A truly inspiring story.

Check out the 20/20 interview with the future President and First Lady here.

K-Lo posts Greg Pollowitz’s thoughts on the interview:

1. If Rudy was our rock post 9/11, Judith was his.
2. Judith is from Hazleton, PA. America loves its first ladies - lots of electoral votes in PA. Maybe she can help.
3. She won’t say how she met Rudy…kinda strange.
4. After marriage number 2, she went back to school. Had to take her daughter with her to night school. This could be a powerful part of her story to tell on the trail.
5. During 9/11, Judith was working to get info from the hospitals to Rudy. Didn’t know she was involved actively.
6. Not to sound sappy, but they seem to really, really care for each other.
7. The pre interview hoopla of Judith sitting in on cabinet meetings was WAY overblown. From the narrative tonight, Judith was instrumental in getting Rudy through his prostate cancer - explaining the “ologies” as she called them. Radiology, oncology, etc. The idea that Judith would sit in on cabinet/policy meetings was in relation to health care issues, nothing more.
8. Overall, I thought it was a good interview. She comes across a lot like Laura Bush, while the pre interview perception was that she was going more like Hillary.

Judi Giuliani has always come across to me as a charming and sweet woman who would definitely fit the role of First Lady. I honestly don’t understand why the Hillary comparisons are being made, unless they are the product of some sort of latent bias against women with careers. Like many First Ladies, I’m certain that Judi would take an active role fighting for causes that she cares about. Unlike Hillary, she won’t set up shop in Karl Rove’s office.

Update: Apparently, the first video I posted omitted the segment of the interview that included Rudy. It should be all fixed now.

Ramesh Ponnuru makes note of Mitt Romney’s startling position on the ability of the president to arrest US citizens without trial or review:

Romney said he would want to hear the pros and cons from smart lawyers before he made up his mind.

Let that sink in for a minute: he would want to hear the pros and cons from smart lawyers before he made up his mind. This has to be one of the more disturbing answers to a question so far during the campaign. Nevermind that such an action would be blatantly unconstitutional, it would also make the US no better than the Soviet Union or Cuba; disappearing United States citizens never to be heard from again. The fact that Romney would need to make up his mind regarding what he thinks about this, based off of the opinions of lawyers, speaks volumes.

It’s an inclusive brand, as this clip demonstrates:

Thompson’s faith reminds me of Reagan’s. Both are able to evoke things spiritual without sending the message that individuals who disagree with their specific sect are second-class citizens. The manner in which Thompson discusses faith is not only one that would appeal to conservative Protestants, but also to mainline Protestants, Roman Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and even unaffiliated individuals open to the idea of a higher power. As a consequence, Thompson is able to utilize faith to unite and not divide. You know, like Reagan did.

As for the specifics of Thompson’s own religious affiliation, it turns out that he was raised in the Church of Christ, an offshoot of the same brand of Protestantism as the Disciples of Christ, Reagan’s denomination. His current marriage took place in the United Church of Christ, which is a more mainline Protestant denomination affiliated with the Disciples of Christ.

And in a bit of camp, Mark Elrod has come up with a humorous contest:

But I’m not ready to give into Dr. James Dobson’s assertion that Fred Thompson is not a real Christian just because he doesn’t talk about Christian issues enough.

So here’s the deal: the first person to provide ME with a somewhat believable Fred Thompson sighting at an assembly of a Church of Christ (Stone-Campbell) in the last twenty years will get to live in immortality by having his\her name written on the Lame-o Weblog forever.

You can either post your sighting here or e-mail it to ME.

Anecdotal stories that involve any of the following would be appreciated:

Fred Thompson teaching a Bible class
Fred Thompson presiding at the Lord’s Table
Fred Thompson leading singing (if it was 728b and you can prove it, I’ll give you $100)
Fred Thompson driving the JOY bus
Mr. & Mrs. Fred Thompson (above) serving as greeters
Mr. & Mrs. Fred Thompson preparing a nice chicken casserole for a Sunday pot-luck

Mark’s just having a little fun with all of this, but I just can’t help but note the irony in the fact that some religious conservatives, after finally being presented with a candidate who is solid on all of their issues AND excites economic and national security conservatives, seem determined to torpedo their only chance at avoiding (from their point of view) a heterodox Republican nominee. The whole thing is approaching self-parody. And it will afford Thompson plenty of opportunities for Sister Souljah moments, which will only help him with swing voters in the midwest, where faith is culturally a more private matter.

According to a new poll from SRBI Public Affairs, both Rudy and McCain would now beat each of the Democratic frontrunners:

Rudy Giuliani: 50%
Hillary Clinton: 41%

Rudy Giuliani: 45%
Barack Obama: 44%

John McCain: 48%
Hillary Clinton: 42%

John McCain: 45%
Barack Obama: 43%

Two weeks ago, this same poll showed the Democratic candidates winning each of the aforementioned matchups, with the exception of the Rudy/Hillary matchup, where Giuliani still bested Hillary by four points.

This article was originally published on January 12, 2007.-KWN
___________________________________________________________________________________

One of the beautiful things about R4′08 is that while the site’s founder is clearly pro-Rudy when it comes to the ‘08 primaries, he allows other front page posters to share their views and insight as well - even if it favors another candidate. As Kavon mentioned yesterday, two of the writers here favor Rudy, one favors McCain, and one favors Romney. Well, I am that one with the Romney leanings, and Kavon has graciously allowed me to share why in this long, but comprehensive diary on the subject.

