Rudy will have problems in the South eh?

Strategic Vision Georgia, Aug. 18-20, 2006

For the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination whom would you support? (Republicans Only)

Rudy Giuliani 30%
John McCain 20%
Newt Gingrich 17%
Mitt Romney 6%
Bill Frist 5%
George Allen 3%
Rick Santorum 1%
George Pataki 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 16%

Gamecock doesn’t know the answer, but worries that a departure from the post-Roe formula for victory carries great risk.

The GOP cannot win if Christian conservatives do not turn out at a high rate. It may well be that we are also back to a pre-end of the Cold War mode where the American people will not trust the liberal Democrats with power during war.

I am a pro-life Christian conservative, but war does trump social issues, for if the Commander in Chief will not defend the country and take the fight to the enemy, then it will not be done, whereas, social issues can be fought on many fronts. But to fight a war, the President alone decides if it will be done. No Congress can make a President fight a war.

Under Reagan, we had both a hawkish war-time leader and the man that brought the Christian conservatives into the party by putting opposition to abortion in the party platform. We have lost only when the party was divided by Perot and tax lips. And yet the Democrats still did not get 50% of the vote.

It may be that we are in a situation more analogous to 1972 given the recent acceleration of McGovernization of the Democrat party, but I suspect the number of liberals today is very much greater.

My purpose here is simply to point out that we have not won the Presidency since Roe?without a pro-life nominee. Many pro-life voters are natural Democrats but for the life issue. And many of those voters are not hawkish on the war.

I trust Rudy on the war, trust him on other issues more than McCain, and here’s hoping he soon walks the aisle of an evangelical church and has a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay rights?epiphany and/or that Romney can overcome scepticism about his Mormonism and/or tapes are released showing that Allen’s mother used the term “macaca” in little George’s household to connote silliness…

I’m not sure how it can be seen as anything other than great news for Giuliani.? A few points.

First, of course it’s a name recognition poll.? But name recognition doesn’t go both ways.? Everyone’s heard of McCain and Giuliani.? Everyone’s had the opportunity to come to a relatively fully-informed verdict on each of them.? As such, the votes they got in Iowa are likely the votes they’re gonna get.? Both likely have near-perfect name-recognition, and with that, 30 percent of likely Iowa caucus attendees have selected Giuliani as their first choice among the multi-candidate field, while about 18 percent have selected McCain.? That leaves about half of Iowa voters with a first choice of someone other than Rudy or McCain, but since most voters don’t refresh “Race42008″ several times per hour the way most of us do, about 60 percent of the half of Iowans who prefer someone other than Rudy or McCain are undecided as to exactly which candidate will earn their vote.? That’s about 30 percent of the total number of voters, and even?if that entire bloc decided to embrace a single candidate, Rudy would still come?in second?at worst in culturally conservative Iowa.? So while only being the first choice of a third of Republicans may not seem like much at first glance, it means everything in a multi-candidate field, and Iowa is exactly that.

Secondly, Kathryn Jean Lopez over on National Review’s The Corner?today is freaking out about the results, likely due to her not-so-secret support for Romney.? Her argument seems to be that once Iowans discover Rudy’s super secret positions on abortion, etc., it’ll be over for the Mayor.

I’ve never really gotten the logic in this argument, as it’s always seemed to me that if there’s anything the average voter knows about Rudy, it’s that he’s a pro-choice Republican with a New York personal life.? That and his reputation for 9/11 and toughness seem to be what he’s universally known for.? Think about it this way: how many columns or articles have you read on Giuliani over the past five — no, fifteen — years that didn’t make reference to his positions on key social issues?? Conversely, how often has the MSM reported the fact that Rudy cut taxes in New York, or that he reformed welfare, or that he eliminated government waste?? If anything, learning more about Giuliani’s record will further endear Republicans to him, not the other way around.

Third, with Allen either on the way to defeat this fall or a razor-thin victory that will preclude any presidential hopes, and with Newt non-committal about running, absent some dark horse entry into the race next year, Romney is probably best positioned to take most of those undecideds in Iowa as the only socially conservative candidate with the money and organization to compete with Rudy and McCain there.? So if Iowa gives her three tickets to Romney, Rudy, and McCain, how will Granite Staters react?? Romney and Rudy will clearly have the momentum going out of Iowa, but Rudy is a more natural fit?for libertine New Hampshire, and it’s a state that Romney can’t afford to lose.? As one of our commenters noted the other day, it would be useful to obtain the history of Massachusetts politicians and the impact of New Hampshire on their chances, and that sounds like a good project for a post in the very near future.

To sum it all up, I think Rudy’s voters in Iowa are likely going to stick with the Mayor, as they’ve probably heard all of the Mayor’s negatives ad nauseum but haven’t yet been exposed to many of his positives.? I think 30 percent is more than enough to get a ticket out of Iowa, and based on Giuliani’s low expectations going into that race, coming in second or third in Iowa will be a far bigger win for Rudy than for anyone else.? I think this post-Iowa momentum almost guarantees a Rudy win in New Hampshire, which will both depress Romney’s chances due to his neighboring status as well as hurt McCain’s chances because of his high expectations in the Granite State.? At that point, if Rudy’s to be stopped, it will have to be in South Carolina, and I’m not sure who will still be around to take a stand at that point.? The problem for red-staters is that all of their potential champions are either sitting this one out (Sanford, Pawlenty, Barbour,?Jeb, etc.) OR aren’t registering with the grassroots (Huckabee) OR are deemed unelectable for one or more reasons (Newt, Allen, Frist, Brownback, Tancredo).? The result may be a choice that many hardcore conservatives would prefer not to make: Rudy, Romney, or McCain.

That’s the current margin?of the Virginia Senate race, so says SurveyUSA.? George Allen has thrown away an easy reelection via his inability to simply?ignore his?20-year-old nemesis on the campaign trail, replacing a sure thing with a toss-up.? Incidentally, the fallout comes almost entirely from voters under age 35, which isn’t surprising given the intolerance of my generation towards anything that threatens to make an issue out of our country’s ugly history in many things racial.? It’s not hard for me to imagine massive numbers of voters in their 20s and 30s simply saying, “to hell with this guy” overnight?w/r/t the Senate race.

Allen’s saving grace may be his financial edge.? He can probably still hold his seat unless the Dems get serious about funding Webb.? Still, anyone who touts Allen for president from now on will have to explain why Republicans should take such a major risk with a candidate who can turn a landslide victory into a nailbiter via a single word.

HT to RB!

Why all caps? Because to my knowledge, this is the first scientific poll of Iowa?GOP caucus voters regarding 2008.?

The results, in my mind, are earthshattering:

Victory Enterprises Poll, Aug. 14th-15th, 2006

Rudy Giuliani 30%

John McCain 17.3%

Bill Frist 6.5%

Mitt Romney 4.5%

George Allen 3.5%

George Pataki 3.3%

Mike Huckabee 2.5%

Sam Brownback 2.5%

Undecided 29.1% (Estimated. Will update with exact figure once known)

I would never have believed that that Romney would fair so poorly in an Iowa poll. Huckabee?either. Both have been practically living in the state for the past year.?

I know this is just one poll, and it is very early. But please remember, George W. Bush was leading in the polls 17 months before the 2000 Iowa Caucus. I also know very little about Victory Enterprises, other than its an Iowa based Republican polling firm.?

Update: Here are the complete results.

My hometown of Minneapolis is one of the four finalists for the 2008?Republican National Convention. It would be nothing short of a dream come true for me to have this event in my own backyard.

However, I wouldn’t be surprised if Cleveland ends up winning the convention:

Cleveland is in the spotlight for what may be the biggest audition in the city’s history.

This week, members of the Republican National Committee will visit Cleveland, which is one of four finalists to host the 2008 Republican National Convention.

“The city has been preparing for this on every level. I think we are here because the city has the leadership to make it happen. We’re talking fundraising, security, transportation, the entire gamut,” said Dennis Roche, of the Greater Cleveland Convention and Visitors Bureau.?

The other cities in the running to host the convention are New York, Tampa, Fla., and Minneapolis.

A welcome gala will be held for the committee Tuesday night at the Rock Hall.

Now whether hosting a party’s convention actually has an effect on winning the state in the general election is debatable. But the significance of Ohio may be too great for the GOP to pass up. I believe that Ohio is now the only state left that the Republican Party has never lost without consequently losing the general election (the 2nd to the last was California in 2000. note: George H.W. Bush winning Cali in 1988 seems like a distant dream doesn’t it??).?

Although I was out of town during the RNC’s visit to the Twin Cities last week. I don’t believe that an effort on par with Cleveland’s (parties at the Rock’n Roll Hall of Fame for example)?was put on by Twin Cities officials. That their own political ideologies fall to the left of Vladimir Lenin had no influence whatsoever I’m sure.

If the 2008 race does end up being Rudy vs. Hillary, we can look back at this story as the opening shot of an epic battle:

Republicans Can’t Wait To Vote Against Hillary: Giuliani

Republicans relish the prospect of Hillary Clinton running for president in 2008, just so they can vote against her, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani was quoted as saying.

Giuliani, who is expected to be a leading candidate for the Republican Party nomination, described the New York senator and former first lady as a polarising force who ignited strong passions across the political spectrum, the New York Post reported.

“Democrats seem to support her as their main candidate for president — she’s way ahead of anybody else — and it seems like Republicans are just waiting for her to be the candidate so they can vote against her,” he said.

“She definitely creates passions on both sides,” he added.

“Hillary probably has the distinction of being the best fundraiser for the Democratic Party — and the best fundraiser for the Republican Party,” he said.

The Boston Globe has an interesting article regarding Mitt Romney’s father’s presidential campaign. Specifically, the mistake that derailed it:

On August 31, 1967, George Romney, the voluble, vigorous three-term governor of Michigan and former automotive executive, walked into a Detroit TV station to be interviewed by a local broadcaster with a lousy hairpiece. For more than a year, Romney had been talked about as the Republicans’ best chance for winning the White House in 1968. But the national campaign trail, at first welcoming, had become bumpy. Reporters pressed Romney repeatedly to explain his ever-evolving and often confusing position on military involvement in Vietnam, which he had strongly supported after a visit to South Vietnam in 1965 but later declared a tragic mistake. Polls showed his lead fading.

So, during that August interview, when he was asked to explain his inconsistent position on the war, Romney replied, “Well, you know, when I came back from Vietnam, I had just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get.”

There, he said it. One word, brainwashing, and his presidential campaign would never recover.

Romney is the?one GOP candidate that I have absolutely?no?worries about?regarding a “brainwashed” or “macaca” comment.?Mitt is just about as good in front of a camera as a politician can get.

The main lesson I take away from this article is the danger that?we as a society place ourselves in by the absolute power we give to?the MSM. Observe how this one statememt?allowed the MSM to paint George Romney, a man of stellar character and a lifetime of accomplishment, as the kooky “brainwashed guy” for the remainder of his life:

…one politically charged word became not just the shorthand for his aborted White House run, but the bumper sticker for his entire life’s work. Forget the poor boy who rose, Horatio Alger-style, to national acclaim. Forget the visionary of Detroit, who successfully championed the compact car over what he termed “gas-guzzling dinosaurs.” Forget the straight-talking politician who steered Michigan government from financial ruin and pushed through a new state constitution. In the four decades since that interview, there has been a Pavlovian response to the American political trivia question, “Who was George Romney?” Answer: The brainwashed guy.

The remedy to the absolute power that the MSM have been able to attain over the years is the Alternative Media/Blogosphere, which?has only just begun it’s rise to prominence. ????

When the MSM’s empire lies in ruins in 10-20 years, you can bet that its?many victims will not mourn its passing.

…in the mind of a 2008 blogger?

I have stated my overarching thesis of 2008 many times over the past two-months; that thesis being:? #1.?Republicans are inclined?nominate their frontrunners (most likely the guy that came in 2nd place the?last time),?#2.?John McCain is viewed too negatively by?GOP primary voters to win the nomination,?#3 leaving Rudy Giuliani as the last man standing if he moderates his social views. I have cited evidence here, and here to back my?thesis up (please see DaveG‘s awesome?article on GOP nominating history in regards to frontrunners here).

Now of course my name is Kavon W. Nikrad, not Chuck Todd or Charlie Cook, so readers of Race 4 2008 understand that I am but a tadpole in the pool of internet punditry (that may even be generous). When I read things like this, it causes me to re-evaluate whether or not a small-fry like myself is missing something in my understanding of how 2008 will play out:

Despite McCain’s past challenges, many who served in Bush’s campaigns or in his administration are lining up behind McCain.

Among the more prominent members of the Bush team who said they expected to play a role in McCain’s candidacy, if he chooses to run, are Mark McKinnon, a Texas political media consultant who has worked for Bush for years; Terry Nelson, political director of the Bush 2004 re-election campaign; Nicolle Wallace, that campaign’s communications director; Wayne Berman, a Washington lobbyist, friend of Bush and prolific fund-raiser; and F. Philip Handy, chairman of Jeb Bush’s two successful races for governor in Florida and a major supporter of the president.

These are really some of?the most connected people in the Republican Party. What do they know that I am missing?

They must see the same?polls that I do, that John McCain’s support among his own party is tepid at best. Many of his 2008 rivals, including Rudy Giuliani, George Allen, and Condi Rice (if she ran), routinely beat him in polls measuring levels of support among GOP regulars. McCain doesn’t even beat Giuliani straight-up in most polls I see. What is the basis for these heavy-hitters hitching their wagon to the Arizona Maverick so early, (in the case of McKinnon and Nelson, it was nearly a year ago)?

It seems as if 2008 is shaping up to be a battle not only between political parties, but between?the amateur internet punditry of the blogosphere and the professional, inside-the-beltway mediacracy.

