Rudy vs. Romney: That's the End Result of CPAC
With Which Devil Will Conservatives Deal
By Erick Posted in CPAC | Special Events — Comments (41) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Newt Gingrich electrified CPAC. His energy has been palpable since the first day. And tonight he delivered while trying to set himself apart as the standard bearer for the Party of Reagan.
But what is interesting is that, despite his strong, strong showing, he only captured 14% of the straw poll vote. What makes that more interesting is that neither he nor Giuliani had a strong, visible presence, yet Giuliani bested Newt at a conservative get together.
At the end of the day, Mitt Romney delivered. He received 21% of the staw poll vote. With bus loads of supporters and students there to support him, that is not all that surprising. What is surprising is that the Students for Brownback effort only raised Brownback to 15%.
Truly, the surprise is Rudy's showing -- again, without a visible presence for a guy who almost did not attend. He received 17% and was the number one choice for who is everyone's second choice. In fact, Patrick Ruffini, a Giuliani partisan, points out that if you combine the first choice and second choice votes, the percentages shape up like this: Giuliani at 34%, Gingrich at 30%, and Romney at 30%. Conservatives are willing to deal with Rudy.
Clearly, the race is on and it is between Giuliani and Romney. McCain is a nonstarter at CPAC, garnering only 12% of the vote.
If Brownback, Huckabee, and Gilmore expect to be viable, they will need quickly to make the case that one of them is the anti-Rudy, not Romney. The only way to do that is to go after each other and tear down Romney, while indirectly tearing down Rudy. And when they do? Look for Newt to step in around the end of September -- the 12th anniversary of the Contract With America. The others will be out of money, broken, bloodied, and bruised. And Gingrich will have a front door to claim himself as the anti-Rudy. After all, he did get 14% of the vote at CPAC in a race in which he is not even a candidate right now.
« Three Quarters of a Loaf -- Better than nothing, better than half. — Comments (146) | Gilmore A Non-Starter At CPAC — Comments (3) »
Rudy vs. Romney: That's the End Result of CPAC 41 Comments (0 topical, 41 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The ability to lie to get yourself elected by liberals, but only tell the truth afterwards?
The flexibility to evolve a new political philosophy with each election?
A 20th century brain, but with better hair?
Mitt Romney has more executive experience in the private, public, and voluntary sectors than all the other candidates (red and blue) combined. He has created more jobs and more wealth than everyone else combined. He has left every job in better shape than when he took it. He comes from a different perspective. He's an outside the box thinker and a man of action. He's the candidate I trust most to make government smaller and better, overhaul the tax code, reform entitlements, change the way schools are managed, and increase domestic oil production. He'll choose his judges wisely and conservatively. He'll get the fence built. He'll be a hawk on foreign policy. He'll surround himself with the best people to get it all done. I've followed this guy a long time and he's been a success in everything he has done. He is ready and prepared to lead. He'll be a strong conservative leader.
Mitt Romney never lied to anyone.
Saying that he did is totally deceptive.
If you can name a single lie that Mitt Romney has ever told, then I will back down.
Prove it, wise guy.
My post was meant to be snark, so I guess I should have labeled it. Those are a few catty possibilities I thought of to answer my own question, not specific accusations against Romney.
I have to credit Ann Coulter with the "only lies to liberals" bit. Her quote was something along the lines of, "Romney tricked liberals into voting for him - I like a guy who hoodwinks liberals so easily"
Maybe I should leave the jokes and the fallout to her in the future.
I do still want to know what a "21st century mind" is though, especially if it is different from other conservative minds.
Incidentally, I think that quote comes from an old Adam Ant song about having an "18th Century Brain in a 21st Century Head".
Anyway, a 21st Century brain is this: the ability to speak in a language that the media cannot easily distort into a blunder, a gaffe, or a racial insult.
Perfect example of a guy that doesn't have a "21st Century Brain": George Allen.
Is he a racist? No way. He wouldn't have been offered the Thurgood Marshall Award if he were anything close to a racist. But when he calls someone "Macaca", no matter what he meant by it, the 21st century media (youtube, blogs, the liberal thinktank to front page conduit) takes it and magnifies it. They used an obscure 3-syllable word that 99% of the population has never used or even heard before to "prove" that Allen was a closet racist.
Mitt has a 21st Century brain in a 21st century head. He refused to wear the pro-life label in 2002 because it would have been used by his opponent, Shannon O'Brian, as a weapon against him.
But as far as his record goes: Mitt has never once increased the prevelance of or access to abortions. He has never supported gay marriage. Having a 21st century brain means that you think in terms of how the media is going to alter the meaning of your words and smear you.
Only Mitt has the brains to stay ahead of these people.
Just think how easily Bush would have been elected both times if he could simply convince Americans that he really did get better grades than either Kerry or Gore in college.
That is very clear and you make good points. I guess it all feels a little Clintonesque to me, and I dispute that he is the ONLY one who can present a media-friendly image, but he does know how to play the press.
I thought I answered this pretty well upthread but a 21st Century Brain isn't going to give you politics as usual. Romney isn't taking this job so he can get along with liberals. He's a goals oriented person. He isn't going to let down the people who send him to DC. He isn't going to look at polls. He isn't going to care about what the other side says about him. He's not going to compromise or back away from what he thinks is the right thing to do. He isn't going to pass the buck onto future administrations. He's going there to accomplish big things. The MSM fears this guy because he's conservative and a get-it-done-and-get-it-right kind of guy.
You seem to have two very different definitions. Personally, I think yours sounds more like a "timeless conservative" but it was your term so I guess you get to keep it.
We also seem to have two different interpretations of his "conversion". Either it was completely sincere and he is now an unwavering conservative, while before he was fairly liberal, or he has always been conservative but has adjusted his communication depending on his audience.
I wonder which is correct.
It was Mary Matalin that I first heard use "21st Century" in describing Mitt Romney. I think it fits. "Timeless Conservative" sounds good too. I think it was your first interpretation of his conversion that you were right on. 1994: Socially liberal. 2002: More socially conservative but a man who was still on his journey who promised not to change social laws because MA is a socially liberal state and it was a totally fiscal issues based election anyway. Today: Right-Winger. Romney was just a businessman trying to run a state when the whole gay marriage and human cloning issues came up. Once he looked at these issues from a perspective that he never had before, he did his homework and sided with conservatism and is sticking with it. He's not a flip-flopper. Romney has never shifted from right to left on anything.
"I was always for life." (Feb. 2007 in S.C., after spending a decade promoting abortion on demand and Roe v. Wade)
"I have a gun of my own." (Jan. 2007 on a conservative blog, admitting three days later at a gun rally that he does not actually own a firearm)
One of the WORST perpetrators of what I am talking about!
Don't, under any circumstance, add substance to the debate! Don't, under any circumstance, make valid points of why someone should vote FOR your candidate! Just attack the guy you oppose!
Thank you for your contribution today! Come back again next year!
more coffee!
Every poll that has done with Newt vs. without Newt has found that if Newt was not in the race its Giuliani who gets the votes of most of Newt's supporters. This seems counter-intuitive, but the speculation is that Giuliani would receive Newt's supporters because he is seen as a strong leader. I think Newt supporters figure that at least they know where Giuliani actually stands on most issues, even if disagree with him on many.
I would figure that the more conservatives who are in the race, the bigger favor conservatives are doing for Rudy. I like Newt alot but I want him to be Mitt's VP. I'm suprised that its Rudy that Newt would be taking votes from.
I don't see Newt as anyone's V.P., and I don't think he's "running" for V.P.
V.P.'s usually are in a very subordinate role, and don't talk much without express permission and direction from the President. Newt, God love him, has never had an unspoken thought. That's not the best profile for a V.P.
(Before anyone thinks I'm Newt bashing, he's still my preference at the moment for our nominee. But I don't think his skill set makes him anyone's V.P. choice.)
