Brownback endorsement: Rudy and Romney

October 30, 2007 – 7:55 am

Last week, Sam Brownback met with Rudy Giuliani. Deal Hudson has an account that concurs with what I have heard from Brownback associates and with what Brownback’s people have told outside groups:

Brownback caused a controversy by accepting an invitation from Rudy Giuliani to discuss life issues following the Senator’s decision to drop out of the presidential race. 

Giuliani had called Brownback the day after his announcement to ask for his endorsement.  Brownback started to say "no" when Giuliani asked him if at least he would come by and talk about it.

Brownback accepted the invitation, had the chat, but, as expected, did not issue an endorsement. 

A rumor rushed around the Internet that Brownback had "compromised" his principles, etc.

Jim Bopp, Jr., general counsel of National Right to Life said some pretty ugly things about Brownback.  The management of NRTL had to dissavow Bopp’s comments in a press statement issued later that same day.

Very messy.  And all because Brownback was willing to listen to what Giuliani had to say, like any civilized person ought to do. 

Brownback listened, concluded Giuliani was not willing to change his positions, stepped in front of the cameras with the Mayor and said, basically, that they agreed to disagree.

There has also been some speculation that Mitt Romney will get Brownback’s endorsement. However, Romney and Brownback have been unable to schedule a meeting. When I asked a Brownback associate about the possibility of an endorsement I was told, "It is typical Romney. He says nice things while his campaign is attacking us and lying about our supporters." Followup questions revealed that he was referring to the Jim Bopp letter mentioned above, and the Romney campaign’s claim to have picked up the endorsement of "Michigan Brownback Campaign Leaders." It turned out that the "leaders" were unknown to the Brownback campaign and hadn’t endorsed Brownback anyways.

Tags: , , , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

NRLC disavows Bopp’s Brownback statements

October 28, 2007 – 4:19 pm

Yesterday, Jim Bopp, a supporter of Mitt Romney and former General Counsel (they actually spend text clarifying that he is the former)  to the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) attacked Sam Brownback for saying something nice about Rudy Giuliani.

Turns out that he was nasty enough that NRLC disavowed his statements. I have obtained a copy of a letter that NRLC’s President, Executive Director, and Legislative Director, they apologized for Bopp’s statements. The choice bits:

Mr. Bopp’s remarks quoted above, if accurately reported, do not represent National Right to Life, and we disagree with them …

We reject most emphatically anyone’s suggestion that you have sacrificed or would sacrifice the interests of the unborn in order to garner some "personal political benefit."

In January, 2007, the National Right to Life Board of Directors adopted a resolution urging that no NRLC state affiliate, no executive staff member of any state affiliate, and no NRLC Board member should endorse any candidate for President of the United States until an endorsement is adopted by the Board as a whole. Staff employees of the National Right to Life Committee are also barred from doing so. However, Mr. Bopp is neither a director nor an employee of NRLC. Mr. Bopp has served as NRLC’s general counsel for many years, but he is not an in-house general counsel;

In other words, Bopp was attacking Brownback, not because he was right, but because the Romney campaign asked him to. I wonder if it also means that NRLC is willing to play nice if that’s what it comes to.

Update: The American Spectator’s Washington Prowler drills down on this also:

But Bopp is now facing the same kind questions that were raised by conservatives when respected conservatives like Federalist Society leader Leonard Leo supported the nomination of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to a seat on the Supreme Court, when most conservatives were opposing the nomination.

Bopp is now in the eye of a storm after criticizing Sen. Sam Brownback for meeting with Giuliani, a meeting, sources say, that Giuliani asked for. Romney and Brownback had a scheduled meeting for this week, but it was abruptly canceled after Bopp’s public criticism of Brownback, who ended his presidential run last week.

"Bopp is losing a great deal of credibility by attacking Brownback," says a longtime Washington-based pro-life conservative activist. "We know that Romney is at the very least a squish on abortion. But Bopp seems to ignore years of on-the-record statements and expects us to believe him and Romney’s ‘conversion’ because he says we should believe a man who has done nothing for the [right to life] movement. Nothing."

Full text of the letter after the jump. Read More »

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (5)

Rudy at FRC

October 20, 2007 – 10:08 am

The entrance had more standing, but less cheers than Mitt Romney. But Romney had a lot of astroturf, as Phil Klein pointed out, so it is hard to tell.

Rudy starts with an attack on Washington.

Unlike Romney’s speech, there was more of a narrative structure. He wanted the people in the room to know who he was. The policies that he talked about followed from that structure.

So he talks about what his religion means to him:

Christians and Christianity is all about inclusiveness,  It is built around the most profound act of love in history. .. Spreading a message of love and hope and faith… Administer to sick and the needy. It is the love that the first Christians displayed that first brought thousands and then millions.

And:

The first day that I entered a class in which a prayer was not said at the beginning of class was my first day at NYU Law School. I was so confused, I crossed myself. Then I realized that everyone was looking at me.

Then he goes into his framing that he starts and ends with:

  • A more civil society
  • Restoring the social contract.
  • A culture of personal responsibility. probably shouldn’t have used the language "culture of " because it makes an implicit contrast.

Here are some applause lines. He had a lot of these:

  • "The one thing that you can count on with me is that I will be honest with you."
  • "My belief in God and my reliance on his guidance is at the core of who I am."
  • "Isn’t it better that I tell you what I believe rather than change all my positions." (A big applause line)
  • "Never let anyone tell you that your faith should not be part of your political values."
  • "It shouldn’t be so difficult to raise your children consistent with the values you hold dear. … protecting the innocence of children."
  • "We have the same right of free speech." "Never be required to give our taxpayer money to desecrate religion" (part of a big riff on pornography and the Mary-in-elephant-dung story.
  • "Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion."
  • "I don’t believe in inevitable decline."
  • "The ideal: It takes a family, not a village to raise a child."
  • "A country without abortion. Achieved by changing the minds of people."
  • Religion is about love, inclusion and forgiveness. It is about salvation. … If we expect perfection from our political leaders, we will be disappointed. (I heard "amens")
  • Something about internet sex predators. (big applause, but I missed the exact quote)
  • "Parents understand their children better than government and bureaucrats do."
  • "fight those who try to drive traditional expressions of religion out of our public life."

The other thing that is worth pointing out is that he insisted on honesty. He made some real serious attacks on Romney:

  • Ronald Reagan didn’t figure out what he was going to do by putting his finger in the air and figuring out where the winds are blowing.
  • If I take a poll and repeat it. … then I am a follower. I may be a good actor if I do it well, but I am a follower.

He has a riff on separation. I am not sure why he said that. Quotes George Will on most successful conservative governance.

He also talks a long time about how he would move the ball on abortion. This was really key. And it got strong responses.

  • Veto any reductions of the Hyde amendment.
  • Support any reasonable suggestion that reduces the number of abortions. Mentions parental notification and PBA ban.
  • Make the 10k adoption tax credit permanent.
  • Mentions faith-based initiatives.
  • Judges.

Insterestingly, he said, "We serve God best by serving others." That gets less applause than his abortion lines. That tells me something about the people here. But in the end, the people here are only part of his audience. The audience is the moderate evangelicals who aren’t here, but who are voting. That’s why he brought up the atmospheric issues and Darfur.

Rudy closes with:

"You have nothing to fear from me." Some make me out to be an activist for liberal causes. If you believe that, just check any New York Times editorial while I was mayor.

I think that a bunch of people in the room really believed that. His closing applause was much, much stronger than the opening. A lot of the people sitting when he came in were standing. That’s a difference. He may not win the crowd, but he doesn’t need to. He needs to neutralize it.

I think he did that. Rudy couldn’t hit a home run, but he could hit a double. And he did.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

When reporters miss the story: Rudy and conservatives.

October 18, 2007 – 9:37 am

Alan Fram AP’s story about Rudy Giuliani and conservatives fundamentally misses the point. He says, "Giuliani’s Conservative Vote Tenuous." That would be true, if it turned out that his lead in polls was based on the vote of conservatives who don’t know what he thinks on issues. It seems that the important analysis of his story is:

Yet a close look suggests his support from the GOP’s potent right wing is less than meets the eye, according to recent Associated Press-Ipsos polls.

But the important point is that, Rudy Giuliani holds the lead in-spite of weak support from conservatives. Rudy has found a possibly winning coalition does not involve the most conservative elements of the party.  That, dear reader, is a story. That shows that his path to winning the nomination is less-than-tenuous. But the reporter doesn’t seem to understand that the goal in a primary is to build coalitions within the party.

Let’s look at the facts from the poll:

Conservatives, evangelical and born-again voters, and strongly loyal Republicans who back Giuliani tend to be less conservative, less religiously active and less supportive of President Bush than those favoring Fred Thompson, Giuliani’s chief rival so far, the surveys show.

Is that news? That Rudy’s conservatives are less conservative?

And:

  • Just 37 percent of Giuliani’s conservatives call themselves strongly Republican, compared to 52 percent of Thompson’s.
  • While 22 percent of Giuliani’s evangelical or born-again Christian supporters say they are very conservative, 47 percent of Thompson’s do.
  • Sixty-four percent of Giuliani’s supporters approve of Bush’s performance, compared to 78 percent of Thompson’s.

Isn’t this fantastic news for the Giuliani campaign? Doesn’t this tell us that his lead is based on people who aren’t going to go fleeing when someone (who?) puts up ads saying that he’s a liberal?

Isn’t this a reason for confidence? They know he is pro-choice, gay-friendly, etc. And they still support him. What additional information is going to make Rudy’s numbers fall? Probably not information about abortion, etc.

At least the reporters aren’t alone in their ignorance. The conservative interest groups don’t get it either.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (2)

The limits of interest group leaders

October 15, 2007 – 2:15 pm

Many people have commented on Bob Novak’s piece in the Post today. I thought that the most interesting point was, perhaps, this one:

But the situation is not a simple confrontation between the Christian right and Giuliani. The Gallup data suggest that Dobson and the Salt Lake City group may be out of touch with rank-and-file churchgoers. A well-known social conservative, who asked that his name not be used, is disturbed by Dobson’s statement he could not vote for Giuliani under any circumstances. Instead of being considered the lesser of two evils in a possible race against Sen. Hillary Clinton, Giuliani seems to be the positive choice of millions of religious Americans.

It is clear that everyone is trying to pick Rudy Giuliani as their primary opponent. Then, they reckon, social conservatives will have to go with them. Mitt Romney is trying, and to some extent succeeding, in rallying some social conservatives to his side. Fred Thompson also is. Today a Fred Thompson associate told me that, "it’s fair to say that I don’t think Land is terribly out of sorts over his early support of Fred Thompson. The two speak regularly, and I don’t think it’s innaccurate to say that he remains supportive."

But… what if it isn’t true? What if people go with Giuliani? To beat Hillary. Or they are worried about competence in running the country? Or they just by the Romney or Thompson stories?

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Evangelical leaders moving towards Romney? Not so much

October 11, 2007 – 1:15 pm

This morning, I got an email from a family group leader. He was incredulous. He said:

Our "leaders" testify to the sincere conversion of a guy who today believes the Boy Scouts are wrong to prohibit homosexual Scoutmasters…

That was in response to Ralph Z Hallow’s article about Romney in today’s Washington Times:

Two social conservatives leaders — in surprise moves yesterday — criticized fellow evangelical and Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, while praising another party hopeful, Mitt Romney, a Mormon.

Still, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and American Values President Gary Bauer hope the former Massachusetts governor will passionately express his pro-life views at the Values Voter Summit Oct. 19 and 20 at the Washington Hilton.

Except, it is not so clear. I asked the FRC and was told:

"We are not moving away from Huckabee or toward Romney … 

We just want to reiterate that Giuliani is a disaster … He will destroy the coalition among conservatives. Asking us to accept him as the nominees, is like asking fiscal conservatives to accept a candidate who wants to return to the tax rates of the pre-Reagan era."

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (2)

New Des Moines Register poll: Strategy

October 8, 2007 – 12:24 am
Candidate %
Romney 29
Thompson 18
Huckabee 12
Giuliani 11
McCain 7

I normally don’t like to write on polls, but I think that this one tells us a lot about the future of the GOP race in Iowa. David Yepsen comments here. I am going to write this as a two-parter. The first part is about the numbers. The second part is about the strategy that I think needs to follow from the numbers, for some of the candidates.

I think that the lesson here is that Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, and, to a lesser extent, Mitt Romney have a lot of room for upwards progress. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani do not. If these trajectories continue, they should both consider dropping out of Iowa. New Hampshire and Michigan are both more permissive — open primaries — and less conservative. It seems clear that both candidates are, more or less, on this path. They should even consider telling their grassroots organizations to, on caucus day, support either Huckabee or Thompson. This would increase the likelihood of the story coming out of Iowa being about Romney.  As Yepsen says:

With everyone expecting [Romney] to win, when he does, he won’t get that much bounce out of it and he needs that to build his national poll numbers, which aren’t so hot.

On the GOP side, the focus is now starting to center on who finishes second and third in Iowa since the “coach” and “standby” tickets into New Hampshire are still good ones to have. Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee have grabbed those positions. That’s especially good news for Huckabee who had been languishing back in single digits.

Rudy and McCain probably don’t have the power to influence the story about themselves coming out of Iowa. But they can probably do a lot to make sure that the right story about the other candidates gets told.

Tags: , , , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

Romney taxed New Hampshire

October 5, 2007 – 1:42 pm

There’s a fight over taxes between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. Yesterday, Romney accused Rudy of supporting a commuter tax.

But, as always seems to be the case for Romney, whose operating principle seems to be "what is good for me is not good for thee," Romney raised the commuter tax.

The Giuliani campaign put up all the details. I won’t bore you. Here is the bottom line: as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney raised taxes on New Hampshire  voters. Why would New Hampshire voters trust him to not raise their taxes when he has already done it before?

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

Rudy’s speech to Americans for Prosperity

October 5, 2007 – 9:48 am

The whole framing of this is interesting. Rudy is speaking in the middle of a nasty fight with Mitt Romney over their economic records.

Rudy starts by saying that he is a supply-sider and that he had made supply-side policies work That’s his theme of 23 tax cuts. He also borrowed McCain’s line from last night.

Rudy talks a long, long, long time about his record. Both substance and symbols. My favorite? Renaming welfare offices to "job centers."

He also attacks Hillary Clinton for her baby bond. I think it is worth pointing out that Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) has proposed similar things. And Rep. Phil English (R-PA) and a Giuliani endorser, has endorsed a very similar idea.

Rudy meanders for a while. But then he gets to substance.

He wants to end the death tax.

He wants to index the AMT. (most want to kill it. That’s room for a difference)

A one-page tax form. (don’t we have that with the EZ? Complicated incomes have complicated taxes.)

New savings vehicles. (Good idea. Combine it with one that starts at birth with, perhaps, matching for poor kids, and you get a much cheaper baby bond… That’s a difference that we could offer that isn’t too different from Ramesh Ponnuru’s tax-break for families)

Then he comes to a riff on Europe again. He attacks Hillary care with a great line and Michael Moore.

All in all good substance. Funny. But it didn’t appeal that much to me.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Economist on CNP meeting

October 1, 2007 – 4:37 pm

The Economist’s Democracy in America blog gets the Rudy Giuliani versus social conservative politics right:

That last scenario sounds bad for all Republicans, because it would be a help to the dread Hillary Clinton. But at this point it looks like a Democrat, Hillary or otherwise, is going to win this election regardless. If Christian conservatives can argue that by withholding their support they caused the GOP to lose, they will enjoy more leverage in future, more winnable elections. It’ll be hard for moderate Republicans to take their marching orders from Tony Perkins but they have, after all, volunteered for and nurtured the relationship.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (2)