- Mitt Romney 25%
- Rudy Giuliani 23%
- Fred Thompson 16%
- John McCain 15%
Survey of 408 likely Republican presidential primary voters was conducted August 26-31. The margin of error is +/-5 percentage points.
Rudy Giuliani
Fred Thompson
Mitt Romney
John McCain
General Race 4 2008 News
Bill Gertz reports:
Three of the eight announced 2008 Republican presidential campaigns are considering retired Army Gen. Tommy Franks as their pick for vice presidential candidate, according to Republican Party operatives.
Gen. Franks, commander of U.S. Central Command until he retired in 2003, orchestrated the military campaign that ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
The choice of Gen. Franks as vice president would be a direct affront to antiwar Democrats, who plan to make opposition to the Bush administration’s handling of the war the main plank of their campaign platforms.
A staunch Republican, Gen. Franks hails from Oklahoma but considers Texas his home state. Having him on the ticket would boost Republican prospects in the must-win Lone Star state.
The sources, who are well placed in Republican circles, did not identify the campaigns that are considering Gen. Franks. They said Gen. Franks’ consideration also is based on his potential to draw votes in the South, and his role as an eloquent spokesman for winning the global war against Islamist extremism.
It would be a very gutsy move by any GOP nominee to select someone with such a large role in the execution of the Iraq war as Gen. Franks. It seems counterintuitive, with the conventional wisdom being that the eventual GOP nominee should run like hell from any association with the Bush Administration.
It makes me wonder who the three campaigns could be… My first guess would be Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson. I would not include Romney in my guess, as it’s difficult for me to imagine anyone but Sen. Jim DeMint being Mitt’s running mate should he win the nomination.
Franks makes the most sense for both Rudy and McCain. As Gertz notes, Franks would “check the box” in satisfying the need for a Southerner on the ticket while not being known as very ideological on social issues. Neither Rudy or McCain have shied away from Iraq in any way, shape, or form during the campaign so far. So there is no reason to believe they would be afraid of meeting this issue head-on during the general.
As for Thompson, he is the biggest wild-card here. It’s fairly easy to imagine Thompson making the gutsy decision to include Franks on the ticket despite the fact they are both Southerners and doing so would make the execution of the Iraq War a germane issue as he was directly involved in its execution.
Besides, Thompson has basically played Gen. Franks at least twice on the big screen. So perhaps he figures it’s time he served as his understudy.
And that someone is NH State GOP Chairman Fergus Cullen, who blasts Thompson in an interview with Jennifer Rubin over at the American Spectator Blog:
I just spoke to Fergus Cullen NH State GOP Chairman. He had quite a bit to say. He began: “Fred Thompson has a great opportunity to make a great first impression here and he’s not taking advantage of it.” He reiterated that this situation reminds him of the 1999 October Dartmouth debate which George Bush skipped, saying “If you asked them [the Bush team] they’d say ‘What a mistake we made.’”
Read the rest here.
Jed Babbin will be the guest of Matt Parker of Political Buzz Radio tonight at 5pm Eastern. Definitely worth checking out.
You can listen in here.
- Rudy Giuliani 47%
- Hillary Clinton 44%
- Hillary Clinton 48%
- Fred Thompson 44%
Favorability Rating
- Rudy Giuliani 56%
- Hillary Clinton 49%
- Fred Thompson 41%
Survey of 800 Likely Voters was conducted August 27-28. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points.
Among Likely Republican Voters
Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)
- Rudy Giuliani 76% / 21% (+55%)
- Fred Thompson 58% / 27% (+31%)
- Rudy Giuliani 25%
- Fred Thompson 20%
- Mitt Romney 13%
- John McCain 11%
- Mike Huckabee 6%
Daily tracking results are from survey interviews conducted over four days ending last night. Each update includes approximately 600-650 Likely Republican Primary Voters. Margin of sampling error is +/- 4 percentage points.
I would be enormously appreciative if Race 4 2008 contributors and readers wold take :30 seconds and go the the poll on the right sidebar of this page and vote for me, Gary Miller (5th from the top), to attend next summer’s GOP convention as a correspondent for Race 4 2008 and my own blog, Truth vs. The Machine.
Thanks in advance.
