Here is a truth-challenged e-mail I received today from John McCain’s campaign manager, Terry Nelson:

There are many reasons to support John McCain, but as we approach this quarter’s fundraising deadline tonight at midnight, let me remind you of just one of them…

John McCain is the only candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton.

If you haven’t already done so, I hope you will make a last-minute donation to help our final push before the deadline. Please also pass this message along to your friends and family to remind them of the stakes in this election.

The clock is ticking…

Sincerely,

Terry Nelson
Campaign Manager

I’m not sure which prevarication is worse. Asserting that McCain is the only candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton, when the former First Lady has defeated Senator McCain, head-to-head, in each of the past five polls (by an average of 3.5%), and in nine of the past twelve.

Or, the fact that Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani has trailed Hillary Clinton in just twelve of the past 52 polls in which they were paired head-to-head for the general election (that figure drops to eight if you omit Newsweek’s blatantly biased polls). Even as the match-up between the New York politicians has tightened in recent weeks, Giuliani still maintains a one-point average lead over Clinton over the past 13 surveys, in which they’ve each won six and tied once.

Either way, advancing such a fallacious argument only expedites the demise of McCain’s presidential aspirations.

John, you’re right about one thing. The clock is ticking…

The first of these reports that I found. Edwards met his goal.

This poll convinces me more than ever that Al Gore is Hillary Rodham’s only credible threat regarding the Democratic nomination:

A New Hampshire presidential poll by WHDH-TV and Suffolk University shows that local Democrats prefer Al Gore to any of the current contenders.

Hillary Clinton has a solid lead over the rest of the current Democratic field. The poll, released this afternoon, shows 37 percent of likely Democratic voters backing Clinton or leaning towards her. Barack Obama was at 19 percent, with both John Edwards and Bill Richardson at 9 percent.

Al Gore, however, could enter the race as the leader. When his name is added, Clinton loses more than a quarter of her support, while Gore is backed by 32 percent.

This has been my instinct for months. Neither Obama nor Edwards have what it takes to give Hillary a real run for her money. Edwards is largely a retread from 2004 whose name recognition and presence in Iowa have kept him in the game. Obama is interesting, but the combination of inexperience and latent racism among older Democratic primary voters ensures that he has a very low ceiling, despite the attempts of the MSM to lionize him. Hillary remains the frontrunner by default, but her negatives are high and she is disliked by many liberals and Democrats, who fear she is too moderate or unelectable.

Enter Al Gore. The former veep brings with him the same nostalgia for the Clinton years as Hillary, but none of the baggage. He’s also as liberal as Obama or Edwards, leaving little room for them to compete. It’s too late in the game for Gore to win Iowa, but he could put everything into New Hampshire, hoping to beat Hillary there and prove to Democrats that they don’t have to settle for Ms. Clinton.

As a general election nominee, I find Mr. Gore terrifying. The reason is that unlike Hillary, I don’t see how any Republican can amass 270 electoral votes against Gore except for one: Rudy Giuliani. While I think Hillary would be a formidable force in the general election, truth be told, her negatives are high enough that any of our guys would at least have a fighting chance against her. Rudy could beat her in some northeastern states, Thompson could win a Great Lakes state or two against her, and so forth. And her margin of victory would be so tight that a few blue electoral votes is all any of our guys need to beat her.

Gore, though, is a different story. Call it midwesterners’ intuition, but even though I don’t currently have the data to back it up, I can’t imagine Gore losing any of the Great Lakes states to anyone. Even Rudy would lose to Gore in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Iowa. Indiana, of course, would vote Republican, because it always does. But that wouldn’t matter. Absent a win in one of those states, the GOP ticket cannot get to 270, even if it holds every southern state and every state in the plains and mountain west. The GOP’s only path to victory at that point is to win either a) a state on the west coast, b) Hawaii, or c) a northeastern state. Only Rudy could accomplish that task.

Why would Gore do so well in the Midwest? Part of it is buyers’ remorse regarding the Bush years. Midwesterners are very isolationist, great believers in clean government, and not particularly big on either government waste or religion in government. Bush and the GOP establishment have failed them on all counts over the last few years. That’s why they went from purple states in 2000 and 2004 to deep blue states in 2006. Many Midwesterners will feel that if they had just voted for Gore in 2000, they wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years. Hillary runs into natural opposition there due to the more traditional slant of the Midwest, which won’t take kindly to a former collegiate feminist who now reminds every middle-aged, Midwestern man of his ex-wife. But Gore comes across as a relatively normal fellow, complete with a normal wife and a normal, if privileged, background. He’ll win all of the Kerry voters in the Midwest, and a few more. “A few more” means he wins Ohio and Iowa. That gives him 279 electoral votes. The GOP candidate will have to flip a blue state — not a purple state, a blue state — in order to beat Gore.

Only Gore can beat Hillary. And only Rudy can beat Gore.

Not that Thompson.

This one:

Aug. 11 - the Ames straw poll - is a make or break day for Tommy Thompson.

Thompson, a former Republican Wisconsin governor, vowed Friday night that the mid-August day will be the driving force that leads him to become the next U.S. president.

