Rudy's to lose

{cartman} screw you guys, I'm starting my own country {/cartman}

seriously. debating he merits of politicians is akin to choosing between chlamydia or gonorrhea. Unfortunately, you contract either every four years and no matter how many pills you take, you just can't stop it from happening. Even abstinence won't save you from the politician.

The GOP needs Ohio to win the presidency, however....

"Christian activist puts Republicans on notice


Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:00 AM


By Darrel Rowland

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Conservative Christians are ready to abandon the Republican Party if the GOP nominee supports abortion rights -- even if that means Hillary Clinton becomes president.

So says the head of the Ohio Christian Alliance (formerly the Christian Coalition), who will be questioning a trio of presidential candidates tonight in an Internet radio forum.

"If (former New York City Mayor Rudy) Giuliani is the nominee, there will be a lot of values voters that won't vote," said Chris Long, president of the Christian group in Ohio. "Some people are going to vote their conscience, regardless of what the outcome is going to be short term."

Long also has a message for GOP leaders attempting to motivate conservatives with the prospect of Clinton occupying the White House: "Beware; do not assume that people of faith, evangelicals, will support the nominee regardless of who they are as long as it's not Hillary Clinton. I think that would be folly."

The question is how many voters across Ohio adhere to such a hard line? It might not take many to swing next year's presidential election......"

Nominating a guy who is abusive to women but publically pro-choice may not be the smartest thing the GOP can do.

But then electing Dubya wasn't all that smart either.

Bandwagon Smasher wrote that a social liberal law and order type is very appealing to the masses. I don't know if I totally agree with that. People seem to prefer authoritarian candidates. But they want an authoritarian that believes in what they believe. Hillary and Rudy both want to use the power of government to accomplish certain goals. Those goals are different and different people support each candidate. So if one candidate wins the other candidates supporters lose. This does not bode well for freedom. There is only one candidate out there that is not an authoritarian. Unfortunately most people seem to think he is crazy. But, if he won the election even the people who voted against him would win.

True liberal: "in fairness, as consumers we can all thank Carter for starting us down the deregulation path!"

I agree deregulation was a big accomplishment for Jimmy Carter. But don't forget the work of the Gerald Ford administration:

"Ford proposed economic deregulation of the railroad, aviation, and trucking industries, and created a regulatory reform task force to identify other areas in which deregulation would be economically and socially desirable. Only railroad deregulation had been achieved by the time Ford left office, but the groundwork had been laid for other regulatory reforms later carried out under Carter."

Encyclopedia of the American Presidency

President Ford also deregulated oil prices as he was leaving office, but Carter immediately restored the controls.

Rudy can not win.

Do you people even know any religious conservatives? Do you know people who go to church and put pro life bumper stickers on their cars? He is not going to get any of those votes. So, 1% to 3% of the vote stays home. Democrat wins.

Hillary's problem (as is any Dem candidate's) is that the voter base in the Dem primary is wildly different from the voter base in the general election.

If her portside listing gets her the nomination - which seems likely - that same leftist posture will work against her come November '08, when a much broader slice of the American electorate steps forward.

But -- this reminds me of '75-76 when the two faces of Jimmy C. somehow managed to overcome this very dichotomy. (Although, in fairness, as consumers we can all thank Carter for starting us down the deregulation path!)

muirego:

You do realise that NPR is a free-market phenomenon?

We have the CBC here in Canada. Government, and it's awful. I tune into NPR instead -- and I resent the fact that no public station like NPR can compete here since the government has decided to fill the 'educational' niche with sub-standard programming.

Ray G.,

I can sympathize with your fear of Rudi but I think that having someone like Rudi, and his views, in a primary, is actually good for the GOP. Besides, would a social conservative like, say, Huckabee, Hunter, the real Romney, or many of the others, be any less heavy-handed?

Also, why do we forget that it's the congress who legislates...the president can only offer leadership on issues and use a veto.

This is directed more to the subject than to Russel himself, but the social issues problem is not going to go away so easily.

Look at these highlights, and remember that someone without an axe to grind brought this up.

Rudy Giuliani is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, anti-gun rights, and known to be heavy handed with govt power. If I remember correctly he played a little loose with Rico as a prosecuter, among other things.

He'll not take a stand for life, he'll take any convenient opportunity to chisel away at gun rights, and he is very, very likely to be heavy handed in use of govt power.