The Blogosphere and the Mediacracy believe two very distinctly different things concerning 2008.?We cannot both be right. Either John McCain will get “Lieberman’ed” in the primaries or he will steamroll his competition and become the Republican nominee for president. This contest may be just as interesting as the political contest itself.

The Blogosphere?changed history in 2004, there can be no doubt about that. I really do believe that John Kerry could be POTUS today if sites like Powerline did not exist.

In 2004 alternative media staked its claim for respectability.?2008 is already shaping up to be not a battle between natural enemies (Dem’s vs. Rep’s), but a civil war between the the voice of the?grassroots versus the establishment’s clarion.

This battle is yet along was off. But I can tell you that?this little David?(to borrow from Glenn Reynolds) is not yet ready to run from it.???????????????

This is another consequence of Sen. Allen’s poor choice of words from last week: the foreign press has turned on him?already:

US Senator George Allen’s Racist Slur Unmasks his Racism and Bigotry

Last Friday (August 11, ’06), Republican Senator George Allen sank to a new low. At a campaign stop the senator singled out the only non-white member of the audience S.R. Sidarth, a young Indian-American volunteering for his opponent and called him “macaca” (a racial slur meaning ‘monkey’). He went on to say, “welcome to America.” As it happens, Mr. Sidarth was born and raised in Virginia.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the first incident of its kind. Sen. Allen who’s a contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008has a long history of demeaning minorities. Here are just a few examples of his racial hostility.

He used to display a noosehanging from a tree in his law offices.

When running for governor he admitted to displaying the confederate flag in his home.

As governor, he proclaimed April as “Confederate Heritage and History Month” and issued a proclamation calling the civil war “a struggle for independence and sovereign rights” (the statement did not condemn slavery).

He opposed the creation of a holiday commemorating Martin Luther King, Jr.

All of this would be bad enough if Senator Allen were a small-time politician.

There is no place for bigotry in a republic. Through remarks like these, Senator Allen has shown that he has not completed his own ‘evolution’ to a ‘higher’ race. I strongly condemn Senator Allen for his nasty remarks. He should apologize to Sidarth (in particular) and to the south Asian community (in general) for such racist remarks; failing which his constitutents should not cast their votes to elect a racist and bigot.

To be clear, I do not agree with all of the assertions of the author of this editorial; that this laundry list of offenses he cites convicts Allen of anything.

This incident does convict Sen. Allen of extremely poor judgment.

Negative coverage by the foreign press is unlikely to have any affect on the?November 2006 election. However, do not for a moment kid yourself that the entire foreign press will not trumpet the 2008 campaign as the “racist, southern white-guy” vs. whatever “champion of the people” that the Dems nominate, if Allen is the Republican nominee.

Now will this negative coverage by the international media be a decisive factor in the 2008 election? Certainly not. But it will be an important one in the general election, just as it was in 2004.??

George Allen’s racial problem, whether?real or not, is a burden that?the GOP can do without?in 2008. Especially?when there are several acceptable alternatives that come?without the baggage.

Every regular reader of Race 4 2008 knows my problems with the Senator from Arizona. Electability however, is not one of my concerns.

My BS detector overheated upon reading this little tidbit:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton earns nearly as much support as Sen. John McCain in early polling about a possible presidential contest in 2008.

A Time magazine poll released yesterday found McCain, a Republican from Arizona, at 49 percent and Clinton, a Democrat from New York, at 47 percent among registered voters when people were asked which candidate they would support for president if they had to decide now.

McCain had a 10-point lead over the Democratic nominee from 2004, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, and a 9-point lead over 2000 Democratic nominee Al Gore in similar matchups.

Fifty-six percent of those surveyed said they have a favorable opinion of McCain and 53 percent said they have a favorable view of Clinton.

The poll of 1,003 adults has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.?

If you truly believe that HRC will stand a chance against John McCain, I have some Minnesota ocean front property you may be interested in.

If only Jayson Javitz was still blogging! He could explain much better than I what will happen to HRC in states like PA, OH, WI, and?MI if she is able to wrestle the Democratic nomination.

Care to speculate? Let’s continue this in the comments.

Are these the actions of a “straight-talker”?

Now that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is eyeing another run for the White House in 2008, the senator who’s been one of the biggest champions of campaign-finance reform has chosen not to add his name to legislation to repair the existing system of public financing for presidential candidates.

The plan (S. 3740) is being sponsored by three of McCain’s longtime reform allies, Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and Reps. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., and Christopher Shays, R-Conn.

The bill would update the presidential public financing system for the 2008 election in a number of key ways, such as by raising the public-funds subsidy in primaries and general elections to more realistic levels to keep nominees competitive.

The idea of such a system is to allow candidates to run without becoming overly dependent on private donors. But candidates have been abandoning the public-financing system, given the significantly larger amounts that can be raised from private sources

The absence of McCain’s name on the new bill, which is similar to one he co-sponsored in 2003 (S. 1913), has created a buzz since it was introduced July 27. On Friday, an editorial in the New York Times stated there’s no stronger evidence that the historic post-Watergate reform of public financing for presidential candidates is near collapse.

With the caveat that any poll that shows Pataki?finishing higher?Romney and Allen should be flushed down the nearest toilet, this recent straw poll?of Granite State Republicans is good news for John McCain, who ties Condi for the top spot with 26 percent of the vote.? Giuliani trails the two frontrunners at 14 percent, followed by Pataki with 12 percent and Romney and Allen with 10 percent each.

It appears that, like in Michigan, which is the only state where McCain regularly outpolls Rudy, McCain’s goodwill from 2000 is still alive and well amongst New Hampshire GOPers.? Also of note is Romney’s poor performance despite hailing from neighboring Massachusetts.? This is likely due to the fact that Romney has spent the past couple of years transforming himself into a red-state Republican more in tune with the sunbelt than New England.? Romney needs to hope his strategy hasn’t been too?smart by half, as a loss in New Hampshire has generally been a campaign-ending experience for Bay State pols who wish to become president.

I’m going to try and be as even-handed as possible with this one, because the numbers on this one are throwing me through a loop as I figure out how McCain vs. Giuliani might play out in the moderate vs. conservative paradigm.

Two significant data points came out on this this week. On Friday, Pew released its poll of the 2008 GOP candidates, and broke it down by all voters, moderate-liberal Republicans, and conservative Republicans. The results are in this chart:

McCain’s support slips pretty dramatically from when you exclude Democrats and independents from the equation. Rudy is seen as the classic moderate Republican, and is optimizing his support with moderate/liberal Republicans. McCain’s center of gravity is probably a bit to the left of this,?(dangerously) outside the boundaries of the Republican Party.?And overall, we continue to see that moderates are overserved by the current configuration of the field, while conservatives are underserved.

Sure, conservatives are plenty happy with Condi (who won’t run) and with Newt (who probably won’t run). But looking at who actually is running, it creates a high dissatisfaction with the current frontrunners and the perfect conditions for a “right-wing” candidate to emerge from the bottom of the field.

Giuliani still beats McCain with conservatives, and by about the same amount as he beats him with moderates. But notice how the numbers for both candidates are lower with conservatives.

The big question becomes: How does this race polarize on moderate vs. conservative lines if neither candidate can claim a decisive advantage in either camp? The answer is that this race probably doesn’t — and a conservative alternative will rise by?cobbling together the large number of undecideds or dissatisfied right-wingers, and this will eventually begin to put pressure on one of the two front-runners.

But which one?

For that answer, I think we’ll have to consult Rasmussen, which this week polled on public perceptions of the ideology of the two GOP frontrunners. This measure placed McCain somewhat to the left of Giuliani. Overall, more people were willing to classify Giuliani as a conservative than were willing to say that about Senator McCain. From Angus-Reid’s writeup of the results:

Do you consider John McCain conservative, moderate or liberal?

Moderate 44%
Conservative 22%
Liberal 13%

Do you consider Rudy Giuliani conservative, liberal or moderate?

Moderate 36%
Conservative 29%
Liberal 15%

As we’ve noted before, Republicans considered McCain as liberal as he was conservative, while the conservative-liberal gap for Rudy was 13 points.

Predictions of Rudy Giuliani’s demise are predicated on the notion that voters aren’t sufficiently informed of some of his liberal views. But Rasmussen’s polling suggests that voters on both the left and right have correctly pegged Rudy as a moderate or center-right politician. If anything, it’s McCain who inspires more confusion, scoring a few points to the left of where he actually is, and his unpredictable views make it really difficult for him to build a political base within the Republican Party.

Back to the original question. Which of the moderate “frontrunners” will get squeezed? To the extent that McCain is perceived as being to the left of Rudy, and to the extent the anecdotes about conservative enthusiasm for Rudy are accurate, this probably makes McCain’s 19 percent third place showing with conservatives heavily dependent on name-ID and?”it’s his turn” sentiment, sort support?which can more easily be peeled off by a Mitt Romney or a George Allen. ?

But McCain can rally moderates and independents can’t he? Well, no, not really –?not with Rudy overperforming with those voters already. Rudy overall benefits from having clearer positions and a clearer political constituency,?in contrast to McCain who seems to be all over the place.?And we begin to see the outlines of how McCain fades. It goes like this.

1. January-June 2007: Media is obsessed with the Rudy vs. McCain dynamic, covering their every?hire and fundraising report. The race remains relatively static. ?
2. Summer 2007: Media notices that a conservative dark horse starts to make a move.?Polls begin to look like Rudy 30%, McCain 25%,?Conservative “alternative”?15%.
3. Also during Summer 2007: Pundits also notice that McCain, under withering attack from 527s, talk radio?and bloggers, hasn’t?moved at all.?A poll or two showing him below 20% gets the media in a tizzy about the bursting of the McCain frontrunner bubble. McCain starts losing what conservative support he had. But the race?isn’t leaderless — Rudy is there, deftly taking advantage, and the defection of a major fundraiser or two from McCain is taken as a sign of shifting momentum.
4. Fall-Winter 2007: Polls show Rudy 35%, Conservative “alternative” 20%, McCain 15%.
5. Alternative candidate surges and wins Iowa, with Rudy second. McCain is a distant third.
6. McCain tries to revive in New Hampshire but it’s too late. Rudy wins. McCain drops out.?
7. Conservative alternative wins South Carolina and possibly Michigan. But Rudy wins a moved-up Florida primary to shift the momentum back his way.
8. But Rudy cleans up on Super Tuesday, winning New York,?California, and Ohio. ?

This Rudy-McCain thing is but a sideshow and a prelude to the real battle. The domination of the field by perceived moderates probably won’t stand, but?right now, it seems like Rudy?(narrowly)?has the upper hand.

I want to thank Gamecock for his response to my prescription for a GOP foreign policy for 2008.? I think GC makes some good points, and I agree with many of them.? Where I disagree has more to do with means than with goals.

First, I think GC is correct that it would be idiotic to cut and run from Iraq.? This is true for all sorts of reasons.? Doing so would make the US appear inept, weak, and would only embolden the terrorists.? It would leave Iraq in chaos, anarchy, and civil war — a hotbed for Islamist terrorists and a poster child for further terrorist recruitment in the Middle East.? As such, I fully support maintaining a significant troop presence in Iraq until political and military stability can be achieved.

I do think, however, that Iraq illustrates my second point, which is that while it’s true the world can’t be allowed to exist half-slave and half-free, we’re learning the hard way that “freedom” means different things to different cultures.? For many in the Middle East, it seems, freedom means the freedom to choose tribalism and 8th Century theocracy over enlightenment and?21st Century liberal democracy.? This is why I think the means used in Iraq to try and transform the Middle East to an environment that doesn’t breed Islamist terrorism — a strategy I once supported — is ill-suited for the region.? It’s beginning to seem that knocking down the two-bit dictators that rule the Middle East through fear and brutality is only about?10 percent of the battle, and the other 90 percent is a true clash of civilizations that requires modernity to come to the Middle East, something that can’t be done with the sword.

It’s true that past civilizations have done more with less when it comes to modifying the world.? No one can deny that the Greek and Roman and British Empires were supremely effective at Hellenizing, Romanizing, and Anglocizing much of the world.? But if our job truly is to bring Western-style modernity to the Middle East, it seems there must be a better strategy to achieve that goal than the one that is currently being pursued.? And even bringing up that strategy seems to come dangerously close to the “e” word, empire, as Pat Buchanan and his paleocons will be sure to remind us all.

My third and final point lies in the comparison between the GWOT and the Cold War.? It’s true that Reagan realized that Communism could not simply be allowed to co-exist with Western liberal democracy, and that Reagan’s policy was fundamentally to bring about an end to Communism, not simply to find a way to get along with all things Red.? But it’s also true that Reagan accomplished this goal without a shot being fired.? After a decade-long attempt by LBJ, et. al., to contain Communism fighting what seemed to be an endless war in Vietnam, Reagan was able to spend two-terms in office without engaging the Communists on the battlefield a single time and watch the entire system collapse less than three years after his presidency ended.? Reagan knew that there was a better strategy to bring about an end to Communism than the Johnson containment policy, and he was right.? I submit that there is likely a better strategy to bring an end to the myriad of despotisms and 8th Century theocratic states that enable Islamist terrorism throughout the Middle East, I just don’t know what it is.

So I guess my ultimate point is that the GOP’s foreign policy should continue to be one that recognizes the right of each individual person to determine his or her?own destiny, both because that is an inherently moral foreign policy, as well as a necessary one given the birth of Islamist terrorism due largely to the repressive socio-political structures of the Middle East.? But I still believe that there has to be a better way to achieve this goal than to expend yet more blood and treasure knocking down each two-bit dictator throughout Arabdom simply to give the populace the freedom to elect the terrorists to power.

