Tuesday, December 18, 2007
A Reader for Rudy Criticizes the Rudy Campaign
NOTE: This email was previously posted in the comments section at Patrick Ruffini's blog.
I want someone to finally pass social security reform, to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, to legalize drilling in ANWR, to finally pass tort reform, to reform the tax code, to scare the Iranians, and to keep us safe, even if it involves a dab of waterboarding.
Rudy is: Bush + fiscal conservatism + more brains + better communications skills + more experience + an ability to bang heads as necessary. I think Amerians would vote for that in large numbers.
My take on what Rudy has done wrong:
* He has been running a 50 state campaign, but not a national campaign. I doubt he’s courted National Review, the Weekly Standard, Instapundit.com, Rush Limbaugh, or been on The View (like Ron Paul!) Instead of meeting 50 people at a diner, he could go to a lowly website like polipundit.com and get 1,000 to 10,000 to read an interview.
* He hasn’t been taking advantage of the Internet. Fred Thompson’s best day in the whole campaign was his retort to Michael Moore. Rudy hasn’t done anything like that.
* He hasn’t really courted the conservatives. He’s didn’t explain his lawsuit against gun manufacturers when we went to the NRA, and took a long time to say that he supported the Hyde amendment wrt abortion. He would say as little as possible about the things people find troubling, instead of getting it out in the open. He’s really done very little to explain his troubling positions to conservatives. After all this campaigning, many still think he is pro-abortion and anti-gun. Those characterizations are so simple as to be false, but he’s not done a good job clarifying!
* He gets lost in the debates. He is smart and wonkish as h*ll, but that gets lost in the 60 seconds. (For an example of his wonkishness you can find all over youtube, check this video out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe1AkJFe4D0) National Review has criticized Mitt many times for being superficial, like this from Rich Lowry, criticizing a 50 minute address by Mitt: “The rest of his foreign policy stuff—when he talked about Iran and the broader war—felt very shaky and about an inch deep. His account of how he came to change his view on abortion—through the issue of stem-cell research—isn’t very compelling and he would probably be better off not talking about it at all. Fairly or not, people aren’t going to believe it.”
I have read a bunch of quotes like this!! Rudy is much more substantive than Mitt and Huck, but the debates don’t allow him to demonstrate that. He should have been pushing harder for more substantive debates, earlier.
* Rudy spent too much time talking about 9/11 and New York. He has fixed this, but he has a tricky situation: he needs to talk about how he, not Huck or Mitt, is the one who cut taxes, but do this without invoking NY. By talking about NY so much at the beginning, he’s painted himself in a corner here.
* He didn’t contrast himself with the candidates enough. I think his wonkishness, that he’s built out a full campaign staff and he’s ready to talk about so many more issues that his top competitors doesn’t show. I think in one paragraph, he could put together a short and complete take down of Mitt, but he’s never done that. He’s nipped at him for taxes one debate, for immigration the next.
* Many people think that Mitt, for example, could win the general election in 2008. He hasn’t emphasized that he is by far a better candidate for moderates.
* I’m sure others come to mind, but I’ll stop for now.
12/18 12:04 PM