The GOP Muddle

It looks to me like the much-anticipated moment when the Republican primary electorate discovers that Rudy Giuliani doesn't hate gay people and doesn't hate immigrants and they hate people who don't hate gay people or immigrants (indeed, he may even be soft on gay immigrants) has arrived. I think just about everyone who watched Fred Thompson's belated entry into the presidential campaign concluded that it was a bit clumsy and poorly handled. But despite the very flawed nature of the announcement, he's sprung into a statistical tie with Rudy Giuliani in the latest CNN poll: "The former New York mayor garners 28 percent nationally among registered Republicans, while Thompson is one point behind at 27 percent -- well within the poll's 5 percentage point margin of error."

Given that Giuliani's also running behind Mitt Romney in Iowa and New Hampshire, his campaign seems to me to be in big trouble. And that's very good news for the country, since in this instance the Republican who's probably the most electable one is also the one who scares me the most. Meanwhile, though people keep warning me about Fred Thompson's formidable political skills, I haven't really seen a ton of evidence for them yet.

All-in-all I continue to find it surprising that the press seems more interested in the Democratic primary (and I've heard conservatives complain about this, so I'm not making a partisan complaint), which seems frozen in a locked pattern, than in the much more fluid and objectively interesting GOP race. Normally, I find horse race coverage basically dull, but I think one has to admit that a race where two candidates are neck-in-neck in national polls while a third candidate leads in cash and the early primary states makes for a decent horse race. Meanwhile, McCain's still lurking in the background, hoping that re-inventing himself as Crazy Uncle Surge will somehow save him.

Photo by Flickr user Taylor Christian Jones used under a Creative Commons license.

Comments

My new blog will attack the smarminess and illiteract of liberal bloggers and may even contribute commentary on issues in the world from a moderate perspective. Read it. Link to it.

I agree that the GOP is much more interesting than the Democrats, on the horse-race issues that MY mentions, but also in the related fact that there seems to be more ideological diversity there than in the Democratic field, especially with respect to the front-runners.

Posted by Moral Panicker | September 12, 2007 9:48 AM

While I don't think anyone would admit it, I would guess most are interested in the Dems over the Repubs because it's largely assumed that whoever wins the Dem nomination will be the next President. That's especially true in light of Rudy's decline.

Posted by mop | September 12, 2007 9:50 AM

Rudy still scares me. Tied ain't dead. Let's kick some more dirt on him.

Posted by Mike | September 12, 2007 9:54 AM

(indeed, he may even be soft on gay immigrants

Or even worse, hard for gay immigrants. And mop is clearly right: the reasonable assumption is that the Dems will win in '08. That, therefore, is where the action is. Which is why you've seen so many different (mostly Northern, as I recall) conservatives/Republicans rush to bless her.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 12, 2007 9:55 AM

I don't know. Fred had a week with a lot of publicity - announcement on Leno, magazine covers, etc. That will surely bump your polling #s. The question is whether Fred can sustain the momentum. Mitt Romney couldn't sustain momentum after his bump from the Iowa straw poll, and I am dubious that Fred can either.

Of course, I'm a Rudy partisan, so I certainly hope that the bump for Fred is just temporary.

And that's very good news for the country, since in this instance the Republican who's probably the most electable one is also the one who scares me the most.

This is the most heartening thing I've heard all morning: both that Matthew thinks Rudy is the most electable and that Rudy is the one that Matthew fears the most.

Posted by Al | September 12, 2007 10:19 AM

I suspect that there's an underlying 'Is this really all there is?' feeling about the Republican candidates, and that's reflected in the reporting. On the other hand, either Clinton or Obama could actually be elected, you know, President-- so there's a somewhat contrasting need to actually report on what's happening to them.

Posted by MattF | September 12, 2007 10:28 AM

Rudy has a chance to win, of course, but I think there's some amount of East Coast bias among those who see him as a formidable candidate in the general election. In reality, Rudy is as out of place in the Midwest (and out West too) as John Kerry would be stumping in Alabama. He just doesn't have the personality to be a national candidate, I think.

Posted by Steve | September 12, 2007 10:32 AM

I think one has to admit that a race where two candidates are neck-in-neck in national polls while a third candidate leads in cash and the early primary states makes for a decent horse race. Meanwhile, McCain's still lurking in the background, hoping that re-inventing himself as Crazy Uncle Surge will somehow save him.

And that's not even mentioning the possible Huckabee surge in Iowa and other key conservative states. There's about 100 ways this could play out; it's really the most interesting primary dynamic in many many moons.

