Gilmore for Senate Possibility

For those paying attention to the former candidates, with John Warner’s decision not to seek re-election in 2008, it opens the door for former GOP presidential nominee Jim Gilmore to make a run for the U.S. Senate.

Politics- Overrated

Week 1 Picks:
(more…)

hat tip to jake
From Politico:

Former Virginia Gov. James S. Gilmore III is dropping his underdog bid for the Republican presidential nomination today, his top strategist, he told Politico in an interview.

Gilmore said he has been approached about running for Virginia governor a second time, and about running for U.S. Senate if Sen. John W. Warner (R) decided not to seek reelection. Gilmore said he will consider both operations. Showing his interest in Old Dominion politics, he said he will start a political action committee to support Republicans running for the state senate and House of Delegate.

P.S. I guess that takes one out of the way for Ron Paul’s ascendency to the top of the Race42008 Power Rankings!

Rudy Giuliani

• Giuliani Heads to Iowa To Lay Out ‘12 Commitments’
• Is Rudy redefining how to win GOP nomination?
  ?

Fred Thompson

• Fred Thompson Record on Abortion Scrutinized

John McCain

• Taking On Biggest Donors, McCain Takes a Big Risk
• Shocker Out of SC
  

Mitt Romney

• Missed Opportunity Mitt
• Romney says many answers to nation’s problems found in the home
• Romney, behind in polls, leads the money race
• Romney quietly building support in early states
  The leading GOP fundraiser, in Iowa again this weekend, adds support on the ground, while trailing in national polls.
• Brownback aide reprimanded for sending email to Iowa GOP leaders in apparent anti-Mormon bid
  Romney campaign accepts apology, calls incident ‘unfortunate.’

General Race 4 2008 News

• Michael Barone: A Primary Fix
• Jim Gilmore: Redefining the U.S. Role in Iraq
• Democratic Congress shows cracks
• A Turning Point in the GOP Race
• Whither the undeclared voter?
  Campaigns sizing up independents’ role
• Edwards’ “Man of the People” Image Showing Cracks?
• Staking His Campaign on Iowa, Edwards Makes a Populist Pitch to the Left
• Edwards Details ‘Universal Health Care’ Plan At Sioux City Rally
• In Polls, Clinton Loses to Republicans
• Clinton’s greatest risk
  Hillary Clinton could jeopardize her front-runner status by playing it too safe on tough issues.
• Clintons sell off stock that could have proved a political time bomb
  http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article2663737.ece?service=print
• Bob Schieffer: Maybe There Should Be A Third Party
• Transcript: Gen. David Petraeus on ‘FOX News Sunday’

??????? Procedurally, I thought MSNBC did an?fairly good?job of not getting bogged down among ten candidates debating. But I thought their questions were substantively mediocre, and the inability of the moderators to get the candidates to directly answer questions and stay on subject (and candidates should not be allowed to use their answer time for issues they want to bring up or in response to previous questions) wasted time and eroded focus.

Former White House advisor David Gergen hit it on the head, I think, in claiming that there was too much discussion of the past and not nearly enough about the future - and that is the fault of MSNBC, I think, and its debate moderators and contributors in questioning the Republican candidates.

Neither entitlement reform (especially Social Security and Medicare), the size and scope of government, judicial appointments, education, the future of the military, affirmative action, the Middle East peace process, nuclear proliferation, geopolitical strategic threats and allies, economic growth, trade, leadership, gun control (in the wake of the Virginia Tech incident), or the contrasts with Democrat approaches to public policy were the focus of questions, which is just irresponsible, it seems to me, in a 90-minute forum such as this. And many crucial topics - such as health care reform and race relations - were only directed to a few candidates for just a brief period of time.

Technology and public participation are terrific, but not when silly and simplistic questions result in them being utilized in such a forum and squeeze out more important and revealing lines of inquiry.

The Bill Clinton question was a complete and utter waste of everyone’s limited time (and I am wondering when we Republicans can move away from our Bill Clinton fixation), and gotcha questions to Mayor Giuliani (about the difference between Sunni Islam and Shiite Islam, which he nailed - good for him) and Governor Thompson (about the exact numbers of dead and wounded soliders resulting from the Iraq War, which he came close to as to the dead but vastly underestimated as to the wounded) were way out of line. I guess we were lucky that questions weren’t asked about the current prices for a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread.

My personal preference would be that more questions?are addressed by all candidates in order to measure differences.

As to the candidates, I thought it was pretty hard to stand out with so many of them on stage.

But the ones I would consider not inviting to the May 15 debate at the University of South Carolina if I was Fox News, in order to make their debate more manageable and substantive and?penetrating, would be Governor Gilmore, Congressman Hunter, Congressman Paul, Congressman Tancredo, and Governor Thompson. I just thought that these candidates failed to impress as presidential, often focusing on the same narrow issues in answering whatever questions were thrown their way, and their fundraising and poll standing simply do not argue well for their inclusion on May 15.

I thought Governor Huckabee and Senator Brownback helped themselves with confident, smooth, nuanced responses that made them look like they belonged in a presidential debate. For me, Governor Huckabee’s rapid, concise, and powerful response to the question about the jettisoning of Secretary Rumsfeld might have been the most impressive answer of the evening.

I thought the three front-runners stumbled at times and did not really separate themselves from each other or significantly help their causes.?Here is my?quick and specific take on them.

I think abortion obviously continues to hang up Mayor Giualini (and if he was pro-life this GOP nomination process might be a foregone conclusion), and his response to the Roe v. Wade question (while?the other nine?candidates enthusiastically agreed it would be terrific if the decision was overturned, the Mayor grimacingly said it would be okay if the decision was overturned or okay if the decision was upheld on stare decisis grounds) and admission that he is for and was a facilitator of?(as Mayor) public funding of abortion made him look defensive and certainly won’t help him with many mainstream conservatives. I agree with the commentators?who claim the Mayor was more subdued than might be expected for a candidate whose strengths are toughness and leadership. The brevity of time allowed in answering simply did not, I think,?help the Mayor flesh out his strengths?as the leader of the New York City?turnaround. And I think it was interesting that the Mayor was the least critical candidate when it came to the administration of President George W. Bush - a brave, risky, and perhaps not completely supportable position.

I agree with those who claim that the Senator McCain attempt to play the tough guy looked forced. His whole demeanor - squinting and tense and poised to pounce - did not make me comfortable. I do think that his focus on out-of-control government spending is effective, as well as his knowledge and understanding and gravitas when it comes to military and international matters. The Senator just looks a bit too old and a bit too desperate up there, to me.

Governor Romney started off rocky, I thought, though part of it was that some of the early?lines of approach?were barbs aimed directly at him (questioning his change of position on abortion and statement that he would not move heaven and earth to find Osama bin Laden) - which was probably unfair (you cannot have questions that only put one or two candidates on the spot). Like the Mayor, he struggles with abortion, though I thought that by the end of the evening he was making a very plausible and coherent case that he simply has changed from pro-choice to pro-life; the question is whether it is a principled or politically expedient change (which voters will have to judge for themselves). I thought the Governor came across at times like the young and eager beaver, which may not be as presidential as he wants to be, and was not able (under the constraints of the format) to emphasize his record of achievement as a public and private sector manager and leader as well as he needs to.

With a potentially smaller field, the candidates having one encounter under the belts (in order to calm the nerves and focus their approach), and the ability of Fox News to be able to learn from what MSNBC did, I am looking forward to the May 15 debate at the University of South Carolina. Oh, and of course we have the Senator Fred Thompson speech to the Orange County (CA) Lincoln Club tonight and whatever response Speaker Newt Gingrich has to all of this, as well.

In addition to the comments of Gergen, the one piece of post-debate analysis I found somewhat compelling was from Dean Barnett, who is usually just way too long-winded for my taste,?over at the Hugh Hewitt web site, as to what the expectations will be for Fred Thompson (although I strongly disagree with Barnett’s?conclusion that Thompson should wait to get in - because of the importance of fundraising in this endeavor, he cannot possibly afford to do that):

“Fred’s got an issue. When he enters, the expectations for him to run a perfect campaign will be impossibly high. At the first debate he participates in, if he does anything less than get all the other candidates to confess that Fred Thompson is the better man, the pundits will label his performance a disappointment.

In short, official candidate Thompson will get no honeymoon. All the other candidates have made a bunch of errors between the start of things and now. They’re learning, at least in theory. Fred’s margin of error will be extremely small.

I say that argues for him delaying his entry until at least Labor Day, maybe longer. Then he’ll have to go only a few months without making a mistake. The flip side of the coin is that he enters now and has setbacks and surges like all the other candidates and hopefully (from his perspective) winds up on top.

But being just another guy isn’t much fun. Just ask Rudy.”

??????? I think former Governor and current Republican presidential candidate Jim Gilmore makes a good point to ABC News about the so-called GOP 11th Commandment - thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican - which we will need to keep in mind as this hotly contested 2008 Republican presidential primary unfolds. The commandment implicitly refers to personal attacks rather than substantive policy challenges and differences. After all, the person most closely affiliated with the 11th Commandment, Ronald Reagan, ran?against an incumbent Republican president in Gerald Ford in 1976 (of course on the sound?rationale that President Ford had not been elected to the office and was also damaged goods after pardoning President Richard Nixon).

By the way, as a matter of history, it was not Ronald Reagan who coined the phrase, though he was a big part of its genesis. When running for governor of California in 1966, conservative Reagan was in a tough Republican primary race with liberal San Francisco mayor George Christopher. Recalling the vitriol of the 1964 Republican presidential primary in the Golden State between Barry Goldwater (who Reagan supported) and Nelson Rockefeller (who Christopher supported), an aide to California Republican Party Chairman Dr. Gaylord Parkinson (whose name escapes me but can be found in Lou Cannon’s outstanding book, “Governor Reagan”) suggested the concept to his boss, who went around the state?preaching the new rule among Republicans for the 1966 gubernatorial primary.

Myself, Gary Matthew Miller, and syndicated columnist Barry Casselman all made the long trek to Des Moines yesterday for the Iowa GOP’s annual Lincoln Day Dinner. Every GOP hopeful was in attendance save for the undeclareds (Newt & FDT), the waylaid (Duncan Hunter had mechanical problems with his flight), and Ron Paul.

The “Big Three” of Rudy, McCain, and Mitt, showed why they are they are afforded such distinction with excellent speeches.

Rudy opened the evening with a subdued but philosophical and substantive speech which outlined that the Republican Party needs to reach out to voters by emphazing what we are for: staying on offense on the GWOT, maintaining a growth economy, and finding market solutions to our nation’s problems- not what we are against.

Mitt followed Rudy and somewhat tarnished what was an absolutely spectacular speech by pulling a stunt where the first thing he did upon reaching the podium was to invite his wife and son from their dinner table to the stage for a personal introduction to the audience.

The implication of this (considering the fact that he did this immediately after following Mayor Giuliani) was lost on only the most politically obtuse in attendance. The continued attack on Mayor Giuliani (the “My family is better than your family” critique), is really below-the-belt and could serve to injure Mitt’s reputation as “one of the good guys” who is above politics.

Mitt’s speech was spectacular in substance and flawless in delivery though. The most animated of the “Big Three”, Mitt stressed his success in the private sector remarking, “I haven’t spent my life in politics. That’s for sure. I’ve spent my life in the private sector,” Romney said. “If there’s ever been a time that we need to change things in Washington, D.C., it’s now.”

John McCain delivered an emotional and passionate account of the cost of defeat in Iraq, and deserves special commendation for being the only candidate of the 9 in attendance that clearly defended and allied himself with President Bush.

This is perhaps the fifth time that I have been able to see Sen. McCain speak in person. The 1,000 Republicans in attendance made this the largest crowd that I have ever seen him speak in front of, and I wondered exactly how his intimate speaking style would translate to such a venue. In my eyes, none of the emotion that McCain is able to convey in the smaller settings that I have seen him in was lost in the cavernous ballroom. Sen. McCain’s earnestness, strength, and honor really shine through every time I have seen him with a mic in his hand in front of a Republican crowd. It makes me wonder that if he had spent the past 4 years doing these type of events instead of disparaging Republican policy on the Sunday talk shows, that he would now be the frontrunner of a united Republican Party.

