2008 Update: Thompson Sliding to Second, Huckabee Replacing McCain, McCain Celebrates

McCain's disastrous campaign keeps him in good humor, apparently. In an interview with Jay Leno he made several interesting remarks:

"We are doing so poorly I thought maybe I would announce on this show that I'm running for president," McCain told Jay Leno in an appearance taped for broadcast Tuesday night on "The Tonight Show." "We have obviously made mistakes," the Arizona senator said...

McCain turns 71 Wednesday - if elected he would become the oldest first-term president. Leno mentioned the birthday and McCain noted that his 95-year-old mother was refused a rental car in Paris because of her age. So she bought a car and drove around sightseeing. "I'm taking her with me wherever I go," McCain said.

The latest averages show Giuliani's lead still comfortable, with Thompson second, Romney third, McCain fourth, and Huckabee the new found distant fifth.

Romney, as anticipated, topped (bought) the Iowa Straw poll and used the resume indent to prop up fundraising, which some rumors say may be slowing down. Impressive organizational structure and handling of confrontational interviews were staples of his campaign strength.

Since his mildly surprising second place finish in Ames, media-induced popularity has gone for Huckabee like Senator Craig goes for the guy in the stall next door. Local papers, national papers, every afternoon talk show and practically network news station arranged interviews within the following weeks. While a PR miracle, and popularly called a "shocking" second place finish, it could be anticipated for several reasons.

With no other serious competition (Giuliani, McCain, and Fred Thompson were absent from the ballot) Romney was a shoo-in. The only intrigue in existence is how "also" prospects would stack up. Huckabee stole the fire from the last two Republican debates with witty one liners and eloquent charisma. Thommy Thompson looked like an insurance agent, Tom Tancredo like, well, a Congressman, and Sam Brownback more like a preacher than the Rev. Huckabee himself. While being the de facto second tier leader in the debates and media portrayal, he was near the bottom of the totem poll in fundraising, the only discrepancy in which Brownback had the upper hand. Ultimately, perceived vision and eloquence trumped cash.

Thommy Thompson's non-existant support encouraged him to finally fold his campaign, while the deeply depressed Tancredo may follow suit. Ron Paul, who has a surprising amount of cash on hand, took a Steve Forbes finish in standings. Unlike Forbes, however, Paul has a radically active group of libertarians and online activists who may keep his campaign pumping for several months.

Far more telling than the Straw Poll, however, may be the September 5th debate on Fox News. Biggest question- will Thompson be there?

2008 Update: 3rd GOP Debate - Thompson's Shadow and Romney's Performance

Wolfy Blitzer looks appeared as an annoying little boy with the men on stage.

First question:

"Knowing what you know now, would you have voted differently on the Iraq war resolution?"

Come on. Of all the repetitive questions posed today, this is as inherently beta sigma as any. Romney, who's winning the debate, essentially told Blitzer, well, that he was retarded.

(Paraphrased): "I believe that, given what we knew at the time, the bi-partisan support for the war was reasonable, and we had a successful campaign to overthrow the Hussein regime. We had poor strategy after that, we weren't realistic enough, and we've struggled. Today, we need to look forward with hope and strategy to win. We do that by asserting Iraqi control over-"

Blitzer: (paraphrased) "Mr. Governor, you refuse to answer my question, which was given what you know now, would you support the war?"

Romney: (paraphrased, but not much) ":shakes head: I did answer that question as rationally as a sane person would expect. That's a non sequitor-- a null sac, we look forward today."

Same with all the other candidates.

It's preposterous that there was another evolution question, but Gov. Huckabee gave an incredibly eloquent response to it.

Other asinine questions, or poorly worded ones:

"Is science wrong on global warming?" Um. No one says "science is wrong." It's about the interpretation and scientific belief.
"Would you pardon Scooter Libby."
"Did you read the IAGS Briefing #something before the Iraq war?" Oooh, yes, I remember that! It was paper number 234235 on my desk! I read it thoroughly. Kudos to secondary assistant director to legislative coordinator at CIA, very good.

