Is Rudy Really Running?

The Rudy Retreat continues. He skipped Iowa, abandoned New Hampshire, ignored Michigan avoided South Carolina and now is in a polling freefall in Florida. After his 2000 aborted run against Hillary Clinton in New York it makes me wonder, does this guy really want to be president? He's not going to win the nomination by running the calendar with sixth-place finishes.

He has less fight in him than Grandpa Fred.

Did giving up the private sector's consulting millions (estimated $4M in 2007) cause him to rethink his choice?

Think about it - he didn't give up his consulting salary until very recently - and doesn't all this hype about him being the "9-11" National Security candidate make him much more marketable when he decides to return to his lucrative "calling" as a security consultant? Winning the GOP nod would expose Giuliani to increased scrutiny, threatening to reveal the "Emperor Has No Clothes" reality of his security credentials. With most pundits anticipating a GOP general election loss - regardless of the nominee - would lessen Rudy's value. Could it be that this "campaign" is nothing more than a PR effort for Giuliani Partners?

When he interrupted campaigning right before Christmas and was admitted to the hospital with a headache, I thought he was going to drop out, citing health reasons. After all, it's what "America's Mayor" does when the competition heats up - he cuts and runs.

I still wouldn't be surprised by a "Rudy Withdraws Headline" even before Feb 5th.

Rudy's (and America's) Shame

We need to let Rudy know building a presidential campaign on the backs of American heroes while ignoring their long-term medical needs is immoral. Rudy, despite your claims, you are not "one of them."



Let Rudy know he should meet with the 9-11 First Responders by signing the petition here.

The GOP's Great Schism

The likelihood of a Romney GOP nomination are growing slimmer by the day.

Huckabee's evangelical base is heading into a battle with the old-line blue blood Wall Street wing of the party. Three weeks before the primary voting begins, the financial conservatives' support is divided between Romney & Giuliani, with Rudy picking up the neocon warhawks. Because the war on terra remains a much more potent issue on the Republican side, Giuliani is likely to carry the Wall Street banner against Huckabee for control of the GOP.

In many ways, although Huckabee scares the bejeebers out of me in the general because of his Uncle Ronnie-like amicability, a Huckabee nomination would mean very bad things for the GOP, which would likely divide. It would signify a further retreat into a theocratic, regional (Southern) party, alienating the financial conservatives, libertarians and independents in the 2008 general election and, quite possibly, in subsequent election cycles.

A Huckabee nomination may also entice Mike Bloomberg to launch a third party candidacy.

America's Credibility & The NeoCon Cowboys

Oh, Canada! A Canadian judge rules the United States should not be considered a safe haven for refugees. Now we can add our neighbor to the Great White North to the roster of nations (The Coalition of the No Longer Gullible?) who view America as troublemakers and a source of global instability.

The "shoot fast and furious, torture thoroughly and aggressively" Neocon mentality continues to diminish America's international stature.

Despite the growing international consensus, our Commander-in-Chief continues the sabre-rattling over Iranian nukular intentions despite the just-revealed NIE showing Tehran suspended its weapons program four years ago. From yesterday's press conference:

Q The clarification is, are you saying that this NIE will not lead to a change in U.S. policy toward Iran, or shift in focus?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm saying that I believed before the NIE that Iran was dangerous, and I believe after the NIE that Iran is dangerous. And I believe now is the time for the world to do the hard work necessary to convince the Iranians there is a better way forward.

-- snip --

So our policy remains the same. I see a danger. And many in the world see the same danger. This report is not a "okay, everybody needs to relax and quit" report.

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was on Hardball last night:

"If this weren't so deadly earnest. This isn't about curiosity. It's about credibility. This administration has damaged us to a degree that no other administration has in American history."

The Bush/Cheney NeoCon cabal loses credibility (if there was any remaining) and America's international influence is diminished. How will this play out in the presidential campaign? The two frontrunners, Hillary and Rudy, both already showing signs of weakness in recent polls are likely to be weakened further.

The news strikes the very foundation of Rudy's candidacy - terrorists are everywhere - or are they? Hillary's experience argument takes a hit as the electorate will once again question the wisdom of her Iran vote. How much experience does she need before she gets foreign policy correct?

TGIF Random Thoughts

The Manchester Union-Leader poses the question: Can Huckabee play in New Hampshire? Will his evangelical background be an obstacle as he tries to win over Granite State voters? They report an ARG poll due out today will show the former Arkansas governor breaking into double digits for the first time.