Posted by right | September 12, 2007 10:44 AM

More coverage for the Dems? Why not? You go where the story is. More intersting candidates means more interesting coverage and more of it. But the Republicans cannot say that they do not get press coverage. If this were not true, we would not have heard about Senator Craig's blunder, Senator Stevens blunder, Alberto Gonzales's blunder, Congressional Page scandals, the Abramoff blunder, Scooters blunder, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Seems to me far more press time thank Bill Clinton ever got when he was impeached by the highly moral, honest and integrity ridden Republican Party

Posted by Bob | September 12, 2007 10:49 AM

I'm guessing that all none of the above commenters are conservatives. From my perspective and that of many conservatives, the landscape is bleak. All of the candidates have serious flaws and it's hard to get excited about them.

In walks Fred. I believe he has the ability to excite the base and has the opportunity to win the nomination and possibly the general election which no other candidate can do.

The nominatin is Fred's to lose.

Posted by Fred Jones | September 12, 2007 10:56 AM

Rudy Giuliani is going to turn this country into a police state if elected. And could he please give us one statement without mentioning New York or being the mayor of New York? Someone please tell me what good they see in him...

Posted by Joe | September 12, 2007 10:56 AM

Moral Panicker,
If your blog is as boring as your comment you won't need to worry about contributing your 'moderate' perspective. No one will see it.
Republicans who stand behind this administration have no credibility and they certainly aren't 'republican' they're merely partisans who don't believe in America or the Constitution.
I'm one ashamed republican who will never again vote republican (unless ron paul does better than expected)

Posted by MarkD | September 12, 2007 10:57 AM

Maybe people and the press are interested more in the dems right now because, talking point though they spew, at least they're over real issues and not some pissing/chest-thumping contest over who can appear toughest on terrorism by talking about doubling Gitmo or mentioning Jack Bauer or any of the other stupid things they said.

Thompson is already starting to implode. He's too lazy, intellectually incurious, can't keep facts straight and makes things up (too obviously). I don't why pundits are having a love-fest over his looks. He's certainly not telegenic, and he's announced that he's going to talk about his personal religious beliefs. While the first four things may assuage conservatives wanting him to be the next Ronald Reagan, the last two are detriments.

Posted by TlalocW | September 12, 2007 10:59 AM

This idiot caricature of Republicans as haters of immigrants and gays is so freakin' tired. It's befitting a brainwashed eight-year old "republicans hate immigrants and gay people, mommy." Christ! Just watch the debates. The Dem debates are reminiscent of those High School elections where the not-quite-cool-enough kids run promising two hour lunches and no homework for the entire school year. They're trying much too hard to be cool and too disingenuous in saying the right thing about every issue. Watch the Republican debates. They’re substantive. You actually feel like you're watching adults. If we could get some adults on the left I wouldn’t have registered independent. I lean left. But with so many angry children on that side right now registering Democrat again would be an evolutionary regression.

Posted by Independent in MN | September 12, 2007 11:02 AM

Forget about Rudy being unpopular out west. Forget about Hilary being a stiff, or Obama being black and unelectable. Forget the front runners altogether! Ask yourself, who is going to FIX this country?

In the online polls following the Republican Debates, Ron Paul pulled in more support than any other candidate - He pulled in more support than the next 3 candidates combined! WHY ISNT ANYONE PAYING ATTENTION TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!?

This isn't about support for Paul. Its just an example. So Wake up, and think about whats at stake if we put another "Bush" in the White house for 8 more years. Think about the consequences, and effects it will have on the younger generations.

Posted by K | September 12, 2007 11:07 AM

I might actually vote for Thompson if somebody can explain to me his remark about Iraqis hating bin Laden because he wanted them to quit smoking. Or something. Is Thompson going to make smoking bans an issue in the campaign?

Posted by Dan Morrow | September 12, 2007 11:12 AM

Moral Panicker advertises: "My new blog will attack the smarminess and illiteract of liberal bloggers and may even contribute commentary on issues in the world from a moderate perspective. Read it. Link to it."

I read it. I won't be linking to it. You can't write a lick and your "illiteract" quotient is startling. This sentence is just one example: "While people of all view-points like to imagine themselves an emboldened minority against a dangeously misguided consensus at certain times, Santorum and this guy and Pat Robertson and some random bloggers and crank emailers seem fascinated by terrorism not only to be able to say "See we were right" but also to be able to think to themselves "You had it coming through your own decadence and ignorance.""

