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.

There was an article in yesterday's Providence Journal that I'm surprised hasn't gotten more attention -- a reprint of a story Saturday in the Washington Post -- In Swing Districts, Democratic Enthusiasm Is Harder to Come By. It reports on an internal poll taken by Democratic pollsters in August that, until the article by Chris Cillizza and Shailagh Murray, had remained secret:

Conventional wisdom dictates that Democratic voters are thrilled with their choices for president, bursting at the seams to rally behind Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) or whoever gets the party's nod next year. A recent survey by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, however, showed Clinton and Obama trailing former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) in the 31 Democratic-held House districts regarded as most imperiled in 2008, and even potentially serving as a drag on those lawmakers' reelection chances. A poll found that if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton tops the ticket in 2008, some vulnerable Democratic House incumbents will have reason to worry. The poll was conducted in August but has not been previously reported. It paints a "sobering picture" for Democrats, according to a memo by Lake and Daniel Gotoff that accompanies the poll report.

In those Democratic districts polled, voters were asked to choose between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, followed by the same question on Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani. Rudy beats Clinton 49 to 39, and he beats Obama by a surprisingly small 41 to 40. This poll was taken before the losses suffered by the Democrats during the past two weeks on the Iraq War. With the above Presidential poll results, I'm gathering that the districts in question are more conservative than the usual Democrat held district. I'm wondering if the events in Congress over the past two weeks would make the Democrats' problems in those districts even greater.

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.

The race for the Republican nomination for president is a field that is still too tough to call. Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson are in the lead and very close to one another in most polls. Mitt Romney and John McCain are well behind Giuliani and Thompson, but they are not so far beyond that they can not make a great leap forward. (No relation to Chairman Mao's Great Leap Forward.) Of course, there is also the possibility that Giuliani and Thompson may drop in the polls at some point in the future. As such, the primary states are taking on critical importance in the eyes of the candidates.

According to The Politico, Michigan has taken on significant importance in the eyes of the nominee hopefuls and with the January 15 (early) primary rapidly approaching the Republican contenders is spending more and more time there. Michigan is a huge state and has the potential to be a swing state despite being very blue.

The Politico's take on the contenders' positions in the race is as follows:

Romney has the best organization, Giuliani is late putting his team together but appears strong in the polls, Thompson is as much x-factor as he is a threat and McCain is in a precarious position.

You can't get a more accurate assessment than that.

Mitt Romney has launched a new campaign strategy in which he is positioning himself as the true conservative outsider of the pack of Republican presidential nominee hopefuls. This is not all that much different than the way Reagan campaigned in 1976 and 1980 and, to a lesser extent, Ross Perot in 1992. According to the Washington Times, Romney has stated: "Washington is failing us...The blame doesn't all belong to the Democrats. We Republicans have to put our own house in order."

If there was one person who could stymie this particular strategy of Romney's it would be Fred Thompson. What Ronald Reagan had working in his favor was that there really was no other Republican running against Reagan in the primaries who has a staunch conservative than him. Thompson, however, is perceived by the public as being more conservative than Romney.

What hurts Romney (and Rudy Giuliani as well) is the fact that Romney has "flip-flopped" on a number of conservative issues such as abortion. There is a certain unfairness of this criticism towards Romney mainly because he was a Republican governor in a very liberal state (Massachusetts) and this would require significantly more compromise with voters and the legislature than Thompson would be required as a senator from Tennessee.

Currently, Romney is trailing behind Giuliani and Thompson and his move sharply to the right is a decent strategy although it may endear him more as a potential vice presidential candidate than the party nominee.

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.

It appears the announcement bounce is over for Fred Thompson. As you all know, I expected Fred to get about a ten-point bump and have that fall back five points to a comfortable range in the front. Well, as it turns out the bounce wasn't that high, but the falling back part was right, via Rasmussen's Daily Tracking:

Date	Thompson	Giuliani	Romney	McCain
09/21/07	24%	24%	13%	15%
09/20/07	23%	22%	13%	15%
09/19/07	26%	21%	13%	14%
09/18/07	28%	19%	12%	14%
09/17/07	28%	19%	12%	14%
09/16/07	28%	18%	11%	15%
09/15/07	26%	19%	9%	14%

Date	Clinton	Obama	Edwards	Date
09/21/07	36%	25%	13%	09/21/07
09/20/07	38%	22%	14%	09/20/07
09/19/07	39%	22%	14%	09/19/07
09/18/07	40%	23%	14%	09/18/07
09/17/07	40%	23%	13%	09/17/07
09/16/07	40%	22%	14%	09/16/07
09/15/07	39%	23%	15%	09/15/07

After hitting 28%, Fred dropped 4-5 points which clearly went right back to Rudy Giuliani. This is clearly a two-man race, at least at this point. The next big movement will be based on how well Fred does in his first debate scheduled on Oct. 9.

