The venerable National Review has done its part to stop the Huckabee surge. One of the oldest and most trusted conservative magazines, founded by William F. Buckley over 30 years ago, the National Review may not have made the choice we would have made, but they make a strong case for their endorsement.
National Review has endorsed former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney for President.
Surprised? I was too. But the magazine lays out a very logical, reasoned argument to back up their choice.
Social conservatives will reject Rudy Giuliani and thus split the GOP vote. Fiscal and traditional conservatives in the Goldwater tradition will reject Mike Huckabee, resulting in a split as well.
Thus, according the editors of the Review, Mitt Romney is the logical choice due to his embrace of both social and fiscal conservatism.
The editors acknowledge that the candidate has changed his mind on some issues. Yet they point to a little-publicized fact about Romney that is very telling. When Romney ran against Ted Kennedy for the U.S. Senate back in the early 1990s, he rang all of the bells that are important to Buckley-Reagan conservatives both in terms of social and economic policy.
Thus, it is the contention of the editors that Romney was forced to move to the center when he became Governor of the State in order to work with an overwhelmingly liberal and Democratic legislature. But they believe that in his heart of hearts he is a sincere social and fiscal conservative.
Romney's record supports a great deal of that notion. He has consistently stood for tax cuts, balanced budgets, fiscal restraint, small government, a healthy private sector, and family values.
The magazine believes that there are two other GOP candidates who could potentially unite fiscal and social conservatives in the GOP--Thompson and McCain. McCain has his own baggage, however, on his consistent support for limiting the First Amendment right of free speech. And Thompson seems to be in a free-fall due to a poorly run campaign, according to the editors.
National Review does state, however, that Thompson is the one who has delineated clear positions and detailed proposals on a variety of issues that other candidates will not touch.
While I do not agree with the magazine's endorsement, I understand why they would do it. My hope is that Fred Thompson can surprise everyone and pull it back together as we head ever so close to the first round of primaries.
Click below for the full article in the National Review. It is well worth your full consideration even if you disagree with their endorsement:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmMxYTUyYzA1YTk2YzE5NGVmNjc0OGFjYWJmNzMzNjI=
Showing posts with label Rudy Giuliani. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rudy Giuliani. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Friday, November 09, 2007
Next Major Change in Political Landscape
The winds of change are a-blowing again as Campaign '08 begins to heat up in earnest. With less than two months to go until the winter primaries that will decide the Presidential nominees for the two Parties, I see a major shift in the making.
Headlining this shift is a subtle but significant change in momentum for both Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. This is bad for Hillary and good for Rudy.
Since the last Democratic debate during which Hillary exhibited clearly just how wishy-washy she is on a variety of issues, meaning of course that she is a flip-flopper, Mrs. Clinton has begun to lose some support in the national polls, not so much among Democratic primary voters but among the general electorate.
The beneficiary of the slippage is Rudy Giuliani, who over the past few weeks has increased his lead over Fred Thompson for the GOP nomination and who is now pulling in at a dead-heat with Hillary in the general election.
Those same polls show that Giuliani has the best chance of beating Hillary in states where Republicans have had little chance of winning in the past few Presidential elections.
The Wall Street Journal, as well as Senior Economics Editor Larry Kudrow of William F. Buckley's National Review, note that the momentum has shifted in favor of Giuliani and away from Mrs. Clinton.
Yet another coup in favor of Giuliani is the Reverend Pat Robertson's endorsement of the Mayor a few days ago, signaling that evangelical Christians are clearly NOT necessarily going to stay home on Election Day if Giuliani is the GOP nominee, contrary to the contention of Christian radio mogul James Dobson.
Pat Robertson's constituency is conservative, evangelical GOP voters, as is Dobson's. But by endorsing Giuliani Robertson has done two significant things. One, he has removed the reluctance of many conservative Christian voters to vote for Giuliani, and two, he has just about insured that a conservative third-Party candidate from the Religious Right will not happen.
Two pieces of bad news lay buried in all the good news concerning Hillary's slipping poll numbers. First, Fred Thompson's candidacy is not taking off as many had hoped. His negatives are higher than any GOP top-tier candidate other than Mitt Romney. Second, gun rights activists certainly cannot take great comfort in the possibility of a Rudy sweep of the GOP.
If there is a silver lining in the midst of the possibility of a Giuliani Presidency, it is that he has staked out definite positions on a variety of issues that most conservative voters can affirm. True, his past record belies some of his present positions. Yet in this campaign he has stated clearly where he stands on gun rights, Socialism, Capitalism, taxes, and fighting terrorism.
We have the interviews, the speeches, the TV appearances, the debates to hold his feet to the fire should he ever hint at deviating from the positions he took during the campaign.
In short, he will owe his political soul to the conservatives who risked their necks and reputations to support him.
We know what Hillary will do. We know what she believes, no matter what her rhetoric. We have learned the Clinton-speak over the past seventeen years. We can deal with Giuliani. We will not be able to deal with Hillary, particularly with a Democratic Congress.
Perhaps sometimes it is exactly as William F. Buckley has stated at times in the past--sometimes it is nothing more than a matter of choosing between an avowed and confirmed Socialist and a dubious Capitalist, but a Capitalist nonetheless. With one you know you are going to get screwed. With the other you can at least negotiate.
Headlining this shift is a subtle but significant change in momentum for both Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. This is bad for Hillary and good for Rudy.
Since the last Democratic debate during which Hillary exhibited clearly just how wishy-washy she is on a variety of issues, meaning of course that she is a flip-flopper, Mrs. Clinton has begun to lose some support in the national polls, not so much among Democratic primary voters but among the general electorate.
The beneficiary of the slippage is Rudy Giuliani, who over the past few weeks has increased his lead over Fred Thompson for the GOP nomination and who is now pulling in at a dead-heat with Hillary in the general election.
Those same polls show that Giuliani has the best chance of beating Hillary in states where Republicans have had little chance of winning in the past few Presidential elections.
The Wall Street Journal, as well as Senior Economics Editor Larry Kudrow of William F. Buckley's National Review, note that the momentum has shifted in favor of Giuliani and away from Mrs. Clinton.
Yet another coup in favor of Giuliani is the Reverend Pat Robertson's endorsement of the Mayor a few days ago, signaling that evangelical Christians are clearly NOT necessarily going to stay home on Election Day if Giuliani is the GOP nominee, contrary to the contention of Christian radio mogul James Dobson.
Pat Robertson's constituency is conservative, evangelical GOP voters, as is Dobson's. But by endorsing Giuliani Robertson has done two significant things. One, he has removed the reluctance of many conservative Christian voters to vote for Giuliani, and two, he has just about insured that a conservative third-Party candidate from the Religious Right will not happen.
Two pieces of bad news lay buried in all the good news concerning Hillary's slipping poll numbers. First, Fred Thompson's candidacy is not taking off as many had hoped. His negatives are higher than any GOP top-tier candidate other than Mitt Romney. Second, gun rights activists certainly cannot take great comfort in the possibility of a Rudy sweep of the GOP.
If there is a silver lining in the midst of the possibility of a Giuliani Presidency, it is that he has staked out definite positions on a variety of issues that most conservative voters can affirm. True, his past record belies some of his present positions. Yet in this campaign he has stated clearly where he stands on gun rights, Socialism, Capitalism, taxes, and fighting terrorism.
We have the interviews, the speeches, the TV appearances, the debates to hold his feet to the fire should he ever hint at deviating from the positions he took during the campaign.
In short, he will owe his political soul to the conservatives who risked their necks and reputations to support him.
We know what Hillary will do. We know what she believes, no matter what her rhetoric. We have learned the Clinton-speak over the past seventeen years. We can deal with Giuliani. We will not be able to deal with Hillary, particularly with a Democratic Congress.
Perhaps sometimes it is exactly as William F. Buckley has stated at times in the past--sometimes it is nothing more than a matter of choosing between an avowed and confirmed Socialist and a dubious Capitalist, but a Capitalist nonetheless. With one you know you are going to get screwed. With the other you can at least negotiate.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Second Amendment News Roundup for 10/30/07
Images courtesy of A Human Right.
Focusing on guns and politics, here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:
The Bitch Girls report that an Indiana court has ignored the law and allowed Gary, Indiana to proceed with a lawsuit against 16 gun manufacturers:
http://www.thebitchgirls.us/?p=7547
The Ninth Stage blogs about the latest source of illegal guns, and you won't believe who it is:
http://ninthstage.com/index.php/2007/10/30/we-must-disarm-this-source-of-illegal-guns/
The War on Guns has this comment on Ireland's grappling with firearms:
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2007/10/fighting-irish.html
Traction Control points us to a minigun show:
http://tractioncontrol.well-regulatedmilitia.org/?p=744
Well, it seems our friend Tam over at A View from the Porch needs some help with growing older. Tam, I am as clueless as you are. All I know is that although my mind has become wiser in enjoying life's pleasures, my body is becoming more obstinate. It sucks. Maybe some of you can help Tam out:
http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2007/10/dear-lazyweb-help-me-cope.html
Xavier Thoughts has a great video today on self-defense in New Jersey:
http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2007/10/self-defense-in-new-jersey.html
Don't look now, but Snow Flakes in Hell reports that one idiot is now saying the NRA is a 'gun cult':
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=1820
Sharp as a Marble comments on an idiotic website that is the typical extremist, anti-gun, global warming haven for modern-day neo-commies:
http://blog.robballen.com/archive/2007/10/30/People-unclear-of-the-concept.aspx
Say Uncle has Fred Thompson's latest on gun control, with commentary to follow:
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/10/30/fred_thompson_on_gun_control-2/
Red's Trading Post says that the NRA's grassroots division is speaking out on ATF abuses:
http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/2007/10/bloggers-speaking-out-on-atf-abuses.html
Oscar Poppa posts part of the Chris Wallace interview with the new Governor of Louisiana, who has some good insight into the problems within the GOP:
http://oscarpoppa.us/?p=751
Armed and Safe reports that some real wackos have taken it upon themselves to edit the Constitution, including some in the Brady Bunch:
http://armedandsafe.blogspot.com/2007/10/and-another-thing.html
Mike McCarville reports that an Oklahoman is the new Senior Advisor to Rudy Giuliani's campaign:
http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2007/10/allbaugh-joins-giuliani-campaign-as.html
John Lott has the MUST-read of the day on empirical research regarding concealed carry:
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2007/10/russell-roberts-and-robin-hansen-on.html
Not surprisingly, news reports show the U.S. House is in total disarray, and Nancy Pelosi is under fire from her own Party. Michelle Malkin comments:
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/30/another-showdown-in-congress/
The Buckeye Firearms Association has a great read entitled, 'School Shootings, Armed Teachers, and Greatly Improved School Safety':
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article4021.html
The Volokh Conspiracy has generated much interest in the issue of Constitutional originalism. Here is a follow-up to yesterday's post at Volokh:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_10_28-2007_11_03.shtml#1193752554
Monday, October 22, 2007
The Fred Watch: The Oct. 21 GOP Debate
The Liberty Sphere has been keeping its ever-keen eye on Fred Thompson of late, checking to see if there is anything to the rumors that his campaign is faltering.
Based upon the Oct. 21 Fox News-GOP Presidential debate, we would assess that Thompson exhibited great strength and resolve, often going on the attack against the two who have made the most noise, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.
The only thing we have to say about Thompson's offensive is that it's about time. Both Rudy and Mitt are long overdue an accounting for their positions on various issues through the years.
And no amount of verbal calisthenics can change or hide their record.
Thompson even suggested that Romney's positions have sometimes been to the left of Ted Kennedy, of all people. And regarding Giuliani, Thompson castigated the former Mayor for his support for federal funding of abortion, his support for ultra-liberal Democrat Mario Cuomo for Governor of New York, and his support for gun control.
These are all issues with which GOP voters need to begin to hold Giuliani accountable. The same can be said for Romney.
The bottom line? The Thompson campaign is nowhere near faltering. The Senator has his own unique style that may at times be fodder for critics with a vested interest in seeing him falter--such as Ron Paul supporters and even the Giuliani and Romney campaigns.
If anything, Thompson demonstrated that he is Presidential material, a serious contender for the White House, and quite possibly the most electable candidate among the GOP contenders.
Based upon the Oct. 21 Fox News-GOP Presidential debate, we would assess that Thompson exhibited great strength and resolve, often going on the attack against the two who have made the most noise, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.
The only thing we have to say about Thompson's offensive is that it's about time. Both Rudy and Mitt are long overdue an accounting for their positions on various issues through the years.
And no amount of verbal calisthenics can change or hide their record.
Thompson even suggested that Romney's positions have sometimes been to the left of Ted Kennedy, of all people. And regarding Giuliani, Thompson castigated the former Mayor for his support for federal funding of abortion, his support for ultra-liberal Democrat Mario Cuomo for Governor of New York, and his support for gun control.
These are all issues with which GOP voters need to begin to hold Giuliani accountable. The same can be said for Romney.
The bottom line? The Thompson campaign is nowhere near faltering. The Senator has his own unique style that may at times be fodder for critics with a vested interest in seeing him falter--such as Ron Paul supporters and even the Giuliani and Romney campaigns.
If anything, Thompson demonstrated that he is Presidential material, a serious contender for the White House, and quite possibly the most electable candidate among the GOP contenders.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Now It's Sean Hannity's Turn to Blunder
Yesterday we reported that Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly made a major blunder by suggesting that not only has Giuliani practically sewn up the GOP nomination but that he should tap Mitt Romney as his running mate.
Now it's Fox News commentator Sean Hannity's turn to blunder.
We have commented recently that Fox apparently wishes for the GOP to be dominated by northeastern liberals, such as Giuliani and Romney. Hannity seems to be no exception.
On his daily radio broadcast, Hannity took a call from a woman who stated that she was very concerned that some of the GOP front-runners cannot gain the support of evangelical Christian conservatives. The caller stated that the GOP nominee will need this block of voters to win.
We agree. We have commented at length many times on how desperately the GOP needs evangelical conservatives to beat Hillary Clinton.
Yet Hannity hedged a bit, stating that 'this is what the primary process is all about.'
Granted, that's true, but the primary process is certainly not being influenced by certain conservative commentators who have all but conceded the GOP nomination to Rudy.
As we have stated before, repeatedly, if Giuliani is the nominee the religious right will stay home on election day, throwing the election to Hillary. They have already told us that this is what they plan to do.
Why should we not believe them? Giuliani's record on a range of issues from gun control to abortion has alienated the vast majority of evangelical voters. Their view is, if there is essentially no difference between Hillary and Rudy on gun control and abortion, for example, then why vote at all?
Personally, I have some very good, sound reasons as to why they should vote for Giuliani if he is the nominee, not the least of which he is not a Socialist like Hillary, and he would appoint to the Supreme Court and the federal bench only strict constructionists, unlike Hillary.
Nonetheless, my position is a hard sell when it comes to persons who so value human life that they would rather die themselves than vote for someone who supports abortion rights. And just enough of these persons will, indeed, stay home on election day to throw the election to Hillary.
I honestly do not think that commentators like O'Reilly and Hannity truly understand the mindset of the evangelical voter. These pundits are far too prone to underestimate the commitment of evangelicals to principle over Party, to issues over ideology, to honor and faith over politics.
Issues oriented voters couldn't care less about what happens to the Supreme Court if the supposed alternative to Hillary is himself a supporter of abortion rights.
In a close election, or even a not so close election, the loss of a mere 5 million evangelical voters could tip the election to Hillary.
And this is precisely why choosing Rudy as the GOP nominee is highly risky and therefore terribly ill-advised, unless the candidate experiences a major surge in popularity over Hillary. Thus, Hannity has it wrong...at least for now.
Now it's Fox News commentator Sean Hannity's turn to blunder.
We have commented recently that Fox apparently wishes for the GOP to be dominated by northeastern liberals, such as Giuliani and Romney. Hannity seems to be no exception.
On his daily radio broadcast, Hannity took a call from a woman who stated that she was very concerned that some of the GOP front-runners cannot gain the support of evangelical Christian conservatives. The caller stated that the GOP nominee will need this block of voters to win.
We agree. We have commented at length many times on how desperately the GOP needs evangelical conservatives to beat Hillary Clinton.
Yet Hannity hedged a bit, stating that 'this is what the primary process is all about.'
Granted, that's true, but the primary process is certainly not being influenced by certain conservative commentators who have all but conceded the GOP nomination to Rudy.
As we have stated before, repeatedly, if Giuliani is the nominee the religious right will stay home on election day, throwing the election to Hillary. They have already told us that this is what they plan to do.
Why should we not believe them? Giuliani's record on a range of issues from gun control to abortion has alienated the vast majority of evangelical voters. Their view is, if there is essentially no difference between Hillary and Rudy on gun control and abortion, for example, then why vote at all?
Personally, I have some very good, sound reasons as to why they should vote for Giuliani if he is the nominee, not the least of which he is not a Socialist like Hillary, and he would appoint to the Supreme Court and the federal bench only strict constructionists, unlike Hillary.
Nonetheless, my position is a hard sell when it comes to persons who so value human life that they would rather die themselves than vote for someone who supports abortion rights. And just enough of these persons will, indeed, stay home on election day to throw the election to Hillary.
I honestly do not think that commentators like O'Reilly and Hannity truly understand the mindset of the evangelical voter. These pundits are far too prone to underestimate the commitment of evangelicals to principle over Party, to issues over ideology, to honor and faith over politics.
Issues oriented voters couldn't care less about what happens to the Supreme Court if the supposed alternative to Hillary is himself a supporter of abortion rights.
In a close election, or even a not so close election, the loss of a mere 5 million evangelical voters could tip the election to Hillary.
And this is precisely why choosing Rudy as the GOP nominee is highly risky and therefore terribly ill-advised, unless the candidate experiences a major surge in popularity over Hillary. Thus, Hannity has it wrong...at least for now.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Bill O'Reilly Blunders
Whether you like the guy or not, you have to admit that he is quite a force with which to be reckoned when it comes to political and social commentary. Sometimes I find myself agreeing 100% with him, and sometimes I cringe at his comments. Yet I keep watching and listening because he matters.
But Bill O'Reilly is certainly far from perfect, and sometimes when he misses it, he misses by a mile.
O'Reilly's blunder came on the radio this evening. In commenting on the various political campaigns, he stated that Mitt Romney would be a good running mate for Rudy Giuliani should Giuliani get the GOP nomination, of which O'Reilly is certain.
The reason cited by O'Reilly? Because 'Romney is a true conservative, and Giuliani will need a bona fide conservative on the ticket.'
Now let me get this straight. O'Reilly would place on the GOP ticket two northeastern liberals, Republicans in Name Only. My question is, does he wish to hand the election to Hillary?
It will be bad enough for many parts of the country for Giuliani to be the nominee. Many have already vowed to stay home on election day if he is. But some of these could be persuaded if there is a solid REAL conservative on the ticket.
Put Romney with Giuliani and you have immediately lost the entire South and Southwest, along with the Rockey Mountain States.
No Republican will ever win the White House without the South. Period, end.
O'Reilly's contention that Romney is a conservative is based upon his indefensible philosophy in taking a candidate at his/her word and totally ignoring that person's record. The record shows that Romney is no conservative.
It should be noted that ever since the campaigns began in earnest Fox News and their conservative pundits have all been in Giuliani's hip pocket just as CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN have been in the hip pocket of Hillary Clinton.
This fact shows just how thoroughly Fox wishes for the GOP to be dominated by politicians in the northeast corridor.
The people out in the heartland want none of it.
Should Giuliani get the nomination, he will need Fred Thompson or Mike Huckabee. But let's hope such a scenario will never become a reality. Giuliani is simply not a viable alternative to Hillary Clinton.
But Bill O'Reilly is certainly far from perfect, and sometimes when he misses it, he misses by a mile.
O'Reilly's blunder came on the radio this evening. In commenting on the various political campaigns, he stated that Mitt Romney would be a good running mate for Rudy Giuliani should Giuliani get the GOP nomination, of which O'Reilly is certain.
The reason cited by O'Reilly? Because 'Romney is a true conservative, and Giuliani will need a bona fide conservative on the ticket.'
Now let me get this straight. O'Reilly would place on the GOP ticket two northeastern liberals, Republicans in Name Only. My question is, does he wish to hand the election to Hillary?
It will be bad enough for many parts of the country for Giuliani to be the nominee. Many have already vowed to stay home on election day if he is. But some of these could be persuaded if there is a solid REAL conservative on the ticket.
Put Romney with Giuliani and you have immediately lost the entire South and Southwest, along with the Rockey Mountain States.
No Republican will ever win the White House without the South. Period, end.
O'Reilly's contention that Romney is a conservative is based upon his indefensible philosophy in taking a candidate at his/her word and totally ignoring that person's record. The record shows that Romney is no conservative.
It should be noted that ever since the campaigns began in earnest Fox News and their conservative pundits have all been in Giuliani's hip pocket just as CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN have been in the hip pocket of Hillary Clinton.
This fact shows just how thoroughly Fox wishes for the GOP to be dominated by politicians in the northeast corridor.
The people out in the heartland want none of it.
Should Giuliani get the nomination, he will need Fred Thompson or Mike Huckabee. But let's hope such a scenario will never become a reality. Giuliani is simply not a viable alternative to Hillary Clinton.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Comments on Oct. 9 GOP Debate in Dearborn
As expected, Fred Thompson loomed large in the GOP debate in Dearborn, Michigan Tuesday afternoon. After skipping out on all previous debates, given that he was not yet a candidate, the fact that Thompson has skyrocketed to a statistical tie with Rudy Giuliani meant that all eyes were on Fred.
Thompson even occupied the center stage in the debate, which inadvertently served to further highlight his looming stature, figuratively and literally.
Chris Matthews asked Thompson the first question of the debate. Thompson seemed to lose his train of thought at one moment during his answer. But after a rusty first shot out of the starting gate, the candidate proceeded to show that he can stand toe-to-toe with the big guys on the national stage.
Thompson's answers were down-to-earth, folksy, and exhibited his vast knowledge of legal and Constitutional issues after spending decades as an attorney.
While Thompson may not have lived up to the unrealistic expectations of those who expected him to be someone he is not, such as Ronald Reagan, the candidate nonetheless established himself as one who can hold his own with rivals who have been on the stage now for months.
Duncan Hunter also posted a strong performance, particularly on the issue of how the Chinese have taken advantage of U.S. trade policies to come back and hurt us.
The question was asked of all the candidates if they would go on record as supporting whoever wins the GOP nomination for President. Several candidates hedged, including Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Sam Brownback.
Mr. Paul insisted that his litmus test was the War in Iraq and whether or not the GOP nominee promises to get us out. Clearly Mr. Paul knows that several top-tier GOP candidates, one of whom is likely to be the nominee, clearly do not share his views on Iraq. Does this mean that he will support Hillary? Or perhaps turn to a third Party?
If this is the intent of Mr. Paul, surely he knows that such a move will hand the election to Hillary. And if he follows through and does such a thing, he not only will lose all of my respect but be relegated to the ash-heap of political history along side of the likes of Ross Perot.
Perot's misguided and laughable campaign as a third Party candidate in 1992 is the single reason Bill Clinton was elected President. If Ron Paul does a similar thing, he will hand the election to yet another Clinton.
And this raises a serious political question. In terms of campaign strategy, when a candidate uses tactics that he/she knows at the start will help elect a sworn political opponent, does this not mean that the candidate in question in actuality supports the opponent who benefits from those tactics?
After all, every single Democratic candidate has pledged to 'get us out of Iraq.' Since this seems to be the Paul litmus test, I suppose he would rather support Hillary or Kucinich than a member of his own Party.
Not a single GOP candidate can be described as a European-styled Socialist. Yet most if not all of the Democratic candidates are exactly that.
But who cares? At least they will 'get us out of Iraq.'
Mike Huckabee, as always, posted a fine debate performance this evening. It is easy to see why many refer to his 'rising star' status within the Republican Party with his quick wit and thoughtful answers.
With regard to the rest of the field of candidates--McCain, Giuliani, Romney--all did well and provided thoughtful answers to a range of questions on Social Security, healthcare, open markets, taxes, and government spending.
Based upon the answers given in this afternoon's debate, The Liberty Sphere will rate each of the GOP candidates based upon our exclusive 'liberty scale' which focuses on these key issues: taxes, gun rights, abortion, immigration control, national defense, the War on Terror, and U.S. foreign policy.
Here are the ratings (10 is the highest score):
Fred Thompson--10
Mike Huckabee--10
Duncan Hunter--10
Tom Tancredo--8
Ron Paul--7
Sam Brownback--7
John McCain--7
Mitt Romney--6
Rudy Giuliani--6
McCain's movement from a 5 to a 7 is due to the candidate's movement on the issues. We believe, at least at this point, that he has heard the outcry from the citizens about illegal immigration. His willingness to be flexible is a big point in his favor.
Thompson even occupied the center stage in the debate, which inadvertently served to further highlight his looming stature, figuratively and literally.
Chris Matthews asked Thompson the first question of the debate. Thompson seemed to lose his train of thought at one moment during his answer. But after a rusty first shot out of the starting gate, the candidate proceeded to show that he can stand toe-to-toe with the big guys on the national stage.
Thompson's answers were down-to-earth, folksy, and exhibited his vast knowledge of legal and Constitutional issues after spending decades as an attorney.
While Thompson may not have lived up to the unrealistic expectations of those who expected him to be someone he is not, such as Ronald Reagan, the candidate nonetheless established himself as one who can hold his own with rivals who have been on the stage now for months.
Duncan Hunter also posted a strong performance, particularly on the issue of how the Chinese have taken advantage of U.S. trade policies to come back and hurt us.
The question was asked of all the candidates if they would go on record as supporting whoever wins the GOP nomination for President. Several candidates hedged, including Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Sam Brownback.
Mr. Paul insisted that his litmus test was the War in Iraq and whether or not the GOP nominee promises to get us out. Clearly Mr. Paul knows that several top-tier GOP candidates, one of whom is likely to be the nominee, clearly do not share his views on Iraq. Does this mean that he will support Hillary? Or perhaps turn to a third Party?
If this is the intent of Mr. Paul, surely he knows that such a move will hand the election to Hillary. And if he follows through and does such a thing, he not only will lose all of my respect but be relegated to the ash-heap of political history along side of the likes of Ross Perot.
Perot's misguided and laughable campaign as a third Party candidate in 1992 is the single reason Bill Clinton was elected President. If Ron Paul does a similar thing, he will hand the election to yet another Clinton.
And this raises a serious political question. In terms of campaign strategy, when a candidate uses tactics that he/she knows at the start will help elect a sworn political opponent, does this not mean that the candidate in question in actuality supports the opponent who benefits from those tactics?
After all, every single Democratic candidate has pledged to 'get us out of Iraq.' Since this seems to be the Paul litmus test, I suppose he would rather support Hillary or Kucinich than a member of his own Party.
Not a single GOP candidate can be described as a European-styled Socialist. Yet most if not all of the Democratic candidates are exactly that.
But who cares? At least they will 'get us out of Iraq.'
Mike Huckabee, as always, posted a fine debate performance this evening. It is easy to see why many refer to his 'rising star' status within the Republican Party with his quick wit and thoughtful answers.
With regard to the rest of the field of candidates--McCain, Giuliani, Romney--all did well and provided thoughtful answers to a range of questions on Social Security, healthcare, open markets, taxes, and government spending.
Based upon the answers given in this afternoon's debate, The Liberty Sphere will rate each of the GOP candidates based upon our exclusive 'liberty scale' which focuses on these key issues: taxes, gun rights, abortion, immigration control, national defense, the War on Terror, and U.S. foreign policy.
Here are the ratings (10 is the highest score):
Fred Thompson--10
Mike Huckabee--10
Duncan Hunter--10
Tom Tancredo--8
Ron Paul--7
Sam Brownback--7
John McCain--7
Mitt Romney--6
Rudy Giuliani--6
McCain's movement from a 5 to a 7 is due to the candidate's movement on the issues. We believe, at least at this point, that he has heard the outcry from the citizens about illegal immigration. His willingness to be flexible is a big point in his favor.
Friday, October 05, 2007
GOP 3rd Quarter Fundraising Totals
Republican Presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani continued to lead the pack in fundraising, bringing in $11 million during the 3rd quarter.
Mitt Romney comes in at a close 2nd with $10 million dollars raised. But campaign sources disclosed that Romney put over $8 million of his own money into his campaign, meaning that he actually raised less than $2 million during the third quarter.
This is precisely why The Liberty Sphere has maintained that Romney's campaign is largely fluff and that his money carefully conceals the lack of support the candidate has been able to garner throughout the country.
Fred Thompson's 3rd quarter campaign earnings were much better than expected and topped earlier reports. The Thompson campaign reports that the candidate raised over 9 million during the 3rd quarter, the vast majority of that coming in during the month of September.
John McCain's totals for the 3rd quarter stand at $5 million--a vast improvement over projections. This would tend to support the candidate's contention that his campaign is experiencing a turn-around.
Ron Paul also raised $5 million during the 3rd quarter--his best showing to date. Yet Mr. Paul comes out ahead of McCain due to the fact that McCain was $2 million in the red, meaning that he has only $3 million to spend. Mr. Paul has most if not all of his $5 million to spend.
The rest of the Republican field of candidates raised much less than the top 5.
Thus, the Liberty Sphere offers an assessment of the success of the top 5 candidates based upon 2 factors--the total funds raised from the citizens and the amount of available cash on hand to spend.
Given these 2 important factors there are only 2 GOP candidates who approach the 4th quarter from a position of strength as compared to the rest of the field. Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson are in the best financial shape of all. Giuliani is way out in front in terms of available cash to spend, and Thompson comes in 2nd with roughly 8 million in available cash.
Mitt Romney's position in the field of candidates is a bit difficult to assess. From month to month it has been hard to track exactly how much of his campaign cash came from donors and how much he spent of his own money. The candidate has deep pockets, no doubt, and he is thus a major force with which to be reckoned. But it would be a mistake to place too much credence in Romney's ability to spend.
Thus, Ron Paul in our view comes in third with a solid showing of 5 million. His ability to run a frugal campaign relying on an army of Internet supporters has enabled the candidate to keep most of the money he has raised. He is in fairly good shape, and it would be a mistake to count him out.
John McCain is still a viable candidate. The Liberty Sphere had all but given up on his campaign for dead a couple of months ago. But the candidate has shown resilience and determination, even in the face of overwhelming odds.
McCain has also said he has heard the outcry of the citizens against his amnesty immigration reform bill, and he has thus changed his views to match those of the citizens who want our borders secure and illegal immigration stopped. We would still like to hear him say more about the glaring mistake of the McCain-Feingold act against free speech. If he comes clean about that, he could well be a come-from-behind candidate.
It certainly helped McCain to appear at the NRA and remind the nation that he has been a longtime supporter of 2nd Amendment rights. The NRA has given him fairly good marks through the years, despite the GOA's rating of 'F.' It is to be remembered, however, that the GOA's criteria for rating politicians is very strict, much more so than the NRA's.
While McCain is certainly not our 1st choice, not even our 2nd, 3rd, or 4th choice, he is someone we could see ourselves supporting against Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, or for that matter ANY of the Democratic candidates.
But for now, we are pleased to see that Thompson is coming on strong, and we fully expect his fundraising to show even more success during the 4th quarter.
Mitt Romney comes in at a close 2nd with $10 million dollars raised. But campaign sources disclosed that Romney put over $8 million of his own money into his campaign, meaning that he actually raised less than $2 million during the third quarter.
This is precisely why The Liberty Sphere has maintained that Romney's campaign is largely fluff and that his money carefully conceals the lack of support the candidate has been able to garner throughout the country.
Fred Thompson's 3rd quarter campaign earnings were much better than expected and topped earlier reports. The Thompson campaign reports that the candidate raised over 9 million during the 3rd quarter, the vast majority of that coming in during the month of September.
