August 31, 2007

Poll Watch: Detroit News/EPIC-MRA GOP Michigan Primary

Detroit News/EPIC-MRA GOP Michigan Primary

  • Mitt Romney 25%
  • Rudy Giuliani 23%
  • Fred Thompson 16%
  • John McCain 15%

Survey of 408 likely Republican presidential primary voters was conducted August 26-31. The margin of error is +/-5 percentage points.

by Aron Goldman @ 5:12 pm. Filed under Poll Watch

Race 4 2008 Evening Essential Reads

Rudy Giuliani

Fred Thompson

Mitt Romney

John McCain

General Race 4 2008 News

by Aron Goldman @ 2:25 pm. Filed under R4'08 Essential Reads

Report: Gen. Tommy Franks is Receiving Serious Consideration by Three GOP Campaigns for Veep Slot

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at PhotobucketBill Gertz reports:

Three of the eight announced 2008 Republican presidential campaigns are considering retired Army Gen. Tommy Franks as their pick for vice presidential candidate, according to Republican Party operatives.

Gen. Franks, commander of U.S. Central Command until he retired in 2003, orchestrated the military campaign that ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

The choice of Gen. Franks as vice president would be a direct affront to antiwar Democrats, who plan to make opposition to the Bush administration’s handling of the war the main plank of their campaign platforms.

A staunch Republican, Gen. Franks hails from Oklahoma but considers Texas his home state. Having him on the ticket would boost Republican prospects in the must-win Lone Star state.

The sources, who are well placed in Republican circles, did not identify the campaigns that are considering Gen. Franks. They said Gen. Franks’ consideration also is based on his potential to draw votes in the South, and his role as an eloquent spokesman for winning the global war against Islamist extremism.

It would be a very gutsy move by any GOP nominee to select someone with such a large role in the execution of the Iraq war as Gen. Franks. It seems counterintuitive, with the conventional wisdom being that the eventual GOP nominee should run like hell from any association with the Bush Administration.

It makes me wonder who the three campaigns could be… My first guess would be Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson. I would not include Romney in my guess, as it’s difficult for me to imagine anyone but Sen. Jim DeMint being Mitt’s running mate should he win the nomination.

Franks makes the most sense for both Rudy and McCain. As Gertz notes, Franks would “check the box” in satisfying the need for a Southerner on the ticket while not being known as very ideological on social issues. Neither Rudy or McCain have shied away from Iraq in any way, shape, or form during the campaign so far. So there is no reason to believe they would be afraid of meeting this issue head-on during the general.

As for Thompson, he is the biggest wild-card here. It’s fairly easy to imagine Thompson making the gutsy decision to include Franks on the ticket despite the fact they are both Southerners and doing so would make the execution of the Iraq War a germane issue as he was directly involved in its execution.

Besides, Thompson has basically played Gen. Franks at least twice on the big screen. So perhaps he figures it’s time he served as his understudy.

by Kavon W. Nikrad @ 2:08 pm. Filed under Veep Watch

Someone’s Not Happy with Fred…

And that someone is NH State GOP Chairman Fergus Cullen, who blasts Thompson in an interview with Jennifer Rubin over at the American Spectator Blog:

I just spoke to Fergus Cullen NH State GOP Chairman. He had quite a bit to say. He began: “Fred Thompson has a great opportunity to make a great first impression here and he’s not taking advantage of it.” He reiterated that this situation reminds him of the 1999 October Dartmouth debate which George Bush skipped, saying “If you asked them [the Bush team] they’d say ‘What a mistake we made.’”

Read the rest here.

by Kavon W. Nikrad @ 1:40 pm. Filed under Fred Thompson

Jed Babbin on Political Buzz Radio

Jed Babbin will be the guest of Matt Parker of Political Buzz Radio tonight at 5pm Eastern. Definitely worth checking out.