The most awkward moment of the night came when Gov. Jim Gilmore angrily chided “Rudy McRomney” as newcomers to conservatism. A remark that was met with uncomfortable silence from the 1,000 or so in attendance while Gov. Gilmore paused for expected applause.

Following the dinner, most of the candidates attended receptions for attendees in the lower level of the hall (Mitt and Rudy were frustratingly absent). The Fair Tax people were also in attendance and earn special kudos for the best spread.

Here’s my photo diary of the events:

Sen. McCain addresses an attendee’s concern…

Then poses for a picture…

Sen. Sam Brownback signs autographs for his fans.

Gov. Mitt Romney and his wife Anne listen to an enthusiastic supporter.

Perhaps the most accessible candidate, Gov. Huckabee spent a great deal of time walking among the crowd, answering every question, signing every autograph, and posing for every picture. Gov. Huckabee also rocked the house with his musical group following the dinner.

The most humorous event of the night for me was the sight of Gov. Tommy Thompson bear-hugging (or perhaps bear-clubbing) fellow R4′08er (and Truth v. the Machine founder) Gary Matthew Miller upon hearing that he is a Spooner, Wisconsin native. If only I had my camera ready at that moment… It would have been a classic!

Now Gary’s a big guy, but Gov. Thompson threw his arm around Gary’s neck like he had some experience taking on “big guys”, which only served to reenforce my opinion of Gov. Thompson as the “Tony Soprano” of the GOP field.

??????? Great report from David Yepsen, the dean of Iowa political reporters, in today’s editions of the Des Moines Register, on yesterday’s annual Iowa Republican Party Lincoln Day Dinner. Evidently back-of-the-pack Republican presidential candidates such as Senator Sam Brownback, Governor Jim Gilmore, Governor Mike Huckabee, Congressman Tom Tancredo, and Governor Tommy Thompson?really went after 2008 GOP front-runners Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney (or “Rudy McRomney” to use the phrase of Governor Gilmore) - claiming they are not conservative, late to the conservative movement, and more celebrity than conservative.

I applaud these back-of-the-pack candidates for holding the feet of the front-runners to the fire. I think their points are well taken - Giuliani, McCain, and Romney have not been consistent and constant conservatives. And I look forward to seeing these candidates engage directly on May 3 when the Ronald Reagan Presidential? Library hosts the first 2008 Republican presidential debate from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time on MSNBC, followed shortly thereafter by their debate at the University of South Carolina on May 15 from 9:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on the Fox News Channel.

This campaign?is?going to start getting very interesting.

The issue of adult and embryonic stem-cell research is an issue that is very important to many pro-lifers like myself. It surely is a controversial issue, and the passage of federally-funded embryonic stem-cell research led to President Bush’s first veto of his presidency. Once again, the Senate is debating the issue, under two bills. The first bill, S 5, named the “Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007,” is much like the bill Pres. Bush vetoed, except that it takes some language from a previous Santorum bill in order to try and make it veto proof. The second bill, S. 30, the HOPE Act, would encourage federal funding of ethical research without harming human embryos.

The issue of federally-funded embryonic stem-cell research has also become a “litmus test” for pro-lifers to judge a politican’s commitment towards the pro-life movement. For instance, former Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was slammed by the pro-life community for supporting it, while Democrat Sen. Bob Casey Jr. was praised yesterday by the Family Research Council for once again committing his support against it.

This issue is very important to pro-lifers in regards to 2008. Legislation that would federally fund embryonic stem-cell research passed under a Republican majority in both houses, and will likely pass again under a Democratic majority. Luckily, President Bush had the courage to use his first veto against the legislation, and will likely veto it again. However, will we be so lucky with our next president?

So far, the candidates opposed to federally-funded embryonic stem-cell research are: Brownback, Huckabee, Hunter, Romney, and Tancredo.

Supporting federally-funded embryonic stem-cell research are: McCain and Giuliani.

I am not sure where Fred Thompson or Jim Gilmore stand on this issue.

