After months of speculation, and a non-announcement announcement a while ago, Senator Hagel (R-NE) finally told everyone his plans this morning. They are:

1) to retire from the Senate,
2) to not run for President as a Republican, and
3) to not leave the Republican party to run under a different ticket.

So that takes care of that.

The Nebraska senator who is often rumored to be flirting with a presidential run is being outraised in his own state by his primary opponent:

LINCOLN ? According to campaign finance reports filed last week, Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning nearly doubled Senator Chuck Hagel?s total receipts for the second quarter, raising $728,000 to Hagel?s $387,000.

?I am humbled by the fact that so many Nebraskans have made an investment in my campaign,? said Bruning. ?Their confidence and trust has given me the momentum I need to win.?

The finance reports show additional advantages for Bruning, who declared his candidacy for the seat held by Hagel on June 7 of this year. The Bruning Campaign received more than twice the money from individual contributors, bringing in $723,000 to Hagel?s $322,000. Bruning also has significantly more cash-on-hand than Hagel, $620,000 to $483,000 respectively.

?For a challenger to hold such an early advantage is unprecedented,? said Bruning Campaign Manager Jordan McGrain. ?We are in an incredibly strong position at this stage of the race.?

If you’re Chuck Hagel, what do you do? Allow yourself to be primaried out of your Senate seat next year? Or retire from the Senate, declare your party stark-raving mad, and launch an independent bid for the White House as the anti-war candidate from Middle America?

The coming presidential election is just the sort of contest that cries out for a third-party protest candidate into whom the voters can channel their collective angst. That’s because 2008 is shaping up to be a year in which voters are disgusted with both parties, demonstrated by the equally dismal approval ratings of President Bush and the Democratic Congress. Further, of the leading presidential contenders on either side of the aisle, none has yet been able to connect with voters’ “mad as hell” sentiments towards all things Washington. Lecturing the electorate on why they shouldn’t be mad as hell isn’t going to help. Nor will pointing fingers at the other party, as Democrats are wont to do. Americans once again feel that their representatives in government have forgotten just who owns this country, and they’re out for blood. And they’re going to get it. One way or another.

Consequently, the MSM, sensing that we are once again about to see a 1968 or 1992 style electoral debacle, has been coronating one Michael Bloomberg as the latest incarnation of Ross Perot, a third-way kinda guy who will tell it like it is and spoil the election for the Republicans. Indeed, even I bought into the Bloomie schtick until recently. But I have since been disabused of that notion for several reasons. Foremost among them is the simple reality of what sort of vacuum will exist in the race for 2008.

While many readers will disagree, and some rather vehemently, I believe that the two major party nominees will almost certainly be Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. I believe this to be the case for a number of reasons, none of which need be laid out in this post. Now, in such a race, there would almost certainly be room for a third-party candidate due to the vacuum that would exist in a general election campaign. But said vacuum would most certainly NOT be filled by Michael Bloomberg. Here’s why.

In a Rudy/Hillary race, the nation is faced with two major party candidates who are a) northeastern, b) pro-choice, c) pro-Iraq, and d) who have significant appeal to centrists of various sorts. With author Fred Siegel’s recent revelation that Bloomberg isn’t particularly anti-war, and with our own Aron Goldman’s discovery that Bloomie sees his role in the race as to fill a vacuum in the center, the rationale for a Bloomberg candidacy in a Rudy/Hillary race ceases to exist. To put it another way, we already have two relatively centrist, pro-choice, pro-war New Yorkers in the race — is there really room for a third? To ask the question is to answer it.

So if not Bloomberg, then who? Many observers will look to their left and opine that Ralph Nader could once again make waves. But does anyone seriously think that liberals will allow Nader to deny them the White House yet another time? Others will look to their right for that looming third-party pro-life candidate. But third-party candidates rarely come from the poles of American politics; a pro-life candidate running an abortion-centered campaign would annoy Team Rudy, but wouldn’t take more than 2 or 3 percent of the vote. In order for a third-party candidate to truly make waves, he has to fill the Rudy/Hillary vacuum. In short, we’re looking for a pro-life foreign policy realist from Middle America who, like Americans, is mad as hell.