“I expect to come in first on the straw poll in Ames,” Thompson said during a taping Friday night of Iowa Public Television’s “Iowa Press.”

I’m not usually going to spend my time arguing with other commentators, or posting a bunch of rebuttals, but there is some misinformation going around about Fred Thompson from his rivals.

A. The powerline article linked here on this site was a plant. The story is false. The writer, who has been critical of Thompson from the beginning, said that a recent meeting had been scheduled to take place in Washington, and that Representatives and Senators came away unimpressed. I hate to break it to you, but the story was false.

Lots of people sending me this. A deflating blow, landed by one of Fred?s three favorite blogs? Say it ain?t so.

Is this event attended by sixty-odd congressional Republicans the same as ? this event attended by sixty-odd congressional Republicans? Because (a) that wasn?t all that recent (link to the mid April meeting) and (b) by all available reports, Fred was exceedingly well received (note: Thompson came away with 10 endorsements that followed shortly, including proving to one Marsha Blackburn that he was serious and would be a force.) Maybe it was another, more recent event? If so, how often do they throw campaign shindigs for dozens of House GOP members? (note: there hasn’t been any recent events)

This event was covered here and nobody brought up these complaints then, and nobody has backed off their invitations to an upcoming meeting.

This is the story: In two weeks, Thompson will be meeting with most of the leaders from the GOP leadership, and there will be some major endorsements following. You don’t have to take my word for it, but don’t be disappointed or in disbelief.

B. Somebody wrote an article about Thompson’s trip to New Hampshire. I wonder if they were attending the same event as the other reporters who attended, like this one from politico:

Fred rising

This week’s reports: Who’s hot in South Carolina? Who’s living large in Las Vegas? And can anyone impress the rock-hard Granite Staters of New Hampshire?
Right now, the answer to that last question seems to be yes. Fred Thompson hasn’t even declared his candidacy yet, but Republican officials in New Hampshire welcomed the actor and former Tennessee senator with open arms, and South Carolina is delighted to have a Southerner in contention.

Obama returns to New Hampshire on Monday, but this week belonged to the former senators from Tennessee. (Gore and Thompson)

Or the news reporters:
Please watch this news report if you want to get the full story from New Hampshire. It has not been posted on youtube, so to watch it, you must click the link here.

(more…)

In 1993, when I became a Republican, the Reagan years still felt like a revolution: a permanent sea change in the way Americans thought about the role of government in a society. Now, the Reagan/Thatcher years on either side of the pond are beginning to feel like a major yet temporary interruption on the trajectory of the West towards liberalism. I once postulated that conservatives should be concerned about the state of conservatism to the east in Britain, as well as to the west in California. In both cases, the populations that gave us Reagan and Thatcher have replaced conservatism with something that smells suspiciously like warmed over Rockefeller Republicanism. Just look to Arnold’s governance and David Cameron’s proposals for evidence of that. If the folks who gave us the two great conservative leaders of the supposed political revolution of the latter part of the last century have been reduced to liberalism-lite, a pessimist might ask just what hope there is for the rest of us.

A new survey by Fabrizio McLaughlin validates these fears with several lumps of coal for both fiscal AND social conservatives. Those of us who fall into one category but not the other, such as yours truly, can take this as an opportunity to share a moment of gloom and doom with one another. First, for my fellow fi-cons, Soren Dayton has the bad news. To sum up:

* Nearly half of Republicans were motivated by economic issues ten years ago. That number has fallen to 16 percent.

* “Free Marketers,” about 8 percent of Republicans, are primarily motivated by issues of economic freedom. “Heartland Republicans,” another 8 percent, are Bob Dole types who are concerned about the budget, the deficit, etc. That’s only 16 percent motivated by keeping government out of the economy. By adding the “Dennis Miller Republicans” to this group — GOPers like Ron Paul who are suspicious of government in general — another 14 percent joins the anti-government segment of Republicans. That’s less than a third of Republicans who vote first and foremost on keeping government out of our lives.

* A majority of Republicans support universal health care, while nearly half oppose Bush-style Social Security reform.

But wait, so-cons, don’t chortle yet. The poll has several lumps of coal for you too. According to Soren, “Moralists” make up 25 percent of the GOP coalition. The fair Liz Mair has more, as does The Hill. According to the poll, 53 percent of Republicans think that the GOP has spent too much time focusing on “moral issues” like abortion and gay marriage. Further, 49 percent support allowing gays to serve openly in the military. The number of Republicans who are primarily concerned with social issues has remained basically stagnant for the past decade, and doesn’t appear to be on the rise. And Mayor Giuliani leads all GOP subgroups in the 2008 horserace, including Moralists, a third of whom are willing to vote for a pro-choice candidate.

According to Soren’s analysis, Republicans that don’t vote primarily on size and scope of government issues or on social issues consist of retirees and soccer moms (13 percent) as well as voters who are along for the ride because of the GWOT (28 percent). That means economic, small government, and social conservatives combined now comprise a bare majority of Republicans.

And they call this a revolution?