Brownback has been a leading supporter of adult stem-cell research and a leading opponent of embryonic stem-cell research. Here is what he posted today at the Hill’s Congressional blog titled: “Where do we draw the line on stem cells?”

I look forward to highlighting the fact that adult stem cell research, which does not destroy young human lives, has yielded real treatments for patients in need. I welcome the opportunity for a full and open debate which raises a basic question: should we use taxpayer dollars to fund research that many people, including myself, consider unethical because it destroys young human lives? Or should we focus federal research funding on ethical alternatives that carry more clinical promise?

I agree with Brownback on this issue. The main thing I wonder is if the proponents of embryonic stem-cell research claim that it is so promising, then why is it not privately funded? Why aren’t research companies spending their own dollars on this research? Wouldn’t you love to be the first company to come up with the cure to all the diseases proponets claim this research would benefit?

Brownback also wrote an op-ed which USA Today ran yesterday:

Reject embryo bill
Washington should limit research funding to adult stem cells only.

By Sam Brownback

Last year I met a courageous young woman, Jacki Rabon of Illinois, who was paralyzed in a car accident at age 16. Today, thanks to an ethical adult stem cell treatment that she received in Portugal, Jacki is regaining feeling in her legs and can walk with the aid of braces and a walker.

This week, the Senate will debate a bill that would provide taxpayer funding for a different type of stem cell research from the type that is helping Jacki and scores of other patients. The Senate will vote on whether to fund embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of human embryos. We all started as an embryo, and biologically, the human embryo is no less human than you or I.

Two issues are at stake:

First, should we treat the young human as a person or as a piece of property? Will the federal government maintain high ethical standards in research, or will we sanction the destruction of young human lives to further speculative research that might or might not eventually help patients?

Second, should we fund the research that holds the most promise to bring treatments to patients soonest, or should we fund speculative and unethical research, the benefits of which are unclear and may never come?

For the sake of the patients, we should fund adult stem cell research to the exclusion of unethical embryonic stem cell research. Jacki should not have to travel to Portugal, at great personal expense, for a treatment with her own adult stem cells. And she is not the only patient who has had no choice but to travel around the world for an adult stem cell treatment.

We know of 72 peer-reviewed adult stem cell treatments and applications for a wide range of diseases and injuries. Yet embryonic stem cell research has not yielded any treatments or applications to date.

Patients should have the peace of mind that their treatment did not come at the expense of another’s destruction, and they should not have to travel around the world to seek help. I urge my Senate colleagues to reject the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act and taxpayer funding for human embryonic stem cell research.

Sam Brownback is a Republican senator from Kansas and a candidate for president.

My main reasons for posting this is to inform readers on where the 2008 candidates stand on this issue, and also to remind readers why pro-lifers love Brownback so much — not only does he vote our way, but he is also our leader on issues like this. In recent years, most pro-life legislation has been very much supported by the general public — such as banning partial-birth abortions and parental notification laws. Embryonic stem-cell research, however, is much more controversial mostly because people don’t understand the issue, and is generally supported by the general public. This is when the pro-life movement finds out who its real leaders are — like Sam Brownback — and who the sell-outs are — like former majority leader Bill Frist.

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

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

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

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

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

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, which is already scheduled to host a 10-candidate (Brownback, Gilmore, Giuliani, Huckabee, Hunter, McCain, Paul, Romney, Tancredo, and Tommy Thompson are confirmed) or more debate among Republican White House contenders on May 3, 2007, has decided to hold a second GOP presidential debate just prior to the Titanic Tuesday, February 5, 2008, primary election in so many states. This second debate will be held on Wednesday, January 30, 2008, and will be restricted to the top two or three Republican presidential hopefuls at that time, with criteria for selection of the participants and the identity of the media sponsor being undecided as of now.