So here it is: why I will cast my vote for Mitt when the Wyoming primaries roll around in 2008 - and why I think you should consider it as well. No offense is meant to anyone else here who favors a different candidate, and I look forward to the constructive dialog that can come from this!

(more…)

This article was originally published on January 18th, 2007.-KWN
______________________________________________________________________________________

I’ve been meaning to pen a piece on this subject for quite some time, and with today’s commentary on the future of the GOP by R4′08 colleague Republius, and by Editor Kavon in the comments of the same post, there’s no time like the present to articulate where I think the Republican Party is headed in 2008 and beyond. (more…)

This interview was originally published on March 29th, 2007.-KWN
____________________________________________________________________________________

I am proud to present this exclusive interview for Race42008 with Rob Wasinger, the campaign manager of Brownback for President. Wasinger worked as Sen. Brownback’s chief-of-staff in the Senate before becoming campaign manager.

BV: How long have you been working for Senator Brownback and in what capacities?

RW: I started with then Congressman Sam Brownback in 1996 on his campaign for U.S. Senate. It has been a deep honor to work for a man of such conviction and principle over the course of the past decade.

BV: Are you enjoying some time off from the Senate? Although I’m sure the campaign is in no way a vacation.

RW: It’s nice to get away from the partisan atmosphere in the Senate, especially when the Democrats are clearly more interested in scoring cheap political points rather than advancing a clear agenda.

The campaign is nice because it gives Senator Brownback a real opportunity to show the American people a positive, issue based agenda for a better tomorrow, and a stronger America.

BV: How does the campaign plan on moving Brownback into the 1st tier?

RW: Senator Brownback is going to continue reaching out to voters in the early states, and across the country spreading his message of lower taxes, and a strong national defense along with the very critical need that we must all face together as a nation — which is to begin the work of renewing our families, so that we can restore our culture.

BV: Where are you finding Brownback has the most support? And what issue(s) do you find Brownback most stands out on?

RW: Senator Brownback clearly has a strong level of support from fiscal conservatives and those committed to reigning in the reckless spending that has permeated the Washington culture. The Club for Growth recently gave him an excellent review based on his clear record in the House and the Senate. Also, committed pro-lifers and those that care deeply about the pro-family agenda in the country are strongly supporting Senator Brownback’s candidacy. He hasn’t had to re-make himself or “evolve” to fit into the conservative base of the Republican Party like other candidates have had to do; he’s always been there.

BV: Some are claiming Brownback would be unelectable in the general, and that is the only reason they are not supporting him. How do you respond to these claims?

RW: Senator Brownback is a Reagan conservative, with a proven track record of conservative accomplishments. The values that Senator Brownback talks about are American values, and they will always win the day.

BV: The Romney camp has claimed Brownback, like Romney, has not always been pro-life. Are these claims true?

RW: The mere comparison of Romney to Brownback is utterly absurd on the face, and laughable to anyone that knows anything about the track records of these two radically different individuals.

When it comes to policy, there is no similarity between Senator Brownback and the former Governor of Massachusetts on any issue of consequence. They are polar opposites.

BV: Fundraising. How is that going?

RW: Senator Brownback is very excited about our fundraising efforts; it’s obviously a tough game and it never comes in fast enough; but the response among grassroots conservatives has been overwhelming. We have a lot of low dollar contributions from people that really care about the same issues that Brownback cares about and they are rising up to support his efforts, and we are deeply grateful.

BV: Any other general thoughts or comments?

RW: Senator Brownback is going to continue running a positive issues based campaign, and is looking forward to the debates and the chance to get his message out.

**Update —

In response to on-going accusations in the comments section that Brownback has not always been pro-life, I asked Rob Wasinger to address it, to which he responded:

“Brownback is unquestionably pro-life and always has been.”

This weekend, I am in Minneapolis, Minnesota for Young America’s Foundation Midwest Conference.

Tonight, I was honored to kick the conference off with the Invocation, and was even more honored to be able sit with former Attorney General John Ashcroft and his wife at the banquet. He is a great man, and had some great stories. I also talked with him about September 11 — I was a freshman in high school in Alexandria, VA and was out on the football field in gym class when the plane hit the Pentagon. We heard a huge crash, and everyone stopped momentarily, then went on with our football game. Then, we later watched smoke billow out of the Pentagon from the windows of our school, and later went to a funeral at the Naval Academy for the funeral of a father of one of my fellow students that had died. Attorney General Ashcroft was flying over Michigan, on his way to read to some students, like President Bush was.

He gave a passionate speech. It was one of the best I have ever heard. And the reason for this post — is to remind everyone that ultimately, we must unite after the nomination process is over, for the sake of the security of our country. I have posted earlier that I would not support Rudy if he was our nominee — after hearing Attorney General Ashcroft’s speech, I cannot stand by that statement anymore. There is simply too much at risk. We absolutely cannot let the Democrats win. Obviously, we should all keep fighting for the candidates we think are best during the nomination process, but must come together as a party in the end, no matter who our nominee is.

Tomorrow, I will hear Gov. Tim Pawlenty speak. I know he is a McCain guy, but that’s all I really know about him. What do people on here think about him as a possible VP candidate? Any suggested questions I should ask him?