There are dozens of howlers just as bad. Are you writing badly on purpose?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 12, 2007 11:19 AM

Funny you mention the smoking ting. Thompson is seen smoking a CIGAR!ohno! in a commercial blasting Michael Moore. A little hypocritical if he does try to ban smoking.

Posted by backatcha | September 12, 2007 11:22 AM

"Crazy Uncle Surge" made me laugh loud enough to draw questioning glances from co-workers.

Independent in MN, if Democratic debates as high school elections isn't an idiot caricature then what is?

Posted by eriks | September 12, 2007 11:22 AM

matthew, just exactly who is assuring you that fred thompson has "formidable" political skills? i need to be sure to ignore them going forward.

Posted by howard | September 12, 2007 11:29 AM

Let's see: plain spoken political dilettante with a suspect work ethic and intellect is the savior of the Republican party because his experience is too thin to indicate anything in particular. Haven't we seen this movie before? It ends badly, for everybody.

Posted by bill | September 12, 2007 11:39 AM

Yet another oped article that is based on the non-truth that Rudy's poll numbers are shrinking. In fact, he has been polling between 25 and 30% since May. Fred Thompson certainly robbed some points from Romney to bring the margin between him and Rudy down, but Rudy is still receiving the same level of support that he has been. Check RealClearPolitics.com for a chart of this, if you don't believe me, then feel free to write off this author and the others in the media that have just about no math skills.

Posted by Dan | September 12, 2007 11:48 AM

Yet another oped article that is based on the non-truth that Rudy's poll numbers are shrinking. In fact, he has been polling between 25 and 30% since May. Fred Thompson certainly robbed some points from Romney to bring the margin between him and Rudy down, but Rudy is still receiving the same level of support that he has been. Check RealClearPolitics.com for a chart of this, if you don't believe me, then feel free to write off this author and the others in the media that have just about no math or research skills.

Posted by Dan | September 12, 2007 11:49 AM

Yet another oped article that is based on the non-truth that Rudy's poll numbers are shrinking. In fact, he has been polling between 25 and 30% since May. Fred Thompson certainly robbed some points from Romney to bring the margin between him and Rudy down, but Rudy is still receiving the same level of support that he has been. Check RealClearPolitics.com for a chart of this, if you don't believe me, then feel free to write off this author and the others in the media that have just about no math or research skills.

Posted by Dan | September 12, 2007 11:50 AM

A little hypocritical if he does try to ban smoking.

He's not going to try to ban smoking. Thompson's point, to the extent he had one, is that al-Qaeda pissed off the Iraqis by banning them from smoking. I doubt he brought that up because he hoped to advance al-Qaeda's platform himself someday.

Posted by Steve | September 12, 2007 12:19 PM

MY is wrong. Rudy Guiliani is not the most electable GOP candidate. You could make a good case that he is the least electable candidate.

If Dems are lucky Rudy will be the GOP nominee. Unfortunately I just don't see it happening.

If Romney wins both Iowa and NH he will have momentum. And if he can overcome the Mormon thing he would be a strong general election candidate.

Posted by DonB | September 12, 2007 12:25 PM

Giuliani is certainly the scariest of the candidates, but the most electable? Honestly, I really don't see where this comes from. He's beady-eyed and greasy and bald. Yes, these are as superficial as criticisms get, but when has America ever elected a guy who looks remotely like this man? Even though Obama is black and Hillary a women, both look more "presidential"--at least to my eye.

Plus, Giuliani is just a raving jerk and this is something he can't cover up. And it will be so easy to attack his "hero of 9/11" image, which is pretty much all he has going for him. I'd say just about any of the Republican candidates would be more formidable in the general election than Rudy.

Posted by Rob Mac | September 12, 2007 12:26 PM

they hate people who don't hate gay people or immigrants

I satirized Matt's mindset at the link; I think he'd be better off discussing things like the best place to buy lobster rolls in Maine than issues about which he knows next to nothing.

Perhaps one of these days MattY will get around to finally answering my request that he discuss the PoliticalPower that the MexicanGovernment has been able to obtain inside the U.S. due to the policies that he supports. If he's not familiar with that issue, then he's not qualified to speak on this topic.

Posted by Matt's mindset | September 12, 2007 12:38 PM

Watch the Republican debates. They’re substantive. You actually feel like you're watching adults.

"I will follow Osama bin laden to the gates of hell."

"Sanctuary cities"

"We need to double Guantanamo."

Smell the substance. Doesn't smell like policy.

Yes, they sound like adults. Deranged, small, and angry adults.

