April 15, 2007
Race 4 2008 Field Report - Iowa GOP Lincoln Day Dinner
Myself, Gary Matthew Miller, and syndicated columnist Barry Casselman all made the long trek to Des Moines yesterday for the Iowa GOP’s annual Lincoln Day Dinner. Every GOP hopeful was in attendance save for the undeclareds (Newt & FDT), the waylaid (Duncan Hunter had mechanical problems with his flight), and Ron Paul.
The “Big Three” of Rudy, McCain, and Mitt, showed why they are they are afforded such distinction with excellent speeches.
Rudy opened the evening with a subdued but philosophical and substantive speech which outlined that the Republican Party needs to reach out to voters by emphazing what we are for: staying on offense on the GWOT, maintaining a growth economy, and finding market solutions to our nation’s problems- not what we are against.
Mitt followed Rudy and somewhat tarnished what was an absolutely spectacular speech by pulling a stunt where the first thing he did upon reaching the podium was to invite his wife and son from their dinner table to the stage for a personal introduction to the audience.
The implication of this (considering the fact that he did this immediately after following Mayor Giuliani) was lost on only the most politically obtuse in attendance. The continued attack on Mayor Giuliani (the “My family is better than your family” critique), is really below-the-belt and could serve to injure Mitt’s reputation as “one of the good guys” who is above politics.
Mitt’s speech was spectacular in substance and flawless in delivery though. The most animated of the “Big Three”, Mitt stressed his success in the private sector remarking, “I haven’t spent my life in politics. That’s for sure. I’ve spent my life in the private sector,” Romney said. “If there’s ever been a time that we need to change things in Washington, D.C., it’s now.”
John McCain delivered an emotional and passionate account of the cost of defeat in Iraq, and deserves special commendation for being the only candidate of the 9 in attendance that clearly defended and allied himself with President Bush.
This is perhaps the fifth time that I have been able to see Sen. McCain speak in person. The 1,000 Republicans in attendance made this the largest crowd that I have ever seen him speak in front of, and I wondered exactly how his intimate speaking style would translate to such a venue. In my eyes, none of the emotion that McCain is able to convey in the smaller settings that I have seen him in was lost in the cavernous ballroom. Sen. McCain’s earnestness, strength, and honor really shine through every time I have seen him with a mic in his hand in front of a Republican crowd. It makes me wonder that if he had spent the past 4 years doing these type of events instead of disparaging Republican policy on the Sunday talk shows, that he would now be the frontrunner of a united Republican Party.
The most awkward moment of the night came when Gov. Jim Gilmore angrily chided “Rudy McRomney” as newcomers to conservatism. A remark that was met with uncomfortable silence from the 1,000 or so in attendance while Gov. Gilmore paused for expected applause.
Following the dinner, most of the candidates attended receptions for attendees in the lower level of the hall (Mitt and Rudy were frustratingly absent). The Fair Tax people were also in attendance and earn special kudos for the best spread.
Here’s my photo diary of the events:
Sen. McCain addresses an attendee’s concern…
Then poses for a picture…
Sen. Sam Brownback signs autographs for his fans.
Gov. Mitt Romney and his wife Anne listen to an enthusiastic supporter.
Perhaps the most accessible candidate, Gov. Huckabee spent a great deal of time walking among the crowd, answering every question, signing every autograph, and posing for every picture. Gov. Huckabee also rocked the house with his musical group following the dinner.
The most humorous event of the night for me was the sight of Gov. Tommy Thompson bear-hugging (or perhaps bear-clubbing) fellow R4′08er (and Truth v. the Machine founder) Gary Matthew Miller upon hearing that he is a Spooner, Wisconsin native. If only I had my camera ready at that moment… It would have been a classic!
Now Gary’s a big guy, but Gov. Thompson threw his arm around Gary’s neck like he had some experience taking on “big guys”, which only served to reenforce my opinion of Gov. Thompson as the “Tony Soprano” of the GOP field.
http://race42008.com/2007/04/15/race-4-2008-field-report-iowa-gop-lincoln-day-dinner/trackback/
April 15th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Hey these are great thanks for posting these…
April 15th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Great post overall Kavon, but this has to be a joke:
“Mitt followed Rudy and somewhat tarnished what was an absolutely spectacular speech by pulling a stunt where the first thing he did upon reaching the podium was to invite his wife and son from their dinner table to the stage for a personal introduction to the audience.”