Over on the Democratic side, clearly Hillary Clinton has slid a little. Could that be attributable to worries over Norman Hsu? The corruption angle definitely should be cause for concern, but with John Edwards and Barack Obama implicated in Hsu as well, the Democrats won't have anyone to turn to. Still a fairly static race at this point.

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 latest Harris poll shows Fred Thompson leading Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama:

... One-third (32%) of those who say they will vote in a Republican primary or caucus will vote for Thompson while 28 percent will vote for Giuliani. Much further back is John McCain, who continues his downward slide with 11 percent saying they would vote for the Arizona Senator, and 9 percent who say they would vote for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

... Just under half (46%) of those who would vote in a Democratic primary or caucus would vote for the former First Lady while one-quarter (25%) would vote for Illinois Senator Barack Obama. Former vice president candidate and North Carolina Senator John Edwards is further back with 14 percent saying they would vote for him. No other candidate is in double digits.

The only really surprising thing in this poll is that young Democrats will vote for Obama while the older (61 and over) favor Hillary overwhelmingly. A return to the Al Gore, Sr. Dixiecrat roots perhaps?

The Thompson lead is to be expected as he is the "new" candidate. His performance in the debates will be extremely important, should he falter, Rudy will grab this race and run with it setting up the election we were robbed of back in 2000 when Rudy had to bow out because of cancer and Hillary ran against lightweight Rick Lazio.

These are good, strong numbers for Thompson and he should take heart, however they could change dramatically should he not make a good showing. I suspect he'll do fine but also that Giuliani will get a small bump be his brouhaha with MoveOn.org so things should even out. Mitt Romney and John McCain are toast at this point and only can be saved by a complete upset in the early primary states.

On the donk side, John Edwards just hasn't found his stride and is hovering at 12-16% based on polling. He stands no chance of advancing if he hasn't grabbed the electorate by now.

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.

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.

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.

Even with the bump that Fred Thompson got last week after his official announcement, and with John McCain's bounce this week (see Gallup here), Scott Rasmussen still believes that this is a three person race on the GOP side, with no clear frontrunner. Each of the three that Rasmussen mentions (Rudy Giuliani, Thompson, and Mitt Romney) have their strengths:

Thompson is currently seen by Republican voters as the most politically conservative candidate, clearly an asset in a party where more than 60% of Primary Voters are politically conservative.

Rudy Giuliani is seen by the GOP voters as the most electable Republican candidate.

Mitt Romney has pursued a different strategy. While struggling in the national polls, he has built a solid organization and is leading in the Iowa caucus, the New Hampshire primary, and other early states.

But I think that the lead that Thompson has developed over Giuliani (28% - 19%) should worry the former mayor of New York. Nationwide, Giuliani is very similar to Hillary Clinton in that he has almost universal name recognition. Thompson does not, at least not as a Republican candidate for President. The more that the base of the GOP get to know Thompson's views, the more they will recognize that his brand of conservatism mimics theirs. At that point, the electability factor with Giuliani begins to even out.

From the AP:

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton was endorsed Saturday by retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who sought the party's nomination in 2004 and whose sterling military credentials could bolster her bid to be the first female commander in chief.

This couldn't have come at a better time for Clinton what with Rudy Giuliani and many on the right accusing her of calling General Patraeus a liar. I'm not terribly surprised by this endorsement, however. Clark, who served in Kosovo under President Clinton, is an old friend of Hillary's.

Still, this is support that any of the other Democratic candidates would have been ecstatic to receive. Clark is well respected in military circles, and would prove a sound adviser. Look for Clinton declare her intention to offer Clark an important cabinet position sometime soon.

Sen. Hillary Clinton has fired back at criticism put forth by Rudy Giuliani regarding Clinton's refusal to condemn the MoveOn.org NY Times ad which blasted General Petraeus by referring to him as "General Betray Us." This ad caused a major public outcry and Giuliani has capitalized on the situation as an opportunity to put Clinton on the defensive. Her tepid response was the following as noted by wcbstv.com:

"It's hardly surprising that Mayor Giuliani is running the first negative ad of the '08 campaign, given his inability to justify his unqualified support for President Bush's failed Iraq strategy."

How original.

There are two problems with Clinton's response. First, it is not a deep and profound statement rebutting anything that Giuliani has said. It seems more along the lines of a casual blow off. Second, Clinton does not condemn the MoveOn advertisement in her response in any way. This is going to cost her points with the public a public that has responded quite negatively to the controversial advertisement.

This has been a bad week for the Democrats with their treatment of General David Petraeus as said treatment has left a bad taste in the public's mouth. The MoveOn ad has piled on more public relations damage for the Democrats. Unless Clinton repudiates the ad, then she will suffer the negative public relations (and public opinion) fate as well.