I can think of two candidates who could potentially fit the bill. The first is Ron Paul. The Republican congressman from Texas would be running as a pro-life libertarian who ardently opposes the Bush Doctrine. The contrast between Paul and the two New Yorkers couldn’t be any more clear. The problem with Paul is that his constitutionalist views will make many Americans uncomfortable; Paul is demonstrative of the reason the Libertarian Party is never able to garner a significant percentage of the vote. Paul could manage to fill the niche for a protest candidate, but voters would have to overlook his other “wacky” views.

Another possibility is Chuck Hagel, who could run as a more moderate, media-friendly version of Ron Paul. Hagel fills the vacuum quite well: he’s from Nebraska, he’s pro-life, he’s opposed to Iraq, and his views on most other issues are center-right, just like most of the country. Plus, the media adores Hagel nearly as much as McCain, meaning he’d have a friendly MSM to get the ball rolling. If Hagel were to make a serious run for the Unity ‘08 ticket, he could assemble the support of a motley crew of paleocons, anti-war centrists, and the sorts of liberals who always admired McCain. Whether or not Hagel is up to this task remains to be seen.

Those who are tempted to balk at such a possibility simply don’t realize the size of the vacuum that will be created if any of our guys is pitted against Hillary Clinton. There will literally be millions of Americans who don’t want to vote for a Republican who seems incapable of properly distancing himself from President Bush, but who also don’t want to vote for Hillary because, well, she’s Hillary. There will be a strong demand for a third-party candidate to fill this vacuum. The only question is whether there exists a candidate who can win the anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-GOP, anti-Hillary voter.

On the heels of Hagel’s displeasure with the Republican party earlier today and his declaration that he could see himself on an independent ticket with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg comes this gem from the Washington Times:

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is prepared to spend an unprecedented $1 billion of his own $5.8 billion personal fortune for a third-party presidential campaign, Ralph Z. Hallow will report Tuesday in The Washington Times.

“He has set aside $1 billion to go for it,” a long-time business adviser to Mr. Bloomberg tells The Times. “The thinking about where it will come from and do we have it is over, and the answer is yes, we can do it.”

“Mike has been meeting with Ross Perot’s most senior people about how they did an independent run in 1992,” the Bloomberg business adviser said.

Republicans tell The Times that they are taking the Bloomberg threat seriously, while the mayor’s associates say they are fielding calls from staffers for Republican Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, which the Bloomberg adviser compared to “a biplane on fire and spiraling down.”

Three things: first, any mention of a Republican using a Perot-like strategy to make an independent run is bound to give Republicans flashbacks of 1992. Bad flashbacks. Really bad.

Second, the fact that they’ve already set aside the money, are ready to spend it, and have been meeting with Perot’s guys shows they’re pretty dang serious about this thing. I’d put the odds at more than even money that Mikey and Chuck end up doing this thing…

Third, what’s the deal with that quote about McCain’s campaign? I don’t buy it for a second…

Freddie, Newt, and Chuck: will they, won’t they, and when? We’re getting some clues this morning from all three camps.

First, Newt says there is a “great possibility” of him running for President, and says that he will not announce until the end of September.

Secondly, Freddie said he has not decided yet but is “ready to run”, and rumors are swirling now that Freddie will announce in the first week of July - most likely on July 1. The reasoning is June 30 marks the close of Q2 fundraising so Freddie could start Q3 right off the bat, and that his contractual obligations would most likely go through the end of a month - and could potentially end at the end of a fiscal year.

Meanwhile, Chuck announced his unhappiness (to put it lightly) with the GOP, and said he could see an independent Bloomberg/Hagel ticket in the 2008 race. He told reporters that he would decide in “late summer” whether or not to run.

So there you have it. It looks increasingly like Freddie will announce in July, Chuck will announce as an independent in July or August, and Newt will announce in September.

One thing potential candidates are going to want to keep in mind is the Ames Straw Poll on August 11. Newt clearly has no aspirations of competing there, but Freddie looks confident of his chances at the event. Remember, though - it cost Dubya at least $800,000 to win in 2000 and cost Forbes $2 million for his second place finish. This year, the Iowa GOP expects more than twice the participants (50,000 up from 24,000), and they’ve raised the price of entry ($30/ticket up from $25). It’s conceivable that a first place victory at Ames could cost a candidate at least $2.5 million this year. Freddie will have to assemble a statewide organization and fundraise that much money, on top of other operating costs, in five and a half weeks. That’s one confident candidate.

