Rudy Giuliani and the religious right
Posted by Moonage on 13 Jun 2007 | Tagged as: 2008 Presidential Race
Two friends of mine, Stormwarning and American Phoenix have posted similar feelings about Rudy Giuliani. Specifically, in regards to the perception Rudy has been accepted, if not endorsed, by the religious right. I don’t see this as what’s happening at all. If Rudy were a major player in the religious right’s choice of candidates, you wouldn’t see the almost desperate search for yet another conservative candidate, like Fred Thompson, occurring now. Fred’s not even announced he’s running and is already winning many polls. Something’s amiss. The Republicans are fielding several candidates that are very religious and uphold very conservative values, yet are getting no traction at all. The orneriest two candidates, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, have led the entire race. If Thompson gets in, I think the love affair will last only as long as it takes people to realize he’s not perfect either. So, now people are trashing Giuliani for not being something he never was and never claimed to be. Go figure.
Well, I have. This points to the root of the problems plaguing both parties in my opinion. Only in the last 25 years have conservative values been tied to religious values. In the past, being conservative only meant smaller, less intrusive government and laws. It had nothing to do with how religious a candidate was. Some of the nastiest people on Earth were elected based purely on their perceived ability to lead the country. We were pretty much constantly at war for fifty years and people wanted a leader to protect them and their values, not to be a poster boy for their religion. People held on to their religious values personally. They didn’t try to project their religious values on their government. The primary purpose of the government of the United States is to protect the welfare of the nation. People understood that then.
Now, for reasons I really don’t fully understand, people seem to be a lot less concerned about the welfare of the country than they are the personal example the President sets. George Bush has probably been the most outwardly religious President we’ve had in my lifetime. This very overt display of his religious preferences has created a certain amount of division within the United States. I’m quite sure it’s made some other non-Christian leaders and countries uncomfortable as well. 100 years from now, I think Bush will be a largely forgotten president because of him allowing his religion to dictate some of his decisions. I’m not terribly religious, so this aspect influencing a lot issues that affect my day-to-day life has been annoying. I think a lot of people have come to the same conclusion as well. Which leads me to my conclusion.
How can the person with the nastiest reputation of all the candidates running be leading the party that is supposed to be dominated by the religious right?
The answer is simple.
Because the Republican Party is truly NOT dominated by the religious right when it comes to elections on a national level. It never was. What happened was the religious right became very vocal during the Reagan presidency, and used the Reagan presidency to advance their agenda through politics. It wasn’t that there were a dominating number of Republican voters that were neo-cons, it was that the neo-cons were the ones chosen to be on Foxnews, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, BBC, you name it. They became the face of the Republican Party. The rest of the body still wanted the person who could best protect the welfare of this country.
So, the assumption that Rudy Giuliani is winning right now because the religious right is selling out or being fooled is incorrect. The reason Giuliani is winning in my opinion is because most Republicans look for the person who can best protect this country. When you’re in a fist-fight, you don’t pick the preacher. You go with the guy that would kick the other guy in the nuts if he had to. The sooner he did that, the sooner the fight’s over. Then we can go back to arguing over who’s the most religious if we have nothing else to worry about.
And, I think there is a certain faction of old-time moderate Republicans that know that choosing Giuliani would announce the very overt and obvious death of the Neo-con revolution that subverted our Grand Old Party.
That’s all I have to say on this. Well, at least for now.
July 18, 2007 Update ( sorta ): James Joyner over at Outside the Beltway still doesn’t get why Mitt Romney, who’s currently running fourth in most polls, is the perceived winner by a LOT of media. This is my link to get his attention and fill him in.
19 Comments »
on 13 Jun 2007 at 4:03 pm 1.Stormwarning
said …
Actually though, my post and my point was not so much that the “religious right” as a whole had adopted Rudy, so much as certain, specific people who can quote chapter and verse of the Scripture had so single-mindedly come to support Rudy, a man who like us all, is fallible, and is a contradiction if compared to those supposed values. Rudy remains, not my candidate.
I also agree with you that the alignment of religion with conservatism has been misleading.
I believe solely on his demeanor (that is quite mean) and his judgment of people (that shows quite poor judgment - ala Bernie Kerik), I am a Charter Member of Republicans Against Rudy.
PS: How do I get my name info. etc. to “stick” so I don’t have to input it each time I comment?
on 13 Jun 2007 at 4:18 pm 2.Moonage
said …
My point is still the same tho. They can quote scripture all day and night, it’s irrelevant. They are looking at Rudy through a political view and not a religious view in regards to him being a candidate for POTUS. My point is some people see this melding of religious expectations in regards to their political views as a bad thing. I never say all Republicans are not religious, I am saying they are separating their political values from their religious values. And that is a good thing. Therefore, a deeply religious person endorsing a sinner who they think might be the best person for the job is not anything unusual to me and not a contradiction or copout of their values.
Hopefully this will deter some of the nauseating faux-sudden-religion candidates like Hillary are displaying in the future.
As far as fer-Rudy or agin-Rudy, I haven’t even decided yet. Every candidate running has dealt with thousands of people in their careers. To cite one or two bad choices doesn’t mean that much. I don’t really choose my candidates based on what they’ve done wrong, I usually look at what I think they won’t do. As such, so far, Rudy’s the only one that hasn’t laid out an agenda of social conservatism that scares me to death. The Democrats are even worse. Now, I know how it all works and the possibility that any of these “assurances” will ever pan out are slim to none, even getting the ball rolling on some of these issues is not a good thing ( national welfare, restricting abortions, etc… ) I am a true conservative, in the old sense of the word. So far, the only truly conservative candidate running that I have seen, is, believe it or not, Rudy. The less a government meddles in a person’s life is true conservatism, so far Rudy’s the only one not supporting some sort of issue that days. McCain probably doesn’t either, but he’s burned too many bridges on me in the past to support him now. The rest of the Republicans have been too neo-connish, and the Democrats are stupidly liberal.
When in the heck is Condi going to announce?
( as far as your name sticking, if you haven’t registered, that might do it. Otherwise, it’s probably a security issue on your PC )
on 13 Jun 2007 at 4:55 pm 3.American Phoenix
said …
StormWarning Against Giuliani…
StormWarning makes a great point about Christian support for Rudy Giuliani for the 2008 Presidential election:Support of Rudy among the Religious Right centers on his national security and fighting terrorism positions. And yet, this means that for the …
on 14 Jun 2007 at 1:01 am 4.mw
said …
Ryan Sager wrote a book you should pick up entitled “The Elephant in the Room”. He describes the history of GOP fusionist alliance of evangelicals and libertartians, documenting how the “Reagan Revolution” was built on this fusionist foundation.
I think there are now actually three factions in the Republican party:
1) Traditional Fiscal Conservatives (libertarians)
2) Traditional Social Conservatives (evangelicals)
3) “Loyal Bushies”
Category (3) is wildly over-represented in the blogosphere and the activist Republican base. I thought we were down to the hard core “Loyal Bushies” in the Presidents approval ratings when we hit 30%, but with the Immigration bill fiasco he may go even lower. To a large extent, I think the remaining “loyal Bushies” overlap with the security faction you identitfy in this post. This is a group I find particularly scary, as they seem perfectly willing to disolve congress, accept torture, roughshod over the constitution, and give up any civil liberties and legal protection in name of security. They have been listening to their own B.S. for so long they actually believe they are the GOP. They are not. They are a minority, even within the GOP.
The important point is this - The reason the fusionist alliance is important to the G.O.P., is that none of these constituencies are sufficient on their own to elect a Republican president. The “loyal bushie”/”security uber alles” Republicans may be able to determine who wins the Republican nomination. But with 70% of the US electorate wanting an end to the Iraq adventure, they cannot win the White House on their own. For Republicans to win the White House the historically successful fusionist alliance must be restored.
It can be rebuilt with the right candidate, but to win the general election may also require a candidate who can pull from moderates and marginalize the “loyal bushies”.
Maybe, as you suggest, Giuliani can do it by pulling the Security and libertarian factions together, and ignoring the evangelical/social conservatives. Maybe, but I doubt it.
The winning answer is a bona fide social and fiscal conservative who can restore the fusionist alliance in the GOP, and who is also opposed to the failed Bush war effort. Such a candidate would certainly win the White House for Republicans but may not be able to get past the “loyal Bushies” to secure the nomination. This is the connundrum for the GOP in 2008.
I make the case that Chuck Hagel is that candidate in my post “Can Chuck Hagel save the GOP from the Bushies?”
on 14 Jun 2007 at 1:32 am 5.mw
said …
Whoa. This is way cool. I just read AP and SW’s post (previous comment was composed after only reading Moons). It appears to me that the three of you are reasonable proxies for the the three factions pr the GOP I identified in my comment. AP = ‘Social Conservative”. SW = “Fiscal Conservative”. Moon = “Loyal Bushie”. Not a perfect match, of course. . Moon is much more reasonable than most “loyal bushies”. But close enough. Think of it as a Venn Diagram where each of you overlap with the other twoHere is an experiment for you. If any two of you agree on a candidate, you have identified the Republican Nominee. If the three of you agree on a candidate, you have identified the next President.
on 14 Jun 2007 at 5:53 am 6.Stormwarning
said …
MW, actually I think that you may have actually hit the nail on the head. My only additional comment regarding myself would be to make me a “security hawk” especially when it comes to illegal immigration and border security, and on national security in general. I could go on and list more of the detail, but since you read mine, you know pretty much where I stand. I’m also not at all clear if you’ve pegged Moon correctly at all.
Hey! Maybe that means that you missed the nail and hit your thumb! LOL!
on 14 Jun 2007 at 7:54 am 7.Moonage
said …
MW, I think you spend way too much time looking for stuff to validate what you’re wanting things to be.
I don’t agree the the 3-Step-Guide-To-Typecasting-Every-Republican theory you’re sold on at all. Just as I don’t agree there’s 1-Step-Guide-To-Typecasting-Every-Democrat.
That’s the root of most all of the political problems we’re facing in this country right now is rather than people expanding their knowledge base, they try even harder to just pigeonhole segments of the population they don’t agree with into neat little labels.
First of all, there is a difference between Republicans and Libertarians. Libertarians believe in pretty much anarchy, Republicans believe in a government that protects the welfare of the nation ( as I’ve stated repeatedly ). That one issue alone assures that no true Republican will ever be Libertarian ( if they do bother to research the core values of the parties ). Being religious based does not make one an evangelical. So, that label is flawed. As I stated, traditionally Republicans were conservative, but kept the religion out of it. They were evangelical, but they preached to their neighbors, not as a part of the government. So, that label is equally as flawed. And, as of before 2001 and after 2009, there will be no such thing as a “loyal Bushie”. The childhishness of the label is a give away to how well thought out the entire premise is.
So, quit looking for ways to pigeonhole people and I bet you’ll find there’s a lot more to this world than following 3-Step guidelines telling you what to think.
As part of the “fusion” stuff goes, I didn’t have to read a book to come to that conclusion. However, you contradict yourself a lot here. If the blogosphere is way over-represented by the “fusion” element, then why would a “fusion” candidate be of any significance? My argument is that the “fusion” element is way over-rated both on the blogosphere, but by the media as well. Because of that, the “fusion” candidate is as well way over-rated. Several of these borderline “fusion” candidates aren’t making a blip on the poll meters. The ones making the biggest blips are the non-fusion candidates, Rudy and McCain. These two are not evangelical, not terribly conservative, not loyal-Bushies, and not Neo-Cons. So what gives here? My argument is the reason this is so right now is the people who have bought the argument that the Republican Party has sold completely out to the “fusion” are 100% wrong. They rely totally on printed matter and media. Which, as you have noted, is way over-represented by one faction only.
on 14 Jun 2007 at 7:42 pm 8.American Phoenix
said …
I would resist categorization as well. I’m not just a social conservative. I’m a fiscal conservative as well. As far as I’m concerned the two go hand in hand. You can’t have one without the other. You can’t be a fiscal conservative if you’re not also a social conservative, because liberal social policies have consequences that cost BIG bucks. Being a social conservative requires being a fiscal conservative, to some extent, because large social programs create welfare dependence, the disintegration of the family, and the like, i.e., throwing money at a problem isn’t necessarily the best solution and often it has proven to be the wrong one.
I agree with Moonage on the difference between Republicanism and Libertarianism. I think he hits the nail squarely on the head.
on 14 Jun 2007 at 9:51 pm 9.Moonage
said …
As I noted, the entire assumption the author makes is horribly flawed. He doesn’t even get the social/fiscal connection. My thread was on the “fusion” ( read evangelical ) aspect, if I had addressed the rest of it, it would have exceded the 100 word limit by a long-shot. It’s about as daft as that stupid “Republican” war on science I’ve had to endure while the Democrats are slashing the hell out of NASA. Some people just make up their minds and look for ANYTHING to justify their conclusion.
on 18 Jun 2007 at 9:15 pm 10.JOSEPH CAPRIO said …
UNLESS SOME UNFORESEEN EVENT OCCURS IT LOOKS LIKE THE FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK AND HILLARY WILL BE LEFT STANDING WHEN THE DUST CLEARS. RELIGION IS FINE BUT DO YOU THINK TRUMAN WAS THINKING OF RELIGION WHEN HE DROPED THOSE BOMBS ON JAPAN AND JOHNSON IN VIETNAM OR NIXON AND WATERGATE. RELIGION IS NOT THE REASON TO VOTE FOR CANDIDATES. ITS LEADERSHIP .
on 18 Jun 2007 at 9:35 pm 11.Moonage
said …
That’s exactly my point. People look for leadership, the media has allowed other issues to cloud their opinions and reporting. I really don’t think they have the capacity to break it down to something as uncomplicated as leadership. Secondly, media by nature is very liberal. Being very liberal usually means being very individual. Being very individual generally precludes respecting leadership. So, I don’t think the media could be honest even if they tried.
on 24 Jun 2007 at 9:01 pm 12.mw
said …
Yup, Storm. I figure for about every three swings of the hammer I get two nail heads and one thumb. I’m good with that. I was a bit slow in getting back to this comment thread as I was busy on blog testifying about my “born-again” conversion to Republicanism. Since I am now in the Republcan I’ll pigeonhole myself and take my seat in back of the bus with the other poorly treated “libertarian” Republicans.
Moon and AP,
No you did not hit the nail on the head with that “Libertarian” definition. Not even close, and you also fail to make the small “l” cap “L” distinction. I was a bit disappointed, as I thought Ken had given you a pretty good education over at CE. I guess it did not stick. Here is a refresher, including the distinction between Libertarians and anarchists.
It is not clear that you understands that I am only using the terms “evangelicals” and libertarians” to identify the key constituencies of Republican electoral success because those were terms that Sager use in his book. If you prefer “fiscal and social conservative”, fine. The name is not important. The point is that the Republicans cannot win when these groups are not on the same page with a candidate.
Also, Sager’s book is only commenting on the state of the Republican fusionist alliance, he did not invent the meme. It has been pretty much dogma among Republican strategists for years, of which karl Rove is the most recent proponent. Frank Meyer is usually credited with formulating and rationalizing the strategy:
Finally, I said I thought you guys were good proxies for these Republican elements, I didn’t say they represented your exclusive views or mean you were defined/labeled by those terms in any way. I’ll stand by that statement. Two of the three of you are opposed to Giulliani. Prediction: Not only can Rudy not get elected, he cannot get the nomination. Too bad, he is my fourth favorite Republican candidate.
on 24 Jun 2007 at 10:28 pm 13.Moonage
said …
You really need to check more closely to the definition of “proxy” before using it so Liberally.
– the agency, function, or power of a person authorized to act as the deputy or substitute for another.
I do not feel any of us are a substitute for what you were presenting. Regardless of who invented the fusion theory, I think it’s inaccurate and the basis for most of the misperceptions that has dogged media for the last decade particularly. And, for some strange reason, this week’s polls have Giuliani seven points ahead of the “fusion” candidate even though the “fusion” candidate hasn’t taken the opportunity to expose himself to the glaring heat of speaking to an audience. I truly feel that if the “fusion” candidate does announce, he’ll soon trip all over himself as every candidate does. So, even though none of us in this discussion are supporting Giuliani, and two are very openly opposed for different reasons, he still seems to have a very broad base of support.
Why is that? You haven’t answered that question and it flies 100% in the face of the “fusion” theory. There’s got to be some reason.
on 24 Jun 2007 at 10:43 pm 14.Moonage
said …
And to further elaborate on the state of the polls for the primaries, although the national polls say it’s close, so far it’s Rudy 105 to Romney’s 33, including Thompson. If it were a national election tomorrow, Hillary would be leading Giuliani by 3 to 7 points, Thompson, the “fusion” candidate that brings all the Republican stereotypes together in one neat package, losing 10 to 15.
Something just ain’t adding up here.
on 25 Jun 2007 at 1:18 pm 15.mw
said …
As you have stated before, the national polls are not very meaningful this early. In the states where people are actually paying attention and deciding how to vote (NH and IA), the polls tell different story:
It is not clear to me that you have correctly identified the best/most likely fusion candidate. Romney (only Republican candidate with one wife), and talking a good game on vetos/cutting spending is looking like he may fit the bill.
