Be sure to check it out at 11:35pm EST.

Although the formal (extra official) announcement won’t be until “early April,” right after the release of the Q1 numbers.

Speaking of McCain, his campaign site has added his official profiles on YouTube, Facebook and MySpace. I found this video that I hadn’t seen before, but I think it goes a long way to show the type of obstacles he’s overcome and the perseverance he still exhibits to this day. Rumors of his campaign’s collapse have been greatly exaggerated.

“…diving into the fire…”

Per Drudge:

“McCain announces on Letterman tonight he is running for President,
says source that sat through the taping… He was sitting in the chair when
he told Dave and the audience. He was wildly applauded…. MORE… “

Thanks to bijiluvr for the tip.

Robert Novak reports in his Evans-Novak Political Report for February 28 on the results of a “push poll” conducted?for former Virginia Governor James Gilmore in Iowa with respect to the state’s?2008 Republican presidential caucus. Once Iowa Republicans are informed or reminded of some liberal tendencies on the part of Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, the support for the purported “Big Three” drops precipitously. And it sounds from Novak’s reporting as if some of the 2008 Republican presidential campaigns are going to take the gloves off and start contrasting their primary opponents as this weekend’s CPAC commences. I cannot recall a Republican presidential primary where the front-runners were more vulnerable to attack and the field lacked a consensus, heavyweight conservative; everyone would be well advised, as Novak opines, to take current polling numbers within the GOP field with a huge grain of salt given their softness. Here is the applicable excerpt from the report:

“Republicans around the country are now talking about the possibility that a conservative candidate outside the ‘Big Three’ could suddenly catch fire and suck support away from both the frontrunners and several of the minor candidates. A push poll for the 2008 Iowa presidential caucuses is instructive on the reality of conservative discontent with the current ‘Big Three’ GOP candidates. The poll gives Sen. John McCain 20.5 percent, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani 16.3 percent, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 3.5 percent. The candidate for whom the push-poll was conducted, former Virginia Gov. James Gilmore (R), leads them all with 31 percent.

1. This is not a legitimate survey, of course — it’s a ‘push poll’ that tells respondents positive and negative things about various candidates. The pollster peppered respondents with tales of the liberal deviations by McCain, Giuliani and Romney, and the true-blue conservatism of Gilmore. But it proves a point that is widely accepted in Republican ranks: None of the ‘Big Three’ is a natural fit for the nation’s right-of-center party. A conservative void unquestionably exists. The question is whether there is anyone who can fill the void.
2. The name usually mentioned as the void-filler is not Gilmore but Newt Gingrich. A straw poll by the right-wing Citizens United organization of contributors to its political fund showed Gingrich ahead with 31 percent (followed by Giuliani at 25 percent, Romney at 10 percent and McCain at 8 percent). But based on his record as Speaker of the House, Gingrich’s conservative record is far from flawless.
3. Before the ‘push’ element of Gilmore’s poll, the unadulterated results showed McCain leading in Iowa with 33 percent, followed by Giuliani at 31.5 percent and Romney at 8.8 percent (the unknown Gilmore took just 1.3 percent). That the pollsters could cause so much movement by pushing — or ‘informing’ — respondents that McCain opposed tax cuts, Romney took a pro-choice abortion stance in Massachusetts, and Giuliani supported Democratic Gov. Mario Cuomo’s re-election in New York, for example, is very telling as to just how committed voters are to the ‘Big Three,’ even the ones who say they support them. Giuliani dropped by nine points with pushing, Romney lost five points (McCain actually rose 2 points).
4. Then the pushers went to work projecting Gilmore as a tax-cutting, job-creating governor of Virginia, head of a congressionally appointed commission on terrorism, chairman of the Republican National Committee and a National Rifle Association member. With that buildup, Gilmore finished first, well ahead of the field. That suggests that, under the current conditions, a campaign knocking down the conservative credentials of the ‘Big Three’ could make a nominee out of even a long shot such as Gilmore — at least theoretically.
5. With Gilmore a latecomer to the presidential fundraising game, it is doubtful that he will have sufficient funds to tear down his opponents and build up himself nationally or even in the state of Iowa. But he or any other long shot will have a lot of help beating up on the ‘Big Three.’ This week, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) will attract right-wingers from all over the country. They will receive a 23-page attack on McCain from the right-wing group Citizens United, declaring: ‘He’s no Ronald Reagan.’ (McCain is the only announced Republican presidential hopeful not scheduled to attend CPAC.) At the same time, McCain operatives are putting out material casting Guiliani as a throwback to the old Tammany Hall Democratic machine that rode into City Hall on the shoulders of the New York Liberal Party, which cross-endorsed him in New York.
6. There is plenty of time for such negative campaigning to tear down the Republican front-runners as having inadequate conservative credentials. At this point in the 2000 election cycle, Bush was far in front with 45 percent in the polls, with Elizabeth Dole second at 29 percent, and McCain at a forgettable 3 percent. McCain went from that 3 percent to run a strong insurgent campaign that nearly delivered him the nomination.
7. The lesson is that the prominent coverage of the ‘Big Three’ is by no means an indicator that they will remain out front. The conservative void on the Republican side is simply too great. Nature abhors a vacuum, as does the political world.”

Bill Simon, Rudy Giuliani’s Director of Policy, has just appeared on Fox News’ “The Big Story with John Gibson” to discuss an alleged attack campaign that will perhaps begin shortly.

Romney’s plan is to attack Rudy on several fronts:

• Rudy’s social views
• Rudy’s ties to Bernard Kerik
• Rudy’s marriages

Team Romney will also insinuate that Giuliani will ruin the “GOP brand”.

In an age where every YouTube video is answered with another YouTube video, Mitt should pay heed to the old adage regarding those that live in glass houses.

Mitt probably has no choice at this point. Rudy currently has between a 20% to 40% lead on Romney depending upon which poll you believe. This, combined with Mitt’s very early foray into purchasing TV advertising, is likely an attempt to show some kind of progress before it’s too late.

Update 1: Allow me clarify this post so there is no misunderstanding Bill Simon was not brought on Fox News to make these allegations, he was brought on to respond to the story that Fox News was reporting.

Here’s is the exact quote from John Gibson spoken by him in the story’s introduction:

“Due to a scandalous leaked campaign memo, we know that Romney plans to bring down Giuliani for his liberal social views and so-called “ethical issues“.

Bill Simon was simply responding to this story by Fox News.

Update 2: Soren Dayton warns that attacking Rudy will backfire.

It has come to my attention that people are receiving error messages when trying to post a comment.

If this is happening to you, please email the error to me at kavon_w_nikrad@yahoo.com. Please also include how long you have been experiencing the problem.

Thanks for your help and patience.

Today McCain announced the endorsement of Tom Ridge. Tom will serve as the National Co-Chair on the Straight Talk Express. Admittedly, good pick up for McCain. Tom offered this money quote:

What sets John apart is his ability to form coalitions around a common, principled cause.

Yes he does Tom.

Romney announced his Arizona Leadership Team. Among some of the members is the Maricopa County Sheriff and Fox News Star Joe Arpaio. Arpaio will serve as Romney’s Honorary State Chair.

Also included on Romney’s team is Corinne Lovas, now the state financial director. The Romney Press release had this to say:

Lovas is considered the top political fundraiser in Arizona and the Southwest. She has enjoyed countless successes on behalf of U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, President Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign, the Republican National Committee and numerous other Republican candidates and causes.

Strategic Vision Georgia, conducted February 23-25, 2007.

For the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination whom would you support? (Republicans Only)

• Rudy Giuliani 28%
• John McCain 21%
• Newt Gingrich 14%
• Mitt Romney 8%
• Tom Tancredo 4%
• Mike Huckabee 3%
• Sam Brownback 2%
• Tommy Thompson 1%
• Chuck Hagel 1%
• Jim Gilmore 1%
• Duncan Hunter 1%
• Undecided 16%

For the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination whom would you support? (Democrats Only)

• Hillary Clinton 28%
• Barack Obama 25%
• John Edwards 18%
• Wesley Clark 5%
• Joe Biden 3%
• Bill Richardson 2%
• Chris Dodd 1%
• Dennis Kucinich 1%
• Undecided 17%

Strategic Vision Wisconsin, conducted February 23-25, 2007.

Who is your choice for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008? (Republicans only)

• Rudy Giuliani 26%
• Tommy Thompson 22%
• John McCain 15%
• Newt Gingrich 8%
• Mitt Romney 6%
• Sam Brownback 2%
• Tom Tancredo 2%
• Mike Huckabee 1%
• Chuck Hagel 1%
• Jim Gilmore 1%
• Duncan Hunter 1%
• Undecided 15%

Who is your choice for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008? (Democrats only)

• Hillary Clinton 36%
• Barack Obama 21%
• John Edwards 17%
• Wesley Clark 5%
• Bill Richardson 2%
• Joseph Biden 2%
• Christopher Dodd 1%
• Dennis Kucinich 1%
• Undecided 15%

The Prowler over at The American Spectator reports in today’s on-line edition that some folks in conservative circles are pining for former United States Senator Fred Thompson to get in the 2008 presidential race. Many conservatives are just not happy with the current Republican field of presidential candidates, which could bode well for Senator Thompson, Speaker Newt Gingrich, or Governor Jeb Bush if they jump into the fray later this year. It seems as if one from that group is likely to make the contest eventually.

Hugh suggests it.

Since tonight is the night for jaw dropping poll numbers.

From Elon University, February 26, 2007:

Florida:

Rudy Giuliani 29.5%
John McCain 11.5%
Mitt Romney 4.9%
Newt Gingrich 1.6%
Bill Frist N/A

Georgia

Rudy Giuliani 25.5%
John McCain 12.8%
Newt Gingrich 2.1%
Bill Frist 2.1%
Mitt Romney N/A

North Carolina:

Rudy Guiliani 16.7%
John McCain 14.8%
Newt Gingrich N/A
Bill Frist 5.6%
Mitt Romney 1.9%

South Carolina:

John McCain 38.1%
Rudy Giuliani 14.3%
Mitt Romney 4.8%
Newt Gingrich 4.8%
Bill Frist N/A

Virginia:

John McCain 25.0%
Rudy Giuliani 6.3%
Mitt Romney 3.1%
Bill Frist 3.1%
Newt Gingrich N/A

Pay attention to the South Carolina numbers.

This is a biggie, so let’s delve right in…

Washington Post/ABC News Poll, conducted by telephone February 22-25, 2007, among a random national sample of 1082 adults, including an oversample of 86 black respondents. The results have a three-point error margin:

Republicans

• Rudy Giuliani 44% (a 10 point gain since their Jan. 19th poll)
• John McCain 21%
• Newt Gingrich 15%
• Mitt Romney 4% (a 5 point drop since their Jan. 19th poll)
• Tommy Thompson 2%
• Mike Huckabee 2%
• Sam Brownback 1%
• Chuck Hagel 1%
• George Pataki 1%
• Ron Paul 1%

Now for the good part (for me at least):

If Gingrich does not run, for whom would you vote?

• Rudy Giuliani 53%
• John McCain 23%
• Mitt Romney 5%
• Tommy Thompson 2%
• Mike Huckabee 2%
• Sam Brownback 2%
• Chuck Hagel 1%
• George Pataki 1%
• Ron Paul 1%

You read that correctly. If Newt isn’t included, 60% of his votes go to Rudy while a measly 13% goes to Sen McCain.

What are the top three single most important issues for Republicans regarding their choice of candidate for president?

• Terrorism-Security 18%
• War in Iraq 17%
• Economy-Jobs 15%

Where are Abortion and “Morals-Family Values”? They came in at 6th place (3% each), tied with Education and Immigration.

What happens when Republicans are informed of Rudy’s social views?

Giuliani has been a supporter of legal abortion and gay civil unions. Does this make you (more likely) to vote for him for the Republican nomination for president, (less likely), or doesn’t it make a difference in your vote?

• More Likely-Does Not Make a Difference 53%
• Less Likely 46%

49% of the people who responded that they were less likely to vote for Rudy still say there is a chance they will vote for him.

What is the most biggest obstacle a candidate must overcome according to this poll? Age. 56% of respondents stated that they would be less likely to vote for someone who is over the age of 72. No other attribute even comes close.

Now onto a Rudy - McCain head to head match-up:

Regardless of who you may support, who do you think (READ ITEM) - (Giuliani) or (McCain)?

• Is the strongest leader? Rudy 63% - McCain 26%
• Best understands the problems of people like you? Rudy 51% - McCain 27%
• Is the most honest and trustworthy? Rudy 43% -McCain 29%
• Has the best experience to be president? McCain 47% - Rudy 37%
• Is the most inspiring? Rudy 65% - McCain 21%
• Has the best chance of getting elected president in November 2008? Rudy 55% - McCain 34%
• Is closest to you on the issues? Rudy 44% - McCain 29%

I’ll have more on the Dems later on…

<unofficial rumorage>

Had a talk with someone who is on the inside if the Romney finance loop. Turns out Romney is breaking almost all of his daily and weekly fund-raising goals.

Today was a 5 star day for him in DC. This morning he had a breakfast meeting with his finance team. This afternoon was a fund-raising luncheon, and tonight is a very large fundraiser. I know that the luncheon pulled in almost twice the stated goal and tonight promises to be a bounteous night as well.

The word is, prepare for March 31st.

</unofficial rumorage>

Hey! What do you know, Romney was right on W’s abortion flip. Kate O’Brien said this:

On Monday it was reported that Governor Mitt Romney had said something inaccurate. Responding to charges about his change of positions on abortion, he had said in a recent interview that George W. Bush, too, “was pro-choice before he came prolife.” His campaign based that claim on a National Review article (which I wrote) about political converts to the pro-life cause.

The White House denied that Bush was ever pro-choice, and Romney backed down.

But Romney was right.

In 1978, a newspaper in Lubbock, Texas, interviewed Bush during his first congressional campaign. The article reported that Bush, then in a primary fight with a more conservative candidate, opposed both the Human Life Amendment and federal funding of abortion. He was described as in favor of leaving the abortion question up to a woman and her doctor. “‘That does not mean I’m for abortion,’ he said.”

Flash forward to 2000. The Bush campaign accused Gore of flip-flopping on abortion, and David Corn came back in The Nation with an account of his 1978 interview. Dan Bartlett, speaking for Bush’s 2000 campaign, gave this less-than-categorical denial to the Washington Post: “The best we can tell is, this is a misinterpretation of the governor’s position. The governor was pro-life before he ran for Congress, during his run for Congress and after he ran for Congress.”

The Post explained that Bartlett, who hadn’t been with Bush 22 years before, didn’t know whether the 1978 campaign requested a correction. The Texas reporter told The Nation that she didn’t recall any complaint about being misquoted. Bush’s abortion views as reported by the local paper would have been wholly unsurprising for a Texas Republican in 1978. Gerald Ford and his father were pro-choice, as was GOP Senator John Tower, who was running for his third term that year. It is also not surprising that in 2000 the Bush campaign wouldn’t want to acknowledge it, having labeled Gore a flip-flopper on abortion. Understandably, the Romney campaign has little interest in taking on the White House over Bush’s changed views on abortion. But that they have changed shouldn’t really be in doubt.

In the latest volley in the GOP primary’s war over abortion positions, past and present, Senator Sam Brownback’s campaign pounced on the controversy to accuse Mitt Romney of “untruthfully characterizing the record of President Bush on life issues.” But any untruthful characterization of George Bush’s abortion position hasn’t been Romney’s.

Whoopsy! How come I don’t think the accusers will be issuing any apologies?

Laura Bush- She Likes Mitt!

…and her sister in law is a MittHead!

This Zogby International 2008 Poll was conducted Feb. 22 24, 2007:

Republicans

• Rudy Giuliani 29%
• John McCain 20%
• Mitt Romney 9%
• Condi Rice 7% (ugh… what a waste including her was)
• Newt Gingrich 7%
• Sam Brownback 4%
• Tom Tancredo 1%
• Duncan Hunter 1%
• Someone Else 4%
• Not Sure 19%

Democrats

• Hillary Clinton 33%
• Barack Obama 25%
• John Edwards 12%
• Bill Richardson 5%
• Joe Biden 2%
• Wes Clark 1%
• Someone Else 3%
• Not Sure 20%

General Election Match-ups

• Rudy Giuliani 47%
• Hillary Clinton 40%

• Barack Obama 46%
• Rudy Giuliani 40%

• Rudy Giuliani 46%
• John Edwards 40%

• John McCain 47%
• Hillary Clinton 39%

• Barack Obama 44%
• John McCain 40%

• John McCain 47%
• John Edwards 38%

• Hillary Clinton 45%
• Mitt Romney 35%

• Barack Obama 51%
• Mitt Romney 29%

• John Edwards 47%
• Mitt Romney 32%

I’m not going to get worked up on the Obama numbers. Obama has been getting a free pass from negative publicity up to this point. That will be ending very shortly.

I wonder what will be left of him by the time the Clinton’s are through…

Scott Helman (who writes his 6 billionth Romney piece for the Globe) has uncovered the 77-slide PowerPoint presentation from deep inside the belly of the Mitt Romney presidential campaign. I haven’t had a chance to go over it yet, but I have to say that I do like “Slick Dancing Mitt” as a nickname. I’ll have more thoughts later on.

This coming a couple months after Rudy’s was leaked, I have to wonder how the Boston Globe managed to get a hold of this? How long until John McCain’s campaign document is leaked as well?

Hotline has two interesting tidbits regarding their soon to be released Diageo Poll.

First off:

28 percent of those surveyed in the latest Hotline/Diageo poll correctly identified ex-NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani as pro-choice — that includes 33 percent of Republicans.

The rest either believed he is pro-life, or they didn’t know.

That sounds like the smoking gun, right?

But only 11 percent of those we surveyed incorrectly stated that Sen. John McCain is pro-choice, indicating an enhanced level of knowledge about Giuliani’s social positions among primary voters.

45 percent of those we surveyed believe that Sen. Hillary Clinton is pro-choice.

And secondly…

Mitt Romney is taking hits for lurching to the right, but a new Diageo/Hotline poll shows his WH ‘08 strategy may be working.

– Romney’s name I.D. among GOPers remains less than 1/2 that of McCain or Giuliani, according to the survey, but comparable numbers of GOP voters view him as “conservative.” The ex-MA gov also has the lowest “liberal” rating of the three.

– Of course, the Right’s still not sold on their top tier. Less than 1/4 of GOPers describe any of them as conservative. Other unique hurdles each one faces: More than half of GOPers say Giuliani’s a moderate, but only 1/3 even know he’s pro-choice … yet. Also just 26% of GOP voters know Romney’s a Mormon. And slightly more than half of all voters (60% of GOPers) think McCain is 64 or younger; He’d be 72 at his 1/09 swearing-in.

Commenter “Samuel J. Tilden” also noticed a seeming inconsistency in the first post:

How is it that the poll results indicate an “enhanced level of knowledge” about Giuliani’s positions if in fact more people misidentified his position than McCain’s?

I am going to hold off on the analysis until I see the actual numbers.

Quin Hillyer, an editor at The American Spectator, makes the case in their on-line edition from today that Jeb Bush is still a viable conservative option as the Republican presidential nominee in 2008 based on the frontloaded primary calendar. For more on the former governor of Florida, see the new biography (Jeb: America’s Next Bush) of him by S.V. Date, the Tallahassee bureau chief of The Palm Beach Post, who has covered him closely and extensively for the past eight years.

Some bad news for Sen. McCain:

Arizona Senator John McCain’s (R) support among Likely Republican Primary Voters has slipped to the lowest level ever recorded since Rasmussen Reports began tracking the race shortly after last November’s election. McCain is now the top pick for just 17% of Republicans. That’s down two points from a week ago, five points since mid-January and is barely half the level of support enjoyed by Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani.

The results were as follows:

• Rudy Giuliani 33%
• John McCain 17%
• Newt Gingrich 13%
• Mitt Romney 10%
• Sam Brownback 3%
• Chuck Hagel 2%
• Mike Huckabee 1%

Rudy leads in self-identified “very conservative voters” with 24% of the vote to Gingrich’s 23% and McCain’s 19%. Rudy also enjoys large leads in “somewhat conservative voters” & “moderates”.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra spoke to a small crowd in IA on behalf of Romney.

On abortion in particular, Hoekstra outlined what he and Romney believe: merely passing laws banning the practice is a dead end.

“You cannot just be about focusing on making it more difficult to get an abortion it’s a much broader concept,” Hoekstra said, highlighting policies to fund adoption as a viable alternative. Link

A wonderful comment- fighting abortion is wider concept, wider than judges I submit. Guiliani has squeaked by thus far with his “I will elect judges like Roberts and Alito.” Many are blindly presuming that this is all a president can do with Socon principles in general. It’s the only way a SoCon could support Guiliani in a primary.

If a president really cares about fighting legalized abortion he can do a multitude of things such as increasing funding for adoption services (as Hoekstra noted), vetoing bills from a democratic congress that liberalize abortion laws even more, push for parental notification laws, push for laws making it illegal to transport minors across state lines for abortions, and using the bully pulpit to make the case on a regular basis. He can also fight against over the counter abortives, something our current president has failed us on.

A President who makes SoCon issues a top priority will veto embryonic stem cell legislation, cloning legislation, and will fight for marriage amendments on the national level and will lend his support on the state level. Romney will fight the cultur war with us.

I ask you this: Will Guiliani fight this fight?

RCP’s Tom Bevan interviewed Romney. Mitt gave some interesting points and ideas on Iran and Iraq. I have included that portion of the interview here:

RCP: Speaking of, yesterday there were reports you issued some mild criticism of the Bush administration policy in Iraq, saying it wasn’t going as well as many had liked. John McCain said recently he thought Secretary Rumsfeld would go down as one of the worst Defense Secretaries in history. Dick Cheney responded by saying he thought Rumsfeld had been a great Secretary of Defense and that he’d done a super job. What do you think? What’s your impression of the job Rumsfeld did?

ROMNEY: I really don’t think pointing fingers at individuals is a productive exercise at this point. Clearly the president would agree the buck stops with him. He’s responsible for the management of our affairs, and I would not suggest we go and try and find individuals within various departments to assume the blame.

In my view, and I’ve said this many times before, we did an excellent job knocking down Saddam Hussein’s government, but we did less than a superb job in managing the post major-conflict period. And I think we were underprepared for it, under planned, under staffed, and under managed. And because of our shortcomings in those areas we’ve contributed to the difficult position in which we find ourselves. But we are where we are.

And if you, like me, have done a lot of reading about the process that led up to the conflict and the preparations for the post-major conflict period, you too will recognize that, if these accounts are accurate, we’ve made a lot of errors in terms of preparation. And whether you’ve read the Looming Tower, or The Assassin’s Gate, or Cobra II, or Paul Bremer’s book or Gen. Zinni’s book, they come to that set of conclusions even though they come from very different viewpoints.

RCP: And do you believe it’s still fixable at this point?

ROMNEY: Yes. I think there is a reasonable course - or, let me restate that, there’s a reasonable probability that there is a path to securing the nation and establishing stability for a central government. I don’t say that’s a path with high confidence of being successful, but there’s still a reasonable probability that path can be pursued. And that’s why I think the president is right to add to the military mission the responsibility for securing Baghdad and the population of Baghdad.

I think that should have been done a lot earlier and should have been part of the initial plan. But, be that as it may, it’s now being added to the mission. And when you add a mission to our military that means you need to add troop strength to carry it out. We’ll see how well that plan is working. It will probably play out over a matter of five to six months, or more. But it’s months, not years.

I presume that the Defense Department and the President have worked out with al-Maliki’s government what the milestones are and what the timetable is for determining if we’re being successful in this new effort. And we’ll be able to judge, are we accomplishing what we hope to accomplish? Those don’t have to be made public, although I think it’d be helpful if in some cases they were, so the public could understand and have credibility behind the accomplishments, if there are accomplishments. I think it’s much broader, for instance, than just saying, “are there fewer attacks?” It’s much more devoted to determining are the Iraqi military and police forces able to take the lead at some stage here in providing for the security for their people.

RCP: And, as you said, it’ll play out over course of five or six months. That’s what most experts have said. But what happens if it’s not successful, or not as successful as we’d hoped? What then?

ROMNEY: If you establish milestones, and you determine that we’re not making progress against those milestones, then you know the strategy isn’t working and you have to turn to Plan B or C. I’m not going to forecast what Plan B or C might be. Clearly there are people who say we should just turn and walk out. There are others who say we should divide the country in various - three, four, five or more parts.

There are additional risks associated with those courses that would suggest we don’t want to take those options unless there is no other option available. And the additional risks you’re familiar with. If you divide the country in parts Iran may try and seize the Iraqi portion - excuse me the Shia portion of Iraq. Al-Qaeda could play a dominating role in the Sunni portion. The Kurdish population could destabilize the Kurds in Turkey and could create conflict across the border. You could have a regional conflict develop. And for all of those additional reasons and risks, you wouldn’t want to pursue that course unless there were no other option available.

RCP: On a related subject: Iran. You made some comment yesterday about Iran. If Iran hasn’t acquired nuclear weapons by January 2009 when President Romney takes office, would they acquire them under a Romney administration?

ROMNEY: I think it’s unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Unacceptable to our interests and to the interest of the civilized world. For that reason I think we should exert every source of our world pressure to keep Iran from pursuing that course. And, of course, the military option must be left on the table

In my view, at this stage, we should be doing as the Bush administration has begun, which is tightening economic sanctions, as well as tightening diplomatic isolation, we should be communicating to the Iranian people the downsides of becoming a nuclear power, we should be engaging the moderate Muslim states in the neighborhood to help put pressure as well on Iran and to help us by taking pressure off of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Finally, in my view, we should be putting together a much broader comprehensive strategy to defeat radical jihad in the world of Islam.

RCP: So, just to phrase it a different way, it’s your view that the national security risk to the United States of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon outweighs -
ROMNEY: Is extreme…

RCP: and outweighs any sort of adverse effect or fallout that might come from attacking them either with airstrikes and/or some sort of ground force.

ROMNEY: You know I won’t describe precisely what action should be taken or how it would be taken, but clearly the consequences of a nuclear Iraq - excuse me, a nuclear Iran - for the world and for America are so severe that military options have to remain on the table. Those options I have not discussed in great depth with the US military, so I’m not going to describe what particular path would be considered, but I can say that given the fact that we would never want to pursue a military option unless we had pursued every other reasonable option, I want to make sure we are aggressively pursuing those other options. And those other options relate to tightening economic sanctions so that Ahmadinejad is increasingly unpopular in his own country, so that religious leaders like Khamenei, as well as the public at large, are dissatisfied with him and ultimately sweep him from power, or cause him to withdraw his nuclear ambition. And that’s why it’s so important for us -

RCP: Do you think that’s probable?

ROMNEY: Yeah, I think that - in fact the Bush administration’s restrictions on credit and banking are already having an impact. Ahmadinejad did fall behind in the most recent elections. Our intelligence in Iran is somewhat limited, as it is throughout the Middle East, but there is indication among some observers that Ahmadinejad is on a bit of thin ice and that if we were to continue to exert extensive pressure on his economy and the diplomatic reception that he and his fellow Iranians receive around the world that that could have the desired effect of either causing him to retreat to a certain degree or to be replaced by a leader that had more moderate views.

Hillary gained 9 points from last week’s poll:

Rasmussen Reports, Democratic Primary, February 19-22, 2007:

• Hillary Clinton 37%
• Barack Obama 28%
• John Edwards 13%
• Bill Richardson 4%
• Joe Biden 3%

Rasmussen dropped Al Gore from this week’s poll.

As of this writing, Rudy Giuliani has surpassed John McCain on Intrade as the most likely candidate to win the Republican nomination.

At one point after the midterms, McCain shot up to near 60. Mitt Romney is a distant third.

According to senior Romney strategist Alex Gage, via The Hotline:

If Ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney’s poll numbers don’t rise over the next few months, don’t worry, writes Alex Gage, a senior Romney strategist: Romney is “well positioned” — more than most — to win the nomination over the long haul.

Gage made this innocuous and fairly difficult-to-deny point in an expectations-lowering memo the campaign sent to a few hundred members of the “Romney for President Leadership.” We’ve obtained the memo from a friendly member of said Leadership Team.

Gage does not disclose any of the campaign’s internal polling. Instead, he uses public polls and an historical assessment of small state governors to make the point that Romney is ahead of, say, where Bill Clinton was at the equivalent point in 1991.

Romney, writes Gage, is viewed favorably by more than 80 percent of Republicans who know him. He’s performing about his national average in the key early states. And besides — only a quarter of the electorate is paying attention.

“Observers in the media will inevitably question why our numbers don’t immediately rise after being up on the airwaves, but we must remain patient.” Remember that “our ads are only airing in a few states,” and history shows that “nationwide polling will continue to reflect name recognition until voters start to pay attention to the election.”

Well — any member of the media expecting Romney’s poll numbers to jump nationally after running ads in five states should turn in the membership card. But all this provokes the question: if the television ads won’t have any effect on Romney’s poll ratings in the five states, why are they being run at all?

I’ve discussed Romney’s poll numbers several times over the past few months. Even though I’ve been very critical of Romney, there’s no denying that he’s put together a very impressive campaign organization and has demonstrated the ability to raise the vast sums of money needed to stay competitive in the primaries. Despite all that, he’s only just now fighting his way out of the margin of error in most polls. In Gage’s memo, he notes that

Carter, Dukakis, and Clinton were all governors of small states who began their campaigns with low national exposure and went on to win their party’s nomination. At this point in 1975, Carter was polling at 1%; in 1987, Dukakis was polling at 1%; in 1991, Clinton was at 2%. In the latest Gallup poll, Gov. Romney polled at 5% an impressive level given that he remains almost entirely unknown on the national stage. It’s also useful to remember that John McCain was unknown on the national stage in the spring of 1999, polling at just 3%, and didn’t begin to attract any significant support until late October.

That’s all very true, but he misses the main difference between those candidates and Romney’s current status. They had almost no money at the time (Jimmy Carter virtually lived in Iowa for months prior to the Caucuses in ‘75-’76 and John McCain did the same thing in New Hampshire in ‘99-’00 because they couldn’t afford to campaign in multiple states) and outside of a select few early states, almost no tangible organization. Romney has, as I said, quite a lot of money and a large organization in at least 2 dozen states. He’s frequently mentioned in the media alongside McCain and Giuliani as a member of the Big Three. Romney’s certainly no Mike Huckabee, that’s for sure. There’s really no reason that he shouldn’t be between 10%-15%.

So, why isn’t he? Well, I think I found the reason why. Gage notes that the latest Gallup poll has Mitt Romney at an “impressive” 5%. But, again, he only mentions part of the story. But on February 14th, Gallup released a wide ranging favorability poll. It has some numbers that must be very disconcerting news for Romney. In December 2006, he had a national name recognition of 48% and his favorability/unfavorability/no opinion rating was 19%/12%/17%. But when they surveyed people between February 9th-11th, Gallup found some shocking numbers. While Romney’s national name ID has grown to 53%, his new rating is 18%/18%/18%. The only way to read that is that as more people found out about him, his favorability decreased and his unfavorability shot way up. Unfortunately, there’s no way to determine the precise reason for the shift in disapproval. It’s easy to speculate that people have discovered his previous flip-flops, or maybe that he’s a Mormon or that he’s from Massachusetts, or they just don’t like his hair. Who knows, but something about him is bringing his numbers down. He’s in a very dangerous position right now because of the people who know about him, a third like him, a third don’t like him and another third has no opinion of him. He has to do something to make sure that this doesn’t turn into a trend, otherwise he might not even make it out of the gate.

Our old pal Patrick Ruffini drops a note to inform us that, per Politico, Mayor Giuliani will be addressing the upcoming CPAC conference.

Juxtapose this with the supposedly more conservative John McCain avoiding the confab.

This is an enormously courageous move for Hizzoner and speaks well of his willingness to court movement types.

I reported a piece last month about how Rudy and McCain were skipping some conservative conferences. One of the events I mentioned that they had not yet RSVP’d to is the Grandaddy Of Them All — the Conservative Political Action Conference or CPAC.

Turns out Rudy will attend CPAC. He’ll speak to the confab Friday.

So says Maggie Haberman:

There was a time when Rudy Giuliani, now a GOP White House front-runner, hardly sounded like a Republican stalwart - strongly defending Robert Kennedy and blasting Barry Goldwater as “incompetent.”

Those fiercely worded opinions were in political columns a 20-year-old Giuliani wrote as a Manhattan College student, while he was still boosting Democratic candidates, a Post review of the pieces found.

In a blistering criticism of then-New York Sen. Kenneth Keating, Giuliani blasted the Republican for repeatedly calling Bobby Kennedy a “carpetbagger” - the same term the GOP used against Hillary Rodham Clinton in her 2000 New York campaign.

“The ‘carpetbagger’ issue . . . is a truly ridiculous reason for not voting for a man in the year 1964,” Giuliani wrote in a October 1964 column for the Manhattan Quadrangle student newspaper.

He dubbed GOP heavyweight Goldwater an “incompetent” flip-flopper who pandered to “extremists.”

The young Giuliani also said the senator’s presidential candidacy took the GOP to the “lowest ebb in its long history.”

Team Rudy’s response was to quote Churchill:

“Rudy is always the first to paraphrase Churchill when he echoes if you aren’t a liberal in your 20s you have no heart, and if you aren’t a conservative by your 40s you have no brain,” said Giuliani’s top adviser, Anthony Carbonetti.

This story seems quite thin since everyone already knew Rudy was a hardcore Democrat back in the day, but the Churchill quote is unintentionally hilarious. When Rudy first ran for mayor of New York in 1989, he was 45 yet that was hands down his most liberal campaign.

Romney must be something to fear, or at least smear.

The Blogs are abuzz this Sunday with the AP’s accusation that Romney had a great-great-grandfather who was a polygamist:

Polygamy was not just a historical footnote, but a prominent element in the family tree of the former Massachusetts governor now seeking to become the first Mormon president.

Romney’s great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, married his fifth wife in 1897. That was more than six years after Mormon leaders banned polygamy and more than three decades after a federal law barred the practice.

The AP story goes on:

B. Carmon Hardy, a polygamy expert and retired history professor at California State University-Fullerton, said polygamy was “a very important part of Miles Park Romney’s family.”

Miles Park Romney? I thought we were talking about Willard Mitt Romney.

Beyond the mere stupidity of trying to tie Mitt with polygamy lays the inherent MSM smear of Romney. While the MSM spends a great deal of time brooding over Romney’s polygamist ancestry, I have yet to hear a word on Obama’s father who was a bigamist himself. I have also yet to hear a word on Guiliani’s marriage to his first wife he “realized” a few years later was his second cousin when it was time for a divorce.

If polygamy in your family lines would disqualify someone for the presidency than it clearly would disqualify Sen. Liebermann who descends from the polygamist House of Abraham, and even Jesus Christ himself who descends from the polygamist House of David. Last I checked most Christians and Jews revere King David and Abraham.

This isn’t the only perceived inequality laid on Romney’s doorstep by the MSM. We here on the blog-o-sphere are bombarded with “Mitt-flops” that supposedly line the road of his conservative conversion. It’s almost borderline propaganda. Yet Guiliani seems to be given a complete pass for claiming, “Most of (Bill) Clinton’s policies are very similar to most of mine.” (link) although he now claims Regan is his hero.

John McCain seems to be getting the pass also. One major flip-flop totally ignored are the McCain supporters who have twice publicly attacked Romney’s fitness for office based on his LDS faith. Yet McCain himself has no problem bringing strong Mormons like Governor Huntsman and Senator Smith along with his campaign.

McCain?himself possesses a whole litany of flips as outlined at this website.

I could ride on this theme some more, but I won’t.? My point comes down to this, (and it piggybacks on Gamecock’s fine post today): Every candidate has their problems, but Romney’s is the flavor of the day. We shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that we can get rid of Romney and all of the sudden we will find a candidate beyond the reproof of the MSM and blog-o-critics. He/she/it doesn’t exist. Instead?we social conservatives?should be thankful for flips when they work in our favor- and not just Romney’s- and celebrate them for the victory they are.

(Follow up to my The Picture of Dorian Gray and Bill Clinton )

I have been saying for years that a Hillary campaign for the presidency as the Democrat nominee would result in Bill’s untimely death due to the stress of what such a campaign would entail.

Consider that Bill - unrepentant of his sins while in office that disgraced the presidency - Clinton had a heart attack. He is a weakened man from a physical standpoint.

He is a bitter man, especially post-911, given that he is powerless to change his legacy, except possibly via a Hillary third and fourth “term(s).” This all adds to the stress and makes the campaign one of personal desperation.

Bill and Hill have many (and I mean very many) skeletons in the closet that will be set free to walk around from the FBI files, ECHELON, Princess Di, intimidation campaigns against bimbo eruptions, China-gate and Bill’s life since January 2001. They live in fear everyday, that any day one of these skeletons is seen in the light.

Howard Fineman suggests Hillary fears Bill will embarrass and sabotage her campaign.

Bill has shown that he is no longer the politic savant he once was. He has lost a step or two that is aggravated by his inability to keep his famous temper in check in public. See Chris Wallace, The path to 911 and some reporters he threatened with opposition research.

While most MSM analysts missed the point of a recent audience reaction to Hillary’s quote about experience with “bad men”, the reaction was very telling of an indication that Bill’s poll popularity is quite thin.

The MSM focused on whether Hillary was referring to Bill or Ken Starr et al and then exonerated her when they rightly concluded that she was referring to the latter.

But what was significant was that a liberal democrat audience assumed she was referring to the former. Add the Mark Geffen aping of Joe Biden back when Bill was president, stating the obvious, i.e. that he lacks character and is a liar, and you see more clearly that character matters. People don’t usually elect someone subject to such ridicule.

It appears the left is turning on Hillary because they don’t think she can win while at the same time they think the GOP is mortally wounded by Iraq and that Obama is the second coming of Christ.

The Picture of Dorian Gray is being unveiled, and it’s not pretty.

Relevant excerpts from prior essay:

Much like Dorian Gray wasn’t moved by the consequences of his deal with the devil born debauchery…

“Talking in Basil’s garden, Dorian meets Lord Henry Wotton, a friend of Basil’s, and becomes enthralled by Lord Henry’s world view. Espousing a new kind of hedonism, Lord Henry suggests that the only thing worth pursuing in life is beauty, and the fulfillment of the senses. Realizing that one day his beauty will fade, Dorian cries out, wishing that the portrait Basil has painted of him would age rather than himself. Dorian’s wish is fulfilled, subsequently plunging him into a sequence of debauched acts. The portrait serves as a reminder of the effect each act has upon his soul, each sin being displayed as a new sign of ageing on the portrait.”

as these consequences affect others, but, beginning with his public “thou doest protest too much” Shakespearean fit over the movie, “The Path to 911″, and continuing with his tirade in response to a non-accusatory question from Chris Wallace to be aired on this weekend’s Fox News Sunday, when the subject looks at the effect of his deeds on himself and the views of others, he is moved to anger.

Its all about him.

What is even more disturbing is that 9/11 affected his world view and policy preferences not a whit more than court fines, disbarment and impeachment drove him to repentance. Neither had any effect on him.

I have been saying for two years that I do not believe he would survive a Hillary presidential campaign due to the stress of the resurrection of the relevancy of his legacy of corruption and skeletons in the Lott impeachment trial closet. I see a very spiritually sick man. Haggard and weakened by public shame that he can never erase from history, loss of youth that he worshipped, a legacy that includes not just Monica, but also 911, and a stubborn refusal to turn to God due to pride and the need for approval from the leftist atheist crowd that will pay him to speak.

Until recently, the only times we saw him show real passion and anger was when Ken Starr’s name was raised like a cross to a vampire. He wasn’t moved by 911, North Korea’s bombs he paid for, or China’s missiles that can reach Maine he paid for.

(ain’t it great to quote yourself!)

Bill got real mad at Chris Wallace over al Qaida questions, ABC over al Qaida questions and Geffen over daring to bring up his lying prowess.

Its all about him, still, and such an obsession with a weakened heart and all of the above can’t be good for the ticker.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
The Minority Report

Gamecock grows weary of fear of Hillary obsessed Republicans who conclude that current polls and the 2006 election result dictate that we best put social conservatives in the closet if we want to win in 2008.

We win when we unapologetically run on economic and social conservative principles and as strong on defense war hawks that refuse to lose. See 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994-2004 in Congress, 2000 and 2004.

We lose when we water down our message with tax hikes and moderation. See 1992, 1996 and 2006 in Congress.

We win when the Dems are McGovern or perceived as such. See 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988 and 2004. Bill Clinton ran after the Cold War and distanced himself from the far left.

The Dems running for the ‘08 nomination are trying to see who is the most McGovern like.

The 2006 Year Six election was unique and is not translatable to an election of a new commander in chief in a time of war. Americans do not pick known defeatist appeasers. We picked a commander in chief in 2004 specifically on the issue of war and rejected the Vietnam loser when the issue was joined. In 2006 too many republicans were equivocal on the war and most Dems did not openly oppose victory.

So we need not fear Hillary or any Democrat.

Moreover, there is no evidence that social issues cost the republicans any seat.

Yet many republicans here at Redstate seem to want to return to pre-1980 mode when we lost elections. Many demand we settle for one of the Big Three and that we dare not even closely challenge their views on social issues nor insist upon promises to win our votes.

Hear Investors Business Daily editorialize:

The Presidency: As the race for the White House begins, a sad but inescapable fact emerges: None of the candidates with a serious chance firmly believes in the principles of either Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush.

Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani may have gained national esteem gallantly coordinating the city’s response to the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, not to mention comforting the families of thousands of victims. But can a full-fledged supporter of abortion rights and homosexual unions win the Republican Party’s nomination without a self-destructive bloodbath?

Will GOP primary voters in the Midwest and the South really pull the lever for a twice-divorced Brooklynite gun-control supporter who dutifully marched in the Big Apple’s gay pride parade each year, and who seems to have an odd penchant for attending televised events dressed in drag?

What’s more, as columnist Joseph Farah noted last week, Giuliani in 1996 remarked to the New York Post that “Most of (Bill) Clinton’s policies are very similar to most of mine.”

Giuliani’s positions as mayor have indeed been liberal on an array of issues, from amnesty and other leniencies for illegal aliens to opposition to both the Defense of Marriage Act and to banning partial-birth abortion.

Giuliani, who currently leads Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton 48%-43% among U.S. voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released last week, has also refused to sign the Americans for Tax Reform’s anti-tax increase pledge.

The GOP 2008 presidential candidates who have signed ATR’s promise to “oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates” include former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, and former Virginia Gov. James Gilmore.

But all, even Romney, are viewed as long shots against GOP front-runners Giuliani and Sen. John McCain of Arizona. According to Quinnipiac, “Mitt Romney is nowhere, actually losing to (Democratic Sen. Barack) Obama and (former Democratic Sen. John) Edwards in red states, where voters probably just don’t know the former Massachusetts governor.”

McCain, of course, voted against Bush’s tax cuts during his first term, and in 2000 ran against Bush with what was mocked as a meager “Clinton Lite” tax-cut plan. And in spite of McCain’s much-touted opposition to pork barrel spending “earmarks,” the Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner notes in his new book “Leviathan on the Right” that McCain “has shown a disturbing predilection for elevating every personal pet peeve from steroids in baseball to airplane service quality to a federal issue.”

As Tanner observes, McCain, Romney, Brownback, and even former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who also is considering running, “all support different variations of big-government conservatism.”

For the Republican Party, this is shaping up as an alarming reversal, with disastrous implications.

Viewed in historical context, the nomination and election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 transformed America’s political landscape. Reagan was the only president of the 20th century elected as the leader of a political movement.

Control of the GOP had finally been wrenched from its northeastern “dime-store Democrat” wing by conservatives who were intellectually committed to challenging rather than containing Soviet expansionism, lowering taxes, cutting government and fighting the erosion of traditional moral values.

Reagan, and now Bush, may have fallen short in some of these areas of policy, especially taming big government. But again and again they both boldly succeeded in going against the political grain in Washington