The always excellent Marc Abinder brings us a preview of the October fundraising numbers. This of course will have tremendous implications for the direction of the GOP primary.

Romney has loaned himself nearly $9M, which, when subtracted from his $12M cash-on-hand, would suggest that receipts in have not kept pace with disbursements, generally, which have totaled more than $32M. Romney donors said that they had been told that Romney was prepared to spend another $5M to keep his campaign's budget intact. They give a range of $10M to $12M for individual contributions in the third quarter.

John McCain will raise between $4 and $5M; Fred Thompson will probably raise around $6M.

If this is true that Fred Thompson is barely ahead of John McCain in the fundraising department, it certainly does not bode well for Team Thompson. Even considering that Thompson has not revved up the engine throughout the third quarter, he should have been able to reach out and tap the primary network of contributors for a big initial flush of cash. Either his network isn't very big, or the enthusiasm with which his campaign has been received will receive a cold shower.

With the last three days of the Major League Baseball season upon us, I've thought of how a baseball season is akin to a political race. Being it's a Friday and everything should be lighter on a Friday, let's look at this more closely.

A campaign, like the 162-game major league season is a marathon, not a sprint, a bad day in a campaign can be overcome the next day or week by a good showing and a mistake today could back and haunt a candidate in the crucial final weeks. Some candidates go out to an early lead and cruise winning two out of three games every series while some teams lead for the entire race and all of a sudden find themselves tied with one series left and momentum going against them.

If you take some time to poke around the web, the consensus opinion among professional pundits and amateur wannabes like myself is that the Republicans don't really stand a chance in 2008. They talk of veto-proof majorities and Congressional landslides as if they are a given.

I say not so fast and hear me out on this before you break out your crayons and write that I'm wrong.

On the Dem side, Hillary is far and away the frontrunner with no one within a stones throw. Obama made some noise as did Edwards (Elizabeth, not John) but it added up to squat. It was Hillary's race from the beginning and anyone who even dreamed it wasn't was deluding themselves. She has the money, the advisors and Bill, 'nough said.

On the GOP side, you have a wide-open race. I say Giuliani is currently the frontrunner but Fred Thompson is giving him agita and McCain and Romney could surprise once the primaries begin. In other words, the Republicans have no clear cut leader.

Hillary will be anointed in February leaving her wide open to attacks from all corners. I suspect that Obama and Edwards will still be in the race but will be extremely desperate and have no choice but to hit Hillary hard from the left while at the same time the GOP will open up from the right. It will be non-stop Hillary bashing for months. Her actions at that time are critical and I wouldn't be surprised if the Hsu story continues to break hitting its crescendo right around early spring making her a huge target. The Dems are hip to this and some leaked info spells it out in detail:

The private memo, leaked to The Washington Post, painted what researchers described as a "sobering picture" for Democrats who believe that President George W Bush's disastrous favourability numbers almost guarantee they will capture the White House next year.

All party preference polls show that Democrats are much more popular than Republicans. But when the names of individual candidates are used, the gap narrows considerably.

...The leaked poll found that Mr Giuliani, a centrist Republican with liberal stances on issues such as abortion and gay rights, leads Mrs Clinton by 49 per cent to 39 per cent in the swing districts.

By the time the GOP race is decided, she will be battered and the GOP candidate will have survived a bruising race leaving him experienced and hungry. Factor in that Hillary has the highest negatives of any candidate in history and Bush-Clinton fatigue and you have the makings of a GOP upset. Not only in the presidential race either, Hillary's polarizing nature will bring a slew of conservatives and Republicans out just to vote against Hillary and they'll vote Republican straight down the line. Will the GOP regain the House? No, but the Senate may well be a possibility if the RNC can pound home the fact that this has been the single-most inactive Senate in three decades.

I'm not going to go out on a limb and predict that a Republican wins, yet the scenario I've spelled out is plausible. We still have five months before the first primary ballot is cast (unless some state moves it up to November 2007) so a lot of things can happen between now and then.

Is this the real deal or a publicity stunt? Right in the middle of a speech to the NRA (of all people), Rudy Giuliani takes a cell from the Mrs.

"Wait just a second," he told the perplexed crowd. "This is my wife calling, I think."

"Hello, dear," he said in a syrupy voice.

"I'm talking to the members of the NRA right now. Would you like to say hello?" he said to confused chuckles.

"I love you, and I'll give you a call as soon as I'm finished. OK, have a safe trip. Bye-bye. Talk to you later, dear. I love you."

According to the rest of the article, there was disbelief, outrage and skepticism. This has to be a stunt. Politicians don't do this, no one does this, not in the middle of a speech. I'd bet you bottom dollar that this is the hare-brained idea of some campaign aide, or even Rudy himself to try to appear more "real" in front of a normally hostile crowd. It didn't work. And how does the NRA feel about Rudy now? Well, let's ask Fred Thompson.

Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack may have dropped his long shot bid for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency, but that doesn't mean that he's stopped running for the Vice-Presidency. The New York Daily News has a quick blurb up quoting Vilsack, a Hillary supporter, on Rudy Giuliani from last night:

Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack went off on Rudy Giuliani's family foibles in a televised interview, saying Giuliani has "lots of issues" voters may not know about - yet. "I can't even get into the number of marriages, [and] the relationship he has with his children," Vilsack said on New York 1, describing the ex-mayor's past as "interesting."

Last I checked, Rudy wasn't running on a family values platform. And with Hillary being the presumptive Democratic nominee for President, I don't think that any Democrat wants to focus on marriages, real or sham. And infidelity? Now that the ex-Governor brings it up, I wonder what Vilsack's views are on the home life of Bill and Hillary?

Call it a case of strange bedfellows. On Friday, Rudy Giuliani will take the stage at the NRA's annual convention and try to convince the organization he's their man. Meanwhile:

...even as the former New York mayor strives to burnish his Second Amendment credentials at the gathering in Washington, a panel of federal judges in his home town will be hearing arguments on the lawsuit that Giuliani filed seven years ago aimed at punishing the nation's manufacturers for violent crimes involving firearms.

Don't get me wrong, I'm on Giuliani's side on the issue of guns. In 1995, Rudy went on Charlie Rose and declared that the NRA goes,

"overboard. The extremists on the left and the extremists on the right have essentially the same tactic," he said, adding later that "the NRA's, in essence, defense of assault weapons, and their unwillingness to deal with some of the realities here that we face in our cities is a terrible, terrible mistake."

Amen. And I applaud America's Mayor for teaming up with then president, Bill Clinton, to push through the assault weapons ban. Clearly, tougher legislation is needed to close up all the loopholes. Let's see what proposals Giuliani puts forth in front of the NRA crowd.

Rudy Giuliani took the MoveOn.org ad calling General David Petraeus, David "Betray Us," and made it a campaign plus for him. He's gone after them hard and rightfully so. General Petraeus made our esteemed elected leaders look even more buffoonish than usual. He was calm, answered their questions with authority and acted as one would expect a high-ranking military man to act, with class and dignity. MoveOn attacked a good man for partisan political purposes and Rudy is now using it as a weapon:

As for the candidates on the Dems side, Richard Cohen takes them to task today:

Almost instantly, though, it got pretty hard to find a Democratic presidential candidate willing to dispute MoveOn.org. To his credit, Joe Biden did. "I don't buy into that," he said. "This is an honorable guy. He's telling the truth." But lonesome Joe, whose virtues have yet to come to the attention of the vast and apathetic electorate, was seconded only by Joe Lieberman, not a presidential candidate, and John Kerry, a man whose tomorrow is yesterday. When Clinton was asked about the ad, she avoided answering.

It may seem unfair to single out Clinton in this matter when the bunker in which she took shelter was crowded with her fellow quivering candidates. But Clinton is the front-runner, quite possibly the next president of the United States, so it is reasonable to focus on her and wonder if, as some allege, she does indeed have a spine. In this instance, it was nowhere to be found.

This was the opportunity for Hillary Clinton so show that she has what it takes to be commander-in -chief (shudder) of the U.S. military and she punted. A more astute politician -- such as her husband -- would have seen the advantage of defending a career Army officer and highly regarded leader and bent over backwards to make it known that they didn't agree with the offensive ad. Clinton failed and Rudy grabbed the ball and ran with it. That action may have cemented his cred with conservatives who abhor the MoveOn crowd and conservative Democrats who feel Hillary has wandered a little too far into left field for their tastes (note: link to NY Times piece for TimeSelect members until midnight tonight).

MoveOn has accomplished two things with this inane ad campaign, a campaign they will continue to run: they've alienated a good portion of the electorate and pushed them toward Rudy who could hold them with his unique blend of social liberalism and national defense conservatism.

As David and Scott argued yesterday about Rudy Giuliani's full court press on Hillary Clinton concerning the MoveOn.org ad, I thought this column by Charles Hurt at the New York Post highlighted the opportunity that Hillary missed:

It could have been her Sister Souljah moment, that turning point in 1992 when Bill Clinton showed his moxie by pushing back in outrage at the activist rapper who suggested there be a week to "kill white people."

But instead of standing up to extremists in her party, Hillary echoed the ad's accusation that Petraeus was "cooking the books."

...

She should instead be a front-runner and begin her long journey toward calming reservations about her among independents and even Republicans who are sick and tired of the GOP.

Exactly. Couple this with the hiring of Sandy the Burglar as part of her inner circle, she is definitely either not concerned with how she appears to the mainstream of the country or she is blowing several big chances that will hurt her in the general election. She certainly isn't calming any fears about her scandal-ridden past, why beg for more trouble?

Decrying MoveOn should be simple enough, but this post by Jay Cost indicates that MoveOn is becoming an integral part of the Democratic party infrastructure. With the loss of Hillraiser Norman Hsu, maybe she needs the money?

. . . hard. He's red hot. He's steamed. He wants everybody to know that what Hillary Clinton said to General Patraeus is way, way out of bounds. She's no better than MoveOn.org and their terrible puns. But, precisely, what part of Clinton's oratory was it at yesterday's Armed Services Committee testimony that crossed the line?

"The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief."

There you have it. A sentiment echoed by practically every other Democrat in Congress, and more than a couple Republicans, has sent Rudy Giuliani over the edge, causing him to proclaim,

"It is time for Americans to really insist that American politicians move away from character assassination and this is exactly what they attempted to do with General Patraeus."

Right. Rudy's above petty partisanship. He'd never call the credibility of another person or party into question for his own political gain. He'd never say something inflamatory like,

"If any Republican is elected president--and I think obviously I would be the best at this--we will remain on the offensive and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it,"

Oh wait. He did say that. You see, the way he sees it, every Republican is inherently better at protecting the country than every Democrat. And he bases this on the performance of none other than George W. Bush. Call me a character assassin if you must, but there's something that requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

Rudy Giuliani, former New York City mayor and current presidential aspirant, may have unwittingly given Larry Craig a vote of confidence for staying in the Senate.

Responding to a question about his private life during last week's GOP debate, Giuliani said, "I certainly haven't lived a perfect life. I am not running as the perfect candidate for president of the United States. I'm running as a human being who has been very successful as a leader and had definable results in a situation in which people thought it was impossible to accomplish these things."

If we delete the presidential reference and substitute one for the Senate, could not the substance of that statement apply to Craig? If so, Giuliani has given grist for hungry rivals. For his words contrast with what was said earlier in the debate.

"We should be bolder about standing up for family," Kansas' Sen. Sam Brownback said. "Family's important for us, and it's important for America ."

"When our guys have problems like this, they leave," Rep. Duncan Hunter of Texas said. "They leave the Senate or they leave the House. When the Democrats have problems like this, they often make them chairmen of their respective committees."

The "family values" opening is available for any Republican ruthless enough to use it. Paging Mitt Romney...

From time to time I've given Rudy Giuliani a hard time on this blog for a variety of stances that my former mayor has taken of late. Today, I happen to agree with him. But boy, oh boy, the conservative wing of the GOP is not going to be happy about what Mr. Giuliani said in his interview with blow-hard Glenn Beck .

GLENN: Right. But isn't illegal immigration a crime in and of itself?

GIULIANI: No.

GLENN: Aren't you saying--

GIULIANI: Glenn--

GLENN: You're protecting criminals by saying that being treated as a criminal is unfair.

GIULIANI: Glenn, it's not a crime. I know that's very hard for people to understand, but it's not a federal crime.

GLENN: It's a misdemeanor but if you've been nailed, it is a crime. If you've been nailed, ship back and come back, it is a crime.

GIULIANI: Glenn, being an illegal immigrant, the 400,000 were not prosecuted for crimes by the federal government, nor could they be. I was U.S. attorney in the southern district of New York. So believe me, I know this. In fact, when you throw an immigrant out of the country, it's not a criminal proceeding. It's a civil proceeding.

GLENN: It is--

GIULIANI: One of the things that congress wanted to do a year ago is make it a crime, which indicates that it isn't.

GLENN: Should it be?

GIULIANI: Should it be? No, it shouldn't be because the government wouldn't be able to prosecute it. We couldn't prosecute 12 million people.

Waiting for the YouTube file to add to this, but I'm happy to hear a GOP candidate talk some sense about immigration. And how, do you suppose, the base will respond to Rudy saying that we shouldn't make crossing the border a federal crime?

A recent poll by Pew has noted that both Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, the front runners of their respective party's nomination for the presidency, are both considered the least religious of all the presidential candidates. The same poll, mentioned in an AP report, also noted that 7 out of 10 of the people polled believe it is vital that a president have strong religious beliefs.

The politics of religion played a tremendous role in the shaping of politics over the last 30 years. Jimmy Carter rose to prominence on the campaign trail as people considered him a moral man based on his being a born again Christian. The Reagan Revolution was propelled in great part to Reagan's affiliation with the Evangelicals. Similarly, to great extent, George Bush is in the White House today thanks to the support of him by a significant majority of the 70 million Evangelical Christians in the United States.

Thus, it becomes curious that the front runners for the Democratic and Republican ticket would both be the two are considered the least religious although, quite honestly, public perception is not necessarily what is accurate. Only Clinton and Giuliani truly know what their own personal faith is, but in a nation were religion plays a central role in the identity of its people, how a leader practices his or her faith will always be a central issue.

The Republican party is hoping that Hillary is the candidate they have to face:

Conversations with Republicans gathered here for the biennial Midwest Republican Leadership Conference reflect a party unenthused or just plain uncertain about their potential White House nominee. But GOP faithful also seem quite confident and even upbeat about the prospect that the senator from New York is, as Rove put it, the "prohibitive favorite to win the nomination."

That likelihood, they say, is good news for any hopes of keeping the White House and getting other Republicans on the ballot elected.

I tend to agree with that synopsis, Hillary is easily the most polarizing politician in the race. Republicans would vote for Stalin before Hillary and Democrats are mixed. Looking at the numbers, let's say that 25% of the nation is self-described Republican and 25% is Democrat, the Democratic party is split so figure Hillary gets 80% of that vote. Now, that leaves a large swath of undecideds who will dictate this election. Those middle ground people are the ones who will swing the results and I would hypothesize that the four years of George H. W. Bush, eight years of Bill Clinton and eight years of Bush 43 have left them a bit fatigued with the entire Bush/Clinton leadership paradigm.

The GOP nominee will be critical to how the election plays out. If it's Fred Thompson, all bets are off as he has not proved himself and the debates will be crucial. If it'sRudy Giuliani, I'd say he would win, just as I believe he would have beaten Hillary when she first ran for the Senate and Rudy bowed out because of cancer.

The Dems have had a chance to prove themselves and have disappointed the base greatly. Unless they can actually make things happen they promised in the campaign that brought them power, they are facing a huge schism that will tear them apart.

The primaries are playing out in an unusual fashion. The Democrats are locked in and the GOP nomination is up in the air between Thompson and Giuliani. The next several months will be very telling as to the direction of the general election.

From the way that some of the leading Republican contenders act, you'd think there was a holy trinity of issues that anyone hoping to capture the party's presidential nomination must never defy.

I speak of abortion, the war in Iraq, and immigration. Of course, a true GOP candidate must be against Roe vs. Wade, for continued support of the surge, and, above all, show a strong antipathy for any position that might be painted as allowing "amnesty." While there may indeed prove to be room for some nuance here or there, as illustrated most vividly by the likes of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, to go solidly against any one of these sacred cows spells trouble. Just ask John McCain.

Yet, as a Democrat, I can't help but notice that all three of these issues are losers for the GOP. Consider the rather overwhelming polling data. On abortion, a solid majority of Americans wants abortion to remain legal, if not limited in some circumstances. On the war in Iraq, overwhelming majorities disapprove of the way the war has been handled, and think we shouldn't have gone in there in the first place. Lastly, on the question of how to solve the immigration issue, the numbers are somewhat less decisive. But even here, a majority of Americans seem to want the bill the president put forth to be passed. And when you break down the specific provisions of the bill, such as whether we should allow people to go home, pay a fine, and come back, the public is strongly pro-immigrant, and doesn't much care about the cries of amnesty.

Granted, immigration is the least equivocal of the three, but it certainly isn't the slam dunk issue that will propel the party to victory. Perhaps the party should go back and read Tuesday's Wall Street Journal Op-Ed by Fred Barnes, in which the Fox commentator suggested that the way to avoid being trounced again in 2008 is for Republicans stop acting like Republicans. Good luck on that.

If the title sounds preposterous, blame Chris Bowers and this article he posted over at OpenLeft. Apparently it's not too early to draw up state by state Electoral College maps, but it should be.

In a hypothetical Rudy Giuliani - Hillary Clinton matchup Chris has this change from 2004:

New Republican States: Connecticut
New Democratic States: Arkansas, Iowa, Florida, Kentucky, New Mexico, Ohio, Virginia. Plus four congressional districts in North Carolina.
States Within Three Points: Florida, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia

Let's think about that for a second. Giuliani wins Connecticut, but loses Kentucky? Clinton, Hillary Clinton, wins the state of horseracing, country music, coal mining, and tobacco? I'm trying to get across how incredulous I am. Trust me, I live here, in Southern Ohio, right across the border, and I do not see a scenario where Hillary simultaneously loses Ohio and wins Kentucky. Leave aside that Hillary will be spending money in the Northeast and California where no Democrat usually has to go.