Um, Mitt’s pride for his family is a “cheap stunt?” I understand that Rudy is rightly anxious about the political implications of his personal life, but why that should mean other candidates need to hide their families for his benefit is lost on me.
April 15th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
While I’m sure C-Span didn’t convey the mood of the room as well as being there did, Gilmore’s speech seemed pretty solid on TV. The Rudy McRomney line did seem a tad forced.
Was Tancredo’s standing O the most boisterous the crowd got all night, or did it just seem that way on C-Span?
Also, of the tier 2 candidates, Huckabee’s speech seemed well-received.
Any comments on the other candidates since you were able to attend?
April 15th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
“Um, Mitt’s pride for his family is a ‘cheap stunt?’ ”
Yep… It was awkward, obvious, and embarrassing.
The rest of the speech was awesome though.
April 15th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Great pictures and thanks for sharing.
I was not there and did not see anything so I have to rely on the accounts of others:
“The continued attack on Mayor Giuliani (the “My family is better than your family” critique), is really below-the-belt and could serve to injure Mitt’s reputation as “one of the good guys” who is above politics.”
It is somehow now considered dirty politics to show off your family - even in that context? So, should Romney consider his family a political liability since Rudy is estranged from his children?
As I went to visit a co-worker today, I had with my beautiful wife & two children. I was eager to see him just to show off my family. I can understand why many who have large successful families are proud of the accomplishment. It is not offensive to me when any person shows off their families - even if they are seeking office.
I can think of no greater accomplishment than a happy successful family. Perhaps some don’t see things that way.
April 15th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
I’m liking the “McCain-ettes” in that photo.
April 15th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
KWN, it is more reasonable to assume that Romney’s action was a continuation of his “look at me, look at my family, I’m just like you” campaign in response to the constant Mormon smearing than as an attack on Guiliani. Romney has been consistent with this tactic for some time, even before Guiliani declared. It’s unfortunate that you once again interpret this through your anti-Romney perspective, but consider that the alternative is just as, if not more reasonable.
April 15th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
The speeches last for about 4 hours, so I missed some while taking bathroom breaks, getting a drink (no free meals for the press
), etc…
I didn’t see Tancredo’s, Brownback, John Cox, or TT’s (and only parts of Gilmore’s). So I can’t comment. But Huckabee’s didn’t seem particularly well or poorly received.
I can say that Tom Tancredo is really a first-rate human being though. The first time I met him back in 2005, he literally stood and talked to me for 15-20 minutes about almost everything besides politics, just like I was an old friend or colleague. In the subsequent times I have been able to observed him, he has behaved exactly the same way to everyone he meets. He is a 100% genuinely friendly, open, and kind human being.
April 15th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Dave,
There is nothing like a Republican Girl!
April 15th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
The more I hear from Tom Tancredo the more I wish I could have a college study session with him…:)
April 15th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
I live in Iowa, but I couldn’t make it last night… but from my friends that did go, Rudy won the night. He made everyone feel better about him leading the field. Everyone was very impressed with him.
April 15th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
A Rudy/McCain ticket would be very strong.
April 15th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Jake,
I agree. A Rudy/ McCain ticket would be strong. Also, they are good friends.
April 15th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
You and me both, Dave.
Kavon,
This is a great field report. I liked Rudy’s and McCain’s speech (even if it was the 10 millionth time that I’ve heard the Gabor and Arizona politicians never becoming presidents jokes). Mitt’s was surprisingly very good. You missed out on the Tommy Thompson speech though. I liked his better than the Big Three’s speeches actually. CSAN.org has the whole program up (just finished watching it). Also, nice pictures. I really need to get a digital camera.
Jake,
Neither McCain or Rudy would ever accept the veep slot. It’s the presidency or bust for them.
April 15th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Kavon - There was nothing contrived here. Mitt does the family thing at almost EVERY event he attends. I would say the contrast, if uncomfortable, was uncomfortable for very real reasons and not malicious ones.
April 15th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
I’ve seen Romney’s stump speech in person 3-4 times here in Iowa, and seen it on C-span elsewhere. He always calls up whichever of his family is accompanying him (sometimes to say a word or two). It was not a planned “stunt” to contrast himself to the other major candidates. Mitt’s family is important to him (he always says that’s why he’s running for POTUS) . . . it’s a good lede into his speech.