This post is a detailed response to DaveG’s “GOP Foreign Policy 2008″ post of August 17, which I consider to be an exceedingly?rare departure for DG from the brilliance we too often take for granted.

The modern conservative movement was born in response to a growing threat from big government at home and the communist threat abroad. When the Democrat?Party?refused to acknowledge the threat of communism after the McGovern movement,??they were never again trusted with the duty to protect the country until after Reagan defeated the red menace, except for the post-Watergate aberration with Carter who masked his appeasement ideology after Ford’s Poland debate gaffe.

George W. Bush was re-elected despite much tougher going in Iraq than we have now, a relentless MSM-Dem party Bush hate campaign and despite his shortcomings as a campaigner and conservative on too many issues. The reason: He is trusted to defend the country.

To be more specific,

HE GOT 911.

He recognizes that the supposed stability of September 10 was illusory and blown to smithereens on 911. He recognizes that America was at its best when we stuck it out in Germany and Japan after WWII. He recognizes that this is a long hard job and that the reason the US is doing the job is because it is hard. He is a failure in articulating the policy between elections, but his trump card is that every time the Dems get lulled into dismissing the threat, the terrorists actions speak quite eloquently. He remembers the purple fingers that are, today fighting side by side with us against the opponents of freedom.

We have?expended much blood and treasure, but “exhausted”? I think not. For exhaustion of blood and treasure you would have to look to a nation other than the give me liberty or give me death nation of these United States. We will not betray our allies in this struggle like the democrat party did the South Vietnamese which led to millions slaughtered.

The supposed realism of 910 was not real at all.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015027.php

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/george_wills_realism_doesnt_ex.html

Iraq is not the disaster it is portrayed as in the media.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/08/is_iraq_a_lost_cause.html

By any objective measure, our intervention in Iraq is? one of our finest hours. An articulate candidate can make that clear. Americans do not want to lose and they don’t want to abandon brave Iraqis to slaughter.

And they don’t want to sow the seeds for another failed state or embolden terrorists or terror sponsor states?to once again speak of a paper tiger. And we are through swatting at flies. That all led to 911.

We must abandon the “bring them to justice” construction. No, we must kill them in war, not mirandize them before Carter-appointed judges.?

Yes, when threats are removed, our military’s work is done. Was our work in Iraq and Afghanistan done on September 10? Was it done in Iraq when we let Saddam stay in power? No, no and no!

We stayed in Germany and Japan?and are still in South Korea. We must stay in Iraq for at least as long. We can watch a Civil War in which we back the vast majority that want freedom if need be. The kind of stability we crave follows victory over the islamo-facists and the enemies of freedom.

We face a tougher job in this war given the 5th column in the MSM, but Reagan beat them before Rush and Fox. And Dubya won in 2004. And every time the Dems go overboard in their appeasement cut and run talk, reality intrudes and they lose more power.

The majority of Americans have no use for the 910 Dems, and all they need is a clear articulation of American values and pride to deny the Dems power during war yet again.

If we abandon the freedom fighters in Iraq, we will lose all the deterrant power we have re-gained since Dubya began keeping America’s word. The threat of force by the US will cease to be a stability causing factor. Nations will defy us more aggressively, secure in the knowledge that we will not follow through.

And we would sentence much of the world to slavery and slaughter. Didn’t Reagan teach us anything?

Let’s not repeat the mistakes of the past.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/b0f90569-640d-4d3b-abe3-6ec8462959a4

Be sure to catch C-Span’s excellent series “Road to the White House” this Sunday at 6:30pm Eastern where Newt Gingrich and Gov. Huckabee will be featured.

If you are as?obsessed with 2008 as I am, make sure not to miss this weekly series.

Gov. Mike Huckabee has?refused a request to join in denouncing the most important employer in his state:

Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee rebuffed one of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.’s most vociferous union-funded critics as a “traveling circus” and refused to join other politicians in criticizing the Bentonville retailer.

In a letter to the head of Wal-Mart Watch, Huckabee refused to sign onto a letter criticizing Wal-Mart that was drafted by the Washington group.

“Your traveling circus of appearances to single out Wal-Mart will perhaps attract some politicians and even some maybe in my own state, but please don’t hold a seat for me,” Huckabee said in a letter Wednesday to the group’s executive director, Andrew Grossman. “For the record, I don’t own a single share of Wal-Mart stock and I’m not being compensated to defend them even though I presume you are being compensated to attack them.”

Grossman sent a draft copy of a letter addressed to Wal-Mart CEO H. Lee Scott and asked Huckabee to sign onto it. Among other requests, the letter urged Wal-Mart to enter a voluntary deal to ensure affordable health insurance and to pay a “family-sustaining wage.”

Huckabee told Grossman that he viewed the letter as an attempt to bash Wal-Mart. Huckabee said Wal-Mart employs about 46,000 people in Arkansas and pays an average wage to its hourly workers of $9.64 an hour. He questioned why the group wasn’t focusing on businesses that pay as much as Wal-Mart.

“As one who didn’t grow up a child of privilege, but rather a child close to poverty, I personally find your analysis of Wal-Mart smug and condescending,” Huckabee wrote. “No one is forced to shop or work at Wal-Mart. If people who grew up like me felt that Wal-Mart was being unfair to its workers or its customers, they would shop and work elsewhere.”

I cannot separate who I think will win from power rankings.

I understand that the conventional definition of the power ranking is variously who the “frontrunner” is and/or who would win if the election were held today. I have always had problems with those concepts as they are usually used by Liberal MSM and Party (both parties) types to try and explain election results in a way spun towards their particular world view or to blame a loss on an obscure issue or event. The liberals use polls and rankings and frontrunner declarations to set up a scenario where they can blame losses by liberals on anything but the unpopularity of liberalism. A GOP improper use of same is McCain Hardball’s known fact that McCain lost due to a smear campaign and not McCain’s positions on issues. The liberals always used debate moments to explain Reagan’s wins.

I reject all that. And, given the non-existent presidencies if elections had been held on different days other than election days after campaigns which informed the public concerning former presidents John Connelly, Edmund Muskie, Gary Hart, and Howard Dean, I just can’t go there either.

So my power rankings are my assessment of who I think will win the respective nominations. But first I will list my preferences for same, as of today:

Newt Gingrich-J.C. Watts vs. Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama

Why?

Newt is the WWIII guy and is rock solid on judges and protection of Judeo-Christian values. His major failing to me as Speaker was when he “apologized” for some remarks made by then congressman Watts about race hustler Jesse Jackson. Watts can school Newt on conservative bravery against the liberal establishment media, etc.

I would also be happy with Allen, Romney or Huckabee in the top slot and Condi Rice in the VP slot. I expect to be happy with Rudy Giuliani after he comes out against partial birth abortion and for conservative judges that leave abortion and gay issues to the states.

