Well, the inevitable finally happened. John McCain secured the 1191st delegate, winning the Republican primary. How did we end up with him, with a few liberal stances on some key views, when we had tons of other strong candidates?

The candidates

At first, 2008 looked like a great year. We had two guys with a 99 from the American Conservative Union (Brownback and Tancredo), the guy from 2004 who everyone kinda liked America's Mayor who was tough on crime and a real likeable guy, a fairly conservative Massachussetian named Mitt Romney, a representative no one knew about but whose positions everyone supported (Hunter), a libertarian, and a Southern Baptist minister. Plus, we had movements to draft Fred Thompson (the ultra conservative from the GOP's point of view) and Newt Gingrich (the guy who led us to power in the House a decade ago).

Unfortunately, a few things happened. First of all, McCain quickly lost the popularity he had originally had when he worked with Ted Kennedy on an amnesty bill. Tancredo got off to a horrible start thanks to his one-issue campaign (immigration), Hunter got too little endorsements, Brownback was too little known outside of Kansas, and Ron Paul was a libertarian running for a conservative party. So with all the "true" conservatives out of the race, we settled back and waited for Fred Thompson. Since the rightwingers were planning to vote for the man who wasn't running yet, Giuliani and Romney leaped to the top. That was our biggest mistake. Because Thompson was going to announce in February. Then March. Then April. Then May. Then June. And finally, when he announced in September, he had lost much of his momentum. And then... he flopped. He had virtually no charisma, was boring, and looked awkward. The conservatives grew disillusioned. Many knew that he had no chance in a runoff against the charismatic Hillary or Obama. Then, a miracle happened. A small unknown Southern Baptist preacher-turned-governor started putting on steam. I had been following Huckabee since he announced, and for the longest time he had no support (most didn't know who he was). But suddenly, a surge of evangelical Christians brought him into the spotlight. And thanks to his FairTax (and Romney's abortion flip-flop and Giuliani's social liberalism), the smooth talking Bible thumping preacher began to get looks from the conservatives. Soon, they had put him second to, and then in front of, Rudy Giuliani.

The caucuses and primaries

Well, it began with a bang. Huckabee did the unthinkable and took Iowa with 34%. Everyone suddenly began considering Huckabee as a legitimate candidate. Romney came back with a huge victory in... Wyoming. And then in New Hampshire, John McCain pulled off another upset. Michigan put Romney back in the spotlight. By now, it was obvious that it was a four man race: Huckabee, Romney, McCain, and Giuliani as a longshot. But McCain then took the strongly evangelical South Carolina, bringing the attention onto his campaign again and led to him being dubbed, "The Comeback Kid". Huckabee fired back with another win in Louisiana. Florida came, but Giuliani's lack of early campaigning as well as Charlie Crist's endorsement of McCain did him in, with McCain winning Florida. Then, Super Tuesday arrived.

Huckabee pulled off yet another surprise in West Virginia. But it wasn't enough, and all Huckabee did was manage to steal Romney votes and help McCain win the nomination. Romney promptly dropped out, and McCain virtually sealed the nomination.

So what happened?

Well, a few things. First of all, we were too enthralled with Fred. If we had looked at some of the other candidates (Romney didn't look so bad towards the end, but was ridiculed as a liberal in the beginning), perhaps when Fred flopped we could have had another choice. Second, we shouldn't have been so quick to jump on Huckabee's bandwagon. I admit that it was probably mostly the fault of us evangelicals, who heard the words "Southern Baptist preacher" and started wearing Huckabee 2008 pins. So basically, next time we need to see the bigger picture.

Dear Mike and Rudy:

I sit here on the eve of Super Tuesday and I, the Charming Conservative, ask myself over and over and over again, "How did this happen?" How is it possible that the Grand Old Party, the GOP, the republican party of which I have always been an extremely proud card carrying member has made John McCain frontrunner for the GOP nomination? How is it possible that a man so despised by the base of his party has managed to earn frontrunner status?

Oh, there are a number of theories. It all came down to Florida didn't it? That state where after the 2000 election I proclaimed to my husband he could just forget about ever retiring to. No I told him I could never live in a state that in one fell swoop tried to undermine our nation's entire system of elections and shift the power away from the people to the courts. Yes, I've been annoyed with Florida ever since 2000 and then when that same state allowed Terri Schiavo to be murdered by her ex-husband in 2005 well that was just the icing on the cake. The subject was closed and we weren't ever moving to Florida. And then came the Florida primary.

Let's face it John McCain had already been crowned GOP frontrunner even before the Florida primary by the mainstream media and those pesky independent voters in the early primaries. So when January 29th finally arrived, I hoped against hope that the closed primary in Florida would mean advantage Romney. Even if Romney managed to win by only a point or two, I wanted to stop McCain from heading into Super Tuesday saying that he was the choice not just of independent voters and the media but of the republican party as well. And things looked pretty good for Romney in Florida until McCain dropped a little zinger the weekend prior to the vote misrepresenting –no lying about- Romney's position on Iraq war timetables. Romney demanded an apology but it was too late particularly when nearly simultaneously Governor Crist went against his word that he would let the Florida voters vote and endorsed McCain. Many people say that endorsements don't matter but with John McCain the Crist endorsement mattered. McCain went on to beat Romney in Florida---- he did't trounce him like Obama did Hillary in North Carolina. No McCain won by just 5 points with 36% to Romney's 31%. But sadly it was enough.

And then the unthinkable – who said there was no good television this year because of that writer's strike ---you, Mr. Giuliani, can I call you Rudy? You endorsed John McCain that very next day after Florida. Shame on you-- shame on you Rudy for endorsing McCain before Super Tuesday with Arnold Schwarzenegger following right on your heels. It seemed so wrong. It made your entire campaign look like a farce. It made me wonder if your so called Florida strategy had been designed all along to help your good friend John gain momentum for the nomination while you allowed your own position as last summer's frontrunner to freefall and did nothing to stop it. Rumor has it that Fred Thompson may endorse John McCain but will not do so before Super Tuesday. For that I applaud him.

Prior to Fred Thompson finally joining the race all too late last fall, you Rudy had been my first choice but you never showed up. You seemed to be running from the race for President instead of in it. In the post game analysis I heard you were frightened by Romney's money in Iowa. Then frightened once again by the bogus media scandal over your prior accounting & security practices and with Bernie Kerik back in the headlines you ran from New Hampshire. You did campaign hard in Florida but it was evident long before the vote that your eggs in one basket strategy had failed. I want to know Rudy what did John promise you and more importantly when? Some say it's a VP nod. I'm thinking more Attorney General. So yes, Rudy, I'm annoyed with you. Your performance as Mayor of New York City was commendable and you were, are, and always shall be an American hero; nevertheless, I am now really for the first time ever disappointed in you. You have said your supporters were overlapping with Senator McCain's and so it seems you were right as current polls indicate your support has shifted mostly to McCain.

And then there's also ran Mike Huckabee. Mr. Huckabee, you refuse to let these republican primaries be a two-man race knowing that you cannot win. Even John Edwards had the grace to let the democrats have same on the other side of the aisle. Too bad Mr Huckabee you don't have that same sense of grace. And so I have to wonder again Mr. Huckabee what it was that John McCain has promised you since it's clear you are remaining in this race solely as spoiler to Mitt Romney. Looking just today at the state by state polls, there is no doubt Romney would have a better chance of pulling it out on Super Tuesday were it not for the persistent presence of Mike Huckabee. Mr. Hucakbee, the time is now to let your party have a clear choice. The times are just too critical and it has become obvious that were there no Mike Huckabee in this race we would already have had very different outcomes in South Carolina and Florida.

So Rudy when you didn't show up in the race and when Fred Thompson dropped out I embraced Mitt Romney. Romney was doing better and better in debates finally feeling comfortable in his own skin. And as the economy moved to the forefront (since yes the surge is working) I believed this too had to help Romney over the self described weak on economy John McCain. It didn't. So here we are one day before Super Tuesday and what we have is a GOP frontrunner who seemingly earned that status by dividing and conquering his own party. How did he do it? The answer is quite simple really. He did it with the help of his good buds Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee.

And so on Super Tuesday, I am hoping against hope that Romney will benefit from the wrath of conservatives like me. Mark my words Senator McCain may have found a way to win my party's nomination without conservative voters, but I dare him to try to win without us in November. My liberal friend jfxgillis has coined the phrase that names a new movement – "ABM!" – Anyone But Mccain! And with that drumbeat ringing in my ears this Tuesday, Super Tuesday, I will walk into that voting booth and proudly pull the lever for the former Governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Mitt Romney.

Sincerely,

LISAED
The Charming Conservative

According to Yahoo News (a breaking story it won't allow me to seed), Rudy Giuliani is in talks to possibly endorse John McCain.