Posted by Arr-squared | September 12, 2007 2:04 PM

Arr-squared: That's why they need Fred Thompson-- he's tall!

And if the Republicans are so pro-gay, why, again, did none of them want to be part of the gay issues debate? Just curious.

Posted by Persia | September 12, 2007 2:26 PM

DonB,
Mitt Romney has shown poor judgment. This whole Dog on the roof of a car thing makes Mitt Romney the Michael Vick of presidential candidates.
The ONLY true republican is Ron Paul. Unfortunately, Britt Hume thinks it's his right as a debate moderator to mock the candidates he disapproves of.
Republicans are bound for failure so long as they continue to allow Fox News to pick their candidates.

Posted by MarkD | September 12, 2007 3:46 PM

Persia asks: "And if the Republicans are so pro-gay, why, again, did none of them want to be part of the gay issues debate? Just curious."

They all had previously-agreed to men's room commitments.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 12, 2007 3:49 PM

Mitt Romney has shown poor judgment. This whole Dog on the roof of a car thing makes Mitt Romney the Michael Vick of presidential candidates.

If that's the best you've got...

Posted by right | September 12, 2007 3:57 PM

Exactly which Dem candidates have stated that they are "pro-gay"?

Posted by Fred Jones | September 12, 2007 4:29 PM

The lack of coverage of the GOP field might be due to the fear of offending them. With Rudy now dropping how do you write a story about it that doesn't contain some negatives? Well you can't so it's best not to say anything, not cover it at all.

The narratives on the Democratic contenders have all the negatives built right into them. Negatives are usually the frame of any story. Just try to think of a negative part of the standard narrative of anyone in the GOP field.............. Right, there is none. They are manly men, conservative, etc. etc. etc.

I am not kidding about this. Nobody wants to cross whoever it is who will take this thing. If you can't say anything nice it's best not to say anything at all. Up to and including the numbers.

Posted by rapier | September 12, 2007 5:28 PM

Okay, Okay, ... I need to know exactly what a REAL Republican stands for. Can anyone tell me that they stand for something... other than Jesus and Guns. And just think about that for a second - Jesus, and Guns. wow.

Posted by Red E2 Tango | September 12, 2007 5:28 PM

Okay, Okay, ... I need to know exactly what a REAL Republican stands for. Can anyone tell me that they stand for something... other than Jesus and Guns. And just think about that for a second - Jesus, and Guns. wow.

Posted by Red E2 Tango | September 12, 2007 5:29 PM

Al,

It's heartening? Perhaps... but consider.

How many times has Matt been right about either who's most electable or whose policies will most help or hurt progressive causes?

Posted by Zephyrus | September 12, 2007 5:29 PM

Independent: People say these things about the Republican party because they are true LOL.

Not supporting gay marriage does not make you anti gay. It means you dont agree with it.

Supporting an amendment to the US Constitution to make sure gay people can NEVER get married even if it is legal in their state. Thats hatred plain and simple.

There was a time when conservatives believed in individual freedoms and in states rights but I think that died with Barry Goldwater.

Posted by Alex | September 12, 2007 6:19 PM

Arr-squared,
that's why the GOP needs to get behind Ron Paul. He actually talks policy, in direct conrast to the neo-cons like Giuliani who want to continue an idiotic war.

Posted by K | September 12, 2007 6:19 PM

K writes: "that's why the GOP needs to get behind Ron Paul. He actually talks policy, in direct conrast to the neo-cons like Giuliani who want to continue an idiotic war."

The vast majority of likely Republican primary voters still support Bush and his idiotic war, and there's no chance Paul will win them over. He'll have a surprising primary showing or two - I'm very interested in how he'll play in New Hampshire - but most Republicans aren't going to stop harboring demented war fantasies anytime soon.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 12, 2007 7:32 PM

K,

I agree that Rep. Paul is a notable exception to the field.

R^2

Posted by Arr-squared | September 12, 2007 8:13 PM

"They’re substantive. You actually feel like you're watching adults. If we could get some adults on the left I wouldn’t have registered independent. I lean left. But with so many angry children on that side right now registering Democrat again would be an evolutionary regression."

Watching a room full of grey-haired old white guys verbally masturbate to talk of torturing and killing more random Muslims and kicking out the Mexicans while pretending we can have huge deficits and tax cuts all because they don't want anyone to know they have tiny penises is not mature. It is borderline fascistic. The GOP is the party of Stars-and-Bars issues based on old white straight Christians feeling victimized by the wide culture, not actual policy to help the average American.