As a strong fiscal conservative, I’ve long awaited a comprehensive analysis that sizes up the ‘08 field on both taxes AND spending. Thanks to the National Taxpayers Union, we now have some idea of where the candidates on both sides of the aisle stand on economic growth and size-and-scope of government issues. NTU has released a nifty scorecard that ranks all of the presidential contenders with legislative records on these issues, meaning that, unfortunately, we don’t get to see where candidates with only executive experience fit into the overall snapshot. Still, the results are enlightening, and in some cases, a bit surprising.

Each year, NTU assigns a grade to each Member of Congress w/r/t his or her votes on legislation related to taxes, debt, regulation, and spending. The NTU looks both at the percentage of the time the legislator voted for the taxpayer, and at the importance of each of those votes, weighing each vote accordingly. This prevents, for example, a congresscritter voting in favor of several small tax credits but against a huge tax cut from earning a higher score than a legislator who did the opposite, thus presenting a more accurate picture of where the candidates stand on fiscal issues than would a raw vote count. According to NTU, here are the ‘08 candidates’ most recent grades:

NTU Congressional Rating (most recent legislative year)

John McCain: A (88%)
Ron Paul: A (84%)
Sam Brownback: A (84%)
Newt Gingrich: A (79%)
Tom Tancredo: A (76%)
Fred Thompson: A (73%)
Chuck Hagel: B+ (82%)
Duncan Hunter: B (62%)
Bill Richardson: F (33%)
John Edwards: F (22%)
Dennis Kucinich: F (22%)
Hillary Clinton: F (17%)
Barack Obama: F (16%)
Joe Biden: F (11%)
Chris Dodd: F (10%)

Two things. First, this explains why Duncan Hunter isn’t gaining any traction; his record on fiscal issues is that of something other than a conservative. Secondly, Bill Richardson appears to be the most fiscally conservative Democrat in the field, though that’s not saying much. In order to avoid making inferences based on what may be an anomalous year on the part of some candidates, let’s now take a look at the percentage of legislative years during which each candidate received an “A” grade from the NTU:

Percent of “A” Grades

Ron Paul: 100%
Tom Tancredo: 100%
Fred Thompson: 88%
John McCain: 67%
Newt Gingrich: 57%
Sam Brownback: 50%
Chuck Hagel: 30%
Duncan Hunter: 6%
All Democrats: 0%

McCain is likely hurt by his opposition to the Bush tax cuts earlier in the decade. Thompson, interestingly, received an A from the NTU almost every year he was in the Senate, bested only by Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. And, finally, NTU has determined just how much of your money each of these candidates would like to spend. By parsing the legislative agenda of each of the ‘08 candidates, and by subtracting the amount each candidate’s agenda would cut government from the amount each agenda would increase the cost of government, NTU has revealed just which of our ‘08 candidates truly are committed to small government. The results are a bit surprising:

Net cost of legislative agenda for most recent legislative year

Bill Richardson: -$1.6 billion
Fred Thompson: $3.1 billion
Newt Gingrich: $4.5 billion
Barack Obama: $11.7 billion
Tom Tancredo: $13.7 billion
Duncan Hunter: $15.8 billion
Sam Brownback: $19 billion
Ron Paul: $34 billion
John McCain: $36.9 billion
Chuck Hagel: $86.7 billion
Joe Biden: $90 billion
John Edwards: $103.5 billion
Chris Dodd: $224 billion
Hillary Clinton: $378.2 billion
Dennis Kucinich: $1.87 trillion

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s legislative agenda would actually have led to net cuts in government. If Bill Richardson were the prototypical Democrat, I would likely have to rethink my party affiliation. And if anyone is the heir to Bill Clinton in the Democratic field, it’s Barack Obama, with his tax-and-don’t-spend policies, which are very similar to the former president’s agenda, and which is far more Clintonian than Ms. Rodham’s tax-and-spend liberalism. In fact, Hillary’s attempts to grow government dwarf those of every Republican and most Democrats in the field, proving Dick Morris right when he postulated that Hillary would be our first European-style socialist president.

On the Republican side, Fred Thompson’s record on spending puts the rest of the field to shame, and is even more conservative than that of Newt Gingrich. Perhaps Thompson’s supposed lack of accomplishments in the Senate are the result of a legislator who erred on the side of ensuring that government didn’t grow, didn’t spend more, didn’t meddle more in people’s lives, and generally left Americans alone. In an age of two big-governnment parties, it isn’t surprising that such a candidate is garnering interest.