But he talks a good game on national defense, and supposedly will nominate another Alito or Thomas.

And so now the Republican base is split, and even intellectuals like Russ Roberts are praising the GOP's best hope because of his salesmanship, and not his ideas or his qualifications.

Or, in short, get used to the idea of another President Clinton.

Is it too late to start a campaign for Lieberman?

"The real question is "Will all the troops be home by Jan 2017?""

When you ask this question, what troops are you talking about?

Are you talking about troops that are stationed in Germany that have been there for 63 years? Or troops that are stationed in Korea that have been there for 57 years? Or how about the troops that are stanioned in Bosnia?

muirgeo, the majority of Americans graduate from high school and it's getting to the point where some college is the norm. Doesn't seem sufficient to me. Bryan Caplan has found that IQ is a better predictor of rationality (which he defines as agreeing with the average economist) than education, and getting everyone educated would invariably mean lowering standards if the least intelligent were to get it. As long as education is so dominated by the state which will seek to use it to indoctrinate (ever wonder why literacy is so high in communist countries or why Mussolini had kids chant "Il Duce is always right" at the beginning of class?) I cannot put my hopes in it.

For me, the most promising development in Rudy's campaign is that he has brought Steve Forbes in as an enthusiastic advisor. While Forbes is a little fruity on some issues like immigration, he is generally as good as it gets pro-market and pro-trade in respectable Republican circles.

By contrast, Fred Thompson grunts a lot, Mitt Romney is cruel to dogs, and John McCain is nuts. Ron Paul has two first names.

Oh, and Ron Paul is a nut job. Romney a cyborg. McCain is a hero, but ignorant (wish interest rates were 0%!!!).

Every one ought to clear the stage except Romney, Guiliani, Thompson, and maybe Huckabee.

I was at a Hillary fundraiser the other day. She gave her stump speech, and it was all disheartening to me. Raise taxes, more regulation. It is more of the same. She compartmentalized the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. She is a juggernaut. Her advisor McAuliffe, gave a typical income redistribution speech. There is not one Democrat alive that truly believes in free markets to solve problems. They pick winners and losers, and in the process lose the country.

To her credit, she is looking presidential and talking about big ideas. Rudy needs to do that, and stop attacking her. She has got the republicans right where she wants them, talking about her. To attack her, attack her ideas. You can't attack her personally. What are you going to say, that she made illegal money cattle trading? Her husband is a horn dog? She takes illegal money from the Chinese? No one cares. On ideas, Rudy can win.

Rudy will win the GOP nomination. Who is his running mate? If Hillary puts Obama in as a number two, she will win. It would kill her to do that, kind of like Kennedy naming LBJ, but she will win.

Iraq is a huge issue, but you never know how it will turn. I wouldn't bet the presidency on Iraq.

I've been away a while and have 3 thoughts. 1) Some posters here still can't read what Russ and Don write. 2) It is October 2007, the election is 13 months away. It is really something when election cycles essentially blur together. 3) Muirgeo is still a complete moron. (I think the last time I used that word was about 2 months ago on this blog referring to him. I guess I reserve it for him/her.)

I predict that the 2008 election will have low voter turnout, result in little enthusiasm about who wins, and will end with the same divisiveness that exists now.

Jim Webb had eleven years...

I didn't know that that he had that much experience as an elected official. In what capicity did he serve in the legislative branch (and for how long)? If he is said to have "experience" then certainly so does Hillary Clinton -- she has had exposure as the wife of a state governor & two-term president and as a sitting senator.

The public is sorely disappointed in the Democratic Congress' acquiescence to the Bush Administration thus far, and they only have another year to look less potent and more beholden to special interests. America will also be turned off by Hillary's anti-free trade turn (if she maintains it).