So, at halftime: Less than 15% of the questions were remotely pertinent. The Town Hall portion was better.

Romney winning.
McCain up. his defense of McCain/Kennedy immigration was excellent, drawing on the patriotism of Hispanic soldiers. I like him more, I'd campaign for him now.
Gilmore (oddly) up.
Paul probably up (simply because so many dumb questions were just for him)
Huckabee steady. He should be killing it in the debates, but he seemed flustered a couple of times, with technical difficulties and such.
Tancredo steady.
Giuliani down.
Thompson (T.) down.
Brownback down.
Wolfy Blitzer looks like an annoying little boy with the men on stage.

First question:

"Knowing what you know now, would you have voted differently on the Iraq war resolution?"

Come on. Of all the repetitive questions posed today, this is as inherently beta sigma as any. Romney, who's winning the debate, essentially told Blitzer, well, that he was retarded.

(Paraphrased): "I believe that, given what we knew at the time, the bi-partisan support for the war was reasonable, and we had a successful campaign to overthrow the Hussein regime. We had poor strategy after that, we weren't realistic enough, and we've struggled. Today, we need to look forward with hope and strategy to win. We do that by asserting Iraqi control over-"

Blitzer: (paraphrased) "Mr. Governor, you refuse to answer my question, which was given what you know now, would you support the war?"

Romney: (paraphrased, but not much) ":shakes head: I did answer that question as rationally as a sane person would expect. That's a non sequitor-- a null sac, we look forward today."

Same with all the other candidates.

It's preposterous that there was another evolution question, but Gov. Huckabee gave an incredibly eloquent response to it.

Other asinine questions, or poorly worded ones:

"Is science wrong on global warming?" Um. No one says "science is wrong." It's about the interpretation and scientific belief.
"Would you pardon Scooter Libby."
"Did you read the IAGS Briefing #something before the Iraq war?" Oooh, yes, I remember that! It was paper number 234235 on my desk! I read it thoroughly. Kudos to secondary assistant director to legislative coordinator at CIA, very good.

So, at halftime: Less than 15% of the questions are remotely pertinent. Absolutely horrible.

Romney won.
McCain up. his defense of McCain/Kennedy immigration was excellent. I like him more, I'd campaign for him now.
Gilmore (oddly) up.

Huckabee steady. He should be killing it in the debates, but he seemed flustered a couple of times, with technical difficulties and such.
Paul probably steady (simply because so many dumb questions were just for him).
Giuliani steady. The lightening strike was incredibly good Providence for him.
Tancredo down.
Thompson (T.) down. What an irritating name confusion
Brownback down. You're rather inclined to forget about him. That's very Presidential.
Finally, Hunter down. I don't know why Mike Reagan and Ann Coulter are saying he's the conservative candidate. He's anti-free trade, has poor rhetorical engagement, and no fund raising. Anyhow, as The Politico's Roger Simon points out, he was quite rude in assaulting the front-runners at the very end of the debate.


Huckabee's answer to what the greatest moral threat today is was excellent. Paul's ranting against any form of pre-emptive strikes was depressing.

Fred Thompson won the debate. He wasn't there. But immediately after the debate he had an exclusive twenty minute interview with Sean Hannity on Hannity & Colmes. No tough questions, no competition, just a softie conversation with Hannity about the debate, politics, conservatism, life, love, and other mysteries.

Accordingly, some polls now have Thompson narrowly in second place. So much for a candidate who isn't running. He's assembled an excellent team of advisers, including (to my delight) a fabulous economist to be his economic adviser, Lawrence B. Lindsey. Lindsey understands economics, he once worked for the Council of Economic Advisers under Reagan then served on the Council for Bush 41, he's a former assistant professor at Harvard, and current Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

One potential high note to the candidates is the reversal in Gingrich's tone. He now says odds are 4-to-1 that he will not run. This is a complete reversal of his previous indications that he likely would. It also bolsters the prospects of other "conservative alternative" candidates, most significantly Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney. To digress, I am indeed a Thompson supporter, but I fear too much stock is placed in one aspect of his candidacy. He's not an amazing orator. He will perform Giuliani-caliber in the debates when it comes to delivery and engagement, expect him to come in third behind Romney and Huckabee.