With nearly 9,000 votes cast, the results are in for this month’s GOP Bloggers straw poll. The results are shocking:

Fred Thompson: 39%
Rudy Giuliani: 15.8%
Mitt Romney: 12.5%
Newt Gingrich: 11.2%
Duncan Hunter: 5.1%
Tom Tancredo: 4.8%
John McCain: 2.8%
Sam Brownback: 2.3%
Mike Huckabee: 1.1%
Tommy Thompson: 0.7%
Jim Gilmore: 0.3%
George Pataki: 0.2%

The first straw poll to include Thompson also shows him taking command of the field, consolidating far more first choice votes than any of his opponents. Since GOP Bloggers began asking the “first choice” question, no candidate has amassed such a significant number of first choice supporters, nor has any candidate pulled away from the rest of the field to the extent that Thompson has. Lowry is hearing that there is now a 50/50 chance that Thompson will jump in. If he does, the dynamics of the race for the GOP nomination changes overnight.

Phillip Klein of the American Spectator discusses:

I don’t have a link, but the Rudy campaign has issued a response to the flat tax flip flop charge. Basically, the campaign argues that his views have been consistent, because Giuliani’s position on Kudlow the other day was that a flat tax would have been the way to go if we were starting from scratch, but that it’s hard to do so now because the system has already been built around deductions. In 1996, he was arguing against a flat tax because of the immediate impact that the elimination of the state and local tax deduction would have on New York City.

Here’s what he said on Kudlow Monday:

GIULIANI: “I think it needs a massive simplification. If we were doing income tax for the first time, in other words, we were starting off new back at the beginning of the last century, then probably we should go with a–we probably should’ve gone with a flat tax, or maybe two levels of tax, but really simple. Our economy has kind of grown up now on depreciation and deductions and industries have grown up around that, and so I don’t know exactly how much you can simplify it, but you sure have to make a stab at it.”

Here’s what he said on his 3/9/96 “Capital Gang” appearance:

GIULIANI: “No, I think it [flat tax] would be a terrible mistake for urban areas, for big states. We depend on the deductibility of state and local taxation and in a time in which the federal government is turning over more responsibility to state and local governments, which they’re doing, whether it’s the Clinton approach or the Republican approach in the House, really it’s just a question of how fast it’s done, you can’t be pulling away some of our economic basis, which rests with state and local taxation and that would be true of any of the big cities, any of the big states. It would really be a disaster and it’s totally inconsistent with the movement of the Republican Congress toward giving more responsibility to state and local government.“

It is easy to see a discrepancy if the the two statements are not viewed in full context.

The Hotline makes their final predictions as to what the Federal Election Commission fundraising reports for the first quarter of 2007 will show with respect to the major 2008 presidential candidates, and highlights specific issues to look for in combing through the data behind the numerical totals.

Romney picks up another Iowa Christian Alliance Board Member:

Keith Hunter Serves As A Member Of The Board Of Directors With The Iowa Christian Alliance (Formerly The Iowa Christian Coalition), A Position He Has Held Since 2002. He served as Communications Director for the Christian Coalition of Iowa from 2003-2005. He has been a member of the Polk County (Des Moines) Republican Central Committee since 1994, serving on the executive committee from 1995 to 1996, and 2004-present. He resides in Des Moines with wife, Ann, and his son who is currently serving in the United States Marine Corps and has done two tours of duty in Iraq.

I am not one for cutting and pasting press releases, but this was a pretty good one from them:

Key Excerpts (As Prepared For Delivery):

Governor Romney: “I believe we must do as John F. Kennedy did in the 1960s and Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s: we must cut income tax rates for all Americans. This approach is fair, simple and extends the pro-growth benefits of tax rate cuts to all Americans. And by increasing incentives, a marginal rate cut will energize our economy and grow and create jobs.” (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The Club For Growth, Palm Beach, FL, 3/29/07)

Governor Romney: “It’s absolutely critical that we make the Bush tax cuts permanent. In the process of making the Bush tax cuts permanent, let’s also drive a stake through the heart of the death tax and truly kill it once and for all.” (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The Club For Growth, Palm Beach, FL, 3/29/07)

Governor Romney: “Liberals urged me to raise taxes, but I knew that the solution to a budget deficit is not to find ways to raise more revenue; it is to cut spending. So I eliminated and combined duplicative and wasteful agencies and programs. That laid the groundwork for what followed: four years of balanced budgets. One commentator said that I didn’t just go after the sacred cows, I went after the whole herd. And when I left office, Massachusetts had 600 fewer state workers than when I took office.” (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The Club For Growth, Palm Beach, FL, 3/29/07)

Maintaining Economic Growth By Lowering Taxes:

Governor Romney Proposes Lowering Tax Rates For All Americans. We should strive to keep marginal tax rates on America’s families and businesses no higher than those imposed by our major
global competitors. We should end tax penalties against saving and investment, and promote fairness and simplicity by ending special
interest loopholes and lowering tax rates for all Americans.

Governor Romney Has A Record Of Fighting For Lower Taxes. As Governor of Massachusetts, he turned a $250 million retroactive capital gains tax increase into a $250 million refund, made the investment tax credit permanent, passed sales tax holidays, gave property tax breaks to seniors, and in each of his last three years in office, submitted a budget that cut the income tax.

Spending:

Governor Romney Believes Washington’s Focus Should Be On Cutting Spending. Washington has been on an explosive spending binge. Governor Romney has proposed three initiatives to cut spending: vetoing appropriations bills that exceed spending targets; giving the president line-item veto power; and reviewing each individual federal program to eliminate bureaucracy and waste. Governor Romney has a strong record of fiscal discipline turning a $3 billion budget gap into a $1 billion surplus.

National Tort Reform:

Governor Romney Supports Nationwide Reforms To Our Tort System. We need to enact tort reforms that will lower U.S. tort costs, help business grow, allow companies to spend more on research and development, while at the same time protect the legitimate interests of consumers. We must make the system fairer and more predictable for both business and individuals. And we must do it at the federal level with national reforms.