We have no idea what the quarter of Republicans who are motivated by the war on terror will do once that ceases to be an issue, or whether they will leave if the Republicans continue to totally blow their advantage on defense by making poor strategic choices on the issue. Further, we have no idea what will happen to the party as older voters (41 percent of GOPers are now over age 55) continue to pass on. But all of this begs the question that, if the GOP is now a party that will nominate a pro-choice presidential candidate (which I support, despite his pro-choice status, not because of it), that will enact more gay-friendly policies (which I also support, but bear with me here as I make my point), that refuses to reform entitlements, and that enacts universal health care, how is that GOP any different than the party Rockefeller would have built? Did Reaganism and Thatcherism a revolution make? Or were those movements simply among history’s great speed bumps — the result of the public reaction to the massive economic and social changes of the West over the course of the 20th Century?

Consider the following theory. There was no great conservative revolution in the Anglosphere during the latter part of the 20th Century. Instead of a massive change in direction, the voters of the Anglosphere simply put the brakes on liberalism, not to change course, but to slow down societal change to a speed at which it could be absorbed by society. Oh, some policy changes were more long-term. We’ll never, for example, have 70 percent tax rates again. But all of that was to ensure the surivival of small-l liberalism, not to kill it off. A gloomy theory, but a reasonable one. After all, an America in which a Republican president signs universal health care into law is something other than Reaganesque. But then again, so is an America in which a Republican president expands the Great Society. Or pushes for amnesty for 12 million illegal immigrants. Or nationalizes education even further. Or attempts to appoint his personal counsel with no constitutional law background to SCOTUS. Or…

So says Mason-Dixon:

The poll by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found that 52 percent of Americans wouldn’t consider voting for Clinton, D-N.Y. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, was second in the can’t-stand-’em category, with 46 percent saying they wouldn’t consider voting for him.

Clinton has long been considered a politically polarizing figure who would be a tough sell to some voters, especially many men, but also Clinton-haters of both genders.

Thursday’s survey provides a snapshot of the challenges she faces, according to Larry Harris, a Mason-Dixon principal.

“Hillary’s carrying a lot of baggage,” he said. “She’s the only one that has a majority who say they can’t vote for her.”

Clinton rang up high negatives across the board, with 60 percent of independents, 56 percent of men, 47 percent of women and 88 percent of Republicans saying they wouldn’t consider voting for her.

Romney struggled most with women: 50.9 percent said they wouldn’t consider voting for him.

“It’s the flip-flop of Hillary,” Harris said of Romney. “One could suppose it’s the Mormon issue — we didn’t ask follow-up questions — but his religion is an issue.”

On name recognition, Clinton also led the 2008 presidential pack in voter disapproval, with 42 percent saying they recognized her name and were unfavorable toward her, versus 39 percent favorable.

That gave her a double-digit lead in that bad-news category over Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, a Democrat. They each had 28 percent unfavorable recognition.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani had the highest favorable recognition at 43 percent, with Clinton close behind at 39 percent. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was third at 36 percent, followed by McCain at 33 percent and Edwards at 32 percent.

McCain rang up the highest favorable rating among independent voters with 39.4 percent, followed by Giuliani with 37.3 percent. Edwards scored well with independents, too, with 31.1 percent favorable; Obama had 28 percent favorable.

If Hillary does win, it will be with less than 50 percent of the vote. You know, like Nixon.

Apparently, some leaders of the social right still understand how to play politics, not to mention the principles of federalism, the separation of powers, and constitutional government.

Money quote:

The thing is, abortion should not be something the president has anything to do with. It should not be a national issue; it never should have been.

As one of the originators of the “Religious Right” as a political movement in this country, Robertson understands that politics is about making deals in order to win elections and advance policies. Ultimately, it’s the art of compromise. Unfortunately, some of today’s so-con leaders have forgotten that concept. Or perhaps they never learned it in the first place. Folks like James Dobson seem to think they can build a national political majority out of individuals who desire federal policies on cultural issues that are consistent with the theological principles of a specific religious sect. Outside certain dark red legislative districts and states, this simply isn’t possible. Robertson understands this, and, unlike some of his successors, understands that the house that Reagan built was a fusionist one that kept all elements equally happy (and unhappy) without exalting one bloc of the coalition above all others.

Put more simply, Pat Robertson and I probably disagree on scores of issues within the realm of religion, science, nature, lifestyle issues, and public policy. But I get the impression that despite all of that, Robertson would be willing to work with me. I don’t think Dobson would. Robertson knows how to win elections. Dobson loses them. So-cons have a choice to make.

Kind of funny…

With Romney’s rise in early states and his strong organization coupled with strong resume, Romney has become the “betters” choice among Senators and Congressman it appears. John from Powerline blogs that many Senators are regrouping to Mitt:

I was in Washington today for a combination of business, politics and pleasure. I met with a number of Republican Congressmen and Senators, attended a press conference, and followed events on the Senate floor. Here are a few random thoughts on the day’s events…

* The Fred Thompson campaign recently set up an event for 60 of Congress’s most solid conservatives. Many of them were hoping to be able to endorse Thompson. Unfortunately, Thompson did not impress the Congressmen. He did not appear to be ready for a tough Presidential campaign. One of his aides explained that Thompson was “rusty,” which, as one Congressman told me, did not inspire much confidence in this YouTube era. Some of those who attended are now looking at Mitt Romney as the most viable conservative in the race.

On the Senatorial side we have two solid senators (DeMint and Bennett) making the same claim. Granted, both of the Senators are Romney supporters, yet both are solid Conservatives with a reputation among the party faithful. One participant at Monday’s fundraising event in Boston, who is very close to the campaign, sent me this in an email and gave me permission to quote:

I had a similar discussion with Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, also a passionate supporter. He told me that the vast majority of his Senate colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, feel that Mitt will be the Republican nominee. He also said that a majority of his Democrat associates in the Senate feel that Mitt would be the toughest opponent for their nominee based on his skills, message and personality.

And we all remember from a few days ago my interview with Bob Bennett:

It should also be noted that a man at the table I sat with in Boston spoke to Bennett and the Senator told him that Bill Clinton himself expressed that the Clinton’s are planning on a Hillary v. Romney match up. I also find it interesting that with several Senators and Former Senators in the running, we see that majority still looks to Romney.

Now this begs the question, do endorsements from Congress matter? Of course they do. Evidence number 1: All the candidates are working to woo the support of Congress. Congressman and Senators have long lists of supporters, contributors and networks from their own campaigns. Generally congressman and senators enjoy some degree of popularity within their districts/states and generally have the support and sway of their state party.

Bennett alludes to Senators who are endorsing other candidates but their hearts are in Boston. This isn’t a surprise. As we saw with Blackburn, sometimes state party politics and future political aspirations trump your own personal preferences. That’s not criticism, just reality.

So it will be interesting to see how many Senators decide to get in the fray and when. Then we will see how correct this information I have gleaned is.

As I’m on way out the door headed for Thompson Central in Nashville, Newt is quietly telling GOP insiders what I predicted he’d wait on, according to the Prince of Darkness himself, Novak:

Newt Gingrich is telling Republican insiders that his decision in September whether to run for President in 2008 depends on the progress of Fred Thompson?s imminent candidacy.
If Thompson runs a vigorous and effective campaign, Gingrich says privately, he probably will not get in the race himself. If Thompson proves a dud, however, the former House speaker will seriously consider making a run. That implies that the others in the field look to Gingrich like losers in the general election.

Pretty tough words from the man with the plan. Have a great day.

Rudy Giuliani

• ‘Do We Remain on Offense?’
  A transcript of the Wall Street Journal’s interview with Rudy Giuliani.
• Rudy Giuliani
  Of Tax Cuts and Terror
• Giuliani grabs bagel in Irvine
  Republican presidential hopeful talks about London car bomb with customers and about immigration with reporters.
• Giuliani Meets with Voters in Irvine
• Giuliani makes stop in San Diego during California fundraising trip
• Rudy Giuliani Raises Campaign Funds In San Diego
  Presidential Candidate Talks About 12-Point Plan
• Republican Presidential Candidate Rudy Giuliani In Town
• Giuliani derides immigration bill during Fresno campaign stop
• North Dakota Republican director to work for Giuliani
• Giuliani set to appear Friday in Savannah
• Rudy Giuliani on thwarting of disaster in London

Fred Thompson

• Huckabee: Fred Thompson Will Have Nowhere to Go But Down
• Mayor Vega Condemns GOP’s Fred Thompson for Comparing Cuban Immigrants to Terrorists
• Congressional Republicans less than impressed with Fred
• Video: Fred Thompson in South Carolina
• Thompson says voters want honest president
• State of the States: Fred rising
• Thompson drawing mixed reviews
  Despite star power and some encouraging polls, Fred Thompson has a lot of work to do in the state with the first primary.
• Rasmussen Reports: Fred Thompson Seen As Most Conservative GOP Candidate
• A Good Day
  By Fred Thompson

John McCain

• McCain Appeal: We’re Short of 2nd Quarter Goal
• McCain still facing an uphill climb
• McCain: Immigration defeat “tough and bruising experience”
• McCain?s Courage
  A rare American politician.
  By Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn
• McCain on Amnesty, Lugar
• McCain introduces talk radio legislation
• McCain brings Iraq war debate to Chicago
• McCain?s Campaign Faces Tough Obstacles

Mitt Romney

• Rising to a New Generation of Global Challenges
  By Mitt Romney
• Romney to Raise Less Money in Second Quarter
• Romney Defends Strapping Dog in Kennel on Station Wagon in 1983
• Brownback Hits Romney on Agriculture
• Animal cruelty charge dogs Romney campaign
• Romney ‘terrified’ family dog
• Romney’s in the doghouse with some voters
  story has legs….four of them…
• Treatment of dog may come back to bite Romney
• Romney’s dog story: Really, he loved riding on the car roof
• Dog on Roof? What Was It Like for Romney’s Pooch?
  Scientists Say Dog Likely Experienced Wind-Whipped, Uncomfortable Trip
• Tale of the dog is causing a stink for Romney
• Story about dog on car roof comes back to bite Romney
  Critics, jokesters make issue of tale