He is my third favorite Republican hopeful. I am impressed with his Clinton-esque ability to change conviction as needed and willingness to be influenced by the polls. I feel very confident that I can ignore anything he is saying now to get the nomination, and trust as President he will get us out of Iraq since 65 -70% of the electorate will be polling that way.
How about a proxy test? AP,SW, Moon? Mitt work for you?
on 25 Jun 2007 at 2:28 pm 16.Moonage
said …
I posted the link to RCP for a reason. Romney’s ahead in two states with insignificant numbers. Giuliani’s ahead by a lot in states with large numbers, California, Florida, and New Jersey. That’s why I said that although the national polls show it’s close, Giuliani is strongest in states that will determine the race. In New Jersey and Florida particularly, it’s not even close.
Sure, I’m game for a proxy test. Take these parameters and proxy me to one of the three categories listed:
1. Pro abortion on demand.
2. Pro strong military.
3. Although I don’t agree with the pro-religious incentives, I don’t think they should be excluded as they were in the past based on the church-state separation of powers.
4. More stem cell research money, but think embryonic stem cell research is not necessary and would fall at the bottom of my funding, if it got any at all.
5. pro-nuclear power.
6. think the ten commandments should be allowed to be displayed. However, if the demand is there, so should excerpts from the Koran or any other religious document since this is a melting pot of societies.
7. Believe in military interventions if the need arise.
8. Don’t believe in nation building. ( In simpler terms, we should have taken Hussein out and left then. )
9. Strongly anti-UN as a military option.
10. Think we should negotiate with whoever is willing to sit at the the table so long as they play by our rules alone.
11. Believe in lower taxes and less social services. A lot less.
12. Believe conservatives make better judge, liberals make better lawyers.
13. Believe conservative and liberal should be spelled with small letters because there is no conservative or liberal party. They are adjectives to describe a person.
14. Believe Libertarians think they are closer to Republican ideology only because both core party values are based in smaller government. That’s it. If the Republicans were staying truer to their core values, the Libertarians would be described as they were 80 years ago as anarchists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Party_of_Canada
15. Think the Republican party would be much better served getting religion out of their political agenda because it cuts too many ways that have nothing to do with government.
16. Think the Democrats would be much better served adopting some religious core values as they are now perceived as being too anti-religion due to being hijacked by a small core group.
OK, still think I’m Loyal Bushie?
( Gotta wonder why in the previous comment or so you would quote a fusion person as your evidence that fusion is a party-wide issue? You did exactly what I am criticizing the media of doing. Quote someone in Nebraska that isn’t employed by media and I would think more about it before discarding it. )
on 18 Jul 2007 at 2:11 am 17.mw
said …
I thought I had left a thread hanging around here somewhere. First, to be clear:
I was using the definition 3B highlighted above. I was only asking if the 3 of you supported Mitt Romney - you being a proxies (in that sense of the word) for the various factions of the Republican Party to determine whether he has a chance. We already determined that Rudy had no chance, as you are the only one of the three that supports him. But I see you are not having as much fun with this game as I am, so I’ll drop it.
One other clarification. “Loyal Bushies” is not my term. It is a term used by Republicans within this administration to describe Republicans they trusted. Specifically:
Since you took the time to outline your views on a variety of issues (even thought it has nothing whatsoever to do my use of the word proxy or what I was asking in my comment), I feel I should return the favor and throw my own views against the Moonage filter:
1. Pro abortion on demand.[MW - Agree, but I recognize the arbitrariness of the moment of birth as the moment for granting a baby full legal status as a human being]
2. Pro strong military. [MW - Agree]
3. Although I don’t agree with the pro-religious incentives, I don’t think they should be excluded as they were in the past based on the church-state separation of powers.[MW - not sure what this refers to, but if it is the Faith Based Initiatves, we have learned that it was used to a large degree as a political slush fund by Karl Rove to try buy favor among relgious organzations in districts and states where Bush needed support. A lesson in corroption and cynicism]
4. More stem cell research money, but think embryonic stem cell research is not necessary and would fall at the bottom of my funding, if it got any at all.[MW - If this line of research is as promising as it is promoted, I'd think it could be adequately funded in the private sector. However, if you are going to fund it from the government, I would completely leave it to the scientists to decided the best way to spend it. If they think embryonic research should be the top priority, it should.]
