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.

James Dobson does not speak for the religious right, says another card-carrying member:

Former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer contends that conservative Christians should seriously consider supporting Thompson if they want to avoid a "nightmare scenario" where they are forced to choose between two pro-abortion, pro-gay rights candidates – Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.

"He (Thompson)'s obviously against same-sex marriage. He doesn't support quite the same constitutional amendment that some of the others of us do, but he's been talking with us about it, and has been moving closer and closer on the amendment," said Bauer, who is president of American Values, according to OneNewsNow.

"So I hope that we can, as a movement, be very wise about this, and not savage candidates that we may very well have to support in 2008 if they're running against Hillary Clinton."

As I suspected, Fred Thompson has not suffered at all from Dobson's attack, and indeed the collective blogosphere opinion was to think even more highly of Thompson. And with this latest defense it appears that Thompson can get the support of both the religious right and the libertarian elements of the GOP. It's the best of both worlds!

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.

Hey, that's good enough for me.

I've been fervent in my posts about the uneasiness I feel when GOP candidates act as if they have to cozy up to religious folk. President Bush did it with Jerry Falwell and John McCain more recently is doing it with Southern Baptists. Republican candidates place an undeserved prestige on gaining the backing of people such as James Dobson and it doesn't gain them the support they would hope for. In fact, it may turn off conservative Democrats and cost them more votes then it gains.

Think about it, who will Dobson support as if it really matters? He won't support Giuliani so that leaves who, Sam Brownback or Mike Huckabee? He definitely won't support Mitt Romney. Essentially, Dobson has been neutralized and that means his power has dissipated. That can only be good for the party as we've seen those who preach have not always been the most godly of people anyway. I put Dobson on a par with other partisan groups who should have their power usurped such as MoveOn and NOW.

As a Neocon, I am a moderate on most social issues, the church is not supposed to play as large a part as the GOP has placed on it in recent years. For those who have made Neocon a curse, do a little research and see that most Neocons were liberals who changed affiliation because they think that democracy is the cornerstone to changing the world and despots and dictators are evil and should be exiled or forced out by whatever means necessary. That's a much-abridged description but take some time to look up what we think.

Dobson and his ideological brethren are fading and will continue to do so. The nation needs a leader who is not praised by those of Dobson's ilk and who will lead based on good moral tenets--whether religion-inspired or not. Let Dobson support Sam Brownback and I'll support Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson.

The AP snagged this very interesting e-mail:

"Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?" Dobson wrote.

"He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to.' And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"

This should cause no great consternation in the Fred Thompson camp. The religious right folks are rallying around Mike Huckabee, but so far the Arkansas governor has not broken out of the second tier. If he does so, then the Dobson thing may matter. But for Thompson, the fact that he does in fact look like Ronald Reagan when you stand him next to John McCain, Mitt Romney, and especially Rudy Giuliani. Dobson may not like it, but he's pointedly not endorsing Giuliani either, and right now it's a two-man race.

Thompson can wait it out. Dobson will come around if it's Fred vs. Hillary Clinton. And besides this will make the libertarian wing of the Republican party gravitate toward Fred Thompson even more.

The latest USA Today poll has Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mike Huckabee all gaining while Mitt Romney falls 4%. Fred Thompson only gained 3% in this poll taken over the weekend, the first since he announced he's a candidate. Pretty modest numbers for a new candidate. The numbers also suggest as I noted earlier that McCain is indeed back in the race and must now be repositioned back into the top tier.

However, the latest Rasmussen poll shows Thompson leading Giuliani 26% to 22% meaning Fred took some votes from America's Mayor. The Rasmussen poll has historically had Giuliani closer to the field than others so no great change. That's a four point jump for Thompson, not a significant leap but something he may be able to build on.

With regard to Fred Thompson, I expected to see at least an 8-10 point surge after his announcement, but his long, drawn out pre-campaign nullified any great bump. The numbers I find intriguiging for Thompson is the high percentage who don't know him:

Thompson is significantly less well known than Giuliani or McCain - 28% of Republicans say they've never heard of Thompson, compared with 8% for Giuliani and 9% for McCain.

Among those Republicans who know all four leading contenders, Giuliani and Thompson are essentially tied. In a head-to-head race among all GOP voters, Giuliani bests Thompson by 13 points, 53%-40%.

How can 28% not know who Fred is? That says to me that he was not very effective in getting his name out over the summer, a major campaign flaw and unforgiveable for a candidate who has been on a top-rated show for a couple of years. Apparently, those who do know of Thompson like him as he is tied with Rudy in that category.

Ron Paul, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo all posted the usual horrid numbers. It's surprising that Ron Paul hasn't broken 4% in any USA Today poll given his supposed clout in the race and his landslide victories in text and internet polls. I guess it doesn't translate to the real world.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, anti-war voice of the Republicans, continues to blast his party for its militaristic stances.

The New York Times reported a testy exchange on Iraq between Paul and ex-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in Wednesday's GOP debate.

"The American people didn't go in," Paul said. "A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservatives hijacked our foreign policy."

"Congressman, we are one nation," Huckabee replied. "We can't be divided. We have to be one nation, under God. That means, if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country: the United States of America, not the divided states of America."

This isn't the first time Paul has drawn ire from his conservative colleagues. Pat Buchanan listed as "the decisive moment of the (Republicans' May) South Carolina debate" a confrontation between Paul and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.

On Fox News last night, the GOP candidates -- sans Fred Thompson -- went at it again. There were some more fireworks than in previous face-offs and the race is starting to get more heated. Iraq, immigration, abortion and the greater War on Terror were the main topics with immigration and Iraq taking up the most time.