Newt Gingrich

• Robert D. Novak: Newt waits for Thompson to flop
• Newt touts new way

General Race 4 2008 News

• Duncan Hunter: Keep Gitmo open
• Iran bans negative petrol stories
  Iran’s top security body has ordered local journalists not to report on problems caused by petrol rationing, a day after its surprise introduction.
• Bush: Israel example for Iraq
• ‘Al-Qaeda memo to Gordon Brown’
• Russian with Diplomatic Immunity Tries to Pass Off Counterfeit $100 Bill at NH Liquor Store
  Putin’s ‘Secret Service’ staying in Portsmouth ahead of his Sunday visit with Bush in Kennebunkport.
• Transcript of the Third Democratic Primary Presidential Debate
• Sparks Fly at the Supreme Court
• E.J. Dionne’s Temper Tantrum
  “Not One More Roberts or Alito!!!”
• Iraq militias ‘turning against al-Qaeda’
• New York City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography
• Bill Clinton derides missile shield plan
• Two potential nuclear sites chosen
  Big operator of plants working on a federal application
• 4 indicted in JFK terror plot
• Terror Plot Involves Islamic Extremists
  Police Have ‘Crystal Clear’ Picture of Suspect
• Police hunt Iraqi on run after double bomb plot in London
• London Finds Linked Bombs, a Qaeda Tactic
• Official: Half of Baghdad under control
• Yepsen: Clinton?s fine showing should help her in Iowa
• Clinton vs. Gore?
• Chavez visits Moscow on quest for weapons
• Richardson raises $7 million in 2nd Quarter for White House bid
• Obama: Fading to black?
  With a chance to win over the hearts of African-American voters, Illinois senator instead let Hillary bring crowd to its feet
• 2008 hopefuls in dash for cash as deadline looms
• Campaign Cash: Last Call
• Ann Coulter on her Feud With Elizabeth Edwards
• Renewing American Leadership
  By Barack Obama
• ‘08 hopefuls release fund-raising data
• Immigration may be tackled at local level
• Brownback Writes of ‘Hatred’ of Clintons

This is the third consecutive poll to reflect a double digit lead for Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani over his nearest competition. Also noteworthy is the fact that it is the first time since mid-April that the former New York mayor has maintained a 10+ percentage point lead throughout the course of a week. John McCain is also receiving his share of good news (much needed in his case), as he has garnered a solid average of 19 percent in the past three polls. After watching his polling figures plummet to as low as 10 percent in early-mid June, the resilient senator has rebounded nicely. This good fortune for both Giuliani and McCain has come at the expense of Mitt Romney, who at just six percent, is now at his lowest point in the past three months of national polls.

CBS GOP National Primary

• Rudy Giuliani 34%
• Fred Thompson 22%
• John McCain 21%
• Someone else 7%
• Mitt Romney 6%

Without Thompson in the race…

• Rudy Giuliani 42%
• John McCain 26%
• Someone else 19%
• Mitt Romney 8%

Favorable/Not Favorable/Net

• Rudy Giuliani 52%/12% (+40%)
• Fred Thompson 33%/3% (+30%)
• John McCain 35%/19% (+16%)
• Mitt Romney 24%/11% (+13%)

Romney and Religion

• 41% correctly identified Romney as a Mormon
• 55% did not know Romney’s religion

Respondents were asked:

Would most people you know vote for a Mormon?

40% answered ‘No’.? Just 36% said ‘Yes’.

Survey conducted June 26-28 of 212 likely Republican primary voters.

Data retrieved from Real Clear Politics

This is CBS’s first poll to include Fred Thompson in it. There isn’t a explanation, but if memory serves, CBS polls have been kind of strange (this is the same poll that included George HW Bush in it for possible candidate within the last few months) and it uses registered voters and independents, as opposed to likely voters, and I don’t have time to check the PDF file that’s linked at RCP. However, it’s still a strong showing for Giuliani and Thompson, as you notice the differences in undecideds when Thompson is included. Thompson also has only a 3% negative and Rudy at 12%, which is inconsistent with Mason Dixon’s latest favorability polls (which haven’t been posted here yet). Also, rather disturbing results for the Romney camp, but it might not matter this early with all the polls varying like they are.

I have to get some rest as I’m heading out of town for tomarrow, so knock yourselves out:

Republicans (without Thompson)
Giuliani 42 (+6 vs. last poll in May)
McCain 26 (+4)
Romney 8 (-7)
Someone Else 19 (-2)

Republicans (with Thompson)
Giuliani 34
Thompson 22
McCain 21
Romney 6
Someone else 7

Favorable Ratings (among Republican primary voters only)
Giuliani 52/12 (+40)
Thompson 33/3 (+30)
McCain 35/19 (+16)
Romney 24/11 (+13)

Does Candidate Share Your Values? Yes/No (among Republican primary voters only)
Thompson 44/8 (+36)
McCain 56/24 (+32)
Romney 38/15 (+23)
Giuliani 49/31 (+18)

Twenty-eight percent of Republican primary voters say McCain compromises “too much” with Democrats.