The loss in South Carolina has had a big impact on Mike Huckabee -- and the reporters covering his campaign. His team has begun to cut back on spending, and the traveling press corps now has to find its own travel arrangements. They may not need to follow him to Florida, either:

And so we come to Florida for the ultimate clarification, much as Rudy Giuliani predicted. Can John McCain win a race that includes only Republican voters? Can Mike Huckabee win another state at all? Can Mitt Romney parlay his financial advantage to victory in a state not predisposed to support him? Will Fred Thompson even bother to campaign?

Fred Thompson supporters are being asked to register their opinions on who they'll support if Fred drops out. As of this posting, Romney is way ahead.

This blog posting asks Fred supporters where they will go if, as it appears, he withdraws from the race following his weak third place finish in SC. . Interesting reading. This, of course, is not a scientific survey, but it's obvious that for many of them, Mitt is the obvious choice, even if Thompson endorses McCain.

All of the Republican candidates, with the exception of Romney, are broke. What money they have left they are deploying in South Carolina and Florida and hoping that the results there will enable them to raise more money to compete in the February 5th Super Tuesday contests.

Looks like there is some interesting political terrorism going on in South Carolina these days. There is a push polling company with a lot of questionable activities doing push polling for Republican candidate Mike Huckabee against Fred Thompson. Fred must be making him nervous!

Go Fred Go!

Huckabee has been complaining for two weeks about negative attacks from Romney, Thompson, the Club for Growth, etc. Now his supporters are using dirty tricks to attack Romney and Thompson and the SC prosecutor has been asked to prosecute the robo-calls, which are against the law in SC.

NRO's The Corner Blog reports that Huckabee's supporters are resorting to dirty tricks against Fred. They're getting desperate, folks.

Last week, Fred Thompson hit Huckabee on the national smoking ban, and now the Preacher has changed his mind on the issue. First it was immigration, then dealing with terrorists, now smoking. And Romney's supposed to be the flip-flopper!

Mike Huckabee will be the GOP candidate. Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination. Ron Paul will not run as a Constitutionalist or Libertarian. These are just some of the radical predictions I have in store for you.

Republican Nomination

Huckabee - Most probable nominee

Mike Huckabee will be the 2008 GOP nominee. He's got the momentum. He's got Iowa, and a strong showing in New Hampshire for what he did there. He'll easily win South Carolina unless Thompson turns on the steam. And his folksy, down-to-earth style will destroy any opposition. Even if he doesn't win, he has a good chance at getting the VP nod from Giuliani, McCain, or Romney (they need an aw shucks guy to help win the rural vote).

Giuliani - Sick, dying, dead

Giuliani meanwhile has adopted the wrong strategy. He thinks that winning everything on Super Duper Tuesday will be enough. But it won't. Because he'll have to win it first. And since he's been ranking next to Ron Paul in the early debates, he has zero momentum. Maybe even negative. Add that to the fact that he's starting to get boring (while Huckabee is all fresh) and all the scandals are coming out, and he's almost dead. So because everyone thinks he'll lose, the city will vote Romney or McCain and the country will vote Huckabee. Giuliani's only hope is in a strong Florida victory, after which he'll have a small chance to win Super Duper Tuesday.

Thompson - Done for

Fred Thompson did better when he wasn't running than he is now. Simple fact. All the conservative bloggers and journalists in the world can't help him. He's out and out boring. Look, I think he's the best candidate on the issues. But he's got no chance convincing anyone that he's the right man, unless he picks up real steam. And I know he did a "good" job last night, but that's not what I'm talking about. He needs real charisma (and maybe some anti-monotone lessons).

Romney - Longshot

Romney is almost completely done for. His flip flopping (whether true or not), health care, and immigration got him into trouble. See, he thinks money can buy everything. But it can't buy him first place in Iowa (especially when Mike Huckabee, penniless a few months ago, won) or New Hampshire (anyone remember the Newsvine story about John McCain's near-bankruptcy?). He won "silver" both times. But for the amount of work he put in, he should have gotten first. Except that the voters didn't like him. And he can't campaign like that on Super Duper Tuesday. Simply put, Romney is next to dead.

McCain - Longshot getting shorter

John McCain. He was almost bankrupt six months ago. Yet when he won New Hampshire a few days ago, he suddenly looked like he could come out of the McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy "scandals" that hurt him so badly early on. Now McCain needs to immediately capitalize on his New Hampshire win with a couple more. If he can, we may see him in the White House after all.

Paul - Dead on arrival

Look, we all know Ron Paul has a huge internet following. But you can't turn that into a huge electoral following. Especially if you're a libertarian running for a conservative (moving left) party. So Ron Paul will lose.

Democratic Nomination

Hillary - Most probably nominee

Yes, we all know Obama is coming on strong. But as the Economist pointed out, Obama needed everything to go right. That includes New Hampshire. And everything didn't go right. So while Obama is still in the race, I'll put my money that the gender card will trump the race card in 2008.

Obama - Chance, but lost NH

Obama won Iowa and everyone thought he'd take off from there. He was expected to win New Hampshire easily, and with those two in the bag, sweep on to take the rest of the primaries. But Hillary started sobbing, and Obama lost New Hampshire. This will set him back quite a lot.

Edwards - Super longshot

Look Mr. I-hate-all-corporations-in-the-world. We know you want to become president. But even your wife admitted that "We can't make [him] black, we can't make him a woman". And that's why you won't be accepting the Democrat nomination.

Third-party nominations

OK, no one really cares about the Constitutionalist, Libertarian, or Green Parties. There are only three candidates anyone cares about. Ron Paul will decide very carefully about running. In the end, I think he'll decide that a moderate conservative is better than letting a socialist get into office. It will also depend on who it is. If it's Huckabee, he might consider it. If it's Giuliani or Romney, I think he'll definitely not run.

Mike Bloomberg is different. He's an Independent, which means he doesn't really love the Republican Party that much. But since he's been pretty mum about it, there's not a huge chance he'll run.

Lastly, Ralph Nader will run. He called Hillary "a panderer and a flatterer." He never said no. He'll be in the Green Party Presidential Debates. And the Green Party is trying to draft him.

Presidential Run-off

Huckabee and Hillary will square off with a bang. Hillary will take the urban vote, Huckabee the rural vote. But Huckabee's honesty (whether real or feigned) will triumph over Hillary's political maneuvering. If it was Giuliani who ran against Hillary, it would be a whole different story. Both would fight to see whether Giuliani was corrupt or if Hillary was a maneuvering politician. If Obama won, he'd probably win the presidency against Giuliani. Against Huckabee... I couldn't make a prediction. Ralph Nader will receive less than 1% of the vote. Ron Paul will also receive a few write-ins if he doesn't run, and a small percentage of the vote if he does.

Oh, and look for Newt Gingrich as a vice-presidential candidate. Especially if Mike Huckabee is elected.

MYRTLE BEACH, S.C., Jan. 10 -- The leading Republican presidential candidates used a Fox News debate Thursday night to draw contrasts with their rivals on the economy, U.S. relations with Iran, immigration and political change in advance of two primaries next week that are expected to winnow the field.

In their last televised meeting before critical contests in Michigan and South Carolina, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney accused Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) of pessimism about the nation's economy for saying that some outsourced jobs are never coming back to hard-hit communities. "I'm going to fight for every single job," Romney said in the opening moments of the debate.

McCain responded by saying that he was offering the kind of "straight talk" that voters appreciate, and that the government is obligated to help laid-off workers through a "rough patch" by offering training and other programs. But he did not back off, saying that "there are some jobs that aren't coming back to Michigan. There are some jobs that won't come back here to South Carolina."

Moments later, former senator Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.) lashed out at former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, charging the winner of the Iowa caucuses with a litany of conservative heresies, including supporting taxpayer-funded programs for illegal immigrants, a smoking ban and liberal economic policies, as well as opposing school vouchers.

"So much for federalism," an animated Thompson said. "So much for states' rights. So much for individual rights."

Huckabee, who is jousting with Thompson and McCain in South Carolina for a victory in the nation's first Southern primary on Jan. 19, dismissed the accusations. "If you're not catching flak, you're not over the target," he said. "I'm catching flak; I must be over the target

It is pretty much the general consensus that Fred Thompson won the debate in South Carolina last night.

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters:

"Who put the vitamins in Fred Thompson's oatmeal? We have waited for Thompson to show up on the campaign trail, and tonight he finally did. He had energy, focus, a command of detail, and a willingness to finally engage with the other candidates on the stage. He took almost everyone else aback, and seized momentum that he only occasionally relinquished."

NBC's Chuck Todd writes:

Fred Thompson was funny, biting and energetic. Easily, his smoothest performance...

From The Moderate Voice:

THOMPSON lived up to his advance hype in this one. Finally. Endearing, witty and sharp.

The New York Times:

But it was Mr. Thompson's performance, in which he shook off the laid-back style that has defined his candidacy, that provided some of the liveliest moments of the debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C..

Peter Robinson at National review Online said:

Thompson need only sustain this performance for a couple of days before votes, and money, start moving in his direction. But tonight the one consistent and authentic conservative in this race made himself the man to watch. When Fred roars, he roars."

The question is: will Fred's performance result in a bounce for him or a win for McCain? There is a few that think it is the latter.

The idea goes, if Fred can peel a some voters away from Huckabee to him, it doesn't hurt McCain, who is leading in South Carolina. Fred would have to really make up some ground to catch, let alone pass McCain in South Carolina primary. But it is possible this debate could lead to just that result.

It was not that long ago that Fred was the leader in the Palmetto state. And considering the polling debacle that happened in New Hampshire, I wouldn't be surprised to see Fred win there.

If Fred is going to pull this off, he has got to not only tear Huckabee down for his liberal tendencies, but attack McCain for his. Go after the McCain/Kennedy amnesty plan. Go after McCain/Feingold. Go after the fact that McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts, not because of a lack of spending cuts, but because of the same class warfare reasons the liberals did.

Thompson's campaign is far from dead. He has picked up a lot of endorsements recently, and is supposedly getting a big endorsement today. Fred's performance in last night's debate is just what he needed to do to revive the energy people had when they drafted him I think Fred's performance helped him more than it helped McCain, but that is dependent on how he builds on it.

Voters say they want a substantial debate of the issues and the candidate's proposed solutions. Yet, the minute a serious discussion commences, eyes glaze over and the subject is changed. Many people apply about as much thought to their vote for President as they do to selecting their favorite breakfast cereal. Fred Thompson, despite the fact that he is an accomplished actor, and could simply try to parlay that fact into a successful campaign in this star-struck culture, trusts the average American to engage his or her brain in tackling the issues facing our country.

When Fred's frank, intelligent, common-sense approach is allowed to actually filter down to the people, a level of respect is instantly earned and a bond is formed. Unfortunately, the media believes that candidates should come kowtowing to them for the mere privilege of having access to the airwaves and print media.

Fred Thompson's political views are firmly rooted in his conservative "core principles". During a recent interview, this fact completely baffled PBS's Charlie Rose when he posed a question as to what being a conservative means today. Fred answered, "It means things that are consistent with God's design for man, it's consistent with human nature, it's consistent with the lessons of history, the lessons of ages. They found form in the Constitution I think and what our Founding Fathers believed. They understood that man can do great and wonderful things, but man is prone to error and sometimes do terrible things. That too much power in too few hands is a dangerous thing. That power is a corrupting thing."

An excellent presentation of Fred Thompson's strengths, conservative principles, and issue positions with a one-paragraph summary on each of these GOP candidates: Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Rudolph Guiliani.

Ultimately, when we make up our minds we should think about the qualities the candidate would bring to the Oval Office--and not just whether or not they would make a good candidate.

Those who know me know I am conservative. They know I am charming and they know I do not like Mike Huckabee because to embrace him would not only be incongruous with my charming conservative persona it would go against my very conscience. We have been watching this surprise rally by Huckabee in Iowa where he stands a very good chance tonight of stealing the caucuses right out from under the early entrenched Romney clan. I listened last night to Iowa voters – many of them evangelicals – who say they like Huckabee primarily because of his family values and his stance on social issues. But if you ask me it seems these all-important evangelical voters are being blinded by the fact that Huckabee was once a Baptist minister. While I think it's nice to know that Huckabee is a God fearing man (and let's face it - I don't see an atheist running for President any time soon) being God fearing alone should simply not be enough for any true conservative voter.

Conservatives outside Iowa are rejecting Huckabee more and more once they get past his ability to turn a warm and fuzzy phrase (which is something I always wished George Bush could do more easily). There's no doubt Huckabee is comfortable in his own skin which is a strong voter attribute for any Presidential candidate. But what about his policy? Come on, conservatives and wake up! Don't let this Baptist Minister fool you! Huckabee's record as governor speaks for itself. He is wrong on taxes. He is wrong on illegal immigration (despite his recent cries to the contrary). He was not all the impressive in the wake of the tragic Bhutto assassination. And Huckabee is so socially conservative that he turned off even this charming GOP voter while listening to his comments regarding homosexuality this past Sunday on Meet The Press.

Another thing I heard over and over again last night but from democratic caucus participants is they want to vote for the candidate who can beat the republicans. The democrats have been down this path before as we saw when they selected John Kerry because they felt he was the most electable particularly after Howard Dean's memorable melt down. The democrats in 04 ran on an "ABB" platform and here in 08 they are still running largely against a man who is no longer even in the race. Yes, electabilty is important but to vote primarily based on "electability" seems somehow misguided to me. Nevertheless, and on the flip side – I will use this "electability" criteria in determining who I will NOT vote for in my primary. I will not vote for Mike Huckabee in my primary #1 because I believe he is no conservative (other than on social issues) and #2 because he can not win the national election. I keep hoping that the pundits are right that Huckabee is but a media creation and that he will quietly go away after this anamoly that is Iowa. Does anyone else think it's strange that the media is enamored with an even-more-than-George-Bush overtly religious candidate? The answer is quite simple and mirrors exactly the reasons why I won't vote for him: he is no conservative and he cannot win the national election.

And so it seems there is only one thing that is certain this time around and that is at this very moment on the eve of the Iowa caucuses there is no sense of inevitability on either side of the aisle. I do believe an inevitable candidate will emerge more quickly on the democrat side with a longer fight to inevitability on the republican side. And while Hillary may lose in Iowa, I still believe she will become the eventual democratic candidate. But just what will happen on the GOP side continues to be anyone's guess. In Iowa no doubt it will be Huckabee or Romney. In New Hampshire I see McCain with a better than average chance which means the GOP will move on to South Carolina, Florida, and Super Tuesday with nearly an open playing field.

But this nagging question on just who to vote for this time around in my primary has been haunting me and haunting me. And now I have my answer. It's once again a simple answer, really. Voters of Iowa, voters of the United States of America, it is time to pick our President….the time is now…..be not afraid….listen to that little voice inside you and by all means vote your conscience--vote not just for the candidate who can win but for the candidate who most closely represents both your values AND positions on the major issues of our day (no easy task to be sure). So while I have reached my answer what about the rest of you? I turn once again to you my fellow viners and I ask you to please participate in my LISAED poll. Tell me what will be the key driver of your primary vote – will it be your conscience or will it be electabilty? As always I thank you for sharing your opinions with me and Happy New Year! 2008 for better or worse is finally here!

My name is Lisa. And I approve this message. (thanks, epi!)

Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson today questioned whether political reporters covering the race for the White House have enough ambition for the job.

"Most of these journalists seem to lack what you might call fire in the belly," said the former Tennessee senator. "When's the last time you read an in-depth story about what the presidential hopefuls actually believe, or have accomplished? How often have you seen a reporter place a candidate's views in the context of the Constitution, the sweep of American history, the intricacies of global geopolitics, economic theory or even basic political philosophy?"

Mr. Thompson said most reporting on the race fits one of three categories:
1) Results of the latest opinion poll.
2) Embarrassing gaffes and nasty remarks.
3) Reaction to one of the above.

"I'm not sure if it's laziness, lack of ambition, or just apathy," said Mr. Thompson, "But the American people need to know that the reporters whom they entrust with this solemn responsibility have a burning desire to fulfill the obligations of the Fourth Estate. That means you need to hustle, do your homework, ask tough questions about significant issues, put quotations in context, filter out your own natural bias, and place more value on accuracy than on speed, more on integrity than on your own petty celebrity."

After making the remarks at a news conference, the candidate, who's running third or fourth among Republicans in most polls, refused to answer reporters' questions about his reaction to Mike Huckabee's attacks on Mitt Romney.

I've finally come up with a tentative endorsement for the next president of the United States.  If you would have asked me a year ago if I thought I would still be undecided just days away from the Iowa Caucus I would have probably laughed.  We had good candidates testing the waters and other good candidates waiting in the back drop.  But here we are.

If there is time to 'vote your conscience' then obviously it's during a primary match-up.  It requires a combination of selecting a candidate who can change the Party in the direction you want it to go and win in the general election.

And there is a third facet which so many adhere to above all others:  selecting the person who you personally like the most, who shares most of your views or who makes you feel good, with no regard to the Party, the election, the office or the potential of the candidate.

One of my trademark sayings is "idealism is fine until it butts heads with reality".  If you aren't prepared to deal with reality when conducting this sacred exercise than what are you really expecting to accomplish?

There were over 120 million votes cast in the 2004 presidential election.  You are not casting a vote for your own little island, even if somewhere in your childhood you were convinced that this were so.  Supporting a candidate is of course done with some element of the personal involved; however, it shouldn't be all personal.  There is a difference between voting with your heart and voting with your head.

One of the more tiring buzz-terms that gets recycled every election year is the adage of voting for the lesser of two evils.  It's an ignorant claim made by hyper-cynical people who think the path to enlightenment requires an outsider mentality.  That argument could be made when there are no good choices or contrasting choices but the reality is that both sides (and especially the Republicans) aren't suffering from not enough good choices but rather from too many good choices.   That doesn't relegate me to making a painful choice between two evils.  And when the Republican takes on the Democrat in November, I will have a clear choice between a candidate who will move the country in the direction I want it to go and a candidate who will move the country in the opposite direction.  

It's not about choosing the lesser of two evils; it's about making the best choice. 

And here is my rundown, my countdown if you will:

8. Alan Keyes:  out of the question.  I don't have much more to say.  The guy is certifiable and an embarrassment to the Party.

7. Ron Paul:  out of the question.  A likable guy?  Yes.  Do I share some of his political philosophy? Yes.  But nutty as a fruitcake and supported by many of the worst elements in society.  He has been an ineffective political leader and has no chance of winning the primary or the general election.  If he miraculously accomplished both, he would face obstruction from both parties.  He is a disaster in every sense of the word.  I most likely would not support Ron Paul in the general election.

6. Duncan Hunter:  I like Duncan Hunter.  A lot.  But he was never a real candidate and I'm not going to give my support to someone who is not in to win.

5. Mike Huckabee:  doesn't excite me.  I have problems with some of his platform but in the general election, I would see him as the candidate that keeps the country on track.  I wouldn't support him in the primary however because I don't think he could win in November.

4. Mitt Romney:  I was very interested in Romney in the beginning.  He never really connected with me and his campaign has unfortunately been held hostage under the shadow of his religion.   I do like him however and think that he has a knack for getting things done.  I would be happy to support him in November.  But again, I think winning in November would be a steep uphill climb for him.

3. Fred Thompson:  I like Fred, I think he would make a good president.  I'm sorry that his campaign didn't catch fire like some of us thought it might when he joined in the race.  He is great when he is on target and when he exercised that charming and sharp, no-nonsense Southern wit of his.   He is a solid conservative.  But he has to campaign like he wants it and I don't think he's convinced enough voters that he does.  I would enthusiastically support him in the general, but his campaign would have to light a fire under him if he would expect to beat any of the Big Three Democrats.

And finally, the problem I face:  who am I going to back for the Republican nomination in the weeks to come?  I'm split almost 50-50 between these two guys and I'm truly torn.

Both of them have solid and patriotic political backgrounds.   Both have records they can boast.  Both are icons in the post-911 conflict.  Both support winning.  Both have the right economic vision.  Both have run good campaigns.  And either of them could very realistically win in November.  

2. Rudy Giuliani:  I've always liked Giuliani.  I think he deserves the Republican nomination.  As recently as last week I have been telling people that he would be my guy.  He's an effective politician and I have yet to see any real counter against the miraculous turn around of New York City, the nation's largest and at the time, more troubling cities.  He left an undeniable positive impact on the city.  He boasts his accomplishments as he should.  While a Hillary Clinton slogan is that she has always cared about children, Giuliani's slogan is that abortions decreased and adoptions increased under his leadership.  He, unlike some his Republican rivals and virtually all of his Democratic rivals, has real and undeniable results he can point to.  And yes, despite opponents to Giuliani's insistence that it's limited or inconsequential, his leadership on 9/11 is a valuable asset to his campaign.  How a leader acts in the face of the unfathomable should have an immeasurable weight on how we assess that candidate.

1. And finally, my support for the next president goes to John McCain.  A year ago McCain would have been near my 'out of the question' level because the man has done some things to infuriate me.  But in hindsight I have to give him credit:  some of the things I thought he was wrong on...he proved himself right.  He was wrong on opposing the Bush tax cuts but he was right on opposing them on the grounds that they didn't include spending cuts.  That should be reassuring to conservatives.

I was angry over the 'Gang of 14' stunt - but in the end, he was proven right.  He got the Democrats to back off while preserving the filibuster.

I thought he was wrong on his insistence that greater force was the answer in Iraq.  This summer's troop surge in the war that Harry Reid dubbed "lost" nine months ago proves McCain right.

Despite the rhetoric surrounding Ron Paul, John McCain is the true fiscal conservative.  He has been a fighter against government waste, rejects earmarks and opposes agricultural subsidies.

McCain was obviously wrong on campaign finance reform and I believe him when he acknowledges it as a mistake. 

The biggest problem I have with McCain is his position on interrogations.  I'm not going to even try to question or challenge his perspective on torture (and very of us should) - though I don't agree with his view on waterboarding.   But I don't think any leader in Washington at a time like this should be advertising our intelligence gathering techniques or limitations.   

To put the icing on the cake, McCain is the only Republican candidate who polls with the best chance of defeating each of the Democratic candidates.  RealClearPolitics national poll averages shows that he is the only candidate who beats Hillary.  He ties Obama and he is within a few points of Edwards.  He would be a more legitimate Commander-in-Chief in that he has served (and then some) and has two sons currently serving overseas.  I say legitimate in that it would end the 'chickenhawk' rants once and for all.  He has name recognition and has run the cleanest and most stately campaigns of all of the candidates - he is often the straightest talker on divisive issues and has been a gentleman throughout the campaign.

John McCain walks softly and carries a big stick.

So there you have it.  It's not to say that I may be swept with an urge to pull for Giuliani as I'm approaching the polling booth, but as of now, my support and my money are with John McCain, the next president of the United States. 

Fred's tour bus in Waterloo and Waverly Iowa.
Washington (The Weekly Standard) Vol. 013, Issue 16 - 12/31/2007

When the door to the bus swings open, Thompson's wife, Jeri, emerges first. She skips down the stairs and thrusts her hand toward the first person she sees. "Hi, I'm Jeri Thompson," she says cheerfully, offering a warm smile. Fred follows her lead. As he lumbers toward the door of the newspaper's headquarters, he makes small talk with those who have come to see him. He is cordial, even friendly, but his wife outshines him.

After a quick meeting with the staff of the newspaper, Thompson climbs aboard the bus for the four-block drive to the gleaming new building that houses the fire department. He and Jeri walk down the line of firemen assembled to greet him. When someone presents him with a fireman's helmet to wear for a photo-op, Thompson holds the helmet away from him to get a good look at it and laughs. "I've got a silly-hat rule that I'm about to violate," he says, raising it toward his head before thinking better of it. "I ain't gonna do it," he says, laughing.

"I'll put it on," Jeri says with a wide grin. "I'll be the good sport. I get lots of points for this, guys." And indeed she did; the firemen laughed along with her as they posed for pictures.

Transcript of a 7 question interview with Fred Thompson with National Journal On Air today.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani has fallen 13 points since November and is now tied with Mitt Romney nationally in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released on Wednesday.

According to the poll, Giuliani and the former Massachusetts governor are tied with 20 percent support among Republican primary voters.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee was in third place with 17 percent support, followed by Arizona Sen. John McCain at 14 percent and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson at 11 percent, the poll found.

Giuliani had been the clear leader in all previous NBC/Journal polls and led the field with 33 percent support in the survey last month.

Well Bodhi1, you finally convinced me. Mike Huckabee has officially shown himself to be too liberal on fiscal issues. Plus the illegal immigration question. So, I will not vote for Mike Huckabee in the primaries. I could still see myself voting for him in the presidential election if he got the nomination, but not the primaries. But who will I vote for? I think my answer may surprise you.

Why I picked him

OK, we already know that Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Alan Keyes have no chance. At this point, they should just drop out. Ron Paul is wonderful on fiscal issues, but is downright scary on foreign ones. And he has no chance anyway. Mitt Romney would be great if he believed everything he claimed to believe. But he's so flip-floppy that there's no chance that he would be my candidate. John McCain... ticked me off eight years ago. He also has a very small chance of getting the nomination. Then there's Fred Thompson. He's a wonderful guy. He's closest to my beliefs. However, he needs a miracle. He's, in a word, boring. Sure, conservatives have been telling us how he just had his "Reagan moment" in Iowa. But Reagan had charisma. Thompson... doesn't. Huckabee... I've already explained why I don't love him anymore. Though he's my third favorite behind Thompson and my candidate. That leaves one candidate.

My candidate

Now, I could see myself voting for every one of these guys in the presidential race (except Ron Paul). But there's a candidate who's better than every one of them, in my opinion. That's why I now support my former mayor, Rudolph Giuliani. Now, many conservatives are firmly against him. But why? OK, he was mayor of a city that favored illegal immigrants. First, he wasn't completely for them. Second, New York City is one of the most liberal cities in the world. And third, have any of the other frontrunners done any better? Also, he's pro-choice. But at least he wouldn't mind overturning Roe v. Wade. Guns?

I'm a strict constructionist, or I try to be. The Second Amendment is about as clear as it can be. It gives people the individual right to bear arms. I agree with that. I think that is a correct interpretation. That means that any restrictions have to be reasonable. And those restrictions largely have to do with criminal background, background of mental illness, and they should basically be done on the state-by-state level. And that's the guidelines that I would use in dealing with it as president.

Fiscally though, the guy shines. He's got a wonderful record on fiscal matters (cut taxes by $5.4B). Yeah, maybe he doesn't love the FairTax. At least he wants to get rid of a lot of other taxes.

Also, you gotta love his experience. Hillary's crises leading consists of her "wonderful leadership" through the Rochester hostages. Giuliani led his city through a terrorist attack. No other candidate comes close.

And look at his record on crime. Crime fell 56% while he was in office.

Conclusion

Rudy Giuliani looks like he'd make a great president. He's got the leadership, he has the experience, he has most of the right ideas. And if he gets the nomination, who knows? Maybe Mike Huckabee will become his VP. A Southerner from Arkansas who is a social conservative and a liberal fiscal, and a Northerner from New York who's a social liberal and a conservative fiscal. Who knows?

And your top concern is that he is "lazy" enough to drive around in a golf cart?

Thompson's plan emphasizing border security and opposition to amnesty also stands in stark contrast to McCain and Huckabee's weaknesses on illegal immigration. And unlike the other candidates, most notably Huckabee, Thompson reassuringly has extensive foreign policy experience, and identifies national security as his top priority in light of the greater war against expansionist Islamic radicalism.

In light of Mike Huckabee's heartfelt apology to Mitt Romney for making reference to Romney's religion in the New York Times Magazine, we at the Thompson Campaign would like to offer Huckabee our own heartfelt apologies for some references we've made about his record as Governor of Arkansas.
We apologize for pointing out that as Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee offered in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. That's something he'd probably just as soon no one talk about.

I've been wanting to do a sort of guide to the candidates, especially since the primaries are coming up soon. So, I've now finally stopped procrastinating and have started a little series (which you can follow at the 2008-election-predictions tag). Up this week: a conclusion with some thoughts.

The candidates: What sets 'em apart and what doesn't

Many of the candidates are pretty similar on their overall views. Most (claim to) favor keeping the troops in Iraq, making sure Iran doesn't get nukes, privatizing Social Security, wealthcare, and healthcare, securing the border, Second Amendment rights, and lowering taxes. However, there's certainly things that set them apart. Mike Huckabee favors personalization over privatization for Social Security. Mitt Romney believes in private accounts. Rudy Giuliani favors private and homeschooled options as well as public. Mitt Romney believes that we should just reform our public schools. Ron Paul completely opposes the Iraq War, while almost every other candidate supports it. Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee both were lenient for illegal immigrants already in their territories, while Fred Thompson would like to end sanctuary cities forever. And so forth and so on.

One issue candidates?

Each of the six candidate mentioned have their own specific issues that they like to focus on. Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani would like you to look past their liberal leanings on social issues and instead concentrate on their fiscal record. Mike Huckabee on the other hand plays up his Southern Baptist side on abortion. Fred Thompson wants to cut government programs. John McCain points to his strong foreign policy experience. And Ron Paul... is a libertarian. There's a reason why most Christians are voting Huckabee 2008, Thompson, Giuliani, and Romney have equally divided the fiscal vote, and Ron Paul has all the constitutionalists, libertarians, and a lot of the right-wing independents on his side.

My Predictions

Right now, Rudy Giuliani is the main guy to beat. But Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney aren't far behind. Both are competing madly for Iowa. The winner in Iowa will most likely become Giuliani's main competitor. That race is currently too hard to call at this point. Romney just made a huge Mormonism speech, but Mike Huckabee is on fire. Right now, John McCain and Fred Thompson are basically out unless they make some phenomenal speech or win a crucial debate (neither of which is likely to happen). And Ron Paul? The thing with him is that he's a libertarian running as a Republican. I know a lot of people on the web think he can win the presidential election, but he won't even have a chance in the primaries. He's too libertarian and gets a little over-excited (enough to be termed radical, which will drive away voters).

New Newsweek Poll of Iowa Voters

The new Newsweek poll of Iowa voters showed Barack Obama has quietly negotiated his way into a slim lead there while Mike Huckabee had taken former frontrunner Mitt Romney behind the woodshed, given him a good whipping and taken the mantle of frontrunner from him while racking up a 22 percentage point advantage.

I have been touting Mike Huckabee for months as at the beginning of this race I saw him as the only good campaigner that had bona fides as a conservative. His two rivals that have a money and fame advantage on him, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, have both been far too liberal on social issues for Republican primary voters to swallow. Huckabee's star started to rise at a county fair in the middle of this year where the campaigns were allowed to pay people and bus them in from all over Iowa to vote in the fair's straw poll. Romney won, but not as convincingly as he should have given how much of his personal funds as well as campaign funds he put into the contest. Huckabee, however, spend nearly no money and finished a surprising second. However, Huckabee's biggest break to date, in my opinion, was the CNN/YouTube debate. He had no major slip-ups or mistakes and came out of it with several memorable quotes. I believe this gave Huckabee the kind of nationwide media exposure he needed to be compared with his major rivals, Romney & Giuliani, and he compared very favorably. The debate was very much Romney's to lose while Huckabee was gambling with house money. Romney then proceeded to stumble and bumble his way through multiple discussions about conservative social values, only giving a credible answer on the question of abortion. Christian conservatives were also listening loud and clear when Romney labeled the Bible as the Word of God rather than 100% literally true. Huckabee has been beset by two strikes at his image this week in the wake of momentum shifting in his direction. He is likely to experience more attacks now that he is the confirmed frontrunner in Iowa with a 22 percentage point lead over Romney. The one charge that could hurt him is his involvement in the parole of a man that viciously raped a cousin of Bill Clinton. Republicans in Arkansas believed the rapist got rough treatment at the hands of then-Governor Clinton so, when Huckabee ascended to the Governor's Mansion, he engineered the man's parole according to a member of the parole board. This charge, if Huckabee cannot talk his way out of it and it dominates the news, could seriously cut into his new-found lead. However, the notion that his position in favor of quarantining AIDS patients is going to hurt him is laughable at best, ignorant and ridiculous at worst. Most conservative Christians consider AIDS a gay disease and gays themselves as persona non-grata. Most conservatives that are dedicated enough to caucus believe that people with AIDS are a threat to them and could not be anyone that they know or love so why would a potential roundup and quarantine of people with AIDS disturb them? Huckabee likely has a week ahead of him that will be filled with questions about the paroling of the rapist that went on to rape and murder another woman in Missouri but my political instincts tell me that now that he has a commanding lead his political skills will allow him to navigate this and only lose a few points on his lead. I'll do another analysis when the next compelling poll(s) come out and the fallout from the rapist & AIDS stories has played out and is more clearly visible.

Barack Obama has finally forged a lead that is outside the margin of error, albeit by one percentage point. However, it is a lead and that is a far cry from what this race was a few months ago. Clinton's strategy then was to portray herself as the inevitable candidate, the savior of the party after 8 years of Bush, and the wife (and crucial partner) of the man that made the Democratic party relevant again after 12 years of Republican rule in the White House. Obama was just this younger guy that was inexperienced and made an ill-advised jump into a contest where he was clearly over-matched. This strategy led Clinton to make the proclamation at the Jackson-Jefferson Dinner in Iowa on November 10th that she would not attack fellow Democrats and that she would be directing her criticism towards those that deserved it: the Republicans. Now, however, things have changed. Obama is starting to pull ahead of her and Hillary has reverted to fighting form, forsaking the high road. She claims that this amounts to defense of herself but she made no caveat that she would attack to defend herself. She simply said that she would discuss the issues and avoid candidates. However, it's pretty clear that after KinderGate, in which her camp dug up an essay written by Obama in his early elementary years about his interest in becoming President and used it to prove he has had his designs on the Oval Office long before Hillary, her campaign is not missing any opportunity to poke holes in Obama's balloon as it rises above Clinton's.

I have backed Obama since before he was running for President and I did that because he reminds me of a young, block Bill Clinton. He is highly intelligent, a brilliant orator and has a knack for raising money and inspiring undying loyalty in his followers. Hillary has changed gears but I predict unless Obama makes a major mistake between now and Jan. 3 that he will be the winner of the Iowa caucus. The man has the money, he has the political skills and now he has what he needed to neutralize Hillary's gender advantage. While Clinton has touted herself as the first woman to be a contender in the race for president, women have come to her side in large numbers. Oprah Winfrey, however, has helped Obama counter this and actually carve out a slight lead in Iowan women that are registered to vote. I don't think Oprah is translating into votes for him so much as she is prying at the woman-woman connection Clinton has forged with these voters. Oprah can get them to take a second look and since women are typically against war, I think that Obama's stance against the Iraq war from Day 1 has carried particular weight among female Democrats that are caucusing and Oprah brings female caucusgoers into the picture that haven't caucused previously. He has finally taken the lead among females in Iowa. I think the campaign made a sly move to have Oprah straightly say that she was not telling caucus members what to think, but simply asking them to listen to Obama and give him a chance to convince them he was the better option than their current choice. This also may help Obama take some support from his spoiler, Senator John Edwards. Since Obama and Edwards are splitting the anti-Clinton vote it has allowed her to appear stronger than she she really is. When one of the two drop out (my money is on Edwards) then I think you will see the other rise by several percentage points as their only realistic option left besides Hillary will be Obama or Edwards.

With regards to all of the candidates the primary season tends to be the time that you want to be peaking. It appears to me that Huckabee and Obama have been able to manage themselves right into the right time of peaking whereas it unfolded thusly for the other contenders:

John Edwards: Edwards peaked early on after he spent every waking moment in Iowa from the time that he lost the Vice Presidential election and has stayed steady or dropped slightly ever since.

Hillary Clinton: Hillary started out very strong once she declared and looked to have a stranglehold on the nomination. She raced up good numbers in polls in the early states as well as good numbers nationwide because of her name recognition as well as the offshoot of her husband's invincibility when it came to beating Republicans. A vote for Hillary was a vote for Bill and the campaign was very hesitant to dissuade that notion.

Mitt Romney: Romney has been beset by problems since the very beginning by garnering the most strong supporters through his money and organization but stalling there essentially. I have seen no real strong movement one way or the other from about the 17 percent range for Romney so unless things change dramatically I don't see him moving past his base support bloc.

Rudy Giuliani: Giuliani is the true wildcard here. He has the type of national image that could vault him in front of Huckabee but he also has a less than stellar record on conservative values including guns, abortion and, the faultline issue, immigration. He is likely the only Republican at this point that could pose Huckabee a serious threat because he has the money, he hasn't equivocated nearly as much as Romney on the issues and he has 9/11 under his belt.

Fred Thompson: With Thompson's sallow cheeks, his new attack dog style attitude that he exhibited at the CNN/YouTube debate, his thinning hair and his oratorical style that could move Rip Van Winkle from sleeping for years into an indefinite coma, a surge by Thompson is pretty unlikely at this point. Conventional wisdom was that he was far more popular before he got into the race because Republicans, dissatisfied with their choices, could project the qualities they wanted their presidential candidate to have onto him. Now that he is actually in the game he has had to outline where he stands on the issues and can no longer be all things to all Republicans. The jig, as they say, is up.

More to come... I'm sure there are plenty of fireworks left. ;-)

And so ends in embarrassing failure the great YouTube Debate Experiment of Election 2008. Which is not to say that it wasn't entertaining, in the same way that David Letterman's "Stupid Human Tricks" sketch is a riot. But as far as revolutionizing the way presidential debates are conducted, taking a question from a Dick Cheney cartoon doesn't exactly measure up to the advent of television.

As a political medium, the YouTube technology is useful for pretty much two things anyway: 1.) Capturing candidates' more telling moments for endless replay to a universal audience; and 2.) giving candidates the ability to speak directly to voters, without the hassle of buying airtime. Those are two very significant developments, and because of them, we can correctly say that politics has entered a "YouTube Age."

The GOP CNN/YouTube debate is now over. Did it change your thoughts? Because it sure changed mine. Personally, I'm going to think more about Giuliani and Thompson and less about Huckabee (though he's still my guy).

In a nutshell: Giuliani shone if he stayed away from social policies like gay marriage and abortion (he did). Huckabee shone if he stayed away from his tax increases as governor (he sorta did). Thompson shone when he got passionate about fiscalism (he sometimes did). McCain... what did he do? Paul may have scared a lotta normal Americans. Romney showed the world that he would have to ask a council before he decided on anything. Anderson Cooper likes to say "time".

NOTE: I didn't include Tancredo or Hunter. If they had done an outstanding job, I would have. But right now, it looks like they have no chance. Sorry. I like both of them. But that's my feeling right now.

NOTE2: This is an opinion article written by a conservative Christian. Please treat as such. No one can be truly unbiased.

Giuliani: I'm taking another look

To me, Giuliani came out the best. And if you don't know me, you have no idea how different that idea is from the ideas I had two days ago. Not that I'd vote for him. Yet. But the man really seems like a strong fiscal conservative. He repeatedly points to the lower taxes New Yorkers saw. In fact he points to a lot of things about New York. Not to mention he's a strong guy on foreign policy.

Even socially, he's not as bad as it sounds (at least he doesn't want to sign an amendment promoting abortion). He's tough on crime. He wants the states to decide on abortion (not as bad as I thought). Of course, he's still going to lose Christian votes. Especially after he said:

Giuliani: I think there are parts of the Bible that are interpretive. I think there are parts of the Bible that are allegorical. I think there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be interpreted in a modern context.

So, yes, I believe it. I think it's the great book ever written. I read it every... frequently. I read it very frequently when I've gone through the bigger crises in my life, and I find great wisdom in it, and it does define to a very large extent my faith. But I don't believe every single thing in the literal sense of Jonah being in the belly of the whale, or, you know, there are some things in it that I think were put there as allegorical.

Hey Rudy, guess what? Some of us Christians actually believe Jonah was in the belly of the whale! That was NOT a good example to pick. He should have done an example like Huckabee ("Go and pluck out your eye"). Despite this, the fact he's not a Christian doesn't bother me as much as other Christians I know.

Still, he does quite a few scandals hanging around (as Romney helpfully pointed out). And on immigration, most of the conservatives are upset with him. Even so, I'm taking another look at my former mayor.

Romney: Say good-bye to Iowa

On the other hand, Romney may have lost his shot at the presidency. Why? The guy dodged questions! A few succinct quotes:

Question: Do you believe every word of this book [HOLDS UP BIBLE]? Specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand, do you believe this book?

Romney: I believe the Bible is the word of God, absolutely. And I try to live by it as well as I can, but I miss in a lot of ways. But it's a guide for my life and for hundreds of millions, billions of people around the world. I believe in the Bible.

Cooper: Does that mean you believe every word?

Romney: You know -- yes, I believe it's the word of God, the Bible is the word of God.

The Bible is the word of God. I mean, I might interpret the word differently than you interpret the word, but I read the Bible and I believe the Bible is the word of God. I don't disagree with the Bible. I try to live by it.

So he said... what? If you can understand what he just said, you're a genius. And then of course, Huckabee gets to answer next. But even worse was a question about gays in the military:

Cooper: Governor Romney, you said in 1994 that you looked forward to the day when gays and lesbians could serve, and I quote, "openly and honestly in our nation's military." Do you stand by that?

Romney: This isn't that time. This is not that time. We're in the middle of a war. The people who have...

Cooper: Do you look forward to that time, though, one day?

Romney: I'm going to listen to the people who run the military to see what the circumstances are like. And my view is that, at this stage, this is not the time for us to make that kind of...

Cooper: Is that a change in your position...

Romney: Yes, I didn't think it would work. I didn't think "don't ask/don't tell" would work. That was my -- I didn't think that would work. I thought that was a policy, when I heard about it, I laughed. I said that doesn't make any sense to me.

And you know what? It's been there now for, what, 15 years? It seems to have worked.

Cooper: So, just so I'm clear, at this point, do you still look forward to a day when gays can serve openly in the military or no longer?

Romney: I look forward to hearing from the military exactly what they believe is the right way to have the right kind of cohesion and support in our troops and I listen to what they have to say.

I couldn't see him, but I'll bet a lot that Romney's campaign advisor was hanging his head. Romney did not answer the question. If that wasn't bad enough, they then asked his opinion on waterboarding:

Question: Is waterboarding torture?

Romney: And as I just said, as a presidential candidate, I don't think it's wise for us to describe specifically which measures we would and would not use.

And that is something which I would want to receive the counsel not only of Senator McCain, but of a lot of other people.

And there are people who, for many, many years get the information we need to make sure that we protect our country.

Those three questions may have ended Romney's campaign in Iowa. As for me, I used to like Romney more than Giuliani or McCain. Now, I definitely don't. Oh yeah, and he's a Red Sox fan too.