John McCain's totals for the 3rd quarter stand at $5 million--a vast improvement over projections. This would tend to support the candidate's contention that his campaign is experiencing a turn-around.
Ron Paul also raised $5 million during the 3rd quarter--his best showing to date. Yet Mr. Paul comes out ahead of McCain due to the fact that McCain was $2 million in the red, meaning that he has only $3 million to spend. Mr. Paul has most if not all of his $5 million to spend.
The rest of the Republican field of candidates raised much less than the top 5.
Thus, the Liberty Sphere offers an assessment of the success of the top 5 candidates based upon 2 factors--the total funds raised from the citizens and the amount of available cash on hand to spend.
Given these 2 important factors there are only 2 GOP candidates who approach the 4th quarter from a position of strength as compared to the rest of the field. Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson are in the best financial shape of all. Giuliani is way out in front in terms of available cash to spend, and Thompson comes in 2nd with roughly 8 million in available cash.
Mitt Romney's position in the field of candidates is a bit difficult to assess. From month to month it has been hard to track exactly how much of his campaign cash came from donors and how much he spent of his own money. The candidate has deep pockets, no doubt, and he is thus a major force with which to be reckoned. But it would be a mistake to place too much credence in Romney's ability to spend.
Thus, Ron Paul in our view comes in third with a solid showing of 5 million. His ability to run a frugal campaign relying on an army of Internet supporters has enabled the candidate to keep most of the money he has raised. He is in fairly good shape, and it would be a mistake to count him out.
John McCain is still a viable candidate. The Liberty Sphere had all but given up on his campaign for dead a couple of months ago. But the candidate has shown resilience and determination, even in the face of overwhelming odds.
McCain has also said he has heard the outcry of the citizens against his amnesty immigration reform bill, and he has thus changed his views to match those of the citizens who want our borders secure and illegal immigration stopped. We would still like to hear him say more about the glaring mistake of the McCain-Feingold act against free speech. If he comes clean about that, he could well be a come-from-behind candidate.
It certainly helped McCain to appear at the NRA and remind the nation that he has been a longtime supporter of 2nd Amendment rights. The NRA has given him fairly good marks through the years, despite the GOA's rating of 'F.' It is to be remembered, however, that the GOA's criteria for rating politicians is very strict, much more so than the NRA's.
While McCain is certainly not our 1st choice, not even our 2nd, 3rd, or 4th choice, he is someone we could see ourselves supporting against Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, or for that matter ANY of the Democratic candidates.
But for now, we are pleased to see that Thompson is coming on strong, and we fully expect his fundraising to show even more success during the 4th quarter.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Can Dobson Doom the Giuliani Candidacy?
Gentlemen, it is time for a reasonable compromise.
These words form the basis of my message to Dr. James Dobson, the pediatrician and director of radio's Focus on the Family, who stated in no uncertain terms over the weekend that evangelical Christians would never under any circumstance support Rudy Giuliani for President.
Dobson's comments came as a result of several days of meetings with other powerful Christian conservative voices--persons of enormous influence in the heartland of America.
Focus on the Family is one of the most popular and influential radio broadcasts in the nation today, boasting tens of millions of listeners. This puts Dobson in an elite category of king-makers in this nation, given that he can deliver over 10 million voters for a political candidate.
The movers and shakers within the Republican Party ignore Dobson to their peril. Ever since 1980 when Ronald Reagan was able to form a powerful coalition of religious and social conservatives, blue-collar conservative Democrats, as well as traditional Republicans, Christian evangelicals have been considered a valuable part of the decision-making process within the Republican Party.
While there are many who look askance at Dobson's claim to wielding that much power over policy makers, even to the point of choosing a Presidential candidate, it is still of vital importance that his voice be heard and that his views be taken seriously.
The crux of Dobson's disdain for Rudy Giuliani centers on one issue--abortion. Christian conservatives abhor abortion as a blight on the nation's conscience. Giuliani has made it clear he will not back down on his lifelong support of a woman's right to an abortion.
Dobson's response? If Giuliani is the nominee, he and his army of millions will stay home on election day or find a different candidate to support outside the two Parties.
The threat is dangerous. Should Dobson and his supporters sit out election day in 2008, it could be enough to tip the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, or whoever the Democrat may be. And should the Dobson coalition back a different candidate, too many voters would be drawn away from the GOP, which would also throw the election to the Democrats.
In essence Dobson has delivered an ultimatum to the Republican Party. If the GOP chooses a social liberal, Dobson and company will either stay home or support a third Party candidate, which will mean the election of the nation's worst nightmare in the form of Hillary Clinton or one of the other Democrats.
Further, Dobson has indicated that he has serious problems with John McCain and Mitt Romney. He has also stated he doesn't like Fred Thompson. But the ultimatum centers squarely upon no one other than Rudy Giuliani. Perhaps he could be persuaded about the others.
And this brings us back to my original message to Dr. Dobson and his colleagues. Gentlemen, we hear you. We need your support to elect someone who takes the Constitution and our nation's history seriously rather than a liberal who simply doesn't care.
Thus, it is time for a reasonable compromise. Many of us out here who have not yet had the chance to cast a vote in a primary have major problems with Giuliani for various reasons. Say we agree with you that Giuliani should not be the nominee. What are you willing to give us in return?
If we give a decisive thumbs-down to Giuliani and choose one of the other GOP candidates, will you then support that person?
For example, Fred Thompson may not be your favorite person. But we like what we hear when he speaks. He has been straight as an arrow in his support for gun rights, the war on terror, complete freedom of religious expression and speech, and he has stated repeatedly that Roe v. Wade is a terrible ruling.
What more could you want? The man is in your corner.
But Thompson isn't the only one. There are several more GOP candidates about whom the very same things could be said.
And so, Dr. Dobson, if we deliver on your ultimatum that Giuliani be denied the nomination, what are you willing to do for us in return? Many of us believe that at the very least you should lend your support to the person we choose, even if it is Thompson, McCain, or Romney.
I strongly believe that such a reasonable compromise will be for the ultimate good of the country.
These words form the basis of my message to Dr. James Dobson, the pediatrician and director of radio's Focus on the Family, who stated in no uncertain terms over the weekend that evangelical Christians would never under any circumstance support Rudy Giuliani for President.
Dobson's comments came as a result of several days of meetings with other powerful Christian conservative voices--persons of enormous influence in the heartland of America.
Focus on the Family is one of the most popular and influential radio broadcasts in the nation today, boasting tens of millions of listeners. This puts Dobson in an elite category of king-makers in this nation, given that he can deliver over 10 million voters for a political candidate.
The movers and shakers within the Republican Party ignore Dobson to their peril. Ever since 1980 when Ronald Reagan was able to form a powerful coalition of religious and social conservatives, blue-collar conservative Democrats, as well as traditional Republicans, Christian evangelicals have been considered a valuable part of the decision-making process within the Republican Party.
While there are many who look askance at Dobson's claim to wielding that much power over policy makers, even to the point of choosing a Presidential candidate, it is still of vital importance that his voice be heard and that his views be taken seriously.
The crux of Dobson's disdain for Rudy Giuliani centers on one issue--abortion. Christian conservatives abhor abortion as a blight on the nation's conscience. Giuliani has made it clear he will not back down on his lifelong support of a woman's right to an abortion.
Dobson's response? If Giuliani is the nominee, he and his army of millions will stay home on election day or find a different candidate to support outside the two Parties.
The threat is dangerous. Should Dobson and his supporters sit out election day in 2008, it could be enough to tip the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, or whoever the Democrat may be. And should the Dobson coalition back a different candidate, too many voters would be drawn away from the GOP, which would also throw the election to the Democrats.
In essence Dobson has delivered an ultimatum to the Republican Party. If the GOP chooses a social liberal, Dobson and company will either stay home or support a third Party candidate, which will mean the election of the nation's worst nightmare in the form of Hillary Clinton or one of the other Democrats.
Further, Dobson has indicated that he has serious problems with John McCain and Mitt Romney. He has also stated he doesn't like Fred Thompson. But the ultimatum centers squarely upon no one other than Rudy Giuliani. Perhaps he could be persuaded about the others.
And this brings us back to my original message to Dr. Dobson and his colleagues. Gentlemen, we hear you. We need your support to elect someone who takes the Constitution and our nation's history seriously rather than a liberal who simply doesn't care.
Thus, it is time for a reasonable compromise. Many of us out here who have not yet had the chance to cast a vote in a primary have major problems with Giuliani for various reasons. Say we agree with you that Giuliani should not be the nominee. What are you willing to give us in return?
If we give a decisive thumbs-down to Giuliani and choose one of the other GOP candidates, will you then support that person?
For example, Fred Thompson may not be your favorite person. But we like what we hear when he speaks. He has been straight as an arrow in his support for gun rights, the war on terror, complete freedom of religious expression and speech, and he has stated repeatedly that Roe v. Wade is a terrible ruling.
What more could you want? The man is in your corner.
But Thompson isn't the only one. There are several more GOP candidates about whom the very same things could be said.
And so, Dr. Dobson, if we deliver on your ultimatum that Giuliani be denied the nomination, what are you willing to do for us in return? Many of us believe that at the very least you should lend your support to the person we choose, even if it is Thompson, McCain, or Romney.
I strongly believe that such a reasonable compromise will be for the ultimate good of the country.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
BREAKING NEWS: NEWT WON'T RUN IN '08
Fox News has confirmed that former U.S. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich will not seek the Republican nomination for a bid for the White House in '08.
According to Fox News' Senior correspondents Chris Wallace and Carl Cameron, Mr. Gingrich decided that it was unrealistic to expect to raise 30 million dollars in the final quarter of 2007, a feat that has never been accomplished in a three-month period.
Gingrich had flirted with the idea of throwing his hat into the ring this year and stated that he would run if he could raise 30 million dollars. The former Speaker was set to announce tomorrow the formation of an exploratory committee that would have set in motion the fundraising process.
However, Mr. Gingrich concluded after carefully assessing the lay of the political landscape that such a goal was much too lofty. In addition, his candidacy would have further split the conservative vote among Republicans, most of whom at this point indicate that they prefer Fred Thompson.
With Gingrich in the race, Rudy Giuliani stood to gain the most. A Gingrich candidacy would have meant fragmentation for GOP conservatives, with Giuliani clearly reaping the benefits.
A few national polls show Giuliani ahead of Fred Thompson by anywhere from 3 to 6 percentage points. Other polls show Thompson ahead of Giuliani by 3 to 5 percentage points.
However, when one considers state-by-state straw polls and early data indicating the voting preferences of those most likely to vote in the various Republican primaries, Fred Thompson is clearly ahead of the game. Ohio is the latest state to join the Thompson bandwagon.
Information we have been able to gather around the country shows that Thompson is ahead in Ohio, Indiana, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Missouri.
Had Gingrich entered the race, at least half of these states would be a toss-up between Thompson and Gingrich.