I could be surprised, though.

I hope I am.

I'm now a Frederalist. If you think that has anything to do with James Madison or John Jay, go read that statement again.

2008 Update: Thompson Moving

Fred Thompson has reportedly dropped NBC's Law and Order next season, and MSNBC is reporting he will formally file initial FEC papers on June the fourth.

This poses problems for all GOP horses, most severely Romney, Gingrich, McCain, and the second tier.

Gingrich is the other "non candidate," and as he continues to tarry his coming until September, it opens the door for anxious and agitated donors to support Thompson. McCain is still desperately trying to best his pitiful first quarter fund raising, which Thompson could put a dent in. Most polls that include Thompson demonstrate that a good deal of his support coming from the Romney camp, likely due to the feeling that Romney is the most conservative of the "big three." The appeal of the "second tier," most notably Huckabee, Brownback, and Tancredo, is largely contingent on frustration with more popular candidates. Thompson may hamper that feeling.

RCP averages, taken before the Law and Order announcement:

RCP Average 05/10 to 05/23
Guiliani: 26.0%
McCain 18.2%
Thompson 10.0%
Romney 10.0%
Spread: Giuliani +7.8%

2008 Update: Searching for Reagan and... Thompson?

The Reaganite impact has been seen in the establishment of an ultimate idiom for national leadership. A man who can unite the party's vast internal ideological differences. Individualist lovers of liberty that make up the quasi-libertarian branch of conservatism (the "New Right"), the traditionalists of neoconservatism who long for the men who will opine to their cries for society bound by a transcendent order, and those "anti-communist" members of the party (whom today would be "anti-terrorism") who stand firm in the hawkish zeal to defend the homeland against those totalitarian forces of aggression who wish to see us dead. The battle for a balance between order and liberty drove wedges in the party for much of the 20th Century, yet Reagan was able to unite them under their common goals. Their Jeffersonian libertarian ideals that the "government which governs best governs least," and their neoconservative ideas that a strong military and national defense must be maintained to save the Western World and the Shining City on a Hill. This fusion of ideas, produced Reagan. The economic zeal of Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek and George Stigler drawing from frustrated calls for return to sanity in The Road to Serfdom and Free to Choose. The staunch defense of the free world, aggressive, definitive, and imperative; laden with Churchillian and Lincoln poetic rhetoric. A defense inspired by the terrorizing tales of defected Soviet spy Whittaker Chambers in Witness. These factions of the party united to defend the natural and necessitated rights of men esteemed by Locke and Hobbes, the Burkean ordered liberty of society, the Hayekian and Chicago School ideas of free markets and monetarism, the fundamental values of Kirk and Milton, while preserving the individual autonomy of Bastiat-style classical liberals.

But is it even comprehensible that a GOP candidate in 2008 could unite the tory notions, drive away the gathering storm of neo-liberalism, and land a seat in the Oval Office?

The Reagan legacy has impacted many great leaders of our day. Names ring in the minds of his students: Quayle, Williams, Gingrich, Sowell, Meese, Kirkpatrick, Weinberger, Noonan, Bennett... McCain? Giuliani? The vacuum is opened.

Of the present field of candidates, for balance of ideology and electability I draw nearer to supporting Mitt Romney than anyone else. Charismatic, well-grounded, deep fund raising pockets, and understands liberty. He's lurched to the right in the past few years, but it seems more sincere than others, and could be in the same style that Reagan lurched right before running for President. His economic record in Massachusetts is impeccable, and his advocacy on other issues impressive. Yet, his lackluster support in comparison to Giuliani, and the prejudice from some of the Religious Right over Mormonism (however preposterous a gripe) still leaves a spot in the candidates. Sure, Brownback, Gilmore, and Huckabee are noble chaps. But $1.5 million or half a million in fund raising is going to get you no where.