Newt Gingrich will never, ever be the president of the United States.
He is not a candidate today for a reason: he realizes that to be president, you have to get your campaign going 2-3 years before the Iowa caucuses.
Newt has done nothing other than show up at CPAC and write an astoundingly solid book about policy (Get Newt's book: "Winning the Future").
Sorry, Newt fans. But he will probably not even run for president. If he does, it's just to show off to his new wife how cool he used to be.
If I was able to decide who could be President without actually having to consult the American people, my choice would overwhelmingly be Gingrich. The man is a brilliant, articulate visionary for the conservative movement.
That being said, if Gingrich were the nominee, he would lose to even the weakest Democrat. The man has made some bad decisions in his personal life, personally it doesn't bother me, but baggage only hurts Republicans, never Democrats.
Elections are usually decided by the idiot voters in the middle who are too lazy to form a political ideology for themselves. They vote for the person, not the ideology or party and Newt Gingrich is not a popular figure in American politics.
Look at the polls against him versus Hillary. Everyone in the country knows who Hillary and Newt are, and yet Hillary trounces Newt in every poll I've seen. Hillary is unquestionably unpopular in most circles, and yet she destroys Newt.
I know many conservatives believe that only principles are important, but what good would it do for the conservative movement for a true-blue conservative like Newt to go down in flames? All it would do is put a liberal Democrat in the White House.
If we lose the White House, the Democrats are going to completely run the show. That means no conservative judges, a dovish foreign policy, higher taxes, more entitlements, etc.
I'm willing to compromise on some Conservative principles in order to have an electable right-of-center candidate.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
This is simply inaccurate. Every poll I've seen has actually showed a remarkably good showing for Newt against Hillary, considering that He is not yet even candidate and she has more or less been campaigning for about the last six years. Last poll (Rasmussen??) I saw had him only 7 points down Hillary in a head to head. That is certainly not getting "trounced."
George HW Bush lost to Bill Clinton by about 7 points. It was generally considered something of a blowout. Dole actually lost by about 8.5 points -- a tad more than 7 points, but universally considered a blowout. GHWB beat Mike Dukakis by 7 points -- it, too, was generally considered a blowout.
I love Newt. But he'd get smoked in a national election.
Besides, 7 points down looks particularly bad when other potential GOP candidates are winning by 3-5 points.
Whatever you're smoking, I want some of it! We're two years out from the election and 7 points is a blowout? As for the rest of the potential GOP candidates all winning by 3-5 points, that is flat out wrong. The RCP averages have Giuliani consistently beating the competition, but he's the only one. McCain is essentially even with Hillary/Edwards/Obama and Romney is 12 points down on Hillary and 19 points down on Edwards and Obama. Funny how no one is talking about Romney being unelectable. Methinks far too many of you have bought into the media's line that Newt is unelectable. IF Newt were to get the nom, he'll win if he's anywhere within 10 points of the democrat candidate before the debates. Bet on it.
...I never said that "the rest of the potential GOP candidates" were beating the Dems by 3-5 points. I said "other" ones were -- and I was referring to Giuliani. I fully agree that most of the other potential candidates are unelectable -- as Newt is.
Second, debates really don't mean that much anymore. You almost sound like one of those Gore supporters back in 2000 saying "just wait for the debates....he'll mop the floor with Duhhh-bya." There may be some small, temporary swings in favor of one candidate following a debate. But the operative words there are "small" and "temporary."
I think it's fair to say that Kerry smoked GWB in at least two of their debates. It didn't help him any.
Look, I think the world of Newt Gingrich. Somebody else on this blog said that Newt was "the best conservative, the worst candidate." I think that's about right. I'd love nothing more than a President Gingrich. But it's just not going to happen.
He cannot get elected as president. He may not even be able to carry states like Florida and Tennessee. Liberals loathe Newt. Not only that, they have turned him into a cultural icon, like Dan Quayle. Dan Quayle was and is a fabulous, intelligent individual. But how much money would have to be spent to get that message through the liberal media filter.