Giuliani is ahead in states that in recent years have tended to support Democrats, such as New York, New Jersey, California, and Pennsylvania. However, Pennsylvania is ripe for the picking for a strong conservative candidate such as Thompson, with the state's rather large GOP issues-oriented groups such as gun owners and social conservatives.
This means that Giuliani will need to begin showing strength in areas that are perfect for a candidate such as Thompson. So far, we do not see Giuliani winning a single primary in the South and Southwest, two areas he desperately needs in order to win the GOP nomination.
With Gingrich out of the picture, don't be surprised by a Thompson sweep of everything south of the Mason-Dixon and west of the Mississippi, with the exception of California.
According to Fox News' Senior correspondents Chris Wallace and Carl Cameron, Mr. Gingrich decided that it was unrealistic to expect to raise 30 million dollars in the final quarter of 2007, a feat that has never been accomplished in a three-month period.
Gingrich had flirted with the idea of throwing his hat into the ring this year and stated that he would run if he could raise 30 million dollars. The former Speaker was set to announce tomorrow the formation of an exploratory committee that would have set in motion the fundraising process.
However, Mr. Gingrich concluded after carefully assessing the lay of the political landscape that such a goal was much too lofty. In addition, his candidacy would have further split the conservative vote among Republicans, most of whom at this point indicate that they prefer Fred Thompson.
With Gingrich in the race, Rudy Giuliani stood to gain the most. A Gingrich candidacy would have meant fragmentation for GOP conservatives, with Giuliani clearly reaping the benefits.
A few national polls show Giuliani ahead of Fred Thompson by anywhere from 3 to 6 percentage points. Other polls show Thompson ahead of Giuliani by 3 to 5 percentage points.
However, when one considers state-by-state straw polls and early data indicating the voting preferences of those most likely to vote in the various Republican primaries, Fred Thompson is clearly ahead of the game. Ohio is the latest state to join the Thompson bandwagon.
Information we have been able to gather around the country shows that Thompson is ahead in Ohio, Indiana, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Missouri.
Had Gingrich entered the race, at least half of these states would be a toss-up between Thompson and Gingrich.
Giuliani is ahead in states that in recent years have tended to support Democrats, such as New York, New Jersey, California, and Pennsylvania. However, Pennsylvania is ripe for the picking for a strong conservative candidate such as Thompson, with the state's rather large GOP issues-oriented groups such as gun owners and social conservatives.
This means that Giuliani will need to begin showing strength in areas that are perfect for a candidate such as Thompson. So far, we do not see Giuliani winning a single primary in the South and Southwest, two areas he desperately needs in order to win the GOP nomination.
With Gingrich out of the picture, don't be surprised by a Thompson sweep of everything south of the Mason-Dixon and west of the Mississippi, with the exception of California.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Thompson Announces, Republicans Debate in N.H.
Former U.S. Senator and television star Fred Thompson, R-Tennessee, has formally announced his bid for the Republican Presidential nomination. Thompson began airing a television ad describing his campaign goals even as the rest of the Republican field of candidates debated in New Hampshire.
Demonstrating the power of the Thompson presence in the campaign, the very first question of the debate, posed by Fox News Washington Chief Britt Hume, centered on Thompson's contention that having armed students at Virginia Tech could have prevented the massacre unleashed by Cho Seung Hui.
The Second Amendment was a recurring theme during the debate, as the candidates made sure that listeners understood that they each support the individual citizen's right to bear arms.
However, the record shows a different story. When compared to the Democratic candidates, each of the Republican candidates come out smelling like a rose. But Giuliani, McCain, and Romney have less-than-stellar records on their support of Second Amendment rights.
The most exciting segment of the debate occurred when Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee sparred on the War in Iraq. Hume allowed the two great leeway in their exchange, given that it was one of the more spontaneous and interesting segments that has occurred in any of the debates in either Party.
Concerning Ron Paul, The Liberty Sphere continues to have great difficulty with the candidate's assertion that the 9/11 attack was due to the American troop presence on the Arabian peninsula--the reason given by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Mr. Paul makes the mistake of taking the words of Osama bin Laden at face value.
Why should we believe him? Bin Laden is one of the least trustworthy individuals on the planet.
The truth is we were attacked because radical Islamists, i.e., the Jihad, wishes to kill us all in the name of Allah and usher in Sharia Law under the Koran.
And this is why we have maintained all along that Ron Paul will not win the GOP nomination. This shortsighted point of view on what our nation faces in the Jihadists is enough to deny him the support of most Republican voters.
This is, no doubt, a shame, for Mr. Paul is otherwise an attractive candidate with many laudable ideas.
The clear winner in this debate, in our view, continues to be Duncan Hunter, R-California. He has the honor, the integrity, the grasp of the issues, and the ability to articulate his stance on the issues that place him at the head of the pack.
If there was a clear loser in the debate, it would have to be Senator Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, who seemed to lose his train of thought a couple of times. This was not a good night for the Senator, although his lackluster showing did nothing to effect his stance on the issues, which for the most part is strong.
The Liberty Sphere rates the candidates who participate in the debates based upon eight key issues impacting personal liberty--taxes, healthcare, gun rights, immigration policy, abortion, national defense, U.S. foreign policy, and the War on Terror.
Based upon these key issues, we rate the Republican candidates in Wednesday night's debate as follows, with 10 being the highest score:
Duncan Hunter--10
Mike Huckabee--9
Sam Brownback--8
Tom Tancredo--8
Ron Paul--7
Rudy Giuliani--6
Mitt Romney--6
John McCain--5
Demonstrating the power of the Thompson presence in the campaign, the very first question of the debate, posed by Fox News Washington Chief Britt Hume, centered on Thompson's contention that having armed students at Virginia Tech could have prevented the massacre unleashed by Cho Seung Hui.
The Second Amendment was a recurring theme during the debate, as the candidates made sure that listeners understood that they each support the individual citizen's right to bear arms.
However, the record shows a different story. When compared to the Democratic candidates, each of the Republican candidates come out smelling like a rose. But Giuliani, McCain, and Romney have less-than-stellar records on their support of Second Amendment rights.
The most exciting segment of the debate occurred when Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee sparred on the War in Iraq. Hume allowed the two great leeway in their exchange, given that it was one of the more spontaneous and interesting segments that has occurred in any of the debates in either Party.
Concerning Ron Paul, The Liberty Sphere continues to have great difficulty with the candidate's assertion that the 9/11 attack was due to the American troop presence on the Arabian peninsula--the reason given by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Mr. Paul makes the mistake of taking the words of Osama bin Laden at face value.
Why should we believe him? Bin Laden is one of the least trustworthy individuals on the planet.
The truth is we were attacked because radical Islamists, i.e., the Jihad, wishes to kill us all in the name of Allah and usher in Sharia Law under the Koran.
And this is why we have maintained all along that Ron Paul will not win the GOP nomination. This shortsighted point of view on what our nation faces in the Jihadists is enough to deny him the support of most Republican voters.
This is, no doubt, a shame, for Mr. Paul is otherwise an attractive candidate with many laudable ideas.
The clear winner in this debate, in our view, continues to be Duncan Hunter, R-California. He has the honor, the integrity, the grasp of the issues, and the ability to articulate his stance on the issues that place him at the head of the pack.
If there was a clear loser in the debate, it would have to be Senator Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, who seemed to lose his train of thought a couple of times. This was not a good night for the Senator, although his lackluster showing did nothing to effect his stance on the issues, which for the most part is strong.
The Liberty Sphere rates the candidates who participate in the debates based upon eight key issues impacting personal liberty--taxes, healthcare, gun rights, immigration policy, abortion, national defense, U.S. foreign policy, and the War on Terror.
Based upon these key issues, we rate the Republican candidates in Wednesday night's debate as follows, with 10 being the highest score:
Duncan Hunter--10
Mike Huckabee--9
Sam Brownback--8
Tom Tancredo--8
Ron Paul--7
Rudy Giuliani--6
Mitt Romney--6
John McCain--5
Friday, August 24, 2007
The Brewing Thompson-Giuliani Battle Over Rights
Political operatives within the Giuliani campaign have decided to go on the offensive concerning the Mayor's record while Chief Executive for NYC. Giuliani has taken a beating of late from his Republican competitors concerning the style and substance of the Giuliani administration.
Several items of interest have come to the surface concerning Giuliani's years as Mayor, including charges that he was a 'little dictator' and tended to be rather callous toward some individual rights.
Giuliani, of course, successfully trampled upon the citizens' right to bear arms in his crusade to reign in the city's horrible crime problem. Apparently the fact that Giuliani's anti-crime crusade was successful in drastically reducing the amount of violent crime within the city has led some to believe that the ends justify the means, i.e., that if robbing law-abiding citizens of their rights results in a drastic reduction in crime, then fine and dandy.
This would seem to be the tactic employed by the Giuliani campaign to attempt to short-circuit the widespread criticism of the Mayor's record on Constitutional rights--show how successfully he was able to reduce violent crime and make the city safer.
Interestingly, one of the main targets of the new Giuliani offensive is none other than unannounced GOP candidate Fred Thompson.
Obviously Thompson's consistent and strong support for Second Amendment rights, and his harsh criticism of NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's aggressive pursuit of out-of-state gun dealers that operate entirely within the laws of their own particular states, are simply too much for the Giuliani campaign to ignore.
Giuliani's political operatives used Thompson's criticism of Bloomberg to go on the offensive concerning former Mayor Giuliani's record...and to launch an attack on Thompson for suggesting that Mayors Bloomberg and Giuliani have been wrong to mount an assault on a Constitutional right in order to fight crime.
As a long-time attorney who knows the ins and outs of Constitutional law, Thompson has been highly critical of Bloomberg's use of the Courts in the state of New York to sue out of state gun dealers over the fact that some of their products wound up on the streets of the Big Apple and were used in committing crimes.
Taking Bloomberg's logic at face value, one wonders why, for example, the Mayor has not also initiated lawsuits against, say, whiskey manufacturers in Tennessee and Kentucky due to the deaths of citizens at the hands of drunk drivers who consumed out of state whiskey.
Apparently the Giuliani campaign felt that Thompson's criticism of Bloomberg was a foreshadowing of things to come, when Thompson would launch into a major attack against Giuliani for his assault on Second Amendment rights in the city when he was Mayor.
Thus, the Giuliani campaign went on the offensive, attempting to make the case that under the circumstances, i.e., high crime in New York City, the Mayor was justified in attacking Constitutional rights. Obviously Giuliani also believes that the present Bloomberg power-grab, trampling all over the boundaries of jurisdictions and separation of powers, is a proper response to gun violence at the hands of lawless thugs.
The glaring question that arises is that, given Giuliani's rationale for either weakening or suspending Constitutional rights in special situations, how, then, would he respond to a critical national emergency, such as a category 5 hurricane directly hitting the northeastern corridor from NYC to Boston, which is a mega-population center?
