Blogger and web guru Patrick Ruffini, who has run the internet operations for the RNC and Bush 2004 campaigns in the past, was a great addition to the Giuliani campaign as it got off the ground earlier this year, but he is now moving on to other things:
In an e-mail, Ruffini said the decision to cut ties with the former mayor was his own and “was done amicably.”
“I’ll be starting up a consulting firm in the next few weeks, and thought the focus should be there.”
While he is still supporting Giuliani, I’d agree with Jonathan Martin’s assessment that “the widely-respected Ruffini’s departure is a loss for Giuliani . . . he had (and has) considerable street cred with the conservative blog set”.
This decision does have a sinking ship feel to it. People don’t normally bail on campaigns they expect will be successful.
Rudy’s dead.
No one who endiorses taxpayer funding for abortion can win the Republican nomination.
Long term, I think this litmus test over abortion will be the end of the Republican Party as we know it. It’s a dead end issue. Like being pro abortion rights, there are simply more issues at stake in this country that don’t touch it, and we have to deal with them. The Democrats are beginning to realize that and won’t put to the third rail those who disagree.
If you are unyielding on any one issue, then you build a genetically monolithic bloc, and you have all the issues that go with inbreeding. Now gay rights is coming to that. When you have a movement that pickets funerals of soldiers who have died for us, then you realize this ultra move to the right is a dead end.
The bigger disaster would be for people to be elected by plurality instead of majority. I think the Dems are now cycling toward a more inclusive front. People like Schumer have finally realized that you can’t govern if you can’t win. The Republicans knew that, but are forgetting it. Not a shock. Power politics is always like a sine curve anyway.
Daryl I know where you are coming from on this, but you can’t seriously believe a pro-lifer would ever, ever get the Democratic nomination. The Dems have started to relax the orthodoxy to get back to where they were in the 70s and 80s on the issue, but they are still more monolithic on abortion than the GOP at, say, the Senate level.
You can’t be pro-life and consider the issue unimportant.
The Democrats are about the same as the Republicans at the Senate level. And really, neither party will nominate someone who deviates from the party line on abortion for President.
Maybe I should have written it better. My point I guess is that the Democratic party line has a bit more wiggle room now than it did even five years ago. The Republican party has more of an issue with anyone even wiggling their toes on it. But no, a complete pro-Lifer will not get the nomination.
Remember years ago? It was a states rights issue then which I really think it is). The right wing has moved from that to the total ban party. I think it’s dead end politics. Extremism usually is. But I think the Republicans have allowed the issue to be carried by their big money raising and voting group, the religous right. And if there are two things politicians are interested in, principles get outvoted by money and votes every single time.
Maybe I should have written it better. My point I guess is that the Democratic party line has a bit more wiggle room now than it did even five years ago. The Republican party has more of an issue with anyone even wiggling their toes on it. But no, a complete pro-Lifer will not get the nomination.
Remember years ago? It was a states rights issue then which I really think it is). The right wing has moved from that to the total ban party. I think it’s dead end politics. Extremism usually is. But I think the Republicans have allowed the issue to be carried by their big money raising and voting group, the religous right. And if there are two things politicians are interested in, principles get outvoted by money and votes every single time.
Allowing abortion at any time, for any reason, is the real extremism. That’s the Dems’ position, at least on the national level.
John nailed the issue on what constitutes extremism. Killing a little kid is extreme. Being against it should be the default position for sane, decent people.
This issue is today’s equivalent to the 1800’s argument over slavery. Many considered the moral argument over ending slavery a dead end position. Today we look back amazed that anyone could fail to see that owning another person as property is abhorant.
Ethical people will have some issues that don’t have “wiggle room.” I can listen to both sides on the designated hitter rule and acknowledge they both have valid points to make. I can say with some pride that there are some issues where I can’t find valid points from the other side. Abortion, wife beating, slavery, sexually abusing a child, and several other actions are indefensible and I wonder about folks who do.