A new factor is actor and former senator Fred Thompson. A relative latecomer, his window of opportunity for announcing may be short, yet as Bob Novak puts it, "many conservatives may embrace Thompson with a sigh of relief." The popular senator from Tennessee has had a strong limited-government record on virtually all major issues, and has sustained some of the limelight while starring on NBC's "Law and Order" and maintaining his PAC. A current fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, he's garnered a good deal of support from GOP base publications ranging from Human Events to Patriot Post to the Wall Street Journal.

His support is not universal, however. Pulitzer Prize winning conservative columnist George F. Will scoffs at the notion of a Reaganite Thompson. Mr. Will cites his age, lack of experience in a tightly contested campaign, and hypothetical lackluster energy. He also details, to my hearty agreement, discontent with Thompson's support of the reprehensible McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform legislation. As of a March interview with Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace, Thompson maintained his support of the freedom-suppressing measure. An additional area of concern is his 1995 vote against Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).

All other aspects of his prospective campaign may prove strong. A recent LA Times poll, according to Dick Morris, has Thompson at second place behind Giuliani, trumping McCain, Romney, Huckabee, and the undeclared Newt.

GIULIANI 29%

THOMPSON 15%

MC CAIN 12%

ROMNEY 8%

GINGRICH 7%

HUCKABEE 3%

If Gingrich feels Thompson represents the cause fully, there's a good chance he won't declare in September (his deciding point). Thompson would be a likely choice for many Gingrich supporters, while Huckabee will likely be forced out due to lack of competitive fund raising. Leaving the vote of those like me to be split between Romney and Thompson, either of whom I would be happy with. A true blue lover of liberty at the helm of the GOP ticket may be the only thing that can prevent a second Clinton White House. Thompson/Romney '08?

2008 Update: Slipping Big Three? - New Approval Ratings

The late February Presidential poll average shows my slightly preferred pick, Fmr. Gov. Romney (R-MA), sliding to fourth place, with Newt Gingrich (R-GA) in third. The spread:


RCP Average (02/19 - 02/28) Rudy: 36.6 McCain: 20.2 Mitt: 7.2 Newt: 10.8 Spread: Giuliani +16.4
The Democratic Congress' approval ratings haven't bounced any higher than Bush's, coming in a few points below his 36% approval at a 34% rate.

RCP Average

02/21 - 02/28

(A)34.0%

(D)52.3%

-18.3%

John Fund's weekly report to OpinionJournal claimed Romney nailed his Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) speech last weekend with a message "uniting fiscal, social, and defense conservatives." However, Giuliani also received a surprisingly positive response having his somewhat nervous speech (introduced by longtime conservative icon George F. Will) centered around conservative ideas from defense to school choice, but avoiding the issues of conflict (namely gun control and abortion).

I find myself ideologically aligned with Gingrich as much as any candidate, but electability remains a serious concern. I'm still waiting to see which of the conservative candidates--Romney, Gingrich, Huckabee (R-AR) or the extreme long-shots Brownback (R-KA) and Gilmore (R-VA)-- pulls ahead as the conservative front-runner. In his CPAC speech, Huckabee cracked the conference should be renamed the "Conservative Presidential Anxiety Conference" with a theme, "Dude, where's my candidate?"

2008 Buzz

Forbes gave my #2 pick a nice rundown in the last issue.

Dick Morris has made two interesting forecasts in the past week. The first is that the dark horse candidates trying to catch up by spending Senate time campaigning will have it haunt them. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan) has missed a whopping number of votes, while Sens. Clinton and Obama have near-perfect records.