You can listen in here.

by Kavon W. Nikrad @ 1:36 pm. Filed under Announcements

Poll Watch: Rasmussen National General Election

Rasmussen National General Election

  • Rudy Giuliani 47%
  • Hillary Clinton 44%
  • Hillary Clinton 48%
  • Fred Thompson 44%

Favorability Rating

  • Rudy Giuliani 56%
  • Hillary Clinton 49%
  • Fred Thompson 41%

Survey of 800 Likely Voters was conducted August 27-28. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points.

Among Likely Republican Voters

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

  • Rudy Giuliani 76% / 21% (+55%)
  • Fred Thompson 58% / 27% (+31%)
by Aron Goldman @ 1:13 pm. Filed under Poll Watch

Poll Watch: Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll (8/31)

Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll (8/31)

  • Rudy Giuliani 25%
  • Fred Thompson 20%
  • Mitt Romney 13%
  • John McCain 11%
  • Mike Huckabee 6%

Daily tracking results are from survey interviews conducted over four days ending last night. Each update includes approximately 600-650 Likely Republican Primary Voters. Margin of sampling error is +/- 4 percentage points.

by Aron Goldman @ 12:46 pm. Filed under Poll Watch

Help R4′08 get a place on blogger’s row for GOP convention

I would be enormously appreciative if Race 4 2008 contributors and readers wold take :30 seconds and go the the poll on the right sidebar of this page and vote for me, Gary Miller (5th from the top), to attend next summer’s GOP convention as a correspondent for Race 4 2008 and my own blog, Truth vs. The Machine.

Thanks in advance.

by Gary Matthew Miller @ 7:02 am. Filed under Announcements

Fred Thompson’s Campaign Slogan

With Mitt Romney, you get “Strong. New. Leadership.” With John McCain, you can be assured of “Straight Talk” for the American people. Mike Huckabee is a “Proven Leader. Authentic Conservative.” Sam Brownback is the “Principled. Conservative. Republican.”

And now, introducing Fred Thompson’s campaign slogan:

“Security, Unity, and Prosperity.”

There you go.

by Matt C @ 6:42 am. Filed under Fred Thompson

Race 4 2008 Early Morning Essential Reads

Rudy Giuliani

Fred Thompson

Mitt Romney

John McCain

General Race 4 2008 News

by Aron Goldman @ 3:12 am. Filed under R4'08 Essential Reads

MI House Passes Legislation to Move Primary to 1/15

In a move that serves as flipping the bird to both national parties, the Michigan House of Representatives this afternoon voted to pass legislation moving their caucus from 2/26 to a primary on 1/15. Now that both chambers have passed the bill, it will go to committee where it is expected to pass and to Governor Granholm’s desk, where she has vowed to sign it. In the fight between the national parties and state legislatures, the states aren’t blinking or backing down yet.

by Matt C @ 12:09 am. Filed under Primary & Caucus Dates

August 30, 2007

Advantage Romney

Patrick Ruffini (at Hugh Hewitt) is very impressed with Team Romney’s innovative “create your own ad” campaign.

Sayeth Patrick:

You know that when a campaign puts the words, “Yes, we’re serious” in a campaign e-mail, it’s gonna be good.

Mitt Romney’s create-your-own-ad contest is exactly the kind of online innovation I’ve been waiting for out of the Republican candidates for President. The winning ad gets a real, live media buy. In other words, supporters are co-creating something of actual value and importance to the campaign. That’s meaningful, and supporters get that.

I don’t know if Romney is anywhere close to Hillary Clinton’s one million e-mail addresses, but it’s creative stuff like this that shows me that Romney has the warewithal and creativity to catch up.

I’ve had some issues with Romney, but his supporters are right to point out that his superior organization is a point in his favor when going up against the brutal Clinton machine. It’s something savvy Republican primary voters have a right to evaluate, and this year, the Web is going to be a huge component of that organization, because we will be outraised by $100 million or more if our campaigns only start thinking about building lists and engaging online on February 6th.

Kudos to Team Romney. Now let’s see the Rudy, Fred, et al. counter, and start a spiral of online competition that will make the eventual nominee stronger.

This is a great idea. Not only because it harnesses the creativity of your supporters while engaging them directly in the campaign, but also (as Patrick notes) these videos will be shared via personal networks by their proud creators multiplying their impact.

by Kavon W. Nikrad @ 9:50 pm. Filed under Campaign Advertisements, Mitt Romney

Federalism Part II- Federalist Principle vs. Social Activism: The Musgrave Amendment

Author’s note: I began working on this piece last night, before today’s ruling in Iowa and Justin Hart’s post. This is not to be seen as a rebuttal of his opinion, as I was already in the process of writing this when the news came out about IA. -Tommy Oliver

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
    -The 10th Amendment

Before one is to give a definition of federalism, one must look at some of the instances in how it differs on issues from social and moderate conservatism. First, I want to look at the Musgrave Amendment, otherwise known as the federal marriage amendment, which states that “marriage in the United States consists only of the union of a man and a woman.” This was brought to national attention in 2004 when Massachusetts legalized gay marriage. Quickly, President George W. Bush endorsed the above-mentioned Musgrave Amendment, placing a federal ban on same-sex marriage.
According to Michael S. Grave of the Federalism Project at AEI, “it is rarely a good idea to enact social policy in the Constitution, and same-sex marriage is no exception.” He is correct. Supreme Court justices who practice judicial restraint would not support a federal ban on marriage of any part. The federal government does not have a place in regulating morality. The definition of what is socially acceptable is no exception.
Bob Barr, the former congressman from Georgia who is highly thought of in conservative circles, authored the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed into law by former President Bill Clinton. It allowed states the right not to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. However, Barr is an outspoken critic of a federal marriage amendment.
Here is an excerpt of an interview Newsweek conducted with Barr:

    NEWSWEEK: You authored the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, but you’ve come out against an amendment to the constitution banning same-sex marriage. Why is that?

    Bob Barr: Because I believe very strongly in federalism and that is that the federal government should not be stepping in and dictating social policy to the states. The Defense of Marriage Act was crafted very narrowly. Despite very strong pressure to make it a proactive piece of legislation, I crafted it very narrowly simply to define marriage for federal-law purposes and to make sure that states were protected to make up their own mind. And I continue to believe that that is the best policy.

    Newsweek: President Bush apparently does not agree. He’s said that there should be a constitutional amendment on this issue because “even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld [by the Supreme Court], the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.” That sounds like he’s saying the federal government needs to amend the constitution so that no state or city can, at some point in the future, allow gay marriage, even within its own borders. Does that concern you?

    Barr: It doesn’t concern me, but I don’t think it reflects my philosophy. My philosophy is that the people are the kind of protection that we need in this country, and for those in this country such as myself who are opposed to same-sex marriages, if we have failed to convince a majority of the population of that, to me, you don’t turn to the constitution and amend that sacred document simply to help buttress your argument.

The problem with passing a national ban on gay marriage is that it sets an unhealthy precedent. Reactionaries and some social conservatives have failed to look ahead to view where this type of judicial activism could lead. The conservatives will not likely control the Supreme Court until the end of time, as power always shifts within the United States, as that is the nature of society. There will be another liberal President, quite possibly in our lifetime, who will appoint a liberal justice to the bench. When there is a particular issue that is as polarizing as a federal ban on gay marriage would be, having it’s policy dictated by an overreaching, activist court will no doubt lead to even more divisiveness in the future. As Greve said in his publication,” Once we permit the courts to force us into an all-or-nothing confrontation, civility is in peril.”

-Tommy Oliver

On another note, will not respond until after the football game is over-
Thursday Night Pick:
LSU over Mississippi State by +10

by Tommy Oliver @ 8:00 pm. Filed under Issues

On Iowa Gay Marriage and Demagogues

As all of America knows by now, some low-level judge in Iowa found the Iowa Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and ordered the court to issue marriage licenses to six gay couples. Mitt Romney immediately released a statement condemning the ruling as “an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage as disregard the will of the people….”

Unsatisfied with its wholly accurate opening volley, the Romney campaign added that “this once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.”

R4′08 contributor Justin Hart trumpeted Romney’s support for a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. He opined that “gay marriage in the Boston Harbor is one thing…but in Dubuque?”

