Not having a background in electoral politics, I look to experts to fill me in. One who seems almost universally respected and looked to is Larry Sabato, who runs the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. In his latest assessment of the Republican field, Sabato said this (among other things) about each of the top candidates:

Only a year or so ago in front-page banner headlines, Senator John McCain was touted as the likely frontrunner, partly because he had corralled many of George W. Bush's 2000 fund-raising "Pioneers." This extraordinarily superficial analysis ignored the GOP base's rather intense dislike of McCain--a mistrust that had been built by the press' closeness to him in 2000 as well as his positions on campaign finance, immigration, and other topics. McCain's support in money and many polls is now so weak--single digits in Iowa and some other places--that his nomination would rank as one of the biggest upsets in modern American political history.

As of his entry into the GOP field in February 2007, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani became co-frontrunner with McCain. While his campaign has fared much better than McCain's, mainly because of his enduring 9/11 image, Giuliani has drifted down in the polls nationally and in many individual states as the focus shifts to his Achilles heel--his liberal positions on abortion, gay rights and gun control.

The surprise candidate of the GOP field has clearly been former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Strong fundraising, an attractive image and family and good positioning on the issues has enabled Romney to partly overcome his own negatives...Romney is now a leading player, apparently ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire, with a decent chance to capture the GOP standard in St. Paul next summer.

About equal with Romney is the certain-but-not-yet-announced candidacy of former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson. Sensing that McCain was failing some time ago, this Hollywood star revived GOP memories of another figure from Tinseltown: Ronald Reagan. (As we've said many times, the Democrats keep looking for another John F. Kennedy and the Republicans continue to search for a second Ronald Reagan; neither party will ever find its man.)

Sabato also handicaps the general election:

We have heard and seen more than a few Republican leaders brighten up about their 2008 prospects by saying, "2006 was the worst of it, and 2008 will have to be better." They are dreaming. Not only can 2008 be as bad as 2006 for the GOP, it can be a good deal worse. Something we've learned from studying the 220 years of our Republic's elections: the political party that is found whistling past the graveyard usually ends up six feet under.

There is a great deal of truth to this. If the party ignores or downplays the losses in 2006 and fails to learn its lessons, there will be widespread revolts in Republican districts. That's not to say that the party shouldn't be optimistic. We have seen time and again that conservative principles (military strength, fiscal responsibility, and family values) coupled with competence are favored by Americans. 2006 represented the abandonment of those two keys: spending was out of control, our military looked weak, our elected officials looked like hypocrites for engaging in unbecoming (and sometimes criminal) behavior while giving lip service to values, and, despite majorities in both houses, accomplished little.

Which brings us to why Mitt should be our choice for 2008. Mitt embodies the lessons learned from 2006: an unquestionably competent executive who has and can get things done, a strong record on fiscal restraint and lower taxes, innovative ideas for strengthening our military, and personal behavior that matches his rhetoric on families and values. No other candidate fully represents these learned lessons from 2006. In one way or another, each of the other Republican candidates falls short, and thus represents something that Americans rejected so recently. Mitt does not and, thus, should be the choice for both Republicans and Americans.

Labels: Larry Sabato

The Romney campaign has introduced a new radio ad featuring Ann Romney speaking about Mitt's success as a father. Listen here. This has caused some interesting reaction and speculation about the motive behind the ad. I like the ad because I want the President to be a family man. The recent report from the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics suggests that a lot of progress has been made since the 1990's related to teen sexual behavior and births to unmarried teens. One would only be speculating, of course, to suggest that all of this is caused by the direction a President leads us, but I think the type of leaders we have can have an impact. In short, I would rather have the family man than the man wrecked by success.

"The most important work being done to strengthen America's future is the work that is being done within the four walls of the American home. Children need the guiding hand of responsible parents. As a child swims through our increasingly polluted and turbulent waters, there is no help more sure than that of a loving mother and father. Every child deserves a mother and a father." -Mitt Romney, From Townhall article, 7/13/2007.