With Mitt Romney, you get “Strong. New. Leadership.” With John McCain, you can be assured of “Straight Talk” for the American people. Mike Huckabee is a “Proven Leader. Authentic Conservative.” Sam Brownback is the “Principled. Conservative. Republican.”
And now, introducing Fred Thompson’s campaign slogan:
“Security, Unity, and Prosperity.”
There you go.
Rudy Giuliani
Fred Thompson
Mitt Romney
John McCain
General Race 4 2008 News
In a move that serves as flipping the bird to both national parties, the Michigan House of Representatives this afternoon voted to pass legislation moving their caucus from 2/26 to a primary on 1/15. Now that both chambers have passed the bill, it will go to committee where it is expected to pass and to Governor Granholm’s desk, where she has vowed to sign it. In the fight between the national parties and state legislatures, the states aren’t blinking or backing down yet.
Patrick Ruffini (at Hugh Hewitt) is very impressed with Team Romney’s innovative “create your own ad” campaign.
Sayeth Patrick:
You know that when a campaign puts the words, “Yes, we’re serious” in a campaign e-mail, it’s gonna be good.
Mitt Romney’s create-your-own-ad contest is exactly the kind of online innovation I’ve been waiting for out of the Republican candidates for President. The winning ad gets a real, live media buy. In other words, supporters are co-creating something of actual value and importance to the campaign. That’s meaningful, and supporters get that.
I don’t know if Romney is anywhere close to Hillary Clinton’s one million e-mail addresses, but it’s creative stuff like this that shows me that Romney has the warewithal and creativity to catch up.
I’ve had some issues with Romney, but his supporters are right to point out that his superior organization is a point in his favor when going up against the brutal Clinton machine. It’s something savvy Republican primary voters have a right to evaluate, and this year, the Web is going to be a huge component of that organization, because we will be outraised by $100 million or more if our campaigns only start thinking about building lists and engaging online on February 6th.
Kudos to Team Romney. Now let’s see the Rudy, Fred, et al. counter, and start a spiral of online competition that will make the eventual nominee stronger.
This is a great idea. Not only because it harnesses the creativity of your supporters while engaging them directly in the campaign, but also (as Patrick notes) these videos will be shared via personal networks by their proud creators multiplying their impact.
Author’s note: I began working on this piece last night, before today’s ruling in Iowa and Justin Hart’s post. This is not to be seen as a rebuttal of his opinion, as I was already in the process of writing this when the news came out about IA. -Tommy Oliver
Before one is to give a definition of federalism, one must look at some of the instances in how it differs on issues from social and moderate conservatism. First, I want to look at the Musgrave Amendment, otherwise known as the federal marriage amendment, which states that “marriage in the United States consists only of the union of a man and a woman.” This was brought to national attention in 2004 when Massachusetts legalized gay marriage. Quickly, President George W. Bush endorsed the above-mentioned Musgrave Amendment, placing a federal ban on same-sex marriage.
According to Michael S. Grave of the Federalism Project at AEI, “it is rarely a good idea to enact social policy in the Constitution, and same-sex marriage is no exception.” He is correct. Supreme Court justices who practice judicial restraint would not support a federal ban on marriage of any part. The federal government does not have a place in regulating morality. The definition of what is socially acceptable is no exception.
Bob Barr, the former congressman from Georgia who is highly thought of in conservative circles, authored the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed into law by former President Bill Clinton. It allowed states the right not to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. However, Barr is an outspoken critic of a federal marriage amendment.
Here is an excerpt of an interview Newsweek conducted with Barr:
NEWSWEEK: You authored the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, but you’ve come out against an amendment to the constitution banning same-sex marriage. Why is that?
Bob Barr: Because I believe very strongly in federalism and that is that the federal government should not be stepping in and dictating social policy to the states. The Defense of Marriage Act was crafted very narrowly. Despite very strong pressure to make it a proactive piece of legislation, I crafted it very narrowly simply to define marriage for federal-law purposes and to make sure that states were protected to make up their own mind. And I continue to believe that that is the best policy.
Newsweek: President Bush apparently does not agree. He’s said that there should be a constitutional amendment on this issue because “even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld [by the Supreme Court], the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.” That sounds like he’s saying the federal government needs to amend the constitution so that no state or city can, at some point in the future, allow gay marriage, even within its own borders. Does that concern you?
Barr: It doesn’t concern me, but I don’t think it reflects my philosophy. My philosophy is that the people are the kind of protection that we need in this country, and for those in this country such as myself who are opposed to same-sex marriages, if we have failed to convince a majority of the population of that, to me, you don’t turn to the constitution and amend that sacred document simply to help buttress your argument.
The problem with passing a national ban on gay marriage is that it sets an unhealthy precedent. Reactionaries and some social conservatives have failed to look ahead to view where this type of judicial activism could lead. The conservatives will not likely control the Supreme Court until the end of time, as power always shifts within the United States, as that is the nature of society. There will be another liberal President, quite possibly in our lifetime, who will appoint a liberal justice to the bench. When there is a particular issue that is as polarizing as a federal ban on gay marriage would be, having it’s policy dictated by an overreaching, activist court will no doubt lead to even more divisiveness in the future. As Greve said in his publication,” Once we permit the courts to force us into an all-or-nothing confrontation, civility is in peril.”
-Tommy Oliver
On another note, will not respond until after the football game is over-
Thursday Night Pick:
LSU over Mississippi State by +10
As all of America knows by now, some low-level judge in Iowa found the Iowa Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and ordered the court to issue marriage licenses to six gay couples. Mitt Romney immediately released a statement condemning the ruling as “an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage as disregard the will of the people….”
Unsatisfied with its wholly accurate opening volley, the Romney campaign added that “this once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.”
R4’08 contributor Justin Hart trumpeted Romney’s support for a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. He opined that “gay marriage in the Boston Harbor is one thing…but in Dubuque?”
Before we grab our pitchforks and rush the office of our federal legislators, let’s all take a deep breath and ask the following question: “In what way does this court’s action, today, provoke the need to amend the federal constitution to protect traditional marriage?”
The answer, quite simply, is that it does not.
Let’s first look at the source of the ruling. Any decision of this nature being rendered by a state court judge would be made at the lowest level of judicial decision-making: a court not of record. That means that this decision still has to be reviewed by a different judge in the same county court – in a court of record – before it can even get to the state court appeal level. So, this decision will have to survive review at three levels (court of record, court of appeals, Iowa Supreme Court) before it would have statewide effect. This leads us to our next point…STATEwide effect.
Even If this ruling manages the unlikely feat of surviving three levels of state judicial review in socially conservative Iowa, its effect would only be on the state of Iowa. It would not effect, nor should it affect, any other state. Virginia would not be required to recognize Iowa gay marriages, just as Virginia is not required to accept those (somehow more acceptable) Massachusetts gay marriages.
Iowa’s citizens would be free to exercise their will by amending the state constitution. And therein lies the solution.
So, ask yourself again, in what way does this preliminary decision by a low-level state court judge affect the sovereignty of other states so as to provoke amendment of the federal constitution?
It doesn’t. And for that we should be glad. Aside from being patently unwise at this point, it would be electoral folly. Commenter “cwpete” added this nugget of wisdom in the R4’08 comments: “Great, Now IA can join the list of other states that have amended their Constitutions. I was surprised to hear that IA had not already done so. This could help swing the state for the Republicans in 2008. Let the (sic) push this & push this hard.”
Well done, sir. You’ve earned a medal. Just like Romney, you’ve recognized this affair for its true value: electoral opportunity. But, unlike Romney, you were able to articulate a cogent point – that this is a state issue and that the party could make concrete gains by treating it that way. A constitutional amendment in Iowa is the appropriate response to a problem peculiar to Iowa. A federal constitutional amendment like the one that Romney proposes would short-circuit our federal system in precisely the same fashion as Roe v. Wade – it would cut short the slow, steady progress of the public discourse and impose a one-size-fits all solution that later (or even current) generations might find repugnant.
Kavon, Justin, and others rightly noted that this is an activist judge overruling the will of the people of Iowa. But, what if a federal constitutional amendment was passed, and the New York legislature subsequently voted to institute gay marriage? The federal constitutional amendment would then serve to overrule the will of the people of New York. If you are fine with that concept, ask yourself this: why should the people of Iowa and 36 other states be able to tell New York and 12 other states what their marriage laws should be?
If, after answering that question, you can still say that the federal government should be able to dictate a state’s popularly-endorsed marriage policies, you may want to ask yourself another question: ”Am I in the correct political party?”
