan}; every moderate Republican President since WWII has either been defeated outright in their attempt for reelection, or has been reelected only to see the Repubican party decimated in the sixth year election{1958,1974, 2006}. If the pattern of 1958, and 1974 holds, Hilliary can start measuring her drapes.

I know a fraud when I read a fraud. The argument that moderates are better candidates is a fraud.

Bobo,

If you want to argue that Guiliani is the ideologically preferable candidate, to you, by all means state your case. But, don't tell me with a straight face that moderate, establishment candidates, per se, are better candidates. The facts just don't support your contention.

The country has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand leaders that support conservatives, rather than kowtowing to moderates.

I have two points to make when wrote that I would comment about how there was no...

"arch-conservative in the race and therefore conservatives should withhold their republican votes,"

1) At least Bobo was grammatical when he whipped up the pejorative "ultraconservative." No such word exists in the English language, but, if it did, it would, presumably, mean "beyond conservative."

Archconservative isn't a word, either, and it isn't even grammatical. Bishops report to Archbishops. Conservatives don't report to archconservatives. The conservative movement is, essentially, leaderless inasmuch as the current "leaders" of the "conservative" movement are decidedly to the left of their rank-and-file.

2) Conservatives, like every other voter, vote the interests of themselves, their families, and their perceived interests of their communities and nation. They don't cast "Republican" votes. Republican candidates must ask for their votes by appealing to the interests of themselves, their families, their communities and their country.

If the Democratic party were to take a radical, and sincere, shift to the right, and the Republican party to the left, I would switch parties in an instant. My allegience is to ideas, among them sanctity of human life.

If the Republican candidate does not appeal to my interests, the interests of my family, and my perceived best interests of my community and country, he will not have earned my vote. I will not "withhold a Republican vote," I will vote for a pro-life conservative who does share my values.

The country has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand leaders who take conservatism seriously.

Funny thing is, I don't even have to use his name. We all know who is meant by "nutcase". It's a shame that we can't carry on a serious discussion without his bizzare musings.

First off, the term archconservative and ultraconservative are widely understood to mean extremist conservative. While only one person on this thread doesn't want to recognize this (most glaringly because he spouts extremist garbage) the fact remains that the terms are proper and recognized by users of the site.

I agree that conservative candidates typicaly do better than moderate candidates for the GOP. This doesn't mean that Pat Buchanan or Mike Savage will ever win a race for president though. It also doesn't take into account other variables (such as economy, wartime, scandals, etc).

But one of the many indictments against Nutcase is that we just lost a lot of Senate and House seats because crybabies in the conservative fold stayed at home in '06 following the foolish "my way or the highway" school of thought. Thanks for any advice from those kinds of self-defeating losers, but no thanks.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

The hypocrisy of moderates denouncing conservatives for taking a "my way or the highway" attitude is breathtaking.

Ever since I was a child, another of the propaganda mantras I have heard, and read, from moderate Republicans is that we must select moderate nominees or risk losing blocks of moderate voters that typically vote Republican. That is moderates take a "my way or the highway" attitude towards conservatives.

That position isn't labeled as a "crybaby" attitude. There is no accusations of a lack of party loyality. It is simply taken as a fact of nature, like weather patterns.

Well, moderates are just begining to have to live in the world that they consistently created for conservatives.

"Go too far to the right and lose voters on the left."

"Go too far to the left and lose voters on the right."

Where is the distinction that makes a difference?

P.S.

I was a fortunate conservative who voted in the past election for a pro-life conservative candidate who lost because at nearly the last minute GWB decided to campaign as if the election were a referendum on Iraq.

The country has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives fight moderates within the Republican party as vigorously as they fight liberal Democrats.

If you really want "serious discussion," isn't purely ad hominem attacks like "nutcase" counterproductive?

The country has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand leaders that respect them rather than condescend towards them.

Defining "ultraconservative" and "archconservative" as being,

"widely understood to mean extremist conservative,"

is merely replacing a grammatical absurdity with a logical one.