Newt Gingrich was and is a fabulous, visionary leader. But most Americans think that he's a jerk. His temper tantrum in Israel at Rabin's funeral is what most people think of when his name is mentioned. Even Newt admits that this was the single greatest mistake of his career.
He also caved in to Bill Clinton at crucial times. Appearing with Hillary to promote health care last year was probably a bad move.
Read Newt's books (including "Gettysburg" and "Winning the Future"). But please don't pray for this guy to swoop down from heaven and carry the day. Just like the 12th Imam, he ain't comin'.
about the Rabin funeral incident, because hardly anybody knows about it, or remembers it. They (probably) remember the Contract with America and the 1995 budget controversy that briefly shut down the government. Oh, and they remember he's named after a lizard, or something like that. That's about it.
Besides, it's a little early to start disqualifying candidates based on what "everybody knows." Keep in mind that Mr. Everybody is a dull creature. He doesn't know much, and what little he does know he quickly forgets.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
It's interesting how you consider McCain dead on arrive since he got 12% and Rudy as the winner of the event with his big 17%. If McCain had actually shown up and was considered the front runner than maybe this argument would hold together. I'm not a McCain fan by any means but this post seems like pure spin.
I don't understand what people see in Rudy and why they insist on pushing his candidacy. Yeah he did good things in New York City but do we really want someone that is to the left of Hillary on social issues as the leader of our party?
The only way you could come to that conclusion is if you take her at her word.
If Hillary were half as conservative as she suddenly wants everyone to believe she is, I wouldn't be so frightened by the prospect of her presidency.
I should have said to the left of where Hillary claims to be. Either way he's not where a Republican President should be.
12 and 17 percent is a REALLY(sarcasm) significant difference in a straw poll. The article was interesting to see what the percentages are, but it really sounded like the poll results did not matter in the writing of the article. The article said what it wanted to say, and then the percentages were pasted in.
He has supported gay marriage in the past. But he won't talk about it now.
He has been an outspoken advocate of legalized abortion. He was NARAL's person of the year a few years ago. Yet he wants us to believe that he would put "strict constructionists" on the Court.
Is he aware of the fact that a constructionist will not find a right to either gay marriage or abortion in the Constitution?
Of course he is: he's a lawyer. Not only that, he was a top law student at Columbia. Rudy knows perfectly well that the Constitution does not have a right to abortion in it. Yet he has also pushed for increasing access to abortion rather than decreasing it.
Rudy has been on the wrong side of the issues that matter most for 12 years. When he start speaking out for the right of all children to breathe? After he becomes president?
Get real.
Ironically, Mitt Romney tried to pull the same thing on the 700 Club. He got spanked.
"It is sad," a source close to the Giuliani campaign told ABC News, "but unfortunately not surprising, that Mitt Romney's flailing campaign has chosen to misrepresent Rudy's positions. He can't keep his own positions straight let alone Rudy's."
If you are going to make a claim like that, you should at least have facts to back it up.
"When contacted by ABC News, the Romney campaign was not able to provide substantiation for the governor's claim that Giuliani is "pro-gay marriage".
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2915659&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0...
There is also this:
"Responding to the criticism, Giuliani spokeswoman Katie Levinson said: "Mayor Giuliani has the utmost respect for Governor Romney. The mayor's position on gay marriage has been both clear and consistent — he does not support gay marriage and believes marriage should be between a man a woman."
I don't know where you get this idea that he used to support gay marriage but won't talk about it now. If you have any evidence I would like to see it.
The funny thing is, you just attacked me in another thread for not having any evidence to back up my (rather weak) joke.
Project much?