April 15th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Oops, Justin just beat me at a similar comment.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Kavon,
I have to wonder how many events of Romney’s you’ve watched, if you felt his speech was surprisingly excellent. I just watched it, with your commentary in mind, and to be honest it didn’t strike me as particularly above the cut for him. Great, but no moreso then any of his speeches. The simple fact is, Romney is almost a preternaturally excellent speaker. I’ve wondered for awhile how many Romney speeches the Mitt’s detractors had viewed, because there comments always seem to come across as though they were purposely avoiding anything positive about his candidacy, so that they could HATE him. Which is one of the reasons I’ve suspected that he was going to make a real run at this thing. Because if you need to make yourself hate a candidate, to avoid loving him, (something that I haven’t see from any Romney supporters) then he must have something pretty special going for him.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
On that note, I’d recall a post by a seemingly libertarian blogger from a month or so back. Where he stated tghat the presidency was Romney’s to lose. Because, after viewing him speak, despite the fact that he detested any of the things he stood for, and felt him to be insincere, he was practically hypnotized by him. At the time, some bloggers here were incredulous at his statement. But I think it hits upon a central truth. If you’ve viewed him extensively. In interview stetings, in speeches, and in question and answer sessions, you have to force yourself to dislike him. And for all the Romney haters, I’ll say only this: you can only avoid him and his remarkable accomplishments for so long. There’ll come a time, where you’re forced to admit that Mitt’s a good guy, even if you’d prefer not to vote for him in the primary.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Well, it took until #18 to have the requisite hyperbolic remark from Matt, which if you would allow me to paraphrase:
“Kavon, Mitt Romney is the greatest public speaker in the history of humanity. Since the dawn of time, no man has ever stepped up to any podium with his oratory skill. No civilization has ever produced such an orator as him: not ancient Greece, nor ancient Rome, nor any other culture that has existed until this point in history.
If you were not aware of that fact, it is surely due to your ignorance. Because anyone who has seen or heard Mitt speak could not deny that he is the greatest public speaker that has, or ever will, live.”
April 15th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Matt,
Isn’t that what most politicians are supposed to do? Most everybody here has met some successful polititcians at some time and I’d think that’s the same feeling they get everytime. Heck, I met Harold Ford and he had the place buzzing.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Agreed, all I’ve seen of Romney he always brings his family up to show them off. It’s a strength of his whole campaign. You devoted a significant section to it but I saw no malicious intent. I think it may be a overly sensitive area for Rudy fans. I also think he gave a great speech, it had the same points as Rudy’s but more emotion. I also thought Tommy Thompsons was pretty funny, because of his excentricity. Mcain was good too, should have left out the opening comedy routine in my opinion.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
LOL Kavon.
Listening to his supporters, one does wonder at times if they think Mitt is the American Cicero.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
And for the record… Every single appearance of a 2008 GOP candidate that is broadcast on TV is TIVO’ed, viewed, and then burned to DVD by me for storage in the Race 4 2008 batcave. I began this process in 5-2005. I have approx 200 DVD’s so far, none of which contain a single speech in which Mitt Romney calls his wife and son from the dinner table to the podium.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Matt,
Was that libertarian blogger me?
April 15th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
yeah,
Well - I don’t support Romney because of his his oratory skills. I support him becuase his hair man, the hair - the hair! Whatever happened to the concern regarding Romney’s hair being too “perfect?” Is that going to morph in to his oratory skills being too perfect now? If Reagan was resurrected and running in this election, some Republicans would probably mock & reject him.