Yesterday, Chuck Hagel managed to leave much of the blogosphere and the punditocracy scratching our collective heads in bewilderment over his non-announcement announcement. Dana Milbank provides some more information that suggests that Hagel left a lot of angry reporters in Omaha.

The Republican senator from Nebraska, flirting with a 2008 presidential run, scheduled “an announcement on my political future” for yesterday morning in Omaha. Media types flew in from across the country. The state’s governor and attorney general, along with 15 television cameras, crowded the room. Cable networks carried the event live while pundits went wild: Would Hagel jump into the race? Run for reelection? Become an independent? Quit politics entirely?

“I’m here today to announce that my family and I will make a decision on my political future later this year,” Hagel declared in front of a presidential-blue curtain.

That was the announcement? The cable networks quickly broke away. The reporters in Omaha were feeling had.

“Senator, at least one Republican political analyst called your announcement today bizarre just now,” NBC’s Michelle Kosinski pointed out in the question-and-answer session that followed. “Tell us why you felt this was important to announce right now.”

Hagel cited the promise he had made to announce a decision after Jan. 1. “It is after the first of the year, before St. Patrick’s Day, and that’s the first responsibility I have,” the philosopher reasoned.

The reporters flew in over 1,000 miles for nothing. Something makes me think that Hagel’s days of being a media darling are just about over.

I simply don’t understand the logic here:

Sen. Chuck Hagel, the loudest Republican critic of the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq war, used a much-anticipated news conference Monday to announce that he didn’t have anything to announce at all.

“I’m here today to announce that my family and I will make a decision on my political future later this year,” Hagel said at an Omaha, Neb., news conference that the political world assumed he had called to announce whether he would run for president.

The blogosphere was buzzing all weekend about Hagel’s potential entry into the 2008 presidential race and what it’s implications were for the rest of the field. Jon Martin wrote a fascinating piece on that yesterday and Chris Cillizza wondered whether he’d announce a presidential run, a Senate re-election run, or a retirement. John McCain told the New York Times that “Chuck is an American hero and a person who I love dearly, and I’ll look forward to being with him out on the campaign trail,” implying that he thought that Hagel was indeed planning on announcing. The media was clearly ready to anoint him the new Maverick and have him make the rounds on all the requisite talking head shows.

And then after all this speculation…nothing. He announces today that he might announce in a few months? What gives?

Soren Dayton says:

Chuck Hagel could have turned anti-war Republicans and independents into a force.

Now the press hates him because he led them on. And he still hasn’t resolved the problem in his state (he will get a strong challenge in the primary) And he is not in charge of the debate.

Ana Marie Cox quotes MSNBC saying that it was “one of the most bizarre political statement’s I’ve ever heard.” I completely agree.

It seems Rudy Giuliani’s lead over his next closest challenger in Republican nomination polls has really taken off, quite similarly to George W. Bush’s after he declared himself a candidate in 2000 (and quite similarly to virtually every other eventual Republican nominee in recent history).? In fact, where once Hillary Clinton was once a sure bet who broadly led her party’s polls in comparison to the tight horserace going on in the GOP, it is now Rudy Giuliani who is the head-and-shoulders-above frontrunner of the two major parties.? His lead over the next closest challenger in the latest Quinnipiac Poll is 22 points, compared to Clinton’s 15 points on her side.? Quinnipiac also puts Rudy at 40%–the second survey to do so in the last?week?(USA Today/Gallup did so as well).

Here’s how the race is shaping up, according to the latest poll:

Quinnipiac University Poll. Feb. 13-19, 2007. N=578 Republican voters nationwide. MoE ? 4.1.
					.
“If the 2008 Republican primary for president were being held today, and the candidates were [see below], for whom would you vote?”
					.
		%	?	?	?	?
	Rudy Giuliani	40	?	?	?	?
	John McCain	18	?	?	?	?
	Newt Gingrich	10	?	?	?	?
	Mitt Romney	7	?	?	?	?
	Duncan Hunter	2	?	?	?	?
	Mike Huckabee	2	?	?	?	?
	Sam Brownback	1	?	?	?	?
	George Pataki	1	?	?	?	?
	Ron Paul	1	?	?	?	?
	Tom Tancredo	1	?	?	?	?
	Tommy Thompson	1	?	?	?	?
	Jim Gilmore	-	?	?	?	?
	Chuck Hagel	-	?	?	?	?
	Other (vol.)	1	?	?	?	?
	Unsure	15

Whilst a mere few weeks ago it was Rudy and McCain that inhabited the upper tier, with Gingrich and Romney jostling in the second tier, and everyone else fighting for scraps, it now appears that McCain is beginning to slide into league with the second tier candidates while Rudy gets closer to laying claim to the title of frontrunner.? McCain’s slide is becoming evident in other recent polls too.? While, in late January, McCain was enjoying big leads over usual third-placer Newt Gingrich (17 pt. lead-Gallup, 10 pt. lead-Rasmussen, 18 pt. lead-ABC/WaPo, 17 pt. lead-CNN, 16 pt. lead-Time), McCain has now begun settling in the teens category, just a few points above Gingrich.? (See the RCP record)

Indeed, Rudy’s lead and McCain’s decline appears to be extraordinarily similar to Bush’s lead and Elizabeth Dole’s decline in the 2000 election cycle polls, as noted not too long ago in another post on this site.? Republicans value consistency and predictability in their nominating process, and those who are the polling frontrunners at this point in the election cycle almost always become the nominee, despite who has the most money or best campaign staff.? There are a lot of factors about 2008 that are different than the past several election years, but there is something to be said for long-established patterns in the GOP.

Rudy’s aura of inevitability also seems to be swelling a bit thanks to his superior general election polling numbers.? The former Mayor seems to have clearly established himself as the best Republican candidate to field in the general election.? Against Hillary Clinton, Rudy gets 3 more points than McCain.? Against Barack Obama, Rudy does better than McCain by 7 points (in fact, Obama ties McCain).? Also, against John Edwards, Rudy once again scores 7 more points for the Republicans than McCain does.

On a sidenote, Mitt Romney also seems to be making gradual improvement in the general election polls.? (Romney went from a devastating 26 point deficit behind Hillary in a December Newsweek poll to a more hopeful 12 point deficit in the lastest Quinnipiac poll):

Quinnipiac University Poll. Feb. 13-19, 2007. N=1,536 registered voters nationwide. MoE ? 2.5.
?	?	?	?	?	.	?
“If the 2008 election for president were being held today, and the candidates were [see below] the Democrat and [see below] the Republican, for whom would you vote?”
?	?	?	?	?	.	?
?	?	Rudolph Giuliani (R)	Hillary Clinton (D)	Someone Else (vol.)	Wouldn’t Vote (vol.)	Unsure
?	?	%	%	%	%	%
?	2/13-19/07	48	43	1	2	5
?	3/2-7/05	44	43	2	1	10
?	12/7-12/04	45	43	3	2	6
?	?	?	?	?	.	?
?	?	John McCain (R)	Hillary Clinton (D)	Someone Else (vol.)	Wouldn’t Vote (vol.)	Unsure
?	?	%	%	%	%	%
?	2/13-19/07	46	44	1	3	6
?	11/28 - 12/4/05	44	40	3	3	11
?	3/2-7/05	43	41	2	1	13
?	?	?	?	?	.	?
?	?	Mitt Romney (R)	Hillary Clinton (D)	Someone Else (vol.)	Wouldn’t Vote (vol.)	Unsure
?	?	%	%	%	%	%
?	2/13-19/07	37	49	2	4	9
?	?	?	?	?	.	?
?	?	Rudolph Giuliani (R)	Barack Obama (D)	Someone Else (vol.)	Wouldn’t Vote (vol.)	Unsure
?	?	%	%	%	%	%
?	2/13-19/07	47	40	1	3	10
?	?	?	?	?	.	?
?	?	John McCain (R)	Barack Obama (D)	Someone Else (vol.)	Wouldn’t Vote (vol.)	Unsure
?	?	%	%	%	%	%
?	2/13-19/07	43	43	1	4	10
?	?	?	?	?	.	?
?	?	Mitt Romney (R)	Barack Obama (D)	Someone Else (vol.)	Wouldn’t Vote (vol.)	Unsure
?	?	%	%	%	%	%
?	2/13-19/07	29	49	2	5	15
?	?	?	?	?	.	?
?	?	Rudolph Giuliani (R)	John Edwards (D)	Someone Else (vol.)	Wouldn’t Vote (vol.)	Unsure
?	?	%	%	%	%	%
?	2/13-19/07	48	40	2	3	8
?	?	?	?	?	.	?
?	?	John McCain (R)	John Edwards (D)	Someone Else (vol.)	Wouldn’t Vote (vol.)	Unsure
?	?	%	%	%	%	%
?	2/13-19/07	43	42	2	4	9
?	?	?	?	?	.	?
?	?	Mitt Romney (R)	John Edwards (D)	Someone Else (vol.)	Wouldn’t Vote (vol.)	Unsure
?	?	%	%	%	%	%
?	2/13-19/07	32	48	3	5	12