A social liberal, law and order republican is very appealing to the electorate. Guliani emulates the median voter, not Hillary.

ron paul is a nut job.

he wants to abolish the fed and go back to the gold standard. The fed over the past 25 years has proved itself very adept at managing the nations money supply. Many have blamed the fed for the current real estate bubble that is now deflating but without a massive run up in the money supply the fed cannot be solely responsible. What the fed has done is convince everyone that they can keep inflation in check which has reduced the risk premium that lenders can charge in a competitive market. The systematic lowering of interest rates has then cuased a increase in the value of real estate because interest payments typically represent a larger cost then the purchase price. In addition many other factors are at work on the price of real estate includeing 1) a shift over the past 50 years to two income households 2) The continued growth of cities 3) the increase in productivity per worker allows more income to be spent on housing.

as for me I am voting for hillary (both times). yeah I am not happy about it but the republicans suck, they're no better then the democrats when it comes to trade and immigration (i.e. racist, xenophobic, nationalistic a-holes). Plus they (GWB and for 6 years congress and senate) have overseen an incredible increase in the federal budget

hell i am moving to england so I can sign up with the New Party

In the spirit of Popper, Russ, how about adding a tiny bit more detail so that your prediction is testable? That is, specify what you mean by the economy "tanking," so that, if the economy does not tank, and Rudy does not win, you may consider your theory disconfirmed.

LowcountryJoe,

Jim Webb had eleven years in the federal government in both the legislative and executive branches, with his last post being Secretary of the Navy. Is that what you mean by "little experience"?

Did anyone else conjure up memories of Bryan Caplan's book during Sam Brownback's answer to the biggest problem facing America?

Jeffrey,

Most of the influence and persuasiveness on the Left today is from people who have their roots in activism. The candidates of the activist wing on the Left has been sucessful in running political campaigns of late even when those candidates have little experience (Jim Webb and guy who forced Liebermann into running as a third party candidate). Hillary does have the Democrat NOMINATION sewn up, in part, because she has an activist background and is appreciated by the New Left because of it.

As an Australian who obviously does not know anything about the minutiae of US politics, I am amazed that you all seem to think that Mrs Clinton has the Democratic nomination all sewed up.

She has been in the Senate for a mere seven years and that as the Junior Senator from NY. Prior to that she had not held elective office. She has never held executive office. She has little experience of working in the private sector. Most of her work experience has been in political activism. Her one serious go at significant policy development was an abject failure.

Surely the Democrats cannot be so besotted with winning at all costs that they will turn a blind eye to her complete lack of experience. The risks to them in 2010 and 2012 are enormous. Presumably they are hoping Bill will keeping her on the straight and narrow. Very big assumption.

The US people and the Rest of the World deserve much better. I can think of no candidate for President/Prime Minister from a major party in a major economy who has a worse CV.

All these posts and the Republican leading in all the early states gets no mention whatsoever. Last weekend while at David Murdochs estate Mitt was telling us his exact road to the White House. He even predicted that he would be near invisible in the national conciousness until after New Hampshire. He didn't mention it but the game plan is identical to Bill Clinton's and Clinton didn't even win NH.

Guilliani is probably the only Rep who can loose to Hilly. The moment "family values" comes up she'll quip that her daughter still talks to her and she is still on her first spouse.

In contrast Romney leads the life of... well you know. Her past financial dealings are dirty, his beyond reproach. Repeat on any number of issues.

Barring missteps the only mystery is how Mitt will "balance" the ticket.

Don't you know that Libertarian/Libertarian-leaning politicians have been running the government for the past 30 years and are solely responsible for all of the country's problems, johngaltline?

muirgeo:

"If only we had an educated populace...then for sure democracy would work."

Someone remind me: which party owns the education establishment in America?

muirgeo:

"If I had to pick a Republican to be president I'd choose Ron Paul over all the rest simply because I believe he's the most principaled and honest."

Coming from someone who's 99% likely to be voting for Hillary Clinton next November, that's pretty funny.

RE: Ron Paul

Last night he seemed awfuly angry. It's as though he was channeling a recently retired Democrat senator from Georgia. Also, his messages/signals regarding free trade were very diappointing...McCain actually had better libertarian, pro-growth messages.

"2. That same UPI/Zogby poll showed that 39% of Americans believe a Republican president will be more likely to bring a successful end to the Iraq War. Only 36% of Americans believe a Democratic president can do so."

That's amazing to me. I wonder why it is. The bar was so high with Clinton. As soon as one soldier died in Bosnian the Reiublicans were gonna be all over it with how denocratic leaders were getting our solddiers killed. No one died ..not one. Now many of the Baltic states are flourishing. Then there was the problem with Mogedesui ? sp and 17 soldiers died and it was a great catastrophy.

But now tohousands and thousands die and our mained bilions and trillions of dollars wasted. Mistake after mistake is made. Lie after lie told. Liberty after liberty curtailed and these people somehow still believe that the republicans are the party of strength. WEIRD! Amazingly wierd. I think the answer lies in the power of Chickenhawks like Rush Limbaugh and the Corporate media with war machines like GE running the show. Propaganda works. One of the worst failures of the market economy is in the media. NPR does a far better job then the corporate crapola.

Kevin O'Reilley: "No. 1 issue in the country right now, and 75% of Americans agree with Hillary on that. Rudy, on other hand, wants us in Iraq indefinitely. The No. 2 issue in the country is health care"

Have you seen a poll that shows 75% of Americans agree with Hillary? Have you seen a poll that ranks health care as the number 2 issue?

Here's some survey results I've found:

1. a UPI/Zogby poll at the end of August showed that 54% of Americans did not believe the U.S. had lost the war in Iraq;

2. That same UPI/Zogby poll showed that 39% of Americans believe a Republican president will be more likely to bring a successful end to the Iraq War. Only 36% of Americans believe a Democratic president can do so.

Most Americans Say Iraq War Not Lost

3. Rasmussen Reports shows that Hillary Clinton currently leads Giuliani 48% to 43% in a head to head matchup. That's a lead, for sure, but nowhere near the 75% you seem to imply. A Clinton lead right now should be expected, given that she almost has the nomination sewed up while Giuliani is still in a battle.

Clinton vs. Giuliani & Thompson

Once the nominations are secured, the Republican money machine will kick in. Voters will then start to learn a lot more about Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I agree with Russ. I see Rudy winning, though I'd rather have Ron Paul.

Personally, I'm partial to divided government.

Posted by: TGGP

I agree. I think we're best with a democratic president and a repubican house and/or senate.

And I do agree the current state of Americans is fear. Those in power are using it very well to keep power as has been done through the ages. No telling what another attack would do. Or an invasion of Iran.

If only we had an educated populace...then for sure democracy would work. Without it I'm not so sure.

If I had to pick a Republican to be president I'd choose Ron Paul over all the rest simply because I believe he's the most principaled and honest.

Rudy may be the best to match with any democratic candidate but what does that say about the Republicans propects?

How hard can it be to beat a guy who was thought to be a hero of 9-11 when in fact his "heroic" walk down town at ground zero was really all about him looking for a new command center since, against every experts advice, he decided to place it in the Twin Towers complex and it was completly blowed up?

Rudy's the type of guy that tells me sleeze has as much or more to do with monetary success in our current economy then actual contibutions to society.

Russell please tell me that was more of a poor prediction then an sorried endorsement.

Hillary Clinton might actually be the thing that saves the Republicans -- her polling among democrats is high now, but the whole HillaryCare fiasco left a bad taste in the mouths of many Republicans and may be her Achilles hell among independents. After 8 years of GWB, Republicans may be disenchanted with whatever candidate their party eventually nominates, but they'd turn out to vote against Hillary Clinton even if her opposition was a turnip.

Republicans' big problem is George W. Bush's popularity among independents -- a winning GOP candidate will need to convincingly disassociate himself from the current president. Mrs. Clinton already has that.

muirgeo, I don't think Russ believes a terrorist attack would be a good thing, but I agree that it could help Rudy get elected. You assume people will vote for Rudy if things are going good, but that is not necessarily the case. Furthermore, the Republicans have not been in charge for 30 years. The Democrats had the presidency for two terms under Clinton and they had a congressional majority for some of that time. Personally, I'm partial to divided government.

The betting markets say the Democrats will take over and I believe them.

John Lott, how can you overlook Ron Paul in comparison to Fred Thompson? Paul went into politics because of economics and has likely studied it more than all the other candidates put together. There might be better comparisons of voting records out there, but some quick googling brought up this page for Thompson and this one for Paul. Paul's lifetime score is 87% for personal liberty and 90% for economic liberty. Thompson's is 70% for personal and 87% for economic, which puts him behind Paul.

" I don't think she can beat Giuliani given the current state of the world."Russell Roberts

Boy this has me scratching my head. Can you please explain is this because the state of the world is so good that in constrast to "word on the street" people are gonna want more of the same. Or is the state of the world so bad that people are going to go with the Republicans because they are the one's who can get us out of the current situation...forgetting the elephant in the room fact that they've been the ones in charge for the last 30 years.

