Red Sox Flip Flop Dooms Giuliani in Republican Race

“I will be rooting for the Red Sox…you won the division and we lost. Somehow it makes me feel better if the team that was ahead of the Yankees wins the World Series, because then I feel like, well, we’re not that bad.”

-Former New York Mayor and Die-Hard Yankee Fan Rudy Giuliani on campaign trail in New Hampshire (Red Sox country)


When the New York Post reported Rudy’s BoSox claim, it was October 23rd and he was leading the national polls and well ahead in big pre-Super Tuesday states like Florida. A Quinnipiac University Poll had Giuliani at 30 percent and John McCain at 14 percent. It also showed him beating Hillary 46-43 and Obama 47-40. In the final outcome on January 29th, Florida was the guillotine for the former New York Mayor’s dumb all-or-nothing campaign strategy which bet it all on a victory in the Sunshine State.

As you know, it didn’t work, and he placed a very distant third (14.6%) to winner John McCain (36%) and runner-up Mitt Romney (31.1%). What happened? There were no big blow-ups, no Dean-like screams, no floosies. Some pundits will complain that the New York Times pulled a front page hit job on him every other day and he got clobbered by Tim Russert on Meet the Press. He also looked stupid taking a phone call from his wife in the middle of an NRA speech – an attempt to look like a family man (or something), though it came across as staged and rude.

But let’s face it, most readers of the Times and most members of the NRA weren’t going to give Rudy their vote anyway. So what really happened? The Red Sox flip-flop is what happened. Rudy’s whole thing was that he was a foreign policy hawk, a national security strongman, a man who may be unlikable, but whose backbone was strong. The Red Sox flip-flop brought his entire character into question. For sports fans (and especially Boston and Yankees fans) this infidelity was tantamount to saying, “If America loses in Iraq, I hope Al-Qaeda takes over the world so at least we lost to the best.”

Suddenly Republicans started to question Rudy's meddle in the face of evil. And once they began to do that, McCain looked like a much more attractive candidate. These guys were fighting for the same national security votes, but McCain didn’t switch alliances because it was politically convenient. McCain also didn’t have questions about shady business dealings or questions about public money paying for his mistress’s limo rides. McCain was willing to say the hard things that needed to be said (though it cost him in Michigan) and primary voters trusted him even if they disagreed with him.

It seems like a small thing, but sometimes these little details completely affect the brand image that voters conjure when pulling the lever in the voting booth. I’m curious to see what happens next time Rudy shows up at a Yankees game. He might fare worse than he did in the Republican Primary.

Democrats Reference the Wrong Presidents and Show Their Colors

The past week has seen a lot of hoo-ha from those in the Democratic Party about references to ex-presidents made by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately for those on the left, and those REALLY on the left, the candidates referenced the wrong historical figures.

Hillary seemed to give more credit to LBJ than to MLK for the success of the civil rights movement (see clip above) and Obama waxed admiring about the transcendent presidency of Ronald Reagan (also see above clip). Woah. A week away from MLK Day and the South Carolina Primary and you talk down the importance of the most significant civil rights leader the U.S. has seen? Why? To pander to the LBJ wing of the Democratic Party? The truth is, actually, yes. But I don't think this wing of the party, nor Hillary, thinks that MLK was unimportant and I don't think they're racist. I do think, however, that this shows a political candidate who believes that it takes government to make things happen. In her world view, leadership comes from the top down, not the other way around. Yet this betrays the true essence of the civil rights movement which was a people-first, grassroots revolution. In a Hillary administration, we can expect more of this thinking: solutions come only when government "allows" them; change only occurs when it is handed down to the people like the commandments from Moses. What America needs most at this moment is not more government interference, it needs government to recuse itself from the case and allow the people to decide what's best for themselves just as it was the people whom LBJ couldn't ignore when he signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

The other political faux pas this week came from Barack Obama. He said that he believed that Reagan had, "Changed the trajectory of America...because the country was ready for it." Obama has been attacked on all sides of the liberal spectrum, from John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, to the New York Times and the entire lefty blogosphere. But this too is an example of a political candidate showing his colors with a statement destined to be unpopular during primary season. No, I don't think that Obama is the next Reagan, he's an unashamed liberal, but he's smart to run as a "change" candidate. He may take some heat now, but it makes him more electable in a general election. It shows that he's above the irrational, partisan fray of election year politics. And it shows that he's a candidate that is interested in creating a movement similar to the Reagan Democrats. Obama Republicans has a nice ring to it, but it won't happen. His claim to transcendence is based more on audacious oratory than on any real record of change. But while he may not be able to deliver on the rhetoric, it can give him a great chance starting in January 2009 to prove it.

Diabeetus

For Jen:

Perhaps Oprah and Chuck Norris Don't Play in New Hampshire

At 10:15 p.m. est, we've got the results of the New Hampshire Republican and Democratic primaries. Right now, it looks like Hillary and her Trail of Tears is going to take the Democratic delegates in a very tight race over Obama, but John McCain has kicked some major ass on the Republican side. Huckabee, Chuck Norris, and creationism simply don't have the same appeal in the Granite State as they do among evangelical Iowans.

McCain won on the backs of the same independent voters that gave him New Hampshire in 2000 vs. George W. Bush. In fact, Johnny Mac likely took many votes from ... yes, Barack Obama. The open NH primary proved key. I like John McCain, but I think his chances are still low. The GOP is shaping into a WWF Cage Match. It is WIDE open. Look at the following possibilities heading into Super Tuesday on February 5th:

Iowa: Huckabee
New Hampshire: McCain
Michigan 1/15: Likely Mitt Romney
South Carolina 1/19: Likely Huckabee
Nevada 1/19: Giuliani has lead
Florida 1/29: Giuliani has lead

So leading into "Tsunami Tuesday," it will likely be neck-and-neck with NO clear leader. I don't think anyone knows who will be the last man standing. It's hard to imagine Giuliani, who may not post his first victory for another 2 weeks, and Fred Thompson is doing the dead man's float, but everyone else has a very legitimate chance.