So, will Rudy’s aura of inevitability and recognition by the MSM as the Republican frontrunner (if not at least a co-frontrunner with McCain) eventually become plain to all?? Possibly.? Things could still change though, and that’s what keeps the GOP horserace interesting.

Yesterday, Chuck Todd of the National Journal wrote the updated 2008 Republican Presidential Rankings. He has some fascinating thoughts on the race, even echoing a lot of the stuff we’ve been saying here at R4′08:
(more…)

To piggyback the suggestion of Hagel and/or Pataki being part of, or the complete set of, a third-party ticket in 2008, Hotline is reporting that Chuck Hagel is interested in the new internet-based Unity Party.

The Unity Party, whose website can be found at www.unity08.com, is a unique sort of movement/idea/thing that was started by former administration officials from the Ford and Carter teams. They are a completely web-based party, believe both major parties are broken, and dedicated to getting an alternative Presidential ticket in front of the American people for the 2008 election.

They will do this by presenting in the first half of 2008 all of the candidates that desire to run on the Unity Party ticket, and allowing any and all Americans to vote in a secure, completely online Unity Party Nominating Convention. The rules are simple: If a Democrat plans to run on a Unity Party ticket, he or she must select a Republican as their Vice President, and vice-versa. The votes will be tallied, and then the Unity Party will work to get this tandem on the ballot in all 51 states (including DC).

Hotline reports that Hagel seems to be interested in topping a Unity Party ticket.

The interesting part of this whole scenario, though, is the Unity Party’s online Convention will purposely take place immediately after the GOP and Dem nominees are decided - around March or so - so the shot for a Unity Party nomination is open to everyone who loses the major party nominations. This was a brilliant move by the founders, in my opinion, that will allow many candidates who believe they should be President but lost their party’s nomination to try running again.

For instance, if Hillary is knocked off by Obama, why wouldn’t she consider seeking the Unity Party nomination? If it’s a bitter, divided fight between Giuliani and McCain, or Romney and Giuliani, or Romney and McCain, what would stop the losing nominee from checking out the Unity Party? If McCain loses the GOP primary, he’ll be way too old to ever run again, so he might as well give it his last shot on the Unity ticket. And if folks like Duncan Hunter and Bill Richardson really think they’ve got a shot at the Presidency, they could team up on a Unity Party ticket. (Oooh… now that sounds interesting, doesn’t it?)

So the question is this: with a new third party being founded by some pretty big beltway folks with a plan to feature some big names on their Presidential ticket, will the Unity Party have a real effect on 2008? Will this be the beginning of a shift in American Presidential politics? Or will the American public largely ignore this third party like they have so many others?

And, if you had a chance to vote for a Unity Party ticket, who would you have on it? Remember, it has to be one Republican and one Democrat…

Just in case you’ve been waiting around on pins and needles wondering… George Pataki is trying to make a little noise today by giving a speech at Georgetown where he will announce that he opposes the increase in troop levels in Iraq - setting him alongside Brownback and Hagel as the other ‘08 hopefuls with the same position.

Pataki is still trying to decide whether or not to run for the GOP nomination in 2008, but of course, no one expects him to have a shot - his poll numbers are microscopic, his organization has completely fallen apart, and he hasn’t been seen on the campaign trail for a good long while before this speech today.

The biggest rumors still swirling out there are that he will run as an independent. Hmmm… Hagel/Pataki in ‘08? If one of the Big 3 get the GOP nod, don’t count out the possibility of an anti-war independent ticket that would completely shred the GOP’s hopes of maintaining the White House.

