Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Giuliani and McCain announcing last June they would drop out of competition at the Iowa Straw Poll was mentioned in the last post here as avoiding a damaging downside. It was also described as a lack of confidence in their national poll rankings.

Giuliani, McCain snub Iowa straw poll
Michael Finnegan, Los Angeles Times
Thursday, June 7, 2007
(06-07) 04:00 PDT Manchester, N.H. — An Iowa straw poll that traditionally has served as an early benchmark in the Republican presidential nomination race lost much of its luster Wednesday, as first Rudy Giuliani and then John McCain decided not to compete in it.

The article above indicated the possible setaback faced by Giulians as well as McCain by competing in the straw poll. Giuliani’s campaign said the straw poll was not important but they would show for the Iowa Caucus. The important thing is Giuliani and McCain saved several million dollars by not attending.

Trying to move the straw poll to insignificance by not showing up may work for Giuliani and McCain, but what does it say about their campaigns? Perhaps leading the national polls is also insignificant or a false indicator of strength.

In 1987, 1995 and 1999 the straw poll 1st or 2nd place candidate won the Iowa Caucus. Giuliani, McCain and Fred Thompson are betting there is less risk in skipping the straw poll than there is in defying history. Not only has first or second in the straw poll matched the winner of the Iowa Caucus, but the fate of Caucus winners and losers also has a dramatic implication.

The Iowa Caucus was rendered insignificant at least once in the past but the circumstances will not be matched in 2008. Scenarios like the one described at Wikipedia (below) may in part have influenced the decisions of the three Republicans to skip the straw poll.

The nadir of the caucuses was in 1992, when Iowa Senator Tom Harkin ran for the Democratic nomination. None of the other Democratic candidates chose to compete in Iowa, which minimized its importance in the nomination process. President Bush was unopposed on the Republican side, and the media completely ignored the state.

Another excerpt from Wiki puts the importance of the Iowa Caucus in perspective for the 2008 campaign.

While they have been a financial boon to the state, the political value of the Iowa caucuses has gone up and down over the years. In 1988, for example, the candidates who eventually won the nominations of both parties came in third in Iowa. In elections without a sitting President or Vice President, the Iowa winner only goes on to the nomination about half the time.

While a near 50/50 shot is only about an even chance, who wants to ignore preparation for the Caucus by skipping the straw poll and tempting fate? Plus if it remains the first in the nation, the Iowa Caucus can launch momentum for winning other early states like New Hampshire which is also significiant.

New Hampshire used to boast that no candidate had won the presidency without first winning New Hampshire. But in 1992, then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton placed second to former Massachusetts Sen. Paul Tsongas in the Democratic primary.

At the very least, not placing 1st or 2nd in New Hampshire is fighting the odds to become President. And with the straw polls influence on the Iowa Caucus, skipping either is a substantial risk. Even with the various primary and caucus venues jockeying for position this campaign season, the early states may not guarantee success but can you really afford to skip them? And what does that say about your campaign? Is it just politics and working the strategies, or is there a more profound implication that voters should take into consideration?

If campaign decisions are not just strategy for elections but a window on leadership skills, would you favor a candidate who accepts the challenge and successfully completes the task? Or are you comfortable with hide and seek tactics that suggest a personal goal outweighs a responsibility to the voting public? The vulnerabilities, real or perceived, may have been glimpsed by the public this weekend.

Here’s a little before and after on this year’s Iowa Straw Poll:

Iowa GOP expects bigger straw poll than ‘99
THOMAS BEAUMONT
REGISTER STAFF WRITER
July 19, 2007
Iowa Republican Party officials said today they expect turnout at the party’s presidential straw poll next month to draw more attendees than the last one eight years ago, despite planned no-shows by some of best-known candidates.

Chuck Laudner, executive director of the Republican Party of Iowa, said he is expecting more than 38,000 GOP activists to attend the Aug. 11 event on Iowa State University campus and more than 24,000 to cast a ballot for their preferred candidate.

The 1999 straw poll results are below:

Iowa GOP Straw Poll results
August 16, 1999

Gov. George W. Bush
7,418 31.3%
Steve Forbes
4,921 20.8%
Elizabeth Dole
3,410 14.3%
Gary Bauer
2,114 8.9 %
Pat Buchanan
1,719 7.3%
Lamar Alexander
1,428 6.0%
Alan Keyes
1,101 4.6%
Dan Quayle
916 3.9%
Sen. Orrin Hatch
558 2.4%
Sen. John McCain*
83 0.4%
Rep. John Kasich
9 0.0%
Sen. Bob Smith
8 0.0%

TOTAL VOTES 23,685 �

* McCain didn’t participate.

Some comparison numbers from straw poll and caucus is offered below.

STRAW POLL VS. CAUCUSES
Top 3 finishers in the Iowa GOP straw poll compared to Iowa caucuses results.

1999 Straw Poll
1. George W. Bush 7,418
2. Steve Forbes 4,921
3. Elizabeth Dole 3,410

2000 Iowa Caucuses
1. George W. Bush 35,948
2. Steve Forbes 26,744
3. Alan Keyes 12,496

1995 Straw Poll
1. Bob Dole 2,582
1. Phil Gramm 2,582
3. Pat Buchanan 1,922

1996 Iowa Caucuses
1. Bob Dole 25,378
2. Pat Buchanan 22,512
3. Lamar Alexander 17,003

1987 Straw Poll
1. Pat Robertson 1,293
2. Bob Dole 958
3. George H.W. Bush 864

1988 Iowa Caucuses
1. Bob Dole 40,661
2. Pat Robertson 26,761
3. George H.W. Bush 20,194

Source: Republican Party of Iowa

And of course, the results of this year’s straw poll:

Mitt Romney
4516
31.5%

Mike Huckabee
2587
18.1%

Sam Brownback
2192
15.3%

Tom Tancredo
1961
13.7%

Ron Paul
1305
9.1%

Tommy Thompson
1039
7.3%

Fred Thompson
203
1.4%

Rudy Giuliani
183
1.3%

Duncan Hunter
174
1.2%

John McCain
101
1.0%

John Cox
41
0.1%

14,302 Total Votes
26,000 Total Tickets Sold

The 1999 straw poll is claimed to have been the largest in its history. Those who say this year’s turnout is disappointing may be wrong. If you assume there should have been twice the number of voters and the missing half would have been spread 3/4 for the missing 3 candidates (or potential candidate) with another 1/4 spread among those competing, the results would have been interesting. It may not be far from what would have been reality. Another reason the other 3 campaigns should have been there. That could have put some questions to bed. And that may be exactly why they really missed the event.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Right Pundits, Outside the Beltway, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Wake Up America, Right Truth, The Pet Haven Blog, Webloggin, Wyvern dreams, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

What can be said with any confidence about Giuliani and McCain skipping the Iowa Straw Poll? With Fred Thompson continually postponing an official entrance to the campaign we have clue one. Recently Newt Gingrich renewed the possibility of his entering the race after stating not long ago there was a four to one chance he would not. That may be clue two. And clue three might be worries about the strength of fourth in the national polls but leading in many early states - Mitt Romney.

If one is not secure in the notion of being one of the top three candidates in national polls, competing in the Iowa Straw Poll presents a problem. Spending money with no upside and lots of potential downside. Giuliani, McCain and certainly Fred Thompson are utilizing stealth campaign tactics. Not by launching impressive displays of leadership, experience or headline generating talking points, but by doing very little. It is the conclusion on this blog is that Fred Thompson is milking expectations for all they are worth. He is also waiting for the straw poll to narrow the field and was hoping the front runners and other possible threats would self-destruct or cause problems for themselves before he enters officially. Giuliani and McCain sensed this and responded by avoiding the Iowa Straw Poll.

Reports in the last few weeks suggested Fred Thompson may hurt his chances from waning interest or setting the expectations bar too high. Over the same period, McCain has changed his unpopular stand on immigration and maintained his risky stand on Iraq. Giuliani has remained as quiet as possible on his less than conservative stands on abortion, gun control and gay marriage.

Those who show up make decisions. Many will talk down Mitt Romney’s victory in the Iowa Straw Poll. But the fact is Romney was in a similar position of exposing his campaign to unlimited downside with limited upside. An upset in the straw poll would have been extremely damaging to his campaign. But he showed up, did the work and won the contest by a larger than predicted margin.

Most political strategists as well as political junkies would probably agree that people in politics are in it to win. You have to get elected before you can do anything. So it is basically a case of do whatever it takes to win. Minus unethical or illegal activities of course, whatever works….well, works.

After Romney in the straw poll, Huckabee and Brownback may have won more time in the race. Anyone who placed lower has limited possibilities or none at all. The next post will look closer at the numbers and history of the straw poll.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Iowa Straw Poll Results ( H/T to Cyclone Conservatives )

Mitt Romney Wins Ames Straw Poll

Results are certified by State Auditor David Vaudt and Chairman Ray Hoffmann:

Mitt Romney
4516
31.5%

Mike Huckabee
2587
18.1%

Sam Brownback
2192
15.3%

Tom Tancredo
1961
13.7%

Ron Paul
1305
9.1%

Tommy Thompson
1039
7.3%

Fred Thompson
203
1.4%

Rudy Giuliani
183
1.3%

Duncan Hunter
174
1.2%

John McCain
101
1.0%

John Cox
41
0.1%

14,302 Total Votes
26,000 Total Tickets Sold

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, Big Dog’s Weblog, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Wake Up America, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Nuke’s news and views, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wyvern dreams, CommonSenseAmerica, Wake Up America, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Church and State, CatSynth.com, The Random Yak, A Blog For All, 123beta, Jeanette’s Celebrity Corner, Adam’s Blog, Inside the Northwest Territory, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, , Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Public Domain Clip Art, CounterCulture, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie Is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, High Desert Wanderer, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Giuliani holds some moderate to liberal positions on hot button issues. It was not like he could hide them. Perhaps when deciding to run he and his campaign people looked for a strategy than may turn those liabilities into a strength. The brief article referenced below may indicate what the strategy may be.

Rudy Giuliani claims he is the only candidate who can beat Hillary Rodham Clinton. For a reason not entirely clear, both Giuliani and Newt Gingrich have expressed that the Democratic ticket will be Clinton/Obama. It seems at least a little premature to be making such predictions. It also seems odd that Republicans would feel a need to mention this even if they truly believe it.

But this may be a subtle reference to Giuliani’s strategy. Without coming right out and saying it, play down your liberal attitudes and say little more than abortion should be a state’s issue and we should reduce the demand for them. Could it be Giuliani is offering some of his less than conservative positions as the GOP version of a liberal Democrat? Is he thinking he can sway liberal voters away from the Democratic field with his resume’? It would be a risky strategy other than what do you do with liberal positions in a GOP campaign? The downside would be the chance it backfires and the difficulty in not making much noise about it. Hoping the voters can figure it out for themselves without any campaign prodding. It’s just a thought.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Giuliani says only he can beat Clinton-Obama

August 8, 2007
London, England - Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is predicting that Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be the Democratic ticket for president. At least that’s what he’s hoping for.
“If you want to defeat Hillary Clinton, I would be the best person to do that because I can make this campaign nationwide,” he said. “We can build it to have a chance of winning in New York and in New England and in California and Oregon - these are states where Republicans haven’t even had a campaign for a long time.”

Republican Presidential Hopefuls Hold Debate in Iowa
By Michael Bowman
Washington
05 August 2007

Bowman report - Download 820K audio clip
Listen to Bowman report audio clip

All but one Republican Party presidential candidate is advocating continued U.S. military operations in Iraq, but most have expressed reservations about unilateral U.S. military action against major terrorist targets in Pakistan. VOA’s Michael Bowman reports, the nine declared presidential contenders took part in a televised debate in Iowa, the first state to hold a contest in next year’s primary election season.

The wide-ranging 90-minute debate focused on contentious social issues like abortion, along with health care reform, tax policy, and foreign affairs.

When it came to Iraq, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani expressed the consensus view among Republican contenders that it would be a mistake to withdraw U.S. forces at this point.

“We should seek a victory in Iraq, in Baghdad,” Giuliani said. “This [battle for Iraq] is part of an overall war against us by the terrorists. It is a battle in that war. America should win that battle.”

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee also argued against a rapid pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq, but said nations like Saudi Arabia must play a more constructive role in promoting peace in Iraq, and the United States must end its dependence on foreign oil. Kansas Senator Sam Brownback said Iraq’s leaders must show greater resolve in tackling thorny political issues.

Only one debate participant, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, had a radically different proposal for U.S. troops in Iraq.

“Just come home. We just marched in [to Iraq]. We can just come home,” Paul said. “We went in there illegally, we did not declare war. It is lasting way too long. We are losing this one, we should not be there.”

Arizona Senator John McCain urged patience and resolve when it comes to Iraq, despite setbacks he blamed on the Bush administration’s handling of the war.

“All of us feel frustration, sometimes anger and sorrow over what has happened in this war,” said McCain. “It was very badly mismanaged for nearly the first four years. We do now have a strategy that is succeeding.”

Democratic presidential candidates have taken part in similar events. One Democratic contender, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, recently made headlines when he suggested he would act unilaterally to strike terrorist targets in Pakistan - a statement that has been condemned by the government of President Pervez Musharraf.

Obama also suggested he would be open to meeting with some of America’s fiercest critics on the world stage, including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

At the Republican presidential debate, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney had this to say:

“I think Barack Obama is confused as to who are our friends and who are our enemies. We do not go out and say to a nation which is working with us [Pakistan] that we intend to go in there and bring a unilateral attack,” he said.

But Rudy Giuliani said unilateral action in Pakistan cannot be ruled out.

“I would take that option if I thought there was no other way to crush al-Qaida, no other way to crush the Taleban, and no other way to capture [Osama] bin Laden,” he said.

Most Republican presidential candidates expressed support for continued U.S. efforts to promote democracy around the world, although some suggested the United States should lead by example. Some faulted the Bush administration for pressing for elections in war-town areas before peace, rule of law, and economic progress have been achieved.

Not taking part in the debate was actor and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, who has been raising funds for a presumed presidential bid, but who has yet to formally declare his candidacy. Polls in Iowa show no clear frontrunner in either the Republican or Democratic presidential field.

The item below from Bloomberg is the kind of report that is not uncommon and contributes to the opinion that the MSM injects excessive bias while draping vague facts to appear balanced and objective. The subject of the piece is of course Iraq. And the specific topic is the current operation called the ’surge.’ Broadcast accounts of the surge never seem to offer any reports on the positive effects of the surge without emphasizing the negative aspects. While the same cannot be said of other coverage because it only focuses on negative aspects of war to support the MSM opposition to victory. Print media is no different.

Those in Congress and the MSM who have constantly opposed victory in Iraq refuse to express any legitimate support for actions that may prove successful. Their continued slant toward failure is nothing more than an attempt to generate a self-fulfilling prophecy. Oppose victory and downplay all positive results to aid the enemy to avoid the positive outcome for as long as it takes to secure a political advantage at the expense of troops and civilians in harm’s way.

One or two line quotes in the piece from Bloomberg raise a question of editing to achieve the desire effect. While no unethical practices are suggested, a search for the full interviews mentioned was tedious and not successful. Does the author expect the reader to accept information at face value? In addition, the first quote is merely two words while the quote that follows and obviously supports the conclusion the author wants to draw is a full sentence. Yet the quotes were not found at any other source after a brief search.

However, from July 24th an excerpt from a Pajamas Media interview of Romney was found. Of Iraq, Romney says that “at this stage the right course is the troop surge. No one has put forward a Plan B that is superior to that one.” It is offered as an example of how to quote and reinforces the idea that there is no significant change in Romney’s position on the surge.

And the quotes the author offers from the Romney camp are equally suspect even accepting what is given in the article. It would be more correct to say that Romney’s staff is expressing political reality and suggesting the candidate is allowing for other options. The author suggests through the entire piece that support for victory in Iraq is diminishing among GOP Presidential candidates except for McCain.

In the fourth paragraph from the piece is another subtle distinction. The first sentence is attributed to Tom Rath, a senior adviser, but not in quotes while the next sentence is. This may suggest taking separate conversations out of context and putting them together to make the desired point. This would be a suggestion of unethical reporting. Or at the very least, errors in providing the information.

After the excerpt from Bloomberg is a link to the current Romney video on the topic within the associated press release. There is no evidence of any waining support for victory in Iraq or lack of support for the surge.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Romney, Giuliani Change Their Tone on Bush’s Iraq Troop Buildup
By Heidi Przybyla

Aug. 3 (Bloomberg) — For Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, the difference between “real'’ and “reasonable'’ is the distance he’s traveled on President George W. Bush’s Iraq war policy.

In April, Romney said Bush’s plan to rush more than 150,000 additional troops to Iraq had a “real chance'’ of succeeding. On July 26, he was more equivocal, saying in an interview: “I don’t give that a high probability, I give it a reasonable probability.'’

With pessimism growing about the ability of a troop injection to overcome Iraq’s sectarian violence, Romney, 60, and other Republicans who embraced the plan are gingerly laying the groundwork for a possible shift away from White House appeals to stay the course.

Romney, who isn’t noted for jabs at Bush, is simply preparing for a call for a post-surge strategy, said Tom Rath, a senior adviser. “That cannot be viewed as a sign of disloyalty or disrespect, but rather an inevitability in the political process.'’ The issue, Rath said, “is how far any candidate should go in separating from the president.'’

The Romney Vision: Gov. Mitt Romney: Surge Of Support At Home

Tuesday, Jul 31, 2007

“We don’t just need a surge on the ground in Iraq – we need a surge of support for our troops as well. Democrats say they support the troops, but many don’t support the work they are doing to make the surge successful. Representative Clyburn, the third-highest ranking House Democrat, said it would be a ‘real big problem’ for Democrats if progress is made in Iraq. That’s not a problem but good news for all Americans.”
– Gov. Mitt Romney

THE ROMNEY VISION: LEADERSHIP SURGE NEEDED TO DEFEAT RADICAL ISLAM GLOBALLY

Gov. Romney Blasted Rep. Clyburn’s Recent Comments That Good News In Iraq Was Trouble For Democrats. ROMNEY: “We don’t just need a surge on the ground in Iraq – we need a surge of support for our troops as well. Democrats say they support the troops, but many don’t support the work they are doing to make the surge successful. Representative Clyburn, the third-highest ranking House Democrat, said it would be a ‘real big problem’ for Democrats if progress is made in Iraq. That’s not a problem but good news for all Americans.” (Gov. Mitt Romney, 7/31/07)

Gov. Romney Calls Defeatist Talk Of Some Democrats “Inexcusable.” “Romney said it was ‘inexcusable’ for Democrats and others to publicly claim that this nation has lost the war in Iraq while troops remain in that country.” (Robynn Tysver, “Romney: Give Iraq War Plan More Time,” Omaha World-Herald, 7/28/07)

Gov. Romney: Give The New Iraq War Plan Enough Time To Work. ROMNEY: “Let’s give General Petraeus and Prime Minister Maliki enough time to see if it is working. If it’s working, great. We’ll be able to bring home our troops soon. If it’s not working, we’ll consider the problem at that point.” (Robynn Tysver, “Romney: Give Iraq War Plan More Time,” Omaha World-Herald, 7/28/07)

Gov. Romney Stresses The Importance Of Winning In Iraq And Defeating Radical Islam Globally. ROMNEY: “The congressional debate in Washington has largely, and myopically, focused on whether troops should be redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan, as if these were isolated issues. Yet the jihad is much broader than any one nation, or even several nations. … The jihadist threat is the defining challenge of our generation and is symptomatic of a range of new global realities.” (Gov. Mitt Romney, “Rising To A New Generation Of Global Challenges,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007)

Gov. Romney Warns That Radical Islamists Want To End “Civilization As We Know It.” “The former Massachusetts governor has been one of President Bush’s staunchest supporters of the war. He routinely talks about the threat of radical Islamists and, he says, their desire to install an Islamic regime around the world. “They want to cause the collapse, the collapse of civilization as we know it,” he said.” (Robynn Tysver, “Romney: Give Iraq War Plan More Time,” Omaha World-Herald, 7/28/07)

THE DEMOCRATS: ‘A REAL BIG PROBLEM’ WITH SUCCESS IN IRAQ

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) Said A Positive Iraq Report From Gen. Petraeus In September Would Prevent The Democrats From Declaring Defeat. “[Clyburn] said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party’s efforts to press for a timetable to end the war. … Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.” (Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza, “Clyburn: Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War,” The Washington Post, 7/30/07)

Rep. Clyburn: A Positive Report On Iraq Would Be “A Real Big Problem For Us.” “‘I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us,’ Clyburn said. ‘We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report.’ … Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be ‘ a real big problem for us.’” (Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza, “Clyburn: Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War,” The Washington Post, 7/30/07)

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Claimed The U.S. Has Already Lost In Afghanistan To Al Qaeda And Bin Laden. SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: “We’ve got to figure out what we’re doing in Iraq, where our troops are stretched thin, and Afghanistan, where we?re losing the fight to al Qaeda and bin Laden.” (CNN/YouTube, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) Proclaimed That The “War Is Lost” Before The Surge Was Even Fully Implemented. “Senate majority leader Harry Reid said yesterday that the war in Iraq is ‘lost,’ triggering an angry backlash from Republicans who said the top Democrat had turned his back on the troops. … ‘I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense, and ? you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows ? [know] this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday,’ said Reid, a Nevada Democrat.” (Anne Flaherty, “Reid Says War Is ‘Lost,’ Drawing GOP Rebuke,” The Associated Press, 4/20/07)

So what is the lower tier of candidates doing to propel themselves to the top tier? You don’t really expect any of them to approach the current poll leaders, do you? But then, what’s the point of being in a campaign if not to win? Some candidates in the past have entered a Presidential race to do nothing more than bring attention to the issues, improve their standing in a current elected office, improve name recognition for a future run or just to muddy up the place. Most voters may support a lower tier candidate because they strongly support an issue only a lower tier candidate can afford to promote. Some are so dissatisfied with the top tier and typical choices that the lower tier support is like a protest vote.

You will not get anything from lower tier candidates but the same victory predictions or aspirations displayed by the top tier. The money to win may not be there and the strategy and tactics do not reflect the same strength of the upper tier campaigns. And there is no shortage of trading barbs or wild west tactics within the ranks of those barely visible in the polls.

Senator Sam Brownback has decided the straw poll in Iowa is THE target. With Giuliani, McCain and Thompson not a factor, a second place finish is not outside the realm of possibilities for the Senator. But his automated ‘robo-call’ methods to attack his opponents does not come without a downside. Some might suggest this tactic should be part of the national do not call list. If any voter is annoyed by unsolicited calls, getting one from an automated system on any subject cannot be any more pleasing than the traditional human counterpart. And the complaints from competing campaigns, the subjects of the calls, may cause potential voters to challenge the validity of the claims. But then we’ll know how well this worked sometime in August.

Pure Horserace: Brownback’s Bold Move

July 26, 2007(CBS) When Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback entered the race for the Republican presidential nomination, he wasn’t placed in the top tier, but was expected to still be a factor, especially when it came down to attracting the evangelical Christian voters that comprise a large part of the GOP voting base. But until this point, Brownback has largely been a non-entity in the contest, his fund raising and poll numbers putting him at the bottom of the field.

Finding anything reasonable to discuss about Mike Gravel’s campaign is difficult. Withdrawing from public life, experiencing two bankruptcies, entering the Pentagon Papers into the public record and offering a campaign reminiscent of the sixties’ counterculture does not lend itself to the current campaign. This lower tier attempt will be lucky to net the Gravel campaign a footnote in the 2008 elections.

Regardless of your politics, you gotta love the Kucinich campaign. If you’re on the left, he speaks to long standing and underlying positions of the Democratic party. Peace, programs and solving problems with government intervention. If you’re on the right, he helps the GOP by harassing other Democratic candidates.

Democrat Kucinich: long shot who keeps on running

Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:47PM EDT
By Andrea Hopkins
COLUMBUS, Ohio (Reuters) - Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich has just 1 percent support in the polls, six candidates ahead of him and next to no chance of becoming U.S. president. But don’t tell him that.

While this post was presented in light of the recent Democratic party debate via CNN/YouTube, the lower tier of the GOP presents some interesting choices as well. Perhaps one undisclosed purpose by lower tier candidates from both major parties is a chance at a spot on the ticket as a running mate. While John Cox, Ron Paul and Tommy Thompson are very unlikely to pose any threat in a run for the 2008 nomination, the lower tier of GOP candidates has some contenders with more than no chance at all. Brownback, Huckabee, Hunter and Tancredo are established politicians but their contribution to the race may only serve to slow the process of finding a breakout candidate.

The continuing postponements to announce from the Fred Thompson campaign together with this week’s campaign staff changes and rumors of friction certainly do nothing to improve the former Senator’s standing with potential voters or donors.

While Giuliani remains on top the GOP national poll numbers and has actually started to do some campaigning, the fact remains his appeal to the typical conservative base is in question. While Romney continues to strengthen his poll numbers and rankings in the early states, his fund raising has slowed, his spending is up and appears to have relaxed campaigning with the exception of attacking the Dems. And the McCain campaign still appears to be stalled. Right at this moment, the claims by observers and Democrats suggesting GOP fund raising and voter apathy as serious problems may have some credibility. But the recent flaw in Clinton’s armor again suggests its a long campaign season and nothing has yet been decided……nothing.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A report from Fox News dated July 25th is one of four linked from this post that point to something of a shake up in the Fred Thompson pre-campaign and other challenges confronting the unannounced Presidential candidate. The reports also point to wife Jeri Kehn and her political background, a website contract offer early in the couple’s history and her influence in Fred Thompson running for President as well as causing friction among staff. The reports suggest her role in the campaign aspirations of the possible candidate may be the driving force.

The Fox News report indicates Tom Collomore’s ‘reduced role’ was the result of troubles with Kehn while the campaign denies that and says Randy Enright as campaign manager was always part of the plan as well as Collomore’s reduced role. The obligatory unnamed sources close to the campaign contradict those statements asserting friction as at least partially responsible for the moves.

A wire report from the Houston Chronicle quotes Linda Rozett, ‘ We are strengthening the organization as we enter the next phase,’ as an explanation for replacing a top aide. Details from mensnewsdaily.com with source credited to wikinews indicate J.T. Mastranadi, campaign research director of two weeks has resigned as well as Tom Collomore, citing friction with Kehn. The report further indicates Thompson’s fund raising is way down.

The Politico report on this story seems to shy away from the other reports on resignations and quotes leave it vague by suggesting new requirements when moving from exploratory to a full campaign. It appears anyone in or close or favoring the Thompson campaign is spinning the moves as positive with explanations on why former staffers were not up to the task of the anticipated next phase. The opposite spin points to the influence of Thompson’s wife, Jeri.

This may be another indication that the wide-eyed anticipation of Fred Thompson’s campaign announcement may not provide the stellar positioning in the polls supporters may expect. Similarly, the 2nd quarter spin from the media indicating the Dems fund raising and suggesting strength of the Democratic party versus weakness of the GOP may also be overstated. Another characteristic of an exceptionally long campaign season might be unrealistic optimism in measuring candidate performance and chances for ultimate victory in 2008. It’s early folks.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trouble in Fred Thompson’s ‘Non-Campaign’

Wednesday, July 25, 2007
By Carl Cameron
Growing pains within Fred Thompson’s “non-campaign” for president in 2008 revealed themselves in a big way Tuesday.

Changes in Fred Thompson US Presidential campaign

July 25, 2007
On Tuesday and Wednesday, two of Fred Thompson pre-campaign staffers resigned. J.T. Mastranadi, who was hired less than two weeks ago as the campaign’s director of research, resigned this morning. Whereas, yesterday Thompson’s top adviser, Tom Collamore, resigned “because of differences with Thompson’s wife, Jeri Kehn, a Naperville native.”

Thompson replaces his top assistant

WASHINGTON - GOP presidential hopeful Fred Thompson is shaking up his still-unofficial campaign, replacing his top aide with a former Michigan senator and a veteran Florida strategist.

“We are strengthening the organization as we enter the next phase,” said Thompson spokeswoman Linda Rozett.

From wire reports

F. Thompson shakes up pre-launch campaign

By: Jonathan Martin and Mike Allen
Jul 24, 2007 08:56 PM EST
Though he has not yet even declared he is running for president, Fred Thompson shook up his team Tuesday amid fears he was losing momentum and needed an injection of talent.

Top advisers to the “Law & Order” actor and former U.S. senator from Tennessee had soured on Tom Collamore, the operations chief for the Republican presidential campaign in waiting.

crossposted at:

Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog

FaultlineUSA

Conservative Thoughts

.
Romney strategist Alex Gage has a new memo out arguing that his boss — and NOT Giuliani — should be referred to as the current GOP front-runner. While Gage acknowledges that Giuliani is still ahead in national polls, he notes that the ex-mayor has been losing support for months (using Pollster.com graphics to bolster his claim).

Rather than wondering why the Romney campaign strategist suggests Romney should be considered the GOP front runner the question should be what will happen as the primary election order draws closer and what effect Fred Thompson’s entrance to the mix will have if he stops postponing his announcement?

The quote from an MSNBC report quoted above mentions Giuliani’s campaign recently started acting like a campaign by issuing press releases and spending some money. Their report on McCain includes comments of the media piling on with additional critiques of the Senator’s campaign and staff changes suspected of producing conflicts of interest. The brief reference to Thompson speaks to a staffer choice and a pro-abortion history not causing problems like water rolling off a duck’s back.

Some questions to add to this report can start with how many Presidents in the last fifty years were former governors and how many were Senators? Another question is why is so much emphasis placed solely on South Carolina when results from Iowa and New Hampshire have equally important statistical histories? And last, could it be that this exceptionally long Presidential campaign season for 2008 has produced an unprecedented obsession for continuous measuring sticks on who is leading or will be the likely winner in 2008?

The important consideration for now is not to get ahead of ourselves. The next adjustment in measuring the positions of candidates will be, barring unexpected political tragedy or scandal, Thompson’s announcement and the first few primary or caucus events. If and when Thompson announces, the anticipation will be over and the effect will probably disappoint fans and encourage competitors after the news settles and reality sets in. It will be no surprise on approach to the first voting event if things are substantially as they are now. Mostly Clinton and Obama on one side and Giuliani, Romney and Thompson on the other with a couple of lower tier surprises and another withdrawal or two.

OMG, how boring. Let’s have a few more conspiracy theories or predictions on who will be President in 2009.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

By Jim Malone
Washington
18 July 2007

Malone report - Download 978k audio clip
Listen to Malone report audio clip

While Hillary Clinton remains the favorite for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination next year, Republicans are still searching for a frontrunner at this early stage in the 2008 election process. VOA national correspondent Jim Malone reports from Washington.

A recent opinion poll by the Associated Press and the Ipsos survey research firm summed up the Republican dilemma in the race for president.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani led the Republican field with 21 percent, followed by former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, who has yet to officially enter the race, at 19 percent.

Arizona Senator John McCain placed next with 15 percent, followed by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who drew 11 percent support.

But the surprising thing about the poll was that 25 percent of those surveyed were either unsure who they preferred or wanted none of the candidates listed, suggesting a wide open race for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination next year.

Part of the reason for this is that there is no logical heir apparent in line for the Republican Party nomination in 2008.

President Bush is limited to two terms by the U.S. Constitution and Vice President Dick Cheney has said he will not be a candidate.

Political experts thought that meant that Senator McCain, who challenged President Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries, would be the likely frontrunner.

But for a variety of reasons, things have not worked in McCain’s favor.

John McIntyre edits a political website called RealClearPolitics.com.

“There is just an animus among conservative voters towards John McCain,” he said. “So even though he was sort of the heir apparent, he just was not a natural fit for rank and file base Republican voters. And so that is why you see a vacuum out there because after John McCain, there really was not an heir apparent.”

A new Zogby public opinion poll has former Senator Fred Thompson leading Giuliani 22 percent to 21 percent, with Romney and McCain trailing behind.

Thompson is expected to enter the race soon and would be a fresh alternative for social conservative voters, an important constituency within the Republican Party.

Analyst John McIntyre says the Romney campaign in particular has been courting social conservatives, and that Thompson’s expected entrance into the race could have an impact.

“This is where Fred Thompson is a real problem for his [Romney’s] campaign because now, suddenly, conservative Republican base voters who were not enamored with Giuliani’s social liberalism on some positions, did not like McCain, they have an option in Fred Thompson. A real option, a conservative option that they like, so I think at the end of the day, Romney is who it hurts the most,” he noted.

Opinion polls at this early point in a presidential campaign are notoriously unreliable. But experts say Thompson’s quick rise in the polls even before he declares his candidacy is a sign of his potential strength among Republican voters.

Washington-based analyst Stuart Rothenberg sees a three-way battle for the Republican nomination between Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson.

“All three having a chance, but probably you would have to regard Thompson, even though he would be a late entry, as the kind of guy who, if he does what people think he might, would possibly be the best fit for the party,” he said.

Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore recently dropped out of the Republican race, leaving a total of nine contenders.

The others include former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, California Congressman Duncan Hunter, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo and Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas.

While Giuliani remains in the top tier of GOP candidates for President in 2008, another report titled ‘Giuliani Masters the Fundamentals’ is not talking about video. The YouTube offerings on things political spans a wide interest and following but is not without a downside. Obama Girl and HRC’s idiotic search for a campaign song are the kind of news items that can entertain but also get old after some time passes.

Giuliani supporters are credited in this report as being responsible for the latest video. If Giuliani put them up to it that would be a mistake. But that is probably not the case. Video of official campaign events or advertisements is fine. But the current fad for entertainment video may end up harming candidates. They might want to think about that. But then there may be little they can do about it if they wanted to.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Internet Music Video Pits ‘Giuliani Girl’ Against ‘Obama Girl’

Monday , July 16, 2007
WASHINGTON —
From the makers of June’s internet video hit “I Got a Crush on Obama,” now comes the follow-up, a musical showdown between the first-run supporters for Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama and the latest additions, a group of fans for GOP contender Rudy Giuliani.

Click here to watch the video, “Debate ‘08: Obama Girl vs. Giuliani Girl.”

Commentary by Joseph Farah of World Net Daily criticizing Mitt Romney appears more personal opinion than anything based on fact. The first five paragraphs certainly are. While Farah asserts Romney has one chance to become President that assumption could apply to anyone. Further asserting that one chance is due to his wealth and successful campaign efforts in early states is probably half right. While his personal wealth is of limited value to the campaign beyond what personal loans he has submitted, all candidates have the choice to campaign in early states. To offer this as Romney’s one chance to win applies to other candidates as well. So what’s the point?

While Iowa and New Hampshire traditionally influence candidate success and performing poorly may spell disaster, assuming success in these two states might be enough for nomination is presumptuous at best. The subsequent insults to Romney in the next two lines supports the view that this commentary is primarily personal opinion or a simple attempt to sway opinion of Romney with nothing more than opinion and insults from the author.

The fifth and final paragraph of this initial rant of Farah’s almost made a valid point. It the intent was to compare a candidate’s history with campaign messages and the like, that would be useful. But again the valid point almost made is damaged by an opinion that Romney is attempting to re-invent himself and his record contradicts his words. To suggest the comparison is reasonable. But to omit the very real problem of sifting through available information and the need to make a concerted effort to check the validity of that information is unfortunate. The tendency to use unsupported claims and conclusions in the remainder of the commentary is quite clear.

Farah’s conclusion, ‘For instance, Romney today claims to be pro-life. Yet he ran for governor as a staunch supporter of abortion on demand ‘, uses the words ’staunch’ and ‘on demand’ without any proof. Here is a quote from a piece at NewsMax on this topic.

When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney pledged not to change the state’s abortion laws, despite his personal opposition.

That does not sound like staunch support for abortion on demand. Here’s another excerpt from News Max.

He also said he believes each state should decide whether to allow abortion, rather than having the “one size fits all” precedent of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion.

Does this prove that Romney’s stand on abortion is above criticism? Probably not, but it certainly does not offer the same harsh and misleading appraisal as given by Farah. Proving or disproving the validity of the statements, positions or conclusions of others requires outstanding effort. There is more to be considered in the Farah commentary but to this point it should be obvious not all is fair about his characterizations of Romney. And the main point here is not to offer this critique of Farah’s commentary as superior but as notice not to accept such information at face value.

After Farah’s opinion of Romney on abortion was expressed he moved on to draw conclusions on Romney’s record on same sex marriage. In the first of two paragraphs, again with no supporting evidence, he harshly and with insults offers his opinion as if it were fact. The way in which the first paragraph is written gives the impression that as soon as the SJC of MA. issued a decision on same sex marriage that Romney personally issued marriage licenses for same sex individuals. The Boston Globe does not usually give the impression they are fans of Mitt Romney and an excerpt on their take on this topic offers another impression.

SJC Affirms Same Sex Marriage
The Boston Globe
SJC affirms gay marriage
Court deems civil unions insufficient
By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff | February 5, 2004

With the civil unions bill tossed out, opponents of gay marriage, including
Governor Mitt Romney, stepped up their calls for a constitutional amendment to
define marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman. The Legislature is set
to take up a proposed constitutional amendment Wednesday, but Senate President
Robert E. Travaglini said he is not sure whether debate will take place as
scheduled.

Things are not quite as Joseph Farah would have you believe. The problem with Farah’s commentary is it avoids the very real circumstance in politics where actions are not produced in a void. Details such as legislation that comes with amendments viewed as unacceptable can give a politician’s vote and unfair appearance. Absolutes are rarely available.

Farah’s second paragraph on this topic is entirely opinion and of little value without supporting data or a clear indication of his intent. The unclear intent is whether or not he expects a reader to simply nod in agreement. This sort of expression does little for honest debate and only serves to reinforce the opinions of others who may share Farah’s opinion.

Then Farah criticizes Romney for being against freedom and the 2nd amendment in a similar manner to his other opinions. If that is his test for who is GOP or Dem, right or left, or conservative or liberal, perhaps he should review the roll call votes on the Brady Bill of which he apparently refers when mentioning a 1993 ‘draconian’ gun ban. The votes were not completely divided along partisan lines and plenty of Republicans voted for the Brady bill.