By the way, watching all 3hrs & 31 mins of this from cspan.org at the moment. Rudy’s speech was good in my opinion.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Touche Kavon. But I honestly didn’t mean it that way. To be honest, in the grand sweep of things, I’d rate Romney as a B speaker. I think Obama is better. As is Bill Clinton, and obviously Reagan and JFK. I don’t even think Romney is particularly better then Giuliani. They’re different, but I wouldn’t say one is better then the other. But what I do say, and will continue to say, is that their seems to be an irrational need, for those who’d rather not vote for Romney, to hate him. I’m fully capable of supporting Romney while maintaining that Giuliani, McCain, and any number of other candidates are fine human beings, competent fellows, and American heroes. My support for Romney is entirely distinct from my feelings for other candidates and the one doesn’t effect the other. I’ve seen this attitude displayed by virtually every Romney supporter. We acknowledge that there are other candidates with merits, both political and personal, and simply happen to prefer our known. This is contrast to supporters of other candidates who contiunally resort to “Mitt’s a phony” or “What a flip-flopper” or even “he has no character”. Even when statements like these are entirely in contrast to every iota of evidence in existence. He’s been a loving husband, and a dutiful father, and a tireless advocate for volunteerism (having volunteered literally thousands of hours of his time throughout his life), and a self-made multi-millionaire who’s taken virtually none of the various “legs up” his life has provided him. It has nothing to do with whether or not he’s a average speaker, or the greatest that mankind has ever produced (neither of which even close to the mark in my opinion). It has everything to do with the tendency for those who support other candidates, to turn Romney into a moral blank slate, a liar, a charlatan, and quite possibly a cheat, when his life is a testament against these very qualities. Perhaps its an example of attacking a candidates strength, or perhaps it indicates an insecurity with their own candidates (and their often shady personal history’s), but I think its entirely unwarranted and telling. Romney’s opponents need to hate him, and will go to any lengths to manufacture that feeling. Romney’s supporters find elements of worth and note in many other candidates.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
For accuracy sake… I went downstairs and counted my DVD’s. I actually have 78 so far. I took my best guess and aimed a little high. But 78 DVD’s x 6 hours each is a lot of programming.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
…and bordering on obsessive.
April 15th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Nusrat,
No offense taken. You’re 100% correct. My wife can’t wait until the election is over because of it.
Thank goodness she hasn’t found out what happens when you go to http://www.race42012.com yet
.
April 15th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Or http://www.race42016.com yet
…
April 15th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
You have got to be kidding me.
Wow, maybe I’ll still be a regular in seven years!
April 15th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
#12 and 13, Giuliani and McCain would both be better served by picking VP’s that are rock stars in the conservative base. Solidifying the people who are on your side would be more helpful than trying to pick off some moderates who might be with you one year and against you the next.
April 15th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
2020 is just to far away to reserve a webholder, eh Kavon?
So, anyone willing to put some guesses on who will be running in 2012 or 2016. I say Mark Sanford would join the running. Maybe Rick Perry will join the fray. And if anyone passes any new amendments regarding citizenship, speculation will build about a Schwarzenegger ticket.
April 15th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
LJ,
As a Mitt supporter, he is not an American Cicero. He is an excellent speaker because he is fluid and articulate. But he is not, from what I’ve observed, poetic or groundbreaking in his rhetoric. He shines in comparison to some of the other candidates (and I’m thinking here of T. Thompson, Gilmore, Giuliani, Brownback and Tancredo), but that’s as much a function as the general lack of importance the American voter places on speechmaking as anything else.
Rudy for example: an extremely competent administrator, but as a rhetorician, he always seems one or two steps away from the cliff’s edge. Take Peggy Noonan’s Friday column, for example.
April 15th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
And Kavon,
I’d lock up those URL’s now. We’d all be grateful.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Where’s all the John Cox support?
April 15th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
BarkTwiggs,
If forced to bet right this minute, my guess is Rudy will be running for re-election in 2012, and Jeb Bush has his sights set on 2016…and, Mike Pence will be his running mate.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Even though he’s the most well thought of, I have a feeling it’s going to be another twenty years or so before the country can deal with another Bush.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
I just watched Tommy Thompson’s speech, and I have to say, the guy’s fantastic. I want a Romney/Thompson ticket. Is there any doubt, that such a ticket would absolutely OWN the health care issue for the Republicans? Not to mention the upper midwest electoral possibilities.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
“The continued attack on Mayor Giuliani (the “My family is better than your family” critique), is really below-the-belt and could serve to injure Mitt’s reputation as “one of the good guys” who is above politics.”
I like a candidate who is proud of his family. Given the importance of the Family (for goodness sake, we’re supposed to be conservatives!) you’d think it a shame if a candidate was proud about his political achievements, but didn’t care for his family.
