Here are some random thoughts on this Sunday morning for you to discuss while I am up with my 10-week-old son:
- Out of any of the four frontrunners, does anyone have a more difficult path to the nomination that Fred Thompson? Romney, though his leads are shrinking, is still ahead in IA, NH, NV, and depending on the poll perhaps MI. Rudy is in second place in nearly all of those states, meaning he could pull the upset in one or be strong enough to survive until FL. McCain is pouring resources into NH and seeing his numbers rebound there, even while they sink like a stone elsewhere. But Fred… according to the poll averages, Fred is in third place in Iowa and in danger of being passed by Huckabee; he’s in fourth place in New Hampshire; third in Nevada, and fourth in Michigan. Is there any way a front runner survives two third place and two fourth place finishes in the first four contests?
- Speaking of Giuliani, I am becoming more and more convinced that this race will boil down to a Rudy-Romney matchup just as a virtue of the winnowing process of the early primary states. The first four states are all Romney-Giuliani in first and second place, in that order. Granted, that could change in the 90 some days between now and the primaries, but not very much or very easily. The only big events left are the debates, and Romney and Giuliani have both shown they can hold their own during them.
- Sam Brownback says he will be staying in the race until after the Iowa caucuses. What’s with this guy? He’s polling at 1% in Iowa, has negative momentum in the state, is out of cash, and lost all his supporters to Mike Huckabee. My hope is that he’ll be financially unable to continue after the 3Q fundraising numbers come in, but I think he sees himself on some religious quest that he must complete come hell or high water.
- Speaking of religion, one of Fred Thompson’s biggest mistakes so far in this campaign – and he has made more than even I thought he was going to – was to tell his supporters that he didn’t really attend church and wasn’t going to talk about religion on the campaign trail. Still trying to figure out the strategy behind that while trying to become the white knight of the religious right. The rumor from several different sources now is that the Arlington Group, a loose federation of religious, pro-family groups, will not endorse anybody in this primary – they were holding out for Thompson to enter the race but have been unimpressed since he did so. Where will religious conservatives land in this election? Methinks they will vote for… Giuliani, and Romney, and McCain, and Thompson.
- Speaking of big mistakes, Mitt’s comments about his sons serving their country by helping get their dad elected (yes, I know it’s a misquote, but it’s how people understood it) may have hurt him more than we know. At dinner with my father-in-law tonight, a reliably staunch but common sense conservative, he explained to me his dilemma. He will never vote for Rudy Giuliani, he said, because of his leadership style (authoritarian, ruthless, takes credit for everything) and because of his views on gun control and abortion (he doesn’t trust his recent comments to the NRA and saying he’ll appoint the right judges). He was leaning toward Romney, he said, until he heard that quote about his sons. According to him, “that kind of turned me off to him.”
- The thing about NH going three days after IA is that means we won’t have any really accurate polls for New Hampshire after the Iowa caucuses are completed. To get a good sample, most top-notch polling agencies like to poll over a 2-3 day period which will not be available between the two states. If McCain continues his push in the state, and Rudy continues to nip at Mitt’s heels, that means New Hampshire ’08 might well become the most excited, anticipated, and unknown primary in recent memory.
- I could vote for Ron Paul so easily if it weren’t for his views on the war on terror…
- I could vote for Tom Tancredo so easily if it weren’t for… no, wait, nevermind.
- I would definitely vote for John McCain before I’d vote for Rudy Giuliani at this point.
- I’m really hoping that two candidates drop out of the race between the release of 3Q numbers and the next debate in October. Really, I’d like four or five of them to drop out, but realistically speaking, I don’t think two would be too much to ask. In the order they should drop out: Brownback, Tancredo, Hunter, Paul.
- Speaking of dropping out of the race, would one of the four frontrunners just offer the SecDef job to Duncan Hunter already so he can bow out?
- And just for the record, I have a man-crush on Duncan Hunter. In a strictly platonic sort of way.
Hey, he built that fence with his bare hands…!
September 30th, 2007 at 6:25 am
Brownback should be offered Sectary of Agriculture under either Romney or Rudy, he’d be ok at that, considering he was the youngest Sect. of Agriculture in KS history and is one of the most qualified for the job.