Huckabee: A huge beneficiary

For the first time, the people actually looked at Huckabee as a contender. And he shone. He did struggle a little on the fiscal questions (attacked by Thompson as a taxer). And he stated that he hadn't raised the overall taxes, but hadn't lowered them. But... I thought Republicans were trying to LOWER taxes? How does leaving the taxes as they are help us? I think that would have been a great chance to jump in with his support for the Fair Tax (he did mention that "Most people in this country are more afraid of an audit than they are of a mugging, and there's a reason why").

But on social issues, he garnered tons of applause. His ad says:

Faith doesn't just influence me. It really defines me. I don't have to wake up every day wondering what do I need to believe?

Let us never sacrifice our principles for anybody's politics. Not now, not ever.

I believe life begins at conception.

We believe in some things. We stand by those things. We live or die by those things.

He also handled a death penalty question (you're a follower of Jesus, but would Jesus support the death penalty?) extremely well, stating that:

Some crimes are so heinous, so horrible that the only response that we, as a civilized nation, have for a most uncivil action is not only to try to deter that person from ever committing that crime again, but also as a warning to others that some crimes truly are beyond any other capacity for us to fix.

He also was able to make a great contrast against Romney and Giuliani about his faith. And since Romney flopped and will probably lose points in Iowa, you can expect Huckabee to bounce higher and higher.

Thompson: Proved that I should vote for him and that few other Americans will

I was one of the most excited people in America when Thompson jumped in. He just sounded like a breath of fresh air. Then, he started going down hill. But at that CNN debate, he showed me that he could be my candidate again. When asked what government programs to cut, he said:

The OMB has come out with a list of over 100 programs. I would take all 100 of them, the ones that are full of waste, fraud and duplication. I filed a report in 2001, when I was chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and identified billions of dollars that we should be saving.

But Thompson suffers one big problem: lack of appeal. Huckabee, Romney, and Giuliani use their skills as an orator to woo the crowd. Ron Paul gets all excited. But Thompson drones in a monotone. He's got the solution, but not the appeal. And unfortunately, that's not going to impress the average American. Maybe the intellectual, but not the average American. Quite frankly, he seems... boring. When was the last time a boring speaker was elected president?

Ron Paul: Scared the pants off of everyone

Most in America have never heard Ron Paul speak before. But that night might have scared them all. Because while Thompson had a dry monotone, Ron Paul was almost literally jumping up and down in excitement. Add to that the other candidates' attacks at isolationism and the fact that Paul wants to remove every single government program (which scares most Americans), I just can't see him as our next president. Personally, I'm a supporter of his fiscal policies, but completely against his foreign policies. But although he scared America, he definitely relieved all the other Republicans:

Question: Mr. Paul, I think we both know that the Republican party is never going to give you the nomination. But I'm hoping that you're crazy like a fox like that and you're using this exposure to propel yourself into an independent run.

My question is for Ron Paul: Mr. Paul, are you going to let America down by not running as an independent?

Thank you.

Paul: Now that's what I call a tough question, because I have no intention of doing this.

I am a Republican. I have won 10 times as a Republican and we're doing quite well. We had 5,000 people show up at a rally in front of the Independence Hall with blacks and Hispanics and a cross-section of this country.

John McCain: ?

McCain certainly did not come out well from this debate. Immigration has killed him before and killed him that night. He claimed that he would veto any bill regarding amnesty, then said:

But then you've still got two other aspects of this issue that have to be resolved as well. And we need to sit down as Americans and recognize these are God's children as well. And they need some protection under the law. And they need some of our love and compassion.

McCain's fiscal speeches aren't great either. He rejects the Fair Tax and agrees we need a new tax code, but has no idea what it should be. And on the 2nd Amendment, he noted that he had used guns (in Vietnam) but didn't say anything about whether we should use them in peacetime (he doesn't own one). His biggest moment was when he explained:

Well, I would do a lot of things, but the first and most important and vital element is to continue this surge which is succeeding and we are winning the war in Iraq.

(Applause)

That's the first thing I would do. I would make sure that we do what we can to help reconstruct the country, to help the Maliki government move forward as rapidly as possible to train the police.

But I'll tell you one other thing we're -- I'm going to do, is we're going to fight back the Democrats' efforts to set a date for withdrawal which is a date for surrender.

(Applause)

Now, my friends, I'm the only one on this stage -- I'm the only one on this stage -- that said that the Rumsfeld strategy was failing and was doomed to failure. I'm the only one on this stage that said we've got to have a new strategy, and that's the strategy we're employing now.

And I got a lot of heat when I said that that strategy was failing and it had to be changed, because I've had the experience and the background and the knowledge of every national security issue we've faced in the last 20 years.

And I'm telling you, that if we continue this strategy, we can succeed. And if we had done what the Democrats said to do six months ago, Al Qaida would be telling the word they beat America.

Conclusion (IMHO)

The end result? My feelings have been changed about the candidates. Below, I've ranked how I used to feel about them:

1. Huckabee
2. Romney
3. Thompson
4. McCain
5. Giuliani
6. Paul

... and what I feel about them now:

1. Huckabee
2. Thompson
3. Giuliani
4. McCain
5. Paul
6. Romney

I've been wanting to do a sort of guide to the candidates, especially since the primaries are coming up soon. So, I've now finally stopped procrastinating and have started a little series (which you can follow at the 2008-election-predictions tag). But first, here's a little introduction to the top six Republican candidates.

NOTE: I have not included several candidates in here. I love guys like Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo, but let's be reasonable: they have no chance of election. If they start showing signs of recovering, I'll modify this article. I will not do an article on Democrats since I'm not a Democrat and therefore will probably be biased towards the conservative Democrats. I am trying my best to be unbiased, but no one is impartial. If you're wondering, I'm a conservative Christian who supports the Iraqi War. Mike Huckabee impresses me the most so far.

Much of this data has been found via OnTheIssues.org, an excellent site for any student of politics.

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, New York

Economically, he's the Republican dream. He's reduced taxes twenty-three times, cut spending by 7%, and loves the free market. He's got his own firm (Giuliani Partners). He wants to privatize healthcare, but give vouchers to those who can't afford it. He hasn't really said much on Social Security, but he has wanted to privatize it to a certain degree as well. He doesn't like the Fair Tax, but supports removing taxes such as the Death Tax. On foreign policy, the man is also outstanding from the Republican point of view. He's worried about Iran's nuclear capabilities down the road. He also dislikes the Democrat timetable for withdraw (it's "fundamentally irresponsible"). However, he's managed to alienate one of the most critical parts of the Republican Party: the conservative Christians. He's pro-gay unions, pro-choice, There are a few good social things about him according to the Republicans (pro-school voucher, anti-drugs, anti-porn, and has dropped crime in NYC), but the Christian vote is going to impact him hugely (several Christian leaders including James Dobson have threatened to back a third party if he is elected). And his pro-illegal alien stance has not helped either.

Former Governor Mike Huckabee, Arkansas

The conservative Christian's dream. A Southern Baptist preacher who decided to get into politics. Totally anti-abortion and fairly anti-gay. The foreign policy Republicans are fairly happy too. He's not afraid of the UN, thinks that if Iran has nukes that we should take them out, and that Iraq is our responsibility (we broke it, we fix it). Even the environmentalists are fairly happy (here's a candidate who actually supports fighting global warming). But the fiscal conservatives are divided. He claims he wants to rein in spending and is pro-corporation. But he wants to fix health care, not by privatizing it but by adding new measures (though not as drastic as our current system). He won't privatize Social Security either. On the other hand, he is probably the biggest proponent of replacing the current income tax with the Fair Tax.

Senator John McCain, Arizona

Remember this guy? Well, he hasn't changed a lot from what he was like eight years ago. Right now, his biggest problem is that he's fighting basically every section of the party. He is pretty much indifferent to abortion and gay marriage, alienating the Christians (though Sam Brownback has recently come out with an endorsement). He supports amnesty for illegal aliens, hurting him in the Republican Party. He's got no clear stance on corporations, wants to reform Social Security (but has little idea how to), likes the "tax the wealthy" format of our current tax system, and wants to make welfare harder to get (but still wants to keep it around). This has basically gotten the fiscals into another camp. And on foreign policy... your guess is as good as mine. All we know is that he deplores the Iraq War, but needs it to keep going.

