In an announcement that could have huge ramifications in the 2008 balance of power battle in the Senate between Democrats and Republicans, Senator John Warner will announce later today whether or not he will seek re-election next year. From last night:

Sen. John Warner will announce tomorrow at the University of Virginia whether or not he intends to seek a sixth term, according to two top Virginia sources. Warner is planning a 2 p.m. news conference on the grounds of the Charlottesville, Va., school, where he took his law degree over 50 years ago. The Virginian will give his speech near the statue of Thomas Jefferson on the steps of the school's famous Rotunda, adding a fitting Warner flourish to the event.

If Warner goes, I'd have to give the advantage to Democrats for his seat. Former Democrat Governor Mark Warner is still very popular in Virginia, and would be a formidable contender. On the Republican side, you would have Rep. Thomas M. Davis and former Gov. Jim Gilmore vying to replace Warner. As Davis has already set in motion a statewide get-to-know-the-candidate tour, and has already raised over a million dollars, he would probably be in the lead on the GOP side early on. There's even a good chance that he'd run against Warner in a primary, should Warner choose to seek re-election.

I haven't hid my disdain for what the distinguished Warner has become in the last year -- I've written here twice on the trouble with his recollections on personal experiences during the Vietnam War, which he claims is defining his calls for an exit from Iraq. Quite simply, he's old and way past his prime -- reduced to playing for posterity and media approval. It's long past time for the GOP to get new blood into the party, more of the type that ran and won in 1994. In particular, the Senate has become too much like the British House of Lords, with members "to the manner born" and appointed. If rebuilding the party means that a chance to regain the majority in the Senate will have to wait another couple of years, so be it.

I think we have our first official drop out: Former Republican Governor of Virginia James S. Gilmore will not be running for the GOP nomination in 2008.

In the interview, Gilmore said the punishing financial requirements of the early-starting race caused him to decide it was "impractical" to continue. "Because of the front-loading of the primaries, I would have basically had to stop campaigning and spend full time organizing hundreds of people to raise money for me," he said.

Gilmore's campaign issued a statement in which he said: "I have come to believe that it takes more than a positive vision for our nation's future to successfully compete for the presidency. I believe that it takes years of preparation to put in place both the political and financial infrastructure to contest what amounts to a one-day national primary in February."

He's going out with a whine not a bang, blaming the front-loading of the primaries for his inability to break through. As for that, it might be interesting to ask him why Fred Thompson seems to be doing perfectly fine under the same set of circumstances. Jim Gilmore is a conventional conservative but managed to raise just over $200,000 this quarter. Ouch!

Realistically though, there just wasn't enough room in the national consciousness. To my knowledge (being an avid politics junkie) Gilmore never did or said anything especially noteworthy. Contrast this with Fred Thompson who had been connecting with the conservative media for a few months now, serving big heaping portions of red meat.

So that's it then. Gilmore confirmed that he's thinking about running for the senate or the governorship of Virginia. In the meantime he will be raising support in Virginia for Republican causes.

On the GOP side, the immigration issue is a three-ton anchor around John McCain's neck. He won the last poll and since then has dipped dramatically. For Barack Obama, he seems to have shored up the African-American vote and has assumed a nice lead over Hillary. The numbers are bleak for the second and third tier candidates:

With strong support from the African American community, Illinois Senator Obama has assumed a strong lead over New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. On the Republican side, Thompson zoomed to the top spot, slightly ahead of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, even though he hasn't yet announced his bid for the GOP nomination.

The Mason-Dixon poll, made available to McClatchy Newspapers and NBC News, offered disappointing news for two candidates who previously had been polling well in South Carolina. John Edwards, a South Carolina native who won the primary in 2004, was well behind Obama and Clinton on the Democratic side. Arizona Sen. John McCain, meanwhile, appeared to have lost many of his supporters to Thompson, and was far back in the GOP field.

Obama polled at 34% while Hillary was at 25%. The biggest news is that the hometown boy John Edwards only garnered 12%, a showing that is more dismal given that he has always had major support in the state.

On the Republican side, Fred Thompson beat Rudy Giuliani 25% to 21%, a good amount considering he hasn't even announced. Mitt Romney polled at 11% and McCain is in single digits at 7%.

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.

Which presidential candidates can break out of the second tier? On the Democratic side, this question is easy: Bill Richardson, who has a great resume, a great platform as a governor, and a good story on electability, being able to contend in the West and Southwest.

But on the Republican side it's a little more muddled. We have Jim Gilmore, Sam Brownback, and Mike Huckabee who all have good platforms and credentials. But I think Huckabee has the best chance. You might call me crazy for thinking that a little known governor from Arkansas has a shot, but ask yourself what Governor Bill Clinton was doing in the spring of 1991

AP has a nice little write-up on Mike Huckabee which highlights the reasons:

Mike Huckabee has a resume fit for a GOP presidential nominee - Southern Baptist preacher, former Arkansas governor, fierce opponent of abortion and gay marriage. Those attributes would seem to be exactly what fellow conservatives are looking for in a candidate. What he doesn't have is money or a household name, and those deficiencies have proven costly to his campaign. He barely registers in polls and is struggling to break out of the pack of Republicans seeking to be seen as credible alternatives to the strongest contenders, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney.

I agree with the others who say that Chris Matthews was annoying as a host. Karl Rove as an employee? What does a Mormon do about Bishops out of control? Whatever, Chris.

On the little guys, it was interesting, I watched it while scanning the news and doing some other things. It was a little bit of multitasking,but also a little on purpose to see if any of the little guys would or could capture and hold my attention. None of them did except for Ron Paul. My hearts with him, but the America of today is nowhere near ready for a libertarian of his stripe, but I'm glad he's around.

As for the rest, sorry to say, that none of them really stood out. Around the blogosphere the word is that Huckabee did well, and I would disagree, because from what I saw, they all did well, but what they needed to do was break out of the herd and really capture and seize an audience. Hard to do with thirty second answers, but that was the order of the day.

Giuliani, what can I say? He had the highest expectations, but he was not on his game, not at all. We had a few glimpses of the glib talking mayor, but far too seldom. He absolutely gutted himself with an answer on abortion that seemed to indicate that a judge of his may find that Roe vs. Wade is good law. That's not the deal he needs to make. If he would agree to appoint judges to overturn Roe, he would get wide latitude on other issues, but absent that, he's in trouble. This is such elementary politics that I'm surprised that Giuliani flubbed it. But he did. He gave several answers guaranteed to anger the religious right. Giuliani needs to do some fence mending very, very soon. He came into the debate riding high, but ended up creating severe doubts about his candidacy that did not exist previously. That's how you lose.

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