Here are the results:

brady bill
senate GOP voting for HR1025 as amended
1993, nov 20
103rd congress, roll call 394

Bond (R-MO)
Chafee (R-RI)
Coats (R-IN)
Cohen (R-ME)
Danforth (R-MO)
Durenberger (R-MN)
Gorton (R-WA)
Hatfield (R-OR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Jeffords (R-VT)
Kassebaum (R-KS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Packwood (R-OR)
Roth (R-DE)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Warner (R-VA)

House vote on Brady Bill, 103rd Congress, Roll 564
HR 1025 Nov 10, 1993

Dems 184 YEAS, 69 NAYS
GOP 54 YEAS, 119 NAYS
IND 1 NAY

238 to 189, passed

Again, the point here is not about who voted for what and why did they do so. There are reports, not vetted, indicating by people not associated with the Romney campaign that he is for gun ownership, against assault weapons and approves of such things as waiting periods for gun purchases. So what? Dismissing a candidate by actions you claim prove something without proper supporting evidence is irresponsible. The water is muddy in regard to many. As another example, votes of members of Congress on issues like illegal immigration and the war in Iraq are not always as obvious as they may at first appear. With the addition of amendments changing the net result of legislation or the pressure exerted on certain members by party leadership, a member’s vote is not always easily understood. And again, fault can be found with statements made by Joseph Farah regarding Mitt Romney.

Based on widely available reports, polls, articles and other accounts of the 2008 Presidential campaign there are a few top contenders from both major political parties to date. It should be obvious to everyone that all candidates will be subject to inspection, criticism and favorable and unfavorable opinions voiced by anyone interested. Everyone is also entitled to their opinion. All such opinion should be challenged as often as possible to assist the voters in making informed decisions. That was the purpose of this post and you are of course free to agree or disagree with the contents.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, 123beta, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam’s Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, The Amboy Times, Phastidio.net, , Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie Is Wired, Faultline USA, third world county, Wake Up America, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Nuke’s news and views, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, CORSARI D’ITALIA, The Yankee Sailor, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Mr Hewitt makes a point. Nothing beats winning and you can’t win a nomination losing elections. All year long there has been talk of particular primaries or caucuses losing their significance. It may be those making the statements have lost their significance. If any of the early states are not important, why all the moves by other states to move up dates?

Two things on earlier withdrawals from Iowa by Giuliani and McCain and Thompson delaying his announcement. Which by the way, if memory serves, should be today July 11th. Giuliani is focusing on later battlegrounds like Florida. He could be conceding Romney’s lead in Iowa. McCain followed suit but probably to lessen stress on limited funds and buy time to regroup without being notices as much. And Thompson’s strategy could backfire although that may be the minority opinion.

And Romney winning the Young Republican’s Straw Poll at 46% followed by Thompson at 28% and Giuliani at 10% is another indicator that actually campaigning also matters. BTW, three of the last four Presidents were former Governors and all three served two terms.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Romney Rising

Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 11:08 AM
Monday, July 09, 2007
But nothing beats winning, and no matter all the spin, Iowa is a key test of the ability to organize and win in a purple state crucial to ‘08. The GOPers skipping Ames made one mistake. Underestimating the importance of the January caucuses would be a second huge mistake. You can’t win a nomination by losing elections.

More reports each day spell out the advantages Mitt Romney has carved out in the campaign to date. The strengths mentioned about him personally as well as in business and politics are confirmed by campaign results. But nearly as many reports attempt to raise doubt about the candidate with little or no supporting evidence. It has gone on long enough that one can reasonably suspect the sources of the derogatory reports will keep throwing it at the wall until something sticks. If the trend continues they will keep throwing because nothing is sticking.

Giuliani appears to be throwing his eggs in one basket. Betting his campaign’s success on primaries beyond the early states. When he announced skipping the Iowa Straw Poll and was followed quickly by John McCain, it was easy to assume they were conceding Iowa based on Romney’s lead. But ignoring Iowa and New Hampshire would be fatal by most statistics. Giuliani is focusing on Florida while McCain is trying to keep his bid afloat. And of course Fred Thompson is using the tactic of a professional athlete holding out after the start of training camp. One report referenced on this blog recently suggested Thompson’s ‘brilliant’ strategy might backfire if the anticipation raised also raises expectations too high.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Mitt Romney shows why money matters.

His advertising and strong team spell trouble for McCain campaign
July 7, 2007, 12:48AM
By MATT STEARNS
McClatchy-Tribune
Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, outpaced all Republican rivals in amassing campaign cash so far this year, a total of $44 million. That includes nearly $9 million of his own money. McCain, an Arizona senator, raised a disappointing $24.8 million.

The disparity allowed Romney — a little-known one-term governor of a state considered outside the political mainstream — to vault to front-running status in key early-voting states. And it’s why McCain — an American hero, best-selling author and media darling — struggles to keep his campaign afloat.

Something you don’t find everyday. A take on the 2008 Presidential campaign that appears balanced, thoughtful and correct. Thoughtful here meaning full of thought, not necessarily polite. It is a review of campaign strategy thus far in the GOP side of campaigning. The author may find no argument on the relative strengths of the candidates as well as his insight on Fred Thompson’s possible error in the ‘brilliant’ initial campaign strategy.

The future predictions, expectations or disclaimer of any real fix being visible at this point underlies a good read on the state of Republican politics heading in to 2008. As always, a needless reminder of the length of the current campaign season from this blog is only offered for those just beginning to find interest in the Presidential race. Describing it as a race may be misleading what with all the uncertainty in the field and the public demand for candidate information less than widespread.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Mid-Year Evaluations: Strategy & Next Steps

Each of the campaigns appears to have their own differentiated electoral strategies to attempt to win the nomination. Giuliani seems set to bank on a January 29th win in Florida as a critical jumping off point to the presumptive national primary on February 5th. In contrast, Romney is clearly trying to leverage wins in Iowa and New Hampshire into a wave of earned media, which coupled with extensive ground operations in Florida, Michigan, and South Carolina, would put him in position to win the nomination. Giuliani needs the current primary schedule to stay static. Romney’s camp is probably cheering for states to keep leaping forward.

Thompson’s campaign is tougher to read.