The second prediction is in regard to the fading McCain and booming Giuiliani. Rudy has come a step further to candidacy, and the latest Fox News Opinion-Dynamic has him substantially ahead of McCain. Additionally, Morris is very degrading to the odds of Mitt Romney (my pick), and favors Huckabee of the dark horses.

2008 Update and Other Thoughts

Weird Al? In what I predict is the dying breath of blockbusted Air America, famous political satirist and democrat Al Franken-stein has announced his show will be officially over on Valentines Day. Speculation in Minnesota and Washington is that Franken will seek the democratic nomination to senate to run against Senator Norm Coleman (R-Minn) in 2008. Sen. Coleman is seen as one of the most vulnerable senators up for re-election next year.

Mitt and Mike. I've lamented before about the gaping hole in the list of potential GOP candidates in 2008 that creates a vacuum for a Reagan Republican to fill. Given the current slate of candidates, and my current knowledge about them, I'm halfwittedly contemplating support of Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA). In a field with severely limited options, he's perhaps about all there is. A solitary issue is preventing me from announcing my support of Romney in the given field of candidates, and that is gun control. I've given a verbal rundown of the election to a number of you, thus I suppose I might as well post it here.

Rudy Giuliani is a hawk democrat. Anti-gun, anti-traditional marriage, pro-abortion, etc. He's a grand American, excellent on defense, school choice, spending, and tax cuts. Sadly, not someone I'm going to go all out for. I'd vote for him slated against Edwards, Clinton, or Obama, but I wouldn't put a bumper sticker on the car or donate. Minimal support other than a vote from me, no support in the primaries.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) will always remain the unpredictable rebel. While he would be decent on defense and more than likely land pro-life, my Irish Alzheimer's (where you forget everything except your grudges) brings back memories of opposing tax cuts, McCain-Feingold, and Gang of 14 like a lost eBay bid. The tax cuts are the one major economic bragging point of the post-2000 GOP, McCain Feingold is the single greatest suppression of free speech to come of of "reform" legislation for twenty years, and Gang of 14 effectively shot a major campaign leverage tool for us (while sacrificing valuable appointees). His opposition of the marriage amendment will damage his appeal with "values voters" to boot.

Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) has potential to pull a Reagan 1960 and lurch right. At this point, he's probably my slight favorite. He's either making a move away from overbearing government and liberalism to '94 conservatism, or he's plotting a move for base appeal. Reagan went from being FDR's best defender to a radical Goldwater Republican in twenty years, based solidly on conviction and ideological reform. Peggy Noonan explained it thus, "You knew he was a good man and you knew he meant it. So you understood how he could be the biggest supporter of FDR and the New Deal in 1944, and the most persuasive voice for Barry Goldwater in 1964. He'd thought it through and changed, not overnight but in time and with effort. He could change his mind on abortion in the same way, and not because he feared the base. Reagan was the base." Whether or not Romney can deliver in the same way, I don't know, almost assuredly it won't be as dramatic. Some similarities would include he's a fabulous orator, a red governor in a blue state, and he keeps people relatively happy when they disagree. Obvious differences include, most notably, he has yet to recognize and develop the philosophical depth, understanding, and passion Reagan exhibited so classically. Romney's stand against the grain on Massachusetts marriage was admirable, his health-care plan (while often misunderstood and highly controversial) was probably the best he could possibly do in his circumstances, plus he has proven himself a reasonable spending hawk and, while no Steve Forbes, a fair advocate of tax reform. The lone issue that has me withholding support, however, is gun control. When, thank God, the federal assault weapons ban expired, Romney promptly signed a state ban with his admonition that the ever arbitrarily labeled "assault weapons"* served no purpose. While he would likely be at least coerced into opposing a UN handgun ban, it wouldn't be aggressive opposition.