Representative Ron Paul, Texas

This guy isn't really a conservative. He's a libertarian (if you remember, he ran twenty years ago for president as a libertarian). So he's doesn't have support from the entire Republican Party. However, he's got a HUGE fan base among the independents and even liberals. Socially, the Republicans are mixed. He's anti-abortion, neutral on gay marriage, dislikes the war on drugs, and is anti-death penalty. His biggest strength is his fiscal policies: he's anti-government-sponsored health care, wants to start privatizing (but not necessarily get rid of) social security, wants to remove the IRS, has a 89% NTU rating, and wants to abolish federal welfare. But on his foreign policy, many Republicans think he's cracked. Sure, he doesn't care about oil profits. But he basically doesn't want the US to interfere with any other country. Which means that the Iraqi War is illegal, Darfur isn't our responsibility, and Iran should be treated friendly and not as a potential threat. This isn't sitting great with the Republicans right now.

Former Governor Mitt Romney, Massachusetts

The wildcard right now. His biggest problem: convincing the voters he means what he says. On abortion, he's changed his mind several times. Same with gay marriage. But if his current stances are really what he means, the conservatives should love him. He talks about how he only raised taxes a little bit (compared to Giuliani), thinks businesses (not governments) should dictate trade, wants privatization of Social Security, pledges not to raise taxes (though dislikes the Fair Tax), and doesn't seem to like to expand welfare (though hasn't said anything about getting rid of it). He thought that the Iraq War wasn't a good idea in 2006, then decided it was and that we need to stay in.

Former Senator Fred Thompson, Tennessee

Socially, he's kinda in the middle. He basically thinks abortion and gay marriage should be left up to the states. Fiscally, he's more worried about balancing the budget than lowering taxes. He's not pro-big business, but not against either. He doesn't love or hate Social Security, but wants to reform it (who doesn't?). However, he is a huge tax reformer (let's get rid of the IRS!), and think states should control welfare. He also wants to stabilize Iraq and stop Iran from getting nukes.

"[F]ormer Gov. Jeb Bush chatted with Hoover Institution's Peter Robinson on a webcast called Uncommon Knowledge...."

He wouldn't endorse anyone but he gave his two cents on the Republican candidates' greatest strengths.

Rudy Giuliani: "Direct, sees the world the way it is, and he's direct and he communicates well and he has high energy and tremendous personality."

Fred Thompson: "Committed conservative." He added that Thompson is "new at the game."

John McCain: "His courage. I was in my bed watching this with my wife and I got out of bed and started cheering," when McCain mentioned the woodstock line during the last debates.

Mitt Romney: "Intellectual curiosity. . .He's incredibly smart and asks the questions necessary to find that common ground for the next challenges we face, which politics is not very good at right now."

Mike Huckabee: "I like him. He's a great speaker and clear-minded about the importance of moral principles."

Today the movement shows signs of coming apart beneath its leaders. It is not merely that none of the 2008 Republican front-runners come close to measuring up to President Bush in the eyes of the evangelical faithful, although it would be hard to find a cast of characters more ill fit for those shoes...

The latest Iowa Poll, published Sunday in the Des Moines Register, has drawn attention largely because of what it shows about the Democratic race: Hillary Clinton is now leading in the state. What has drawn less attention, but is equally interesting, are the gyrations underway in the Republican race.

Evangelical Christians never had it so good, but they seem not to know it. Instead of supporting the candidate who most shares their values -- Mitt Romney -- they seem hell-bent for the proverbial cliff.

Meeting recently in Salt Lake City, conservative Christian leaders almost unanimously approved a resolution to support a third-party candidate if neither major party nominates someone who is pro-life.

To their credit, these leaders are unwilling to sacrifice conviction for political expediency, but they may be creating their own worst nightmare by dividing the party and making a Democratic victory more likely.

Rudolph W. Giuliani leads the race for the GOP presidential nomination, with Republican voters describing him as the field's strongest leader and most electable candidate in the 2008 general election, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Giuliani topped the Republican field with 34 percent, with Thompson at 17 percent and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) at 12 percent in the new poll. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney was in fourth with 11 percent but has continued to make strong showings in polls testing the crucial early contests in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee took 8 percent, his best showing in a Post-ABC poll. Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) had 3 percent; Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.), 2 percent; and Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.) and Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.), 1 percent.

Unity not only gets us a pro-family president, but it could get us an administration that looks something like this:

President Mike Huckabee

Defense Secretary Duncan Hunter

Director of Homeland Security Tom Tancredo

Attorney General Sam Brownback

Director of Heath and Human Services Alan Keyes

If we combine the votes of these good men, we move from the back of the bus into the driver's seat and select the nominee. It's not only our best way to win the White House, from where I sit, it's the only way. United we drive, divided we crash.

"We have the greatest respect for Gov. Huckabee and respect his desire to elevate the discourse in this campaign. But there are nine people running for the GOP nomination and an arbitrary pairing of just two of them does a disservice to the voters. We will push hard for Lincoln-Douglas style debates once we get into the General Election, when there are only two candidates running."

(CNN) — Critical of Fred Thompson's decision to skip Wednesday night's Republican debate, Mike Huckabee sent a letter to the newest contender for the GOP presidential nomination on Friday encouraging him to participate in a one-on-one debate.

"Senator, let's lead by example and get the ball rolling," Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, wrote Thompson.

Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee suggested fellow Southerner Fred Thompson dodged a scheduled debate because he can t "perform well enough to win " after the former U.S. senator entered the race via a late-night talk show appearance.

Yet Americans for Fair Taxation -- better known as FairTax.org1 -- has regrouped in the past year. It is spending freely to tap a building anti-Washington mood and hoping to influence both who gets picked as the nation's next leaders and what their agenda will be. As the group demonstrated recently by its prominence at Iowa Republicans' much-watched presidential straw poll, it is gaining steam among the conservatives who dominate the party's nominating process -- and by extension with some candidates struggling to gain traction.

By all accounts FairTax.org's mobilization was a factor in the surprise second-place showing of the plan's biggest advocate, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. "You can't win this strictly on the merits with members of Congress," says group spokesman Ken Hoagland. "If it's not driven by the grassroots, it's not going to happen."

The Republicans have been ridiculed for not wanting to participate in a YouTube-CNN debate, which incorporates user-submitted questions on the video-sharing site. The Democrats have already had a successful debate, which was hosted and promoted by YouTube and CNN. Well, the Republicans have finally agreed to hold a debate on YouTube, but it has already been postponed by more than a couple of months. This is not a huge surprise, considering that a date had been chosen prior to any lead candidates being approached for planning the event.

On Friday evening at Huckabee's small headquarters in downtown Des Moines, I interviewed his Iowa campaign manager Eric Woolson, who was Bush's Iowa press spokesman in 1999. He told me that Huckabee had only two staffers in Iowa up through July 1; Woolson himself drove Huckabee around the state. He spent less money and had far less staff than Sam Brownback, his obvious competitor for the votes of religious conservatives. But his theme was pitched against Romney: message not money. Huckabee's speech at the straw poll made the same point. He is an excellent and ingratiating speaker, optimistic and upbeat, weaving biblical phrases into his speech. He told me afterward that he doesn't have a text but speaks extemporaneously, with an outline in mind and while keeping a careful eye on the clock.

Thompson's Backers Check His `Fire in the Belly' for 2008 Race

By Kim Chipman and Julianna Goldman
June 28 (Bloomberg) -- Fred Thompson looks the part, and usually gets it.

Long before he became a Hollywood actor, people offered him roles tailor-made for his imposing stature, his rich baritone and his homespun dignity. Throughout his life, he said in a television interview in March, ``doors have opened for me and I had the sense to walk through them.'' He has ascended without much apparent effort from country lawyer to prosecutor to U.S. senator while building a parallel career as a film and TV actor, notably in the NBC series ``Law & Order.''

Now, the powerful Tennessee Republicans who propelled Thompson, 64, into politics three decades ago want to cast him in the role of a lifetime: president of the United States. The question, some of them say, is whether he wants it badly enough to endure the rigors of a campaign.

``Does he really have the passion, the energy, the fire in the belly to run?'' said former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who is advising his fellow Tennessean. ``I believe he does, but we will only know as he gets on the campaign trail.''

A White House run would be the crowning achievement of a life marked by almost uncanny timing, an ability to leverage his working-class roots in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, and his formidable presence both in politics and show business.

Lately it seems all the leading presidential candidates are discussing their religious and moral beliefs -- even when they'd rather not.

Indeed, seven years after George W. Bush won the presidency in part with a direct appeal to conservative religious voters -- even saying during a debate that Jesus Christ was his favorite philosopher -- the personal faith of candidates has become a very public part of the presidential campaign.

Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have hired strategists to focus on reaching religious voters. Obama's campaign holds a weekly conference call with key supporters in early primary and caucus states whose role is to spread the candidate's message to religious leaders and opinionmakers and report their concerns to the campaign.

Democrats in general are targeting moderate Roman Catholics, mainline Protestants and even evangelicals, hoping to enlist enough voters for whom religious and moral issues are a priority to put together a winning coalition.