Roe v. Wade short circuited the slow but steady resolution of the abortion issue at the state level and turned it into a multi-generational culture war where the only winners have been the politicians savvy enough to demagogue the issue into a victory at the polls. Mitt Romney is attempting the same feat. A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would serve to short-circuit the public policy debate that has been going on in the states for about a decade now. One would think that Republicans, and especially social conservatives, would have learned the lesson of Roe. But, it appears that many have not. Sadly for our republic, a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage may yield the ironic result of a the anti-Roe forces visiting their own personal hell on their foes – and by doing so cause the same lasting damage to our federal republic.
I am pleased to announce Race 4 2008‘s latest addition, Michael Lawrence. I will have more on Michael later. But for now, take my word that he will be a wonderful addition to our little family here.
h/t to reader Matt.
McLaughlin & Associates Iowa Republican Caucus (PDF warning)
- Romney – 35%
- Giuliani – 12%
- Thompson – 11%
- Huckabee – 11%
- Tancredo – 9%
- McCain – 7%
- Brownback – 2%
- Paul – 1%
- Hunter – 1%
Romney is up 3:1 over his nearest rival; Huckabee got a good bounce, although not quite as good as in the ARG poll; McCain is now in 6th place in Iowa; looks like Brownback’s got some awesome momentum in the state.
A Judge in Polk County has ruled that Iowa’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional and ordered the court recorder to issue licenses to 6 gay couples.
If it wasn’t a major issue yesterday, it is today. As Bill Kristol noted at Tuesday’s bloggers’ forum: “Everyone is focused on the three I’s: Iraq, Iran and Iowa.”
Governor Romney immediately released the following statement:
The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
Add one more log to the fire in favor of a constitutional amendment protecting marriage. If I’m not mistaken, Romney is the only top-tier candidate to support such a measure.
Gay marriage in the Boston Harbor is one thing… but in Dubuque, Des Moines, Davenport, Marshalltown, Mason City, Keokuk, Ames, Clear Lake? As the Music Man says… I guess my friends in San Francisco really ought to give Iowa a try.
Jennifer Rubin gives an early handicap of the Michigan Primary over at the American Spectator Blog.
As reported by Race 4 2008‘s own Tommy Oliver (who broke the story this morning), Fred Thompson announced via conference call that he will officially enter the race September 6th. Redstate has the details:
…I’m here to tell ya Fred intends to be the next President of the United States, and he means to tell the FEC exactly that on September 6, 2007. At that time, the testing the waters phase will end, and an aggressive campaign will commence…offical and legal-like.
Fred will tell US about his plans, and explain just what he has in mind for this country via Web cast on that day as well.
Following that, Fred will take two tours across parts of America, winding up in his home town in Tennessee on September 17th for a “welcome home” party.
Fred Thompson plans to campaign on his strengths of “mainstream Conservatism”, and believes entering the race in such a strong position (uniformly 2nd in the major polls) will allow for a strong effort, starting right here with we grassroots folks that have helped him get this far.
Well, the real race begins September 6th folks…
Update: Jennifer Rubin opines on the Thompson quasi-announcement:
Thompson tells supporters the date is September 6. He’ll go on Leno and not do the debate next week. The “time to get off TV and run in the real world” cracks are starting. As for the decision not to face the press today a rival aide had this to add: ” Fred Thompson has spent the summer with one foot in the water and now in one more anti-climatic move his campaign is announcing by paper statement? One has to wonder it it’s not just the candidate who isn’t ready for tough questions – it seems to be his staff too.” That would be the “welcome to the race, pal” comment. I’m sure the opposition communication teams are practicing their favorite barbs for the September 5 debate to explain Fred’s absence. (“Still doing NBC TV?” or “Hasn’t had time to learn his lines yet?”)
From the Boston Globe (hat-tip to Aron):
[Tom] Sansonetti said there is a short term goal and a long term goal. In the short term they want Wyoming to be a bigger player in presidential politics. Second, “is to have the rules committee of the RNC get off their butts and come up with a system that is put into place … that is fair,” he said. (emphasis mine)
The answer is simple: caucus envy. States have simply had it with Iowa and New Hampshire playing determinate roles.
