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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

Life on the campaign trail can indeed be lonely for a presidential candidate struggling to gain traction.

The photo above captures Republican Sam Brownback speaking to a sparse audience at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., Tuesday. To be fair, there were at least 11 more people on the right side of the room, not pictured here.

Still, this can't bode well for the Brownback campaign. What does the Republican senator from Kansas need to do to capture the voters' interest? Or is it a hopeless case? Leave your comments below.

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.

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.

What is Mike Huckabee's secret sauce? The Washington Times talks to a campaign consultant who thinks he knows:

That Mr. Huckabee has a knack for connecting with voters is obvious, but Rich Thau, a campaign communications consultant who is conducting focus groups on the debates, has measured it and says Mr. Huckabee was literally off the chart in one of his answers in last weekend's debate.

Mr. Thau does dial-testing, in which voters constantly rate performances by turning a dial to indicate their approval of what a candidate is saying. He posts his results on his Web site, www.messagejury.com, and he says in last weekend's debate, voters scored Mr. Huckabee's blunt "Let's get it done" answer on energy independence at a 98 out of 100, putting it in the realm of "motherhood and apple pie."

"He has yet to deliver a dud response in any of the four GOP debates," Mr. Thau said calling him the Ted Williams of the debates for combining consistency with his ability to hit a home run. "Huckabee has that ability to bring the entire issue down to a single sentence where people go, 'Yeah, that makes sense to me.' "

Rich Thau has the "get it done" answer and the audience reaction to it on his website here. Fascinating stuff.

That's how much Mike Huckabee paid to get his second place result in the Ames, Iowa Straw Poll. USA Today did an analysis:

• Third-place finisher Sam Brownback says he spent about $325,000 to win his 2,192 votes. That's $148.27 for each vote.
• Second-place finisher Mike Huckabee spent about $150,000 and received 2,587 votes. That's $57.98 per vote.
• Winner Mitt Romney has not said how much he spent. The reporting in this Washington Post article suggests at least $2 million and possibly more than twice that much. Assuming $2 million for 4,516 votes, that's $442.87 per vote. But it could top $1,000.

Mitt Romney gets no bump at all out of this. He spent $2 million while nobody else even had that kind of money. This straw poll is a pay-to-play where candidates bus in their own supporters. Romney should have won and he did. He gets no increase in standing, but he doesn't lose either. Net result, no change.

Huckabee wins because, in the political analysis presented in this piece, it's apparent that his votes came from more than just money and political organization. Apparently many of the voters bused in on other candidates transportation switched their vote at the last minute. This is saying something about Huckabee, something good. For his $150k he gets a ton of positive public press and attention that you can't buy at this stage.

Sam Brownback spent too much of his wad on a contest that ultimately means very little except generating a few headlines in the political sargasso season. And he didn't even get that. He's done, even if he doesn't know it.

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?

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.

The alliance of talk radio, blogs and grassroots efforts was a winner when it came to defeating the "shamnesty" bill. Conservatives were enraged and showed just how much power we possess:

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of 15,000 adults in June found that just 32.0% now say they're Republicans. That's up more than a full percentage point from a month ago and is within a tenth-of-a-point of the GOP's best showing in ten months.

This is purely because of the efforts put forth to defeat a bill that would've rewarded those who broke our laws. The Bush administration suffered its worst legislative defeat because of the actions of fellow Republicans.

This is interesting as it shows that immigration is an important issue and it shows that President Bush, Ted Kennedy and John McCain were on the absolute wrong side of it. The Democrats actually stayed out of the fray for the most part and the media portrayed it for what it was; a major disagreement between conservatives and the president. The president lost, conservatives won and the public went against the president. That should be telling to the Bush administration.

Note also that the people who identified themselves as Democrats decreased. That is telling as well since the Dems were associated with this bill largely by the presence of Teddy Kennedy.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: McCain lost the election on this issue and candidates such as Fred Thompson and Tom Tancredo stuck to their guns and ended up on the side of the American people. Others such as Lindsey Graham and Sam Brownback came out looking like fools and severely misjudged the public reaction to illegal immigration.