‘America’s Mayor’ apparently is going to bypass a run for the NY governorship and turn his sights toward ousting Kirsten Gillibrand (who was appointed to the seat vacated by Hillary Clinton).

Here’s the story from the WaPo:

After months of relative quiet regarding the political future of former mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), the New York newspapers have exploded this afternoon with reports that not only has he decided not to run for governor in 2010 but that he plans to enter the Senate race against Kirsten Gillibrand instead.

Maria Comella, a spokeswoman for Giuliani, released a statement insisting that no decisions — about the Senate or governors races — have been made; “When Mayor Giuliani makes a decision about serving in public office, he will inform New Yorkers on his own,” added Comella.

According to conversations with several Giuliani insiders, the Mayor has not made up his mind yet although a run for either governor or Senate is not likely. Interestingly, a Senate bid appears to be the more likely choice if Giuliani decides to get back into the political game, note the sources.

This is definitely an interesting turn of events. It looked like a Giuliani-Cuomo match-up was developing in New York (notwithstanding Cuomo having to challenge incumbent David Patterson). But from the sound of it, Rudy is opting to go for the presumably easier seat to win.

Honestly, for Republicans this is probably the preferable choice. The Senate seat is needed far more than the governor’s mansion considering what this administration and the Democrats in Congress are trying to foist upon us.

One thing is for certain – a Rudy senate run only makes 2010 that much more interesting.

Cross-posted at CMNJ.

Independents now also have an extremely unfavorable view of this Congress. A Gallup poll shows their approval of the Pelosi-Reid Congress at an abysmal 14%. As I reported last week, only 45% of independents want their representative re-elected. Additionally, according to a CBS poll, Barack Obama’s approval among independents has dropped precipitously since April – from 63% then to 45% now.

All of this obviously bodes quite well for Republicans in 2010.

Here is the story from Politico:

Mounting evidence that independent voters have soured on the Democrats is prompting a debate among party officials about what rhetorical and substantive changes are needed to halt the damage.

 Following serious setbacks with independents in off-year elections earlier this month, White House officials attributed the defeats to local factors and said President Barack Obama sees no need to reposition his own image or the Democratic message. 

Since then, however, a flurry of new polls makes clear that Democrats are facing deeper problems with independents—the swing voters who swung dramatically toward the party in 2006 and 2008 but who now are registering deep unease with the amount of spending and debt called for under Obama’s agenda in an era of one-party rule in Washington. 

A Gallup Poll released last week offered a disturbing glimpse about the state of play: just 14 percent of independents approve of the job Congress is doing, the lowest figure all year. In just the past few days alone, surveys have shown Democratic incumbents trailing Republicans among independent voters by double-digit margins in competitive statewide contests in places as varied as Connecticut, Ohio and Iowa.

Obama’s own popularity among independents has fallen significantly, too. A CBS News poll Tuesday showed the president’s approval rating among unaligned voters falling to 45 percent — down from 63 percent in April.

You can read the rest of the story here.

Also, while I am on the subject of independents, here is an interesting article from Zogby explaining the difference between independents and moderates.

Cross-posted at CMNJ.

But just what are the prospects for a Republican takeover of Congress next year? If the Pew Research findings released yesterday are any barometer, one would have to say pretty good. In fact, the anti-incumbent sentiment uncovered by Pew Research is worse than about any time in their two decades of polling. The current climate is similar to 1994 and 2006, which should give Republicans reason for optimism. According to Pew:

The mood of America is glum. Two-thirds of the public is dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country. Fully nine-in-ten say that national economic conditions are only fair or poor, and nearly two-thirds describe their own finances that way – the most since the summer of 1992. An increasing proportion of Americans say that the war in Afghanistan is not going well, and a plurality continues to oppose the health care reform proposals in Congress.

Despite the public’s grim mood, overall opinion of Barack Obama has not soured – his job approval rating of 51% is largely unchanged since July, although his approval rating on Afghanistan has declined. But opinions about congressional incumbents are another matter.

About half (52%) of registered voters would like to see their own representative re-elected next year, while 34% say that most members of Congress should be re-elected. Both measures are among the most negative in two decades of Pew Research surveys. Other low points were during the 1994 and 2006 election cycles, when the party in power suffered large losses in midterm elections.