More critically, how would Giuliani respond to a terrorist attack, such as a dirty bomb erupting in a major metropolitan area?
Would he, as President, declare Martial Law? And if so, would that include confiscation of firearms?
After all, this is precisely what the government did in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Innocent, defenseless citizens were forced to turn over their guns, even as looting and mayhem erupted, and even as the government failed to come to the aid of its citizens, at the local, state, and national levels.
If Giuliani could so easily discard Second Amendment rights in a 'special situation' such as NYC's crime problem, then how much more easily would he discard that Amendment, and other Amendments, such as freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, in the event of a major national emergency?
These questions are of no insignificant import, for the answers go directly to the heart of the nature of the United States of America as envisioned by the Framers in the Constitution.
The Framers insisted on the Second Amendment precisely because they considered the possibility of such major national emergencies. They wanted the individual citizens to be able to defend themselves against tyranny of any kind, such as the suspension of rights during a national emergency.
To the Framers this was the ultimate national emergency. Governments that sought to rob the citizens of the rights protected in the Constitution were considered to be tyrannical, and that included our own government.
In other words, if the rights delineated in the Constitution are no good in a national emergency, then the entire rationale for including the protection of those rights in the Constitution is rendered null and void. Why protect rights at all if they can simply be suspended at the very moment they are needed the most?
The fact of the matter is that all of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution were specified precisely due to the possibility of major national emergencies. The Framers fought for these rights squarely in the middle of a major national emergency when the very future of the young, fledgling Republic was at stake, the point being that if rights are no longer valid at the precise point when they are needed the most, then what good are they?
And it is for this reason that Rudy Giuliani is highly vulnerable on the subject of Constitutional rights and Fred Thompson appears to be the man who can take him on and rip to shreds the Giuliani/Bloomberg notion that rights are expendable in 'special situations.'
Several items of interest have come to the surface concerning Giuliani's years as Mayor, including charges that he was a 'little dictator' and tended to be rather callous toward some individual rights.
Giuliani, of course, successfully trampled upon the citizens' right to bear arms in his crusade to reign in the city's horrible crime problem. Apparently the fact that Giuliani's anti-crime crusade was successful in drastically reducing the amount of violent crime within the city has led some to believe that the ends justify the means, i.e., that if robbing law-abiding citizens of their rights results in a drastic reduction in crime, then fine and dandy.
This would seem to be the tactic employed by the Giuliani campaign to attempt to short-circuit the widespread criticism of the Mayor's record on Constitutional rights--show how successfully he was able to reduce violent crime and make the city safer.
Interestingly, one of the main targets of the new Giuliani offensive is none other than unannounced GOP candidate Fred Thompson.
Obviously Thompson's consistent and strong support for Second Amendment rights, and his harsh criticism of NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's aggressive pursuit of out-of-state gun dealers that operate entirely within the laws of their own particular states, are simply too much for the Giuliani campaign to ignore.
Giuliani's political operatives used Thompson's criticism of Bloomberg to go on the offensive concerning former Mayor Giuliani's record...and to launch an attack on Thompson for suggesting that Mayors Bloomberg and Giuliani have been wrong to mount an assault on a Constitutional right in order to fight crime.
As a long-time attorney who knows the ins and outs of Constitutional law, Thompson has been highly critical of Bloomberg's use of the Courts in the state of New York to sue out of state gun dealers over the fact that some of their products wound up on the streets of the Big Apple and were used in committing crimes.
Taking Bloomberg's logic at face value, one wonders why, for example, the Mayor has not also initiated lawsuits against, say, whiskey manufacturers in Tennessee and Kentucky due to the deaths of citizens at the hands of drunk drivers who consumed out of state whiskey.
Apparently the Giuliani campaign felt that Thompson's criticism of Bloomberg was a foreshadowing of things to come, when Thompson would launch into a major attack against Giuliani for his assault on Second Amendment rights in the city when he was Mayor.
Thus, the Giuliani campaign went on the offensive, attempting to make the case that under the circumstances, i.e., high crime in New York City, the Mayor was justified in attacking Constitutional rights. Obviously Giuliani also believes that the present Bloomberg power-grab, trampling all over the boundaries of jurisdictions and separation of powers, is a proper response to gun violence at the hands of lawless thugs.
The glaring question that arises is that, given Giuliani's rationale for either weakening or suspending Constitutional rights in special situations, how, then, would he respond to a critical national emergency, such as a category 5 hurricane directly hitting the northeastern corridor from NYC to Boston, which is a mega-population center?
More critically, how would Giuliani respond to a terrorist attack, such as a dirty bomb erupting in a major metropolitan area?
Would he, as President, declare Martial Law? And if so, would that include confiscation of firearms?
After all, this is precisely what the government did in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Innocent, defenseless citizens were forced to turn over their guns, even as looting and mayhem erupted, and even as the government failed to come to the aid of its citizens, at the local, state, and national levels.
If Giuliani could so easily discard Second Amendment rights in a 'special situation' such as NYC's crime problem, then how much more easily would he discard that Amendment, and other Amendments, such as freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, in the event of a major national emergency?
These questions are of no insignificant import, for the answers go directly to the heart of the nature of the United States of America as envisioned by the Framers in the Constitution.
The Framers insisted on the Second Amendment precisely because they considered the possibility of such major national emergencies. They wanted the individual citizens to be able to defend themselves against tyranny of any kind, such as the suspension of rights during a national emergency.
To the Framers this was the ultimate national emergency. Governments that sought to rob the citizens of the rights protected in the Constitution were considered to be tyrannical, and that included our own government.
In other words, if the rights delineated in the Constitution are no good in a national emergency, then the entire rationale for including the protection of those rights in the Constitution is rendered null and void. Why protect rights at all if they can simply be suspended at the very moment they are needed the most?
The fact of the matter is that all of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution were specified precisely due to the possibility of major national emergencies. The Framers fought for these rights squarely in the middle of a major national emergency when the very future of the young, fledgling Republic was at stake, the point being that if rights are no longer valid at the precise point when they are needed the most, then what good are they?
And it is for this reason that Rudy Giuliani is highly vulnerable on the subject of Constitutional rights and Fred Thompson appears to be the man who can take him on and rip to shreds the Giuliani/Bloomberg notion that rights are expendable in 'special situations.'
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
The Changing Complexion of GOP Race
The Iowa GOP Straw Poll on Saturday was only a preliminary poll. No delegates were won by any of the participants. Yet already there has been a casualty as Tommy Thompson drops out of the race after posting a sixth place finish in a state where he desperately needed to be in the top three.
With former candidate Jim Gilmore dropping out of the race earlier, the slate of announced GOP candidates has now been whittled down to eight. Of those eight, only five stand a real chance at gaining the Republican nomination, and even two of those are highly doubtful.
Among the announced candidates 'the big five' are Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo.
Although John McCain keeps campaigning and insists he will not drop out, it is difficult to imagine his candidacy going anywhere. A look at the landscape of the primaries will reveal that the candidate in all likelihood will win absolutely no states.
Duncan Hunter, the highly respected veteran California Congressman, has unfortunately had great difficulty in getting his campaign off the ground. Hunter is a good candidate, a trustworthy statesman, a man of character, and a true American patriot. But his dismal showing in Iowa shows just how difficult it has been for the Congressman to garner the attention needed to mount a competitive national campaign.
Kansas Senator Sam Brownback is another man of character who will have great difficulty in mounting a competitive national campaign. His third place showing in Iowa, despite his neighboring state status, shows that the rest of the country will probably overlook his candidacy. We fail to see any of the state primaries coming through for Brownback with a victory.
This leaves the big five. Of those Ron Paul will have the biggest trouble winning a primary. It is not that he does not have a great deal of grassroots support. His supporters are active, vocal, and energized. Yet he has alienated a massive sector of the GOP base by his statements against the War in Iraq. We simply do not see Dr. Paul winning a primary, unless it happens to be one of the New England states.
Mitt Romney is another vulnerable candidate. He may well emerge from the primaries with a few victories, but one can rest assured that the vast American heartland will not support him, no matter what the Iowa straw poll shows. The fact is Romney spent a ton of his own money to buy a victory in Iowa. This will not work in places such as South Carolina, Florida, Texas, or Arizona.
In spite of the money Romney spends and the attention he receives in the media, his national poll numbers are dismal for someone who claims 'top-tier' status.
Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo are rising stars among the announced candidates. Both are beginning to gain the attention that they sorely lacked at the beginning of the campaign. Both are also beginning to experience rising poll numbers. The upward mobility of these two dark horses will be an interesting phenomenon to watch.
And this brings us to Rudy Giuliani, who still maintains front-runner status. Giuliani's support runs deep in many states around the country, and there is no doubt the candidate will win some primaries in states where Republicans have had difficulty in recent years.
The question is how long can Rudy maintain his status as front-runner after Fred Thompson's announcement in September.
There is absolutely no doubt that Thompson is the man to watch. He has attracted early support across the country as very few candidates ever dream of being able to do.
Can Thompson maintain and build upon this support once he jumps into the race?
The wild card in the GOP is Newt Gingrich, who still hints around from time to time that he may announce his candidacy in the Fall. While Gingrich will bring much energy and fresh ideas to the campaign, we worry about his high negatives, which rival that of Hillary Clinton.
Only one thing may tip Gingrich in the direction of running--should Fred Thompson falter after his entry into the race, Gingrich may decide that he is the one who can save the Party from an embarrassing defeat in '08.
With former candidate Jim Gilmore dropping out of the race earlier, the slate of announced GOP candidates has now been whittled down to eight. Of those eight, only five stand a real chance at gaining the Republican nomination, and even two of those are highly doubtful.
Among the announced candidates 'the big five' are Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo.
Although John McCain keeps campaigning and insists he will not drop out, it is difficult to imagine his candidacy going anywhere. A look at the landscape of the primaries will reveal that the candidate in all likelihood will win absolutely no states.
Duncan Hunter, the highly respected veteran California Congressman, has unfortunately had great difficulty in getting his campaign off the ground. Hunter is a good candidate, a trustworthy statesman, a man of character, and a true American patriot. But his dismal showing in Iowa shows just how difficult it has been for the Congressman to garner the attention needed to mount a competitive national campaign.
Kansas Senator Sam Brownback is another man of character who will have great difficulty in mounting a competitive national campaign. His third place showing in Iowa, despite his neighboring state status, shows that the rest of the country will probably overlook his candidacy. We fail to see any of the state primaries coming through for Brownback with a victory.
This leaves the big five. Of those Ron Paul will have the biggest trouble winning a primary. It is not that he does not have a great deal of grassroots support. His supporters are active, vocal, and energized. Yet he has alienated a massive sector of the GOP base by his statements against the War in Iraq. We simply do not see Dr. Paul winning a primary, unless it happens to be one of the New England states.
