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.

Could a hot topic catapult a GOP second-tier candidate into the 2008 presidential nomination?

Earlier this year, it looked like illegal immigration could be that topic. It brought headlines to Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, and headaches for President Bush and Arizona Sen. John McCain.

Now Republicans seem united in opposing illegal immigration. In last week's presidential debate, McCain, after making an insensitive reference to "the Guatemalans" on Mitt Romney's lawn, said, "No one, by the way, is for amnesty. I and the president of the United States, both of us from border states, came forward with a plan that we thought was comprehensive and workable with the priority being border security, which remains my position."
What remaining issue could spark an insurgency? Iraq. Anti-war Rep. Ron Paul of Texas articulated his anti-war argument in New Hampshire.

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.

Pretend you didn't read the headline and have no idea of the meme of this post.

Now listen to these words:

...but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there."

Who would you imagine said them?

Perhaps Cindy Sheehan? How about Markos Moulitsas at Daily Kos? Maybe even Duncan Black or Ted Rall?

No, they were spoken by Osama bin Laden, the man who orchestrated the deaths of 3,000 and now calls for even more.

It's a sad place to be when your words sound exactly like the greatest enemy America has had in decades. This puts the Democrats in an even more precarious position, they must appease their base as I've mentioned before, in which case they will appease bin Laden or they have to allow the president to finish this war and take out al-Qaida and their various cells. I'm predicting they go the latter route or risk having themselves branded Osama's enablers.

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.

Memo to the current crop of Iraq war cheerleaders, in other words, the Republican candidates for president (save Ron Paul): the people of Iowa whose votes you covet want the U.S. out of Iraq, and soon. This finding comes to us from Strategic Vision, a GOP public relations company that has just conducted a survey of Republican voters in Iowa.

When asked, "Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months?" the GOP rank and file responded in the following manner:

Yes 51%
No 39%
Undecided 10%

Iowa Republicans, it would appear, are far ahead of Senator John Warner, who wants to give the nation a Christmas present of delivering a token number of soldiers home for Christmas. One gets the feeling that Republican candidates, and their counterparts in the Congress, are lagging behind the views of their constituents. Sticking by this president through thick and thin may not be such a wise move, considering another question on the survey that was asked only to Republicans:

Do you see President George W. Bush as a conservative Republican in the mode of Ronald Reagan?

Yes 9%
No 78%
Undecided 13%

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.

With the expected-sooner-or-later news that Tommy Thompson is bowing out of the GOP presidential primary, I've been wondering, who's next?

The top tier, those who are collecting money, support, or doing well in the polls will be in it to stay. Also in it for the long haul are those for whom the message is way more important than their position in money or polling, or even their own self-respect. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, I'm looking at you. It's the middle tier, those who are serious candidates, have great resumes, but are now facing the obvious. They will never get their party's nomination. At least, not in this cycle.

My vote on the GOP side is for Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas. Despite placing third place in the Ames, Iowa Straw Poll, he lost to Mike Huckabee, who is competing for the exact same sets of conservative Christian voters, despite spending almost twice as much money. He's a senator, which is a weaker position than a governor, and there are still two governors or former governors in the race (plus a mayor who was the executive of a city with a bigger population than most of the states.). Basically he's redundant, and at some point he will face those facts, probably before January, long before January.

On the Democratic side, we have a close one between Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. Neither of them have a chance, most folks don't even know they are running. Obama is sucking up all the oxygen and whatever's left is going to Hillary and John Edwards. My bet is that Chris Dodd will bow out first because Joe Biden thinks very, very highly of himself, enough to overcome any feelings of inadequacy about scraping the bottom of the barrel in this contest. Chris Dodd is out before December?

What's your call? Who's out next and when?

Here's hoping she's OK:

Carol Paul, wife of Congressman and presidential hopeful Ron Paul, was hospitalized today in Iowa, where the couple was awaiting results of a statewide straw poll on the GOP presidential contenders.

Carol Paul, 71, was taken to a local hospital after suffering shortness of breath and low blood pressure, said Kent Snyder, a spokesman for Ron Paul's presidential campaign.

A presidential campaign is a serious grind on all concerned and the fact that it is now starting two-years out doesn't help. The candidates spouses are there for nearly every event and have to glad-hand and smile the entire time, a process that has got to be tedious at best. The fact that she is 71, where most of the other candidates wives are younger is something to be taken into account as the travails of the stump must be trying for someone twenty years younger.

I hope that Carol Paul takes a break from the rigors of campaigning and gets some rest as there are more important things than campaigning for primaries that are 4-5 months out.

Mitt Romney romped in the Iowa Straw Poll, though it doesn't mean much since Rudy Giuliani and John McCain didn't participate:

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, got 31.6 percent of the more than 14,000 ballots cast, compared with 18.1 percent for second-place finisher Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas; 15.3 percent for Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback; 13.7 percent for Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo; and 9.1 percent for Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who rounded out the top five in the 11-man field.

This means nothing for Romney as he expected to win. For Mike Huckabee, it gives him a much-needed boost but essentially means he'll be around until the Iowa caucuses and then drop out.

The big losers were Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, who failed to get any real traction during the immigration bill debacle and Rep. Ron Paul. Paul, in particular, needed a good showing to give clout to his alleged groundswell. That groundswell didn't materialize and if Paul can't win -- or even make the top three -- in a watered-down field, he has no business being in the race other than to act as spoiler -- which may be the plan.

The Iowa Straw Poll was once considered to be of great import but that time is passed. The candidates made a showing of busing people in and treating them all nicely in exchange for a vote that means nothing. I suspect that we'll see Brownback, Tancredo, Tommy Thompson and Duncan Hunter pack it in as they had dismal showings and their campaigns have not lit any sparks anywhere (in Hunters case, that's a shame). Paul will keep going as he has, in his words, "large Internet support," but real voting is not the same as spamming a blog's poll and hitting the Ron Paul button fifty times in three minutes.

Elections are volatile things. Sometimes things happen: a candidate steps in it (so to speak) and some incident gets huge publicity and a 10 point leads evaporates and the other person wins. That's why campaign staffs tend to play it safe and not expose their candidate to reporters or other potential off the cuff remarks. Minimize the opportunity for damage.

At this stage, campaigns pay close attention to the favorable/unfavorable ratings of the incumbent. Generally speaking, favorables below 50 percent means an incumbent should be challenged and below 40-43%, they are in trouble. So, how are things going out there? From the Washington Post:

In the seven key Senate seats, the average reelect number for the GOP incumbents was 37 percent, with just 13 percent saying they would "definitely" vote to reelect the incumbent. Greenberg referred to those results as "go get your shotgun numbers."

If you're a Republican candidate, it can always get worse this cycle. The preferred candidate of Iowa Republicans is Other/Undecided at 31%. Mitt Romney currently has 26%, Rudy Giuliani next. And in fourth place? Barack Obama. Apparently, he has crossover appeal in conservative Iowa. His message of stopping the partisan war and moving forward is generating support among Republicans.