Bet the farm on a national primary the next time around.
Rudy Giuliani
Fred Thompson
Mitt Romney
John McCain
General Race 4 2008 News
- Rudy Giuliani 51% (48%)
- Fred Thompson 12% (15%)
- Mitt Romney 9% (5%)
- John McCain 7% (10%)
Survey of 800 likely primary voters was conducted August 24-26. The margin of error is +/-3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted July 13-15 are in parentheses.
Brand new slate of ARG Polls out his morning:
American Research Group Iowa Caucus Poll, conducted August 26-29, 2007
- Mitt Romney 27%
- Rudy Giuliani 17%
- Mike Huckabee 14%
- Fred Thompson 13%
- Newt Gingrich 7%
- John McCain 5%
Republicans only:
- Mitt Romney 26%
- Rudy Giuliani 17%
- Mike Huckabee 17%
- Fred Thompson 13%
- Newt Gingrich 7%
- John McCain 4%
Mike Huckabee at 14%/17% folks, up from 1% in July. Margin of Error: ± 4 percentage points.
American Research Group New Hampshire Primary Poll, conducted August 26-29, 2007
- Mitt Romney 27%
- Rudy Giuliani 23%
- John McCain 12%
- Mike Huckabee 9%
- Fred Thompson 8%
- Newt Gingrich 4%
- Ron Paul 3%
Republicans only:
- Rudy Giuliani 26%
- Mitt Romney 24%
- Mike Huckabee 12%
- John McCain 10%
- Fred Thompson 7%
- Newt Gingrich 5%
- Ron Paul 2%
Margin of Error: ± 4 percentage points
American Research Group South Carolina Poll, conducted August 26-29, 2007
- Rudy Giuliani 26%
- Fred Thompson 21%
- John McCain 12%
- Mike Huckabee 9%
- Mitt Romney 9%
- Newt Gingrich 6%
Republicans only:
- Rudy Giuliani 26%
- Fred Thompson 18%
- John McCain 12%
- Mike Huckabee 11%
- Mitt Romney 9%
- Newt Gingrich 7%
Margin of Error: ± 4 percentage points.
Taking a short break from all political discussion for a week, except to post on federalism and forms of federalism. As a realist and a Thompson supporter, I have not ignored todays polls and will not spin them, but until I see it last over a longer period than one day, then I’m not going to spin or comment until we see what happens with his announcement. Is it a possible backlash, it may be. Some have thought of me as nothing more than a spinmeister. They have gotten that wrong. I’m a realist who will not defend any candidate when I believe them to be wrong on an issue.
As a Thompson supporter, I am quite nervous about what will happen in the next month. He has left himself little room for error. This was a mistake. That doesn’t mean I’m backing away from him as a supporter. I just can’t predict what will happen. Writing him off is a mistake for opponents, but there is reason for them to be skeptical. The problem is that I can’t accurately predict or give any analysis until these things are cleared up.
However, he will announce his attention to seek the presidency this afternoon to supporters, with an official announcement next week.
BTW, reader Matt, if you read my post yesterday thoroughly, you’ll notice that I never gave my personal definition of federalism. I gave the dictionary’s definition, but did not endorse it.
LATE AFTERNOON UPDATE: Before Fox News, USA TODAY, Redstate, Wapo, there was the Race42008. Check the official time of all the news articles on the subject today, and you will find that Race42008 was the first to break the news of the Thompson conference call. The political story of the day, and possibly the campaign, and you heard it here first.
Since health care seems to be the hot topic on the site today, I thought I would bring to your attention National Review’s analysis of the health care proposals of the Republican candidates offered to date:
Calling Doctor Rudy
By The Editors
Last week, Mitt Romney explained how he would reform health care if he were president. Rudolph Giuliani had earlier offered his own proposal. Neither Fred Thompson (who is not yet officially a candidate) nor John McCain has outlined his health-care policy. We commend Romney and Giuliani for putting some ideas on the table. And while we prefer either to the proposals being offered by the Democrats, Giuliani’s looks superior to Romney’s.