What about this clip where Rudy boasts of his work on behalf civil unions (I think it's right after he boasts about being more liberal than Clinton on immigration)
They are legally distinct. They have different political connotations. George Bush has said that he is open to the idea of the former, but supports a constitutional ammendment to ban the latter.
you finally have Newt, a conservative with established credentials as a conservative vs Rudy with liberal social values, and Mitt with social values tailor made for the audience he is appealing to for votes. Everybody else is too far behind to win. Hugh Hewitt web site has detailed results. For me the most interesting result is the historical comparison for combined 1st & 2nd choice. George W Bush leads with 40%, Gary
Bauer 33%, Liddy Dole 26%, and Steve Forbes 20%.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
http://www.conservative.org/documents/3-07_CPAC_Straw_Poll.ppt
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
The charts are great, thanks for posting a link. Have to figure out what they mean now.
Last one of them though gave me a chuckle, the one where 3% of the attendees could not figure out their own gender. Must have posed a heck of a problem with the restroom situation.
_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!
Considering either Giuliani or McCain both beat Hillary in head to-head-matchups, Newt's numbers are terrible.
Don't forget that Hillary has extremely high negatives, she is the most unpopular Democrat politician in the country, and Newt still loses to her by several points.
A seven point victory in a Presidential campaign would be a landslide, plain and simple. If either a Democrat or Republican lost by seven points in a two-way race in 2008 it would fracture the Party.
Don't get me wrong, I have a very high opinion of Newt Gingrich, but I just don't think he has the electability to become President.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
...among conservatives -- without doing what Romney's doing -- I tend to think he'll be tough to beat next November. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that he'll have redefined triangulation...but in a way that would probably be difficult to emulate.
Granted, if he's the 1st or 2nd pick of 34%, that means that he's something else for 66%. And some portion of that percentage probably wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances.
It'll be interesting to watch. But, typically, candidates who are ideologically out of step with their party's base have to do a lot of moving and dancing, which typically hurts their standing among other sectors of the electorate.
If Rudy can garner conservative support without having to give up his natural base, he'll be an awfully tough candidate in a general election. I imagine that most of his potential opponents, of either party, are counting on him not getting much conservative support.
They're not going to like to see these results.
Rudy hasn't been through the fire on the abortion issue. We'll know more about how he will fare then.
...this was a straw poll of conservative activists....all of whom presumably knew of Rudy's positions on abortion (among other things).
I think that's kinda the point of Erick's blog. Giuliani didn't win the straw poll. But he fared very well among conservative activists.
I very much agree with Erick's conclusion that it's a Giuliani/Romney race. And I don't think somebody like Gingrich entering the race can derail that.
I think Romney will continue to improve in polls -- because I think McCain's DOA and none of the "conservative alternatives" seem to be gaining any traction.
He hasnt been put through fire on the
gay marriage/civil unions issues
Or embryonic stem cell issues
Or immigration/amnesty issues
Or environmental/Kyoto issuess
Or 2nd Amendment/Guns Rights issues
Or free Speech/McCain Feingold issues
Or party loyalty issues
Or personal baggage issues
etc,
But he was on the ground on 9/11 and said he liked Alito, which obviously means he's a Ronald Reagan clone.
LOBO54 Conservatives
At CPAC my family was divided with Newt and Rudy; but after four days we became Mitt converts. Leadership was a big point, but also his willingness to go down each issue and described how he felt. If he can take this message out to the public, he will win. We all like Newt, but as popular as he is and a joy to hear, we feel he will not be nominated or if so, not elected. Listening to each candidate instead of the soundbites and being able to talk with them is a huge reason to attend CPAC. And, the number of College and young adults being so active for their candidates is great for the future.
"I saw had him only 7 points down Hillary in a head to head."
So while Giuliani is 8 points ahead of Hillary- you want to go with the guy who loses 15 points. With such brilliance no wonder we got crushed in 2006. Please begin advising the liberals as we don't need that kind of profundity..
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
Brownback, Huckabee, and Gilmore combined won't raise more money than Romney. Romney isn't going away so adding Newt only crowds the conservative field which helps Rudy. Conservatives need not fear of Mitt. He is a conservative with a 21st Century brain.