Robert Novak reports in his Evans-Novak Political Report for February 28 on the results of a “push poll” conducted?for former Virginia Governor James Gilmore in Iowa with respect to the state’s?2008 Republican presidential caucus. Once Iowa Republicans are informed or reminded of some liberal tendencies on the part of Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, the support for the purported “Big Three” drops precipitously. And it sounds from Novak’s reporting as if some of the 2008 Republican presidential campaigns are going to take the gloves off and start contrasting their primary opponents as this weekend’s CPAC commences. I cannot recall a Republican presidential primary where the front-runners were more vulnerable to attack and the field lacked a consensus, heavyweight conservative; everyone would be well advised, as Novak opines, to take current polling numbers within the GOP field with a huge grain of salt given their softness. Here is the applicable excerpt from the report:

“Republicans around the country are now talking about the possibility that a conservative candidate outside the ‘Big Three’ could suddenly catch fire and suck support away from both the frontrunners and several of the minor candidates. A push poll for the 2008 Iowa presidential caucuses is instructive on the reality of conservative discontent with the current ‘Big Three’ GOP candidates. The poll gives Sen. John McCain 20.5 percent, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani 16.3 percent, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 3.5 percent. The candidate for whom the push-poll was conducted, former Virginia Gov. James Gilmore (R), leads them all with 31 percent.

1. This is not a legitimate survey, of course — it’s a ‘push poll’ that tells respondents positive and negative things about various candidates. The pollster peppered respondents with tales of the liberal deviations by McCain, Giuliani and Romney, and the true-blue conservatism of Gilmore. But it proves a point that is widely accepted in Republican ranks: None of the ‘Big Three’ is a natural fit for the nation’s right-of-center party. A conservative void unquestionably exists. The question is whether there is anyone who can fill the void.
2. The name usually mentioned as the void-filler is not Gilmore but Newt Gingrich. A straw poll by the right-wing Citizens United organization of contributors to its political fund showed Gingrich ahead with 31 percent (followed by Giuliani at 25 percent, Romney at 10 percent and McCain at 8 percent). But based on his record as Speaker of the House, Gingrich’s conservative record is far from flawless.
3. Before the ‘push’ element of Gilmore’s poll, the unadulterated results showed McCain leading in Iowa with 33 percent, followed by Giuliani at 31.5 percent and Romney at 8.8 percent (the unknown Gilmore took just 1.3 percent). That the pollsters could cause so much movement by pushing — or ‘informing’ — respondents that McCain opposed tax cuts, Romney took a pro-choice abortion stance in Massachusetts, and Giuliani supported Democratic Gov. Mario Cuomo’s re-election in New York, for example, is very telling as to just how committed voters are to the ‘Big Three,’ even the ones who say they support them. Giuliani dropped by nine points with pushing, Romney lost five points (McCain actually rose 2 points).
4. Then the pushers went to work projecting Gilmore as a tax-cutting, job-creating governor of Virginia, head of a congressionally appointed commission on terrorism, chairman of the Republican National Committee and a National Rifle Association member. With that buildup, Gilmore finished first, well ahead of the field. That suggests that, under the current conditions, a campaign knocking down the conservative credentials of the ‘Big Three’ could make a nominee out of even a long shot such as Gilmore — at least theoretically.
5. With Gilmore a latecomer to the presidential fundraising game, it is doubtful that he will have sufficient funds to tear down his opponents and build up himself nationally or even in the state of Iowa. But he or any other long shot will have a lot of help beating up on the ‘Big Three.’ This week, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) will attract right-wingers from all over the country. They will receive a 23-page attack on McCain from the right-wing group Citizens United, declaring: ‘He’s no Ronald Reagan.’ (McCain is the only announced Republican presidential hopeful not scheduled to attend CPAC.) At the same time, McCain operatives are putting out material casting Guiliani as a throwback to the old Tammany Hall Democratic machine that rode into City Hall on the shoulders of the New York Liberal Party, which cross-endorsed him in New York.
6. There is plenty of time for such negative campaigning to tear down the Republican front-runners as having inadequate conservative credentials. At this point in the 2000 election cycle, Bush was far in front with 45 percent in the polls, with Elizabeth Dole second at 29 percent, and McCain at a forgettable 3 percent. McCain went from that 3 percent to run a strong insurgent campaign that nearly delivered him the nomination.
7. The lesson is that the prominent coverage of the ‘Big Three’ is by no means an indicator that they will remain out front. The conservative void on the Republican side is simply too great. Nature abhors a vacuum, as does the political world.”

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.

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.

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: