ABSENT: Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mitt Romney

PRESENT: Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Alan Keyes

What were they thinking? They say a picture is worth a thousand words and the four empty chairs on the podium of the Republicans' recent debate on Thursday, September 27th at Morgan State University spoke volumes. Regardless of the spin or the rationale (reported "scheduling conflicts" for each of them), those candidates obviously did not think it was worth their while to show up and there is no way to interpret that except that they didn't think it was important to reach out to these blocs of voters -- which is interesting, since the over 60, white male, southern voter is probably going to vote for one of them anyway and is a shrinking population. I'm not sure a candidate can win the national election anymore with over 60, while male, southern voters.

Mike Huckabee said he was "embarrassed for our party and I'm embarrassed for those who didn't come."

Sam Brownback said, "I think this is a disgrace that they are not here...a disgrace to our country...bad for our party...I don't think it's good for our future."

The general consensus is that after the primary, whoever the Republicans select will start moving towards the center and reaching out to these other voters. Good luck with that strategy. There are a lot of us around who will remind people of who was important, or not, to the candidate in September 2007.

NRO reports on the Straw Poll result from the Mackinac conference conducted this weekend:

Romney - 39.12%
McCain - 26.56%
Paul - 10.83%
Giuliani - 10.62%
F. Thompson - 7.15%
Huckabee - 2.55%
Hunter - 1.23%
Tancredo - 0
Brownback - 0.31%

While local Michigan blog both-right reports on a poll of Michigan likely voters

Giuliani 27%
Romney 13%
Thompson 13%
McCain 6%
Huckabee 5%
Brownback 4%
Tancredo 0%
Hunter 7%
Paul 2%

Huge differences. Keep in mind that the straw poll is of party activists that paid to attend a conference, while the voters are just voters. So, we can tell that in Michigan, (and other places) there is a huge difference between what the party establishment wants, and what the rank-and-file want. Mitt Romney spent a lot of time in Michigan, his dad was governor, he has a lot of organizing money so it's not surprising he would do well.

- John McCain's support is nonexistent outside of the establishment
- In fact it's so bad that Duncan Hunter is doing better.
- Mike Huckabee is not breaking through anything, in fact did not attend.
- Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani both do much better with the voters than the establishment.

Michigan has moved up it's primary and will be a significant factor in choosing the next president. McCain and Huckabee need to worry about that. The others, not so much.

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...

I had only one question after last night's GOP debate: Can Mike Huckabee use it to build on his Iowa success, or will he once again fade into the woodwork? If you remember Huckabee was going nowhere until -- with next to no money -- he pulled off a surprising second place finish in the Iowa straw poll. Here then, are some random thoughts on Huckabee's debate performance last night:

Tigerhawk: "The most eloquent non-candidate up there, I would love to go to his church."

Headingright.com: Huckabee on Iraq: Has oblivious NIE pessimism thrown at him. His answer: "We broke it, we have to fix it." Color me underwhelmed. He must grasp that since he's trying to ride on McCain's coattails.

Stephen Green: I would so hire Mike Huckabee as my accountant. Heck, I might even vote for him for city council. And that's about it.

Ann Althouse: Here's what I think. Get Hunter, Paul, Tancredo, and Brownback out of there. Huckabee, McCain, and Giuliani are serious and have a lot to say. Sit them down at a table and let them talk to each other. With Fred. Gotta bring Fred in too now. Let's go into a new stage of the campaign. It's really wearing to sit through Paul's ravings and Tancredo's fumblings and Hunter's blahness and Brownback's family, family, family. Enough.

Return with me if you will to the last time we had a slate of candidates running for the presidency in 2003-2004. There were many issues discussed. Some of them -- including he Iraq war -- are still issues. But perhaps the greatest issue was military service. Being on active duty meant you had a view on war that was more nuanced and righteous than those who did not.

George W. Bush was pilloried by the Kerry campaign, the media and the anti-war left because he did not get activated and sent to Vietnam. This triad sent near-daily press releases detailing John Kerry's 45-days of service as if he were Audie Murphy. The campaign made his Vietnam service the center-point of his campaign--a tactic that back-fired spectacularly once the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth went into action and dispelled the carefully crafted biography Kerry had laid out. The military issue was so prominent that a well-respected newsman--Dan Rather-- lost his job because of a falsified letter he presented as truthful was brilliantly picked apart by bloggers.