Update #1: I understand the IAFF has a history of supporting Democrats. In fact, they supported Kerry a few years ago. Naturally, I don't support much of what they do as a semi-political organization. I'm only interested in their perspectives on Rudy Giuliani as hero of 9/11. Yeah, they have additional reasons to see Rudy fail. I am interested in hearing what might be additional insight into how he ran NYC before 9/11.

From Jim Geraghty:

Matt Lewis spotlights a new message from the Brownback campaign:

The Brownback for President Campaign announced today it is officially proposing a new word be added to Webster's Dictionary: "Mitt-amorphasis."

Definition:
1. (v) A self-directed and self-contradictory cyclical process, occurring in even-numbered years, by which a Massachusetts politician transforms at will.

I kinda like Brownback, and he's got some good people working for him. But man, you just cannot go after an opponent on flip-flopping when you just voted "yes", then "no" on cloture for the immigration deal in a span of about 13 minutes. You just can't.

This would be like Hillary charging that Obama has likeability and baggage issues.

Labels: brownback, Jim Geraghty, Matt Lewis

Mitt has an op-ed in the New Hampshire Union Leader today reminding people of his basic vision: strong military, strong economy, and strong families. There are some great points that he makes. First about the war on jihadists:

All this talk of jihadists, Salafi Muslims, and the War on Terror makes Democrats like former Sen. John Edwards uncomfortable. He says the War on Terror is only a slogan. Tell that to the people in London, Glasgow, Bali, Malaysia, Pakistan, Lebanon, Tanzania, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Israel, New York, Boston and Washington, D.C.

Second about the global challenge to our economy:

Asia is emerging as a far more effective economic competitor than we have faced before. In the face of this challenge, Democrats shrink. They believe the American people cannot compete. However, in this global economy, the only choice is to compete. We must charge into the emerging Asian marketplace and invest in
our people and technology. Democrats fear the strength of others. Republicans believe in the strength of Americans.

Finally, about domestic fiscal policy:

Democrats talk about raising taxes on people. We talk about cutting spending by government. For Democrats, it is always government first, people last. In 2011, they plan a record-breaking income tax hike. When you take money out of the pockets of hard-working Americans and give it to government, you slow down the economy.

Conservatives rightly recognize that our fiscal problem is not that Washington is taxing too little, but that bureaucrats there are spending too much. Both parties share responsibility for all the earmarks, waste, duplication and failure to reform entitlements. I will also personally lead a top-to-bottom review of government programs, agencies, procurement and spending.

For us Mitt-watchers this is fairly common stuff. However, for the average citizen these are powerful ideas. We saw the reactions that the viewers of the last debate had when Mitt spoke about these things. The average citizen seldom hears the war against violent jihad put into anything other than the narrow prism of Iraq. Romney gives the struggle against jihadists its full scope. When seen in its full array, it is unthinkable that we would abandon the fight against them or relegate the continuing struggle to bumper sticker status.

Mitt’s ideas about government and the economy are also extremely powerful. Ordinarily we see politicians come to the same simple ideas that perpetuate government incompetence and economic stagnation. Mitt is different. His ideas about solving the deficit problem in Massachusetts, helping the uninsured get healthcare, and reducing the tax burden were innovative, creative, and effective. This type of thinking is not only attractive to voters as we look for true leadership, but is the type of thinking that can insure American success for generations.

It is continually refreshing and energizing to hear the bold ideas and principles that can defend our nation from attack, spur innovation and growth in the economy, and sustain our families and values.

Labels: Union Leader

The Brody File has unearthed some quotes from Thompson circa 1996:

Thompson on the 1996 GOP party platform:

"It's the most useless device I've ever heard of,' Thompson said during a recent visit to Memphis."

Frankly, a lot of people might agree with him on this issue. Especially for how weak it is right now on issues like immigration.

Thompson on abortion:

"Does Anyone Remember What Was In The Last , Except Abortion? … If We Get Caught Up In Having A Platform Debate And Stuff Like That, We Deserve To Lose."

Later, quoting from a 1996 August piece:

U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson says he seldom hears about abortion in campaign travels throughout Tennessee and hopes the issue is downplayed at the Republican National Convention. The Tennessee Republican, a pro-choice defender in a party with an anti-abortion tilt, is preparing for next week's convention in San Diego. He said the party must avoid distracting issues and focus on electing Bob Dole as president. 'We need to concentrate on what brings us together and not what divides us,' Thompson said in an interview with The Tennessean published Tuesday.

and this:

In 1996, Thompson Said Republican Ideals Don't Need To Be Written Down Into Platform. "Thompson said he opposes making early-term abortions a crime, as some Republicans would like to do with a constitutional amendment. 'But I don't think you should bolt on one issue. I'm still not convinced platforms are a good idea. We know what we believe in and I don't think we need to write it all down in a document,' Thompson said.

Brody concludes:

On the abortion issue, it seems pretty clear that Thompson felt abortion was more of a distraction to the party. You get the sense that he saw it as divisive and something to avoid or downplay at the convention. Pro-lifers will take issue with that. I know Thompson's defenders will point to his stellar pro-life record in the Senate.

I should note that the source of the quotes that David cites is probably from opposition research given the capitalization of some of the sentences. Just an observation.

Fred did have a very good record on abortion issues in the Senate (just as Romney had a very good record as Governor on the same issue).

Labels: fred thompson

Well the latest from the Quacks at MassResistance (The group that somehow forgets that the judiciary interprets the law and the Governor executes the law) is they are planning to take on National Review with a letter saying that Romney forced gay marriage on the population of Massachusetts's. MassResistance of course has put together a list of 22 family activist who are signing a letter that claims NRO is engaging in the Romney coverup.

What I find the most interesting is that when they last did a letter like this in November they had 44 grassroots activist...now they only have 22. Way to MassResistance! Of course that is no surprise either. Because I think many of them had not read any rebuttal to MR's pointless argument and when they had- my guess- they probably felt a little foolish for going along with the scheme.

As many of you know I've had my head down engaging with a new and exciting job for the Lighted Candle Society. The non-profit motif is new to me so I'm scaling back on the public political musings for a bit... but I thought I'd jump in for a quick sortie to throw a few timbers on the fire.

With that gambit of mixed metaphors... I'll begin:

• Senator McCain: Frankly, I'm shocked. How do you spoil and waste 7 years of Presidential build-up, organization, supporter lists, and serious ground game? I have no idea. Messrs. Nelson and Weaver can tell you but they won't until the primary is over. Months ago I defended McCain saying he was here to stay. I am seriously stunned that he seems to be on the way out.
  
  
• Thompson: Will someone pull the trigger for this guy? I'd love to have him announce anytime here. Or did I miss it? Also, FDT Redstate ra-ra's are finally getting a taste of defending a candidate. The heat is pretty constant now but Fred is doing pretty well. But I doubt we'll hear much about any flip-flopping from here out. As Patrick R. pointed a little bit ago, he's OK with flip-flopping. I think a lot of bloggers' opinions will follow suit.
  
  
• Rudy: This is weird. Rudy has a lot of money and a lot of name power and good early polling numbers but not a lot of ground game? As a frank admission I should say that Romney insiders really had no idea where he was going to end up at Q2. His strong showing wasn't surprising but it certainly wasn't good news to Mitt & Co. Will his poll numbers continue to fade? Can he pull off a primary win without a good showing in Iowa or New Hampshire? How will he use his war chest?
  
  
• Mitt Romney: Here's the one remaining question for Team Romney: Is this a traditional primary election or not? In other words, if the status quo remains... Romney wins. Period. If this is like any other Primary election in the past and if Romney keeps his predominant lead in IA and NH... he will win.

I've alluded to the near science behind primary elections previously. Basically it comes down to this: for every margin percentage point, the winner of the New Hampshire primary is 8% more likely to win the nomination. If Romney maintains his 9-10 point margin in New Hampshire he has an 80% chance of capturing the GOP win.

Here's a question that Patrick is looking to answer about Fred:

Now, don't get me wrong. Voting is important. But doesn't fervency count for a lot in a volatile primary situation?

Patrick's referring to the generous nods that Fred has been throwing towards bloggers.

So, my question is this: will a virtual campaign built at the "new" grassroots trump the "traditional" grassroots? Or will the non-stop flesh-pressing and Mitt-Mobiling crank the decades of precedent and win the election?

Labels: grassroots, ground game

Just thought I would take a time out from the embezzlement trial I am currently prosecuting to comment on the recent McCain news.

I happen to believe this is just another sign that the McCain campaign is coming to an end. I hope two things happen though.

First, I hope McCain continues to participate for now. John McCain is a character that I often disagree with but his support of the surge and even his failed immigration bill have been heroic at times (even if I disagree on the immigration part). What I mean by heroic is that he continued his support in the face of tremendous consequences. I think McCain is an interesting counterpoint in debates related to these issues. I also think what he has had to say about the war is an important message in our country where resolve seems to be so lacking.

Second, I hope that those who may be inclined to support him financially spend their money elsewhere. You may think one or another candidate is the most deserving. We obviously have an opinion here. But, I am increasingly concerned that Republican money seems to be diffused among various candidates and even in total seems to be less than the Democrats.

The article cited above says it is McCain's support of the war that has hurt his fundraising. I personally believe it is his support for giving visas to illegal immigrants. Obviously, Romney has also supported the surge, with some added guidelines for how to measure and publish progress so the American people can make a more informed evaluation. Obviously, Romney disagreed with McCain about the "comprehensive" immigration bill that McCain sponsored. For that matter though, everyone in the Republican field did, except maybe Brownback. I haven't figured out what he really thought.

As a result, whatever a McCain supporter thinks about the differences Romney and McCain have had on campaign finance or immigration reform, I think it is worth their time to evaluate Romney anew, without worrying about how he compares to their candidate. This may not necessarily be now. While I feel that sooner would be better for the party, there will probably be die-hards who would support McCain only with Ron Paul zeal. I understand. Hey, I had to reevaluate my very fervent Elizabeth Dole support back in the late 1990's.

Go here to watch Rudy's response to questions about two of his Southern regional advisors.

In June, the South Carolina Treasurer and Rudy's state chairman, Thomas Ravenel, was indicted on federal cocaine charges.

Now, Senator David Vitter is busted. Interestingly, Vitter was the first Senate Republican to endorse Rudy. Vitter is also one of the campaign's key ambassadors to social conservatives. In fact, he's serving as Rudy's regional campaign chairman for the South. Vitter reported that he confessed to his wife and repented. I believe that's exemplary. I'm pleased he's now on a better path, and a good distance from Madam Palfrey's "escorts."

The reporter in the above video also brings up Bernard Kerik.

The reporter suggested that people will begin to wonder and judge Rudy by the company he keeps. Giuliani defends himself by saying most of his people were great, but some were "flawed." True, true. Every organization will have people who disappoint.

However, I believe Rudy could have gone a step further to emphasize the need for positive family and institutional values. Denounce marital infidelity! It is bad for families and America.

Mitt is simply a stronger, more credible messenger in this area. He's walked the walk, living a chaste, disciplined life. Rudy has had several prominent marital issues in his past. As a result, I believe Giuliani lacks the necessary clarity and credibility on numerous moral/social issues.

Countdown to the Ames Straw Poll: 32 days

Uh, in case you didn’t realize it, we’ve got essentially 1 month before the Iowa straw poll. That’s not very long. With that in mind, here’s a few thoughts about the Iowa straw poll:

The front loading of the calendar has forced two schools of thought on the candidates. One has been to discount the role of the early states. This has been the Giuliani premise. It argues that with so many big states right after the early states, the momentum garnered from winning Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina is negligible. Thus, the resources that would normally be used there can be more effectively used to win big states like Florida and California. There is some logic to this thinking.

The other school of thought is that there is added significance to the role of the early states. This has been Romney’s premise. It argues that there is less time to recover from an early defeat in the first primaries. Thus, it is pivotal to win the early states because you won’t really get a second chance.

Certainly each has its gambles, but it seems like the Giuliani plan is significantly more risky. In essence Giuliani is saying that money is more important than momentum. In the world of politics, that seems doubtful at best.

Which brings us to the Iowa straw poll. There are very few times where we get to compare presidential nominees. We’ve had a few so far with the debates and the ongoing money race. There have also been a few local straw polls here and there. Most of those straw polls are of a few hundred people at most. The “controversial” Young Republican straw poll this last weekend was of 366 people. By comparison, the Iowa straw poll is several thousand people. The Iowa Republican Party reports that 23,685 votes were cast in 1999. This makes the Iowa straw poll not only important because of its early date but also because of the large number of voters. These two factors make it such an important indicator for presidential candidates. If the candidate can make a strong showing among such a large group of people at an early date, his candidacy carries enormous momentum. At the straw poll we get a great way to compare candidates in a qualitative and quantitative manner.

The guys over at Iowans for Romney have offered to help any interested Mitt supporters to get signed up for the event.


And don’t forget that anytime is a good time to donate.

Labels: Ames Straw Poll, iowa

Make sure to read Charles Mitchell's dissection of the abortion stances of the top candidates over at Evangelicals for Mitt.

Labels: Evangelicals for Mitt

The top three McCain campaign operatives are out.

The LA Times reports on Fred Thompson’s not so distinguished conservative record in the Senate: "During his eight-year Senate career, his only stint in elected office, Thompson was far from a champion of the party's conservative core."


The Boston Globe reports on Giuliani’s unconventional campaign: "Giuliani is not devoting the same level of staff or resources in [early] states as other candidates. Even a lesser-known foe, Kansas Sen. Brownback, has more staff in Iowa."

Labels: fred thompson, Giuliani, John McCain

From Marc Ambinder:

Young Republican convention organizer Brian Graham defended the straw poll against the accuastions it was rigged for Mitt Romney.
Graham, a Romney supporter, sent key Young Republican officials this e-mail, which this column has obtained.

Some folks have gone on to some blogs to try to make our convention look bad. They are complaining about non-YRs voting in the Straw Poll. You will see the issues addressed below. I ask that none of you speak with the Media, instead send them to Jon Woodard to handle.

1. All attendees who purchased meal tickets were allowed to vote in the Straw Poll.

2. The dinner event alone included YR delegates to the convention, YR alternates to the convention, YR guests of the convention, numerous Florida and Broward County YRs, members of the YR Alumni Network, members of the local senior Republican Party, and whomever purchased meal tickets online via the YRNC 2007 website.

3. At the highest point in the convention, there were a total of 600 attendees.

4. There were a total of 366 votes cast in the Straw Poll.

5. The Broward County Supervisor of Elections conducted the Straw Poll.

6. YRNC 2007 never claimed the Straw Poll was open only for delegates/alternates to the convention. It was always made clear that anyone who was registered or purchased meal tickets could vote in the straw poll.

7. All presidential campaigns were aware of the Straw Poll policy prior to the convention and none had voiced opposition to the policy.

8. The convention committee has members who support various Presidential
campaigns.

9. The convention was sponsored by several Presidential candidates
including Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, and Rudy Giuliani.

And finally:

10. Straw Polls are intended to be fun, not to be scientific.

Update - Jennifer Rubin at Human Events defends Romney's win:

The straw poll results showed Romney the overwhelming winner but Thompson supporters soon groused that -- horrors -- the event had been packed with Romney supporters and even non-YR members were allowed to vote. This organizational finesse of course is how straw polls are won and should serve as a warning to the Thompson team as they head from testing to running. Romney’s organization is running on all cylinders and has learned the basics of running an event, corralling its supporters and tabulating a win. Enthusiasm without organization does not win elections.

Labels: straw polls, Young Republicans

I want to put the usual disclaimer about Republicans over Democrats, blah, blah, blah…

Fred Thompson seems a very generic Republican. He very much seems in the George Allen, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore mold, except for one thing: charisma. His booming voice and gentle manners are very engaging. Which brings me to my question: Beyond his personal charisma, what is it that sets Fred Thompson apart? Perhaps that’s enough for some people. They will take his wink-and-nod and feel satisfied that he will fill in the lack of substance somewhere along the way.

Color me unimpressed. Thompson's candidacy very much reminds me of the type of politicking that produced the disaster of an immigration reform bill. The backroom dealers come forward saying they had the solution, but that we shouldn’t ask too many questions or worry about what was actually in the bill. Thompson’s candidacy seems to me the same type of thing. He is broadly proclaimed to be the answer for conservatives who have neither seen his substance nor tested his durability.

I remain skeptical because of his track record also. What is it that Thompson did in his public service that indicates a successful tenure as president? Thompson himself seems unable to answer that question.

Mitt, on the other hand, has been both forthcoming about policy proposals and has a track record of success in governing that can easily translate to success as the President. We can look to Mitt’s success in governing Massachusetts to see how he would govern as President. What can Fred Thompson point to? At this point Fred Thompson’s candidacy is a purely faith-based experience. Could he possibly be a good president? Sure, but there is nothing to support that hope yet.

Update - Jennifer Rubin makes my point describing the speeches at the Young Republican conference:

On Saturday Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney ventured to the Young Republicans (YR) convention in Hollywood, Florida and we got a preview of two different types of candidates.

Thompson offered a “red meat” speech-playing to the emotions of the young crowd and pulling out crowd pleasing lines...He did not however address a single substantive policy issue nor explain a rationale for a potential Thompson campaign. There was no talk of Iraq or the economy or even immigration. As for the Democrats he spent no time addressing Hillary health care or their views on other topics. He did however exhort the crowd, promising that voters would not “turn the keys over to the party of despair and division.” The crowd of youngsters seemed not to mind and cheered enthusiastically.

Romney, by contrast, treated the crowd to vintage Romney: a mix of enthusiasm and optimism with a heavy dose of policy.

Labels: fred thompson

Thanks to David Brody who took the time to post this great writing by George Romney on the LDS church and Religious Tolerance:

The LDS principles of tolerance are rooted in the teaching that all who have lived, now live, and will yet live on this earth are spirit children of God and are responsible only to God for their religious beliefs and practices. "We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience," says Article of Faith 11, "and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship, how, where or what they may." A corollary of this statement is a declaration of belief regarding governments and law, adopted by the Church in 1835. It affirms that governments have no power to prescribe rules of worship to bind the consciences of men or to dictate forms for public or private devotion. In matters of religion, the declaration asserts, "men are amenable to God and to Him only for the exercise of their religious beliefs, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others" (D&C 134). The Church has maintained these principles while accommodating to secular authority: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law" (A of F 12; cf. D&C 134:1-12).

Related to this is a doctrine of primordial individual freedom. For Latter-day Saints agency is indestructible. All truth is "independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also" (D&C 93:30). The individual's freedom to search for this truth should not be contravened, and in the last analysis it cannot be. Even God cannot coerce belief. The only power justified on earth or in heaven is loving persuasion (D&C 121:41).

Contrary to stereotypes, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neither a sect nor a cult. It has an extensive scriptural foundation, but no formalized creeds and no closed canon. As the Prophet Joseph Smith said to Stephen A. Douglas, Latter-day Saints are "ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are manifest from time to time" (HC 5:215). They are taught to "gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up" (TPJS p. 316). Commitment to truth in this inclusive sense is commitment to the view that all philosophies, religions, and ethical systems have elements of truth and that all persons have a portion of light. This is a buttress for tolerance, goodwill, and fellowship on a worldwide scale (see World Religions [Non Christian] and Mormonism) "If ye will not embrace our religion," Joseph Smith said, "embrace our hospitalities" (WJS 162).