Ha! Small problem with your plan. The Iraq war is the No. 1 issue in the country right now, and 75% of Americans agree with Hillary on that.

At the last debate didn't Hillary say she couldn't guarantee she would bring all the troops home by Jan 2013?

I think there are only 4 candidates who have promised to bring the troops home immediately: Ron Paul, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. None of these men will be the next president.

The real question is "Will all the troops be home by Jan 2017?"

The other day I had an old friend and former CEO who is so conservative that he thinks the Navy should bring back keel hauling tell me he is going to vote for Hillary, the first time he has ever voted for a democrat in his life. He said she may be a completely amoral bitch, but she is the only candidate that has the competence to pour piss out of a boot with the directions printed on the bottom. He said he is sick and tired of watching ideologues screwing up our country.

From one Russ to another, I concur.

I see the continued interest in Al Gore as a sign that many Dems are worried about their front runner (see today's ad in the NYT urging EcoAl to run).


A similar concern haunts the Republicans though, a break-off third party candidate a la Perot in 1992 which produced the first clinton presidency.

Ron Paul is solidly free market and free trade. His "anti-immigrationism" rubs me the wrong way, but it irritates me far far less than the huge mis-economics of the other candidates. Does anyone else on the GOP side want to radically slash taxes AND spending? Anyone else want to eliminate tarriffs? Handcuff the Federal Reserve?

p.s. McCain wants zero percent interest rates?!?! What does he think the economy is, a used car lot?

I support Ron Paul, I agree that he sees things as being far worse than they are but I agree with all his proposed actions. I I have contributed money to his run.

I would bet on Hillary though. Name recognition is important it carried GW Bush. Bill Clinton's name should be enough to carry Hillary to the white house.

Russ,

So the economy is likely to tank? That is the first time I have ever seen on Cafe Hayek anything that smacks of prognostication. What brings you to this view? As a big fan of the Cafe, this tidbit has me desirous of more detail. Is it the housing slump? Or is it the tapped out consumer? Will wages and employment fall? How do we get from here to there?


Cheers.

Well, on substance regarding economics, I think that one would be hard pressed to find someone among the candidates as free market as Fred Thompson.

Social issues are not as important to me as economic ones, though the biggest problem that I have with Giuliani is his ability to level with people. Take his recent talk to the NRA. He did in fact first promise no new gun control laws and that got the media attention, but then under questioning he started rambling with all sorts of qualifiers that make it appear that he would impose new regulations at the drop of the hat.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/FoxNewGiulianiGuns092607.html

By the way, the C-Span video of Giuliani's speach there showed a very lackluster performance. By contrast, Thompson did a good job. Possibly we should take one of each performance and call it a draw between the two of them? What do you think Russell?

The social conservatives might hate Guiliani, but they would hate Hillary even more. That's a very important point. Rudi should not even try to pander to the Christian Right. He needs to focus on conservative fiscal values and show that he believes in individual rights and freedoms. That is a winning formula, especially when constrasted with Hillary's urge to raise taxes and control our lives and force us to buy her health insurance.

My contributions go to Ron Paul. My money is on Hillary. Personally, I think Hillary will be the one to launch an attack on Iran.

I also believe that RG is the strongest Republican but the strongest Republican may still not be enough to win in a Democrat year. Still I think RG can pull it off if he succeeds in the delicate balancing act of keep sufficient numbers of social conservatives while picking off a few independents and moderates. The prospect of Hillary plus some concessions on his part to appoint conservative judges may be enough for the social conservatives to make their peace with him. He seems to poll fairly well among moderates and independents. So maybe it will work. The prospect of Hillary is frightening beyond description.

Ron Paul!!! Put down the crack pipe, disinter.

Ron Paul is the only Republican that can beat Hillary. They need to nominate him.

Ha! Small problem with your plan. The Iraq war is the No. 1 issue in the country right now, and 75% of Americans agree with Hillary on that. Rudy, on other hand, wants us in Iraq indefinitely. The No. 2 issue in the country is health care, where Hillary's plan -- while severely misguided -- is probably more popular than Rudy's market-oriented approach. Russ, you should steer clear of political punditry.

...why, then, are democrats so set on her getting the nomination? the prediction market I saw the other day had her at like...80% probability. How can they be so sure of her nomination, and you be so sure of her defeat? Don't those two fight against each other, if not cancel each other out?