Before we grab our pitchforks and rush the office of our federal legislators, let’s all take a deep breath and ask the following question: “In what way does this court’s action, today, provoke the need to amend the federal constitution to protect traditional marriage?”

The answer, quite simply, is that it does not.

Let’s first look at the source of the ruling. Any decision of this nature being rendered by a state court judge would be made at the lowest level of judicial decision-making: a court not of record. That means that this decision still has to be reviewed by a different judge in the same county court – in a court of record - before it can even get to the state court appeal level. So, this decision will have to survive review at three levels (court of record, court of appeals, Iowa Supreme Court) before it would have statewide effect. This leads us to our next point…STATEwide effect.

Even If this ruling manages the unlikely feat of surviving three levels of state judicial review in socially conservative Iowa, its effect would only be on the state of Iowa. It would not effect, nor should it affect, any other state. Virginia would not be required to recognize Iowa gay marriages, just as Virginia is not required to accept those (somehow more acceptable) Massachusetts gay marriages.

Iowa’s citizens would be free to exercise their will by amending the state constitution. And therein lies the solution.

So, ask yourself again, in what way does this preliminary decision by a low-level state court judge affect the sovereignty of other states so as to provoke amendment of the federal constitution?

It doesn’t. And for that we should be glad. Aside from being patently unwise at this point, it would be electoral folly. Commenter “cwpete” added this nugget of wisdom in the R4′08 comments: “Great, Now IA can join the list of other states that have amended their Constitutions. I was surprised to hear that IA had not already done so. This could help swing the state for the Republicans in 2008. Let the (sic) push this & push this hard.”

Well done, sir. You’ve earned a medal. Just like Romney, you’ve recognized this affair for its true value: electoral opportunity. But, unlike Romney, you were able to articulate a cogent point – that this is a state issue and that the party could make concrete gains by treating it that way. A constitutional amendment in Iowa is the appropriate response to a problem peculiar to Iowa. A federal constitutional amendment like the one that Romney proposes would short-circuit our federal system in precisely the same fashion as Roe v. Wade – it would cut short the slow, steady progress of the public discourse and impose a one-size-fits all solution that later (or even current) generations might find repugnant.

Kavon, Justin, and others rightly noted that this is an activist judge overruling the will of the people of Iowa. But, what if a federal constitutional amendment was passed, and the New York legislature subsequently voted to institute gay marriage? The federal constitutional amendment would then serve to overrule the will of the people of New York. If you are fine with that concept, ask yourself this: why should the people of Iowa and 36 other states be able to tell New York and 12 other states what their marriage laws should be?

If, after answering that question, you can still say that the federal government should be able to dictate a state’s popularly-endorsed marriage policies, you may want to ask yourself another question: ”Am I in the correct political party?”

Roe v. Wade short circuited the slow but steady resolution of the abortion issue at the state level and turned it into a multi-generational culture war where the only winners have been the politicians savvy enough to demagogue the issue into a victory at the polls. Mitt Romney is attempting the same feat. A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would serve to short-circuit the public policy debate that has been going on in the states for about a decade now. One would think that Republicans, and especially social conservatives, would have learned the lesson of Roe. But, it appears that many have not. Sadly for our republic, a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage may yield the ironic result of a the anti-Roe forces visiting their own personal hell on their foes – and by doing so cause the same lasting damage to our federal republic.

by Michael Lawrence @ 7:30 pm. Filed under Issues, Mitt Romney

Introducing…

I am pleased to announce Race 4 2008’s latest addition, Michael Lawrence. I will have more on Michael later. But for now, take my word that he will be a wonderful addition to our little family here.

by Kavon W. Nikrad @ 7:27 pm. Filed under Announcements

Poll Watch: McLaughlin & Assoc. IA GOP Caucus

h/t to reader Matt.