5. pro-nuclear power.[MW - Agree]
6. think the ten commandments should be allowed to be displayed. However, if the demand is there, so should excerpts from the Koran or any other religious document since this is a melting pot of societies.[MW - I don't really care. But being a Kama Sutro devotee, I'd have to insiste of having some of favorite positions displayed next to ten commandments]
7. Believe in military interventions if the need arise.[MW - "need" being the very tgricky word here - I'd Agree]
8. Don’t believe in nation building. ( In simpler terms, we should have taken Hussein out and left then.)[MW - Agree, but I am going to question your sincerity on this one, unless it is a recent conversion. If you really agreed with this, you would have supported Kerry in 2004 as I did]
9. Strongly anti-UN as a military option.[MW - Disagree. They are mostly useless, but sometimes needed to to impart global credibility and sanction to an action. As the most powerful nation on Earth, we should be cognizant of how we are percieved and humble in how we use that power.]
10. Think we should negotiate with whoever is willing to sit at the the table so long as they play by our rules alone.[MW - I think you are confused. That is not negotiation, that is dicatation]
11. Believe in lower taxes and less social services. A lot less.[MW - Generally agree, but if you are going to support massive increases in discretionary spending and entitlement spending as this administration did, or call on the country to fight a wildly expensive war, as this administration did, then the fiscally responsible path is to raise the revenues to pay for it, and not pass that cost to our children in deficits and inflation.]
12. Believe conservatives make better judge, liberals make better lawyers.[MW - no opinion - but I'd like to see a rough parity in the judiciary]
13. Believe conservative and liberal should be spelled with small letters because there is no conservative or liberal party. They are adjectives to describe a person.[MW- fine]
14. Believe Libertarians think they are closer to Republican ideology only because both core party values are based in smaller government. That’s it. If the Republicans were staying truer to their core values, the Libertarians would be described as they were 80 years ago as anarchists. [MW- You are still very confused about libertarians. For someone who gets bent out of shape about categorizing Republicans, you sure are adamant about pounding every libertarion square peg into the same round hole]
15. Think the Republican party would be much better served getting religion out of their political agenda because it cuts too many ways that have nothing to do with government.[MW - Maybe true, but they can't get elected that way. They need the fusionist alliance to win national elections. Full stop,]
16. Think the Democrats would be much better served adopting some religious core values as they are now perceived as being too anti-religion due to being hijacked by a small core group.[MW - Probably true, but it still comes across just as phoney and false to me as when see Repulbicans do it.]
OK, still think I’m Loyal Bushie? [MW - Given that only criteria for being a "loyal bushie" is to support the President, nothing on the rest of your list is even relevant. But since you don't like Republican Kyle Sampsons terminology, I won't use it anymore.]
( Gotta wonder why in the previous comment or so you would quote a fusion person as your evidence that fusion is a party-wide issue? You did exactly what I am criticizing the media of doing. Quote someone in Nebraska that isn’t employed by media and I would think more about it before discarding it.)[MW - I was just providing you some historical background to the fusionist history in the Republican party, showing this is not something new, but the fiscal/social evangelical/libertarion fusionist alliance goes back to Meyers work in 1962. It was just the firs citation that came up in google. I don't understand what you are objecting to]
on 18 Jul 2007 at 7:37 am 18.Moonage
said …
Sounds like you’re as much of a “loyal Bushie” as I am. So, if this game is to continue, you can be the proxy for the “loyal Bushies”. I’m not remotely conservative enough to get’r done. Game?
As far as the fusion stuff goes, I never said it was last year, I just said I don’t agree with the application of the term that it is as over-whelming a factor as you give it credit. If it were, Rudy would be a complete non-factor in this race. He is the farthest thing from the “fusion” candidate running. Romney would be way out ahead. As it is, things are not playing out at all for the “fusion” candidate. Therefore, I think the fusion concept is flawed somehow. That somehow is the media believes it to be true, therefore talks about it all the time, but the average Republican voter doesn’t.
We’ll see how it pans out. My guess is the average Republican voter has seen the “fusion” element go too far and will swing back a little more to the middle. If it doesn’t, then it’s the Dems for the taking.
on 01 Feb 2008 at 11:52 am 19.Moonage Political Webdream » Blog Archive » The Not Enough election said …
[...] And, the bigger point, I don’t want him to be. The media, in my opinion, have the entire political arena of the United States so screwed up it will…. [...]