The Bible has the same requirements. It says that you can’t be an elder of the church if your family is a mess. You should focus on your family first.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Yes I think Thompson did Great and clearly come off first rate compared to the other second tier cadinates. I’m still trying to think what Huckabee was doing. Plus he did not attack any of the other candinates but made a case why the party should have a pro life nominee.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Tommy Thompson’s my pretty clear 3rd choice now. I continue to think he could take Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and Michigan, and that sort of electoral prowess can’t be ignored.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Thompson was my favorite the other night, but he should never have gotten on board with verachip. The last thing anybody would want to feel like big brothers watching them.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Tommy Thompson, that is…. (since Fred wasn’t there)
April 15th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Here’s all you need to know. The far out religious will have a field day with this. That said, he’s righ under my top choice, but I don’t think he’s got a chance.
Verichip:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VeriChip
April 15th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VeriChip
April 15th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
I was impressed with T. Thompson’s speech as well. Definitely the best of the second tier that night. Gilmore went flat and was lame with his attacks (like it will help him).
Huckabee seems to like to throw out pot shots as well . . . I expected better from a former minister But I guess he’s he’s getting desperate.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Huckabee was a punk last night, as was Gilmore. They need to show more class to get some sort of traction. They’ll be in hot pursuit of John Cox if they don’t find something better to say than acting holier than thou.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Tommy,
I agree. I don’t even see why abortion is such a litmus-test issue for conservatives. Surely there are bigger issues at hand right now.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
But I also have to include Tom in there too with Huckabee and Gilmore, he is a one issue candiante and they always heard to about 5% of the vote.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Another thing I like about Tommy Thompson, on either the top or the bottom of the ticket, is that his presence in the Oval Office would greatly increase the chances of us getting a Justice Diane Sykes. He appointed her to the Wisconsin Supreme Court some years ago, and given her prominence on possible short lists of Supreme Court picks, I have no doubt that were Thompson to have a serious say, she’d be at the very top of the list. And considering the fact that I think she’s one of the only chances of us threading the needle (confirmable, collegial, cogent, and conservative), that’s a very good thing.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
it not a litmus test pure say, but I think a point can be made why someone who is prolife is better. Tommy did it the right way.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
I don’t necessarily consider abortion in of itself a litmus test. But I consider not vocally expressing and defending radically pro-abortion beliefs while running for the Republican nomination to be a litmus test. If Giuliani would have simply stopped attempting to defend his positions, and kept his responses to questions on the issue short, I could have considered him. But I don’t need the Republican nominee using the bully pulpit to whine about how we can’t rhwo women into jail and how government funding of abortion is constitutionally required.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Don’t get me wrong, I’m very pro-life, but it seemed like Huckabee and Gilmore attacking the others and then going into it was just cheap pandering. Like I said before, I really like Tommy Thompson, based on his speech and what seems like a very good man, but if you do a little research, he’s a long shot, they don’t call him “Chip” for nothing. Taking a position with Verichip left him dead in the water when comes to electability on a national level, in my opinion. I don’t buy into conspiracy theorists, but they will have a field day with Thompson. Do a google search on him, and you’ll understand what I mean when I say that they’ll be coming out of the woodwork for that one.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Matt,
If Rudy gets elected president, do you really believe, once in office, that he would actually ‘use the bully pulpit to whine about how we can throw women into jail and how government funding of abortion is constitutionally required’?
Rudy does not advocate constitutionally-mandated federal government funding of abortion. Quite the contrary, he supports keeping in place the current ban on federal funding of abortion, known as the Hyde Amendment. As you may know, the Hyde Amendment does have a few exceptions which guarantee the right to federal funding of abortions in cases involving rape, incest and when a pregnant woman’s life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.
So, when CNN’s Dana Bash, in a subtle attempt to drive a deeper wedge between Rudy and pro-life social conservatives (the only thing standing in the way to Rudy’s ascendance to the White House) asks Giuliani craftily if he would “support taxpayer money or public funding for abortion in some cases?”
You should understand the context in which the former U.S. Attorney/NYC mayor responded to the question as it was precisely worded:
“If it would deprive someone of a constitutional right. Yes. I mean if that’s the status of the law, then I would, yes.”
In verifying Rudy’s exact comments on Hyde, I was admittedly surprised to just discover that Rudy Giuliani is, in fact, a flip-flopper on abortion. I’m not sure if this will come as news to you, but he hasn’t always been “pro-choice” or a supporter of Roe.
A February 22, 1989, Newsday article reported that leaders of New York’s Conservative Party said Giuliani “assured them he was personally opposed to abortion, did not favor government funding or criminal penalties, did favor an exemption in cases of rape or incest, and was in favor of overturning the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision legalizing abortion, Roe v. Wade.”
Then, there’s this eye-opening excerpt from an April 9, 1989, New York Times article:
Mr. Marin said Mr. Giuliani agreed with the Liberal Party position on affirmative action, gay rights, gun control, school prayer and tuition-tax credits. On abortion and the death penalty, however, Mr. Giuliani differed with the Liberals.
”I have indicated in the past that as a lawyer, and also for religious reasons, I would be opposed to Roe against Wade,” Mr. Giuliani, a Roman Catholic, said.
Giuliani’s shift in views began after the U.S. Supreme Court’s July 1989 Webster v. Reproductive Health Services abortion decision. Giuliani reportedly shifted his position to one favoring abortion rights. An October 13, 1989, New York Times article called Giuliani a “support[er of] the right of a woman to choose an abortion.” Giuliani said he had “talk[ed] to [his] wife” about the issue following the Webster decision. An October 13, 1989, Associated Press article explained: “Once an outright opponent, [Giuliani] now says he supports abortion rights, and would not seek to reduce funds or services, even though he remains personally opposed.”
A leaked 1993 “Rudolph W. Giuliani Vulnerability Study” acknowledged that Giuliani had changed his position on abortion rights. The 1993 “Vulnerability Study” was, as the New York Daily News reported, written by “two Giuliani advisers [who] wrote frankly about how parts of Giuliani’s past could come back to haunt him — The study warned that Giuliani “is vulnerable on … his flip-flops on various issues [and] the reversals of many of his major convictions.” In its section on Giuliani’s “anti-woman” reputation, the study added:
After the Webster decision, abortion became a cutting-edge issue — and Giuliani started out on the wrong side of the blade.
By the time Giuliani got it right on abortion, it may have been too late to win back the women voters offended by Giuliani’s earlier pro-life issue.
Now that Giuliani has been consistently pro-choice for at least four years, the abortion issue should not present the same degree of trouble it did in 1989.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
T. Thompson is the only VP possibility I can think of for one of the so-called Big Three in the GOP (not including Fred Thompson) who is almost guaranteed to make a state “red” that was “blue” in 2004. With T. Thompson as V.P., Wisconsin should flip to the GOP.
April 15th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Jeff, Paul, and tommy, I may have missed something but when did Huckabee take pot shots or make any cheap shots during his speech. Paul Shanklin made a few comments about the Clintons but I don’t remember Huckabee saying anything negative about any of the Republican cnadidates, and I have watched it twice now.
Maybe you need to enlighten all of us on exactly what he said.
April 15th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Is it true that the Romney Health Care Plan in Massachusetts kept in-state funding for abortion? This is what the American Spectator is claiming, which would be consistent with the Romney gubernatorial pledge not to change abortion law one way or the other as governor - though it won’t make social conservatives happy.
April 16th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Is it just me or is everyone over-hyping Tommy Thompson’s speech?? To begin with, he sounded more like a beligerent drunk than a serious presidential candidate. He rebounded near the end, but Thompson doesn’t bring anything to the table besides some experienced leadership on Health Care. Yeah, as HHS Secretary, he did a fantastic job, but thats about it. How many HHS Secretaries have gone on to become POTUS? Thompson brings nothing to the ticket and any hopes that Thompson on the bottom of the ticket would swing Wisconsin, Michigan, etc. into the GOP fold are hogwash.
April 16th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Geoff,
I think you underestimate how much Thompson is loved in Wisconsin. They’d make him emperor if they could. Considering Wisconsin was the closest state in 2004, there’s very little question that Thompson would swing the state, even from the bottom of the ticket.
April 16th, 2007 at 12:41 am
The problem is he will be close 68 and would be 76 if whoever choices won relected in 08, which many people may think then he might not run for president in 2016 and people might be turn off to that after Cheney (Let sav McCain chooses him and McCain would focus on Forigin policy and the WOT and Thompson on Health, Enegry, and other areas where McCain has a history or not showing much interested in).
April 16th, 2007 at 1:49 am
Matt,
I think you underestimate how much Thompson is loved in Wisconsin. They’d make him emperor if they could.
As (I think) the sole Wisconsinite on this site, let me wholeheartedly agree with this. Tommy is beloved in the state by everyone. This time last year, he was toying with running for Governor again against Gov. Doyle (D), he told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that “If I run, I win.” To give you a picture of just how loved he is in the state: Gov. Doyle and his GOP challenger Mark Green were statistically tied 45%-43%. When they polled a Thompson vs. Doyle matchup, the results were amazing, 58% to 30%. For a Democratic incumbent to get 30% in a Democratic state is astounding. So, yes, Thompson as Emperor of Wisconsin would be great.
Out of everyone else, he’s definitely my second choice behind McCain. Granted, Thompson has almost no chance of being elected President, but he would be an amazing choice for Vice President. In a lot of ways, he’s the Republican version of Bill Richardson.
April 16th, 2007 at 2:07 am
I should clarify a bit. I think TT would be a very, very formidable general election candidate and would certainly carry the the Bush ‘04 states, in addition to the Midwestern states. At the same time, I don’t see how he wins the nomination at all. He would have to get past the Big Three and the only way to do that is to unite the dissafected conservatives around him. Unfortunately, that slot is seemingly being filled by the other Thompson (Fred!) and so I don’t see how TT can distinguish himself enough to overcome that.
In which case, I call for McCain/T. Thompson ‘08!
April 16th, 2007 at 4:33 am
I’m not behind any candidate at this point (except for being a Rudy-skeptic).
My impressions:
McCain seemed serious.
Romney seemed contrived.
Rudy seemed affable.
Tancredo seemed angry.
Gilmore seemed out-of-touch.
Huckabee seemed average.
Thompson was interesting.
Brownback is an average public speaker.
If I had to judge where the race is based on tonight alone. I’d have to say that this is still a McCain versus Rudy primary with the potential for a white knight (like FDT).
April 16th, 2007 at 7:59 am
[...] has a great write up of the Iowa Lincoln Day dinner. So does Kavon at Race42008. I can’t add much to their reporting, so I will get it [...]
April 16th, 2007 at 8:50 am
LJ,
I think McCain already has another midwestern governor in mind for his veep slot. And to echo Geoff’s comments above, I think that’s a good thing. While I’ve never heard Pawlenty speak, T.T. does sound like he’s halfway through a fifth every time he gives a speech.
April 16th, 2007 at 9:06 am
eg -
McCain’s serious and Rudy’s affable? Maybe that’s a perect presidential ticket. Or not…
http://www.political-buzz.com/
April 16th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Fredo,
Don’t get me wrong, I love Tim Pawlenty. He’s a wonderful governor with great charisma. He and McCain are obviously quite close. I was a little tongue in cheek with saying McCain/Thompson. But I have to be loyal to my home state guy and I actually met him once years ago. He’s a pretty cool guy. And sure, he’s really quirky, but it’s one of his more endearing qualities to us Wisconsinites. Heh.
April 16th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
[...] I have time I thought you would enjoy Kavon’s summary of our day at Race42008. He gives a funny recounting of how I was mauled by fmr. Wisconsin Governor Tommy [...]
April 16th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
The best line TT had at the dinner was and IN Conclusion.
I think Romney was good but contrived no doubt.
Huckabee was good but not his best, although he still had some in the crowd tearing up.
Cox was not impressive
Gilmore was desperate to be remembered as the guy on the ground in VA on 9/11
Rudy was not good at all in my opinion but I am not sure that is his strong suite
April 17th, 2007 at 5:24 am
[...] race42008.com » Blog Archive » Race 4 2008 Field Report - Iowa GOP Lincoln Day Dinner [...]
April 18th, 2007 at 1:30 am
[...] Why, he was in Des Moines, Iowa giving a speech at the Lincoln Day Dinner. Kavon even provided photographic proof. Now, you don’t have to convince me that John McCain is an amazing human being, but even he [...]
April 19th, 2007 at 2:50 am
[...] few days ago, I wrote this glowing comment about Tommy: As (I think) the sole Wisconsinite on this site, let me wholeheartedly agree with [...]
April 19th, 2007 at 2:56 am
[...] few days ago, I wrote this glowing comment about Tommy: As (I think) the sole Wisconsinite on this site, let me wholeheartedly agree with [...]
April 19th, 2007 at 6:56 am
Go Rudy Go!!!!