McLaughlin & Associates Iowa Republican Caucus (PDF warning)

  • Romney - 35%
  • Giuliani - 12%
  • Thompson - 11%
  • Huckabee - 11%
  • Tancredo - 9%
  • McCain - 7%
  • Brownback - 2%
  • Paul - 1%
  • Hunter - 1%

    Romney is up 3:1 over his nearest rival; Huckabee got a good bounce, although not quite as good as in the ARG poll; McCain is now in 6th place in Iowa; looks like Brownback’s got some awesome momentum in the state.

    by Matt C @ 6:44 pm. Filed under Poll Watch

    Gay Marriage in Iowa?!

    A Judge in Polk County has ruled that Iowa’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional and ordered the court recorder to issue licenses to 6 gay couples.

    If it wasn’t a major issue yesterday, it is today. As Bill Kristol noted at Tuesday’s bloggers’ forum: “Everyone is focused on the three I’s: Iraq, Iran and Iowa.”

    Governor Romney immediately released the following statement:

    The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

    Add one more log to the fire in favor of a constitutional amendment protecting marriage. If I’m not mistaken, Romney is the only top-tier candidate to support such a measure.

    Gay marriage in the Boston Harbor is one thing… but in Dubuque, Des Moines, Davenport, Marshalltown, Mason City, Keokuk, Ames, Clear Lake? As the Music Man says… I guess my friends in San Francisco really ought to give Iowa a try.

    by Justin Hart @ 5:44 pm. Filed under 2008 Misc., Mitt Romney

    Re: Michigan

    Jennifer Rubin gives an early handicap of the Michigan Primary over at the American Spectator Blog.

    by Kavon W. Nikrad @ 5:40 pm. Filed under 2008 Misc.

    It’s Official: Thompson to Declare September 6th

    As reported by Race 4 2008’s own Tommy Oliver (who broke the story this morning), Fred Thompson announced via conference call that he will officially enter the race September 6th. Redstate has the details:

    …I’m here to tell ya Fred intends to be the next President of the United States, and he means to tell the FEC exactly that on September 6, 2007. At that time, the testing the waters phase will end, and an aggressive campaign will commence…offical and legal-like.

    Fred will tell US about his plans, and explain just what he has in mind for this country via Web cast on that day as well.

    Following that, Fred will take two tours across parts of America, winding up in his home town in Tennessee on September 17th for a “welcome home” party.

    Fred Thompson plans to campaign on his strengths of “mainstream Conservatism”, and believes entering the race in such a strong position (uniformly 2nd in the major polls) will allow for a strong effort, starting right here with we grassroots folks that have helped him get this far.

    Well, the real race begins September 6th folks…

    Update: Jennifer Rubin opines on the Thompson quasi-announcement:

    Thompson tells supporters the date is September 6. He’ll go on Leno and not do the debate next week. The “time to get off TV and run in the real world” cracks are starting. As for the decision not to face the press today a rival aide had this to add: ” Fred Thompson has spent the summer with one foot in the water and now in one more anti-climatic move his campaign is announcing by paper statement? One has to wonder it it’s not just the candidate who isn’t ready for tough questions - it seems to be his staff too.” That would be the “welcome to the race, pal” comment. I’m sure the opposition communication teams are practicing their favorite barbs for the September 5 debate to explain Fred’s absence. (”Still doing NBC TV?” or “Hasn’t had time to learn his lines yet?”)

    by Kavon W. Nikrad @ 4:58 pm. Filed under Fred Thompson

    Why Did Wyoming Move?

    From the Boston Globe (hat-tip to Aron):

    [Tom] Sansonetti said there is a short term goal and a long term goal. In the short term they want Wyoming to be a bigger player in presidential politics. Second, “is to have the rules committee of the RNC get off their butts and come up with a system that is put into place … that is fair,” he said. (emphasis mine)

    The answer is simple: caucus envy. States have simply had it with Iowa and New Hampshire playing determinate roles.

    Bet the farm on a national primary the next time around.

    by Kavon W. Nikrad @ 2:18 pm. Filed under Primary & Caucus Dates

    Race 4 2008 Afternoon Essential Reads

    Rudy Giuliani

    Fred Thompson

    Mitt Romney

    John McCain

    General Race 4 2008 News