Until then, I still think he’d make a fine President.
September 30th, 2007 at 7:00 am
Fine president?
Maybe of Kansas Uni.
September 30th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Overall a good, thoughtful, analysis. While I would like to see Romney nominated, I think Rudy can run a great national race, too.
September 30th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Forget about Ron Paul quitting the race. He will be in it until the convention. It’s given.
He raised over $1 mil. in last 7 days. With his spending track, he’s got enough money to continue to the end.
And, I am sure, you know that the real goal of his, is the message itself, rather then nomination.
September 30th, 2007 at 8:44 am
MAtt,
Uhh, did you look at the poll below from IA? Might be an outlier, but counting that polls in the first 4 states have been all over the place, I wouldn’t jumpr to conclusions. Thompson was leading the last local poll out of NV, and usually runs in the top 2. The only state he isn’t competitive in of the first 4 is NH, at this point.
September 30th, 2007 at 9:06 am
While it is possible that Rudy could pull the upset off? Yes. Is it likely? I don’t think so.
The problem for Rudy is that Romney has a virtual lock on Iowa – its unlikely that any other candidate will be able to take it away from him. Even if Rudy can make the race close in NH (I dispute that it is within 1% in that state), I doubt he can build a major lead that would help him win that state. Romney knows how important NH is, and he has both the will and the resources to fight tooth and nail to keep his lead there. He has excellent organization, and is also something of a local. If Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire, and can then pull off wins in NV and WY, I don’t see how Rudy wins Michigan. That gives Romney every early state heading into South Carolina. I don’t know how much a momentum factor would play in SC, but even if Romney can’t win there, as long as Rudy doesn’t (I think SC will go to Fred), I don’t think Florida is a big enough of a firewall.
Romney is not inevitable, but, as long as he stays ahead in NH and IA, I have to believe he has the best shot.
September 30th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Just to add to my last post, for Rudy to attempt to gain a lead in NH, he is going to have to spend a lot of time and money there, because, as I said, Romney is going to fight tooth and nail to win there. For Rudy to put so much into New Hampshire, he leaves Florida at risk of being taken by Thompson.
Rudy deffinately has a problem.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:04 am
If Ron Paul raises more than 5 million in Q3 this will have many scratching their heads, except his supporters of course. 5 million would make him competitive with Edwards numbers, McCain’s maybe even Thompson’s. Will definetly be interesting.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist.
Ron has never voted to raise taxes.
Ron has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
Ron has never voted for the Iraq War.
Ron has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
Ron has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
Ron has never voted to raise congressional pay.
Ron has never taken a government-paid junket.
Ron voted against the Patriot Act.
Ron votes against regulating the Internet.
Ron voted against NAFTA and CAFTA.
Ron votes against the United Nations.
Ron votes against the welfare state.
Ron votes against reinstating a military draft.
Ron votes to preserve the constitution.
Ron votes to cut government spending.
Ron votes to lower healthcare costs.
Ron votes to end the war on drugs.
Ron votes to protect civil liberties.
Ron votes to secure our borders with real immigration reform
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
Listen To Ron Paul Speeches: http://www.ronpaulaudio.com
Review over 100 Articles Ron Paul Authored by Subject:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
September 30th, 2007 at 10:25 am
“Just to add to my last post, for Rudy to attempt to gain a lead in NH, he is going to have to spend a lot of time and money there, because, as I said, Romney is going to fight tooth and nail to win there. For Rudy to put so much into New Hampshire, he leaves Florida at risk of being taken by Thompson.
Rudy deffinately has a problem.”
This has got to be the lamest analysis I’ve seen in weeks.
1) Because Rudy is spending money in New Hampshire, he can’t also spend money in other states? Unless Romney wants to become the self-funded candidate (a “nightmare” in Romney’s words), Rudy has an astronomically higher CoH number than Romney does, after accounting for “loans.”