The centerpiece of Giuliani’s plan is the proposal, first made by President Bush in January, to change the tax treatment of health insurance. The tax code currently encourages people to get health insurance through their employers rather than to get higher wages and to pay for their insurance themselves. It provides a larger tax break the more expensive that insurance, encouraging people to choose policies that offer greater coverage. Bush, and now Giuliani, would extend the tax break to individuals who purchase their own health insurance. They would provide the same tax break regardless of the cost of the insurance, so that purchasers would have more incentive to shop around.
Romney proposes different changes to the tax code. He would make all out-of-pocket health expenses deductible against income taxes. That change would reduce one distortion of the economy: People would no longer have as great an incentive to get insurance to cover routine medical expenses rather than to pay for them out of pocket. But there are two problems with this proposal. First: Judging from the work of his principal health-care advisers, Romney’s plan would still give employer-provided plans an advantage, as they would be exempt from both income and payroll taxes. Giuliani’s plan would level the playing field more; individual ownership of health insurance would no longer be penalized at all.
Second: The new tax break for out-of-pocket expenses could funnel more money into the health-care sector and increase costs. Some health-care experts think that the net effect of both changes-reducing the bias toward employer-provided health insurance, on one hand, and increasing the bias toward health spending over all other types of spending, on the other-would be to make health care more affordable. But the Giuliani plan is a surer bet, since it caps the tax break for health care.
Neither Giuliani nor Romney goes as far as Bush in one important respect. State governments have imposed onerous mandates on insurance, pricing many people out of the market. Bush has endorsed a bill to allow people to bypass their states’ regulations by purchasing health insurance out of state. States would, in effect, have to compete with one another to adopt reasonable regulatory regimes. So President Bush’s tax plan increases people’s incentives to enter the individual insurance market, while his regulatory agenda would give them cheaper individual-insurance products to buy once they’re there.
Giuliani says he would let people buy out of state, but only if the state’s regulations were shown to make health insurance unaffordable. That’s an unnecessary level of red tape. Presumably the main reason people would go out of state in the first place is to avoid mandates they cannot afford. Romney would use federal money to encourage states to deregulate their markets. But federal carrots and sticks could easily be redeployed for worse ends. Establishing a rule of competition instead would allow the marketplace to reduce regulations without increasing federal power.
The report card: an A- for Giuliani, a solid B for Romney, and an incomplete for Thompson and McCain. But we should also note that Romney’s plan is far lighter on regulation than the plan he got enacted in Massachusetts . So if there is an award for “most improved,” he would get it.
Count me in the camp who desires to pit the states against each other in the health insurance market. In my neck of the woods, Wisconsin would clean Minnesota’s clock in the private health insurance market if competition was allowed due to the “compassion” of Minnesota’s State Legislature and Department of Insurance meddling in every single aspect of the health insurance market in order to “ensure quality coverage” to all Minnesotans.
I concur with the edge given to Giuliani here as well. Leveling the playing field between private and employer sponsored insurance plans will resulting in reducing cost as people take advantage of the significant tax incentive to purchase their own insurance plan thereby expanding risk pools.
Is Mitt’s surge coming at Fred’s expense?:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Rudy Giuliani remains on top in the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination. Giuliani earns 26% of the vote from Likely Republican Primary Voters. Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney are essentially tied for second at 18% and 16% respectively. Today’s reading reflects Thompson’s lowest level of support since the first week of June.
Rasmussen Reports Daily National Republican Primary Tracking Poll
- Giuliani – 26%
- Thompson – 18%
- Romney – 16%
- McCain – 10%
- Huckabee – 6%
Daily tracking results are from survey interviews conducted over four days ending last night. Each update includes approximately 600-650 Likely Republican Primary Voters and has an MoE of 4%.
Yesterday, Utah Senator Bob Bennett said, “I think it is now a two-man race between Romney and Giuliani…”
(h/t Aron in the Essential Reads – this one is worth highlighting on its own.)
The Census Bureau released a report this week, and it does some mighty powerful damage to the whole “47 million uninsured Americans” line we keep hearing from politicians. You know – those 47 million poor, down-on-their-luck, hard working American citizens who, according to Hillary!, Barack, and Johnny we need to pay for insurance for?
Well, that’s not exactly the whole story, according to the Census Bureau. They released some rather interesting facts – the two most important in my opinion being the following:
Just as Mitt Romney found in Massachusetts, a large portion of citizens who don’t have insurance can afford to have it, they just choose not to and then mooch off the system, which guarantees them care at the taxpayers’ expense. Reforming that system and making those people get their own insurance to stop living off the taxpayers’ dime was a large part of the RomneyCare plan in MA.