Quinnipiac has come out with a presidential primary poll of New Jersey voters.? Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton hold wide leads for their respective parties’ nominations:

??????????????????????? REGISTERED REPUBLICANS
??????????????????????? Tot???? Men???? Wom

Giuliani??????????????? 39%???? 35%???? 43%
McCain????????????????? 21????? 22????? 21
Gingrich??????????????? 11????? 17?????? 5
Romney?????????????????? 5?????? 6?????? 3
Hunter?????????????????? 1?????? 1?????? 1
Brownback??????????????? 1?????? -?????? 1
Thompson???????????????? -?????? -?????? -
Gilmore????????????????? 1?????? 1?????? 1
Hagel??????????????????? 1?????? -?????? 1
Huckabee???????????????? 1?????? 2?????? -
Pataki?????????????????? 3?????? 3?????? 4
SMONE ELSE(VOL)????????? 1?????? 1?????? 1
WLDN’T VOTE(VOL)???????? 3?????? 3?????? 3
DK/NA?????????????????? 13?????? 9????? 17
?

??????????????????????? REGISTERED DEMOCRATS
??????????????????????? Tot???? Men???? Wom
???????????????????????????????
Gore??????????????????? 11%???? 16%????? 6%
Kerry??????????????????? 6?????? 8?????? 5
Biden??????????????????? 6????? 10?????? 2
Edwards????????????????? 8????? 10?????? 7
Richardson?????????????? 1?????? 3?????? -
Clinton???????????????? 30????? 21????? 37
Obama?????????????????? 16????? 13????? 18
Dodd???????????????????? -?????? 1?????? -
Clark??????????????????? 2?????? 1?????? 2
Vilsack????????????????? -?????? -?????? -
Kucinich???????????????? -?????? 1?????? -
SMONE ELSE(VOL)????????? 2?????? 2?????? 2
WLDN’T VOTE(VOL)???????? 1?????? 1?????? 2
DK/NA?????????????????? 17????? 15????? 19

Clinton 41%
Giuliani 48%

Clinton 53%
Romney 29%

Clinton 43%
McCain 44%

Obama 39%
McCain 42%

Edwards 39%
McCain 45%

Interestingly enough, in New Jersey, Giuliani’s lead is actually broader than Hillary’s.? I think there’s little doubt whom NJ’s Republicans will be casting their ballots for in 2008.? I’m just continually surprised that Newt Gingrich keeps polling so much better than Mitt Romney given the fact that Newt is avoiding anything related to 2008 like the plague, and Mitt is practically full-out running for President at this point.? Also, considering the close proximity of NJ and Massachusetts, and the not so close proximity of NJ and Georgia, you’d expect Mitt to outdo Newt here.

???????United States Senator Chuck Hagel tells?GQ Magazine?that marriage,?as a legal contract, should be left up to the individual states to define. Unfortunately, Senator Hagel only gets half of this correct, which is not nearly enough to be accurate, let alone protect traditional marriage. This, I believe, is the Senator John McCain position, as well, and it is a complete canard.

Marriage is certainly a legal contract and act, which is why under the Full Faith and Credit Clause (FFCC) of the United States Constitution those marriages enacted in one state must be legally recognized by all of the other states.?Under the FFCC, a?couple who create a common law marriage under the laws of one state are allowed to have that marriage recognized as legal?if and when they move to a?state that prohibits the creation of common law marriages within their own jurisdiction. The Founding Fathers were clearly wise in this regard, nobody would want?a divorce or other legal decree enacted in their home state to be subject to reversal or ignoring by the courts in another state. So if one state legalizes common law or same sex?marriage the FFCC demands that the other states recognize those marriages as legal, even if under their laws such marriages could not be executed there. That is why leaving the matter of?same sex?marriage to the individual states fails to protect traditional marriage.

Yes, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) purports to make the FFCC inapplicable to the defining of marriage by the individual states by statutorily claiming no state need recognize same sex?marriages and that the federal government may not recognize same sex marriages, even though such may be executed in a state that makes them legal. But such a federal statute is arguably unconstitutional when it deems to make an express provision of the Constitution inapposite absent?the enactment of a constitutional amendment. It is only a matter of time before the DOMA is challenged and found constitutionally wanting by the federal courts. Leave it to members of Congress to believe that they?are empowered to?change the plain meaning of the Constitution by legislative fiat.

The other fatal flaw in the Hagel and McCain position is that it fails to recognize the vital interest of the federal government in defining marriage, even though it is a legal contract and contract law is typically a state rather than federal matter. Under the various federal statutes and regulations that control taxation and immigration, the term “marriage” is one of obvious and crucial legal import. As such, it is a duty of such federal statutes and regulations to define?this significant?and often?dispositive?term.

