Rudy Giuliani’s AP interview bylined yesterday by Liz Sidoti and Libby Quaid is starting to look like there’ll be a need to “re-explain” his view — dangerous that it is if it stands — that a tax increase might be needed to shore up Social Security.

Here’s the offending article excerpt:

Giuliani “refused to rule out raising taxes to offset a Social Security shortfall. He said he would assemble a bipartisan group to develop ideas for fixing Social Security, perhaps even before his inauguration. “I am opposed to tax increases, but I would look at whatever proposal they came up with and try to figure out how we can come up with a bipartisan way to do it,” Giuliani said, adding that potential solutions must come from both parties. “The reality is, I’m more concerned about Medicare and Medicaid than I am with Social Security, because I’m pretty sure we can solve Social Security.”

There’s enough anecdotal and real evidence in terms of an incremental polling uptick that it’s inevitable the NYT, WP, WSJ or other opinion-leader will write a trend-setting “John McCain’s Back” story very, very soon.

To help this along, the McCain campaign is spinning the John Kerry 2004 Iowa comeback analogy, which is somewhat overstated, but that’s a good enough hook into the inevitable McCain comeback storyline.

The press wants to write it — especially as Thompson, Romney and, now, Giuliani, encounter a few roadbumps. Seems like some of those drifting to Fred when he initially jumped in are moving over, or, back to McCain. As long as Iraq situation continues to “improve”, and immigration and campaign finance reform are out of the news, the “comeback” or perception thereof will be an emerging storyline.

But you make your own luck, and the McCain guys are doing so.

This was one of those seminal days in Washington, where a hard-core political attack by an ideologically-aligned group finally backfires under the weight of time and scrutiny. Washington lives for this.

President Bush, sensing the moment of perfect timing, gleefully and in a clearly pre-scripted manner, hammered MoveOn.org’s ill-considered (after the fact) Petraeus/Betray Us NYT print ad at the same time Senate Dems were forced to vote on a “sense of the senate resolution” condemning MoveOn.org.

The verdict is in: Bush scored a direct hit today and the Senate Dems ran for the tall grass en masse.

Meanwhile, Eli Pariser, finally smoked out and required to go on camera to defend his deteriorating situation, was busy on the cable talk shows this afternoon and this evening slip-sliding through interviews, clearly on the defensive.

Rudy milked this first and set the stage for Bush to pile on — a rare example this year of something going right for us as a Party.

As dysfuntional we as Republicans are at the moment, thank heavens for the incompetence of MoveOn.org, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

As this Rudy-MoveOn.org fracas continues to unfold, this slugfest is becoming a mismatch. Giuliani is milking this to the max in Iowa with paid advertising slamming weak, “anti-war liberals”.

They should bump the radio up to TV.

“But wait” say some observers (all inside the beltway): MoveOn has upped their tv buy slamming Rudy for being AWOL from the Iraq Study Group, and this will severely damage Rudy.

The “Iraq Study Group”?…

That’s reminiscent of Al Gore famously slamming George W. Bush for being against “Norwood-Dingell” during the 2000 debates….

It’s all DC, inside the beltway blather.

So Giuliani was AWOL from the ISG?… and Bush was against “Norwood-Dingell”?…

Alert the media.

This just proves Eli Pariser and his group have a tin ear.

Giuliani has already won this skirmish with a decisive K.O. — everything else is gravy.

With all the brouhaha and negative cable news coverage regarding candidate-in-waiting Fred Thompson’s decision to skip tonight’s Fox News New Hampshire debate in favor of a Jay Leno appearance in Hollywood, and how it’s going to “hurt” him – that’s all a total crock.

In fact, it’s a solid strategic move for several reasons:

First, by going on Leno, he becomes an official candidate strictly on his own terms — and in the safest possible soft ball venue; strategically, why be one of a handful of candidates fighting for coverage when you can have your own separate coverage that is part of a bigger storyline?

Second, the post-debate news coverage — which matters more than the debate itself — will, again, feature Thompson as his own story on Leno (with a nice process angle featuring his online announcement as a bonus) while the other GOP debate combatants will be fighting among themselves for space in print, broadcast and cable stories. And if they attack Thompson at the debate, all the better.

Third, those folks in NH who will be purportedly “offended” by Thompson’s debate no show will be the first ones to glom on to him when he, presumably, earns a poll bounce from the announcement blitz. Much of Thompson’s appeal is a result of dissatisfaction with the GOP field, and he is a relatively empty vessel to which loosely-affiliated GOP partisans (and there are many) can gravitate.

After Leno and the New Hampshire debate, Thompson then shows up in Iowa as the fresh new story and a blank slate upon which to sketch out his nascent message.

This is not to say Fred Thompson has it easy. After plenty of summer bungling and staff turmoil, he finally has some experienced people in place, and it already shows — considering the developing general good vibe around his announcement tour. As for the staff turnover, in particular within the communications apparatus, the recent dismissals of those with no or minimal campaign experience was sorely needed. You know the names. Kudos to new management for dealing with it. No experience in the most unkind, highest skill-level environment? Forget it.

Regardless, Thompson has much to prove, and he must do so quickly. His people know that; his GOP opponents know that (and have definitely laid some land mines out there for Thompson to step on); the press knows that; everyone knows that. It’s time to deliver the goods.

The bottom line, though, is that Fred Thompson’s campaign was being laughed at two weeks ago. The laughing, however, has changed to mere snickering as the collective powers that be await to see if the candidate and the campaign can outline a clear rationale for his candidacy, whether there is a plausible conservative message, the extent to which he can credibly embrace “change” in Washington as a former DC lobbyist and U.S. Senator, and, finally, whether the landmines can be side-stepped and mistakes avoided.

Let the fun begin.

Gordon Hensley — September 5, 2007; 1806 EDT