Comments
Hotline reports that a group calling itself the “Conservative Declaration of Independence” announced today that it has collected a list of 100 “Iowa conservative Republicans who vow not to support” Rudy Giuliani if he is the Republican nominee.
The amusing thing is that, given the nature of the Iowa Caucuses, all they have to do is vote for somebody else. A hundred votes will almost surely swing this thing.
Categories
While I can understand someone favoring one candidate over another, what this tells me is that there are 100 “conservative republicans” in Iowa who would rather see Hillary, Obama or Edwards running the White House than Rudy. I would love to hear their reasoning why that is a smart move, especially if it doesn’t involve some variation of making things worse in this world.
That is a catching headline, but I stumbled across this earlier this morning over at Powerline
This afternoon, I interviewed former Iowa Congressman Jim Nussle, who is a senior adviser to the Giuliani campaign. Nussle is one of those people you like almost instantly. He was very generous with his time, and used it to make a strong case on behalf of Giuliani.
I began by asking how Giulani’s campaign looks in Nussle’s home state. The Congressman replied that although Giuliani kicked things off in Iowa three months before George Bush did in the 2000 cycle, he’s late by the standard of this cycle. Although Giuliani will hardly ignore Iowa — he’s due in tomorrow for a rally in Des Moines — Nussle confirmed that the Mayor will not be camping out in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina. He plans instead to run a national campaign. Nussle noted that while long-shot candidates have to focus on the three early states, a truly national candidate must have a national focus. And considering the need to raise money and Giuliani’s late start, it would not make sense to center his campaigning on three states.
After reading the article, I’m not sure Rudy cares one way or another how The Iowa 100 vote. Read the whole thing.
Anderson,
Please articulate, in a way that would be persuasive to a conservative republican, why Rudy is “just that bad” when compared to Hillary, Obama or Edwards. I’ll stipulate for the sake of argument that a conservative republican of good faith could rank him behind McCain and Romney. What I find unpersuasive is that he is worse than what the democrats are likely to put forward.
