Friday, April 06, 2007

Shine Is Off Giuliani's Apple

Rudy did something stupid. He said he favors some public funding of abortion.

We agree with Philip Klein at the American Spectator. This isn't just a revelation that will anger conservatives (as a patient conservative, we aren't angry . . . yet). It's a revelation of an undisciplined approach to campaigning.

Rudy, you are still our man. But it's time to get serious. There are two guys named Thompson whom we like, another named Romney who looks OK, and that McCain fellow whom we can tolerate. And last we checked, Dr. Rice doesn't have anything on her calendar for 2008 yet either. So don't take us for granted, and don't act like your presidency is inevitable, even if we have SWNIDishly said that it is.


Anonymous said...

Constitutional rights can only be exercised when they are subsidized by the federal government.

Without public funding to pay for the free exercise of those rights, the constitution is a meaningless piece of paper.

George Washington Carver didn't put the "free exercise" clause in there for nothin'. He wasn't talkin' 'bout the asphalted path at Miami Whitewater Park.

Although, I have to admit that there is a wonderful invisible treasure map on the back (I hear). Nic fought with the albino to uncover the coded map that the church had repressed (since the Holy Grail had a back alley consortium).

Giuliani may need to put his coat on the hanger.

Bryan D said...

I believe in this specific quote he said he would prefer that funding for abortion be decided on a state-to-state basis. If this is the case, why can't it's legality be decided in the same way?

Since when can one be such a Federalist and States rights guru at the same time? Even the D's are better than your man here on the big issue.

I am so regularly reminded not to be a one issue voter. With 39,000,000 dead babies in America since 1972, though, it's hard not to be.

dave o. said...

Seems to me that Fred's the man if he decides to run.

W. Peeves said...

It is hard to have constitutional rights exercised, subsidized or not, when the courts make law rather than interpret it. That's how we got into this mess in the first place.

Thompson is definitely more in line with the conservative side of the R party. Unfortunately, I think a heavy conservative is no more electible in today's climate any more than a heavy liberal is.

Like it or not, Rudy may be the R's best chance at retaining the White House. At least as of this point in time.

Anonymous said...,2933,264823,00.html

The story above is the real story on Giuliani, not a campaign gaffe that nobody will remember two weeks from now.

McCain has pulled even in South Carolina. And South Carolina is the must win state for the eventual nominee, not Iowa-New Hampshire (as 2000 demonstrated).

Even more importantly, the poll found that nearly 2/3 of respondents expect that their vote will change by the time they vote 10 months from now.

The irrational exuberance over Giuliani has been premature, is premature, and will be premature for some time to come.

We'd all be better off if the weather forecasters were predicting the temperature 10 months from now. Oh wait, they are already doing that for 1200 months from now, and we're not better off. You just can't win.

Jim Shoes said...

So if months-out predictions about Giuliani's victory are premature, how are months-out polls about being neck-and-neck with McCain somehow "real" in ways that the other stories aren't?

Admit it, Anonymous (whom I expect to be the Artist Formerly Known As Fiona): you just don't like Giuliani. So assessing his support is premature but assessing his opposition is factual.

Anonymous said...

I hate to be parsimonious with definitions, but if words don't have meaning, especially in context, why talk?

"Real" is in contrast to the campaign gaffe story, which is "unreal" in the sense that it is relatively irrelevant (try parsing that).

"Real" is also relevant in a more important, and as up until now, subtle way. I will spell out why the former story is "real" for Jim (most readers are welcome to a well deserved break).

The gentle blogger has been citing numerous polls for the better part of a year, all of which have shed favorable light on a Giliuani candidacy (primary or general).

The gentle blogger has also conveniently ignored all polls that do the opposite, at least as I am aware.

It is the gentle blogger's prerogative to do so.

I was merely pointing it out.

It also should have been 100% clear (again, other readers may continue their siesta) from the rest of my comments, that I don't believe most polls, especially when so early and in such a crowded and expanding field.

The point was not to "factually" say that Giuliani's competition is overtaking him in South Carolina. Rather, I believe early polls are completely worthless. I believe "early" is somewhere in the definition of "premature," but I can't remember where. A simple study of prior analogous primaries would demonstrate this point, but that is beyond the scope of this post (don't sigh).

If 2/3 expect that their nominee choice will change, then do we have any assurance that the pollees know any of these candidates, care about any of these candidates, care about the primary (10-11 months from now), are paying attention to the campaigns, know any of the candidate's platforms, etc. ad nauseum? Call me a fool, but I think not.

I am no more irrationally exuberant over McCain or any other candidate than I am over Giuliani. Right now the choices all have major weaknesses, which happens to be one of the reasons why there is no clear front runner. Giuliani is no knight in apple shined armor.

A second point, apparently lost to one gentle reader, is that no poll is more important than the South Carolina poll, for the Republican primary that is. If one is a premature poll watcher, South Carolina is the one to prematurely watch. This is a complex point because it is in addition to a prior, more obvious point. 1 point plus 1 point = 2 points.

And the complexity grows because the 1st point is a simple statement of fact (anybody can read the archives). But the second point is my opinion. And opinions are complex, and can / must be debated (if one cares about them, yet few do).

Further, your logic is lacking. Your allegation of my identification with the Scottish lassie serves what purpose? Oh we can dismiss the arguments of this character because this character has an ugly persona and is also unapologetically anti-Giuliani. Okay, great point. I guess we can dismiss your and the gentle blogger's arguments because of a unapologetic pro-Giuliani bias. You and the gentle blogger are wonderful characters too. So your personas and your biases prevent me from taking your arguments seriously. Oh wait, I don't believe that; you do. I believe facts and supportable opinions do matter, on both sides.

Either the facts support the opinions or they don't. Do you have any facts that support any opinions? If so, I won't be offended if you share them. Otherwise you are simpling trying to pick a futile personal fight.

I can spar for the humor, but humor it will only be.

Jim Shoes said...


Anonymous said...

What polls say that Rudy is not leading? Look on this page, and you might find one out of fifty: