The apperance on this morning’s This Week television show leaves little doubt, according to a report from the Associated Press, that Kansas Republican Senator Sam Brownback is poised to enter the 2008 presidential race.

For those keeping score in the 2008 GOP presidential contest:

In – Brownback, Gingrich, Giuliani, Huckabee, Hunter, McCain, Romney, and Thompson.

Out – Allen, Jeb Bush, Cheney, Rice, Santorum, Schwarzenegger, and Tancredo.

Possibilities – Armey, Frist, Gilmore, Hagel, and Pataki.

Joan Vennochi of the Boston Globe takes Governor Mitt Romney to task in today’s editions for moving right on the issues of abortion and gay rights as a matter of political opportunism in his quest for the presidency in 2008.

Sure, Republican presidential candidates have done this previously, often with great success – as in the case of George H.W. Bush on the issues of abortion and economic policy. But the 2008 election cycle may be a pivot point where voters, especially on the Republican side, demand evidence in the wake of GOP backsliding on such issues as federal spending and nation building overseas that candidates have a record of consistently practicing what they preach.

The best political advice to presidential candidates in 2008?could end up: Be true to thyself.?Of the four leading Republican presidential contenders, already Governor Romney has issues of consistency to confront?as does Senator John McCain (due to his make no enemies position on gay rights and his courting of evangelicals after trashing them during his 2000 presidential campaign). It remains to be seen whether Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Speaker Newt Gingrich are ready to embrace previously unpopular positions or run away from them as they court GOP primary voters and donors.

Seems that is what the latest CNN Poll?is telling us (with HRC besting her nearest rival by 18%). Chris Cillizza though,?finds more?bad news for Obama in the crosstabs:

Among registered Democrats, 44 percent of those currently backing another candidate said would consider supporting Edwards — the highest “second choice” rating in the poll. Edwards’s strong showing among second-choicers is not terribly surprising as he carries very high favorable ratings as a result of his 2004 run for president and subsequent presence on the Democratic presidential ticket. This poll is sure to bolster the argument made quietly by Edwards allies for months that he is the candidate best positioned to be the anti-Clinton candidate.

Forty-two percent of respondents said they would consider backing Gore as a second choice, while 39 percent and 38 percent, respectively, said they might support Clinton or Kerry. Surprisingly, Obama scored the lowest of the second-choice candidate, with just 35 percent saying they would consider supporting him if their chosen candidate was not in the race.

Perhaps with a few more polls like this. we can put Obamamania to rest for good.

It seems that I have made the same mistakes?with the Dems?that I have accused people of making regarding the Republican nomination process-?ignoring party?history:

Respondents were also asked if they “did not want to see” any of the second-choice candidate names as the 2008 nominee. The results here are particularly bad for Kerry: Fully 51 percent of the Democratic sample who are not supporting Kerry currently said they did not want to see him as the nominee in 2008 — empirical evidence that Democrats are simply unwilling to nominate a past loser. (The last time that happened was in 1952 and 1956 when Adlai Stevenson was chosen as the nominee in back-to-back elections.)

More than four-in-ten Democrats (43 percent) said they did not want Gore as their 2008 nominee, while 38 percent said they would not like to see Obama as their party’s nominee and 36 percent said they opposed Edwards as their standard-bearer.

Since Hillary is nearing a 20 point lead on her nearest opponent, it might be time to amend my “Al Gore: 2008 Democratic nominee” prediction.

Smart move on Sen. McCain’s part:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has done the new calculus on the presidential contest, and the current situation requires a change of strategy. McCain skipped the Iowa caucus in 2000, and at one point, he planned to do so in 2008 as well. But now McCain plans to play in Iowa, a fact that is borne out by his hiring of Iowan Terry Nelson, a former Bush campaigner and a consultant behind the controversial ad that ran against Rep. Harold Ford (D) in the Tennessee Senate race this year.

Part of the strategy-shift is tied to the loss of Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), once a presidential hopeful. Allen’s departure works against McCain by narrowing the conservative field — McCain wants the conservative vote to be split as many ways as possible. This means that a stronger candidate to McCain’s right — at this point the most likely one is Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) — has a better chance in New Hampshire, which is coincidentally a good state for Romney geographically.

If McCain were to skip Iowa and then lose to, or narrowly defeat, Romney in New Hampshire, he would then risk being shut out through the Southern states’ presidential primaries, nearly putting him out of contention. By the time the Michigan primary rolls around, McCain’s credibility could be seriously diminished, and his home-state primary would become meaningless rather than being a momentum-building win that contributes to his image as the inevitable candidate. On the other hand, a strong showing in Iowa would give him momentum for New Hampshire that could carry over to the next set of states, including Missouri and South Carolina.

If Johnny and Rudy want to ensure that this comes down to a two-man showdown between them, they should decide to do whatever it takes to try to win Iowa. Winning Iowa is probably beyond McCain’s grasp, but is not yet out of reach to the political supernova that it is?Rudy Giuliani, who has the ability yet?to define himself to Iowa voters in 2007. If I could advise Mayor Giuliani one thing, it would be for him to essentially live in Iowa in 2007.

Gov. Romney needs to win Iowa. For New Hampshire is McCain country, and the libertarian minded voters of the Granite State will probably be?more amenable to Mayor Giuliani than the Governor that has been on the forefront of the “Culture War” in the state just next door.?

For John McCain and Rudy?Giuliani, stopping?Gov. Romney in Iowa should be the #1 priority of 2007. ?

Human Events magazine is conducting an on-line?Republican presidential primary preference poll?that?will be compiled throughout November, with results posted in early December.

National conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt is currently writing a book about the presidential prospects of Governor Mitt Romney that is reportedly going to be very favorable to the candidate. Given the angst with which so many voters, according to polling data, are likely to view Romney’s Mormon faith, the Hewitt book may well be a springboard for if not cornerstone of the Governor’s presidential campaign come next March.

Hewitt blogging partner Dean Barnett admits that he is an unabashed fan of Governor Romney because he knows him and has volunteered previously for him, and will support?Romney enthusiastically in 2008.

I guess the Hugh Hewitt web site is no longer undecided when it comes to the presidential race of 2008.

Dr. Thomas Sowell reminds us, in this opinion piece, of the importance of conducting “responsible adult discussions of issues” given the enormity of what confronts us as a society.

As we engage in the great debate of 2008 on this site and elsewhere, let us heed Dr. Sowell’s admonitions. Given the global war on terror, a presidential election that is wide open because no sitting president or vice president will be running, and the razor-thin majorities Democrats enjoy in Congress, the 2008 campaign will be as hotly and lengthily contested as perhaps any we have seen. There is tremendous potential for the discourse to get nasty, with the candidates’ religious, personal, and social positions – especially on the Republican presidential side – inevitably and unavoidably front and center. Let us hope that voters reward the candidates who conduct themselves with honor and civility.

In my lifetime, the two Republican stalwarts who have best embodied the ideal that Dr. Sowell advocates are William F. Buckley, Jr.,?and Ronald Reagan. And their styles are instructive, I think. What made these two so effective, it seems to me, were their passion, smiles, optimism, humor, lack of anger and bitterness, respect for audiences and opponents, desire to make friends of all, and unshaking confidence at all times (even when everyone seemed lined up against them) in what they believed. We could use more like them; let’s see if the 2008 campaign uncovers any.

Time is running out on the Romney governoship, but Mitt is making a strong push in his final weeks for a constitutional ammendment to ban same-sex marriage:

With a crowd of approximately 7,000 citizens looking on in front of the state capitol, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said Nov. 19 he would take legal action to try and place a proposed constitutional marriage amendment on the 2008 ballot.

Romney’s action would come in the final weeks of his governorship and just before legislators are scheduled to gather one more time Jan. 2 at a constitutional convention to address the amendment. Although supporters say the amendment has the votes to pass — it needs only support by one-fourth of the body — a majority of legislators meeting Nov. 9 at a constitutional convention voted to recess until Jan. 2 without acting on the amendment. Both sides of the debate expect legislators to try and take the same action on Jan. 2, the final day of the session. The amendment would die if that happens.

Approximately 170,000 Massachusetts citizens signed petitions in favor of the proposal to place it before the legislature. If it passes this session, it must pass again in the next session before going to voters.

“Last week, 109 legislators decided to reject the law, abandon the [Massachusetts] constitution [and] violate their oath of office,” Romney told the crowd, referring to a 109-87 vote to recess.

“The constitution quite plainly states that when a qualified petition is placed before them, the legislature ‘shall’ vote. It does not say may vote, or vote if its own procedures permit a vote, or vote if there are enough of the members in attendance. It says ‘shall’ vote,” he added to loud applause.

The issue now before the legislature, Romney said, is not whether “gay marriage” should be legal, but instead “whether 109 legislators will follow the constitution.”

27 States have now enacted a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

Gov. Huckabee sure has been taking it on the chin for “Wedding Registry-Gate“:

Losing 110 pounds was no mean feat, but Gov. Mike Huckabee may find it more difficult to shed a reputation for verbal gaffes and ethics lapses if he pursues the presidency.

Huckabee, who is considering a bid for the 2008 GOP nomination, has burnished his political credentials with a term heading the National Governors Association, and has drawn national attention for his dramatic weight loss.

Yet, he has repeatedly had to defend against slips of the tongue and ethics controversies.

Arkansas’ Ethics Commission has admonished Huckabee for violations five times in 14 years, once for taking money from an organization whose donors have never been listed. He jokingly attributed his weight loss to a “concentration camp” diet and once called his state a “banana republic.”

And last week, he lashed out after reporters questioned wedding-gift registries set up to furnish Huckabee’s new $525,000 home in North Little Rock. Friends this fall set up the accounts for Huckabee and his wife Janet, who have been married since 1974.

“I can understand him being upset with people thumbing through his registry, but if he’s thinking seriously about running for president, he needs to get used to that,” said Seth Masket, a political scientist at the University of Denver. “If his name exists anywhere on the Internet, people will find it pretty quickly.”

I think that these kind of rookie mistakes have come early enough that they will not have a real impact once the shots start being fired in the primary race. That being said, we will see if Gov. Huckabee is a faster learner that George Allen.?

Update: It should be noted that the correct name for the controversy surrounding Gov. Huckabee is “Gimmegate“. Thanks to the Arkansas Times Blog for the correction.?

On an ABC News interview with George Stephanopoulos for “This Week,” John McCain stated that he thought homosexuality is not a “defect” or?a “sin.”? Tell that to evangelical conservatives who believe that the following words are God-breathed:

Romans, chapter 1?

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator’who is forever praised. Amen.

?26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

?28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

But this in itself isn’t the big issue politically.? The issue here is that McCain tries to placate the left by saying homosexuality isn’t sinful, then tries to placate the right by voting against giving those same unsinful couples the protection against discrimination in the workplace that the rest of us enjoy.? He caters to the left by saying that gay couples should be afforded the same rights as married couples, and then caters to the right by deceptively using semantics to claim that he’s “against gay marriage.”

What John McCain fails to understand is that throwing conservatives a bone every once in a while and trying to fudge over his true views on these issues is not the key to the hearts of conservatives.? Every statement or vote that goes against what social conservatives believe is like 10 votes for what liberals believe, in the minds of most socons.? Every time he tries to cater to a different wing of political ideology, he gouges his support in either base.? Because, when the race really gets revved up, liberal Democrats will care less if McCain said that homosexuality isn’t a sin when they see that he’s voted against protecting gays from discrimination in the workplace, and when the race really gets revved up, conservative Republicans will care less if McCain said he’s “against gay marriage” when they see that he supports giving gay couples all the same rights as married couples.? All he’s doing is tearing down both sides of his support.

In my humble opinion, what McCain really needs to do is to just take his own advice and be straight about where he stands on this issue and other issues, not to try to constantly placate the extremists of both ends of the spectrum.? McCain’s flailing tactics here remind me of one of those “Whack-a-Mole” games, where you’re repetitively going back and forth trying to hit down the moles that pop up in all corners of the console.? But if that game is any indication of how these politics are going to work, we know that those moles only keep coming up faster and faster, more and more, and, of course, you never actually win that game–it’s just a matter of time until you get so worn out that you’re simply overwhelmed.

If McCain thinks that homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle choice, then his words and vote record should accurately reflect that.? If he thinks homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle choice, then his words and vote record should accurately reflect that.? Even voters who disagree with a candidate on social issues will greatly respect a candidate if they don’t equivocate and just lay it down honestly where they stand on an issue.? Flip-flopping on issues has become the worst way to shoot one’s self in the foot in the game of politics, as evidenced by Kerry ’04.? If McCain keeps this up, both ends of his support are going to give him the cold shoulder, and he will be left in the dust.? This is a real turning point for his candidacy–he must shape up or ship out–and the future of his campaign will likely hinge on whether or not he stakes out exactly where he stands on the issues without sounding wishy-washy or opportunistic.

I have suggested that it may be in the best intererst of Sen. McCain to resign from the Senate to focus on his presidential run. This?would keep him from having to take stands on controversial issues which could hurt him with GOP primary voters or jeopardize his “maverick” image with Indy’s.

Of course with the results of Novembers election’s, the GOP could hardly afford to lose another senator (with Arizona having a Democratic Governor that would surely appoint a Democrat to fill the seat until the 2010 election.)

Thanks to Redstate poster Andrew F. Heil, we now have it confirmed that per Arizona law,?Gov. Napolitano is legally required to appoint an interim Senator of the same party as the resigner.??

CNN released their latest Republican nominee poll results today:

CNN Poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation. Nov. 17-19, 2006. N=365 registered voters nationwide who are Republicans or lean Republican. MoE ? 5.
?	?	?	?	?	.	?
?”Please tell me which of the following people you would be most likely to support for the Republican nomination for president in the year 2008 . . . .” Names rotated
?	?	?	?	?	.	?
?	?	11/17-19/06	10/27-29/06	8/30 – 9/2/06	?	?
?	?	%	%	%	?	?
?	Rudolph Giuliani	33	29	32	?	?
?	John McCain	30	27	21	?	?
?	Newt Gingrich	9	12	12	?	?
?	Mitt Romney	9	7	6	?	?
?	Bill Frist	3	6	4	?	?
?	Tommy Thompson	3	n/a	n/a	?	?
?	Sam Brownback	2	1	1	?	?
?	Duncan Hunter	2	n/a	n/a	?	?
?	George Pataki	1	5	3	?	?
?	Unsure	8	11	14	?	?
?	George Allen	n/a	2	7

Once again, in the aftermath of the Republicans’ massive defeat in the midterm election, the focus on ’08 has shifted to electability first and foremost.? Note the boost in Rudy and McCain’s numbers post-’06 (Rudy slightly moreso than McCain).? Also notable is Mitt Romney’s continually rising?numbers.? Romney, who now ties Gingrich in this survey,?seems to have replaced Gingrich as the #3 candidate in the polls, as evidenced by the latest Pew poll, which also puts Romney above Newt.

Funny enough, the Hunter campaign (the very definition of “underdog”) seems to be picking up steam, as he now clocks in at a whole two percent of the vote, the highest percentage I believe he’s ever garnered, which puts ol’ Dunker on par with Sam Brownback and above George Pataki.? While Pataki seemed to have a good thing going for him with his early establishment of concrete on-the-ground operations in Iowa and his significant organization, I think the fact that every one is now starting to pick up in the organization game makes that factor far less important and threatens to leave Pataki (a relatively unknown, unaccomplished, uncharismatic, ultra-liberal candidate) in the dust.

Finally, it seems Tommy Thompson has been switched in for George Allen, who has now lost considerable support or been removed from virtually every poll post-11/8.? Thompson, who has, ironically enough, been talking up an ’08 run for months now but has received zero media attention until he announced his intention to form an exploratory committee last week, clocks in at about the same place as Bill Frist, which is about what one should expect for a candidate who has held some significant positions but has done little to distinguish himself.? Perhaps fifth through eighth would be Tommy’s appropriate position on the Power Rankings scale.

All in all, I think the message regarding ’08 is clear following November 7th: electability is the most desired quality in a presidential candidate, while the next most desired quality is being able to clearly articulate the core conservative values of reduced government and fiscal discipline (the seeming abandonment of which arguably caused the GOP’s defeat earlier this month), followed by a Washington outsider image (which McCain seems surprisingly able to cultivate, as a maverick who is widely seen as independent from the day-in-day-out political system).? Rudy, McCain, and Romney–this appears to be the primary triad that is shaping up.

I would like to say thank you to all of our readers from all of us here at Race 4 2008.

Personally, in addition to all of my many blessings, I have to say that I?am most thankful to live in a country where the government governs by the consent of the people; and where I have the freedom to express whatever opinion I wish.

Newt discusses the scope of his “Winning the Future Movement”:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is telling associates that he’s launching a major new grass-roots movement to recapture the soul of the Republican Party, and quite possibly the White House.

?

Gingrich says that the effort will be much larger than his founding of GOPAC and his creation of the Contract with America.

The Georgia Republican is spearheading a program called “American Solutions for Winning the Future” in an effort to revitalize the GOP with Ronald Reagan conservatism.

This is the third time Gingrich has led a drive to steer the Republican Party toward traditional conservative values. In 1986, Gingrich took the chair of the Republican political action committee GOPAC and transformed it into an effective tool for electing conservative candidates. The stated theme of GOPAC was “a conservative opportunity society replacing the liberal welfare state.

Gingrich said he plans to build grass-roots support for the health care, national security, and energy independence ideas he has been promoting for the past six years.

Rudy’s FEC?exploratory committee filing has been confirmed:

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission this week that takes him one step closer to running for president.

A filing on behalf of the man once dubbed “America’s mayor” was hand-delivered to the commission on Monday, an FEC spokeswoman confirmed. It says Giuliani, a Republican, has created a “testing-the-waters” presidential exploratory committee.

This would be why I’m not removing Tom Tancredo from the Power Rankings:

With political junkies looking ahead to the 2008 presidential race, two of the names often mentioned as leading contenders for the GOP nomination – John McCain and Rudy Giuliani – are being called “disastrous” for the Republican Party.

“Both of those individuals, of course, would be disastrous for us for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is their position on immigration, which is to open the border,” Tancredo told WND in an exclusive interview. “I will do everything I can – whether I’m a candidate for president or just as a member of Congress – I will do everything I can to make sure those two names are not the only options that people have.”

“As I’ve said before, if no one rises to the bait maybe – and that bait being the immigration issue – if no one will take it on, I guarantee you I will do it. Right now, I have not seen anyone who I think can go the distance who has taken that on. I’m telling you it certainly looks more and more like that’s a distinct possibility. And I’m not being coy, I just don’t know for sure. We have to take a careful look at it because for one thing, you don’t want to hurt the issue itself. You do not want to have a problem with doing it, and if you don’t do well, then people will say, ‘Look, if Tancredo didn’t do well in X state, that means that the issue is of no great value.’”

?

I?know they “Jackass of the day, week, year, etc…” is becoming a tired old bit on the blogosphere. But I can’t resist singling out Brad Shader, writing for “Blogcritics Magazine“, which claims to be a “sinister cabal of superior writers”, for such distinction.

Blogcritics Magazine may want to require that their writers have taken (and passed) a freshman level political science course before foisting their opinions on the general populace.

Why the vitriol from yours truly? Well, read this pablum:

McCain appeared on George Stephanopoulos’s show on Sunday and was asked how he felt about Roe V Wade. He said he would support the decision being returned to the states instead of the Federal government deciding because “I’m a federalist.” Only supporting state’s rights is not Federalism, it is the exact opposite of it. A Federalist is one who supports a strong central government by definition. McCain wanting the states to decide on their own is a very strong anti-Federalist position, not a Federalist one.

To understand the difference between a Federalist and an anti-Federalist one must go back to the founding of our constitution. There were those who wanted a strong central government to rule over all the states. These were the Federalists. They felt is was the best way to ensure all states followed the same rules and gave equally to the growing country.

I am not going to get into which side is right because there is no right answer. There are valid arguments for and against both these points of view, but McCain managed to use these terms in just the wrong way to come across as a “talking point spouting” fool. He cannot support state’s rights as a Federalist. It is that simple.

Seriously Mr. Shader,?a freshman political science course can cost as little as $350 a your local community college. I’m sure there they will teach you the difference between a Federalist (that’s with a big “F” Brad), and a federalist (lower case?”f”).

Or perhaps you could do a free Wiki search? There you would discover that the term “Federalist” has a few alternate meanings. It could mean, “Statesmen and public figures supporting ratification of the proposed Constitution of the United States between 1787 and 1789. Or it could mean, “Statesmen and public figures supporting the administrations of Presidents George Washington and John Adams. Especially in the later years as they were known as the Federalist Party.”??Or perhaps, “In contemporary usage, as articulated by President Richard Nixon, federalists advocate the principle of allowing greater regional autonomy within the United States ‘ usually by allowing individual states to set their own agendas and determine the handling of issues, rather than trying to impose a nationally uniform solution.”?

So in conclusion Mr. Shader, Sen. McCain was 100% correct, and you are 100% wrong?(gosh it feels weird to be defending John McCain as much as I have lately).?I suggest using the long weekend for a little light reading.??

Touted by many (including some writers on this site, myself included) as one of the GOP’s 2008 “Silver Bullets”, Sen. John McCain may have an achilles heel of his own.

My jaw dropped when SurveyUSA’s 50 state poll was released showing the closeness of a potential McCain/Edwards 2008 matchup (McCain besting Edwards 272-266 with Edwards taking Florida).

The fact that it?was just one poll that was taken the height of the Foley Scandal could lead to its easy dismissal. However, Rasmussen’s latest 2008 poll seems to confirm that McCain’s main vulnerability may be the Dem’s nominating a populist candidate with appeal to the independents that usually flock to McCain.

The results show McCain with a 47% to 43% lead in a head-to-head matchup with John Edwards. Giuliani bests Edwards 49% to 41%. Not surprisingly at this stage (name ID), Edwards beats Gov. Romney and Gov. Huckabee.

To be fair to Sen. McCain, he is the only GOP candidate that sweeps every Dem as Rudy ties Hillary Clinton in this particular poll.

It is an interesting point to ponder however; does Sen. McCain have enough conservative support to overcome a Dem challenger who garners equal or better?Indy support???

?

Regulars here at R4’08 know that I’ve been analyzing the election returns with the utmost scrutiny for the past couple of weeks trying to pinpoint the precise demographic traits of America’s new “it” voter — the voter that kept Republicans in power from 1994-2006, but decided to shift to the Dems this year.? As my posts over the last couple of weeks demonstrate, the numbers suggest that this voter is more likely to live in the north or west than the south or plains states, is more secular than?religious, and is more likely to be a political independent than a Republican or a Democrat.

Well, thanks to the NYT, we now have a comprehensive analysis?of Election 2006 that compares demographic voting trends over the past few election cycles.? Not only were my theories largely confirmed, but thanks to this analysis, we can add a few more traits to the bloc that will likely be the “it” voter of 2008.

Here are some key findings:

* The most significant regional shifts toward the Demcrats appear to be in the east, midwest, and west.? I’ve combined the east and midwest in my analysis, referring to both as the north.? By this I mean the 18-state bloc that includes New England, the mid-Atlantic region, the industrial north, and the Great Lakes states.? This is the region where we lost 19 of 29 House seats, and the finding that this region went disproportionately Democrat seems to be backed up by the NYT.

* Not only did independents shift toward the Dems, but moderates made a more significant shift than either liberals or conservatives.

* A majority of men voted Democratic for the first time since 1992.

* The Dems won a majority of the suburban vote for the first time since 1992.

So we now know the demographic profile of the “it” voter of 2008: secular,?moderate, politically independent?male voters who?reside largely in the suburbs of?the north and the west.? They kept the Republicans in power for 12 years, and it was this voter who pulled the plug on GOP rule this year.? Victory in 2008 means winning this voter back.

Now, every “it” voter has a catchy identifier.? We’ve had soccer moms, NASCAR dads, security moms, values voters, and so forth.? As such, this new “it” voter will need a label too.? Something that sums up their demographic status in a pithy and witty phrase.? Think you can come up with one?? Then leave your suggestions in the comments section!? The winner will see his idea used, at least by me, for the foreseeable future whenever I refer to the sort of voter that Republicans need to win back in 2008.? And who knows?? Maybe the term will be so clever that it will eventually be picked up by the talking heads.

So go to it!? And Happy Thanksgiving!

According to Glen Johnson of the Associated Press, Governor Romney will set up a presidential committee by mid-December. As New Hampshire adviser Tom Rath states, Romney is very organized and very focused; his presidential campaign is already on a solid foundation.

Deroy Murdock of the National Review writes a followup piece on the shutdown of the anti-Giuliani ’08 site, www.SayNoToRudy.org:

SayNoToRudy.Org‘s online retreat also impresses. As the Ohio-based website’s self-described, social-conservative organizers stated November 5: #quot;We sought to do everything legally possible to prevent [Giuliani] from becoming the Republican presidential nominee??Unexpectedly, as we began to see more and more of who Mr. Giuliani really is??we found that Mr. Giuliani is truly a committed Republican and an accomplished conservative on many issues??Therefore, the creators of this organization, with much humility and apology, beyond all probability, hereby announce that we are willing to endorse Mr. Giuliani for the Presidency in 2008.#quot;

Cincinnati prosecutor Steve Giudicci says by phone that he launched SayNoToRudy.Org late last summer, along with a few dozen fellow grassroots conservative activists, mainly in Ohio.

#quot;I am about as socially conservative as you can get ‘ on everything from abortion, to gun rights, to smaller government, and less taxes. You name it,#quot; he says. The website offered T-shirts, refrigerator magnets, wall clocks, boxer shorts, and other items with a logo featuring #quot;Giuliani ??08#quot; and a circle and red line running through it. #quot;Nominate a REAL Conservative,#quot; the merchandise demanded.

But the more Giudicci and his colleagues learned about Giuliani, the more they realized they had misunderestimated him.

#quot;We were researching Mr. Giuliani and some of his speeches and writings,#quot; Giudicci says. #quot;The turning point was when we read a book by Fred Siegel called The Prince of the City. That’s when we started to realize there was more to Mr. Giuliani than we initially anticipated. We felt he was a really accomplished conservative and committed Republican. It raised our level of respect for him, and opened our eyes.#quot;

Giudicci saw Giuliani speak at a New Hampshire campaign stop on November 3 and was sold. The former Rudy foe is now a Rudy fan who hopes to swing more grassroots activists his way.

#quot;If a President Giuliani meant the same thing as Mayor Giuliani ‘ namely innovative and competent leadership, less government, lower taxes, a strict-constructionist judiciary, and bad guys brought to justice ‘ then I’m all for it.#quot;

Despite widespread misinformation about how #quot;liberal#quot; Giuliani is, this group’s 180-degree reversal shows what can happen when conservatives actually scrutinize Giuliani’s entire performance. Giuliani chopped overall crime 57 percent, slashed homicide 65 percent, graduated 649,895 New Yorkers (58.4 percent of relief recipients) from welfare to work, curbed or abolished 23 taxes, sliced the tax burden by $8 billion or 18.9 percent of personal income, halted racial and gender quotas in contracting, delivered 25,637 children from foster care to adoption, privatized some 23,000 apartments from bureaucratic control to individual and family ownership, and financed charter schools while fighting for vouchers. Some liberal.

Yes, America’s Mayor must comfort GOP primary voters on abortion, gays, and guns. He might do this by advocating parental consent for minors who have abortions, and opposing partial-birth abortion and subsidized embryonic-stem-cell research. (Can’t drug companies fund this ‘ or, better yet, adult-stem-cell research?) He could outline his longtime opposition to gay marriage and promise to nominate constitutionalist judges who respect the Second Amendment. If Rudy Giuliani did this, his Reaganesque approach to nearly every other issue ‘ plus his tough leadership, counterterrorism credentials, and communications prowess ‘ could make him irresistible in 2008.

I’ve got to say–that is one of the more interesting stories I’ve heard so far.

Sounds like Sen. Brownback is in as well:

Sen. Sam Brownback, who is considering a White House bid in 2008, said Monday the Republican field has room for a ‘full-scale Ronald Reagan conservative’ and pledged to make a final decision next month.

The Kansas senator said he was not discouraged from running by the Democrats’ strong gains in this month’s midterm elections, including majority control of the House and Senate.

‘It does not make it less likely,’ he said in an interview. ‘I really believe that the basic conservative ideas and ideals were not repudiated. Our execution was.’

A more daunting challenge for Brownback are the better known potential candidates. Arizona Sen. John McCain and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani have set up presidential exploratory committees. Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., also are weighing bids.

‘I think there’s room for a full-scale Ronald Reagan conservative in the field,’ Brownback said. ‘I fully agree that other people have much higher name identification than I do. No question about that. But I think what you have to look at is the policy positions they get out once you have an effective campaign.’

I’m of the opinion that the more candidates that enter the fray, the more likely the GOP nominee will be named John McCain or Rudy Giuliani.

Brownback is one of those candidates in which it is difficult to imagine winning the Republican nomination. It’s not so difficult to imagine him in the Veep slot however. I wonder if that is truly his goal.

Governor Mitt Romney tells Bill Sammon of Examiner.com that he is the true conservative running on the Republican side for President in 2008, not Senator John McCain or Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Romney criticizes the McCain position on gay marriage, points out that Giuliani has not yet made the investment in campaign staff and infrastructure but can do so late as the celebrity candidate, and praises a potential candidacy of Speaker Newt Gingrich for its ability to infuse the race with conservative ideas.

This initial salvo from Romney makes his strategy pretty clear – position yourself as the conservative candidate on the GOP side in a race that basically comes down to four players (Romney, McCain, Giuliani, and Gingrich), do not?criticize other conservative GOP candidates like Gingrich because they cannot win and you do not want to alienate their supporters, and?attack McCain and Giuliani at every opportunity as liberals.

With Alex Castellanos running the Romney media shop, look for Romney to pound McCain and Giuliani from now on with some heavy weaponry. The questions then become how the competition and voters react? McCain seems incapable of anything other than taking the bait and hitting back inside-the-beltway style; Giuliani, in my view, would be wise to ignore the criticism and run a positive, above the fray, Washington, D.C. outsider?campaign; and it is obviously not in the best interests of Gingrich to go negative, other than to point out that the negative campaigns of competitors represent politics as usual that are bereft of the new ideas our country desperately needs. Remember, in 2004, Congressman Gephardt and Governor Dean pounded each other into submission, allowing Senator Kerry to come up from the outside and win the?race for the Democrat?nomination?unscathed and going away.

Game on.

It’s an important question, and one that needs to be cleared up before too much misinformation makes its way into the political psyche.? Thankfully, we now have an answer.

Since the election, there’s been a dirty little rumor floating about that Republicans lost because the religious portion of “the base” either stayed home or voted Democrat.? Now, determining just exactly who defected is key to altering our formula and winning in ’08, so if this is in fact what happened, it should be duly noted.? This rumor is likely the result of the pre-election Cassandra-style warnings of liberals, who told us that Foley, Haggard, and the rest would break the GOP lock on the evangelical vote.

Well, guess what.? It’s just not true.? Evangelicals did vote GOP in 2006.? By a margin of 70 percent to 28 percent.? That’s not a significant change from 2004.? In other words, evangelicals now vote Republican when nobody else does.? And as I noted previously, the partisan breakdown of voters — 38 percent Democrat and 36 percent Republican — was also nearly identical to the 37/37 split we enjoyed in 2004.

So why did we lose?? Simple.? Those wily independents voted Democrat by a large margin.? They now hold the keys to the country.

But getting back to the topic of religious voting blocs for a moment, if the evangelicals didn’t shift in 2006, what were the religious identifiers of those who did?? That is to say, if the GOP didn’t lose evangelicals, which religious groups did we lose in 2006?? The article I linked to above answers this question.? Money quote:

#quot;People are looking for whether evangelicals left the Republican Party,#quot; Domke said. #quot;The data just doesn’t show that, because they still voted strongly Republican. The bigger story is that mainline Protestants and Catholics left the GOP and voted Democrat.#quot;

My emphasis.? So the voters we have to “win back” in 2008 aren’t the evangelicals.? They’re still here.? Instead, the prodigal Republicans are in fact mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics.? They are the voters who gave Democrats a majority this year.

Now, because I know this question will arise in the comments, and because I feel I can give it a pretty good answer, let’s just get it out of the way right now.? I often hear conservative political commentators, particularly those who aren’t Catholic, attempt to place Catholics on the same sort of socio-political spectrum as Protestants.? In so doing, Catholics sort of become lumped together with evangelicals as those religious groups most likely to support conservative policies, vote Republican and all that, while mainline Protestants make up the other end of the spectrum, those most likely to support liberals and Democrats.? I think this is a grand misunderstanding of American Catholicism.? And I would say that trying to lump Catholics onto the same spectrum as Protestants is an apples-and-oranges comparison.

A better way to think about it would be to imagine Catholics and Protestants as constituting two parallel socio-political spectra of roughly equal length.? On the right end of the Protestant spectrum, you have your evangelicals.? Similarly, on the right end of the Catholic spectrum, you can find your Santorum-style orthodox Catholics.? As you go farther left on the Protestant spectrum, you run into your mainline Protestants of various sorts.? Do the same on the Catholic spectrum and you run into your cultural Catholics, individuals who identify with the Church’s traditions and probably still use the label, but are distinctly secular.

That’s why I find it so difficult to formulate a pithy response to a question like, “will Catholics vote for Rudy despite his abortion views?”? That question is basically analogous to, “will Protestants vote for Mitt even though he’s a Mormon?”? Just as mainline Protestants probably couldn’t care less about the theological differences between their faiths and that of Mitt, many secular Catholics are quite socially liberal, and so any question that lumps Catholics together on those questions initially seems absurd.? At least to me.

This is a very long-winded way of saying that evangelicals did vote Republican in 2006, while mainline Protestants did not, and that orthodox Catholics likely voted Republican in 2006 as well, while secular Catholics were probably the ones that we lost.? And so the trick for 2008 is to get the secular vote back, which will be an extremely unpopular statement on a conservative blog, but nonetheless a true statement, and I’ve always cared more about truth than popularity.

Update: I do want to note that the ed. staff here at R4’08 would generally prefer this remain a political blog and, thus, one that avoids theological debate.? As such, please limit your commentary on this subject to the political implications of my post.? Thanks!

CNN Opinion Research Corp Poll, Nov. 16th-19th, 2006

Please tell me which of the following people you would be most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president in the year 2008:

Hillary Clinton 33%

Barack Obama 15%

John Edwards 14%

Al Gore 14%

John Kerry 7%

Wes Clark? 4%

At first glance, it appears that the 5% that Kerry lost since CNN’s last survey in October went to Hillary.

Some good news for GOP’ers is that with Kerry insisting on running for president again, he may be able to force the other candidates who are looking at?taking the “middle ground” to the left due to?his still pretty solid support among the “Netroots”.

From Free Republic:

The Post’s David Seifman reported yesterday that some New York lefties are seriously considering an effort to attack Rudy in the manner that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacked John Kerry in 2004 – to reveal the “unvarnished truth” about his mayoralty and deflate his status as an American hero.

Among those Seifman cites is Norman Siegel, the Rudy-era head of the New York Civil Liberties Union. Siegel said he “represents some families of 9/11 victims who he says ‘have lots of questions in regard to what Giuliani did’ and are prepared to express their concerns.” And he wants America to know about Rudy’s run-ins with New York City’s “civil rights” community, which sued him and City Hall on a constant basis during his time as mayor.

Speaking of Free Republic… Freepers (as they are called) have been calling on FR founder/editor Jim Robinson?to run a Rudy 2008 poll. For those that are unfamiliar, Free Republic probably the preeminent Ultra-Conservative forum out there. Their John McCain 2008 poll came in at 90% against McCain.

How did Rudy do? When the results were finalized he?came in at 42% for, 58% against. If you are familiar with Free Republic, you understand the implications of someone who?is allegedly too liberal for the GOP to garner 42%?support among Freepers.??

Another 2008 question answered. Newt’s in:

Even a crisp Guinness stout can’t chill the note of exasperation coming out of Newt Gingrich’s mouth. “You still don’t get it, do you?” he asks.

The subject is the 2008 presidential race and whether the former speaker of the House will run. The news is that Gingrich is running, but not on any official campaign trail.

The radical realist who defied conventional wisdom 12 years ago by stealing the House out from under the noses of entrenched Democrats now plans a surprise attack for the presidency. “I’m going to tell you something, and whether or not it’s plausible given the world you come out of is your problem,” he tells Fortune. “I am not ‘running’ for president. I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen.” So he’s running, only without yet formally saying so.

While other potential competitors like Arizona Senator John McCain, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney build staff and hire consultants, Gingrich revealed to Fortune that he plans to create a draft-Newt “wave” by building grassroots support for his health care, national security and energy independence ideas – all of which he has been peddling to corporate audiences over the past six years. “Nice people,” Gingrich says of his GOP competitors. “But we’re not in the same business. They’re running for president. I’m running to change the country.”

In December, Gingrich will launch a 527 group, called “American Solutions for Winning the Future,” that will enable him to raise and spend unlimited money on behalf of this effort. In January, he will conduct a strategy meeting with advisers. By next fall, he’ll decide whether to make a bid official – a late start by any recent historical standard.

It’s a strategy that would be considered far-fetched if this were any other candidate. But Gingrich has to be taken seriously. Polls place him third in the GOP presidential nomination race, behind Giuliani and McCain. And a recent internal GOP poll recently put him second, and ahead of McCain.

I have to say that I’m ecstatic that Newt will be heavily involved in the 2008 contest. Running against his ideas will only make the other candidates in the race better.

Rasmussen 2008 Poll:

Election 2008: 43% of Americans would Never Vote for a Mormon Candidate

Forty-three percent (43%) of American voters say they would never even consider voting for a Mormon Presidential candidate. Only 38% say they would consider casting such a vote while 19% are not sure. Half (53%) of all Evangelical Christians say that they would not consider voting for a Mormon candidate.

Before skewering me in the comments, please remember that Mitt is currently my #2 choice and that I have repeatedly stated that Mitt’s religion should be a non-factor in this contest.

But I have also tried to warn my readers that having grown up surrounded by Evangelicals, I know that the idea that these voters will suddenly forget what their pastors have taught them about Mormonism for their whole lives is not very realistic.

You could argue, “Well, Kavon. You grew up surrounded by this community and it does not affect your opnion of Mitt.”

That’s true. But I am part of the younger generation. I view Mormons as part of my larger ideological family. For me personally, Mitt’s religion is actually part of why I like him, because I’m fairly sure that Mitt and I share nearly identical values.

But I am not so sure that older Evangelical voters (who primarily vote in primaries) would feel this way. A lifetime of hearing only one side of things regarding Mormonism is a lot to unlearn.

Michael Barone is a smart guy and an excellent political analyst.? But his recent?column?defending Bush Republicanism and big government conservatism just must be responded to, as it is likely the argument that will be heard from apologists for the GOP establishment for the next couple of years.

Barone begins his column by stating this interesting premise:

“Republicans who are saying that the party needs to go back to the principles of 1994 or Ronald Reagan should keep (former House Speaker Tip) O’Neill’s lesson in mind: Successful public policies render moot the issues that bring parties to power. They won’t keep winning unless they address new issues.”

Indeed.? In fact, I would argue that the single greatest destroyer of political coalitions is success w/r/t their feasible goals.? Take the New Deal coalition, for example.? Once the goals that the coalition could agree on (retirement security, WWII, etc.) were largely disposed of and dispensed with, and the issues facing the nation shifted to the Cold War and civil rights, the New Dealers were basically a couple with irreconcilible differences; the coalition had to part ways.? And it did, in 1968.

But I digress.? The point is, of course any successful party or political coalition must address the issues of the day and not of yesterday.? But Barone, in his statement, is confusing issues with principles.? The former include the problems that must be solved at any given time.? The latter, simply the philosophical prism that you apply to the problems to solve them.? Issues change; principles may be forever.

That is why Barone is so incredibly wrong to suggest that Republicans shouldn’t re-embrace the principles of 1980 or 1994.? Those principles, which in many ways were our First Principles, have won elections throughout American history, because those principles have always succeeded at addressing whatever issues?are facing this country.? No one is suggesting we should go back to the 1980s and fight Communism and the Soviet Union all over again.? But what we Goldwater/Reagan conservatives are saying is that the same principles that we used to address those problems can be applied to the current problems facing our nation today.

Now, I’ll forgive Barone because I suspect that the real point of his column was to respond to the seemingly imminent conservative insurrection against Bush Republicanism, and Barone, for whatever reason, doesn’t want that to happen.? We see this as we continue to read Barone, who describes “big government conservatism” as inevitable.? Barone discusses the big government of the Bush years, such as the new Medicare prescription drug entitlement and No Child Left Behind, the bill that put more power over education policy in the hands of Washington.? Says Barone:

“To be sure, this is big-government conservatism. But who thinks we’re going to get rid of big government? Bush’s approach has been to enhance choice and accountability, to rely more on markets and less on government commands.

It’s the only realistic conservatism for America today.”

Say it ain’t so, Michael.

Barone is once again using fuzzy logic.? He’s confusing two distinct types of governance, again trying to convince us that all is right with the world when it comes to the Bush Republicans in Washington.

What Barone describes is not “big government conservatism,” but simply a conservatism that understands its limits.? The type of conservative governance that Barone discusses was that practiced by Ronaldus Maximus himself.? Ronald Reagan didn’t come into Washington and try to eliminate Social Security, or welfare, or public education.? He recognized that doing so would be political suicide, as the public supported those programs by grand margins.? So instead, Reagan tried to make those programs work more conservatively, with more private forces involved, with decisions left as close to the individual as possible, and with a more efficient government that worked better and cost the taxpayer less.? Newt did the same thing with welfare in 1994; he didn’t eliminate it, he reformed it.? And David Cameron, the likely next Prime Minister of the UK, is reviving the Tories by doing the same thing east of the Atlantic.? This isn’t the hyphenated conservatism that Barone describes; it’s conservative governance from a realist perspective, the only type that is ever possible, because all governing will involve compromise.

Now contrast this with the actual big government conservatism that has been spearheaded by the president and other Beltway types over the last six years.? With NCLB, we saw an increase in the federal government’s ability to tell states what to do regarding public education.? Contrast this with Reagan, who tried to give states more power over its management.? With the Medicare bill, we saw a new entitlement created, one that no one has any idea how to pay for down the road.? Would Reagan have given us a new entitlement?? Barone’s commentary on the drug bill was that there was going to be one sooner or later anyway, so we might as well have a conservative?version instead of a liberal one.? By that logic, we might as well simply declare surrender on all size and scope of government issues because, as Barone implies, authoritarianism is apparently inevitable.? Who wants free health care?

No, this type of governance is not conservatism.? It’s just another form of the many big governmentisms that have come our way throughout human history.? In fact, I would say about the only philosophical framework that truly captures Bush Republicanism is one articulated by John Podhoretz of National Review earlier this year, who stated:

#quot;If there’s anything George W. Bush has, it’s a philosophy, and an intellectually coherent one. He believes that the individual has inherent freedom and dignity, and that this should be the hallmark of all efforts by government. That’s a philosophy, and it extends from #quot;compassionate conservatism#quot; to the Bush doctrine.#quot;

I would say that about sums it up.? And I’m not knocking the substance of that philosophy.? It’s certainly internally consistent.? And it’s probably a noble way to lead one’s life.? But it’s more of a moral or religious philosophy than a political one.? As a political philosophy, it certainly doesn’t seem to have any roots in American political thought.? It most definitely did not spring from the Founders’ restrained, skeptical, realist ideas about our government and what it can and should do.? And it’s not really rooted in the Republican Party either, from Lincoln to TR to Ike to Reagan.? Instead, it appears to be more of a moral code that has been grafted onto American conservatism and onto the Republican Party, which was rejected by each, and which will likely disappear as quickly as it came in, just as soon as the White House has an alternative occupant.

In sum, I think Barone and other apologists are wrong to try and continue to force big government conservatism on a party, and a movement, and a country that doesn’t want them.? I think that Republicans and conservatives should return to our original principles and traditions, because those principles work, and because they win the minds of the American people whenever they’re applied to the problems of the day, from the Founders on down.? And I think that, while circling the wagons is tempting after a defeat, it would serve conservatives better to come clean about the last six years.? Not everything has to be the subject of a “dog ate my homework” style excuse.? It’s okay to admit that mistakes were made, by the president, and by our leaders on the Hill.? In fact, it’s only after we have that conversation that we can return to a guiding philosophy that is distinctly political, conservative, Republican, and American.

As Governor Ronald Reagan famously said in his presidential debate with President Jimmy Carter in 1980, “There you go again.”

Well, here we, the Republican Party, go again. Another prominent Republican who is running for President has selfishly and harmfully qualified and denigrated the term “conservative” that applies to so many members and is arguably the cornerstone of the GOP.

While running for President in 2000, Governor George W. Bush claimed he was a “compassionate conservative,” distinguishing the political label and thus implying that conservatives are not usually compassionate but that he was, as a different kind of conservative. Of course the terminology was and is an insult to all conservatives, starting with the greatest of them like President Reagan and Judge Robert Bork (whose book was specifically and pejoratively referenced in the speech by Governor George W. Bush?introducing the concept).

Now, Senator John McCain, perhaps influenced by former Bush-Cheney campaign aides Mark McKinnon and Terry Nelson who are on his political staff (and have supported Democrats for high office previously), has come up with an additional qualification and denigration of “conservative” that he used this past Thursday in an important speech to GOPAC about the future of America and the Republican Party.

Senator McCain refers to himself as a “common sense conservative” in this speech, as if “common sense” is not something inherent to conservatives or a trait they normally manifest. Again, this is insulting to all conservatives and implies that the term “conservative” leaves a lot to be desired.

This?degrading and tendentious nuance respecting conservatism from Senator McCain was perhaps inevitable. Having criticized and excoriated conservatives for so long, especially during his primary campaign against Governor George W. Bush in 2000, the only way Senator McCain can now claim to be?”conservative” in the vein of so many Republican primary voters is to?argue that he follows a different strain of it. And I say all of this as a huge fan of what Senator McCain has done being one of the very few Republicans in Congress to fight wasteful federal government spending.

Now that the heavy lifting of discrediting liberalism with the convincing victories by President Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 and the historic mid-term congressional election win of 1994 has been accomplished, to the point where a majority of Americans now describe themselves as on the right of center ideologically, conservatives and Republicans must now confront a political battlefield where liberals and Democrats can point to the words of President George W. Bush and Senator McCain as evidence that there is plenty wrong with the ideology of the right. This is unfortunate, unfair, and unwise; it puts conservatives and Republicans needlessly on defense – as a result of the personal quests of President George W. Bush and Senator McCain.

I am convinced that the biggest problem in the President George W. Bush administration has been arrogance, however real or perceived. And how arrogant is it to take an entire political philosophy and party and define?them differently so that they fit your personal ambitions? Shouldn’t the burden be on the candidate to show how he or she fits with the political philosophy and party rather than having the candidate define the philosophy and party differently to suit thier own needs? I think this is the height of arrogance and has afflicted both President George W. Bush and Senator McCain to their own and the movement’s detriment.

President Reagan never qualified terms when talking about himself as a conservative and Republican; he distinguished himself from political opponents on the right and left, but never from his political ideology or party. He followed the so called Eleventh Commandment – thou shall not speak ill of a fellow Republican – precisely because he realized and respected the fact that the philosophy and party were bigger than any individual candidate, starting with himself. Those who need to qualify themselves as conservatives are fundamentally admitting that they are not true conservatives, and therefore they should come up with a completely different term to fit.

Conservatism is innately compassionate by stressing the importance of individual freedom and liberty, which allows the greatest hope for all people; conservatism innately makes common sense because individual freedom, individual liberty, smaller and more efficient government, lower taxes to grow the economy, and peace and security through strength have been shown throughout history to work for the betterment of people and the larger society. The distinctions drawn by President George W. Bush and Sentor McCain in this regard are absurd and should be codemned.

The only reason to hyphenate the term?conservative is to describe those who do not live up to its ideals and standards – as quasi-conservatives. (And I recognize that the terms neoconservative and paleoconservative have infiltrated our lexicon, but consider them tautological – referencing the same ideology we have always associated with the term but merely pointing where such people came from and how long they have been part of the conservative movement.) That is the term President George W. Bush and Senator McCain should consider using to refer to themselves. Otherwise, they should leave intact and?sacrosanct a term that the followers of Senator Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan understand, revere, and follow without hesitation or need for nuance.

Sources indicate, in response to a piece I posted here recently,?that Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Senator John McCain, and Governor Mitt Romney have been invited by the American Conservative Union – in addition to Speaker Newt Gingrich – to address the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. in early March of 2007.

My congratulations to the ACU for inviting the Big Four of the 2008 presidential race on the Republican side to CPAC 2007, which now has the potential to be the first true presidential campaign event on the GOP side during the 2008 cycle.

I hope all four candidates will agree to speak and give us a glimpse early in the 2008 election cycle of what they are thinking and planning.

Regular readers of the site no doubt know my many issues with Senator McCain. However there are two issues where he is 100% correct: Iraq and Abortion.

From ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion. Then I want to turn to Iraq. You’re for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.

MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So is President Bush, yet that hasn’t advanced in the six years he’s been in office. What are you going to do to advance a constitutional amendment that President Bush hasn’t done?

MCCAIN: I don’t think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should ‘ could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you’d be for that?

MCCAIN: Yes, because I’m a federalist. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states. And I don’t believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade.

This is a good example of why I refrain from personally attacking Sen. McCain like many other conservative bloggers do.?It is courageous for McCain to go on ABC this weekend to take positions which may greatly affect his support among independents and moderate Dems. ???

I do not believe that this is simply a ploy to ingratiate himself to conservatives on the eve of seeking their support for the Republican nomination. He is just simply speaking his mind, just as he does when he champions causes which tee off Republicans.

Thanks to RedState’s Adam C (one of my favorite bloggers)?for the hat-tip.