Mitt Romney is another vulnerable candidate. He may well emerge from the primaries with a few victories, but one can rest assured that the vast American heartland will not support him, no matter what the Iowa straw poll shows. The fact is Romney spent a ton of his own money to buy a victory in Iowa. This will not work in places such as South Carolina, Florida, Texas, or Arizona.
In spite of the money Romney spends and the attention he receives in the media, his national poll numbers are dismal for someone who claims 'top-tier' status.
Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo are rising stars among the announced candidates. Both are beginning to gain the attention that they sorely lacked at the beginning of the campaign. Both are also beginning to experience rising poll numbers. The upward mobility of these two dark horses will be an interesting phenomenon to watch.
And this brings us to Rudy Giuliani, who still maintains front-runner status. Giuliani's support runs deep in many states around the country, and there is no doubt the candidate will win some primaries in states where Republicans have had difficulty in recent years.
The question is how long can Rudy maintain his status as front-runner after Fred Thompson's announcement in September.
There is absolutely no doubt that Thompson is the man to watch. He has attracted early support across the country as very few candidates ever dream of being able to do.
Can Thompson maintain and build upon this support once he jumps into the race?
The wild card in the GOP is Newt Gingrich, who still hints around from time to time that he may announce his candidacy in the Fall. While Gingrich will bring much energy and fresh ideas to the campaign, we worry about his high negatives, which rival that of Hillary Clinton.
Only one thing may tip Gingrich in the direction of running--should Fred Thompson falter after his entry into the race, Gingrich may decide that he is the one who can save the Party from an embarrassing defeat in '08.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Republicans Square Off in Iowa
The Republicans had a debate early Sunday morning in Iowa. Unless you are a news junkie you probably didn't even know a debate was taking place.
Yet Iowans get up early, and they packed the house to hear the nine Republican candidates spar on a variety of issues, one week prior to a major straw poll on Saturday, Aug. 13.
Significant in this debate was the fireworks that occurred between Senator Sam Brownback and Mitt Romney. Brownback took Romney to task for his about-face on abortion, not that it isn't admirable for Romney to change his mind but that dyed-in-the-wool pro-life candidates such as Brownback have reason to doubt Romney's sincerity.
Romney has taken an about-face on several issues since his days as a Liberal Republican Governor of the state of Massachusetts. The Liberty Sphere has often asked the question, who is the real Mitt Romney?
Nobody really knows except for the candidate himself.
Brownback's offensive played well in Iowa, where most Republican activists are pro-life. Attendees and observers however did not give the Kansas Senator top marks in the debate.
Most of those who responded to various polls believed that Ron Paul won the debate. Other top contenders were Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney.
John McCain registered a very poor showing in the polls following the debate, which only further solidifies the contention that his candidacy is pretty much washed up.
As always, Duncan Hunter showed great strength and grasp of the issues. From the beginning he has been our favorite candidate, and it is a shame that a highly respected Congressman of his stature has not been able to break out of single digits in the polls.
Tom Tancredo also registered a strong showing in the debate. His effectiveness in handling these forums has steadily improved over time.
That brings us to Tommy Thompson. Thompson has had a distinguished career in Republican Party politics and has definitely made his mark for conservative values. His debate performances are never lackluster, but we have come to expect a consistency about them that neither buries the candidate nor catapults him to the top.
As always, The Liberty Sphere provides ratings for the candidates based upon their views on the following key issues that are central to human liberty--national defense, taxes, abortion, gun rights, the War on Terror, healthcare, immigration, and U.S. foreign policy.
Based upon these key issues, The Liberty Sphere rates the Republican candidates as follows, after Sunday morning's debate (10 is the highest score):
Duncan Hunter--10
Mike Huckabee--10
Tom Tancredo--10
Sam Brownback--8
Ron Paul--7
Tommy Thompson--7
Rudy Giuliani--6
Mitt Romney--6
John McCain--5
Yet Iowans get up early, and they packed the house to hear the nine Republican candidates spar on a variety of issues, one week prior to a major straw poll on Saturday, Aug. 13.
Significant in this debate was the fireworks that occurred between Senator Sam Brownback and Mitt Romney. Brownback took Romney to task for his about-face on abortion, not that it isn't admirable for Romney to change his mind but that dyed-in-the-wool pro-life candidates such as Brownback have reason to doubt Romney's sincerity.
Romney has taken an about-face on several issues since his days as a Liberal Republican Governor of the state of Massachusetts. The Liberty Sphere has often asked the question, who is the real Mitt Romney?
Nobody really knows except for the candidate himself.
Brownback's offensive played well in Iowa, where most Republican activists are pro-life. Attendees and observers however did not give the Kansas Senator top marks in the debate.
Most of those who responded to various polls believed that Ron Paul won the debate. Other top contenders were Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney.
John McCain registered a very poor showing in the polls following the debate, which only further solidifies the contention that his candidacy is pretty much washed up.
As always, Duncan Hunter showed great strength and grasp of the issues. From the beginning he has been our favorite candidate, and it is a shame that a highly respected Congressman of his stature has not been able to break out of single digits in the polls.
Tom Tancredo also registered a strong showing in the debate. His effectiveness in handling these forums has steadily improved over time.
That brings us to Tommy Thompson. Thompson has had a distinguished career in Republican Party politics and has definitely made his mark for conservative values. His debate performances are never lackluster, but we have come to expect a consistency about them that neither buries the candidate nor catapults him to the top.
As always, The Liberty Sphere provides ratings for the candidates based upon their views on the following key issues that are central to human liberty--national defense, taxes, abortion, gun rights, the War on Terror, healthcare, immigration, and U.S. foreign policy.
Based upon these key issues, The Liberty Sphere rates the Republican candidates as follows, after Sunday morning's debate (10 is the highest score):
Duncan Hunter--10
Mike Huckabee--10
Tom Tancredo--10
Sam Brownback--8
Ron Paul--7
Tommy Thompson--7
Rudy Giuliani--6
Mitt Romney--6
John McCain--5
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Pollster: Hillary Win 'Inevitable'
Washington, DC (TLS). A pollster for the Hillary Clinton campaign has declared that her nomination by the Democratic Party and her ultimate election as President are 'inevitable.'
Ben Smith of Politico.com bases his conclusion upon polling numbers during the month of June, which show the candidate picking up support across the country at the expense of Barack Obama. Smith also cites various polls which point to Hillary leading Rudy Giuliani by anywhere from 1 to 7 percentage points.
As a pollster whose services are paid for by the Clinton campaign, Smith has certainly done an admirable job in spinning the story to make his client look good.
A closer look, however, reveals major problems with his assessment.
The polls that Smith cites are all limited to a two-person matchup between Hillary and Rudy Giuliani, with the exception of one poll that has a three-way matchup including NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Naturally, that particular poll has Bloomberg drawing votes away from Giuliani, which of course would work to Hillary's advantage.
Never once does Smith cite a poll that pits Hillary against Fred Thompson, for example, or any other conservative/libertarian candidate.
Although there are major differences between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, both represent the same area of the country and share certain northeastern values that do not resonate with the heartland or the South. Thus, a large portion of the electorate tends to view both candidates--along with Bloomberg--as liberal northeastern elitists who do not share the worldview, the values, and the faith of the rest of the country.
To present only those polls that pit Hillary against Giuliani alone is no reliable or credible method to justify the view that her election to the Presidency is 'inevitable.'
In addition, Smith deftly fails to mention Hillary's negatives. No other candidate in either Party carries the huge negatives that are ascribed to Hillary by the electorate. The latest poll indicates that fully 48% of the electorate has a negative opinion of her, and a whopping 50% state that they will NOT vote for her, no matter who is her opponent.
It is certain the Clinton campaign is well-aware of these figures, and that includes Mr. Smith. But at the moment the spin seems more important than the facts.
Come to think of it, in politics the spin is ALWAYS more important than the facts.
If you are of a mind to read Smith's spin, here it is:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0707/Hillary_the_inevitable.html
Ben Smith of Politico.com bases his conclusion upon polling numbers during the month of June, which show the candidate picking up support across the country at the expense of Barack Obama. Smith also cites various polls which point to Hillary leading Rudy Giuliani by anywhere from 1 to 7 percentage points.
As a pollster whose services are paid for by the Clinton campaign, Smith has certainly done an admirable job in spinning the story to make his client look good.
A closer look, however, reveals major problems with his assessment.
The polls that Smith cites are all limited to a two-person matchup between Hillary and Rudy Giuliani, with the exception of one poll that has a three-way matchup including NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Naturally, that particular poll has Bloomberg drawing votes away from Giuliani, which of course would work to Hillary's advantage.
Never once does Smith cite a poll that pits Hillary against Fred Thompson, for example, or any other conservative/libertarian candidate.
Although there are major differences between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, both represent the same area of the country and share certain northeastern values that do not resonate with the heartland or the South. Thus, a large portion of the electorate tends to view both candidates--along with Bloomberg--as liberal northeastern elitists who do not share the worldview, the values, and the faith of the rest of the country.
To present only those polls that pit Hillary against Giuliani alone is no reliable or credible method to justify the view that her election to the Presidency is 'inevitable.'
In addition, Smith deftly fails to mention Hillary's negatives. No other candidate in either Party carries the huge negatives that are ascribed to Hillary by the electorate. The latest poll indicates that fully 48% of the electorate has a negative opinion of her, and a whopping 50% state that they will NOT vote for her, no matter who is her opponent.
It is certain the Clinton campaign is well-aware of these figures, and that includes Mr. Smith. But at the moment the spin seems more important than the facts.
Come to think of it, in politics the spin is ALWAYS more important than the facts.
If you are of a mind to read Smith's spin, here it is:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0707/Hillary_the_inevitable.html
Monday, July 09, 2007
The Ron Paul Surge
Washington, DC (TLS). With 2.5 million dollars in cash on hand, U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) finds himself at the top of the second tier Republican candidates in terms of the amount raised in campaign funds. In terms of the amount of spendable cash, Rep. Paul has moved up into the top tier, surpassing John McCain and placing third behind Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.
McCain has raised more money overall than Dr. Paul. Yet McCain finds himself in a precarious situation of waning support, falling poll numbers, and only 2 million in cash left in the bank due to the overly-optimistic spending of the 21 million he has raised.
As McCain finds himself on the downward slide, Dr. Paul is surging ahead. Even the mainstream media has taken notice.
The Ron Paul organization has been largely a grassroots movement right from the start. The candidate has an entire volunteer army of citizens who promote Dr. Paul through blogs, emails, text messages, and other free publicity. This has enabled the candidate to run on a shoestring budget with very little overhead.
Thus, that 2.5 million he has in the bank will not be gobbled up by staff salaries, a gruelling travel schedule, or slick campaign ads on TV.