On the Democratic side, Clinton maintains a strong lead:

Democrats
Clinton 48 (+2 vs. last poll in May)
Obama 24 (nc)
Edwards 11 (-3)

Favorable Ratings (among Democratic primary voters only)
Clinton 67/18 (+49)
Obama 54/14 (+40)
Edwards 50/11 (+39)
Gore 55/20 (+35)
Richardson 7/11 (-4)

When expanded to include all registered voters, the favorable ratings look like this:

Obama 40/22 (+18)
Edwards 33/27 (+6)
Clinton 45/40 (+5)
Richardson 7/10 (-3)
Gore 34/40 (-6)

Some random observations from last night’s Democratic debate at historically black Howard University:

HomophobObama?

First there was this…

Barack Obama: One of the things we’ve got to overcome is a stigma that still exists in our communities. We don’t talk about this. We don’t talk about it in the schools. Sometimes we don’t talk about it in the churches. It has been an aspect of, sometimes, our homophobia that we don’t address this issue as clearly as it needs to be.

[Note to the New York Times: Erasing Obama's use of the possessive word "OUR" from your transcript does NOT mean he didn't say it. Despite your best attempts to bury Obama's honest admission, other, less delusional news organizations, including CBS, accurately reported Obama's comment. Pretty pathetic for the alleged 'paper of record.']

And then…

Joe Biden: I got tested for AIDS. I know Barack got tested for AIDS. There?s no shame in being tested for AIDS.

Barack Obama: (looking disturbed by Biden’s comment): Tavis, Tavis, Tavis, I just got to make clear — I got tested with Michelle.

Tavis Smiley: Ah.

Barack Obama: In — when we were in Kenya in Africa. So I want to –

Tavis Smiley: All right.

Barack Obama: I don?t want any confusion here about what?s going on.

Tavis Smiley: All right.

Barack Obama: I was tested with my wife.

Tavis Smiley: And I?m sure Michelle appreciates you clarifying it.

Barack Obama: In public.

Egalitarian Edwards Has Gone Certifiably Communist

Ruben Navarrette: Do you agree that the rich aren?t paying their fair share of taxes? And if so, what would you do about it?

John Edwards: Well, I think we have — in fact, I?ve heard Warren Buffett himself talk about the genetic lottery that we have in America, where, you know, the family you?re born into has an awful lot to do with what happens with your life.

And what we want to do, I think, is live in an America where, no matter who your family is or what the color of your skin or where you?re born, everybody gets the same chance to do well. And people who have done well ought to have more responsibility to pay back to the country and to the community and those around them.

Bill Richardson - Heroin Junkie?

Michel Martin: I?m sure you?ll agree there are a lot of beautiful young people out here in the audience today, and we?re very pleased to be here at Howard University. So you can imagine how disturbed we were to find out from the Centers for Disease Control that African-Americans, though 17 percent of all American teenagers, they are 69 percent of the population of teenagers diagnosed with HIV/AIDS.

Governor…what is the plan to stop and to protect these young people from this scourge?

Bill Richardson: You got to make some tough choices. First, we?ve got to have — we have to use needles.

Tavis Smiley Confesses Mancrush on Obama

Barack Obama: That?s why I passed racial profiling legislation at the state level. That?s why I passed legislation to make sure that we didn?t have wrongful convictions.

Tavis Smiley: Senator Obama.

Barack Obama: But it requires some political courage, because oftentimes you are accused of being soft on crime when you deal with these issues.

Tavis Smiley: Thank you, sir. I love you, man, but I?m trying to keep this moving.

?[Again, the New York Times took the liberty of editing the transcript -- this time deleting the word "man" from the fawning PBS reporter's comment...and they attributed quotes by Tavis Smiley in error to USA Today reporter DeWayne Wickham.]

Democrats Form United Front in Determining Best Way to Pander to Black Community

1. We must not distinguish between powder and crack cocaine.

2. No more mandatory minimums for career criminals.

Chris Dodd: I think the mandatory minimum sentencing has been a disaster. I?m a strong supporter of Charlie Rangel?s efforts here to eliminate the distinction between crack cocaine and powder cocaine.

Hillary Clinton: We have to go after mandatory minimums…We need to make sure that we do deal with the distinction between crack and powder cocaine.

Joe Biden: You have to eliminate the disparity between crack and powdered cocaine. I?ve introduced legislation to do that, one to one, no difference.

John Edwards: Everything that?s been said is correct, you know — changing mandatory minimum, changing the disparity between crack and powder cocaine, having a system that?s fair.

Dennis Kucinich: We need to seek to end mandatory minimums. We know who?s serving those mandatory minimums.