Governor Mitt Romney and others arguing for a constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage are correct, in my view. Given the FFCC, it is the only way to?vouchsafe the belief by an overwhelming majority of Americans that marriage should be defined as that between a man and a woman, as it has been throughout history, thus protecting them from what would be the tyranny of a rogue state or two that would legalize?same sex?marriages that the Constitution would force every other state to recognize.

Make no mistake, through spurious and transparent legal reasoning, Senators Hagel and McCain are attempting to fool conservatives into believing that they are allies flying the banner of federalism in this issue when in fact they are acting as stalking horses for the liberal position that would codify?same sex?marriage. If we follow the flawed and fatal counsel of Senators Hagel and McCain, Massachusetts will force every state in the union to recognize?same sex?marriage. As Reagan conservatives, surely that is too high a price to pay for supporting a presidential candidate with a maverick?streak who can appeal to independents and moderates in a general election as the Republican nominee.

Let us hope this?topic is pursued thoroughly by the moderators or audience at the April 4 Republican presidential debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, so that?GOP primary and caucus?voters can be certain where each candidate stands on this fundamental issue of family values.

I am not yet prepared to start a critical analysis of the specific components that cause me to worry about Republican prospects in 2008 and the foreseeable future referenced earlier today. But certainly the outgoing administration is a starting point, so I cannot allow the latest article from Brett Arends of the Boston Globe to go unheralded as a matter of timeliness.

Arends reports that the latest polling from New Hampshire based American Research Group (ARG) shows a precipitous drop in favorability for United States Senator and 2008 presidential candidate John McCain among independent voters in the Granite State, which holds the first presdiential primary, because of his support for the Bush administration’s War in Iraq.Sidestepping the not unimportant geopolitical policy debate of what should be done and why in Iraq, the simple fact of the matter is that this incursion is quickly becoming the equivalent for the Republican Party of what the Vietnam War was to President Lyndon Baines Johnson - a political death knell.

Among political analysts the latest parlor game is predicting by which short-term future date President Bush must remove American troops from harm’s way in Iraq before the political damage to the Republican Party in the 2008 elections becomes fatal. The ARG polling data provides additional evidence that the administration’s Iraq policy is driving the popularity of the Republican Party and its candidates through the floor.

The difficulty for the Republican Party and its 2008 candidates is that clearly it is honorable and efficacious to support a President in time of war. But given that the evidence is mounting that the American people do not support this war, a second political parlor game may quickly evolve as to by which short-term future date Republican political candidates will need to disavow and reproach the current administration to have viability in 2008? Note that to date only United States Senator Chuck Hagel among potential 2008 Republican presidential candidates has condemned the latest administration strategic effort of military surge; Gingrich, Giuliani, McCain, and Romney are for all intents and purposes supporting, at least for now, this latest administration decision in Iraq.

Readers will note the tendentious reference to the book by Judge Robert Bork that will serve as a heading for this series of articles analyzing the Republican electoral pitfalls in 2008. Among the fatal mistakes of President George W. Bush’s tenure, perhaps none was more costly than his public criticism of the conservative movement as a presidential candidate by deprecating the Bork critique of modern culture, inveighing against the Reagan mantra that government is the problem rather than the solution, and selfishly proffering a personal brand of “compassionate conservatism” that logicallyindicted the movement of Goldwater and Reagan as lacking the capacity to care for others. In an effort to differentiate himself from the Republican competition for President, George W. Bush was willing to threaten the basic moorings and pillars ofhis ownparty, which only weaken it among those in the middle who decide national elections.

At some point the health of the Republican Party must take priority over the interests of a given leader of such. George W. Bush failed toembrace thatconcept as a presidential candidate and increasingly looks unlikely to change his perspective in this respect as President. The next wave of potential Republican leaders will have to act accordingly.

In the latest Gallup Poll, Rudy Giuliani has slightly widened his lead over John McCain for the Republican nomination.? Rudy now leads McCain 31 to 27%.? The removal of Condoleezza Rice as an option (which, in the crosstabs of past polls has been evidenced to steal numbers from Rudy) probably helped boost Rudy’s numbers this month.

A little lower down, both Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are also showing small signs of improvement, with the duo now clocking in at 10 and 7%, respectively.? The rest of the gang hovers in the lower single digits.? It looks as though Romney is now becoming an upper tier candidate in the nation-wide polls.? It’s only a matter of time, in my opinion, before he breaks into the double-digits.

Here’s the full results: