While this issue is certain to remain fluid for awhile, it may be interesting to note where things are headed in terms of the early presidential electoral calendar in 2008, though this is not intended to be a comprehensive, 50-state picture but rather an initial and brief look at key early dates as a benchmark that we can update and expand over time. But the fact remains that the likely calendar compression is such that both parties probably will have their nominees selected by March 4, 2008 at the rate dates are being selected for caucuses and primaries.
The more compressed the calendar becomes, the higher the premium on such aspects as fundraising, organization, name recognition, poll standing, and momentum for candidates. And interestingly, as of now, such electoral vote-rich states as Pennsylvania, Illinois, and California figure to be non-factors in the 2008 presidential nomination process based on their primary dates.
A few caveats. There always exists the legal tension between the major parties’ desire and perceived right to set the presidential caucus and primary calendar and that of the individual states for the same. Heretofore we have seen compromises worked out. But this tension is building to the point where litigation is becoming more and more likely. In addition, the two major parties can conceivably conduct caucuses or primaries on different dates for the same states, though that does not happen a lot.
And, finally, be reminded that the first presidential primay debate has been set for Republican candidates on May 15, 2007 at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, South Carolina, sponsored by the South Carolina Republican Party.
With this in mind, the first 2008 foray into this area would be the new rule passed by the Democratic National Committee (that need not necessarily be followed by Republican Party in these states) this past August establishing the following schedule for their party:
January 14, 2008 – Iowa Caucuses
January 19, 2008 – Nevada Caucuses
January 22, 2008 – New Hampshire Primary
January 29, 2008 – South Carolina Primary
February 5, 2008 – Other Caucuses and Primaries May Begin to Follow Those Above
Other moves that have been made and are being contemplated for early 2008 include (in approximate chronological order):
South Carolina – The DNC has established their South Carolina primary date as January 29, 2008. The Republican Party of South Carolina, which pays for the statewide presidential primary, is committed to conducting the first GOP primary in the south in 2008 (and likes the idea of a Saturday primary to minimize costs), which would mean no later than February 2, 2008.
Alabama – Based on state statute the Alabama presidential primary will be held on February 5, 2008 for all parties.
Arkansas – Based on state statute the Arkansas presidential primary will be held on February 5, 2008 for all parties.
Delaware – Based on state statute the Delaware presidential primary will be held on February 5, 2008 for all parties.
Missouri – Based on state statute the Missouri presidential primary will be held on February 5, 2008 for all parties.
Oklahoma – Based on state statute the Oklahoma presidential primary will be held on February 5, 2008 for all parties.
North Dakota – Held their Democrat caucuses the first Tuesday in February in 2004, which would be February 5, 2008 this next presidential cycle.
New Jersey – Legislation is pending to move the New Jersey presidential primary to February 5, 2008 for all parties. Governor Corzine has said he is open to the idea.
Florida – The likely next Speaker of the House, Marco Rubio, was reportedly going to propose legislation to move the Florida presidential primary up to a position that was initially supposed to be seven days after the New Hampshire primary. But that would violate the new DNC rules. So this legislation instead may create movement for a Florida primary as early as February 5, 2008 for all parties.
Michigan – Michigan GOP state party chair Saul Anuzis had wanted to create an agreement with his DNC state counterpart to ask the state legislature to move this primary to the same date as South Carolina. But that would violate the new DNC rules. So this push may instead result in movement for a Michigan primary as early as February 5, 2008 for all parties. There is also talk of Michigan changing from an open to a closed primary.
North Carolina – Legislation is pending that would change North Carolina from a caucus to a primary state for purposes of presidential elector selection and establish a February 5, 2008 date for that primary for all parties.
Wild West Regional Primary – A Western States Presidential Primary Symposium was held yesterday in Salt Lake City in which a unified, early February 2008 primary date for the states of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada (on the Republican side), New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming was discussed.
Washington – Conducted their Democrat caucuses in the 2004 cycle in such a way that would correspond to February 9 in 2008.
Maine – Conducted their Democrat caucuses in the 2004 cycle in such a way that it would correspond to February 10 in 2008.
Louisiana – The state Republican Party has voted to ask the state legislature to move their presidential primary to the second Saturday in February (the 9th in 2008), unless that is Mardi Gras in which case it will be moved to the third Saturday in February (the 16th in 2008).
Tennessee – Based on state statute the Tennessee presidential primary is expected to be held on February 12, 2008 for all parties.
Virginia – Based on state statute the Virginia presidential primary is expected to be held on February 12, 2008 for all parties.
Wisconsin – Based on state statute the Wisconsin presidential primary is expected to be on February 19, 2008 for all parties.
Connecticut – Based on state statute the Connecticut presidential primary is expected be held on March 4, 2008 for all parties.
Georgia – Based on state statute the Georgia presidential primary will be held on March 4, 2008 for all parties.
Maryland – Based on state statute the Maryland presidential primary is expected be held on March 4, 2008 for all parties.
Massachusetts – Based on state statute the Massachusetts presidential primary is expected be held on March 4, 2008 for all parties.
Minnesota – Based on state statute the Minnesota precinct caucuses will be held on March 4, 2008, though both the Democrat and Republican state parties have encouraged the state legislature to move the caucuses to February 19, 2008 to coincide with the Wisconsin presidential primary and create a mini northern Super Tuesday.
Mississippi – Based on state statute the Mississippi presidential primary is expected to be held on March 4, 2008.
New York – Based on state statute the New York presidential primary will be held on March 4, 2008 for all parties.
Ohio – Based on state statute the Ohio presidential primary is expected be held on March 4, 2008 for all parties.
Rhode Island – Based on state statute the Rhode Island presidential primary will be held on March 4, 2008 for all parties.
Texas – Based on state statute the Texas presidential primary is expected to be held on March 4, 2008 for all parties.
Vermont – Based on state statute the Vermont presidential primary is expected be held on March 4, 2008 for all parties.
Pennsylvania – A gubernatorial task force has recommended changing state law to move their presidential primary to the first Tuesday in March for 2008 and 2012, which would correspond to March 4 in 2008. But as yet there has been no significant action on the recommendation by the Pennsylvania legislature.
United States Senator Norm Coleman from Minnesota tells Brady Averill of the Minneapolis-Saint Paul Star Tribune that he does not want to be on the Republican presidential ticket in 2008 and instead will run for re-election that year.
This is likely to be one of the rare instances when the Race for 2008 field on the GOP side narrows rather than widens.
?
South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint is asking Republicans in the Palmetto State to hold off signing on to ’08 campaigns until after the November elections. This draws an especially spirited response from South Carolina AG Henry McMaster, McCain’s guy in the state:
#quot;When it comes to the 2008 Presidential Primary, I plan to take time after November to learn more about each of these candidates and where they stand on our key conservative issues, before deciding which one to support. I encourage you to do the same. South Carolina has the opportunity to select the next President of the United States…let’ take our time and do it right.#quot;
Responds McMaster: “It is totally unreasonable to suggest that Republicans here are incapable of focusing on the November election and at the same time prepare for the presidential primary because they’ve been doing exactly that [for years].
I think this can be viewed as the Romney’s camp’s “response” to the rollout of Strom Thurmond, Jr. and Carroll Campbell III by the McCain camp. Included in the story is this tidbit: Romney has recruited a bunch of S.C. folks, but DeMint asked him to hold off an announcement, and Romney agreed. This signals that DeMint will probably go to Romney, or whomever emerges as a viable anti-McCain candidate.
Revised post: I did a little blogosphere sleuthing and noticed that a few other blogs had also?become aware of the chatter on the political wire regarding a new poll showing Allen and Webb tied, and that each of those blogs was?quickly retracting?its post on the subject after getting nasty emails from the polling outfit in question.? As I am not a fan of reporting falsities, and even less of a fan of nasty emails, I am pulling the rumor, which I still believe to be true.? Do know this: I am confident that a highly credible polling outfit will release a poll within days or perhaps hours showing Allen in a very bad position in his effort to win reelection to the Senate.
Update: Confirmed.? I am vindicated.? The pollster is Mason-Dixon, as I originally reported, which is the most accurate national pollster that I know of, and is almost eerily accurate in the south.? Allen and Webb are tied among Virginia voters with 43 percent each.
For all the bad, horrible, miserable, painful things that have happened to George Allen these last few weeks, you’ve gotta figure that ads like this have to hurt the most.
And Giuliani, who offered these encouraging words for the Virginia Senator:
“You can take somebody’s career and you can do all kinds of things with it, you can spin it one way or another,#quot; Giuliani said during a Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., campaign stop on behalf of Rep. Clay Shaw, R-Fla., who is also seeking re-election.
“But I believe Sen. Allen is a good leader. I also believe he’s going to be elected by the people of Virginia. They know the great work he’s done for them as a governor and a senator, and they really appreciate it.”
Giuliani added, “Sen. Allen has been a very, very effective leader. First of all, he’s a good friend of mine. And I’ve known Sen. Allen a long time. He’s been a great governor, a great senator, and you know, these things happen in campaigns, the focus gets on criticizing [a candidate] and finding everything wrong with them.
There you have McCain, who for all his problems with the base still has a good deal of liberal and moderate street cred, vouching for George Allen in a television ad run by Allen’s campaign. The same Allen campaign that would gladly cut McCain to pieces come November 8th. I’m interested to know what the strategy is here. Is it to flush the frontrunners into an Allen lovefest this year, and make them look like craven hypocrites when they attack him next? Or is it the law of the jungle — doing what you need to do to survive, the Presidency be damned?
More likely it’s the latter. If so, this is a pretty tacit acknowledgment by Allen that he’s nowhere near the level of a McCain or Giuliani, which we all knew, but it’s kind of sad to see him admit it. Did Mitt Romney eschew a tough re-election battle to avoid having to resort to embarrassing moments like this?
I strongly support Senator Allen for re-election and hope he serves a full six year term. He’s a voice for common sense in a Senate compromised by the preening likes of McCain, Graham, and of late, Allen’s colleague John Warner. It’s a shame that labels like “straight talk” and “maverick” only get applied when you’re dissenting to the left, and not challenging the conventional wisdom from the right, as Allen often does. But seeing him elevate two of his prime opponents above himself is a pretty remarkable sight.
Think the dueling staff announcements from McCain and Romney are getting a bit ridiculous? (Even Hotline is getting a bit jaded.) Well, this press release just crossed our transom…
Eighteen [Count 'em, Eighteen!] New Hampshire Dog Catchers Join Straight Talk America
ALEXANDRIA, VA — Eighteen New Hampshire dog catchers will join Straight Talk America, forming a dog catchers’ advisory council that will advise Senator McCain on their expertise in canine capture and other issues.
The group is led by Susan Alfred, President of the New Hampshire Association of Dog Catchers in 1992-93 and Bush 2000 supporter, who noted, “Imagine my surprise when I picked up the phone and, oh my, it was John McCain. We’re just tickled pink that someone is finally noticing us!”
John Weaver, senior adviser to Straight Talk America, said this about this significant “get”: “Their experience rounding up puppies and other stray animals is especially appropriate to lassoing Republicans to the polls in 2006. They will also be valued members of the team should Senator McCain make the ultimate decision.”
Said Senator McCain, “In their capacity as dog catchers, these community leaders are influentials of the highest order. They are grizzled campaign veterans, eeking out election victories by the razor tight margins of 64 votes to 58, 33 to 31, and 19 to 18.”
The announcement caps off a busy week for Straight Talk America, including the announcement of a Mainstream Media Advisory Committee led by Charlie Cook, Chuck Todd, and Mark Halperin, the rollout of sixty-four new state and regional auxiliaries of Political Consultants for McCain, and the recruitment of three Voters for McCain.
-30-
< /satire>
Foreign minister Ban Ki-Moon, of course.? And what does that have to do with a Rice presidential campaign?? UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is ending his second term at the end of this December, and the popular Ban is almost assured the post in January of 2007.? Lucky for Condi, Ban happens to be one of her closest allies and personal friends in the realm of diplomacy, and the prospect of having a President in 2009 who will have long-established levels of trust, respect, and access with the Head of the UN may prove to be a tough incentive for foreign policy-focused Republican voters to let pass by in ’08.
Here’s what the Associated Press had to say about Ban:
South Korea’s foreign minister kept his spot as the clear favorite in the race to succeed U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in an informal poll Thursday, the only one among the seven candidates to get the needed majority of votes.
Ban Ki-Moon received 13 votes in favor, one against and one of no opinion, China’s U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya said. He slipped slightly from the previous poll, held Sept. 14, when he received 14 votes in favor and one against.
Despite that dominating lead, the secrecy of the ballot meant it was not known whether he got the necessary approval of all five veto- wielding members of the council, and the ballot is difficult to interpret. The results could either give Ban the momentum he needs to win or clear the field for more people to enter the race.
The 15 council nations checked one of three boxes for each candidate: “Encourage,” “discourage,” and “no opinion.” Secretary-General Kofi Annan steps down on Dec. 31, when his second five-year term expires.
Bangladesh’s U.N. Ambassador Iftekhar Chowdhury said he attended a speech Ban gave on Wednesday and approved.
“He came out quite good _ mature, balanced, and with the right amount of experience, gravitas, the qualities that you seek in a secretary- general,” Chowdhury said. “We think he’ll make an excellent secretary- general, of course.”
Ban Ki-Moon may just prove to be an invaluable asset to Sec. Rice’s ’08 prospects.? First of all, she would be virtually guaranteed his endorsement if asked for it, and second of all, a President Rice working with a Secretary General Ban has the potential to accomplish so much.? It will be interesting to see how?Sec. of State?Rice and Sec. Gen. Ban work together in the year and a half before Election Day.
Actually, it’s my hometown newspaper the Minneapolis Star Tribune. It will be interesting to watch them struggle to provide straight-up, non-biased coverage of the Republican Party for the next two-years leading up to the RNC:
If you believe the latest polls, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani will have the best shot at raising his arms in victory at a Twin Cities podium two years from now when Republican Party activists convene for their national convention.
But he’ll have plenty of competition, mainly from Arizona Sen. John McCain, who’s running second in most polls.
If recent history is any indication, the 2008 convention will be a carefully orchestrated affair with little suspense, which is the main reason network TV executives are losing interest in providing wall-to-wall coverage.
Then again, this one might be different: For the first time since 1928, neither the incumbent president nor vice president will be running — unless Vice President Cheney pulls a very big surprise and decides to join the fray.
Thirty-one percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents would support Giuliani for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, according to a CNN poll in late August and early September.
McCain trails at 20 percent and is followed by Gingrich at 12 percent.
But according to a FOX News poll from late August, it’s a horse race. Twenty-seven percent said that if the Republican presidential primary were held today, they would vote for Giuliani. Twenty-five percent lean toward McCain. Gingrich followed 11 points behind McCain. When Republicans could only choose between Giuliani and McCain, the former mayor came out on top.
The Big 3 being the three big global issues of our time: the Middle East, the denuclearization of Korea, and the situation in Darfur.
Sec. Rice has become increasingly vocal about the need to end the strife in Sudan, giving a sobering but stirring speech on the matter to the Africa Society yesterday where she received several standing ovations and was presented with an award for her commitment to peace in the region:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday raised the threat of more international sanctions against Sudan if the government did not stop military operations in the Darfur region and unconditionally accept a United Nations peacekeeping force.
Condi will visit the Middle East this coming week:
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will travel to Saudi Arabia, Egypt Israel and the Palestinian territories next week to discuss the possibility of new openings for peace, the State Department announced.
She would consult with leaders “who have a vision for a more moderate, peaceful, democratic, stable and prosperous Middle East,” said the department’s spokesman, Sean McCormack.
In addition to the Israel-Palestinian dispute, McCormack said Rice will seek to move her democracy agenda forward and discuss and threats to stability and moderation in the region, including Iran, Hamas and Hizbullah.
Followed by a trip to Asia to get the Six Party Talks restarted:
?U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will visit Asia soon to push for the resumption of the stalled six-party talks, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Wednesday.
The Secretary also tackled another big issue: football.? Here’s what Condi said on who she would like to see make it to the Superbowl:
“I found the Saints’ victory last night really stirring, you know, to see New Orleans come back that way. It was really, really exciting. And aside from all of the hoopla and all of the ceremony, I actually think New Orleans is just a really good football team. And I sure would have picked Reggie Bush first in the draft.”
May all of her hopes come true!
At the rate Senator McCain and Governor Romney are picking up alliances with key Republican insiders in early caucus and primary states such as Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Michigan, isn’t it becoming increasingly clear that Mayor Giuliani and Speaker Gingrich are likely to be running populist, outsider candidacies in 2008 that eschew the traditional endorsement game and attempt to win electoral majorities by inspiring citizens at the grassroots level through their policies and vision rather than with political muscle?
Such a populist strategy, in conjunction with entering the fray later than McCain and Romney, may also set up the two best organized GOP candidates to attack each other, as we saw glimpses of in the recent detainee legislation debate, in a way that significantly injures both and paves the way for others to come to the forefront from the rear. This would be a perfect set up for Giuliani and Gingrich, much as how in 2004 Congressman Gephardt and Governor Dean destroyed each other in Iowa and allowed John Kerry to?thus win those?caucuses from behind and establish unbeatable momentum after following that up with a win in his backyard at the New Hampshire primary.
Timing and positioning can be everything. We could be looking at a battle of machines versus messages on the GOP side in 2008.
From Hotline:
Sen. John McCain rolled out two more SC endorsements today, each with a very recognizable name. Strom Thurmond, Jr. and Carroll A. Campbell, III will serve as state co-chairs of Straight Talk America. The son of the iconic ex-Senator was appointed US Atty by Pres Bush and is now in private practice. Campbell, son of the ex-congressman and gov whose political machine delievered the state in every contested SC presidential primary for two decades, is a businessman.
Gamecock may want to delve into what this means a little further…?These are huge names in SC.?
For the life of me, I just couldn’t figure out why commentors on my essay “Addressing the Abortion Meme” reprinted under my post “Blast From the Past” were giving me a hard time in regards to my commentary on Mitt Romney.
It would probably be because I forgot to copy/paste my concluding paragraph under Mitt’s section which should have read:
Gov. Romney seems to have settled on a strategy to overcome these prior positions in order to gain the 2008 Republican nomination; namely, become the “leading general” of the conservative movement in the battles of the “Culture War”. Being Governor of Massachusettes has given him ample opportunity to accomplish that.
This oversight has been corrected. My apologies go out to R4’08 readers Stan Hillman and Murphy. It’s my turn to wear the idiot hat for the day!
Now that heads have cooled a bit over the recent developments in the trashiest Senate race of the decade, it’s time to recap what we know about the status of once and possibly future 2008 aspirant, Virginia Sen. George Allen.? For a fun and informative FAQ on the topic, read on. (more…)
Let’s take a look a Rudy’s comments on Clinton and 9/11 in their full context:
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani characterized Bill and Hillary Clinton’s recent criticism of President Bush’s efforts to stop Osama bin Laden before 9/11 as a “mistake” and said it’s time to “stop this blame thing” over who is responsible for the September 11 attacks.
“I think the comparison is the mistake,” Giuliani told NewsMax and other media during a luncheon Wednesday in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., while on a campaign stop for Congressman Clay Shaw, R-Fla., who is seeking re-election.
“I don’t think the Clinton people should be saying somehow it’s more President Bush’s responsibility,” Giuliani said when asked about Hillary’s recent statements about Sept. 11.
“I know President Bush doesn’t say that about President Clinton,” said Giuliani. “I think the reality is that any American president, if they had known about an attack, would have done everything they could to stop it.”
The real fault for 9/11, Giuliani says, lies squarely with the Islamic terrorists. He added, “I think we should stop trying to blame our presidents for 9/11.”
Frequently mentioned as a potential Republican candidate for president in 2008, Giuliani characterized the latest war of words over who is responsible for 9/11 as a distraction. “We should stop this blame thing,” he said. “There’s no blame to be cast on President Bush or President Clinton.”
Giuliani added that he thinks we should stop getting distracted by trying to figure out what American is responsible for the terrorist attacks, saying “Americans didn’t do Sept. 11, the Islamic terrorists did.”
In his remarks during the campaign stop, Giuliani credited President Bush’s aggressive anti-terror policy for the fact the U.S. has not been attacked since 9/11.
“The reality is, thank God, we haven’t been attacked in five years,” Giuliani said. “None of us thought that was possible. We all thought that after 9/11 we would be attacked. I personally thought many times.”
The real spirit of Rudy’s comments in Florida come out when the whole picture is presented.
Thanks to Gamecock for the tip!
How will this play out with the grassroots Republican voters?
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani defended Bill Clinton on Wednesday over the former president’s counterterrorism efforts, saying recent criticism on preventing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is wrong.Political bickering over which president _ Clinton or George W. Bush _ missed more opportunities to prevent the attacks has been escalating since Clinton gave a combative interview on “Fox News Sunday” in which he defended his efforts to kill Osama bin Laden.???“The idea of trying to cast blame on President Clinton is just wrong for many, many reasons, not the least of which is I don’t think he deserves it,” Giuliani said in response to a question after an appearance with fellow Republican Charlie Crist, who is running for governor. “I don’t think President Bush deserves it. The people who deserve blame for Sept. 11, I think we should remind ourselves, are the terrorists _ the Islamic fanatics _ who came here and killed us and want to come here again and do it.”
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice challenged Clinton’s claim that he did more than many of his conservative critics to pursue bin Laden, and she accused the Democrat of leaving no comprehensive plan to fight al-Qaida.
Giuliani said he believed Clinton, like his successor, did everything he could with the information he was provided.
“Every American president I’ve known would have given his life to prevent an attack like that. That includes President Clinton, President Bush,” the former mayor said. “They did the best they could with the information they had at the time.”
Giuliani also said a recently declassified report that said the Iraq war had become a “cause celebre” for Islamic extremists demonstrated the need to continue the fight there.
“The jihadists very much want a victory in Iraq. They feel that if they could defeat us in Iraq they will have a great victory for terrorism,” Giuliani said. “What that should do is organize us to say if they want a big victory in Iraq then we have to deprive them of that victory.”
Giuliani said he was “very interested in considering” a run for president but would not make a decision until after the November election.
I don’t doubt Clinton is a patriotic guy and would have done everything he could to prevent 9/11, including giving his own life, if he knew it was going to happen.? But defending what Sec. Rice described as Clinton’s “flatly false” claims that the Bush administration didn’t lift a finger to stop 9/11, that his administration tried harder to fight terrorism than that of the Bush administration, and that his administration left the Bush administration a “comprehensive” plan to take down al Qaeda?
I like Giuliani, but I have to seriously disagree with his statement that Clinton “did everything he could with the information he was provided.”? The 9/11 Commission Report specifically notes many failures of the Clinton administration pre-9/11 and chances to kill bin Laden that were not taken advantage of because of political reasons.
I don’t see how Giuliani’s move on this issue can possibly be a plus for him in a Republican primary.? If it has any effect at all, it will most likely be a net negative.
In response to this Red State story entitled “Mitt Romney Lies About Abortion” I thought I would reprint an essay that, although not mainly adressing the charges against Gov. Romney, addresses the history of Republican presidential candidates in regards to abortion issues post-Roe.
So without further ado…
Addressing the Abortion Meme
When discussing the candidates for the 2008 Republican nomination for President, invariably at least one pundit will declare that “No Pro-Choice candidate can ever will the GOP nomination”. Having stated this “known fact”, the pundit will usually go on to definitively dismiss the chances of one or more of the candidates in the GOP field.
The fact that an openly Pro-Choice candidate could never win the Republican nomination will not be debated here. Even the most liberal Republican must concede this point. However, the problem lies with the inherent dishonestly, the “sleight of hand” if you will, of the statement. The real question is whether a candidate that has espoused Pro-Choice ideals in the past can win the Republican nomination for President if they have properly reformed their opinion to fall in line with the majority opinion of the Republican Party. Or perhaps more succinctly: Is a Pro-Choice Presidential candidate able to modify their position on abortion to become acceptable to the Republican base? I believe that history shows this not only to be possible, but to be the norm in the Republican nomination process.
Due to the thesis in question, I will include as evidence policy enacted, signed, or championed during any elected term of the candidates detailed here. The statement in question is in itself a declaration of purity on this issue. Surely then, any legislation signed as an elected official that would serve to increase the number of abortions or further the Pro-Choice agenda in any way would be viewed by the “True Believers” of the GOP as evidence of softness on this issue and will be treated as such here.
Not discussed here will be any impact of nominating a formerly Pro-Choice candidate the 2008 general election. This essay discussing the impact on the Republican nomination process alone.
Fans of R4’08 know that I loathe the “R” word, which I think is used way too much these days by pundits just to sell a book or make a headline, but Michael Barone is a smart guy, and he has some compelling numbers to back up his?use of that-word-which-shall-remain-unsaid.
Barone demonstrates that 2006 will be a year in which Republican candidates win in various states and congressional districts that have been blue for the better part of the last decade, while Democratic candidates are doing well in red states and districts.?
My first thought was that Barone is cherry-picking races to fit his reality, and what we’re really looking at is a good Democratic year giving Republicans a hard time, combined with a few anomales in the northeast.? After giving his column a closer look, that doesn’t appear to be the case.? Even in races that have a clear regional flavor to them, such as the Senate races in Maryland and New Jersey, Republicans Steele and Kean are overperforming Bush in traditionally blue areas of their respective states while underperforming Bush in the red areas.? Moreover, this seems to be a national trend.
Barone suggests that the red/blue divide of the last few years may have had more to do with President Bush’s cultural appeal than anything (or lack thereof, depending on the region) and that a GOP nominee like Rudy, Romney, or McCain, with an entirely different demographic and cultural appeal, will prove the 1994-2004 realignment to be a false one.? I’m not ready to give up on my theory that 2004 was the beginning of a sunbelt Republican majority just yet, though Barone has at least gotten my attention.? Numbers don’t lie, and we’ll just have to wait and see how 2006 plays out to see whether Barone’s right or whether my sunbelt theory, which I’ve articulated on R4’08 numerous times (that’s code for the fact that I’m too lazy to link to it) is vindicated.? Until then, I maintain that a Rudy or a Romney could easily expand the GOP majority into the swing states of 2004, like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota, without losing any of the red states by running sunbelt, center-right campaigns with a broader cultural appeal.
Thanks to Rudyblogger for breaking this most joyous news!
I can tell you right now that I will be there from opening bell to closing bell!
I have go to go and lay down now. I’m too tired from running throughout my neighborhood screaming like a madman!
According to sources, Governor Mitt Romney will be announcing later today in Iowa that Iowa House Speaker Christopher Rants has joined his Commonwealth PAC as an adviser.
There can be no denying that the Senator McCain and Governor Romney organizations are far ahead of the rest of the GOP competition at this juncture in terms of 2008 campaign personnel, and are committed to front runner and early entrant strategies. How this reality impacts the other candidates and the polls will be interesting to watch.
South Carolina Republican political consultant Drew McKissick tells reporter Paul West of the Baltimore Sun that he has a donation from Governor Romney’s PAC, commitments for donations from the PACs of Governor Pataki and Senator Allen, and possible commitments for donations from the PACs of Senator Frist and Mayor Giuliani in a fundraising drive to sponsor a state ballot measure that would ban gay marriage.
The McKissick fundraising for this ballot measure may take gay marriage off the table as an issue in the 2008 GOP presidential primary, as all serious contenders go on record in supporting marriage as being between a man and woman.
The announcement that Mayor Rudy Giuliani will be delivering a college lecture on leadership at a post-election forum in the important national swing state of Pennsylvania seems to be additional evidence that he will be a serious contestant for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.
I don’t care if they are Democrat or Republican.
And what bothers me equally as much are the seeming defensive, knee-jerk reactions from so many folks on my Republican side of the fence that those using racially insensitive if not bigoted language are victims of media bias and political correctness. As if the media made them do it or are doing the wrong thing in bringing such language to the attention of voters. Or as if the three supporters who never heard the candidate utter such language cancel out the three witnesses who heard the candidate utter the reprehensible phrases. The phrases coming recently out of the mouths of senators like Robert Byrd, Joe Biden, Conrad Burns, and George Allen – be it macaca, nigger, ragheads, or you cannot go to Seven Eleven or Dunkin Donuts without having an Indian accent – are unacceptable and show racial insensitivity and ignorance if not racist feelings. There is no way to spin such incidents as mere opposition electioneering, though we see plenty of folks trying.
The first thing that ought to happen is that Congress ought to censure members who have uttered such language. The second thing that ought to happen is that the parties of those members ought to find different nominees next election cycle. And the final thing that ought to happen is that voters should not support candidates who use such phrases when they?appear on their ballots. I might be willing to waive the second and third outcomes for those candidates who genuinely apologize for such language and can prove they are not habitual users of such phrases. I would throw the book at those candidates who lie about using such language and try to blame the press and their political opponents for their own unacceptable remarks.
It is particularly grievous, I think, to see Republicans defending and rationalizing such racial insensitivity. You would think a party?that loses nine out of ten black votes each election should know better. Too bad that such is clearly not the case.
Doesn’t appear to be officially released yet, but there is chatter on the political wire that Survey USA will release a poll today showing Allen leading Webb by 5 points.? This poll was taken entirely after the new charges against Allen were?publicized this week, and the sample is very volatile, with Allen leading on days that he denies the charges and Webb leading on days that a new accuser steps forward.? Allen’s three-day average puts him at 49%, which is fairly close to 50, and it wouldn’t take much to push him?over the finish line.? Stay tuned…
Update: Here’s?the poll.? Note that the number of undecideds is smaller than Allen’s margin over Webb.
Strategic Vision Georgia, Sept. 22-24, 2006
For the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination whom would you support? (Republicans Only)
Rudy Giuliani 33%
John McCain 19%
Newt Gingrich 14%
Mitt Romney 7%
Bill Frist 3%
George Allen 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
George Pataki 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 20%
Strategic Vision Florida, Sept. 22-24, 2006
Who is your first choice for the Republican nomination in 2008? (Republicans only)
Rudy Giuliani 43%
John McCain 25%
Mitt Romney 7%
Newt Gingrich 5%
Bill Frist 2%
George Allen 1%
George Pataki 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 14%
Maybe Sabato was a serial “N” Word User in 2000 or he’s Just a liar or maybe he realizes that whether one used the “N” Word in the past, whether one be FDR, HST, JFK or LBJ, has no relevance to one’s fitness for office when one has a long record in office where one can judge is one tried to re-impose Jim Crow or slavery or hired blacks to work for one’s administration or staff.
Virginians have better sense than Sabato and AP think, just as the American people did when rather released the fake but true National Guard Docs. This incident will help Allen by showing the symbiotic relationship between the MSM and the Democrat Party and the depths to which they will sink to beat conservatives. Add this to Webb’s attempt to get a posthumous endorsement from Reagan, a man he slandered when he quit the administration.
The race is over. As it was from the beginning. Why? Allen is a reliable conservative that Virginians have learned they can trust.
Mark Levin is covering the issue well:
http://levin.nationalreview.com/
See NRO Sixers piece and Taranto:
http://sixers.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmZiNDdmOTIwMDM5NmI5M2IwMWYwZGJjYzY3NDc4ZGY=
In October of 2000, Larry Sabato moderated a debate between then candidate George Allen and Senator Chuck Robb. The Washington Post covered the debate with an article titled, “Larry Sabato, Immoderating the Debate in Richmond.” (Pub. date 10/25/00) The article is available for purchase on the Washington Post’s website.
Here’s how Wa Post writer, Libby Copeland, phrased Sabato’s performance:
The debate’and Sabato’s proactive style’have caused their own small controversy in the final two weeks of the race. One analyst called the above exchange “good television” but “a waste of time.” It was the tone of the debate that was so troubling, political observers and party activists are saying. The questions seemed editorializing, overly cynical.
Some viewers came away from the hour with a sense that there were three candidates on the stage in Richmond. There was the grinning, colorfully talkin’ recent guvner; the measured, self-possessed senator; and’seizing nearly as much airtime’Sabato himself.
As one ranking Republican’frustrated by the debate’s “nasty” questioning’put it, “Who is Larry Sabato? Who in hell died and made him king?”
It wasn’t as if viewers weren’t warned. Sabato informed them early on that “this is going to be an unusually tough debate.” Then he set about to do something that, he says, few debates succeed at doing: revealing the “real” candidates.
The “real” candidate? Like revealing that one candidate is racist and uses the “n” word? Why did Sabato avoid the race issue in 2000????
Here’s what Sabato had to say on Hardball last night:
MATTHEWS: Well how did he have that reputation as a student, define that if you can?
SABATO: Well as you know and anybody who has followed politics recently knows, he had a long love affair with the confederate flag and other symbols of the confederacy, which frankly was a bit odd for somebody who grew up in an upper middle class family with every possible privilege in southern California. It was an unusual love affair.
MATTHEWS: Did you know about this at the time, in real time?
SABATO: Oh yes, yes, I did.
MATTHEWS: You knew that George Allen’s son, the son of the former great football coach for the L.A. Rams and for the Skins here in Washington, had a son who was’what did you call him?
SABATO: I said he was devoted to, I called him a redneck, but I think he would embrace that term himself, Some people called him neck. That was his nickname.
So we know that Sabato knew about Allen’s supposed past in 2000, yet didn’t bring it up at the debate. Sabato told Kathryn this very morning, “character matters enormously.” George Allen and the “n” word is a character issue today, but it wasn’t in 2000? There’s a higher character bar for a President than a Senator or Congressman??
Nonsense. And it’s not like Sabato didn’t question candidate Allen on gaffes he had made in the past. From Copeland’s Wa Post article:
The debate did have its moments of awkwardness’if that passes for candor. What Sabato called “the first tough question for Mr. Allen” drew on a controversial remark Allen made as governor, in which he exhorted his fellow Republicans to enjoy, figuratively speaking, “knocking [the Democrats'] soft teeth down their whining throats.” Sabato linked the remark with “other inflammatory statements” of Allen’s, and asked him if he could understand why Virginians thought Robb more senatorial.
Allen seemed truly thrown for a moment, his near-perpetual smile temporarily missing. “So what’s the question?” he asked.
“The question is very clear, Mr. Allen. Please proceed,” Sabato replied firmly.
Sabato had his chance to bring up Allen’s past and he sat on it. Sabato decided then, when he had every opportunity to bring it up, that it was not worthy of a Senatorial contest. What’s changed? The excuse that George Allen might one day run for President doesn’t cut it. There is absolutely no reason for Larry Sabato to have gone on Hardball last night and say what he did without backing it up. Nothing has changed from six years ago.
Back to 2000. Who won the debate? Copeland ends her article with this:
Then again, Holsworth added, “if either of these candidates at any point during the debate had turned to each other” and decided to forgo questions from Sabato and the panelists, and instead just shoot each other their own questions, “they would have been seen as the hands-down winners of the event.”
Sabato either needs to fess up his secret “n” word source or retract it.As Liddy Copeland reported back in 2000, nobody died and made Sabato king – yesterday, or today.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008999
Sen. George Allen’s latest trouble is a report on the left-liberal Salon Web site that three of Allen’s college football teammates “say that the Virginia Republican repeatedly used an inflammatory racial epithet and demonstrated racist attitudes toward blacks during the early 1970s.” One of the accusers, Ken Shelton, also claims that during the same period, they were on a hunting trip on which “he remembers Allen asking [teammate Billy] Lanahan where the local black residents lived. Shelton said Allen then drove the three of them to that neighborhood with the severed head of the deer. ‘He proceeded to take the doe’s head and stuff it into a mailbox,’ Shelton said.” (Lanahan is dead, so this story is on Shelton’s say-so alone.) But Salon says it contacted 19 of Allen’s former teammates and college friends, and the other 16 say they don’t remember his ever behaving in a racist manner (though two were troubled by his display of the Confederate flag). Washington Post both picked up the story, treating the claims as legitimate. Not surprisingly, the Allen campaign is up in arms: “this Salon story is evidence of the Democratic Party growing comfortable with the alleged ‘Swiftboating’ tactics they’d previously decried,” declares a post on the campaign’s official blog..
We’d say a fair-minded observer would have to give Allen the benefit of the doubt–which is what was said about Kerry in 2004. One may, of course, be more inclined to believe the charges about Allen than about Kerry, or vice versa, because of one’s own personal or partisan prejudices. Every one of us is human.
But newsmen are supposed to strive for objectivity and fairness. That the press reported the Swift Boat story largely as a smear campaign against Kerry whereas it is treating the Allen charges as legitimate and serious suggests a strong partisan bias at work.
Thomas Edsall told Hugh Hewitt the other day, “whatever you want to call it, mainstream media, presents itself as unbiased, when in fact, there are built into it, many biases, and they are overwhelmingly to the left.”
The most common objection to my pro-Rudy analysis is the Name ID argument. Which basically boils down to:
1) Rudy’s high poll numbers are driven by his near-total name recognition and the fact that he hasn’t been in the public eye much. Once people find out about X, Y, and Z, his favorable numbers will go down.
2) No one knows about My Candidate yet. Once people find out about X, Y, and Z, his favorable numbers will go up.
Let’s take the different components of this argument one by one. And you’d be surprised to know that I agree with much if not most of it.
Will Rudy’s favorable numbers go down once he announces?
Probably. If for the simple reason that they have nowhere to go but down.
So, RudyBlogger, is the sky falling?
Nope, not quite. In fact, this happens to most candidates throughout the course of a general election campaign. They establish a first beachhead of recognition with a big breakthrough win, and that is gradually whittled away at once they start aggressively campaigning and are attacked in earnest. It’s happened to every non-incumbent Presidential nominee in modern memory. Eventually, people need to choose sides, either for or against, and people need to rationalize their against votes by moving into the unfavorable column.
What differentiates Rudy is that he starts out so high. He has plenty of room to fall. McCain is already near the breaking point with Republicans. Hillary is at the breaking point with the general electorate. And all of them will take a favorability hit once they start campaigning, not just Rudy.
Won’t Rudy’s numbers just utterly tank when people find out X, Y, and Z about him?
I’m betting no, at least no more so than a normal candidate who is being re-exposed to the limelight.
What makes me so confident in making this prediction? It’s easy. Once someone has established a certain image, and held on to it for so long, it’s unlikely to transform into something totally different. Secular factors like being in and out of the public eye may make it fluctuate, but within the same broad range.
Look at Bush’s favorables over time. No matter what he does, he’ll probably never be loved by more than 51% of the population. Even as his job approval bottomed out earlier this year, his favorable / unfavorable numbers stayed more constant. McCain’s fav/unfav probably saw more rapid change in the six weeks when the live bullets were flying in 2000 than in the six years since. Rudy’s numbers changed with a transformative event five years ago, and haven’t changed much since. Public perceptions of these two are already well formed, and it will be much harder to change perceptions of them than it will be for a lesser known candidate. Both will see natural declines as they re-enter the arena, but the guy with the higher ratings (especially amongst Republicans) still has the natural advantage.
Yeah, Yeah, but isn’t Rudy especially vulnerable?
Let’s say I’m skeptical that the deeply personal, gut-level connection Rudy has established with voters will be dislodged by repetition of a standard litany of issues. Anti-Rudyites are going to have to swiftboat him on something else. Not saying it’s not possible, just unlikely based on the strategy that currently seems to be unfolding.
Won’t Romney, Huckabee, Allen, et al. go up once people find out about them?
Yes! I freely admit this!
Or at least it’s possible. They can’t all go up. They can’t all catch fire. But yes — one of these guys is bound to impress or become a media darling, which will be an early indicator or a surprise showing in one of the early states, which will be the prelude to big national numbers.
Right now, I agree that the most logical contender is Mitt Romney though we all know how quickly that can change and someone can be Macaca’d out the race.
So how do things shake out?
Probably one of the media frontrunners will survive. They always do. There’s a reason supporters of dark-horse candidates always go home disappointed.
But the real question about 2008 is: which frontrunner? Can they both survive? Doubtful. McCain starts off the campaign with a hardcore 41% of Republicans who will not vote for him. Because he’s been in the public eye so long, he’s unlikely to convince very many of them to change. Rudy starts out with nearly 7 in 10 Republicans willing to at least hear him out. We’ve seen how McCain already starts falling into the teens with the most intense primary voters, and how he bleeds support to Mitt Romney moreso than Rudy.
Based on all this, I still stand by my prediction of a Rudy-Romney race. McCain fails to make headway with conservatives and eventually just hits a wall (and Republicans have no shortage of electable options at this point). Romney keeps wowing folks. And Rudy is dented by picks up residual McCain support to be a contender till the end.
The latest poll conducted on the 2008 Presidential Elections by the American Polling Research Institute this month gave some interesting results. As far as the Republican primary election:
We asked registered Republican voters: “If the 2008 Republican primary election in your state were a race between the following candidates, then for whom would you vote?” (names rotated)
% Condoleezza Rice 24 Rudy Giuliani 20 John McCain 19 Mitt Romney 12 Newt Gingrich 8 Mike Huckabee 6 Bill Frist 4 George Allen 3 Unsure 3 Wouldn’t Vote 1
Romney jumps to fourth place with 12% of the vote in this poll, quickly gaining on McCain. In this same poll conducted in June, Romney came in fifth place with only 7%–within three months, Romney nearly doubles his numbers. It appears that Mitt may well be that “conservative darkhorse” candidate everyone predicted would come in out of nowhere and make the field more competitive. Also noteworthy is Mike Huckabee, who doubles his score since the last survey. Newt Gingrich at least holds steady at 8%. George Allen on the other hand, who was right on Romney’s tail in June, now falls to dead last–does anyone now doubt that Allen will be a no-show in 2008?
Even more interesting are the poll’s head-to-head primary election matchups. On the Democratic side, if the primary election came down to a contest between Hillary Clinton and Al Gore, the winner is virtually indiscernable with Clinton garnering 49% of the Democratic vote and Gore garnering 47%. However, Evan Bayh gets soundly defeated by John Edwards in a head-to-head primary matchup by 41% to 51%. Perhaps what pundits have been saying ever since the Lamont v. Lieberman issue reared its head really is true–the Democratic party is becoming extremely polarized, with more and more Democrats clumping up at the uttermost left end of the political spectrum. It’s looking more and more likely that the Democrats will indeed be forced by their grassroots voters to nominate a decidedly liberal candidate. However, we also should factor in name recognition, which may put moderate Democrats like Bayh into play as they get their face out their more and more.
The Republican side of this survey was equally fascinating. A primary election matchup between Condoleezza Rice and Rudy Giuliani results in a precise statistical deadheat, with each candidate garnering 48% of the Republican vote. Perhaps the most amazing feat is in the next question, which asks about a match-up between John McCain and Mitt Romney. McCain edges out Romney by merely 49% to 44%, which means Mitt gets just 4 points under what the big-leaguers like Rudy and Condi are getting. This also puts a McCain v. Romney race within the margin of error. How McCain has fallen.
We asked registered Republican voters: “If the 2008 Republican primary election came down to a contest between Condoleezza Rice and Rudy Giuliani, for whom would you vote?” (names rotated)
% Condoleezza Rice 48 Rudy Giuliani 48 We asked registered Republican voters: “If the 2008 Republican primary election came down to a contest between John McCain and Mitt Romney, for whom would you vote?” (names rotated)
% John McCain 49 Mitt Romney 44
Of course, this also still clearly shows Condoleezza Rice as the frontrunner (as she is in almost every nation-wide, scientific poll that includes her as an option these days), but clearly the biggest underdog hero of this story is the Governor from Massachusetts.
For anyone who doubts that Sec. Rice has a mind of her own and can defend herself against slick politicians, read about how Condi tears apart former President Bill Clinton’s claims that the Bush administration did “nothing” in its eight months pre-9/11, that his administration tried harder to get bin Laden than did Bush’s, and that Clinton passed onto the Bush administration a “comprehensive” plan on how to take down al-Qaeda.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making “flatly false” claims that the Bush administration didn’t lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.
Rice hammered Clinton, who leveled his charges in a contentious weekend interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News Channel, for his claims that the Bush administration “did not try” to kill Osama bin Laden in the eight months they controlled the White House before the Sept. 11 attacks.
“The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn’t do that is just flatly false – and I think the 9/11 commission understood that,” Rice said during a wide-ranging meeting with Post editors and reporters.
“What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years,” Rice added.
The secretary of state also sharply disputed Clinton’s claim that he “left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy” for the incoming Bush team during the presidential transition in 2001.
“We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda,” Rice responded during the hourlong session.
Her strong rebuttal was the Bush administration’s first response to Clinton’s headline-grabbing interview on Fox on Sunday in which he launched into an over-the-top defense of his handling of terrorism – wagging his finger in the air, leaning forward in his chair and getting red-faced, and even attacking Wallace for improper questioning.
Read more of this New York Post article here.
Patrick Healy of the New York Times reports in this morning’s edition that Governor George Pataki is opening an office for his PAC in Iowa this Friday and will open a second such office in New Hampshire soon.
At this point in the 2008 GOP presidential primary it appears as if the early organizers are going to be Senator McCain, Governor Romney, and Governor Pataki, with Governor Huckabee being an early campaigner who lacks the resources to be much of an early organizer. Mayor Giuliani looks to be a mid to late organizer, as does Senator Frist, while Newt Gingrich seems committed to a late organizer strategy. The others – Hagel, Brownback, Armey, Gilmore, etc. – seem to be content to see how the field shakes out before making any bold moves, relegating them to mid or late organizers. I am on the record as believing Senator Allen is now a national fatality as a candidate and that Secretary Rice will not be in the mix. And I think the world is far too dangerous and complex a place for a single issue candidate like Congressman Tancredo to make any significant headway. But it would not surprise to find multiple candidates not mentioned here jump into the fray at some point.
Okay, perhaps I went a bit too far last night calling for the Virginia GOP to pull a Torricelli on Allen.? A lot of it came from my vantage point as a political junkie.? I know Larry Sabato the way the average person knows Mel Gibson, and so hearing Sabato make his aforementioned accusation struck me as front-page news that wouldn’t go away.? To the average person, though, Sabato isn’t a household name.? Instead, his name is being lumped in with all of Allen’s other accusers in this matter.? Put more succinctly, this doesn’t appear to be a siren-warranting event on Drudge.
The story w/r/t to Allen’s supposed racism right now could probably be summed up in the following headline: “Handful of old Allen friends claim the senator used the ‘N’ word.? Allen denies.”? It’s a he said/she said situation, and while Allen’s accusers are all a) independent sources and b) harbor no known malice toward the senator, it’s also true that, to the run of the mill voter, no one of note has accused Allen as of yet.? My guess is that the sheer number of independent sources and their credibility as professionals will steer voters toward the mindset that Allen probably did use racist language while in college, but voters will likely also conclude that there’s no evidence Allen continues to harbor racist sentiments.? The question then becomes whether Allen’s meager 4-5 point lead will be eradicated by all of this.
I still think Allen could neutralize all of this with an admission that mistakes were made, but that those mistakes occurred during his college years, and he’s since grown up and realizes the error of his ways.? Americans love apologies from politicians, and it’s usually the cover-up, and not the act that’s being covered-up, that knocks a pol down.? If Allen continues to deny and ignore, he’s just asking for the MSM to spend the next six weeks running story after story of former Allen acquaintenances with fuzzy memories.? Allen should do what amounts to not just the smart thing, but the right thing.