Union Card Check Legislation:

Governor Romney Supports The Rights Of Workers To Decide Whether To Join A Union Or Not. Democrats want to deny workers the right to make the decision on whether to unionize by secret ballot and mandate that unionization be allowed by a “card check” system. We oppose taking away workers’ rights to a secret ballot.
Regulatory Reform and Sarbanes-Oxley:
Governor Romney Believes The Washington Regulatory Burden Is Too High. Too often politicians in Washington do not consider the real world negative economic effects of the many regulatory weeds that choke off economic growth. One of these regulations that must be pruned is Sarbanes-Oxley.

Governor Romney Opposes McCain-Feingold Regulation Of Free Speech. The American people should be able to exercise their First Amendment rights without having to first think about hiring a lawyer. America has a rich history of protecting speech. But the McCain-Feingold law is having a chilling effect on grassroots advocacy.

Governor Romney’s Overall Economic Priorities:

As President, Governor Mitt Romney Will Pursue A Conservative, Pro-Growth Economic Agenda. Governor Romney’s number one economic priority will be to grow the economy helping to create good jobs, raise incomes and preserve American strength. He will work to rein in excessive government spending and reform entitlements. To ensure America’s continued economic growth, he will fight to cut taxes the Death Tax, savings taxes, corporate taxes and marginal tax rates.

Governor Romney will also promote trade, bring market forces to bear in health care, pursue national tort and liability reform, eliminate excessiveregulations that put a burden on our economy and strengthen American families.

The WSJ had this to say about Romney’s plan:

The guy with the momentum is former entrepreneur and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. He’s signed an anti-tax pledge, bemoaned excessive regulation, called for cheaper energy with domestic drilling, and laid out (in detailed Power Point presentations) the coming fiscal disasters that are Social Security and Medicare. He took another plunge yesterday, unveiling a broad-strokes tax agenda.

While short on details, he laid out a marker for the field, calling for lower marginal tax rates, a more competitive corporate tax and the end of the death tax. This isn’t necessarily a surprise, given Mr. Romney’s economic team is largely made up of the Bush tax-cut brain trust, including former Council of Economic Advisers chief Glenn Hubbard, his successor, Greg Mankiw, and Brian Reardon. Mr. Romney also scored a coup with economist John Cogan, who knows budgets inside-out, and is a tax-cutter to boot.

What attracted many of these economists to the Romney team was the former governor’s success, in a liberal state, of beating back big-tax proposals and instead choosing to erase deficits by hacking away at spending. Mr. Romney’s challenge will now be in convincing economic conservatives that his tax plan, and other pro-growth talk, is more than just election rhetoric. In particular, he’ll need to do some explaining about his Massachusetts health-care plan, which Mr. Romney touted as a market-based reform, but was more about new government regulation.

The team least happy with this early Romney tax marker is surely John McCain’s. The super-senator has been unable to get much traction with this second bid for the White House, thanks in part to conservatives’ distrust of his economic credentials. The maverick was born out of the old austerity wing of the GOP, tough on spending, big on balanced budgets, grave about the need for entitlement reform. These were the traits Mr. McCain stressed in his last run, and by the look of his new team, little will change this time around.

As obtained by Hotline:

To: National Finance Director Spencer Zwick, National Finance Co-Chairs and the National Finance Committee
From: Benjamin L. Ginsberg, Romney for President National Counsel
Katie Biber Chen, Romney for President General Counsel
Date: March 30, 2007
Subject: A Guide to First Quarter FEC Reports

With Saturday’s close of the first quarter FEC reporting period, Romney for President and the other campaigns will be releasing the totals of the amounts they’ve raised. There are sure to be a lot of articles appearing, and it’s important to know whether reporters are measuring apples to apples. Here’s a guide of what to look for.

First, Governor Romney’s totals will be indicative of our extraordinary success in building an organization and stirring excitement among grassroots activists. The number will be quite a tribute to Governor Romney and all of you since the other leading candidates enjoy universal name identification, existing networks of contributors and clear advantages in the national polls.

Second, be aware that some campaigns’ totals will include monies raised for the general election. This money will artificially inflate totals, but it is meaningless in gauging current strength since not one penny of a campaign’s general election funds can be used in the primary. Reports that don’t separate primary and general election contributions will be misleading. As you know, Romney for President has raised only primary funds, but the McCain, Giuliani, Clinton and Obama campaigns have raised both. (While there may be some advantages in raising both kinds of money now, know there are also disadvantages for example, 100 percent of general election monies raised must be returned if the candidate is not the nominee. This means that all the costs of general election fundraising, including fundraisers’ commissions and event costs must be paid for with primary funds.)

Third, reporters should be telling readers if candidates are planning on taking federal matching funds for the primary. Governor Romney has decided against using the primary matching funds, as have the McCain, Giuliani, Clinton, Obama and Edwards campaigns. Candidates who take matching funds will receive up to a $20 million check from the U.S. Treasury next January but in return will be limited to spending about $40 - $50 million through the Conventions in late August. By contrast, President Bush and Senator Kerry each raised and spent more than $250 million through their parties’ conventions in 2004. Thus, it’s difficult to see how any GOP candidate taking the primary matching funds can remain competitive against the Democratic candidate from the time the nominee is decided through late August. (Those who remember Bob Dole’s 1996 campaign struggling against the Clinton machine have a taste for what this is like.) In other words, look for the GOP field to start to split between a top tier that can be competitive against the Democratic nominee and a second tier that will be tethered to the federal match and its spending limit.

In summary, we hope this Memorandum gives you a better understanding of what you’re reading in the news reporting this weekend and early next week about the first quarter FEC reports.

I have always believed tax simplification should be a national priority. Economists will tell you that our current federal tax code is inefficient, wasteful, and impedes economic growth. But with congressional Republicans making nice with K Street lobbyists as a priority under the direction of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in order to raise campaign funds and provide lucrative future careers for ex-congressional members and their staffs, the incentive to scrap a federal tax code where statutory complexity creates the need for lobbyists was not in the interests of enough Republican leaders in Congress to warrant serious legislative consideration.

The recent endorsement of Mayor Rudy Giuliani for president by Steve Forbes, and the Mayor’s subsequent endorsement of tax simplification if not the flat tax itself that Mr. Forbes has fought so valiantly for in the court of public opinion, should remind us of the importance of this issue. And perhaps not coincidentally, it is also our great and good fortune as students and fans of public policy that the Hoover Institution has announced that the seminal work by economics professors Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka that originally erected the intellectual pillars for tax simplification, “The Flat Tax,” is about to be republished in a revised edition next week.

In studying this issue, I have concluded that a consumption (sales) tax is not politically feasible due to the sticker shock it would create among American consumers, though having a ready-made, retail store collection mechanism for our foundational tax system is attractive. Similary, a value added tax, assessed at the various stages of production, is reportedly too easy to raise by legislators and has the ultimate effect of a consumption tax because it is passed on in the form of higher prices until it reaches the ultimate purchaser of products. So the answer to the question of how to create tax simplification may well be the flat tax, though I am open to debating any and all forms of federal income tax simplification.

The question now becomes which Republican presidential candidates in 2008 will make federal income tax simplification a priority? Here is what I have found. Let’s see how these positions are debated and adjusted as the primary campaign proceeds.

Mayor Giuliani now supports tax simplification if not a flat tax, though in all fairness the Mayor called the Forbes push for a flat tax in 1996 a “mistake” and “disaster.” Speaker Gingrich seems to support tax reform that is more growth oriented, though his call for targeted tax deductions does not sound like tax simplification. Senator McCain supports a flat tax. At least in 1996, Governor Romney was against a flat tax, purchasing a series of newspaper ads attacking the idea by then presidential candidate Forbes, though currently the Governor has come out for tax simplification. Senator Brownback supports a flat tax. I cannot discern where former Senator Fred Thompson is currently on tax simplification, though previously he was a member of the Flat Tax Caucus as a Senator and spoke favorably of tax simplification during his tenure on Capitol Hill. Governor Huckabee supports a flat tax. Congressman Hunter supports tax simplification in general, though not necessarily a specific flat or consumption tax; the same goes for Governor Gilmore. Governor Thompson’s position on tax simplification is unclear, though he has a record of cutting taxes in Wisconsin. Congressman Paul favors tax cuts, though his position on tax simplification is unclear. Congressman Tancredo supports a flat tax.

It’s time to bury the hatchet.

I promise this is my last post on the subject.

Erick Erickson over at RedState has penned what I think is an important contribution to the unfortunate intra-movement battle over James Dobson’s recent remarks on Fred Thompson. If you’ve been living under a rock for the past 48 hours, you can get up to speed on the issue here and here. I think Erick’s piece is useful as it allows the dueling forces on this issue to begin talking to each other instead of at one another. Says Erick:

Let me put it to you very plainly and you can disagree all you want and you’ll still be wrong — some people have different values and place different emphasis on things than you and me. And they, just like you and me, are entitled to their opinion. And sometimes they have bigger microphones than you or me, but they are still entitled to their opinion…

The reason Mohler, Dobson, and so many evangelicals are bigots in Hugh Hewitt’s eyes and in the eyes of others, and the reason some of you are so frustrated with Dobson today, is because Dobson is a Christian first, a conservative second, and a partisan third.

Dobson wants a Christian to be his nominee and he, like me, is really frustrated that so many of the candidates in the race are Christian in name only. And I’m sure he is also frustrated that one of the front runners is not even a Christian. Some of you, I realize, are hitting the brakes here. Yeah, yeah, I know Fred was baptized, Rudy and Sam are Catholic, etc. This goes to the heart of the problem that so many evangelicals have — there are lots of people wanting to call themselves Christians who are not actually Christ followers. “Christian” is the acceptable terminology for a secular world. Lots of people say they are, but there are actually not as many who actually, you know, follow Christ.

I’m not going to start a theological debate here, and I think Dobson can defend himself, but the key difference between a nominal Christian and a Christ following Christian, i.e. a real Christian, is that the former shows his colors by the inactive pursuit of his faith and the latter shows his colors by the active pursuit of his faith. Fred Thompson, I think Dobson is suggesting, falls into the former category. I haven’t paid attention enough to know whether Fred does or does not follow Christ, though as others have said, if that is the case it’d probably put Fred on par with Ronald Reagan.

Sure, you have the right to be angry with Dobson expressing his opinion. But a lot of the outrage I’ve heard has been directed at Dobson for not pulling for the team, whereby the team is the GOP. Folks, James Dobson is on Christ’s team. All others are incidental to that cause. You may not like it, but then again I really doubt James Dobson is too worried about your partisan outrage. And I’m right there with him, I don’t care about your outrage over James Dobson speaking faithfully about faith, but I’d still vote for Fred.

My emphasis. First, I agree with Erick that attempting to shut off a debate with cries of bigotry is sort of a cop-out. Even if one believes that bigotry exists in any given situation, a far more effective tool to defeating said bigotry is through the power of argument. This, of course, goes to the distinctly conservative notion of the free marketplace of ideas, a system that censors none due to the fact that, when all ideas are bathed in the light of reason, the wisdom or folly behind each idea will be correctly ascertained. (Or perhaps that’s a distinctly classically liberal notion, but who’s counting.)

As such, I certainly believe that James Dobson has the right to give his theological point of view, as a private citizen, on any given issue. I may disagree with that point of view. I may disagree with it vehemently. I may find it in extraordinarily poor taste to question the veracity of another’s faith. But, to put it bluntly, Dobson most certainly has the right to tell me I’m headed for the most unpleasant level of Purgatory — possibly the one with that rather large boulder that must be perpetually rolled up a ridiculously steep hill (I hate that one) — and I most certainly have the right to roll my eyes and offer to buy the fellow a beer to loosen him up a tad. That’s what freedom is all about.

Secondly, and I think this point goes more to my piece from yesterday, Erick argues that we conservatives and Republicans shouldn’t be criticizing Dobson for commentary that could harm the GOP or the conservative movement due to the fact that Dobson speaks not on behalf of the GOP or conservatism, but for his particular religious ministry. I’ll see Erick on this one, but I’ll also raise him. It’s true that Dobson’s first loyalty is to his particular religious orthodoxy. But it’s also true that the Republican Party’s primary responsibility is the election of Republican candidates. And it is further true that the conservative movement’s primary responsibility is to advance the tenets of political conservatism via the instruments of government. As such, if it is acceptable for Dobson to choose his faith over the GOP when he feels they conflict — and I think it is — then it must be equally acceptable for the GOP and conservatism to choose winning elections over James Dobson when they conflict. Render unto Caesar, and all that.

If Dr. Dobson decides that he cannot support one or more or all of the candidates in the GOP presidential field, that’s fine. That’s his right as a private citizen, and I won’t criticize him for that. I may proceed to put on my hat as a private citizen and argue that his point of view is wrong, but I won’t deny him the right to state his point of view. But I do ask that those on the other side of this debate be equally understanding when we Republicans and political conservatives, whose primary function is to win elections and govern the country, will then as a consequence have to pull back from Dr. Dobson. James Dobson is not an arm of the Republican Party. Fair enough. But neither is the Republican Party an arm of any religion. In 2004, the two were able to work together because of an overlap in support for the party’s presidential candidate. In 2008, if Dr. Dobson simply cannot in good conscience support our party’s nominee, I won’t criticize him for that, and anyone who doubts me can bookmark this post. All I ask is that Dobson’s supporters demonstrate the same level of understanding if the Republican Party and the conservative movement have to choose between removing James Dobson from the equation and, say, replacing an electable candidate he can’t support with an unelectable candidate that he can support. Asking that Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson talk more about their faith in order to garner Dobson’s support, you see, is just as unfair as asking Dr. Dobson to prioritize his faith to a lesser degree in order to get on the Rudy or Thompson bandwagon.

In any case, I think Erick’s post helped bridge the gap between the two sides on this issue, and I hope this post does so as well. As for the continuing Erickson/Hewitt saga…well, that’s just fun to watch.

Update: It appears that Dr. Dobson has done the right thing and has apologized to Fred Thompson!

With regard to your possible acceptability as a candidate for president, I commended your consistent support of pro-family positions. However, I said while I had no first-hand knowledge of your religious views, I was not aware that you had professed to have made a Christian commitment. If so, I said, that might discourage support from some Christian conservatives. The remarks were not intended to represent either an endorsement of Newt nor a disparagement of you. Instead, as my media representative explained in a follow-up call to the reporter, Dan Gilgoff, the comment reflected my efforts to “read the tea leaves.” Let me say again that I told Mr. Gilgoff I had never met you and didn’t know if my understanding of your personal faith was accurate or not. What he wrote was quite the opposite.

Good for Dobson. He did what was necessary to stay relevant in the political world, which is a world organized not around revealed truth or orthodoxy, but which is based instead on one principle: the art of dealmaking. Again, this is Caesar’s kingdom. And when in Rome…

Zogby adds Fred Thompson to their latest poll, but drops Newt! Take this then for what it’s worth (it is Zogby after all):

Zogby International 2008 GOP Iowa Caucus Poll, conducted March 28th, 2007:

Republicans

• Rudy Giuliani 29%
• John McCain 19%
• Mitt Romney 11%
• Fred Thompson 7%
• Tommy Thompson 5%
• Sam Brownback 3%
• Mike Huckabee 2%
• Tom Tancredo 1%
• Chuck Hagel 1%
• Not sure 22%

About the poll:

“Giuliani has led this race since Zogby started polling Iowa at the beginning of the year. McCain’s support has stalled in the high teens, even as Zogby pulled two other top performers former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice out of the mix. Rice has never indicated any interest in running, and Gingrich has said he won’t decide until this fall.

Asked to pick a second choice for the presidential nomination, Giuliani and McCain were tied for the lead at 19%, emphasizing the fact that this is, at least for the moment, a two man contest. However, because nearly a third of respondents 31% can’t make up their mind about a second choice, there is clearly some fluidity to the race. Romney a distant third place at 7% and Fred Thompson fourth with 4%.”

And from pollster John Zogby:

-”There are two clear front runners in this Republican race. The fact the race is pretty tight here in Iowa makes New Hampshire even more important as this race develops. There are two big questions surrounding this race who is the alternative to step into the top tier should one of these two falter, and who will be The Great Conservative Candidate?”

-”Romney is holding steady and has shown some growth. He does well with independents and in the central region of the state, but Fred Thompson’s jumping in at seven percent makes this contest very interesting to watch. He could really be a player here. Winning 5% support at least makes me understand now why Tommy Thompson from neighboring Wisconsin is in the race.”

Fred Thompson (thankfully) is included:

Fox News - Opinion Dynamics 2008 GOP & Dem National Primary Poll, conducted March 27th-28th, 2007:

Republicans (First Choice - Second Choice)

Rudy Giuliani 36% - 20%
John McCain 20% - 19%
Fred Thompson 9% - 8%
Newt Gingrich 6% - 13%
Mitt Romney 6% - 7%
Mike Huckabee 3% - 1%
Tommy Thompson 2% - 3%
Jim Gilmore 1% - 3%
Duncan Hunter 1% - *
Sam Brownback 1% - 3%
Chuck Hagel * - 1%

Head to Head

Rudy Giuliani 50%
John McCain 37%

Democrats (First Choice - Second Choice)

Hillary Clinton 36% - 24%
Barack Obama 18% - 24%
Al Gore 14% - 16%
John Edwards 13% - 16%
Bill Richardson 2% - 4%
Dennis Kucinich 2% - 1%
Joe Biden 1% - 4%
Chris Dodd * - 1%

Head to Head

Hillary Clinton 52%
Barack Obama 32%

All of the general election match-ups are basically in the MoE except for HRC vs. FDT where Ms. Rodham handily defeats Thompson 51% - 34%.

A couple of thoughts and/or comments…

-There’s a pretty big disparity between this poll and the Pew Research poll (Rudy +7 - McCain -5).

-Despite the fact that Rudy leads McCain by a smaller margin than Hillary leads Obama, does anyone believe that the Dem primary is less volatile?

This poll shows the slimmest margin between Rudy and McCain of any polling outfit in quite some time:

Pew Research Center GOP & Dem National Primary Poll, conducted March 21st-25th, 2007:

Republicans (First Choice - Second Choice)

• Rudy Giuliani 28% - 15%
• John McCain 25% - 15%
• Newt Gingrich 5% - 6%
• Mitt Romney 5% - 5%
• Tommy Thompson 2% - 3%
• Jim Gilmore 2% - *
• Mike Huckabee 1% - 2%
• Duncan Hunter 1% - 15
• Sam Brownback 1% - 1%

Democrats (First Choice - Second Choice)

• Hillary Clinton 24% - 16%
• Barack Obama 23% - 15%
• John Edwards 16% - 13%
• Al Gore 10% - 13%
• Bill Richardson 3% - 3%
• Joe Biden 2% - 2%
• Chris Dodd 1% - 1%
• Dennis Kucinich * - 1%

The margin between Hillary and Obama is worth noting as well…

ABC TV will broadcast Rudy and Judith Giuliani’s first joint interview tonight on 20/20. Showtime is at 10pm EST.

Jonathan Martin, Mike Allen, and Jim VandeHei of The Politico set the table fairly comprehesively and fastidiously, I think, with respect to what is on the line for the Republican Party in nominating a presidential candidate (and ticket, I might add) for the 2008 election cycle. The immediate future of the party is undoubtedly at stake given all of the factors working against it to date, which is why I am not yet ready - absent campaign competition and more thorough vetting - to align behind a particular GOP presidential hopeful for 2008.

The good news, it seems to me, which the authors do not really touch on or explore, is that the Democrat Party is still bereft as a matter of manpower and ideology to tackle the serious challenges confronting America. Democrats have neither the leadership nor the vision to proffer solutions for our future.

Though Republicans find themselves behind in the race to shape public policy going forward, I am convinced that the Democrat lead can be overcome with bold and credible candidates and platforms. Think long and hard, and choose wisely, fellow GOPers.

I am proud to present this exclusive interview for Race42008 with Rob Wasinger, the campaign manager of Brownback for President. Wasinger worked as Sen. Brownback’s chief-of-staff in the Senate before becoming campaign manager.

BV: How long have you been working for Senator Brownback and in what capacities?

RW: I started with then Congressman Sam Brownback in 1996 on his campaign for U.S. Senate. It has been a deep honor to work for a man of such conviction and principle over the course of the past decade.

BV: Are you enjoying some time off from the Senate? Although I’m sure the campaign is in no way a vacation.

RW: It’s nice to get away from the partisan atmosphere in the Senate, especially when the Democrats are clearly more interested in scoring cheap political points rather than advancing a clear agenda.

The campaign is nice because it gives Senator Brownback a real opportunity to show the American people a positive, issue based agenda for a better tomorrow, and a stronger America.

BV: How does the campaign plan on moving Brownback into the 1st tier?

RW: Senator Brownback is going to continue reaching out to voters in the early states, and across the country spreading his message of lower taxes, and a strong national defense along with the very critical need that we must all face together as a nation — which is to begin the work of renewing our families, so that we can restore our culture.

BV: Where are you finding Brownback has the most support? And what issue(s) do you find Brownback most stands out on?

RW: Senator Brownback clearly has a strong level of support from fiscal conservatives and those committed to reigning in the reckless spending that has permeated the Washington culture. The Club for Growth recently gave him an excellent review based on his clear record in the House and the Senate. Also, committed pro-lifers and those that care deeply about the pro-family agenda in the country are strongly supporting Senator Brownback’s candidacy. He hasn’t had to re-make himself or “evolve” to fit into the conservative base of the Republican Party like other candidates have had to do; he’s always been there.

BV: Some are claiming Brownback would be unelectable in the general, and that is the only reason they are not supporting him. How do you respond to these claims?

