The New York Post reports that former Mayor of New York City and presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani “is eyeing a run for governor in a special election this fall should Gov. Paterson be forced to resign.” Paterson became Governor of New York after Gov. Eliot Spitzer was forced to resign because he tended to interact with prostitutes. Gov. Paterson, however, doesn’t have a clean record himself: he admitted recently that he has used drugs and that both he and his wife had extramarital affairs several years ago. (more…)

Ramesh Ponnuru is right:

It has seemed a bit like the 1996 race. McCain is Dole: the old war hero who has run before, who does not enthuse either economic or social conservatives but has a pretty conservative record. Giuliani is Forbes: the socially liberal, economically conservative New York candidate. (more…)

Via Memeorandum comes the news that Rudy Giuliani has lost his lead in New York. As could be expected* once John McCain had the momentum going (since they’re fighting over the same kind of voters), the moderate Republican Senator for Arizona has now overtaken the moderate former Mayor of New York. What’s more surprising, however, is the gap between the two: Giuliani is trailing McCain by 12 points. (more…)

Steven M. Warshawsky explains at the American Thinker why he believes that Rudy Giuliani is the Republican candidate in the race. Read it in its entirety, conclusion:

My final scorecard on these five issues is as follows:

On the war on terror, Giuliani is the best candidate; McCain is a distant second. (more…)

Pajamas Media’s - whose network we joined recently - Roger L. Simon and Claudia Rosett had the opportunity to talk to Rudy Giuliani about the war on terrorism. The conversation is party of PJM’s “War on Terror Conversations” series for which PJM will talk with, I think, all of the Republican candidates. You can watch the conversation (or read the transcript) with Giuliani by clicking here. (more…)

Kevin Sullivan writes at his new blog (sub-blog of PoliGazette called “Independent Liberal“) in a post called “Dewey’s Heir” that there seems to be “a quiet revolution taking place within the Republican Party.” Unlike what some of you may think, he’s not referring to Mike Huckabee’s surge in the polls, nor to Congressman Ron Paul’s campaign (and fundraising success). No, Kevin’s talking about Rudy Giuliani’s campaign.

A Giuliani-revolution? (more…)

Rudy Giuliani’s campaign has released a statement from one of the mayor’s doctors saying that Giuliani is “in very good health.” The statement comes a week or so after Giuliani was hospitalized with a severe headache and “flu-like symptoms.”

Doctors did a couple of tests on Giuliani: they “wanted to rule out the possibility of stroke, heart trouble or infections like meningitis.”

Dr. Valentin Fuster said: “Because of the significant headache, it was important to have as much information as possible and err on the side of caution.” (more…)

The latest Rasmussen Reports poll shows that Governor Mike Huckabee is now the most popular Republican candidate (among likely Republican Primary voters) nationally, while Senator Hillary Clinton continues to lead among Democrats… by far.

20% of Republican primary voters say they support Huckabee, against 18% who say Rudy Giuliani and 14% who say John McCain. Mitt Romney is in fourth place nationally with 13%. Fred Thompson completes the top five with 11%. Ron Paul is the only other Republican candidate with a reasonably significant amount of support nationally with 5%. (more…)

The latest polls show that former Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani has lost the lead in Florida and that he is trailing in virtually every other state where Republican voters have to cast their votes soon. What’s more, increasingly more negative reports (for him) come out with regards to his stances, his policies but especially his personal life. Or, perhaps better said, how he mixed his personal life with his professional life (as in the case of Judith Nathan). O, and aside from that he’s also increasingly criticized by opponents and / or people who know what they’re talking about.

O, and if all the above isn’t enough, he’s now also trailing Governor Mike Huckabee in the national polls, while Governor Mitt Romney is rapidly closing the gap with Giuliani as well. (more…)

If you take a look at the right sidebar, you see a feature of MSNBC with videos. Click on the video of MSNBC’s Hardball (about Giuliani). What’s-his-name found it, seemingly, funny to see that Giuliani laughed off most of Russert’s difficult, hard-hitting, questions.

That’s great.

Personally, I didn’t find it funny at all and I got the impression that Giuliani himself wasn’t having such a good time either. Russert asked the difficult questions which need to be answered. Giuliani’s reactions proved to me that he can’t answer some questions (in a satisfying manner). That’s not hilarious. That’s a major problem for the mayor.

Two links:

- MSNBC First Read: “Rudy’s Grilling.”

- The New York Post: “Rudy Hard-Pressed to Defend Gal Pal’s Security.”

Both articles are, obviously, bad for Giuliani.

As I wrote in my lengthy post on Giuliani’s performance: he handled it well considering the questions and circumstances. Quite frankly, he sometimes simply had and has no defense. Some issues, like the security of Judith Nathan and the Bernard Kerik issue will not go away and do considerable damage.

Skeletons, skeletons…

Skeletons.

Governor Mike Huckabee isn’t just surging in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida, he’s also surging nationally. The latest Rasmussen poll puts him within striking distance of Rudy Giuliani: 22% vs 17%. Senators John McCain and Fred Thompson follow with 14%. Mitt Romney completes the top five with 11%. (more…)

Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg has left the Republican Party to register as an Independent (or rather as unaffiliated). Chris Cillizza explains:

This decision operates on several political levels.

On its face, it makes perfect sense. Bloomberg was never a Republican in any true sense of the word. When he first ran for office in 2001, he decided to do so as a Republican because the Democratic primary was already crowded with well-known candidates. The Republican nomination was his for the taking, and he took it. Then, in the general election he used his vast personal wealth and his pitch to bring a businessman’s sensibility to the job to overcome the city’s strong Democratic leanings. Now that he has been elected to two terms, Bloomberg has no need to remain in a party that he disagrees with on any number of issues.

Below the surface, however, it’s hard to see Bloomberg’s move as anything other than a gambit aimed at 2008. Read in that context, Bloomberg’s statement explaining his decision to leave the Republican Party could well double as the announcement of an independent presidential bid. Doubt us? How about this line: “As a political independent, I will continue to work with those in all political parties to find common ground, to put partisanship aside to achieve real solutions to the challenges we face.”

And it’s on. There is little doubt in my mind that Bloomberg will take a shot at the presidency. This leads us to several questions:
- Who will a Bloomberg candidacy hurt most? The Republican or the Democratic candidate?
- Who will be Bloomberg’s number 2?
- Does he stand a chance of winning?

Justin Gardner tells his readers to keep an eye on Chuch Hagel: “if Chuck jumps the GOP’s sinking ship, expect that as a pretty clear sign that he and Bloomberg are hatching a plan for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.” Having Hagel as VP would make sense for Bloomberg of course - many American independents speak highly of both. However, there might be an even better option: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

here at the USC conference, there was considerable discussion among press and pundits about the possibility that though foreign born, Schwarzenegger could still be eligible to be a vice presidential candidate – raising the potential for a Bloomberg-Schwarzenegger independent ticket.

The governor broke into a huge grin when we asked him about buzz that would put him in the No. 2 spot.

“I leave it to you to spread the buzz,” he told us, laughing.

If Bloomberg truly enters the race, he will be a force to be reckoned with. He’s got the money, friends, and relationships he needs to have a tremendous impact. Governor Schwarzenegger is one of the most popular Governors of America right now - to have the Governator and Bloomberg on one ticket will be a dream coming true for many American centrists / independents, and for many moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans.

My guess is that Bloomberg would hurt Obama’s chances of winning the national elections (if he wins the Democratic nomination that is of course). The reason: Obama tries to present himself as a uniter, as someone who is above partisan politics; someone who is pragmatic, who cares about solutions not about dogmas. However, that is exactly how Bloomberg will present himself as well (and he has the record to back those claims up). Bloomberg, however, has more experience and more money than Obama.

Meanwhile, I would say, keep an eye on Unity08. Unity08 could help Bloomberg with his campaign and Doug Bailey - its co-founder - has already issued a statement:

The announcement today by Michael Bloomberg reinforces what Unity08 has been saying since our inception, that the current political system is broken and does not address the concerns of the majority of the population. Although we had no prior knowledge of Mayor Bloomberg’s intentions and we have no idea what it may or may not mean to Unity08, it is obvious that he too understands the need for common ground.

If Bloomberg decides to run, he would be wise to join forces with Unity08.

Also of interest: Sam Waterston - who supports Unity08 - has asked Yahoo readers their thoughts on “why have political parties become so polarized that they fail to address the concerns of most Americans?”

Thusfar, more than 7,000 people have responded. SteveK explains:

• Hillary Clinton’s (which ran over the winter) attracted about 38,000 answers during the month that it ran
• Barack Obama’s is now active (for another week) and has produced just over 17,000 responses
• Mitt Romney’s has generated around 12,000 replies since it was posted three weeks ago

Americans have had it with both political parties. All Independents need is a good candidate, one who has the credentials, money and friends necessary to compete. My guess is that Bloomberg is that person. Will he win? The odds are - of course - against him, but even if he loses, he might have a tremendous impact.

Senator (of Massachusetts) John Kerry published a post at The Democratic Daily (where I’m helping out Pamela) about energy. Be sure to read it. I disagree with Senator Kerry on quite some issues, but energy is not one of them.

Excerpt:

It’s amazing to me that some people still refuse to see the gravity of the situation staring us in the face, with the best science telling us we may only have a decade to act before the climate crisis reaches a dangerous tipping point. But there are the same interests throwing up the same roadblocks. Take CAFE standards – I and many others are demanding that the standards be raised to 35 mpg by the end of the next decade, with light trucks and SUVs included in that and other mandatory requirements for medium and heavy trucks. And we want to close the loopholes that allow automakers to miss even those targets. But the Bush Administration has written to Congress that they are opposed to ANY numerical requirement in the statute. Think about that for a moment … they say they want fuel economy to get better, but they don’t want to put any numeric requirements about what that means. And they want medium and heavy trucks exempted from even that!

Another area where I’m pushing is to require that at least 20% of our electricity come from renewable sources by 2020. This has been a part of my energy plan since 2002, and I mentioned this over and over (and over) during the campaign in 2004. There has been significant support for this change now in Congress, but there are still the powerful interests arrayed against it.

Dogmatic refusal to consider new approaches to this crisis can have such enormous consequences, it boggles the mind how people can do it.

It is quite interesting to note that with a different Republican President, Kerry might accomplish quite some of his goals: Rudy Giuliani, for instance, has already said that he wants to do something about global warming (and related problems / issues) and wants to make America energy independent (as have quite some other candidates of course). It seems to me that, over time, the two parties will grow towards each other on this issue (it will be quite problematic if they don’t).

I am wondering what Senator Kerry’s thoughts are about that.

As I said, I agree with Kerry on this issue: it is about time that something is done about it.

UPDATE
Senator Kerry answered my question:

Michael

I welcome all efforts to fight global warming from anyone. My bill is a bipartisan bill (with Olympia Snowe), so I know there are some Republicans who believe in action on this, in fact Newt Gingrich seems to be moving in that direction, but they’re vast outnumbered by the flat-earth caucus on this issue.

Trust me, I’ve debated Jim Inhofe on this – the widespread denial of the science hasn’t abated. I’ll wait to see some action before I comment any further.

Even George Bush has said some things about dealing with global climate change, but then his Administration turns around and promises to veto anything that would move us forward.

A big thank you to the Senator for the (rapid) response. Let me just say: very true, some of them talk the talk every now and then, it’s time for those people to walk the walk as well.

Rudy Giuliani has released the blueprint for his candidacy (h/t Byron York), which he calls his “Twelve Commitments to the American People.”

I will keep America on [the] offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us.
I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.
I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending.
I will cut taxes and reform the tax code.
I will impose accountability on Washington.
I will lead America towards energy independence.
I will give Americans more control over, and access to, healthcare with affordable and portable free-market solutions.
I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.
I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.
I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents.
I will expand America’s involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.

Several points will, obviously, go well with conservatives. School choice and staying on the offensive in the war on terrorism are two of them. Tax cuts, fiscal sanity, constructionist judges, more adoptions less abortions, fighting illegal immigration, health care with free-market solutions are other points conservatives will like.

In short: quite a conservative blueprint for America.

During the debate in New Hampshire Giuliani also said that he believes the US should start a gigantic program to fight global warming and to become energy independent. I am wondering how he plans to do that exactly and what it will cost the American taxpayer (as I am sure are Americans).

The blueprints sounds nice, but Giuliani should explain how he plans on doing what he wants to do. This blueprint will get quite some media attention, but slogans do not make good policies.

James Fallows responds to Rudy Giuliani:

Rudy Giuliani’s answer to the first substantive question of the debate. Knowing everything we know now, good idea or bad idea to have invaded Iraq?

Absolutely the right thing to do. It’s unthinkable that you would leave Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and be able to fight the war on terror. And the problem is that we see Iraq in a vacuum. Iraq should not be seen in a vacuum. Iraq is part of the overall terrorist war against the United States.

What you can’t understand, or at least what I have a hard time with, is why somebody who is not lumbered with responsibility for the Iraq war — didn’t help plan or execute it, didn’t even have to vote for it in Congress — would voluntarily link himself to the war in this way. And without even relying on the most respectable explanation. (”Everyone thought he had weapons of mass destruction. We did, the Brits did, even the French did. And if I’m going to be wrong, I’d rather be wrong on the side of defending America from madmen with bombs!” etc.) It’s not simply that the judgment of the military, intelligence, and academic worlds now stacks up so overwhelmingly against the “fight them there so we don’t fight them here” delusion. The public has turned against it too.

Iraq has become part of the “terrorist war against the United States,” but it was most certainly not a part of this war before the US invaded it. When Saddam Hussein was in power, Iraq was a lot of things, but it was not a safe haven for terrorists.

James, therefore, has a point. Giuliani should have said, “maybe not, but if we look at the situation now, we see that Iraq has become a major part in the war on terror and whether we should have gone to war in the first place or not, is, from a policy perspective, irrelevant right now. It’s about dealing with this mess.”

A fascinating article and video at the New York Times about Rudy Giuliani’s temperament.

The dyspeptic, “not afraid to suggest his opponents have really deep-seated psychological problems” Republican mayor of fact and legend has taken a holiday. What’s left on the presidential campaign trail is a commanding daddy of a candidate, a disciplined fellow who talks about terrorism and fiscal order and about terrorism some more.

Mr. Giuliani laughs, he gestures expansively, he even pokes fun at his tendency to wax a wee bit authoritarian. (He suggests a touch of the cane was necessary to impose discipline on that liberal asylum known as New York.) He shakes hands with reporters he once viewed as “jerky” and assures them he is fine with tough questions about abortion, where he has settled on a position supporting a woman’s right to choose, and about gun control, where is he at least halfway into a policy back-flip…

If Hillary Rodham Clinton is the nurturer warrior and Barack Obama the college idealist and John McCain the tough but irreverent flyboy, then Mr. Giuliani is the father, the talk-tough-on-terror, I’m-comfortable-wielding-authority guy…

He has honed his speaking style. His mayoral excursions tripped merrily through the land of ego and id, with all manner of growls. Challenge him, as one unfortunate did on the mayor’s weekly radio show in 1999, urging him to legalize ferrets as pets, and the best advice was to duck.

“The excessive concern that you have with ferrets is something you should examine with a therapist, not with me,” the mayor advised. “You are devoting your life to weasels.” “There is something really, really very sad about you,” he added.

Now his sentences are taut three-step progressions that end with a pleasing verbal whap! So he disposes of the Democrats’ insistence — since rescinded — on setting a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq. “Has any army,” he says, then pauses, “ever been required,” then another pause, “to give a printed schedule of its retreat?”

In the video, Michael Powell, explain a little bit more how Giuliani changed since, say, 1999. He found it interesting to look at Giuliani and ask: in how far did Giuliani change?

Giuliani was an aggressive mayor of New York. He “blasted away rhetorically,” as Powell puts it. Now, Giuliani presents himself as a very reasonable candidate, no anger problem here…

As Powell puts it, one gets the impression that Giuliani can switch his temper off if he so wishes. In other words: he is able to control his temper.

Will Giuliani explode?

I doubt it: as Powell explains, Democrats thought in 1993 that they could make Giuliani “snap.” Sadly for them, Giuliani “didn’t curl a lip:” he stayed calm, no matter what the Democrats did.

Giuliani: the man with a controlable temper?

Go to Central Sanity to watch an interesting video of Ron Paul going after Rudy Giuliani (and the response of Giuliani’s campaign). I left the following comment:
What I find amazing is that journalists repeat the talking point that Paul said that the US invited the attack. He didn’t say that, that’s how Giuliani interpreted Paul’s words. Then Paul explained himself again and clearly explained that the US is not to blame for 9/11, but that certain policies do create hostility and that one has to understand that when talking about foreign policy.

I wouldn’t support Paul [were I America], he’s too libertarian (and isolationist) for me, but he does have a good point.

America has ignored the world for several years. “America alone” and all that. What was the result? Right, America was alone and couldn’t do what she wanted to do / believed should be done. America alone is America weakened. That’s the truth.

Even George W. Bush understands that now and has reached out to the international community in the last couple of years.

To have another Bush I in the White House in 08, isn’t something foreigners like me are looking forward to.

Giuliani should moderate his foreign policy tone a bit.

The Washington Times reports that Christian conservative leaders have indicated that, if Fred Thompson decides to run, he can count on their support.

Thompson will be able to appeal to a significant part of the conservative / Republican base, that much is clear. Will it be enough for him? We will see, first he has to announce his candidacy. What is clear beforehand, is that a Thompson run will hurt… Giuliani quite significantly. For now, many Christian conservatives seem to settle for Giuliani: they refuse to vote for Romney because he’s a Mormon, they refuse to vote for McCain because they don’t trust him and because he made a job out of pissing Christian conservatives off back in ‘00.

If Thompson announced that he’ll run, and he will, everything changes.

New Yorkers favor Bloomberg over Giuliani: of those polled, 46% says that they favor Bloomberg, against 29% for Giuliani. To the question, who is / was the better mayor, 56% answered Michael Bloomberg, only 29% (said) Giuliani.

I do hope that Bloomberg will enter the race as an Independent. He has billions: he could finance his campaign all by himself if necessary (which it won’t). Besides that, he will also get the support of quite some other Independents and of a significant amount of Republicans, both voters and politicians. He has made allies all across the US.

Rudy Giuliani has decided to make his stance regarding abortion crystal clear:

After months of conflicting signals on abortion, Rudolph W. Giuliani is planning to offer a forthright affirmation of his support for abortion rights in public forums, television appearances and interviews in the coming days, despite the potential for bad consequences among some conservative voters already wary of his views, aides said yesterday.

At the same time, Mr. Giuliani’s campaign — seeking to accomplish the unusual task of persuading Republicans to nominate an abortion rights supporter — is eyeing a path to the nomination that would try to de-emphasize the early states in which abortion opponents wield a great deal of influence. Instead they would focus on the so-called mega-primary of Feb. 5, in which voters in states like California, New York and New Jersey are likely to be more receptive to Mr. Giuliani’s social views than voters in Iowa and South Carolina.

The consequences be damned:

Mr. Giuliani hinted at what aides said would be his uncompromising position on abortion rights yesterday in Huntsville, Ala., where he was besieged with questions about abortion and his donations to Planned Parenthood. “Ultimately, there has to be a right to choose,” he said.

Asked if Republicans would accept that, he said, “I guess we are going to find out.”

Mr. Giuliani acknowledged that his stance on abortion alone might disqualify him with some voters, but he said, “I am at peace with that.”

This is a surprising move, at least surprising to me. I did not expect Giuliani to be this honest, this in-your-face about it, mostly because popular belief is that a candidate who is pro-choice can never win the Republican nomination. That being said, or perhaps because of it, kudos to Giuliani: he seems to be one of a few politicians who stays true to his principles, no matter how politically inconvenient doing so might be.

Pete Abel went so far as to endorse Giuliani: I am not American, so I am not endorsing anyone, but I do have some ‘issues’ with Giuliani: on some issues, he is a bit too authoritarian for my taste, mostly. That being said, he is a great candidate: socially liberal, fiscally conservative. He later changed his mind, after thinking a bit more about it (albeit for different reasons).

Classy:

Last weekend Deb and Jerry VonSprecken of Olin received a call from former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s campaign office asking them if they would be interested in holding a campaign rally on May 4, after she had donated to his campaign….[they agreed]…. …. On Tuesday Deb received a call from Giuliani’s Des Monies office and was asked to call New York…..”They wanted to know our assets,” she revealed, and added that she and Jerry have a modest 80 acre farm and raise cattle. ….. Later she received a call from Tony Delgado at the Des Monies location. “Tony said, ‘I’m sorry, you aren’t worth a million dollars and he is campaigning on the Death Tax right now.’ then he said they weren’t going to be able to come,” Deb continued.

H/t to the Hotline On Call for the excerpt: I could not access the original source, it gave an error.

Anyway: bad, bad publicity of course, and quite a stupid thing to do. Either they should have collected the relevant information beforehand or they should, when they found out that the family farm was not the kind of farm they were looking for, have gone ahead with it anyway.

On the other hand, this gives us bloggers something to write (and laugh) about, so thanks for that Rudy!

More at The Horse’s Mouth, Balloon Juice and the Washington Monthly.

This has the potential to hurt Giuliani quite tremendously:

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani in his campaign appearances this year has stated that he personally abhors abortion, even though he supports keeping a legal right to choose. But records show that in the ’90s he contributed money at least six times to Planned Parenthood, one of the country’s leading abortion rights groups and its top provider of abortions.

Federal tax returns made public by the former New York mayor show that he and his then-wife, Donna Hanover, made personal donations to national, state and city chapters of Planned Parenthood totaling $900 in 1993, 1994, 1998 and 1999.

Social conservatives who support Giuliani right now, might reconsider. If this gets more attention, if more social conservatives will find out about this, quite some of them will, I fear for Giuliani, decide that he is definitely not their man, not even as a lesser of several evils.

More:

The returns have been on the public record for years, but the detail about Giuliani’s support for Planned Parenthood — along with e-mailed copies of the returns — was provided to The Politico by aides to a rival campaign, who insisted on not being identified.

Giuliani’s old contributions could echo throughout the 2008 GOP nomination battle, as he seeks to lessen the political impact of his support for abortion rights — an unpopular position among the social conservatives who in recent elections have weighed decisively in the primaries and caucuses. The issue was raised anew at last week’s debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, when Giuliani gave a noncommittal answer to the question of whether it would be a good day for the country if Roe v. Wade were overturned.

“It’d be OK,” Giuliani responded, adding that it would also be all right if the Supreme Court decided the other way.

Giuliani also (repeatedly) stated that he “hates” abortion and that he wished “there never was an abortion,” and that he “would counsel a woman to have an adoption instead of an abortion.”

Talking about bad publicity. He’s not politically dead (yet), but he will have a hard time overcoming this problem. This is one of the major issues for many (social) conservatives. That he is pro-choice might be acceptable to some of them (as long as he would appoint judges like Alito to the Supreme Court), but donating money to Planned Parenthood is a deadly sin to most, if not all social conservatives.

More at News Hounds, Hotline on Call and Red State (title of the post: Rudy’s Done). Red States’ Hunter Baker writes: ‘There’s nothing short of “I was wrong” that will cover this. For conservatives, a donation to Planned Parenthood is just slightly more excusable than a donation to the KKK. There’s a big difference between being ambiguous and giving money to the biggest abortion providers in the nation.’

UPDATED
Again oops?

A fascinating article at the NYT:

As they gather Thursday night at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library for their first debate, the Republican presidential candidates are thrilled at the chance to associate themselves with Reagan. But they may not be able to escape the challenge created for them by the current president.

As much as Iraq or health care or any other issue, the question of how to deal with President Bush is vexing the Republican field. Do they embrace him as a means of appealing to the conservative voters who tend to decide Republican primaries? Or do they break from him in an effort to show that they will lead the nation in a new direction? Do they applaud his policies or question his competence — or both?

Already, the leading candidates are showing clear divisions on that score. In formally announcing his candidacy last week, Senator John McCain of Arizona, without naming Mr. Bush, attacked the performance of the White House at home and abroad. In doing so, he separated himself from his two main rivals, Rudolph W. Giuliani and Mitt Romney, who have chosen to stick close to Mr. Bush, or at least to avoid breaking openly with him.

Aides to the candidates, who spent Wednesday in Southern California preparing for the debate, said they expected Mr. Bush and his record to be present in spirit when they began taking questions. Mr. McCain’s advisers said their candidate, who spent the day at his condominium in Coronado Beach, expected — and welcomed — an opportunity to expand on his differences with the White House.

“It’s always difficult — and we recognize this — to elect someone to a third term from the same party,” said John Weaver, a senior McCain adviser, in a break from debate preparations. “We know that to be the case. John is going to express his views as he see them: in some cases he and the president have shared the same position, but in some cases they don’t.”

Mr. Weaver argued that making a distinction with Mr. Bush was essential for any Republican who wanted to break the historical pattern and keep the White House in the same party for a third term. “Ultimately, if we’re the nominee — knock on wood — there will be a clear choice with Democrats, and I don’t think having a Republican administration will be a hindrance to us winning,” he said.

It is a balancing act, and quite a difficult one (even for such an act): they have to, yes, make clear that they are no Bush (for, another Bush will not be elected by the American people) but they cannot criticize Bush too openly or too directly. Criticize Bush, but do it indirectly. Criticize Bush but do it mildly, with moderation.

Who will be able to do that? Perhaps better said, who will have the courage to do that? One mistake and you’re in big trouble. For now, McCain seems to be the only one courageous enough to criticize Bush. Perhaps that is due to the fact that he is not exactly popular with the conservative base anyway.

I don’t know about you, but I am looking forward to the Republican debates.

“You never agree with any one candidate 100%. I don’t agree with myself 100%.” - Rudy Giuliani.

By Roman Genn, courtesy of Pajamas Media.

An interesting article in the American Prospect about Rudy Giuliani (h/t Andrew Sullivan):

When Giuliani was mayor, did he really believe in abortion rights and gay rights and strict gun-control laws and very liberal immigration policy? “That’s a very, very tough question,” says David Garth, the legendary New York political consultant who handled Giuliani’s 1993 and ‘97 mayoral races. “My feeling was, the positions he took, he felt them. Whether he really felt them, if you know what I mean … I don’t know.”

Mitchell Moss, the New York University professor and longtime municipal politics savant (and occasional adviser to Mayor Mike Bloomberg), paused when I asked him the question and delivered almost the exact same answer: “That’s a very interesting question.” Moss sensed that of the four issues mentioned above, immigration was the one Giuliani believed in more than the others. Indeed, his position was one that many Democrats, let alone Republicans, would have trouble with: He prevented city employees from contacting the federal government when they turned up immigrants with no legal documentation, and he fought for his position in federal court.

That’s two veteran Rudy-watchers, neither of whom can say for sure that he meant it. I’m a third, and I can say it more bluntly: He did what he needed to do to attain and maintain power.

As Andrew notes, this article “might actually endear Giuliani to the base.”