"Hey, Rudy, Don't Bring Your Love to Town" - get a room in the Hamptons.

Apparently, I wasn't the only one noticing the fact that the war in Iraq was almost an afterthought during the GOP YouTube debate the other night. Two big topics from the Democratic tussles - a looming crisis with Iran and healthcare reform - didn't even get mentioned. Talk about parallel universes and an ideological divide.

Does the cancellation of the Dec 10th Democratic debate due to the WGA strike work to Hillary's benefit? It was to be the last group gathering before the Iowa caucuses and with the holidays underway (and an expected hiatus from negative politicking) does it mean the voter sentiment will remain static? Or is the Iowa electorate as fluid as South Carolina, where 49% of Dem voters remain undecided according to a Clemson University poll?

Can the Baptist Minister Win in '08?

In the aftermath of the YouTube mashup in Florida the other night, I got to thinking about which GOP candidate might pose the biggest challenge to a Democrat winning back the White House 11 months from now. In a general election, I rate these GOPers as the most worrisome (as in, they have the better chance of winning):

1) Huckabee
2) McCain
3) Romney
4) Giuliani
5) Thompson

Huckabee is a genial ("Reaganesque") guy. He has a sense of humor. He seems reasonable on fiscal policy (anyone who raises the ire of the Club for Growth gang scores some points for bravery in the GOP, IMO), he joined McCain in challenging the rightwing orthodoxy on immigration by rebuking Mitt with "We are a better country than to punish children for what their parents did."

There is no doubt in my mind his folksy manner puts many people at ease. My dad (no evangelical at all) said this past weekend, "I can picture voting for that Huckleberry guy." Of course, as he gets better known, that may change.

McCain came across at the YouTube confab as the one who hasn't gone off his rocker on immigration - which I think makes him competitive in a general. If the news out of Iraq continues to be one of lessening violence and (somehow) they begin to make progress on political reconciliation, he could increase his general election chances. His problem, as it has been for months, is actually winning the nomination with a base who has become increasingly rabid in their devotion to right wing causes.

Romney - if he can frame the general election about managerial competence, he could be the "change" agent in 2008. That's a HUGE "if" of course. He can actually make the argument that he is the one capable of cleaning up the mess left by Dubya just like he did in the SLC Olympics. He can also say he knows how to be a pragmatic governing executive. After all, he did manage a librul state like Massachusetts. He is certainly no ideologue like Bush. (Although my dad does say, "He didn't leave the Bay State in a mess because he wasn't here long enough.") Not sure how accurate that statement is.

If Romney succeeds in avoiding the ideological issues in a general election, I can see him becoming palatable to general election moderate voters. His biggest liability in my opinion is that he comes across as an elitist intellectual, a la Gore and Kerry. But, Shrub's daddy won overcoming a similar flaw. Sometimes the country wants a leader who doesn't have the "vision thing."

Giuliani - I think that as people see him more, he becomes a truly frightening and delusional figure. This means he could win the nomination and I think the Democrats will have a field day with this one. If the GOP makes the mistake of choosing Rudy because he's electable, I think the general becomes MUCH easier. There are FAR too many skeletons in Rudy's closet. The one thing is that if the contest is between Rudy and Hillary, I believe there will be a third party candidate - whether it's Bloomberg, Ron Paul or someone like Al Gore, I'm not sure.

Thompson - although he did show a few brief moments of awareness during the YouTube gathering, I think his candidacy has been dead for quite some time. There is no fire here - and I can actually picture him midway through a first term deciding, "Nevermind. This isn't as fun as Law & Order." Really. I can.

WaPo Gets the Money Headline WRONG

Cross-Posted at Daily Kos.

In reading the news reports on the presidential Q2 fundraising numbers, I came across this article over at washingtonpost.com: Campaigns Raise, Burn More Cash, More Quickly: Rapid Spending Puts Some in Jeopardy Early. The gist of the story is that both Democratic and Republican candidacies are in jeopardy because of out-of-control spending.

But, if you take a closer look, its basically the Republicans who are spending money faster than they're raising it while the leading Dems ALL saw their bank accounts grow during the quarter.

Might I suggest a more accurate headline for the WaPo editors:

Republican Presidential Campaigns Running A Deficit: Candidates Show How They'll Manage Federal Budget if Elected

The article tries to make the claim that the profligate spending is causing problems for front-running candidates in both parties.

Candidates for the White House are not only raising far more than ever before, many are also spending that money as fast as they get it, leaving some close to being forced from the race almost six months before the first votes are cast.

Campaign finance reports released in recent days show that the spending spree is a reality for both front-runners and long shots. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R) burned through more than $20 million in the past three months, 50 percent more than he raised during that span. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) blew through the $11 million he raised during the past quarter and has barely enough money to keep going, even with his dramatically scaled-down operation.

They make the observation that both Democratic frontrunners have spent large sums (Clinton spent $12.8M while Obama spent $16M) but failed to point out that these sums represent less than 50% of the amount each campaign took in during the quarter. They describe the $11M Giuliani spent during the quarter as "modest," failing to acknowledge that Clinton & Obama raised $10-15 million more than Rudy!)

Two of the three Republican frontrunners (McCain & Romney), on the other hand, spent MORE money than they raised in the quarter. (While Romney took in $20.998M and spent $20.739M, $6.5M was a personal loan, which means he would have been "in the red" if he had relied solely on money he raised from donors). Rudy Giuliani was the only GOP top-tier candidate who operated "in the black" during the quarter. But the WaPo fails to acknowledge that the Dems have far more cash available to spend. Rudy's "frugal" campaign spent more than half of what it took in during the period. His $18M CoH represents HALF of what Obama has in the bank.

In fact, the three GOP frontrunners CoH numbers added TOGETHER don't total either Clinton's or Obama's individual totals.

The article goes on to heap praise on the wise investment of Romney's personal fortune in his early advertising raising his poll numbers:

For Romney, at least, the costly effort to get his message out seems to have paid off, said Craig Fuller, an adviser to President George H.W. Bush who is helping Romney raise money. Romney has spent nearly $5 million on television ads at a time when few others are venturing onto the airwaves, and he has risen to the top of many polls in Iowa and News Hampshire.

Romney has the added advantage of being able to dip into his personal fortune -- estimated to be in the hundreds of millions -- to supplement his fundraising, and had lent more than $9 million to his campaign by the end of June.

"The strategy of building his name recognition in the early states through advertising, I think, has paid off for him," Fuller said.

"I think he's established that he's a front-running candidate, and that was a crucial first step for him."

I think what each of the GOP candidates have established is that they don't know how to balance a checkbook. Is that a quality we desire in our next president?

Tales from the Bordello - Or the Southern DisComfort Trifecta

News that GOP Sen. David Vitter's phone number appears in the little black book of DC Madam Palfrey has ignited a mini-firestorm in political circles, exposed the hypocrisy of the "family values" party and awakened memories of disgraced ex-Rep Mark Foley's personal picadillos.

Bob Novak writes in his "insider email" about the ramifications of this latest round of bad news for the GOP - and how the fallout hurts GOP Gov. candidate (and Vitter associate Bobby Jindal) and Rudy Giuliani (boy, can this guy pick his friends) while helping Mary Landrieu in her 2008 re-election effort.

Vitter: The admission by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) that before being elected to the Senate he was at some point a client of an infamous Washington escort service may appear to have little political significance for now. The senator does not face re-election until 2010, and his wife was apparently made aware of the situation long ago.

However, the matter will not rest there by any means. First of all, the accused madam involved -- Deborah Jeane Palfrey -- is going to trial and has announced she will subpoena Vitter. Her defense is that her service was not a prostitution ring, so the nature of Vitter's testimony, under oath, would be to show exactly what he did while using the "escort service" and how many times he did it. Vitter could avoid going into such lurid detail by taking the 5th Amendment (after all, solicitation is a crime), but that would also look very bad for him.

Second, this is not the first time Vitter's morals have been called into question. When he ran for Senate in 2004, his enemies brought up old accusations (from when he first ran for Congress) that he had had a year-long affair with a prostitute in the French Quarter of New Orleans.

Beyond that, tales about Vitter's behavior abound in Louisiana. Even if every single one is false, this revelation suddenly gives them new currency. In the future, Democrats will send mailings at the right times and exploit his weakness.

Unlike the embattled Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), Vitter is a Republican. His base will be much harder to mollify when it comes to charges of wrongdoing. True, Jefferson is actually accused of malfeasance in office (bribery), but Republicans are always held to a higher standard by their own voters, who tend to place special value on family issues.

As Louisiana's only statewide-elected Republican, Vitter is currently the don of GOP politics there. This scandal not only devalues his political currency, but it also embarrasses other Republicans. Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-La.), a Vitter protégé, is far and away favored to win the governor's race later this year. But now he is saddled with Vitter. Jindal has already called for Jefferson to step down. Will he call for Vitter to do the same?

Democrats will have lots of fun with this. They may not be able to win the governor's race, but they could make it more competitive by using Vitter to embarrass Jindal. Vitter cannot step down right now even if he wants to, because he would be replaced by a Democrat. If he wants he leave, he has to wait until Jindal becomes governor.

Vitter is also a supporter of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) for President. After losing his Iowa chairman to the Bush Administration and his South Carolina chairman to cocaine charges, Giuliani is lightly burned once again by a key supporter.

Manhattan Madness

It's been sixty years since a New York politician secured the presidential nomination of a major party when Thomas Dewey famously "won" then lost against Democratic incumbent Harry Truman in 1948. For three generations New York candidates have long been anathema to the mainstream American voter, with Gotham politicians viewed as too liberal and urbane for middle American tastes.

With the real possibility that Americans may enter the voting booth in November 2008 faced with a choice between two OR THREE(?!!) New Yorkers as the next president is yet more confirmation that 9/11 changed everything.

Of course, Rudy Giuliani is basing his entire candidacy on the "strong leader" image he garnered from the national role thrust upon him on 9-11. Running as a social liberal in a party dominated by religious conservatives, his candidacy would have been a non-starter without this "Strong On Terror" label.

While it remains to be seen whether his surprisingly strong early support from the party's evangelical voters can be sustained over the course of the campaign, some in the MSM are wondering whether his campaign can get all the way to the White House based on this one message. The Boston Globe ran an article this week, "Giuliani Watchers Wonder if He'll Overplay the 9/11 Card," in which pollster John Zogby states:

"He really defined leadership in the aftermath of 9/11, and that is something that is uniquely his own," said John Zogby , an independent pollster based in upstate New York. "But he does need a second act, possibly even a third act. This is where we get into uncharted waters."

Hillary's presidential ambitions certainly pre-date the terrorist attacks, but she also hasn't hesitated to use the tragic events to burnish her national security credentials, as witnessed in her statement during the second democratic presidential debate:

"I am a Senator from New York. I have lived with the aftermath of 9/11. And I have seen firsthand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists who are intent upon foisting their way of life and using suicide bombers and suicidal people to carry out their agenda."

Both politicians' opportunistic (and crass, in my opinion) embrace of a national tragedy that ALL Americans experienced could come back to haunt them. Will Americans finally grow tired of politicians using the tragic events of 9/11 for personal political gain?

Maybe the one American Rudy should be most concerned about offending is the current resident of Gracie Mansion. After all, isn't Bloomberg the leader most responsible for rebuilding a wounded city? I wonder how he views Rudy's relentless and shameless use of 9/11 to advance his political career?

Who Do You Want in Charge of Your Money?

It appears the profligate spending habit the GOP developed while in power isn't limited to the federal budget. They can't manage their own money, either.

In 2008, the Democrats have dramatically reversed the long-time Republican fundraising advantage. Not only are the two leading Democratic presidential campaigns shattering records in 2007 (Obama's Q2 $32 million dwarfs the $17 million Giuliani, the leading Republican), the Republicans are burning through their money much faster than the Democrats, providing the Dems a huge early advantage.

The news that the McCain campaign has a meager $2 million Cash On Hand as of July 1 and the resulting massive layoffs means the Republicans are in deeper trouble than anyone could've predicted at the start of the year. The financial mismanagement isn't limited to McCain. Romney, the GOP first quarter fundraising champ, lent himself over $6 million to boost his fundraising total in the second quarter.

Disappointing fundraising in one quarter can become a downward spiral, as donors tend to want to back a winner, and will flock to the frontrunner. The GOP chaos means the Democrats are amassing a huge lead in the money race - one the Republicans are unlikely to close in this cycle.

The cash story isn't limited to the presidential campaign. The money is also pouring in to the national committees, too. Overall the Dems' national committees (pdf) (DNC, DSCC, and DCCC) have closed the gap - raising 73.6 million - with the GOP (RNC, NRSC, and NRCC), who raised $75.8 million. The real difference comes in the cash on hand category, where the Dems actually have $10 million MORE in the bank - $31.1 million vs. 21.1 million, as of June 1, 2007.

This is a huge change, one that bodes well for the Democrats. Exacerbating the situation for the GOP is the loss of the Congressional majority which further hinders the GOP's ability to attract donations from lobbyists and special interests trying to influence committee agendas. Additionally, the GOP donor base appears demoralized and seems to have made the decision that donating to their party isn't a smart investment in 2008. If you were a GOP donor, would you trust these guys with your money?