2) Romney is “going to fight tooth and nail to win there.” Um……yep. Yes he is. So are the other candidates. And Rudy, unlike Romney, hasn’t been spending money as quickly as he’s been raising it in order to build up a lead. I can’t envision Romney regaining a large lead. People in New Hampshire already know about him — and no one else, really — in detail. Romney has nowhere to go but down.
3) Mitt doesn’t have a problem? Rudy at least has universal appeal. He plays well in every region, including the South. Romney’s numbers absolutely plummet in the Southern states due to his Massachusetts residence, his sketchy record of flip-flops, and, drum-roll please, his Mormonism. Mitt also doesn’t have a prayer of besting Rudy in metropolitan areas.
4) Would you people stop pretending that you have any idea how this calendar will play out? You speak as if you know for certain that Iowa and New Hampshire’s momentum will be *the* determining factors in this race. They might be. They might not be. It’s why I think Rudy should strongly go after New Hampshire — just in case.
But lest we forget, Iowa and New Hampshire have NEVER agreed in the past three decades in the GOP race. That’s where I can see this turning into a Rudy-Romney race. Romney has a much, much better shot at Iowa than New Hampshire, and I think Rudy will be able to pull NH off.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:30 am
I see Rudy as one of the two finalists for the GOP nod against a “social conservative”. Either Fred or Mitt will emerge as the
other finalist. The sooner we thin out the field, the sooner a conservative will emerge from the pack. I don’t think its a longshot Thompson to win the that Fred wins the nomination. He’s running second here in Iowa and has only been a candidate for 3 weeks. What happens if Romney doesn’t win Iowa? Or what if Fred comes in a close second in the Hawkeye State?
http://fayettecountyrepublicanpartyiowa
September 30th, 2007 at 10:37 am
TLG, “Unless Romney wants to be come the self-funded candidate”? Hasn’t he already? He tripled his donation between the last two quarters, and because other contributions fell by 1/3 the percentage of his self-funding more than tripled. When Q3 is out, his self “loans” will total the same or more as outside contributions from Q3. He’s pretty much already the self-funded candidate.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:40 am
ACT, Florida is a big enough firewall that if Rudy wins it, CA and IL stick with him, as they see themselves as similar large, blue states. NY/NJ/CT/DE stick with him even without FL. That’s enough to get a pretty good lock on the nomination.
The question is would FL stick with him if he hasn’t won any other states and Fred still was a viable candidate (in speaking, debating, etc.), and that’s where you’re right.
As I’ve been saying, Rudy needs to win 1 state before FL, to make everything fall into place for him. Any state. NH, MI, NV or SC, assuming IA is off the table. Unless Huck splits Romney’s vote….
September 30th, 2007 at 10:50 am
“1) Because Rudy is spending money in New Hampshire, he can’t also spend money in other states? Unless Romney wants to become the self-funded candidate (a “nightmare†in Romney’s words), Rudy has an astronomically higher CoH number than Romney does, after accounting for “loans.†“
He can obviously spend money in NH, but Romney, unlike Rudy, is focusing most of his campaign on winning early states. Romney can spend an entire month in only Iowa and New Hampshire and not compromise his strategy – because that IS his strategy. If Rudy wants to overtake Romney, he is going to have to spend a lot of time in New Hampshire. That diverts resources from his Florida campaign, leaving it open to Thompson.
–
“Romney is “going to fight tooth and nail to win there.†Um……yep. Yes he is. So are the other candidates. And Rudy, unlike Romney, hasn’t been spending money as quickly as he’s been raising it in order to build up a lead. I can’t envision Romney regaining a large lead. People in New Hampshire already know about him — and no one else, really — in detail. Romney has nowhere to go but down.”
That is the lamest analysis I have ever seen. Rudy has nearly universal name recognition, and most people already know about him from the hundreds of hours of free advertising from 9/11. I admit that he has not advertised in NH, but the only area where he has any real advantage over Romney is on Security – which is the area where everyone already knows about him.
–
“Mitt doesn’t have a problem? Rudy at least has universal appeal. He plays well in every region, including the South. Romney’s numbers absolutely plummet in the Southern states due to his Massachusetts residence, his sketchy record of flip-flops, and, drum-roll please, his Mormonism. Mitt also doesn’t have a prayer of besting Rudy in metropolitan areas.”