RW: Senator Brownback is a Reagan conservative, with a proven track record of conservative accomplishments. The values that Senator Brownback talks about are American values, and they will always win the day.

BV: The Romney camp has claimed Brownback, like Romney, has not always been pro-life. Are these claims true?

RW: The mere comparison of Romney to Brownback is utterly absurd on the face, and laughable to anyone that knows anything about the track records of these two radically different individuals.

When it comes to policy, there is no similarity between Senator Brownback and the former Governor of Massachusetts on any issue of consequence. They are polar opposites.

BV: Fundraising. How is that going?

RW: Senator Brownback is very excited about our fundraising efforts; it’s obviously a tough game and it never comes in fast enough; but the response among grassroots conservatives has been overwhelming. We have a lot of low dollar contributions from people that really care about the same issues that Brownback cares about and they are rising up to support his efforts, and we are deeply grateful.

BV: Any other general thoughts or comments?

RW: Senator Brownback is going to continue running a positive issues based campaign, and is looking forward to the debates and the chance to get his message out.

**Update —

In response to on-going accusations in the comments section that Brownback has not always been pro-life, I asked Rob Wasinger to address it, to which he responded:

“Brownback is unquestionably pro-life and always has been.”

Rumorville has it that Romney’s big Media Consultant Alex Castellanos and Fred Thompson were spotted having dinner:

Lamar Alexander and Fred Thompson are close … really close. If anything disqualifies Thompson from running for President, it’s Lamar’s soft committment to Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney’s campaign. The prescence of Alexander staffers at Romney events in Tennessee before talk of Thompson entering the fray popped up signaled his soft support. So there may be something big to this tidbit that Thompson was spotted at dinner with Romney strategist Alex Castellanos. Can we say most valuable Vice Presidential candiate? (Link- bottom of page)

Now what does this mean?

1. Alex is jumping ship? I can confirm from 2 top sources that this is definitely not the case. Alex is very happy with his job and Romney. Also as a consultant, Castellanos knows that loyalty is number one in his business.

2. Two old pals having dinner? Alex worked for Fred in his Senate runs in TN. Could just be catching up?

3. Alex doing some recruiting for his boss and Thompson considering.

Alex has a lot of sway in all things political and an incredible amount with southern politics. Alex worked for Strom Thurmond and in case you missed it, yesterday Thurmond’s son Paul joined Romney’s South Carolina grassroots leadership team. Is this the work of Alex?

Thompson looking to for a top spot with Team Mitt (Future AG???) could easily be the case when you consider that as popular as Thompson is at the moment, he is not fond of politics in general and knows building a credible ground game at the moment is a momentous task with the most of the big players going to McCain, Giuliani and Romney already.

I’m still trying to track down the poll that Hotline mentioned last month that reportedly showed Sen. McCain with a lead in California. Every California poll that we have come across since we started reporting poll results shows Hizzoner with a commanding lead, including the latest from the Public Policy Institute of California:

PPIC California Poll, conducted March 13th-March 20th, 2007:

Republicans

• Rudy Giuliani - 33%
• John McCain - 19%
• Newt Gingrich -14%
• Mitt Romney - 7%

Democrats

• Hillary Clinton 35%
• Barack Obama 24%
• John Edwards 14%
• Bill Richardson 6%

As of today, state polling shows Hizzoner enjoying double-digit or nearly double-digit leads in the critical early primary states of CA, FL, PA, NY, IL, and NJ.

Thanks to Flap for the tip!

From Cincinnati.com:

Every four years, Republican presidential candidate compete for the support of Cincinnati’s Lindner family, because having them on your side can draw millions in campaign contributions.

For the past 20 years or so, you had a leg up on the competition if your name happened to be George Bush — father or son.

This time around, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is the lucky winner.

Romney’s campaign announced Wednesday that S. Craig Lindner, co-president of American Financial Group and CEO of Great American Financial Resources, will be co-chair of Romney’s Ohio fundraising effort, along with Ames Travel Service president Nancy Donovan.

Not terribly surprising, since Lindner hosted a fundraising event for Romney at his Indian Hill home earlier this month.

The pater familias, Carl H. Lindner Jr., will serve as the honorary co-chair of the Ohio finance committee and the co-chair of the national finance committee.

Locking down the Lindners is a pretty big score for the Romney campaign, since there are untold numbers of other corporate-types in this part of the world who generally follow the Lindner family’s lead when it comes to campaign contributions.

Rudy’s strong showing continues in this now critical primary (and ever critical general) election state:

Quinnipiac University Pennsylvania Poll, conducted March 19th-25th, 2007:

Republicans

• Rudy Giuliani 33%
• John McCain 18%
• Newt Gingrich 7%
• Fred Thompson 6%
• Mitt Romney 5%
• Sam Brownback 1%
• Duncan Hunter 1%
• George Pataki 1%

Democrats

• Hillary Clinton 36%
• Barack Obama 17%
• Al Gore 13%
• John Edwards 9%
• Joe Biden 4%
• Bill Richardson 2%

Head to Head Match-ups

• Rudy Giuliani 46%
• Hillary Clinton 42%

• Rudy Giuliani 46%
• Barack Obama 39%

• Rudy Giuliani 48%
• John Edwards 39%

• Hillary Clinton 44%
• John McCain 43%

• John McCain 42%
• Barack Obama 42%

• John McCain 42%
• John Edwards 41%

Once again we see FDT’s inclusion knocking Mitt down a spot and eating into’s Rudy’s lead. Although Rudy’s lead did fall from a 26% lead on his nearest competitor to a 15% lead.