Informed Speculation

The CPAC folks aren’t big fans of Rudy G.:

Rudy Giuliani isn’t speaking this week at CPAC — the Conservative Political Action Conference, which draws thousands of conservative activists every year from around the country. But it’s not for lack of an invitation.

If CPAC is the conservative movement’s family reunion, last year Rudy was the black sheep: He asked to speak — even offered to waive his speaking fee — but got rebuffed.

“I would assume he wanted to come here to boost his conservative credentials, but we didn’t think that would be useful,” David Keene, the head of the American Conservative Union (which runs CPAC), said at the time.

But this year Keene softened his stance — slightly. “A lot of people wanted to hear him on the terror question, so we invited him,” Keene tells me — but taking care to add, “If you ask me if he’s a viable candidate for anything: no.”

But they didn’t make the invitation until just a little over two weeks ago. “Rudy was very flattered to be invited,” says his spokeswoman, Sunny Mindel, but had a prior commitment. Keene says Giuliani has a standing invitation for 2007.

Is this the start of a thaw in relations between Rudy and the Republican Party’s far right?

In the standard analysis, the right sees Giuliani’s appeal when it comes to the War on Terror, but finds him utterly unacceptable on social issues (abortion, gay rights, etc.). And Paul Weyrich, head of the Free Congress Foundation, one of the top social conservative groups in Washington, tells me, “I don’t see any indication of a second hearing.”

“Everybody acknowledges the great job he did at the time of 9/11,” Weyrich says. But, “There is no chance that he would be viable among the people that I associate with. . . . He has chosen to associate himself with these issues, and they are absolutely non-starters.”

Someone needs to tell Weyrich and Keene that they won’t be the ones deciding…wait, someone just did:

Well, Weyrich and other D.C. bigwigs can risk carpal tunnel syndrome as they strain to write off Rudy’s chances for the nomination — but the rank-and-file don’t seem to be on the same page.

Rudy consistently comes out on top in open-ended surveys asking Republicans who should be their next presidential nominee — and his performance seems to be quite strong with social conservatives.

Last May, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released what it calls a “political typology” survey, breaking down American voters into nine categories. The GOP groups included “Enterprisers” (free-market types), “Social Conservatives” (Bible Belt types) and “Pro-Government Conservatives” (poorer conservatives). Enterprisers gave Rudy a 91 percent favorable rating, and his support only fell to 75 percent among Social Conservatives. And pro-Rudy Social Conservatives were the most intense in their support for him, with 38 percent rating him very favorably.

Gallup polls have shown similar results, with Giuliani’s support fairly even among liberal-to-moderate Republicans and conservative Republicans.

I don’t know if Rudy is going to be the Republican nominee in 2008; I don’t even know if he’s the candidate I will support (though he’s definitely under heavy consideration). I do know this: I don’t like conservative big dogs presuming to tell me who is or isn’t a viable candidate. If I were a Democrat, I wouldn’t let the activist base persuade me, and I see no need to let that happen as a Republican, either.

For one thing, the base – on both sides – often doesn’t have a clue as to what issues Americans REALLY care about. If Rudy, or McCain, or some other presumed moderate takes the nomination, what are the Keenes and Weydrichs going to do – vote for the Democratic candidate? I don’t think so…