And you don’t think Rudy is going to take a hit once a majority of people learn he is pro-choice? At this point, even a drop of 5% would be huge.
–
“Would you people stop pretending that you have any idea how this calendar will play out? You speak as if you know for certain that Iowa and New Hampshire’s momentum will be *the* determining factors in this race. They might be. They might not be. It’s why I think Rudy should strongly go after New Hampshire — just in case.
Well, two things. Firstly, its all speculation – as everyone knows. Secondly, those in glass houses should not throw stones. By saying that “Romney has nowhere to go but down”, you seem to be guilty of the same thing you accuse me of.
–
“But lest we forget, Iowa and New Hampshire have NEVER agreed in the past three decades in the GOP race. That’s where I can see this turning into a Rudy-Romney race. Romney has a much, much better shot at Iowa than New Hampshire, and I think Rudy will be able to pull NH off.”
Thats your opinion, I have mine. But, this is an election where tradition WILL be broken. There is almost a 100% chance that we are either going to have a Woman, Black, Mormon, or Hispanic President, or that a candidate would move right from a Mayoral position to the Presidency.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:50 am
As I’ve said before, if Fred isn’t a regular churchgoer, he is better off admitting it now than having it come out just before the South Carolina primary or something like that.
September 30th, 2007 at 11:15 am
hahaha, TLG:
“Romney is “going to fight tooth and nail to win there.†Um……yep. Yes he is. So are the other candidates. And Rudy, unlike Romney, hasn’t been spending money”
Since Rudy by your own words has *not* been spending money (or more accurately, he’s been spending very little), I don’t think it can be said of Rudy “fighting tooth and nail.” However, things can change.
“But lest we forget, Iowa and New Hampshire have NEVER agreed in the past three decades in the GOP race.”
I’m very surprised to see you of all people cite historical precedent for your argument when you disagreed with myself & Metro for doing the same thing as week or two back. Which is it? Which way do you want this? I guess it should be OK to cite historical precedent when such precedent back your guy Rudy or your argument.
That is a valid point, those two states have never agreed. But I’ll restate what I’ve stated in the past, many precedents will be broken this primary.
September 30th, 2007 at 11:17 am
This site needs a preview function..
September 30th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Metro,
While I disagree that Romney will become a largely self-funded candidate, you have to ask, “Does it really matter?”
Whoever becomes the nominee, they are going to have no problems raising cash, so its not like today’s numbers are any indication of how much money a candidate can raise in the general. Romney also has very deep pockets, so, no matter how much of a “nightmare” it may be, he can continue to run a full campaign.
The only possible problem would be that a candidate who personally funds his campaign would be less likely to attract or keep support, and I really don’t think that is the case. If anything, the population (who are sick of special interests and the money in politics), would not have to ask the question “who is in the drivers seat of this campaign?”
September 30th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Also,
Everyone should expect more agenda driven outlier polls as we near January. I’d bet my next paycheck on it.
September 30th, 2007 at 11:22 am
“Everyone should expect more agenda driven outlier polls as we near January”
Very possible – although bad polling is the last thing this race needs right now.
September 30th, 2007 at 11:34 am
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘This has got to be the lamest analysis I’ve seen in weeks.’
That’s because it wasn’t an analysis, it was wishful thinking.
ACT Blog is a very amusing character. Especially the way he uses the English language: ‘deffinately’. But he’s friendly and sincere enough.
September 30th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Awakened,
My spelling, grammar, and English is not top notch either, as many here know.
This is just a blog site..
September 30th, 2007 at 11:52 am
ACT, yes it matters, and the history of self-funded candidates is very poor. Voters generally reject it. That’s why Mitt himself called it a “nightmare.”
September 30th, 2007 at 11:56 am
cwpete: ‘My spelling, grammar, and English is not top notch either, as many here know.’
Neither is mine, however, it’s not hilarious either. ‘Deffinately’ is more than just ‘not top-notch’, it’s atrocious.
September 30th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Metro:’ACT, yes it matters, and the history of self-funded candidates is very poor. Voters generally reject it. That’s why Mitt himself called it a “nightmare.‒
He did? Are you kidding me?
September 30th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Metro, who was the last largely sef-funded candidate?
September 30th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Awakened, “akin to a nightmare,” actually, back in January. Surprised you haven’t seen that quote before.
It resurfaced again to today in this WaPo article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/29/AR2007092901537.html
That article seems to confirm my estimate is about right: $15M in loans from Romney total, probably more than he raised from outside sources this entire quarter.
This is why I think it is dishonest for him to continue to classify them as “loans” when there is another checkbox for candidate *contributions*. When your debt is the size of an entire quarter’s worth of contributions, and you are headed into the real cash war of the campaign, there is no grounds for repayment and no grounds for honestly calling this a “loan.”
September 30th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
ACT, the names who come to mind are Perot, Golisano, Bloomberg, and Arnold, although there are a lot more.
Arnold is a special case, as a celebrity. Regarding Bloomberg, I believe New Yorkers have a different attitude about wealth than average Americans.
Especially regarding the Presidency, the line in the general election would be all about the man who was trying to buy himself the Presidency. That’ll go over like a lead balloon. Add that he’s a Mormon, and there is zero chance. The GOP will not take such a profound risk.
September 30th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
WHOA, could this be right?
“Top Romney advisers said last week that they expected his campaign to raise almost $40 million in the first nine of months this year.” (Link in #26)
He’d raised over $34 million as of LAST quarter. Does this mean Mitt raised only $5 million this quarter? Third in fundraising? Fourth, maybe?
If true… wow.
September 30th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
That’s gotta be diminishing expectations by Team Romney. Can’t be that bad.
September 30th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
NH will be determined by McCain voters. If he had done very badly in Iowa, when they go to vote, do they still go with McCain or do they, with some sadness, vote for someone else who they believe can win, Romney or Giuliani.
To win NH, I believe Giulaini needs those voters.
Have McCain voters in NH been polled on their second choice?
I too can’t see any way Thompson can win. As a Giulaini supporter I do hope Thompson gets some early votes that would otherwise go to Romney. So too cheering for Huckabee in Iowa.
September 30th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Metro -
1) Perot actually led national polls at one point, and, I believe, dropped in national polls only after temporarily removing himself from the race.
2) I believe John Kerry re-fi’d his own house to lend to his campaign, yet it did not stop him from winning the nomination.
3) If you read the entire article, you’ll notice a poll that said 92% of Americans have no problem with a candidate using their own money to run.
4) I’m not sure about the $40 million figure – it could be a mis-print, it might be an attempt to lower expectations. Projections have Romney with $15 mil during Q3, if he is only going to donate $6 million, that is still $9 million in donations.
September 30th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21049285/site/newsweek/page/0/
Very interesting article on Romney. It’s sprinkled with typical liberal bias, but largely it’s a relatively on point piece. And I agree with it’s central premise: Romney needs to allow people to see him, without the overdone packaging. He needs to become a considerably more human candidate. Or a guy who could have been a terrific president, and a real savior for a beleaguered GOP, will never get the chance.
September 30th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Romney needs to quit accepting as fact, the premises contained in questions from the media, admit he doesn’t know the facts (like Fred), wait until he does know the facts until he comments, all so that he doesn’t again slander Pace and Rush.
Slandering Rush could kill his chances.
Laziness is Mitt’s mantra, not Fred’s.
September 30th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Just wanted to address this from cwpete — “I’m very surprised to see you of all people cite historical precedent for your argument when you disagreed with myself & Metro for doing the same thing as week or two back. Which is it? Which way do you want this? I guess it should be OK to cite historical precedent when such precedent back your guy Rudy or your argument.”
What I said has nothing to do with whether Iowa and New Hampshire are more important this time around, which is what the premise behind Mitt’s strategy is. You shouldn’t count on New Hampshire to rubber stamp Iowa’s decision. I think it’s okay to cite historical precedent, there.
The debate here is whether IA and NH are going to be more or less important. I say — we don’t know. Whether NH and IA will agree or have agreed in the past has nothing to do with that, and it’s perfectly acceptable to cite historical precedent there.
September 30th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
post 27- Especially regarding the Presidency, the line in the general election would be all about the man who was trying to buy himself the Presidency. That’ll go over like a lead balloon. Add that he’s a Mormon, and there is zero chance. The GOP will not take such a profound risk.
metrorepublican- You suggest the GOP will never allow that. Can you please tell me the precend for a thrice married, pro choice, former mayor has won the GOP nomination? Can you tell me who has ever skipped Ames and still expected to win the IA caucus? I dont have a problem with Romney doing what 80,000+ others have done and thats put money into his campaign. I think more voters will forgive that than Hillary and red Chinese Hsu. If Romney is in the drivers seat for the nomination on Feb 6th and it cost him $45 million (as some in his camp suggested he may spend), he could easily pay himself back that by fundraising as the would be nominee until the convention. Remember, he can still raise for the primaries after Feb 08, and use those funds to pay off the loan.
September 30th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Or he could go on without the $45 million (or whatever he chooses to invest) and see if he and his family can survive on the remaining $300-$500+ that he and his family will still have available.
September 30th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Im glad that TLG, metro, and other Rudyheads finally get that Rudy needs to stop Mitt in NH or this thing could be over quick. All of Rudy’s efforts in 07 to build national poll leads in most of the 50 states and a complete campaign could be gone in a few weeks IF Mitt runs the table in the 1st 5 states. That is why Mitt and Rudy each MUST win NH to steal the thunder from the other.
I think a modest bounce with an IA win, along with being somewhat local, and having a much, much better groundgame in NH will give Mitt the advantage. I expect it to be nearly tied in January much like it is today. Did I hear Ann Romney say once that they have signed up 10,000 volunteers in NH alone? Maybe Im thinking nationwide, but the point is that his MA support and existing NH support will give him a huge boost to win there.
September 30th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Husky: ‘metrorepublican- You suggest the GOP will never allow that. Can you please tell me the precend for a thrice married, pro choice, former mayor has won the GOP nomination? ‘
Okay. Can you tell me what the ‘precend’ (hehehe) is for the GOP nominating someone who has been divorced once… IN 1980? There was none. And yet Ronald Reagan won the nomination.
September 30th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
I’m tired of the “agenda driven outlier polls” too. Love the intellectual discussion that goes on at this site. Head and shoulders above the rest. You have some great regulars, different viewpoints and very well stated.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:40 am
Though I prefer Rudy,
Don’t be shocked by a suprise McCain win in New Hampshire. If he wins there he could take South Carolina too. Then every body’s senario for the nomination goes out the window.
McCain is a solid conservative on the issues of guns, gays, abortion, spending,Judges and the War on Terror and has moved to the right on immigration. He also has the backing of most of the party establishment and it’s supposed to be “his turn”. Also ,fund raising has been picking up and he seems to connecting with voters again.
Too, he still runs strong in national polls against Hillary Clinton and shows the ability to be competitive in some of the “blue” states in the Mid-West and West.
If McCain puts in a few more strong debate performances,don’t count him out. The reports of his death may have been greatly exagerated!
October 1st, 2007 at 12:52 am
This really puts a spin on the campaign. Check out the latest poll results for South Carolina. http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/screp8-708.html
Romney 26% (+17)
Giuliani 23% (-3)
McCain 15% (+3)
Thompson 10% (-11)
Gingrich 7% (+1)
Paul 2% (+0)
Huckabee 1% (-8)
October 1st, 2007 at 10:39 am
I agree with TennJoe about McCain. McCain is on his way back, no doubt about it. He is the most viable alternative to Mittface.
October 1st, 2007 at 1:53 pm
MattC, have you reminded your father that Mitt will contribute 100% of the presidential salary to charities? Just thought it may help offset his turn-off against his remark about his sons in service of the country?
March 18th, 2008 at 6:57 am
[...] Nevada, and fourth in Michigan. Is there any way a front runner survives two third place source: Random Thoughts On a Sunday Morning, [...]