Larry, I respect your views, but I think it is a big stretch to call Rudy a Conservative. Tough on crime, tough on terrorists moderate would be my description.
The country is divided at present, there is basically about 30% liberal socialist anti-War types, there are about 30% big C Conservatives- social and fiscal, and about 40% in the middle that vote on who they agree with and like who doesn’t scare them too much. (The Libertarians fall in this middle group— they are fiscal conservative small government believers, but against legislation of personal morality types which puts them at odds with the social conservative agenda on abortion, drugs, and usually gay rights)
In order for a Conservative to win, he needs to pick up a big chunk of the middle. Same for the Liberals. Someone already in the middle like Rudy needs to pick up some from the left and/or the right to win, and that is what he is trying to do— pick up some of the right with fiscal and security issues, and some of the left with some social issues. But that doesn’t make him a big C Conservative.
If we don’t get a big C Conservative in the race that can pick up some of the middle due to likeability and name recognition— like Thompson— that is when Rudy becomes the only option to beat the liberal Democrats. And if he emerges from the primary as the GOP nominee, I will work to get him elected. But we still have a chance to do better IMHO.
On the left, I don’t see Hilllary or Obama drawing in a lot of the middle, unless the candidate is an unlikeable and/or unknown Conservative, which is what the media is going to try to paint any Conservative as, its on page one of their playbook.
I'd call both him and Fred T. "personalities" who are essentially apart from issues. Like Arnold in CA (though not with that level of star power), the issues will be largely unimportant: it will be the perception of whether either one will FIGHT the Dems.
Absolutely right on your analysis. I would be hesitant after 2006, however, to wonder how Hillobama "can win." Despite the polls right now, we know there is a solid base of support for any leftie.
It seems to me, RobFromGa, that you have swung from optimist in 2006 to pessimist in 2008, thinking that Rudy will sink once he gets tagged with Bush’s policies.
In the U.S., for “the right” to win, it must combine social conservatives and economic liberals. Presumably, this pragmatic coalition will progressively build on its majority, making things possible in the future that aren’t possible today so that, eventually, both social conservatives and economic liberals get a lot of what they want but couldn’t possibly achieve on their own.
This agenda fell apart following the invasion of Iraq. The agenda of the Bush administration has, for the last several years, been to try to do something (I frankly don’t know what) in that country. First it was “weapons of mass destruction,” then “we’ll stand down as they stand up,” now it’s “an Iraq that can govern itself.” We are NEVER going to leave Iraq under Bush, and NEVER get back onto a social conservative-economic liberal agenda back home.
While you say that Rudy hasn’t been attacking Bush but has only been attacking Democrats, I would point out that Rudy hasn’t been defending Bush. He has been relatively candid about mistakes being made, saying things such as mistakes are always made in war, and the issue isn’t blaming anybody, but learning from mistakes and moving forward.
I think Rudy would do well to stay independent of Bush, name a running mate who is NOT associated with the Bush Administration (i.e., NOT Condeleeza Rice, but Tom Pawlenty or Fred Thompson sound fine to me), and simply say that NOBODY could interpret his election as a capitualtion to terrorism. He would have a free hand so as to consider all options, including that of saying you guys in Iraq FORGETABOUTIT.
The idea that we’re going to lose in 2008 says what about Iraq? You can’t be saying that we’re going to lose the White House and lose more seats in the Congress, lose ground in state government, turn the Supreme Court over to the liberals, withdraw precipitiously from Iraq, socialize medicine, and regulate our economy in the name of “saving the planet,” and then ... what? ... mount a counter-attack in 2010?
I used to think that the Bush Administration had some political sense, and realized that unless we started to withdraw from Iraq we would lose in 2006 and would certainly lose in 2008. You will remember that I continually laid out hope of an announcement that we were starting to withdraw prior to the 2006 election. But, at this time, I am now convinced that the Bush Administration is oblivious to the political ramifications of Iraq and doesn’t really think it’s important that we have to beat the Democrats and maintain our agenda.
In a democratic country, you have to, simultaneously, wage the war, maintain the economy, and maintain your political base. To paraphras General Schwarzkopf, you have to be a tactician, a strategician, a logistician, an economist and a politician. Doing all of these things involves some constraints on your military options. But, on the other hand, to win - eventually - in Iraq, you need to win in 2008. This would allow us to continue aiding Iraq with intelligence and special ops, etc., but they will have to assume the ground war. So, if the only thing the Bush Administration wants to accomplish is winning in Iraq, and if they were smart (something I no longer presume), they would make it clear we were withdrawing from Iraq either because the surge worked and they can assume the ground war, or because the surge didn’t work and they’ll never be able to.
{I don’t see Hilllary or Obama drawing in a lot of the middle}
I agree with you about Hillary. But Obama will get plenty of mushy indies. Should Obama get the Dem nomination, the media shall not say anything negative about him at all. Obama’s strength is proof that the liberal media still has power.