Winners would include John McCain although it's too little, too late and Mike Huckabee. Huckabee had a sparring match with Ron Paul in which Huckabee definitely had the crowd on his side and in my opinion won the match. You can see why Paul attracts some devotees but I have to agree with Glenn Reynolds that his notion that the "neocons" led us to war and not the nation as a whole rings hollow. Paul is essentially rewriting history as he knows full-well that the President went to Congress for approval and went to the UN as well. In fact, the process was extended because of that and that allowed Saddam to set up the insurgency in my opinion. So the idea that a few "neocons" got us into war is ludicrous at best. Huckabee is running a decent campaign being that he came from nowhere.

McCain hit some good points and came across as prepared and on his game, unfortunately he sank during the "shamnesty" bill imbroglio and can never get back to the point he was, especially with Fred Thompson now in the race. A McCain upset in the early primaries is a possibility but not probable. The Arizona Senator had the funniest line of the night when busting on Thompson for missing the debate and doing the Leno show: "Maybe we're up past his bedtime," although McCain is four years older.

Rudy Giuliani didn't make any huge mistakes but he didn't exactly blow anyone away either. He was Mayor of New York, we all know he was Mayor of New York and we all know his record in New York. Start talking about the rest of the country, Rudy.

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.

From here on out, the name of the game for Fred Thompson is "living up to expectations." To this point, he's been able to control his message with scripted YouTube videos on Federalism, homespun kitsch as a fill-in for Paul Harvey, and a handful of selective public appearances. The biggest question facing Mr. Thompson is how well he'll perform when going toe-to-toe with the competition. Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain (Not to mention Mike Huckabee) have proven themselves to be worthy adversaries at the slew of Republican debates which Mr. Thompson has sat out.

Well, add another missed opportunity to the list. In a calculated maneuver, Mr. Thompson will "officially" join the field of contenders the day after what one could argue is an important New Hampshire debate tomorrow night. But don't despair, Thompson fans, you can catch your man on Jay Leno, where he'll hope to reach a bigger audience and duck the live fire of his rivals. Believe me, Mr. Thompson's absence will not be lost on the proceedings. Nor should it. He could just as easily announced his entry into the race on the 5th, and made the debate the first big event of his fledgling campaign, but the potential for a let-down performance was just too great.

Indeed, in an even greater affront to voters, Thompson plans to run an ad during the Republican debate. How's that for having your cake and eating it, too?

Unfortunately for Mr. Thompson, these kinds of scripted, tightly-choreographed forays will soon be coming to an end.

My fellow Ohio Blogger Brain Shavings alerted me to this last evening. I was not aware that Mike Huckabee along with Senator Sam Brownback joined up with Lance Armstrong and his "War on Cancer".

Huckabee committed to sign a nationwide smoking ban in public places, should such a measure win approval in Congress. Brownback said he would let anti-smoking efforts continue under the authority of states and local communities.

I don't and have never smoked, but I think that Brownback has a much better stand on principle here. While Mike Huckabee seems to be an earnest believer in the power of government to fix things. The federal government does not have the freedom to pass any law that is in the public good without violating the tenth amendment.

If individual states want to ban smoking anytime and anywhere, that's probably OK, but the federal government should not do so. Mike Huckabee may call himself a conservative, but making decisions on behalf of people for their own good is not a conservative principle, and doing so at the fed level just doubles the problem.

I still think Huckabee has a good chance of breaking out of the second tier, and especially of overtaking John McCain, but he will need the energy of conservatives to push him there, and this is not the way to get it.

Or as we say in English: "Enjoy your meal." Well for Republican candidate Mike Huckabee it means: "Quit Digging your Grave with a Knife and Fork." This is the title of the book he wrote after he recovered from a food addiction and lost 110 pounds. Huckabee spoke to southern governors on Saturday about his concerns about obesity in this country. According to him, an obesity epidemic could cause serious concerns for the American economy and for national security.

700 000 Americans will die in a year because of unhealthy habits which also include smoking. Huckabee went so far that he has compared it with disasters like hurricane Katrina and 9/11, since the fatality rate is as high. Each day 2,000 Americans die to do poor health choices. 90% of all diabetes cases are considered Type 2, which is linked to obesity or lack of physical activity. The health care costs of a person with diabetes is five times higher then health care cost of a person without it. For more on these numbers see this link. The military is also affected by obesity. The percentage of overweight possible recruits rose from 27 percent to 32 percent from 1996 to 2005. However in order to get more recruits the army allows people to enlist if they reduce to weight standards within a year in their age group. Officials in the military are concerned about this problem for quite some time.

When will it be? Maybe sooner than you think. Somehow I missed this in the Boston Globe, but the speculation is that Fred Thompson will announce on or around September 5, and simultaneously show up for the University of New Hampshire debate on the same date.

Asked Wednesday by a Nashville, Tenn., radio commentator whether Sept. 5 is likely to be the day, Thompson said: "I can't give you a particular date, but sounds like you're in the neighborhood."

"I'm taking the time that I've got allotted to me to get my team together, to get my act together," Thompson said.

More speculation of the same sort here.

Well, it's not like there has been any lack of opportunity! If he misses this debate, there will be another, we can count on that. As someone who's warming up to Thompson, I'm afraid to say it, but I think the superheated buzz around his non-campaign is raising expectations extremely high for his potential performance in any potential debate. He's going to have to hit a home run every single time.

Who benefits from the expectations game? Mike Huckabee, who, with an impressive achievement in the Iowa Straw Poll, will be watched closely in any future debates. He will no longer be lumped in with the others in the second tier but will be watched closely for any breakout potential. Which he has, in spades. Thompson or no Thompson, the next GOP debate and the reactions to it will be interesting for that alone.

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.

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.