And lastly, here are the results from the Covenant with Black America’s Post-Forum Poll (Pre-Forum Poll results in parentheses):

• Barack Obama 46.1 (64%)
• John Edwards 24.3 (11.2%)
• Hillary Clinton 18.6% (12.3%)
• Dennis Kucinich 13.3% (2.5%)
• Mike Gravel 1.9% (0.4%)
• Joe Biden 1.1% (0.9%)
• Bill Richardson 0.9% (0.8%)
• Chris Dodd 0.0% (1.5%)

A lot of info is being leaked/released about those upcoming 2Q fundraising numbers. Here’s some more of what we know before the official numbers come out next week:

• According to her campaign, Hillary Clinton has raised “in the range of $27 million”, but predicted that Obama probably would “significantly” out-raise her.
• The Obama campaign have announced contributions from over 150,000 individual donors - shattering records for any candidate of any party.
• According to the Edwards campaign, they have raised “more than $8.5 million”, but are short of their goal of $9 million for the quarter and far, far short of Hillary and Obama’s totals.
• According to a fund-raising plea from McCain’s campaign, they are “close to but short” of their goal of $10 million for the second quarter.
• Huckabee’s campaign said that they have raised more than the $540,000 they raised in Q1, but wouldn’t indicate how much more.

Lots to analyze there, so have at it!

[UPDATE: Richardson has now released his fund-raising totals, and he raised $7 million in Q2. That's more than he raised in Q1, and impressive numbers for a second-tier candidate.]

Ringtones for Campaigns? I kid you not. Sheesh, I have barely figured out how to answer my cellphone correctly without hanging up on the person calling.

You?ve read the blogs, seen the videos and bought the t-shirts. Now have some fun and RING!
RingTones08.com is a free site that lets anyone post and share ringtones about the 2008 US election.

Our politicians? statements practically beg to be ringtones. ?Mission Accomplished,? ?Last Throes of Insurgency,? Howard Dean?s scream ? Turn these sound bytes gone wrong (or right!) into ringtones and let ?em rip at malls, bus stations, restaurants ? wherever cell phones ring.

Let your cell phone do the talking. Exercise your freedom of speech and ring!

The Tones!

GeorgeAllenMacaca by hackcity
ringtones by test ringtone
Don’t Voteby Klaus Flouride
John McCains Drummer by Klaus Flouride
Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job by Eric Gundersen
Bush on pre-war intelligence by Eric Gundersen
Decider by Golden Meanie
Fake Promises by Pat Crowley
I’ve Got a Crush on Obama by RingTones08

Robert Traynham

Fred Thompson has hired Santorum communications director, Robert Traynham, from pennlive:

Robert Traynham, former communications director for U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., had been wooed by several presidential campaigns, but seemed to be heading for something of a timeout from politics.
Now it seems he’s changed course and has signed on with actor and former Sen. Fred Thompson’s campaign as a senior adviser.
It’s a “shrewd move,” says Sharon Cobb…
who notes Traynham brings strong qualifications to the campaign plus hiring the openly gay man could help win support of moderate Republicans.
When we e-mailed Traynham last night saying we thought he was staying out of politics for a while, he responded, “I thought so too!”
“Yes, I am (on) board and very pleased to be helping Senator Thompson test the waters for a possible presidential run,” he wrote.

I will have a post in the near future highlighting all of Thompson’s high level staffers. There has been misinformation about who he has actually hired, and it needs to be cleared up.

This cryptic paragraph in today’s Taipei Times is getting a lot of attention in the blogosphere:

Former US vice president Al Gore will not be able to make it to Taiwan this September to address the issue of global warming, Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Tien Chiu-chin (???) said yesterday. Tien, who invited Gore to visit Taiwan to promote awareness on global warming, told reporters yesterday that she received an e-mail from the Harry Walker Agency, which has the exclusive right to arrange Gore’s speeches, saying that Gore had canceled all his scheduled events in the next six months. The visit to Taiwan had been postponed to next year, she added. Tien said the reason for the cancelation was that Gore was considering a presidential bid.

Does this mean that Al Gore will make his long rumored Nixonion return to politics? Possibly. I’ve always thought that if Obama and Edwards failed to dislodge Hillary from the top of the pack that Gore would jump in and do it himself. He is realistically the only one who could take on Hillary and beat her. Obama has put up a mighty effort (250,000 donors in Q2 is humbling), but he will always be dogged by his inexperience and is trailing Hillary by double digits after running neck and neck with her a couple months ago. Edwards is fading even more into the background, trailing Obama by 10 points and failing to meet his quite modest Q2 money goals.

Were Gore to enter the race, he would throw the Democratic field into turmoil. There are a lot of Hillary supporters who would only leave her for Gore (and polls show that when Gore is removed the vast majority of his support goes to Hillary instead of Obama or Edwards). His candidacy would effectively end Edwards chances and severely weaken Obama. After all, one of Obama’s main appeals to Democrats is that he was opposed to the Iraq War from the beginning, but his inexperience is his Achilles Heel. Al Gore was also vehehmently opposed opposed to the war (he can use his hawkishness on the Gulf War, the Balkans, and Afghanistan to neutralize any attacks that he’s weak on national security) and has tons of experience in government.

It would require a perfect storm to happen and there’s always the possibility that Hillary will beat back his challenge as well, but things will be very interesting in the months to come.