And according to Investor’s Business Daily, “a major reason for the uninsured “problem” is our failure to enforce our border.” Now that we have concrete evidence that the health insurance “crisis” in this country is in part directly linked to illegal immigration, any politician wishing to be taken seriously on the topic of health care had better be strong against illegal immigration as well.
It’s another good one:
It’s airing in Iowa and New Hampshire, and performs two key goals. First, it continues Romney’s campaign theme of change in Washington. Remember, to win the White House in 2008, we’ve got to overcome party fatigue, and Mitt is basing a lot of his recent campaign around that fact. Secondly, it’s a subtle jab at Fred Thompson before he even enters the race. From Jonathan Martin:
The message reflects two obvious calculations. First, Romney is continuing with his ad theme — first aired headed into the Ames Straw Poll — of change. It’s an attempt to run subtly against an unpopular president by running against an even less popular political culture in Washington. So the emphasis is on Romney’s ability to right the ship[s] — in the private sector and in government.
Second, this is something of a preemptive strike against Fred Thompson. Before the lumbering Tennessean can even get in the race, Romney is making the point that he’s got the hunger, energy and drive that skeptics claim Thompson might not have. But it’s also bigger than just drawing a distinction with Thompson. If you don’t include marathoner Huck, what other top-shelf GOP candidate could get away with wearing shorts in an ad?
Well played, Team Romney.
I have decided for the next few weeks to post on something a little different than my usual commentary, which for the most part has concentrated solely on the campaign side of things and post about old-fashioned principles and values. I feel, as a poster, that some issues are about to be taken farther than they need to be. With the 2008 election looming and most of the candidates for the republican nomination currently running as far from George W. Bush as possible, it is time to define what direction the party shall be led in. Of course, I’m under no illusion that my constant blabbering will somehow affect the direction of the GOP leadership. However, some of the candidates are basing their campaigns on ideas that have been around longer than the new right has. In some ways, today’s conservative ideology is not the same thing as the ideology of the past. The Republican Party has not always been the party of abiding by the strict code of federalism, and again today, it has strayed to far from those principles. The popular view of all of our candidates today is a return to the days of Reaganism. Of course, there is no one better to represent the party than the image of Ronald Reagan. However, today’s conservative movement was not born with Ronald Reagan’s candidacy in 1980. For all of the glory that Reagan brought to the party during his era, he does not deserve sole credit for the movement itself. Federalist principle dates back to the American Revolution. The movement conservatives of today owe possibly their greatest debt to Barry Goldwater. However, I am only aware of one candidate who speaks of Goldwater in the same breath as Reagan. This in no way is meant to belittle Reagan, the man or the politician. However, to understand federalist principle, one must look back farther than the Reagan Revolution.
Before the term federalism becomes nothing more than another buzzword for the 2008 campaign, let’s look at what federalism means. According to the Meriam-Webster online edition of their dictionary, federalism is defined as “the distribution of power in an organization (as a government) between a central authority and the constituent units.”
What does federalism mean to you? Are you a federalist? Do you believe federalism and social conservatism to be one in the same? Do the candidates ideas of federalism match each others?
Please discuss.
End of Part One
Word of interview leaked earlier has now been confirmed by Fox as a hire.
WASHINGTON – Republican Fred Thompson, hoping to solidify his ever-changing inner circle for a Republican presidential bid, has named strategist Todd Harris to head his communications department.
Harris, a former aide to Sen. John McCain and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, will replace Linda Rozett who left the fledgling campaign operation earlier this week, according to a Thompson aide who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Harris served as deputy communications director to McCain during the Arizona senator’s 2000 presidential race.
He was communications director to then-Gov. Jeb Bush for the 2002 gubernatorial campaign in Florida.
Harris worked for Schwarzenegger from 2003 to 2005. He is currently a consultant in Washington.
Thompson, an all-but-declared candidate, sidelined his campaign-manager-in-waiting, Tom Collamore, and watched a few other aides follow him out the door amid consternation inside the operation about the active role of Thompson’s wife, Jeri.
He is expected to formally launch his candidacy shortly after Labor Day.
