??????? Speaker Newt Gingrich tells Reuters news service today the same thing he has been telling everyone else for awhile, that he will wait until September to decide about entering the 2008 presidential race. Until then, Speaker Gingrich plans to work on creating a “generation of solutions” that are “very solution-oriented, very specific” and ostensibly a lot like the Contract With America from 1994.

It appears that in taking such an adamant wait-and-see approach, Republican voters will lose the benefit of Speaker Gingrich’s direct participation in the New Hampshire (on April 4) and South Carolina (on May 15) GOP presidential candidate debates this spring, though?clearly the media will be eager to obtain his post-event analysis of those forums (which will be his candidate response of sorts).

The Speaker also raises the possibility that the 2008 campaign will be dominated by the issue of the War in Iraq, if it continues to go badly, though he is prudently engaging in a broad and thorough analysis of the federal public policy concerns our nation will confront in the future.

So while Speaker Gingrich will be prepared substantively to campaign by September, the questions will be how he can compete financially and organizationally? My guess is that the Speaker believes a serious draft movement could raise substantial funds over the Internet (Governor Howard Dean style), especially if by fall there is still no bona fide Reagan conservative gaining significant traction; and organization is very likely to be a distant and secondary concern with the compressed?election calendar (as so many states move their caucuses and primaries into January and February of 2008) creating a two-and-a-half month national primary where the keys to victory are name recognition, being able to attract unpaid (free) media coverage, and having the resources to run television advertising across the country in a large number of states from December of 2007 until March of 2008.

According to recently released presidential campaign fundraising numbers from Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, the two co-frontrunners for the Republican nomination, Giuliani’s campaign is a mere $300,000 behind McCain in fundraising.? The Arizona Senator has raised $1.7 million in 2007 thus far, while the former New York City Mayor has collected $1.4 million so far this year.

Team Rudy out-raised Team McCain in the last few weeks of 2006, after they had both set up their committees, however.? Giuliani received nearly $1 million in the end of ‘06, while McCain received just slightly less than half that, at $472,000.

As far as transferred funds, $1 million of McCain’s presidential campaign money so far has come from funds he transferred from his Senate account, whilst $100,000 of Rudy’s presidential campaign money so far has come from funds he transferred from his 2000 Senate run account.

Romney appears to be outfundraising both of the two big-dogs, though, having earned $6.5 million, the vast majority of it on a single day a few weeks ago, though the article notes that this number might be deceptive, as a good deal of it is in “pledges” that may be as of yet uncollected.

Some race this is shaping up to be!? It’s looking doubtful that the top-tier candidates won’t break the $100 million mark by the time primary season starts in January of 2008.

As the field of candidates for both sides of spectrum become set, I thought it prudent to our debates and discussions to take a look back at the last primary season when the GOP ran a dozen candidates against one another. Perhaps some things could be learned from that story.

For the 2008 primary season, it looks like the GOP will be fielding a group of 12-13 candidates for the nomination (12 currently, 13 if Hagel or Gingrich jumps in). By the summer of 1999, the GOP field was also set with 12 candidates: Kasich, Bush, Forbes, Dole, Bauer, Buchanan, Alexander, Keyes, Quayle, Hatch, Smith, and McCain.

History Lesson #1: Not all candidates make it through the summer.
In July of 1999, Bush’s record-breaking fundraising numbers (numbers through June) pushed Smith and Kasich to drop out a month before the Ames Straw Poll, leaving just 10 candidates. They realized they just could not compete with the kind of cash Bush could raise. In 2007, we may see similar decisions from candidates such as Gilmore, Cox, and Paul as the big 3 load up on early cash.

History Lesson #2: Not all candidates make it through the Straw Poll.
In August 1999, 9 candidates went to the Straw Poll (McCain declined to participate). Alexander finished 6 out of 9 - a somewhat respectable showing, but that combined with Bush’s fundraising numbers pushed him to drop out a day later. One month later, for the same two reasons, Quayle dropped out of the race as well (he finished 8 out of 9 at Ames). This left just 8 out of the 12 original candidates heading into the fall of 1999. We should see the same winnowing effect after the straw poll this year if candidates that are barely hanging on in fund-raising underperform in Ames. Of course, those who exceed expectations may get a boost and an ability to stay in the race longer.

History Lesson #3: Not all candidates make it to the first of the year.
October rolled around and more fundraising numbers came out - driving away another potential candidate: Liddy Dole dropped out October 20. Five days later, Pat Buchanan announced he was leaving the Republican Party and joining the Reform Party, leaving now just 6 candidates heading into the year 2000. Only half of the original field of candidates made it to the end of the year prior to the primaries. And those weren’t even the strongest 6 candidates, either - for example, Orrin Hatch stuck around despite trailing badly in fundraising and coming in last place in Ames - theoretically to see if he could do any better when the actual votes were counted. He dropped out two days after taking last place in the Iowa caucus.

History Lesson #4: Having multiple “true conservative” candidates leads to a consensus front-runner.
It was interesting reading six and seven-year-old news stories about the 2000 race, because they consistently noted that evangelicals and die-hard conservatives never felt fully comfortable with either Bush or McCain. However, the rest of the pack that was trying to appeal to conservatives and values voters was so splintered (Bauer, Buchanan, Keyes, Quayle, etc.) that it allowed Bush to maintain a frontrunner status. Could the same be happening in 2008 with Giuliani and McCain, neither of whom evangelicals and “values voters” are comfortable with? When it came down to it, a majority of these voters bought into the frontrunner status, believing they had to pick a candidate who could win, and pulled the lever for Bush. Will the same thing happen in 2008? I believe it easily could - depending on how quickly the field narrows down between now and January 2008.

History Lesson #5: Front runner equals fund raising equals front runner…
What was also interesting about reading all the articles was noticing that George Bush’s front runner status was largely built on name recognition early on, even when people could not articulate what he stood for on anything, and then later on that front runner status was buoyed by his fundraising numbers, allowing him to fend off his challengers and creating the air of inevitability. Early on in the race, we have little to nothing else to judge by other than fundraising numbers, which magnifies their importance. If McCain or Rudy clock in with record high fundraising numbers, they will have a lock on the front runner status and all that comes with it. If Romney continues his fundraising miracles and comes in as the winner, poll numbers will shift to reflect that.

You know the rest of the story: Hatch is out after Iowa, Bauer drops out after finishing last in New Hampshire, Forbes drops out after finishing last at the 2/8 Delaware primary, and McCain drops out in March after Super Tuesday is over.

So the questions for this time around are: will six candidates drop out before the end of the calendar year this time? Who will drop out when? Who will win the early and important fundraising war and claim the title of front runner? How many of our 12-13 will make it to Iowa?

Erick’s got the scoop. And a nifty YouTube video to boot.

The race for the GOP nod continues to get more and more interesting. McCain’s got the establishment and does well in the polls, but the senator has nearly no energy among grassroots conservatives. Meanwhile, the conservative blogosphere and the right-of-center intelligentsia continues to engage in a shouting match of sorts over who our candidate should be, with the Rudy and Romney camps dominating the debate. The question of whether McCain’s establishment support can be translated into actual votes remains unanswered, though with the senator’s prominence in South Carolina, and with Rudy now leading in the Granite State, Gov. Romney now more than ever needs to start making waves in Iowa. It’s hard to see how Romney or any of the other candidates will survive until Super Tuesday if Rudy and McCain split the first three contests between them.

So says The Hotline:

On the heels of Romney’s trip to South Carolina, McCain’s campaign will announce the endorsements today of a majority of Republicans in the SC House of Representatives — 40 in all. This includes the South Carolina Speaker of the House and the Republican Majority Leader. The full list can be found after the jump. Finally: McCain today picks up the endorsement of the leader of the biggest anti-gun control group in Michigan, Chuck Perricone, also a former MI House Speaker.

These are great pick ups by McCain and will further increase his chances of winning in South Carolina. It seems like McCain has locked up virtually the entire SC Republican Party, with the exception of Sen. DeMint. Not bad.

??????? Conservative former Iowa congressman Jim Nussle tells Rich Lowry of National Review why he is supporting Rudy Giuliani for president in 2008:

Dear Rich,

I wanted to share with conservatives why I’m supporting Mayor Giuliani.? As a proud and consistent conservative Republican, I want our Party and our ideas to have a voice.? Even more importantly, I want our Party and our ideas to achieve meaningful results.

“Perfect” has become the enemy of the “good”, and we saw that borne out during this past November’s elections.? I am hopeful that our Party will avoid needless debates over a non-existent perfect candidate.?

It is true that Mayor Giuliani and I don’t agree on every issue.? My support for a person who doesn’t see eye to eye with me on all issues doesn’t mean that I am turning my back on those beliefs.? But our country is at a crossroads and we cannot forsake progress for perfection.?

I have chosen to support Mayor Giuliani because I believe we need to embrace the ideals and the values that unite us.? It is the only way we can successfully move forward as both a Party and a country.

Rudy Giuliani is the results Republican our country needs. Mayor Giuliani took office facing difficult challenges.? New York City was littered with crime, corruption and decay.? The city’s murder rate was so high that an uncommon day was one with only a few murders.?

The Mayor led a team that reduced crime and reformed welfare.? He cut taxes 23 times while actually reducing the size of the City bureaucracy.? The Mayor transformed a historic deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus with a balanced budget.? New York City became a safe place for families and small businesses to invest in their future. In Rudy Giuliani, New Yorkers had a leader. One they could believe in.?

All of this he did before the tragedy of September 11, 2001.? That day the rest of the world witnessed Mayor Giuliani’s steady and principled leadership firsthand.?

Today, America needs to make progress in so many difficult areas, and on so many fronts that while addressing challenges with philosophical absolutes makes for good rhetoric, it oftentimes achieves little by way of results.

After over 20 years in public service, I am still confident that free enterprise, living the American Dream and putting the protection of our nation first are the right ideals for the direction of this country.?

Rudy Giuliani has consistently governed under these ideals, turning rhetoric into results, which is why I am confident President Rudy Giuliani will be best for our country come November 2008.

??????? Given that Congressman Nussle is now an advisor to Giuliani, his thoughts may well become points of emphasis as their campaign moves forward.

As a footnote with respect to the Giuliani campaign, add Republican congressmen Peter King from Long Island, New York and Pete Sessions from Texas to those elected officials supporting the Mayor’s run for president, according to AM New York.

Dan McLaughlin of RedState pens an excellent piece entitled, “Why I’m With Rudy (Part I).” In this piece, Dan discusses the many reasons that Giuliani stands head-and-shoulders above the rest of the GOP field, including Rudy’s innate ability to lead, his stance on the war, his ability to flip blue portions of America, and his conservative positions on the issues. Money quote:

That said, and while I recognize that there are other Life issues on the agenda, the core battlefield for abortion - the battle we need to win before we can fight any others - is in the composition of the Supreme Court. A pro-choicer who appoints good judges is as functionally pro-life as Harry Reid is functionally pro-choice. (I have discussed this issue in much more exhaustive detail before). And while we need to hear much more from him on this issue, there is, thus far, every indication that Rudy is both willing to appoint conservative judges and able to sell them against a hostile Senate - he’s spoken favorably of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who he knows from their days in the Reagan Justice Department.

And while Mike Huckabee is a solid pro-lifer and Sam Brownback is a genuine hero on life issues, the other top-tier candidates are less obviously reliable on this issue. Romney, of course, declared himself a committed pro-choicer in 1994, though his repeated conversions on the issue lend a lot of credence to Ted Kennedy’s description of him as “multiple choice” on abortion. McCain has a more consistent pro-life record and voted to confirm the likes of Alito, Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, but three things concern me about McCain on judges - first, his demonstrable willingness to sell out the base to win media plaudits, second, his statements in 2000 that he’d like Souter-backer Warren Rudman as his Attorney General and that he remained proud of all the GOP Justices he’d voted for (which implicitly included Souter and Kennedy), and third, the fact that McCain’s political identity is so wrapped up in his campaign finance crusade, a crusade that may influence him to pick judges who take the written constitution with its pesky free-speech guarantees less than seriously. I’m not saying I’m sold that Rudy would be necessarily better at appointing judges than Romney or McCain, but (1) it’s a close contest and (2) he’d obviously be better than any Democrat.

Life issues are, indeed, important. And if this were peacetime, they would preclude me from supporting Mayor Giuliani. But there’s a war on, folks, and a lot of lives (born and unborn) depend on that, too. In this field, if Mayor Giuliani can make the sale that he will, in fact, appoint solid constitutionalists to the federal courts, that will tide us through.

Tide us through it will. Chalk up one more conservative in the Rudy camp.

“If you find a candidate you want to support, you should do so.”

That’s what George Pataki told a group of his friends and supporters over dinner last night. And while the article linked does say, “Pataki did not rule out running for president in 2008,” what else can you glean from that statement above?

Pataki told the group that he was going to focus on policy instead of the Presidency, and specifically on finding a bipartisan solution to the Iraq war. Good luck with that, Governor. Methinks he is leaving the door open just enough to seek the Unity Party nomination if he wanted to down the road. But cross him off the list for the GOP nomination!

That leaves us with 12 people either running or exploring, and 3 2 that have not announced their intentions yet (Hagel, Gingrich, and Franks).

[UPDATE:Just received word back from one of Tommy Franks' spokesmen who seemed caught off guard by the rumors that Franks would be running for federal office (exact words: "Wow, where'd that come from?"). He said Franks would most likely never run for any political office. So take him out of the running.]

Fred Thys of WBUR in Boston recaps Mitt’s most recent journey to the Palmetto State, which included the announcement of a few more SC endorsements.

You can listen to the story here (Real Audio).

Um…

Mr. Biden is equally skeptical albeit in a slightly more backhanded way about Mr. Obama. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

Is it just me, or did it just get weird in here?

Wes Clark is the last expected Democrat left who has not announced whether or not he’ll be running. But, according to reports in Hotline, he told a friend over Christmas he “would, without a doubt,” establish an exploratory committee. The article quotes a campaign adviser who more or less verifies the news, saying Clark is “leaning towards setting up an exploratory…” and finally, quotes a Democratic donor who says Clark has already begun making calls to party donors.

Well, if there was any doubt left, this past weekend Clark traveled to Nevada to do some campaigning there (man, that still feels strange including campaigning in NV as part of early campaign strategy for the Dems). And rumor has it he may announce this weekend, possibly at a DNC Winter Conference at which he is a speaker. So it looks safe to say that Wes Clark is indeed in the race for 2008.

That means, barring some extremely unexpected announcement (or Al Sharpton), the Dem field for 2008 has been completely set. And it is thus:

First Tier Candidates
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John Edwards

Second Tier Candidates
Bill Richardson
Joe Biden
Wes Clark
Tom Vilsack

Third Tier Candidates
Chris Dodd
Dennis Kucinich
Mike Gravel

There is the complete list of the opposition. Ten aspiring hopefuls. Nine men and one woman who want to be the next President of the United States of America and govern from the left. It is our job to not let that happen, ladies and gentlemen.

Because no evening is complete without a poll from Rhode Island, here’s the latest on that state regarding ‘08:

PRESIDENT - RHODE ISLAND - DEM PRIMARY

Hillary 33%
Barack Obama 15%
John Edwards 8%
Joe Biden 4%
Chris Dodd 2%
Bill Richardson 1%
Tom Vilsack 1%
Dennis Kucinich 0%

PRESIDENT - RHODE ISLAND

Hillary (D) 49%
John McCain (R) 36%

Barack Obama (D) 40%
John McCain (R) 37%

Hillary (D) 49%
Rudy Giuliani (R) 37%

Barack Obama (D) 43%
Rudy Giuliani (R) 38%

Hillary (D) 56%
Mitt Romney (R) 26%

Barack Obama (D) 52%
Mitt Romney (R) 26%

It should probably be pointed out that Rhode Island is a) next to Massachusetts and b) about the size of the mall near my apartment, meaning that name recognition is likely controlled for with regard to Romney. It doesn’t surprise me that the Dems clean up in this state. Heck, Bush lost the state by 21 points in ‘04. Meaning that Rudy and McCain run well ahead of Bush in the state, and probably the northeast, while Romney runs 5-9 points behind the president.

Again, maybe I’m wrong and Romney really is the Great Conservative Hope. But even for those who believe that, am I totally off base for suggesting that in a state that neighbors Romney’s own, Mitt should be doing just a teensy, weensy bit better?

Once the voice of all things Romney on National Review’s “The Corner,” Kathryn Jean has been saying far fewer things about Romney lately and a lot of nice things about Rudy. The latest can be found here:

A friend of mine was at a fundraiser for Rudy Giuliani in Los Angeles last night. His walkaway thought: “[Rudy] might have a tough time in the primary but he will crush in the general.”

Said friend says of last night: “I have to tell you the man is very impressive. When he talks about the war on terror he does so more clearly than anyone I have heard including the President. He doesn’t bash the President ever and this was LA where he could really get away with it.”

Rudy did an immigration bit that was “to the right of everyone else except maybe Tancredo. He talked about immigration in terms of national security. He said we needed to revamp our entire system so that we can get good people. He also said that if the twelve million already here expected to get any type of citizenship they would have to prove that they could read, write, and speak English.”

The fundraiser was sponsored by Bill Simon (who worked with Rudy in the U.S. Attorney’s office). My friend, who is the rare pro-life, Hollywood hawk, left wondering if he could support Rudy if it came to that. “We all know where Rudy is on abortion but my question is what does he think of Judges Roberts and Alito? If he says that he would appoint judges of like mind then I think he can skate on the abortion issue because it does come down to the judges.” It was Hollywood though so no one asked about any social issues.

My emphasis. She then reminds us of this Rudy quote:

“Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito are models of what judges should be in this country.”

Ms. Lopez, from one Catholic to another, you’re welcome in the big Rudy tent anytime!

A new poll from Rasmussen is out today, and the results are great news for Rudy supporters:

Giuliani - 29%
McCain - 19%
Gingrich - 16%
Romney - 8%
Brownback - 3%
Hagel - 1%
Huckabee - 1%
Other - 5%
Undecided - 19%

Giuliani’s number are more or less unchanged over the past three polls, but McCain continues to see his numbers slide. In fact, the general matchup number are cause for concern for McCain as well (numbers in parantheses are from the last poll):

McCain 45% (49)
Clinton 44% (45)

Obama 47% (40)
McCain 44% (46)

Edwards 46% (41)
McCain 43% (46)

McCain 43% (–)
Richardson 39% (–)

Giuliani’s favorability rating has remained consistent at 63%, but McCain’s has dropped from 59% one month ago to 52% now. And Giuliani has increased his lead over Hillary! in a general matchup:

Giuliani 49% (47)
Clinton 43% (42)

Hat tip to The Caucus Cooler for this one.

In addition to Romney’s endorsements from South Carolina yesterday, he announced several more from Iowa today. They are:

Former State House Speaker Brent Siegrist
Current State House Speaker Christopher Rants
First Congressional District Candidate Brian Kennedy
Former Governor Candidate Doug Gross

Siegrist and Kennedy will serve as advisers on Romney’s campaign. Looks like Rants and Gross have been on board Team Romney for awhile, but I don’t think we ever mentioned them here at R4′08.

[UPDATE: Romney also announced today the addition to his team of RNC member and long-time pro-life activist James Bopp, Jr. Bopp (what a name!) has provided legal counsel to groups such as the National Right to Life Committee, Focus on the Family, the Traditional Values Coalition, and a slew of other pro-life/Christian/family values groups. This is obviously a huge endorsement and hire for Team Romney.]

According to the NY Post, he might be. In an interview with his newly hired New Hampshire campaign manager, Wayne Semprini, the question of gun control came up - specifically how Rudy’s stances would play in gun loving, “Live Free or Die” New Hampshire. Semprini told the Post that Rudy “satisfied” him that he won’t support weapons bans in the future as he has in the past.

Semprini: “He believes there’s no need for any additional gun laws, that’s for sure.”

So that’s what the Giuliani campaign has come up with as a feasible method of moderating his gun control stance? We don’t need any more gun laws than he already championed? Well… at least he’s not going into the primary with a complete pro-gun control stance, you gotta give him that.

Of course, quick to deny charges of flip-flopping that have become so abundant in this pre-campaign season, Anthony Carbonetti, Giuliani’s top advisor, released a statement insisting Rudy’s “position on this has not changed. People understand that Rudy had a commitment to protect New York against crime. That has no impact on hunting or gaming.”

Hunting and gaming, Anthony? I have never hunted in my life, but I still demand my right to keep a gun, or multiple guns, in my house in order to protect my family. To be fair, NYC was a tough situation that Rudy found himself thrust into, and I give him kudos for cleaning up the mess that it was. I guess I can sleep better at night now, though, knowing Rudy doesn’t want to sign “any more” gun laws than he already has.

With over 14,000 votes cast in the most recent GOPBloggers 2008 straw poll, Mitt Romney won by 4% (around 600 votes).

Now, Pajamas Media has put together another online straw poll for both Republicans and Democrats to vote in. With nearly 20,000 votes, the first round results are in. And the winner is: Mitt Romney. Here are the full results:

Romney - 26.2%
Giuliani - 25.8%
Gingrich 24.6%
Tancredo - 6.4%
McCain - 5.1%
Hagel - 4.1%
Hunter - 3.0%
Brownback - 2.1%
Huckabee - 1.4%
Gilmore - 0.4%
Pataki - 0.4%

Additionally, Pajamas Media is running the straw poll again, like GOPBloggers does, and with more than 2,200 votes tallied so far this time around, Romney is in the lead again - 36% to Giuliani’s 22%.

The question, of course, for any campaign - but especially for the Romney camp - is will winning these polls of the blogosphere ever translate into support in the “real” world? So far they have yet to. Is this a case of bloggers just being more well informed than the general public, meaning that when name recognition stops being a factor in polling that Romney’s numbers will jump? Are bloggers just out of step with the rest of America? Or is it the case that GOP primary voters are sheep, as has been discussed here before, and will just vote for whoever the perceived frontrunner is? I report, you decide.

Mitt Romney recently did a phone interview with Mitch and Ed from Captain’s Quarters that covered a wide variety of topics - including, for those who noted his NRI speech didn’t include these - Iraq and immigration. Listen to it by clicking on the link above, or check below the fold for the transcripted portions of the interview. All in all, I think it was another solid interview. Some of the questions were pretty big softballs, and I would have preferred some follow-up questions to some of them, but it was another positive interview for Mitt and showed he isn’t averse to tackling the tough issues of the day.

(more…)

Romney loses white, born-again evangelicals to Hillary!

So sayeth Quinnipiac:

OH GOP

Rudy: 30
McCain: 22
Newt: 11
Romney: 4

OH DEM

Hillary: 38
Obama: 13
Edwards: 11
Gore: 6
Kerry: 6

Just for the record, this poll included the multi-candidate field, so maybe Kavon was right yesterday about Romney’s strength in the New Hampshire poll being due to the exclusion of guys like Newt.

The general election matchups came out as follows:

Hillary: 46
Rudy: 43

Hillary: 46
McCain: 42

Hillary: 52
Romney: 31

McCain: 41
Obama: 38

Edwards: 44
McCain: 41

I’m not too worried about losing Ohio in 2008 as long as we field the right candidate to make up for it in other states. Ohio has been wavering for awhile and probably only held on for the GOP in 2004 due to the region near the Ohio River that culturally identified with the president. A Rudy nomination would cause the same kind of shift in eastern Pennsylvania, and replacing Ohio with Pennsylvania actually nets the GOP an electoral vote.

Interesting tidbits from the crosstabs:

White, Born-Again Evangelicals

Rudy: 55
Hillary: 35

McCain: 52
Hillary: 38

Hillary: 42
Romney: 41

That’s right, Rudy runs the strongest among born-agains, while Romney actually loses them to Hillary!

And a bit unrelated, though equally interesting, here’s evidence that evangelicals may no longer be the heart of the GOP base:

Bush Job Approval/Disapproval

GOP: 74/22
Evangelicals: 50/48

Party that can solve our problems — GOP/DEM?

GOP: 68/9
Evangelicals: 35/39

Bush and Iraq, Approve/Disapprove

GOP: 65/29
Evangelicals: 44/51

Surge, Approve/Disapprove

GOP: 68/24
Evangelicals: 44/49

White evangelicals are now less committed to the president, the GOP, and Iraq than “Republicans,” meaning some other group or groups are now at the core of the Republican base. We’ll find out in 2008.

Mitt Romney is busy on the campaign trail this week - starting in Iowa where he impressed several journalists by attracting almost 600 people to two meet and greet events and then traveling down to South Carolina yesterday.

While in South Carolina, he announced the endorsement of two more supporters of his campaign: former SC Governor Jim Edwards and former US Rep from SC Tommy Hartnett.

Edwards was elected governor in 1974 and was the first GOP Governor in SC since Reconstruction. He later served as Energy Secretary under Ronald Reagan. Hartnett represented SC’s 1st District from 1981 to 1987 and was the first Republican to serve a full term in that seat since the end of Reconstruction as well.

The big question from SC, of course, is who Mark Sanford is going to endorse. In 2000, it was John McCain, but so far this campaign season he has said he is keeping his options open.

DaveG is exactly right in his post immediately prior to this one:? One of the 6 candidates currently polling in the top 3 of their?party in New Hampshire is going to be the next POTUS.

Which is why the continuing fascination with Arkansas Mike Huckabee continues to confound — particularly the mistaken notion that he is some kind of “authentic” conservative as this Cox News Service/Star Tribune piece from yesterday would imply.?

The Governor seems like a genuinely nice fellow but his conservative credentials are, to say the least, tarnished.? If there is one piece of conservative orthodoxy that remains intact, it is a belief in No New Taxes.? Even Senator McCain understands that he can not advocate a tax increase if he is to secure the nomination.?

All of which should serve to remind conservatives that Gov. Huckabee scored an “F” for his fiscal policies in Arkansas from the CATO Institute.? And just yesterday afternoon the influential Club for Growth noted that Huckabee’s tenure included “numerous tax hikes, ballooning government spending, and increased regulation.”

Cue the Drudge siren.

From SurveyUSA:

NH GOP

Rudy: 33%
McCain: 32
Romney: 21

NH DEM

Hillary: 40%
Obama: 25
Edwards 23

Note how the Big 3 on either side suck up enough first-choice votes as to deny room for any other candidate to break through. Those waiting for a dark horse to emerge in either party will be disappointed; one of these six individuals will be the 44th POTUS.

On the GOP side, Rudy has finally surpassed John McCain in New Hampshire, demonstrating that the Mayor has a real shot at beating the Arizona senator in one of his strongest enclaves. Romney has also finally experienced the long-awaited jump into relevance. I don’t expect Romney to win independent-laden, libertarian-conservative New Hampshire. The question is whether Mitt can replicate this performance in Iowa or South Carolina.

On the Democratic side, Hillary’s lead in the Granite State over Edwards is not surprising. Edwards is exactly the opposite of what New Hampshire looks for in a Democrat, with his economic populism more at home in the south and midwest. Obama does have to worry though. The primary calendar is very friendly to Edwards, with the senator leading the field in Iowa, likely to win union-heavy Nevada, and also likely to clean up in South Carolina. Given Edwards’ strength in three of the first four contests, both Hillary and Obama have to win New Hampshire to stay in the race until Super Tuesday. If the Granite State is Hillary! country, Obama may just be squeezed out of this thing long before Obamamania can take hold in places like Illinois and California.

Okay, so this wasn’t supposed to come out for another two days - but I anticipate being incredibly busy over the next few days, so I thought I’d get this out there while I could!

Below the fold is the end of the month update from my tracking of Intrade numbers. Intrade is a site you can place money on certain events by buying and selling contracts with other people. The value of a contract indicates the percentage chance investors believe that particular contract has of occurring. So a contract at 54.0, for example, means that event has a 54% of happening in the eyes of those who pay money for these things.

I use this to keep track of the 2008 race, since I am a visual learner. The graphics, and some notes, below the fold.

(more…)

From the official press release:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Newt Gingrich has
indicated that running for president would now be “last resort” but that
hasn’t stopped a new nationwide effort from forming to urge him to run for
the presidency.

“Today, we are launching a major nationwide grassroots presidential
draft effort, in the spirit of Reagan and Goldwater, to urge Newt Gingrich
to run for the Republican Presidential nomination,” said campaign founder
David W. Kralik.

The “Draft Newt” effort will take advantage of the latest in online
political trends by using its web site, as the
primary vehicle for grassroots organization. Contributions to the campaign
will be used in communications strategies to persuade Gingrich to seek and
win the Republican nomination for president.

“Gingrich’s entry into the Republican primary will set him aside as the
conservative alternative to those currently running,” Kralik said. “His
bold ideas and energy will raise the standards for all presidential
aspirants and help the Republican party work to regain America’s trust.

“America offers great hope for those who believe rightly that the world
is a very dangerous place. We have real challenges. We have a wonderful
country that can solve these challenges. Gingrich has the experience and
solutions that our country needs right now.”

The official site is appropriately named DraftNewt.org.

Mike Huckabee, today officially announcing the formation of his presidential exploratory committee, has joined the club of Republicans with weird, and kind of creepy, website url’s.

Huckabee’s exploratory website can be found at: http://www.ExploreHuckabee.com

I’m sorry, but if I wanted to do that, I’d be a proctologist.

To be fair, all in all, it’s a nice site.

Rudy is really starting to deliver in the staff game now.? Notably, Rudy stung Tommy Thompson’s presidential hopes, snatching up the executive director of the Wisconsin GOP, Rick Wiley, who will become national deputy political director for Rudy’s exploratory committee.? (Hat tip to FlapsBlog)

Rudy also stung John McCain today by picking up the Chair of my homestate’s (New Hampshire) Republican Party, Wayne Semprini.? Semprini stepped down from his post on Saturday, and while there had been longtime rumors floating around the Granite State that Semprini would sign on with Team McCain for 2008, Rudy got the grab here.? Semprini (whose son, Jeff,?is already working as Rudy’s NH youth/college outreach coordinator) will head up Rudy’s NH operations.

All in all, nice catches for Rudy!

Every conservative that knows the horrendous pile of feces that is the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform law has prayed for this day since Justice O’Connor left the bench:

The Supreme Court will revisit their ruling on the First Amendment section of the CFR law!

Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy voted against the CFR law the first time it came up, so it could conceivably be struck down this time depending on how the new Justices Roberts and Alito cast their vote.

Obviously, this will be a victory for free speech in America if that were to happen and a huge blow to Presidential hopeful McCain. And the news probably couldn’t come at a worse time for him: the SCOTUS will hear the case in April and most likely return their decision in late 2007 - as McCain is trying to convince GOP primary voters of his conservative credentials. Nothing to burnish that image than a very real reminder of the debacle of CFR.

Many pundits have postulated that if Al Gore were to jump into the race for ‘08, he’d be a modern-day Nixon: a former veep who had lost a close race eight years ago coming back and winning the White House due to a divided opposition party and a touch of buyer’s remorse. But in reality, Gore and Nixon have little in common. Nixon was nothing if not a pragmatist; Gore is a rabid leftist who managed to masquerade as a centrist for a few years until outing himself after losing the 2000 election. Nixon may have been many things, but a conservative was not one of them. If anything, Nixon was the antithesis of an ideologue; the ultimate technocrat who did what had to be done and whose personality flaws were his undoing. As Andrew once put it, Nixon was “weirdly human.”

If that same formula of paranoid pragmatist exists in national politics today, its soul lies within Hillary Rodham. If hearing her speak for more than five minutes isn’t enough to demonstrate her lack of ease with the world around her — the complete opposite of her husband and her two most formidable Democratic challengers — then this video most certainly should. Again, oddly human.

Her Nixonian paranoia seems to be present still. She still evokes the vast right-wing conspiracy that she believed was bent on destroying her by reminding us all that she’s had plenty of experience with “evil men,” a line that was more bizarre than humorous. And politically, does anyone really know where the senator stands on anything? She is able to project both DLC moderate, thanks largely to her husband’s governance, and loyal liberal due to her own history with projects like universal health care. Unlike John Kerry, who stood for one thing before he stood for another, Hillary stands for both everything and nothing. Or, to put it more succinctly, Hillary believes whatever you believe. With Hillary, you have a candidate who has seemingly spent every waking moment since childhood waiting to be president. And when someone wants to be president that bad, you have to wonder just exactly what it is they need to prove to themselves.

The most terrifying part of all of this: just as Nixon became president in 1968, Hillary could also ascend to the throne in 2008. A divided Republican Party accompanied by a third-party bid could replicate 1968, giving Hillary a 43% plurality and the White House. And then the country will have to deal with the repurcussions of yet another paranoid pragmatist in the White House, and one so weirdly human…

She Must Be Stopped.

Events this past week have caused me to fear for my country even more than I have since the first Democrat quagmire utterance 72 hours after we invaded Iraq and the first Bushlied utterance a few months later. (Biden accused Bush of lying again today on a Sunday Show.)

I see a disturbing and growing isolationist attitude among some conservatives and fear that enough of them could align with liberals (nearly all of which are isolationist, at least when a Republican is president) to make the Democratic party a majority party again.

It is imperative that our GOP ‘08 hopefuls aggressively combat this utterly discredited and dangerous ideology. The Democratic party is the anti-war, appeasement, deference to the UN and increasingly isolationist party.

We must remain the war party if you will.

(more…)

Friend of Race 4 2008 Dave Hinz has launched his new project The HinzSight Report, which is devoted to advancing the cause of citizen journalism. Please head on over and check it out.