Major concerns: Being a Mormon won't help him any in the primaries. It shouldn't hurt him too much if he keeps cooing the AFA/Focus on the Family groups. Abortion keeps coming back with Romney. I was fairly convinced with the Paul Gallagher bit that everyone changes, and accordingly Romney had completely flopped on abortion--notably, as I mentioned, just as Reagan did-- until I saw The Weekly Standard report that in 2002 Romney answered a Planned Parenthood survey by indicating he not only supported Roe, but additionally supported allowing Medicaid funds to cover abortions for low-income women. The preposterous liberal diatribes have whined about such funding for years, but it quite shocked me for a Republican in 2002 to say that when he's running in '08. A pair of 2005 Romney vetoes on life measures were reassuring, though.

Bottom line: he's my top pick, though I wish I could support him even more.

Senator Sam Brownback (R-KA) Sen. Brownback is a fine senator. In the senate. One of the better ones there. The Senate chamber, that is. I hope he can stay there for many years to come. Legislating. That's different than the executive branch, you know. Brownback has proven himself as a senator. In the senate. Participating as a legislator. In the senate. With other senators. Doing things that senators do. In the senate. Good, Godly, honorable, proud senator. (You thought I was going to say, "In the Senate" again, didn't you? Ha!) He's my favorite guy running, but he's not going to land the Oval Office. It will be a lovely thing if I'm wrong.

Fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) If I resided in any state other than Arkansas, my vehement support would be thrust behind him. I'll preface this by assuring all people, if Huckabee is a driving force in the primaries and pulls away as the conservative, I'll throw everything I have behind him. If he wins the nomination, I'll work on his campaign harder than Bush/Cheney '04, probably donate, et cetera. His platform is impeccable with the notable exceptions of amnesty in immigration and school choice. If one is to read his budget and taxes issue page, they will find him quoting Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan. Fabulous rhetoric and specific ideas. If I may border on violating Reagan's 11th, I have to agree (being from Arkansas) with some of The Club for Growth's criticisms of Huckabee on taxes. He's slick, and has viable excuses, but some of it is difficult to alleviate.

Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) A libertarian icon and the Buddha of John Stossel dittoheads (of which, by the way, I'm a loose member), Rep. Paul gave the libertarians a shove after his presidential bid under them that flopped like an OJ Book, and decided to give those darn egalitarian republicans a try. I adore his loathing of government, and adamantly support his economic policies centered around Von Mises and the Austrian school of economic thought, but he has no comprehension of how to combat islamofascism and the global threats we have today. His foreign isolationist policies would be disastrous. His repeated calls to impeach Bush deeply disappointed me. Impeachment over USA PATRIOT? Does he really want President Dick Cheney if he has such a gripe with Bush? A bloody shame.

Fmr. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA) Newt is perhaps the ideal President, and a lousy candidate. The profile picture of the 1994 Revolution, a dynamic speaker, and a deep understanding of the issues doesn't always translate into election success. As the Sir Galahad's fallacy of politics goes, "I will win because I am right" always fails. Perhaps Rudy should run with Newt as his running mate, then resign the day he is sworn in... Just as a note, he has to be dreading a little roadblock with what should be a key constituency, the "religious right." They'll have a hard time wondering if he's doing any better with this wife than the last few ones that didn't quite work out.

Tommy Thompson (R-WI) is a George W. Bush with a couple of slightly more right slantings, and he isn't a cowboy. Nothing impressive.

Duncan Hunter (R-CA)...uh...Chuck Hagel (R-NE)...yeah right...George Pataki (R-NY)....yeeeeow!

If I could appoint someone President of the United States, it's interesting to ponder who it would be. If I could have anyone, I think I would go Neil Cavuto/Brit Hume. From this list, it might be a Gingrich/Brownback administration. Others I would like to see include Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) who pretty much gone, and Steve Forbes (I love that guy! Why did he have to be a political dud). JC Watts who would have to get back in politics first, or he would be excellent.

Regardless of the current circumstances, 2008 is going to be a fun run.

*"Assault Weapons" could just as easily be translated, "Guns that Dianne Feinstein finds scary."