Support for congressional incumbents is particularly low among political independents. Only 42% of independent voters want to see their own representative re-elected and just 25% would like to see most members of Congress re-elected. Both measures are near all-time lows in Pew Research surveys.

Here are some key findings from Pew’s polling:

% Who Want To See Their Representative Re-Elected

• 11/94: 58%-Yes vs. 25% No
• 11/06: 55%-Yes vs. 25% No
• 11/09: 52%-Yes vs. 29% No

% Who Want To See Most Representatives Re-Elected

• 11/94: 31%-Yes vs. 51% No
• 11/06: 37%-Yes vs. 46% No
• 11/09: 34%-Yes vs. 53% No

Pew’s research also shows that Republicans are far more enthusiastic about voting next year:

…voters who plan to support Republicans next year are more enthusiastic than those who plan to vote for a Democrat. Fully 58% of those who plan to vote for a Republican next year say they are very enthusiastic about voting, compared with 42% of those who plan to vote for a Democrat. More than half (56%) of independent voters who support a Republican in their district are very enthusiastic about voting; by contrast, just 32% of independents who plan to vote for a Democrat express high levels of enthusiasm.

And the biggest problems for Democrats is how they are bleeding independents (as was the case in last week’s NJ election which saw Christie win this key group 2:1)

Public frustration with Congress may have serious electoral implications for incumbents in the 2010 midterm elections. Only about a third (34%) of registered voters say they think most members of Congress should be re-elected next year, which is on par with ratings during the 1994 and 2006 elections. Meanwhile, just 52% of voters say they want to see their own member re-elected, approaching levels in early October 2006 (50%) and 1994 (49%).

In November 1994, 68% of Democrats and 55% of Republicans favored the re-election of their own member of Congress, which is comparable to the current figures (64% of Democrats, 50% of Republicans). But today, just 42% of independents want to see their own representative re-elected, compared with 52% of independents on the eve of the 1994 midterm elections. 

Partisan feelings about incumbents were the reverse in 2006, when the GOP held majorities in the House and Senate. In November 2006, 69% of Republicans, 52% of Democrats and 45% of independents wanted to see their own member of Congress re-elected.

As with all polls, this is just one snapshot in time. But barring a 180 degree turn by the Democrats in Washington, as well as in the economy, 2010 is shaping up to be a bloodbath for blue nation.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

However, politically the right move for the GOP was to vote AGAINST the amendment. This way pro-life Dems would not want to vote for the larger (and more dangerous) healthcare bill.

But National Right to Life pressured Republicans. They told them that even a ‘present’ vote would be considered a ‘no’ vote, thus affecting their rating from that group. Only one Congressman, Rep. Shadegg had the guts to vote present. The rest of the Republicans went along.

Additionally, earlier today in the debate Rep. Boehner, in a heated exchange with Charlie Rangel, asked for reassurance that the amendment would be in any final bill. No such commitment was given. So, even with the passage of the Stupak Amendment it may well be meaningless.

Now, pro-life Dems will be able to freely vote for the bill. The vote is due fairly soon. And if it passes by a small margin with the support of pro-life Dems it is the Republican’s own fault.

And it’s also the fault of a one-issue, myopic group - National Right to Life.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

In the New Jersey governor’s race, Independent candidate Chris Daggett remains the unknown factor. Some polls have shown Daggett with as much as 15% of the vote. But my intuition tells me Christie’s recent attacks on Daggett have hurt him and with Corzine and Christie within the margin of error, many voters will not waste their vote on him upon entering that voting booth. As such I don’t see Daggett getting more than double digits – and I see long-suffering New Jersey taxpayers breaking toward Christie in what will be a squeaker. Final result: Christie 48%, Corzine 46%, Daggett 6%.

In Virginia, a swing state that turned Obama blue last year, we will witness a 180 degree turn. Republican Bob McDonnell will win in a landslide over Democrat Creigh Deeds. Prediction: McDonnell 56%, Deeds 44% 

Well, in NY-23, Dede Scozzafava was forced out of this race by conservatives who said she was too liberal. Now, she has proven us quite right with her endorsement of the liberal Bill Owens over conservative Doug Hoffman (Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned?). In any case, with Scozzafava remaining on the ballot one would expect her to still receive some votes. So my prediction for this race is for a Hoffman victory, albeit much closer than recent races in this district. Final results: Hoffmann 51%, Owens 45%, Scozzafava 4%.

Great news today for conservatives. Dede Scozzafava is suspending her campaign.

Scozzafava suspends campaign
By Tony Romm – 10/31/09 10:37 AM ET
State Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava (R) announced on Saturday she would suspend her campaign to fill former Rep. John McHugh’s open House seat, citing dismal poll numbers just days before the much-hyped special election.
Her exit from the race offers serious momentum to Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate who has stolen from Scozzafava a slew of important GOP endorsements and donations in recent weeks.

“Today, I again seek to act for the good of our community,” Scozzafava wrote in a letter to supporters, obtained by the Watertown Daily Times. “It is increasingly clear that pressure is mounting on many of my supporters to shift their support. Consequently, I hereby release those individuals who have endorsed and supported my campaign to transfer their support as they see fit to do so.”

“I am and have always been a proud Republican,” Scozzafava added. “It is my hope that with my actions today, my party will emerge stronger and our district and our nation can take an important step towards restoring the enduring strength and economic prosperity that has defined us for generations.”

This is also a victory of the conservative blogosphere which exposed Scozzafava and put the pressure on for her to step aside..

Michael Illions was one of many bloggers today across the right-wing spectrum to call for Dede Scozzafava to withdraw from the NY District 23 House race. The movement to call for Scozzafava’s withdrawal, though, started brewing earlier this week.  Here’s a little background.

Over at NRO, Jim Geraghty did a piece on the NY-23 House race on Monday in the Campaign Spot. In that piece, Geraghty contended that conservatives ought not fault the NRCC and RNC for supporting a Republican chosen by the local party.

This is not a defense of Scozzafava. I’m just saying it’s a contradiction if a conservative denounces the National Republican Senatorial Committee, when it backs Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio and Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey (yeah, that one went well), for not letting Republican grassroots have their say, and then denounces the NRCC and RNC when they try to help Scozzafava win. In this case, the NRCC and RNC are backing the choice of the local party, after the choice has been finalized. It may be a lousy choice, but you rarely if ever see national parties overruling the selection of local parties; once you open that door, you face the question of how often these national committees get to exercise a veto over the local parties’ selection.

Two days later, though, Geraghty changed his tune after Scozzafava had a run-in with Weekly Standard reporter John McCormack. Geraghty explains:

Earlier this week, I was noting that it was unrealistic for conservatives to expect national Republican committees, like the RNC and National Republican Congressional Committee, to do anything but back the Republican in New York’s special congressional election.

But the situation has changed.

It’s not just the inanity of Dede Scozzafava’s campaign calling the cops on a reporter; it’s doubling down and calling McCormack a liar. With audiotape now exposing the Scozzafava campaign as the liar in their account of the candidate’s interaction with John McCormack, it’s a different ballgame. I’m actually finding myself driven to a position beyond the editors.

It’s time for the NRCC and RNC to cut their ties, and more. It’s embarrassing enough when a candidate won’t answer reasonable questions from reasonable press and her campaign attempts to smear them in order to cover up their mess. Forwarding McCormack’s e-mails to Talking Points Memo just shows how upside-down the Scozzafava campaign is.

The time has come for the RNC and NRCC to ask for their money back. This goes well beyond any reasonable difference on policy. There’s room in the party for pro-choice Republicans and pro-gay-marriage Republicans and maybe even the odd pro-card-check Republican. But not this kind of arrogance, this kind of clumsy dishonesty, this kind of reckless hostility to a reporter and a publication that need not be an enemy.

The RNC and NRCC are better than the Scozzafava campaign. It’s time for them to demonstrate that they know how a candidate and her staff are supposed to react when asked a question, and to show that Scozzafava’s team’s behavior is just not acceptable.

Well, this represented the last straw for many in the right-wing blogosphere, prompting several sites this morning, starting with Red County, Red State and the American Spectator (Quinn Hilyer), to call for Scozzafava to withdraw. Red County, in particular, led the way on this starting with a post this morning from Joshua Sharf. A flurry of posts followed on Red County including here, here, here and here.

Red State and the American Spectator were also among the first to call for Scozzafava’s withdrawal. From there, the calls for withdrawal spread quickly. As Michael mentioned, all of the following outlets also joined the bandwagon: RightWingNews.com. Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com. The Washington Examiner. The Washington Times. Michelle Malkin also got on board.

All of this goes to show just how powerful this medium called blogging has become; and how bloggers, when working in concert, can affect change. In the past, a candidate like Scozzafava would have flown well under the radar. Her views not known to the rest of us until well after the horse was out of the barn. Now, we have the power to fight back when our party puts forth wholly unworthy candidates who do not uphold any of the core values the party stands for.

One can only hope that Mrs. Scozzafava now does the right thing and steps aside. In fact, that would be the only way to show any last bit of true allegiance to the party whose banner she now is running under.

Yesterday, the destructive, job-killing Waxman-Markey C(r)ap and Trade bill passed the House. While numerous Democrats broke ranks to oppose this bad legislation, it passed with some Republican support. That support, unfortunately, came from three so-called Republicans right here in New Jersey. Their names? Leonard Lance, Chris Smith and Frank LoBiondo.

Their votes in favor of this bill represent nothing less than a betrayal of Republican principles. Waxman-Markey, as I have pointed out previously, is a repressive tax for Americans. It will impact everything we produce and result in lost jobs and higher energy bills to the tune of up to $3,000 a year for the average family.

Lance, LoBiondo and Smith have now elevated themselves to the same level as Arlen Specter. Their votes are no less a betrayal as Specter’s was for the Porkulous bill.

As such, each of these Congressmen now no longer deserve our support. Each of them needs to be primaried out. Republicans need to send a strong and clear message that on certain issues you must toe the line and breaking ranks will not be tolerated. If you are a constitutent in the districts represented by these Congressmen make no mistake, they have not represented you, let alone this state and our nation. They need to be voted out.

I, for one, will do all I can to see that that is exactly what happens next year.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues, while 39% trust Democrats more.

This is the first time in over two years of polling that the GOP has held the advantage on this issue. The parties were close in May, with the Democrats holding a modest 44% to 43% edge. The latest survey was taken just after General Motors announced it was going into bankruptcy as part of a deal brokered by the Obama administration that gives the government majority ownership of the failing automaker.

Voters not affiliated with either party now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues by a two-to-one margin.

Separate Rasmussen tracking shows that the economy remains the top issue among voters in terms of importance.

Issue	Democrats	Republicans
Health Care	47%	37%
Education	44%	37%
Social Security	43%	37%
Abortion	41%	41%
Economy	39%	45%
Taxes	39%	44%
Iraq	37%	45%
Nat’l Security	36%	51%
Gov’t Ethics	29%	35%
Immigration	29%	43%

This obviously is good news for Republicans as we start thinking ahead to this November, as well as the 2010 off-year elections.

I also find it interesting to see Republicans so far ahead on the issue of immigration considering how it has been used as a wedge in the battle over the ‘Latino vote’ and with McCain losing the Hispanic vote last year by such a wide margin.

While it’s not surprising to see Dems leading on social issues like health care, this is going to be a huge, huge battle in the very near future as Obama & Co. push for socialized medicine. It is a battle Republicans must be prepared to fight with everything they have.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

Mitt Romney’s decision to pick a horse in the New Jersey Republican gubernatorial primary likely accomplishes two things: it boosts former U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie’s standing among conservatives, and it strengthens Romney’s chances of picking up organizational and fundraising support in New Jersey if he seeks the 2012 GOP nomination for President.

I disagree. In fact, I find this to be a calculated gamble by Romney that could easily backfire; a gamble probably not worth taking.

Mayor Lonegan has loyal grassroots support among conservatives in this primary. He is ahead of Christie by a wide margin among conservatives, many of whom are dubious of Christie’s conservative credentials.

In fact, Romney fought hard last year during his presidential bid to convince conservatives that he was one of us. Many conservatives, myself included, voted for him because he was the closest thing we could get to a true conservative last year.

So, for Romney to inject himself into this race and back Christie he is more likely to have turned off conservatives than inspired them to vote for him in the next presidential primary in this state. As a Lonegan supporter I sure as heck won’t forget that Mitt Romney did not back the true conservative in this race. It’s one vote he will lose if he follows through with his endorsement tomorrow.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude! and Red County.