I think Hillary would produce the biggest negative turnout in history. A high percentage of Democrats will not vote for her or any woman. I also want Obama to be exposed for the far left liberal he is now

Most any Republican will beat most any Democrat for several reasons. Americans reject what liberalism has become. I think the Democrats maximized their turnout in 2004. The GOP gets better each election at turnout and we haven’t even tapped 10% of our internet power.

We are at war. Since the McGovern takeover in 1972, Dem party has only gotten Carter elected during war, as he pretended to be a hawk. The Cold War was over by 1992 and Clinton did campaign as a conservative.

The McGovern takeover of the Dem party is now complete with the purging of Lieberman. They are determined to relive the glory days of Vietnam. Those glory days produced a 1972 landslide despite 58,000 combat deaths.

Now, to the Power:

GOP Presidential Nomination

1. George Allen

Allen is the most reliable candidate on conservative base issues across the board, which is hard to achieve as a Senator. He maintains an executive attitude being an ex-governor, and as such, has been solid in his support of executive power in war. He is a likeable southerner, like Clinton and Dubya.

2. Mitt Romney

Romney is also reliable on most issues with proven executive leadership ability in the bluest of states. I suspect that his fate will be determined more by the success of his health care experiment than his Mormon faith.

3. Rudy Giuliani

Great leadership results in a time of war and in making NYC a livable city in peacetime. He inspires confidence.

4. Newt Gingrich

The smartest ideas guy conservatives have in public life. Has been the closest to what most Americans want to hear about the war than anyone. He handles the liberal media better than anyone. He articulates the Reagan message and abides no liberal known fact nonsense. Strong on border security forts.

5. Mike Huckabee

Seeing him speak in Spartanburg, SC last year convinces me he has what it takes on the war and he is very inspirational speaker and quick on his feet.

6. Sam Brownback

Fine man. Doesn’t inspire confidence.

7. Bill Frist

The poster child for why senators rarely win.

8. Tom Tancredo

One issue ain’t enough

9. George Pataki

Terrible speaking voice

10. Condi Rice

Only chance would be a draft.

11. John McCain

Better than Hagel.

12. Chuck Hagel

Not even better than McCain

GOP-VP

1. J.C. Watts

2. Condi Rice

The GOP MUST!!!! use the VP slot to balance the ticket as never before to go for the jugular against a party that needs to Whig-out. I wish we could be the first party to nominate a Black man or woman but I suspect the Dems will beat us to the punch if their convention is first.

Democrat Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominations

Gore will beat Hillary for the nomination, which will be the culmination of a series of lost battles by Bill Clinton, from Howard Dean as party chair and the Kerry nomination. The party is intent on re-living the 60s. Gore “wins” the battle for the party’s soul by having been out front with his real self since the 2000 campaign and opposing the Iraq war and fearing Chevy fumes forts. Obama will be the VP choice.

Strategic Vision Wisconsin Poll, Aug. 11-13, 2006:

21. Who is your choice for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008? (Tommy Thompson included; Republicans only)

Rudy Giuliani 29%
Tommy Thompson 23%
John McCain 20%
Mitt Romney 7%
Newt Gingrich 4%
Bill Frist 2%
Rick Santorum 1%
George Pataki 1%
George Allen 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 11%

22. Who is your choice for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008? (Tommy Thompson excluded; Republicans only)

Rudy Giuliani 38%
John McCain 27%
Mitt Romney 9%
Newt Gingrich 5%
George Allen 2%
Bill Frist 2%
Rick Santorum 1%
George Pataki 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 14%

Sen. George Allen’s lead over opponent Jim Webb is down to 5 points according to a new Rasmussen Poll:

The poll was taken since the “Macaca” incident and suggests that the incident played a significant part in moving the numbers. Abridged results of the poll, available only to Rasmussen subscribers, were released by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

According to the Rasmussen poll, most Virginians heard about the incident; two-thirds thought his comments were inappropriate and half thought his apology was insufficient. Forty-six percent of the respondents thought the incident would hurt Allen’s bid for re-election.

In the most recent Mason-Dixon poll, Allen led Webb by 16 percentage points. In the last Rasmussen poll, Allen led by 11 points.

This foolish mistake has probably killed Allen’s chances at the GOP nomination. No way does he take down Rudy, McCain, or Romney after, as an incumbent Senator in a Red State, just squeaking by in November by 5 points or less.?

Allen probably needs an 8-10 point victory to get himself back in the game.

Asks?National Review’s Byron York.

In yet another incident of the national media discovering what many bloggers learned long ago, York seems both pleased and a bit surprised to report that Rudy, despite being from New York, is no liberal.? He’s a supply-sider on taxes, says York, as well as a school choice guy on education, all while being committed to victory in Iraq and staying on offense in the GWOT.? As such, the media is finally discovering that there is such a thing as a fiscal and foreign policy conservative who also happens to be socially liberal, and Giuliani is it.

The moniker “fiscally conservative but socially liberal” has to be the most misused political term of the age.? It’s sort of the political equivalent of “spiritual, but not religious,” that label often used by urbane twentysomethings on dates at one of the many Starbucks that litter every major American city.? But the vast majority of people, and pols, who are referred to as F.C.B.S.L are anything but.? Ask them which parts of government should be eliminated, and they’ll waffle.? Suggest cutting taxes, and they turn their noses up.? And don’t even think about mentioning privatizing government services or introducing market forces to make things work better.? But on social issues, these F.C.B.S.L types are quite comfy with social liberalism: pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control.? So what you really have are Arlen Specter types — fiscal moderates and social liberals who are center-left on balance.? Like Bill Clinton.? And there’s nothing illegitimate about that point of view.? It’s just grossly mislabeled.

That said, Rudy is the real thing when it comes to being fiscally conservative and socially liberal.? Here you had a guy who cut taxes with one hand and enacted domestic partnerships with the other.? The only question for Rudy these days is whether he’s willing to leave that social liberalism at the door so that he can lead the fiscally and socially conservative Republican Party for a term or two.

York notes that not one South Carolinian asked Rudy about his social views.? When York brought this up to Giuliani, the Mayor responded: “I would say the same things I say in New York if those issues come up. They haven’t come up. I’d also say that right now they’re not the main issues.”

Mr. Mayor, if you’re reading, I would advise you to revise your thinking on these issues a bit.? It’s true that we Republicans who like you and who want you to lead us may not bring these issues up, but John McCain will, and George Allen will, and Mitt Romney will.? Mr. Mayor, it would be unwise to respond to these inevitable questions with your New York answers, and it would be quite prudent to find a way to square the circle between your personal views on issues like abortion and the views of most Republicans.? Embracing a federalist strategy that lets New York be New York and Montana be Montana is, in my view, your best bet.? Promise conservative judges who will leave social decisions in the hands of the people and tell us you’ll respect the Second Amendment as a part of the oath you take to uphold the Constitution and conservatives will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Two tiers (in the first, the rankings matter – in the second, they don’t):

Tier 1 (Division 1-A):

1) McCain: until he starts losing primaries, he’s the top dog

2) Rudy: name ID galore, “America’s Mayor”, as long as he can be “solid” on judges (ie: not appoint another squish like Souter) he’s A-OK among many SoCons

3) Mitt: he’s had a great couple of weeks and favorable press

4) Newt: lurking in the background – could become frontrunner, could implode, stay tuned?

5) Allen: if he puts-away Webb by 10+, he goes back to the top 3. A win of less than 5 (and certainly a loss) drops him to the Minors

6) Huckabee: my dark horse, he could rocket upward in a heartbeat – particularly if Romney, Allen or Newt begin to falter.

Tier 2 (the Bus Leagues):

Frist: Yawn. Awful as SML – Reid is running circles around him – not promotable.

Hagel: You’re kidding, right? Is there anyone, outside of immediate family, who takes this guy seriously? Possibly the second stupidest person in the Congress today (still rather well behind all-time leader Patrick Kennedy, however).

Pataki: For President? Based on the great job he’s done for New York state?

Brownback: He’s going nowhere.

Tancredo: Ditto.

Condi: She’s not running – if she runs, she probably vaults into the Majors pretty quickly – but she has to clean-up the mess at State first.

Well, it’s not scientific, but the Iowa State Fair is about as close as it gets. WHO-TV’s Dave Price decided to ask Fair-goers to “cast their kernels” for ’08. Rudy (who has no organization in the state) finishes a strong second to McCain:

The repubs:

John McCain 24% (Met many friends at the fair)
Rudy Giuliani 22% (9/11 made him strong among “r’s”)
Condoleeza Rice 22% (Never been a politician. Many here say she should)
Newt Gingrich 10% (Contract with America still pretty strong)
Mitt Romney 9% (“R” in a “D” state at home; middle of the pack here)
Bill Frist 6% (The doc may need some more patients)
Mike Huckabee 2% (Lost a ton, hasn’t found a ton of support)
George Pataki 2% (Stands tall among peers, falls short in poll)
George Allen 1% (Is the Hall of Fame coach more known here?)
Sam Brownback 1% (So much for sharing the midwestern love)

This poll largely reflects the name ID polls (with Condi polling really strong). But throw organization in the mix and we begin to see the contours of Iowa ’08.

Rudy, who has no organization yet, nearly ties McCain, who has Terry Nelson and Chuck Larson on his team (and was at the Fair, and presumably got some good exposure with those that took the poll). Newt will poll strongly with or without an organization. Another big surprise is Mitt Romney, who moves the needle with a good organization, despite his lack of name ID.
Huckabee is flatlining so far and Allen is surprisingly weak (behind Pataki, whose organization gets him from an asterisk to 2%). Scoring this, I’d say it’s plus arrows for Giuliani and Romney, results about as expected for McCain and Newt, and a dissapointing finish for Allen (who’s probably dead anyway after this week).

After hopping on the “Allen will never be president” bandwagon earlier this week, I feel compelled to say something nice about the senator from Virginia for once, just to show I’m not a bad guy.? This fall, George Allen is facing yet another favorite of the Nutroots, Democratic candidate James Webb, in an effort to retain his Senate seat in Virginia.? Here’s my prediction: Allen will beat Webb.? It won’t even be close.? We’re talking 10 or 12 points here.? People will wonder why anyone ever thought Webb could beat George Allen in Virginia.? And Allen will run for president.? But he won’t be the nominee.

Let me explain how I’m so sure of all of this with a little personal anecdote.? When I graduated from college a few years ago, I immediately went to work for what I will describe as a public relations organization in order to convey the message I’m trying to get across while still being as vague as possible and thus protect my secret identity.? Anyway, in this public relations environment, certain skills were conducive to success, like the ability to form and maintain relationships with people in order to persuade others into giving the organization what it wanted.? I was absolutely horrible at this.? Nevertheless, I worked there over the course of two years, got promoted twice, and got two raises.? Why?? Because my specific assignment involved writing, which I was very good at, and the result was that I passed by many of my coworkers who were great at schmoozing but horrible with the pen.? This raised the ire of many in the office, and I still garner some sort of pleasure from the whole ordeal, even though I soon realized that I’d never get where I wanted to be in that field and got out.

Now, how does this story relate to George Allen?? My experience working in public relations is a lot like George Allen’s experience in politics.? That’s because George Allen is, if nothing else, a shock jock.? That’s his temperment.? That’s his style.? We see that in Ryan Lizza’s infamous George Allen column for TNR.? We know that Allen liked to tease his sister.? We know that he took part in an eyebrow-raising prank during high school.? We know that he liked to wear Confederate gear even though he was from California.? And so forth.? George Allen likes to push the envelope.? He probably garners some sort of satisfaction out of the reactions his actions produce.? And that’s fine.? He’s a mischievious guy.? I can respect that.

But what that sort of personality isn’t conducive to is politics.? Because in politics, every single syllable one utters is dissected by a million microscopes.? Shock jocks belong in politics about as much as I belonged in public relations.

But, like me, George Allen keeps getting promoted by Virginia voters.? Why?? The reason is simple.? He’s good at what he does.? As governor, he did a good job.? He made the trains run on time.? As senator, he’s been a decent representative for the voters that elected him.? And so Virginians are willing to cut the guy some slack.? Yes, they say, he’s trying too hard to fit in with those cowboy boots despite being from California.? Yes, the noose in his office was a bit much.? Yes, he has a tendency to push the envelope.? But he’s good at what he does.? And that’s what Virginia voters care about when they pull the lever for Allen.? And that’s why George Allen will beat James Webb this fall.

But just as I would’ve had a difficult time making it to the top of the public relations field, George Allen’s goodwill among Virginians ends at the state line.? The American people don’t have the same experience with George Allen as Virginians do.? They haven’t experienced his governance; he hasn’t made the trains run on time for them.? As such, when presented with a shock jock presidential candidate, Americans will likely see not a mischievious guy who’s good at what he does, but someone who’s unpresidential.? The reactions of Americans to Allen’s eyebrow-raising actions won’t be, “Oh, that’s just George.? But he’s a good guy, so I’ll vote for him.”? Americans will more likely write him off as one who lacks the seriousness needed in a president in times like these.? And Allen won’t stop pushing the envelope.? Because that’s what he does.? It’s part of who he is.? He’s a shock jock who just happened to end up in politics.? Just like I was a nerd who happened to end up in PR.? But nerds don’t get far in PR.? And shock jocks don’t become president.

Apparently that’s how they do it?in Iowa:

…Iowans are putting their corn behind for the 2008 presidential election. The informal Cast Your Kernel poll included 20 potential presidential candidates, ten on each side.

On the Republican side, Senator John McCain came out on top with 24 percent, and Rudy Giuliani and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice were tied with 20 percent.

For the Democrats, John Edwards tied Senator Hillary Clinton, each with 33 percent. The two were followed in the informal poll by Governor Tom Vilsack.

Of course we should be careful about reading too much into the results of this poll. Although, the people who took the time to “cast their kernels” are likely the same type?of people who will be voting in the caucus in approx?16 months.

Once again, Edwards fairs very well on the Dem side in Iowa. Right now you have to like his chances of pulling the upset over HRC here.

I was suprised how well McCain did, since the CW states that he will fair poorly in Iowa due to his opposition to Ethanol subsidies.

An essential part of any 2008 blog, I think, is not only to gauge what will happen, but what should occur in the GOP’s attempt to hold the White House for a third straight election.? As such, this is my first post in which I will prescribe what I think the GOP agenda should encompass as we march forward towards 2008, regardless of who our nominee happens to be.

Today’s topic is foreign policy.? Let’s kick off the discussion with a quote from a military affairs expert, as stated by Andrew Sullivan:

“Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy. Everybody in the administration is being quite circumspect, but you can sense their own concern that this is drifting away from democracy.”

The subject matter is, of course, Iraq, the nation that we have spent billions upon billions on over the past three years in order to wipe out the former regime, hostile to the U.S. and capable of producing weapons of mass destruction, as well as attempting to establish a Western-style liberal democracy in the hopes that such a project would begin to break down the hopeless despotisms and repressive theocracies of the Middle East in order to ensure freedom and opportunities for the next generation and remove the call to fanaticism as an attractive option to young Middle Easterners.? I don’t think I’m alone in the recognition that things haven’t quite worked out as planned w/r/t the Bush Doctrine.? As such, what should the Giuliani or Romney or Allen Doctrine be?

More below the fold. (more…)

If you haven’t already, head on over to Giuliani Blog for?Rudyblogger’s excellent coverage of Rudy’s visit to SC.

As usual, it sounds like Rudy wowed every crowd he spoke to.

DaveG’s GOP Power Rankings 2.0?

1. Rudy Giuliani. Always in the top three in both scientific polls of GOP voters and online polls that register several thousand self-selected party activists, Rudy is clearly the man to beat for the nomination. His national hero status fits well with the GOP’s tendency to nominate heirs apparent, and his fundraising ability will allow him to raise millions upon millions at light-speed. His fiscal conservatism and red-state personality will trump any social concerns, which a few well-placed promises regarding conservative judges can neutralize anyway, given how much conservatives want to like the guy.

2. George Allen. Other than Giuliani, Allen is the only candidate who registers a net acceptability rating among both online activists and casual Republicans. A safe, Bob Dole-style choice, Allen wins the nomination only by default; that is, if all the other top-tier candidates flame out due to the many, many things that could destroy each of their candidacies, Allen remains the nice, safe, mainstream conservative, red-state Protestant in the race. Doesn’t seem like such a choice should be the second most likely nominee? Well, just remember it was only a decade ago Bob Dole was nominated by Republicans for basically the same reason.

3. Mitt Romney. Popular among the activists, though always falling behind Rudy and Allen, Mitt would rank higher if it weren’t for his dearth of support amongst casual Republicans in the scientific polls. He also polls horribly against Hillary, suggesting there may be something weighing Mitt down that the polls aren’t picking up, such as Mormonism, Massachusetts, or Mitt-Care. Still, his stellar communication skills and great campaign organization will make him a fierce competitor.

4. John McCain. Like Romney, McCain would rank higher if it weren’t for his dearth of support among a certain group of Republicans. In McCain’s case, though, he hits rock bottom among conservative activists, i.e., the sorts of folks who vote in primaries. McCain could theoretically claim New Hampshire and attempt to take it from there, but with Rudy and Romney both far more loyal Republicans with regional claims to the Granite State, and with Iowa packed with conservatives, it’s tough to see where McCain takes off. He’s the Lieberman of 2008, but his Rockefeller-esque status as the establishment candidate allows him to remain at least for now in the top tier.

5. Mike Huckabee. His fiscal policy is the subject of much intraparty debate, but Huckabee is solidly socially conservative and has an A+ personality for the campaign trail. If Huckabee can get organized, he may be able to do well in Iowa. Still, the nomination of a fiscally liberal Baptist minister with squishy views on immigration seems unlikely unless Bush’s approval ratings rebound. Otherwise, Americans will likely want something that reminds them a bit less of the things they like the least about the president.

6. Newt Gingrich. Newt’s a dog who had his day, and it’s likely impossible for him to rehabilitate his image. Still, few candidates in the race are able to articulate conservatism with the intellectual finesse of Gingrich. He’s viewed as unelectable, which is probably enough to kill his chances at the nod, but he remains strong among the activists, who know that Newt never got a fair shake from the media and deserves better. They’re right, but life ain’t fair, and Newt oughta stay with Fox News.

7. Sam Brownback. At this point, it’s all academic, because nobody beneath the top six is going to be the nominee. I would rank Brownback above the remaining few only due to his ability to run as a niche candidate for social conservatives.

8. Bill Frist. He’s Senate Majority Leader, and in a party that adores hierarchy, that usually means something. But Frist is such a horrible candidate that all it gets him is a spot above Pataki, Tancredo, and Hagel.

9. Tom Tancredo. A single-issue protest candidate who probably won’t run. But still a more likely nominee than the remaining RINOs.

10. George Pataki. A true RINO, and I rarely use that term to describe any Republican, Pataki has about as much chance of being the GOP nominee as I have of becoming King of England.

11. Chuck Hagel. Sort of a less partisan version of John McCain, if that’s possible. Stick to Meet the Press, Senator.

12. Condi Rice. Only because she won’t run, and campaigns to draft candidates never work, does Condi take the final spot. If she were to jump in the race, she would skyrocket to the top as Bush’s heir apparent and the likely GOP nominee.

Likely GOP Ticket

As of this juncture, I’d have to go with Giuliani/Barbour. I think Rudy will take one of the top three spots in Iowa along with Allen and Romney, Rudy will then go on to win New Hampshire, knocking Romney out, and Rudy and Allen will go head to head in the later primaries, with Giuliani trouncing Allen in the big industrial states and in states like Florida and California. I think Rudy will select Barbour to shore up the south, as well as to show he’s serious about leading the party of the sunbelt and to reinforce the ticket with a fellow executive who communicates well and who has demonstrated excellence in government and the ability to handle a crisis.

Likely Dem Ticket

I’m going to go out on a limb and predict a Gore/Feingold ticket. Gore jumps in the race in 2007 and he and Hillary suck all the oxygen out of the race as the media prepares for the imminent battle of the titans. The Clinton destruction machine wins Iowa, but Gore goes on to beat Hillary in New Hampshire, and the two battle it out in the later states, with Gore running as the Kossite/nutroots/leftist candidate and Hillary as the establishment candidate. Gore wins on a platform of greater economic regulation, socialism at home, and appeasement abroad. He selects Feingold to reinforce the ticket, as well as to compete in the purple upper midwest.

The result: a Giuliani blow-out. Rudy takes 40 states: Bush’s 31 red states from 2004 plus MI, MN, WI, PA, NH, OR, NJ, IL, and WA.