When one distills water, the product is distilled water, not "extreme water." A candidate who invariably holds a conservative position on every issue is not an "extreme" conservative, rather he is simply considered "conservative."

The "extremes" of politics are communism, and such, on the left, and fascism, and such, on the right. Political "extremists" are neither liberal, nor conservative.

Such terms are intellectual frauds. If one person uses such a term as "archconservative," or "ultraconservative" he is perpetrating an intellectual fraud. If a million people use such a term, their use of the term is just as fraudulent. Claiming the empirical fact that many moderates commonly use such terms justify their usuage is the ad populem fallacy.

The country has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives purge their current moderate leadership in favor of true conservatives.

Is there any way that a Rudy Newt ticket could win?

I don't see what Newt adds to a Giuliani ticket. He is a great tactician and would be a great campaign advisor, but he is pretty useless as a VP, and he wouldn't help electability at all.

P.S. Can everyone stop calling bob names or trying to engage and respond to his arguments? It's pointless and a waste of time and thread.

Much though I like him, Newt would be an unmitigated disaster as a VP nominee, especially for Rudy. Could you just imagine the attacks that would come out of the opposition, to the effect of granting Hillary the moral high ground for sticking by her man and showcasing her "values" credentials vs. Newt/Rudy? I think its acceptable to have a...um...colorful nominee, but a colorful running mate just won't do it for a lot of folks.

"If you want to argue that Guiliani is the ideologically preferable candidate, to you, by all means state your case. But, don't tell me with a straight face that moderate, establishment candidates, per se, are better candidates. The facts just don't support your contention."

To begin with, I never made any generalization to the effect that moderate, establishment candidates are better candidates. If that is what you got out of my statements concerning Giuliani, you misinterpreted my meaning. I merely stated that for a Republican candidate to win in this specific election (2008), he will have to win a majority of America's independent voters, a group that contains a lot of women and minorities who according to polling data are opposed to most social conservatives' views on abortion and affirmative action. All I said was that any Republican who polls well with independent voters, like Giuliani, has a better chance of getting elected nationally than a Republican who doesn't, like Tancredo. I never even labelled Giuliani as being a "moderate, establishment" candidate in this analysis, so I don't even know where you pulled your interpretation of my comment from. In fact, I think Giuliani is arguably a socially liberal candidate as compared to a moderate one.

(Remember, I have never said that I endorse Giuliani. I merely was pointing out that he probably has more support among independent voters than the type of conservative you seem to favor).

Bobo,

When you wrote of " 'social conservatives' [and their] views on abortion and affirmative action," were you claiming that moderate, pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, establishment Republicans run better than pro-life, pro-meritocracy conservatives. Again, there is no empirical data to back your contention. Nixon ran against abortion, and the overtly pro-choice Ford lost. Ever other Republican candidate since Roe claimed to be "pro-life."

In the case of pro-life candidates, they consistently gain an advantage over pro-Roe candidates because the clear plurality of single issue abortion voters are pro-life [something like 8% to 3% of the total electorate.]

Affirmative action, aka, "quotas" has always been a political loser and even the proponents of affirmative action speak of "goals, and timetables" instead of the actual set-asides and quotas they endorse.

To win, the Republican candidate needs to receive more total [electoral] votes than the Democratic candidate. The empirical observation in the last forty years is that pro-life conservatives run better.

The country has a continuous leftward drift precisely because both the liberal and conservative movements have leaders that are far to the left of their respective memberships. The country will only turn to the right when rank-and-file conservatives demand leaders that back conservatives rather than throw in with wimpy moderates.

I actually think it's a very strong ticket, but the mega-egos involved likley make it too dangerous. Newt would be my first choice for Sec of Education tho, other than maybe that lady Superintendent of the Richmond schools who's bringing phonics back.

Agreed that Rudy will pick a solid but uncontroversial Southerner as VP. But people for vote for the POTUS; see Cheney, Agnew, Quayle, etc.

Actually, I will admit that deep down I was really voting for Cheney. Both times.