Posted by Reality Man | September 12, 2007 8:22 PM

"Perhaps one of these days MattY will get around to finally answering my request that he discuss the PoliticalPower that the MexicanGovernment has been able to obtain inside the U.S. due to the policies that he supports. If he's not familiar with that issue, then he's not qualified to speak on this topic.

Posted by Matt's mindset | September 12, 2007 12:38 PM"

Are you in a militia? Can you tell me which canned peaches taste the best when camping out in the woods?

Posted by Reality Man | September 12, 2007 8:24 PM

I think people are greatly underestimating Romney. The guy is clever enough to win in Massachusetts. He looks like what people want a president to look like, and if people like what they see, they will project onto him the attributes that they value. Critical analysis of candidates by voters doesn't mean squat in an election. Romney is from a very prominent Michigan family and I think would stand a real chance of winning there. Put that in your analysis of the electoral college, and tell me where HRC can pick up enough states and votes to prevail.

Posted by q | September 12, 2007 11:04 PM

people keep warning me about Fred Thompson's formidable political skills

These "formidable political skills" remind me of Bush's "ferocious intelligence"....or Bigfoot.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | September 12, 2007 11:50 PM

q says: "I think people are greatly underestimating Romney. The guy is clever enough to win in Massachusetts. He looks like what people want a president to look like, and if people like what they see, they will project onto him the attributes that they value. Critical analysis of candidates by voters doesn't mean squat in an election. Romney is from a very prominent Michigan family and I think would stand a real chance of winning there. Put that in your analysis of the electoral college, and tell me where HRC can pick up enough states and votes to prevail."

Romney won in Massachusetts by pretending to be a homo-friendly abortion-neutral moderate. His reign here was especially unimpressive, and he's the ultimate flip-flopper. Add in the fact that many evangelicals think Mormons are Satanists and you've got a great formula for a spectacular flop.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 13, 2007 12:09 AM

Matt - It looks to me like the much-anticipated moment when the Republican primary electorate discovers that Rudy Giuliani doesn't hate gay people and doesn't hate immigrants and they hate people who don't hate gay people or immigrants

NO, they reflect public opinion. Tolerate gays, but don't put up with gay activists trying to bypass democracy and shove their agenda down everyones throats. It is no accident that even liberal states where the voters get to decide reject gay marriage by 60% and higher votes. And Republicans like immigrants - just the legal ones. Not invaders. No country puts up with invaders - any that put up with a small anti-national prtion of their citizenry and business elites aiding and abetting the invaders soon has a divided nation and civil conflict, possibly civil war, looming.

Reality Man Watching a room full of grey-haired old white guys verbally masturbate to talk of torturing and killing more random Muslims and kicking out the Mexicans while pretending we can have huge deficits and tax cuts all because they don't want anyone to know they have tiny penises is not mature. It is borderline fascistic.

It appears the only masturbation that is going on is your insipid self-love, arising over your self righteous moronic thinking.

And we all know the usual "small penis" accusers are castrating bitches of both sexes....

Steve - He's not going to try to ban smoking. Thompson's point, to the extent he had one, is that al-Qaeda pissed off the Iraqis by banning them from smoking.

Generally true. Sunnis woke up one day and found themselves in a Nanny State where soda and candy were banned for children, smoking was banned. Those who disobeyed smoking bans, got fingers chopped off. (the children were only whipped) Houses were searched for liquor. People arriving at AQ checkpoints that failed to have seatbelts on were beaten and fined.
Just like the liberal Deomcrats, only far more psychotic.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 13, 2007 12:14 AM

Chris Ford is an idiot: "Sunnis woke up one day and found themselves in a Nanny State where soda and candy were banned for children, smoking was banned. Those who disobeyed smoking bans, got fingers chopped off. (the children were only whipped) Houses were searched for liquor. People arriving at AQ checkpoints that failed to have seatbelts on were beaten and fined.
Just like the liberal Deomcrats, only far more psychotic."

Smoke another joint, Bushboy. Oh, wait, that could get you prison time...

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 13, 2007 2:41 AM

I'm waiting for Chris Ford to tell us more about the "lefty-Jew media" because that sort of bigoted paranoia never gets old.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | September 13, 2007 4:52 PM

Did or did not George Bush win the Republican nomination twice? Is there a single shred of evidence that he hates gay people or immigrants? That Fred Thompson does? If I were a hater, I'd hate people who think they can get away with such fact-free tripe.

Posted by John F. | September 14, 2007 4:04 PM