Marc Ambinder has the text of a leaked internal memo from the Romney campaign regarding his second quarter numbers, and it’s got some great highlights:

• Romney’s 2Q numbers will be “very strong” but will be less than the first quarter total - the campaign says this is a result of Romney spending more time on the campaign trail (literally doubling the amount of time he spent in Iowa and New Hampshire both compared to the first quarter) as well as time spent preparing for and participating in the three debates.
• The number of “grassroots activist donors” to the campaign has doubled compared to the 1Q, which should put Romney at about 66,000-70,000 donors (provided “grassroots activist donors” wasn’t a specific sub-set of donors out of the whole).
• The Romney campaign claims the 2Q fund-raising numbers will divide the field into two kinds of candidates - those who can compete with the Hillary/Barack/Johnny Haircut fund-raising numbers in a general election, and those who simply can’t. Those that can’t, they argue, will have to rely on public financing and will get trounced in a general election.
• Romney again did not raise any money for the general election, and reminds everyone that most other candidates’ totals will include general election money
• Finally, the memo talks about Romney’s decision to donate more money to his campaign. It points out that far from self-financing, Romney is just “matching the level of commitment exhibited by supporters” and says that his donation shows he is committed to expanding his campaign as well.

All in all, some interesting stuff. Doubling the number of your donors has got to be a good thing, but the fact that he will raise less than $21 million before his own contribution is a downside - although it should finally stop the accusations that Romney’s support is “deep and narrow”. It will be interesting to see if Rudy can improve over his first quarter numbers now.

Yesterday in New Hampshire, Fred Thompson spoke of forming:

“a new coalition of Republicans and independents and some Democrats,” he said at a fundraiser for Republican state senators.

“We’ll be a magnet. We won’t have to tack left or right depending on the circumstances, or the primary season or whatnot,” he said. “If we do the right thing, we’ll be a magnet for people of all different kinds of beliefs about different kinds of issues but basically have their country’s interests first.”

This is turning into an early theme in Senator Thompson’s campaign. While the declared candidates have largely spent time trying to convince conservatives that they are the right pick for the party, Thompson has been focusing more on appealing to a larger spectrum. We’ll have to wait and see if it pays off, but he is definitely saying the right things to attract interest. He’s going to be a different type of candidate, and The National Review gave a warning to all his competitors in their weekly review:

?Fred Thompson got a step closer to entering the presidential primaries by forming an ?exploratory committee.? He has- ardent fans–the polls have him in the top tier of the race he has not even entered?but there are off the record scoffers in the other Republican campaigns. They say his first day in the race will be his best; that his major strength is not having bored everyone by campaigning over the last year. That is a mistake. Thompson has the most consistently conservative record of any of the top candidates; he is a serious man with well-thought-through positions; and he has a knack for presenting conservative philosophy as simple common sense. His rivals would do well not to underestimate him.?

– The Week. The National Review. June 25, 2007. VOL LIX, NO. 11.

So all our candidates get some share of the publicity, I have decided to adopt a 2nd tier (I do hate that word) candidate to cover, along with Fred Thompson. Aron does a good job bringing us the Essential Reads on a on the hot topics of the day, I am going to bring you the Duncster Report, for your dose of straight talk, from the mouth of the Duncster, Congressman Duncan Hunter, himself. Heck, maybe some other contributers here will adopt a 2nd candidate too, so we can learn more about the personalities and ideas of all of our candidates, before they either disappear or keep on trucking because they feel they have something to offer our country.

So for this installment of the Duncster Report, I give you this press conference. Hunter is not only the ‘Bricklayer of the Border’ and the ‘Chairman of Chinaism,’ he also enjoys the finest cuisine, courtesy of Club Gitmo.

This guy is great!

Ross Kaminsky, writing at RealClearPolitics, raises the same point I attempted to make 2 days ago in Novak’s cryptic comments on GOP race, a post that generated a fair amount of discussion here.? Bob Novak, you will recall, suggested that the GOP contest was a 2-man race between Thompson and Romney.? I suggested that despite gravity taking its toll on the Mayor’s numbers, he remained a formidable candidate.? A nice reception at Regent University and a new poll confirms this.?

Kaminsky — like me a big fan of both Senator Thompson and Mayor Giuliani — makes the compelling case that Giuliani remains the frontrunner for that most elemental of reasons:? electability.

The conservative base of the GOP will be very tempted by Fred Thompson, as they should be. He is smart, charismatic (enough to be on TV and in movies at least), folksy, and his career as an actor will lead many to obvious comparisons with Ronald Reagan. And based on the little I know right now about Thompson, it is easy to conceive of him as a very good and effective President were he to win the election.

But that last qualifier is a very big deal.

Although Rudy’s lead over Republican opposition for the nomination has been slipping, primarily because of Thompson’s entry into the race, conservatives and libertarians alike must keep in mind that the brass ring is the election, not the nomination.

And while it is still VERY early in this process, internals of a recent Quinnipiac University poll show why I believe Rudy is still somewhat more likely to get the nomination than Fred: He is more likely to be able to win the general election.

For example, the Quinnipiac Poll shows Giuliani tied with or leading Hillary Clinton in three critical swing states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. The analysis in the link above focuses on Giuliani’s lead shrinking from prior polls, but that is no