Fast-forward to the present; there's zero discussion of military service by either side. Why the sudden change in attitude about whether or not someone served? Simple, only a few have and none of them are Democrats.

Let's look at the candidates and see who did, who didn't and who plain came up with a reason not to serve in the greatest military in the world:

Democrats:

Delaware Sen. Joe Biden: None. Rejected for medical reasons, but would have been eligible in a national emergency.

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton: None.

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd: Army Reserve (1969-75).

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards: None. Draft number was never called.

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich: None. Was rejected for military service because of a heart murmur.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama: None. Too young to have been drafted for the Vietnam War.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico: None. Received student and medical classifications. Draft number was never called.

• • •

Republicans:

Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback: None. Came of age as draft was ending.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani: None. Received student and occupational deferments. Draft number was never called.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: None. Came of age as draft was ending.

California Rep. Duncan Hunter: Served as an Army paratrooper and Ranger in Vietnam (1969-71).

Arizona Sen. John McCain: Served in the Navy (1958-81); prisoner of war in Vietnam (1967-73).

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: None. Received a deferment as a Mormon missionary in France. Was eligible for the draft upon his return to the states but was never selected.

Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo: None. Received student deferments. Was available for military service in 1969. Reclassified in 1970 because of stress-related anxiety and could have been called up only during a pressing national emergency.

Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson: None. Gained deferment because he had children. (Note: Not on original list, added by author)

Texas Representative Ron Paul: Served in the Army as a Flight Surgeon (1963-1965); Air National Guard (1965-1968) Never served in Vietnam, served in South Korea, Iran, Ethiopia and Turkey. (Note: Not on original list, added by author as an update on 8/22/07 0857))

If we go by the criteria set-forth in 2004, the only candidates who would warrant any attention and would have authority to speak on Iraq are Sen. John McCain, Rep. Ron Paul and Rep. Duncan Hunter. In fact, Hunter's son is currently active duty and boots on the ground. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson would not be considered (however Thompson's exemption is more warranted than others). In fact, if we were to silence all who never served from talking about the war, the discussion would be pretty small.

I said it in 2004 and I'll say it again, the Founding Fathers believed strongly in the concept of civilian control of the military. There's a reason the Commander in Chief is the President and not a five star General or Admiral. The Democrats and liberals made it an issue because they had a candidate who had served in Vietnam and the GOP did not. Now that circumstances are different, the fact that their candidates have no service time is not even muttered and that is disengenuous at best.

If I were John McCain and Duncan Hunter, I'd make this a priority on their campaigns, however, most who served are too proud or humble to do that. Of course, John Kerry was neither and wore his like a badge of courage while John McCain -- a man beaten in a POW prison for years -- did not.

Mitt Romney won the Illinois Straw Poll at the State Fair with 40.4% of the 922 ballots cast:

(Fred) Thompson finished second with 20 percent or 184 votes. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas was third with 18.9 percent or 174 votes; Giuliani was fourth with 11.6 percent or 107 votes; and McCain finished fifth with 4.1 percent or 38 votes.

Huckabee, who finished second in the Iowa balloting, finished sixth in the Illinois straw poll with 3 percent or 28 votes, while Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas had 1.1 percent or 10 votes. Hunter had 0.7 percent or 6 votes and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado finished ninth with 0.3 percent or 2 votes.

Nice numbers for Romney and Fred Thompson and a decent showing for Ron Paul, beating out Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Huckabee, Brownback, Tancredo and (unfortunately) Duncan Hunter are toast.

But that's not the only poll conducted there and not nearly as meaningful as the poll of state GOP county chairmen. In that poll, Fred Thompson won with 22 out of 40-ballots cast. Giuliani was second with 13 and Romney finished in third with 9. Note that Ron Paul received no votes in this poll.

Why is the county chairmen vote more important? Because those are the people who will be boots on the ground in Illinois getting out the vote. These are political people who know who will succeed in Illinois and who will not. The fact that Thompson--who's not even in the race yet--got nearly half the votes is telling as to what the political establishment in that state thinks and they think Fred is the man.

This is quickly coming down to a three-man race and will be a two-man race once the real voting begins. Romney is winning these insignificant polls because he's all over the state and glad-handing every one. As a nominee, he would get crushed; he's a former governor of a deeply blue state, he's too polished for the red states and he is constantly caught in flip-flops. He may make a good V.P. candidate, but we've got quite awhile to contemplate that.

The problem with a debate of this size is that you just don't get to hear as many answers as you'd like from the candidates you want to hear from. That said, here are tonight's winners and losers, in my most humble of opinions:

Winners:

Rudy Giuliani: Giuliani was forceful with his points and seems to be getting more comfortable. He walked the stage and looked like an attorney in a courtroom; confident, sure of his answers and convincing. He didn't get tripped up on the social issues and was on his game. He solidified his place as a front-runner by sounding conservative on national defense and taxation.

Duncan Hunter: Duncan Hunter suffers from the incurable disease of having zero charisma. He's a great candidate and knows policy better than anyone. He would make an excellent president. He was on in his answers and knows the immigration issue well because his district (my former home) in San Diego County is literally miles from the border. He also has a son serving in Afghanistan and who also served in Iraq, the war is real to him and he speaks with authority. That said, he still is a third-tier candidate because he is just not making a splash with the American people. He'd be an excellent Vice President. The international press and the New York Times will most-likely go ballistic that Hunter said he'd nuke Iran to prevent their having nukes themselves.

Losers:

John McCain: McCain had to be stellar today when discussing the immigration bill. He had to convince conservatives that this was a good bill. He failed miserably. As the old saying goes; you can put a dress and lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig. That's how it is with the immigration bill. McCain had but one issue to hammer home and he just couldn't do it. Besides that, the whole "my friends" thing is a bit irksome after the fiftieth time.

I'll update this as the debate goes along. Add your thoughts in comments.

Update (7:20): On the question of whether the invasion of Iraq was right or wrong, Mitt Romney dodged, Rudy Giuliani was straight forward and said he supported it; Duncan Hunter said he would use tactical nukes against Iran to prevent them from developing a nuke themselves. Rudy agreed.

Ron Paul went right to his cut and run rhetoric.

Update (7:41): John McCain failed to explain himself with the immigration bill. McCain said it wasn't the bill he'd have written. Huh?

Hunter called the bill the Bush/McCain/Kennedy bill. That'll leave a mark.

Giuliani harped on the lack of a database and Romney suggested making the Z-Visa temporary.

Update (8:06): On pardoning Scooter Libby, Giuliani, Tommy Thompson, Romney and Tom Tancredo said they would comsider it as did huckabee. Others dodged.

Hunter said he would pardon Border Patrol agents Compion and Ramos who were jailed for shooting a drug dealer. That will go over well with conservatives.

Update (8:29): Giuliani hit the prescription drug question out of the park. He also dealt well with the Iraq question.

Sam Brownback said twice he'd introduce legislation tomorrow to break Iraq into three "states." An interesting concept I'll cover tomorrow.

Update (8:37): Ron Paul actually just said that Iran is not a threat in response to Duncan Hunter's earlier assertion that he would preemptively nuke Iran to keep them from obtaining nukes. He also said (and I paraphrase) that they've never done anything to us. I'm sure there are people who were hostages for 444 days who would beg to differ, congressman.

Paul is not a libertarian or Republican, he is an anti-war liberal.

It's been awhile since we took a look at how the campaigns of the various candidates have been doing. We've been through debates on each sides and have seen some serious and not-so-serious gaffes. Here's my take on how the campaigns have gone over the last months for the party leaders.

The Democrats:

UP
Barack Obama: Obama has run a steady campaign in which he has not made too much noise. He's smart, he knows that you can't win the nomination at this early juncture, but you sure can lose it. He's made a few gaffes such as overstating the amount of people killed in the Midwest tornado and other embarrassing mistakes but nothing fatal and nothing that can't be explained away as him being tired.

Bill Richardson: Richardson has a certain gravitas about him. He seems centrist and has an excellent resume. He's in the position of running a swing-state and not serving in the Senate where he'll be forced to vote on the many important bills currently making the way through that branch. He has also ran a somewhat low-key campaign and has shown himself to be a confident speaker while debating. He's a seasoned politician and acts like he's been here before.

DOWN
Hillary Clinton: Clinton has proven to be about 1/100 of the politician her husband was/is. On the stump she has used an African-American voice, a Southern voice and her own voice, which is so shrill as to be unlistenable. She has wavered on Iraq and immigration and looks downright indecisive. That is the single worst quality one could possess if seeking the Oval Office. She's running this campaign as if one misstep will be her undoing and in doing so has left herself open to alot of criticism.

I agree with fellow "Stump" blogger David Knowles that Fox did an excellent job of moderating last night's debate. The panel asked tough questions and forced the candidates to give relevant, perhaps uncomfortable answers. Now you know why the Democrat's will not debate on Fox, they are not ready to answer a question from Brit Hume.

As David noted, the exchange between Rep. Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani was the highlight. Rudy took it and ran with it and his statements were pure red meat to Republican viewers. Conservatives may have issues with Rudy on social issues but alot of those feelings may well have been assuaged by his comments last night. Video of the exchange and the subsequent interview with Sean Hanity is here.

Other winners: After Rudy, everyone else just seemed secondary. Sen. John McCain did nothing to hurt himself and that may have been the point. Another winner would be Fred Thompson. These debates will weed out the long shots and eventually lead to a debate with F. Thompson, Romney, Giuliani and McCain in which the substantive issues brought up tonight will be debated more thoroughly.

Losers: Paul is of course the standout loser of the night. His parroting of the Michael Moore line of "root cause" and such just will not resonate with Republican primary voters. Others who are considered losers by not making a huge impact are Tommy Thompson, Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter. They can't seem to get any traction during these debates and their personalities aren't conducive to the debate arena.

It should be interesting to see what type of bump in the polls Rudy gets.

Update: NRO has a comparison of MSNBC's questions versus Fox's. Fox stands high above the Chris Matthews/Politico inanity.

A week after the Democrats "debated" in South Carolina, their GOP counterparts do the same. The MSNBC/Politico-sponsored event took place in the impressive space at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California. And Nancy Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger were both on hand to lend further star power.

Chris Matthews took over moderator duties, though on several occasions the candidates didn't exactly answer the question he asked. Iraq was, not surprisingly, the first subject of the day, but conservative touchstones like abortion and stem-cell research were on the docket. Of course, there were a few softballs: which tax would you repeal? And should Bill Clinton be back in the White House (Give you one guess on the answers to that one.)

As for the contenders, the roll call included all 10 current candidates. For those of you keeping score at home they are (in reverse alphabetical order, just to change things up a bit): former Gov. Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin; Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado; former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts; Rep. Ron Paul of Texas; Sen. John McCain of Arizona; Rep. Duncan Hunter of California; former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas; former Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York City; former Gov. Jim Gilmore of Virginia; and Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas

So were there any clear winners or losers? Memorable moments? Did it help you decide who to vote for? Leave your comments below.

Previously on 'The Stump':
· Latest GOP Presidential Straw Poll
· It's April 2007 and They're Already Debating
· Coalition Wants Access to Debate Video

The GOP candidates are getting ready for tonight's MSNBC debate in California. Apparently no less than ten Republicans are fighting for the party's presidential nomination, and they will all show up.

Rudy Giuliani: Has the problem of high expectations as he is widely perceived as the best and quickest speaker. on his feet He needs to explain his awkward stance on guns, abortion and his third marriage. May succeed by steering the conversation toward crime, experience and solving tough problems.

John McCain: Needs a home run, badly, used to be viewed as a front runner and is clinging on to about 25% of the GOP voters despite great name recognition. Will he go on the offense against Giuliani or play it safe? Vulnerable to attacks on the judges and campaign finance front.

Mitt Romney: Just needs to get noticed and get a few sound bites in. He is also hoping for a Giuliani-McCain mudfest so he can look presidential in comparison. He should also explain why Battlefield Earth is a really good book.

As for the rest, Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, Thompson(Tommy), Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, and Jim Gilmore. The best they can hope for is a few soundbites so that someone will remember that they too are running for president. Of these I have the highest hopes for Hunter. He has no chance, but he is well liked by movement conservatives.

I expect lots of references to Reagan, picking good judges and a rush to see who will be toughest on terrorists and the best friend of the military. The excitement will come from those who have little to lose; the second- and third-tier candidates.

Previously on 'The Stump':
· Republicans Will Wrangle at Reagan Library
· Latest GOP Presidential Straw Poll

Today is May Day, historically when immigration supporters rally and march in support of lessening restrictions on immigration. It appears as though those numbers are dwindling:

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Demonstrators demanding a path to citizenship for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants rallied around the nation Tuesday, hoping to spur Congress to act before the looming presidential primaries take over the political landscape.

From Phoenix to Detroit, hundreds of people carried American flags in the streets.

...Hours before the march was set to begin in Chicago, dozens of demonstrators began arriving carrying American flags, signs and placards, including one that read "We may not have it all together, but together we can have it all."

Hundreds? Dozens? Those numbers are really small. The AP piece is typical open borders, give them citizenship fluff, but those numbers speak volumes (note this Reuters headline that can't deny the truth). The climate in America has changed and this is one issue the Republican's own. Everyone in America comes from immigrants, that's true. But most came here legally and not only waited for their citizenship, but assimilated into the fabric of our nation.

With the exception of Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, the GOP field has been wary of entering into this very important debate. President Bush himself has hedged and has lost support of a lot Republican's because of it.

We need real immigration reform and we need it now. Real reform does not offer amnesty nor reward those who've broken the law. It does provide funding for real border security and it provides for consequences if you cross illegally. Reform also requires the U.S. to take a firmer stance with Mexico and calling for economic sanctions if they don't stem the flow.

I know they are just seeking a better life and money to support their families. I feel for them and wish their own leaders would provide them more opportunity. I believe in immigration if it's legal imigration where taxes are paid for services provided. I'm 100% against illegal immigration.

Previously on 'The Stump':
· Will Farm Bill Increase Illegal Immigration?
· Bush Pushes Immigration Again
· Bush Finally Getting Serious About Illegal Immigration?

Harry Reid has got to be the worst public speaker one has ever heard, George W. Bush included. That aside, he's not even a middling Senate Majority Leader. He's led his party to the far-left and has called for an all-out retreat in the face of radical Islam, a brand of Islam that has visited death upon thousands of Americans. Today, several GOP'ers called him on it.

The Democrats want to surrender our right to defend ourselves to appease their base. They want more military deaths because it bolsters their "street cred" with the whacko's who inhabit the dank warrens of their former fringe (but now mainstream) party.

Should the U.S. declare a date of retreat, we will open a Pandora's box of terror that would make the show 24 look pale in comparison. There is no Jack Bauer to save the day.

Reid and Pelosi now are the force that's driving the Democratic party and they will drive us into a chasm the likes of which could not be comprehended as yet.

This is a sham bill that Reid is pushing to throw a little red meat to the base while putting our troops in grave danger. Senator Reid should've stepped down when his shady land deals were reported. This is worse.

The Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, led by a Republican lawyer, Stuart Bowen, Jr., has apparently been doing their job too well. They have:

...sent American occupation officials to jail on bribery and conspiracy charges, exposed disastrously poor construction work by well-connected companies like Halliburton and Parsons and discovered that the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi security forces.

Tucked away in the huge military authorization bill that President Bush signed two weeks ago is Mr. Bowen's reward for repeatedly embarrassing the administration. An obscure provision of the bill terminates his federal oversight agency on October 1, 2007. This clause was inserted by the Republican side of the House Armed Services Committee over the objections of Democratic counterparts during a closed door conference and it has reportedly "generated surprise and some outrage among lawmakers who say they had no idea it was in the final legislation."

Republican Senator Susan Collins, who followed the bill closely as chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, said she still doesn't know how the provision got into the conference report, which reconciles the differences between the Senate and House versions. Everyone agrees that neither the House nor the Senate version contained such a termination clause before the conference. Ms. Collins is working with both Democratic and Republican senators to reverse the termination.

The termination language, but the way, was inserted into the bill by congressional staff members working for Duncan Hunter, the California Republican who is chair of the House Armed Services Committee and who declared on Monday that he plans to run for president in 2008.

Had enough yet?