This gives the candidate the freedom to decide where he wants to focus in terms of campaign logistics and strategy.
Admittedly, having a mere 2.5 million in the bank is in all likelihood woefully inadequate in this day and age, given the nature of the 2008 campaign and its ridiculously early primaries. That all-important deadline of January 1, 2008 is moving closer and closer.
Remember, each candidate will need 100 million bucks by Jan. 1 in order to be competitive.
Even Dr. Paul recognizes that his candidacy is a long shot. But who would have thought back in March that Ron Paul would come in fourth in terms of overall fundraising among Republicans, and third in terms of available cash on hand?
Ron Paul can now be competitive with both Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. And this has caught almost everyone by surprise.
McCain has raised more money overall than Dr. Paul. Yet McCain finds himself in a precarious situation of waning support, falling poll numbers, and only 2 million in cash left in the bank due to the overly-optimistic spending of the 21 million he has raised.
As McCain finds himself on the downward slide, Dr. Paul is surging ahead. Even the mainstream media has taken notice.
The Ron Paul organization has been largely a grassroots movement right from the start. The candidate has an entire volunteer army of citizens who promote Dr. Paul through blogs, emails, text messages, and other free publicity. This has enabled the candidate to run on a shoestring budget with very little overhead.
Thus, that 2.5 million he has in the bank will not be gobbled up by staff salaries, a gruelling travel schedule, or slick campaign ads on TV.
This gives the candidate the freedom to decide where he wants to focus in terms of campaign logistics and strategy.
Admittedly, having a mere 2.5 million in the bank is in all likelihood woefully inadequate in this day and age, given the nature of the 2008 campaign and its ridiculously early primaries. That all-important deadline of January 1, 2008 is moving closer and closer.
Remember, each candidate will need 100 million bucks by Jan. 1 in order to be competitive.
Even Dr. Paul recognizes that his candidacy is a long shot. But who would have thought back in March that Ron Paul would come in fourth in terms of overall fundraising among Republicans, and third in terms of available cash on hand?
Ron Paul can now be competitive with both Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. And this has caught almost everyone by surprise.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Campaign Fundraising: Who's Ahead So Far?
Washington, DC (TLS). With precious time ticking away as we draw ever closer to that important but early deadline of 1/1/08, Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates are reporting their fundraising totals for the second quarter.
Never before in a campaign has money been so vitally important this early. And it is way too early, indeed. Yet, in order to be competitive in the early 2008 primaries, each of the candidates will need at least 100 million bucks on hand.
We can thank the masterminds of both Parties for setting up this scenario, moving state primaries earlier and earlier supposedly giving their states more clout. What they may succeed in doing instead is making the electorate totally sick of politics a year ahead of the election.
Nonetheless, this is the situation we have, and we must deal with it.
So, who is ahead so far?
Republican campaign contributions are lackluster. This is due in part to a fairly unpopular President who continues to make gargantuan mistakes, all in the name of attempting to secure a positive 'legacy.' The other factor is Fred Thompson.
And this points to a much deeper problem. The present field of candidates are not catching on with the Party's base, and thus, most are holding on to their money until Fred Thompson makes his announcement.
Among the announced Republican candidates, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain are still the top three, although McCain's 2nd quarter totals were totally disappointing, leading the candidate to cut campaign staff. Although Romney's totals look fairly good, his 2nd quarter was not up to par with his 1st quarter totals, and the candidate loaned personal cash to his campaign. Giuliani still leads the pack with a steady and consistent stream of contributions.
Giuliani's 2nd quarter totals were approximately equal to his 1st quarter totals, bringing his grand total to over 32 million.
While the Ron Paul campaign claims it has more cash on hand than McCain, in terms of totals raised so far Dr. Paul is not in the top tier. When his 1st and 2nd quarter totals are combined he comes up with roughly 2.5 million in campaign funds.
However, Paul runs a very frugal campaign. He rarely travels to campaign on the stump, and most of his funds are raised on the Internet. Thus, the candidate can make a couple of million go a very long way, and he doesn't have to worry about overhead that eats through money faster than Michael Moore can inhale four Big Macs from Mickey D's.
Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee appear to be in a dead-heat with regard to funds, and the rest of the 2nd tier lags far behind.
On the Democratic side, Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the 2nd quarter, raising 32.5 million. This means that he is now ahead of Hillary for the year, raising 55.7 million as compared to her 53 million.
John Edwards comes in third with a lackluster 9 million, followed by Bill Richardson with 7.2 million.
Although the money has taken on more importance than normal given the unusually early primaries, it is nonetheless common in campaigns for candidates who have the most money to lose in the actual vote counts. This would give hope to candidates such as Bill Richardson, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Mike Huckabee.
Here is a quick wrap-up of the top fundraisers so far, in order of their year-to-date totals:
REPUBLICANS
**Rudy Giuliani
**Mitt Romney
**John McCain
**Ron Paul
**Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee
**Sam Brownback
**Jim Gilmore
**Tom Tancredo
**Tommy Thompson
DEMOCRATS
**Barack Obama
**Hillary Clinton
**John Edwards
**Bill Richardson
**Chris Dodd
**Joe Biden
**Dennis Kucinich
**Mike Gravel
Never before in a campaign has money been so vitally important this early. And it is way too early, indeed. Yet, in order to be competitive in the early 2008 primaries, each of the candidates will need at least 100 million bucks on hand.
We can thank the masterminds of both Parties for setting up this scenario, moving state primaries earlier and earlier supposedly giving their states more clout. What they may succeed in doing instead is making the electorate totally sick of politics a year ahead of the election.
Nonetheless, this is the situation we have, and we must deal with it.
So, who is ahead so far?
Republican campaign contributions are lackluster. This is due in part to a fairly unpopular President who continues to make gargantuan mistakes, all in the name of attempting to secure a positive 'legacy.' The other factor is Fred Thompson.
And this points to a much deeper problem. The present field of candidates are not catching on with the Party's base, and thus, most are holding on to their money until Fred Thompson makes his announcement.
Among the announced Republican candidates, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain are still the top three, although McCain's 2nd quarter totals were totally disappointing, leading the candidate to cut campaign staff. Although Romney's totals look fairly good, his 2nd quarter was not up to par with his 1st quarter totals, and the candidate loaned personal cash to his campaign. Giuliani still leads the pack with a steady and consistent stream of contributions.
Giuliani's 2nd quarter totals were approximately equal to his 1st quarter totals, bringing his grand total to over 32 million.
While the Ron Paul campaign claims it has more cash on hand than McCain, in terms of totals raised so far Dr. Paul is not in the top tier. When his 1st and 2nd quarter totals are combined he comes up with roughly 2.5 million in campaign funds.
However, Paul runs a very frugal campaign. He rarely travels to campaign on the stump, and most of his funds are raised on the Internet. Thus, the candidate can make a couple of million go a very long way, and he doesn't have to worry about overhead that eats through money faster than Michael Moore can inhale four Big Macs from Mickey D's.
Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee appear to be in a dead-heat with regard to funds, and the rest of the 2nd tier lags far behind.
On the Democratic side, Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the 2nd quarter, raising 32.5 million. This means that he is now ahead of Hillary for the year, raising 55.7 million as compared to her 53 million.
John Edwards comes in third with a lackluster 9 million, followed by Bill Richardson with 7.2 million.
Although the money has taken on more importance than normal given the unusually early primaries, it is nonetheless common in campaigns for candidates who have the most money to lose in the actual vote counts. This would give hope to candidates such as Bill Richardson, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Mike Huckabee.
Here is a quick wrap-up of the top fundraisers so far, in order of their year-to-date totals:
REPUBLICANS
**Rudy Giuliani
**Mitt Romney
**John McCain
**Ron Paul
**Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee
**Sam Brownback
**Jim Gilmore
**Tom Tancredo
**Tommy Thompson
DEMOCRATS
**Barack Obama
**Hillary Clinton
**John Edwards
**Bill Richardson
**Chris Dodd
**Joe Biden
**Dennis Kucinich
**Mike Gravel
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
FRED THOMPSON MOVES TO TOP IN POLL
Washington, DC (TLS). Rasmussen Reports has been tracking poll data on all of the Presidential candidates from the beginning of the 2008 election campaign cycle and finds that as of today Fred Thompson has moved ahead of Rudy Giuliani to gain the number one position.
The Thompson bandwagon has been gradually gaining steam ever since the former Tennessee Senator and TV star announced to Fox News two months ago that he would consider a bid for the White House.
Yet no one imagined that the Senator would move to the top position in the polls even before formally announcing his candidacy. He has not appeared in any Republican debate. He has not aired any campaign ads on TV. His only overt shot at campaigning was in the form of a hilarious video blog on the Internet where Thompson responds to Michael Moore's challenge to a debate about Fidel Castro's Communist system of healthcare.
You can find that video right here on The Liberty Sphere at the end of the left-hand column.
In a related development, Thompson traveled to England to meet with former British Prime Minister and conservative icon Margaret Thatcher. President Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher formed a powerful conservative trans-Atlantic alliance in the 80s.
The elderly and frail Thatcher was once a powerful force with which to content when she forcefully and vigorously pursued conservative principles, including anti-Communism, in the face of heavy opposition in the British Parliament.
Thatcher's blessing on a Fred Thompson candidacy would be seen as a bona fide conservative 'seal of approval' in spite of the fact that Thatcher is not an American. Conservatives in this country well remember her valiant fight for liberty in a dangerous world, and her strong ties to Ronald Reagan give her opinions a great amount of weight with American conservatives.
With Hillary Clinton now running away with the Democratic nomination, pulling ahead of her closest rival Barack Obama by double-digits, Fred Thompson's bid for the White House becomes of crucial importance. Never before in the history of the country has an election been so important nor the choice any clearer. A European-styled Socialist who has stated repeatedly that she is going to take money from corporate profits vs. a Reagan Conservative who upholds the principles of the Constitution, such as personal liberty and free commerce.
Although Thompson has not yet announced, there is no doubt that Fred is IN. And today's good news from the Rasmussen Poll will certainly be no insignificant factor in Thompson's decision to run.
Click here for the specific poll numbers:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_republican_presidential_primary
The Thompson bandwagon has been gradually gaining steam ever since the former Tennessee Senator and TV star announced to Fox News two months ago that he would consider a bid for the White House.
Yet no one imagined that the Senator would move to the top position in the polls even before formally announcing his candidacy. He has not appeared in any Republican debate. He has not aired any campaign ads on TV. His only overt shot at campaigning was in the form of a hilarious video blog on the Internet where Thompson responds to Michael Moore's challenge to a debate about Fidel Castro's Communist system of healthcare.
You can find that video right here on The Liberty Sphere at the end of the left-hand column.
In a related development, Thompson traveled to England to meet with former British Prime Minister and conservative icon Margaret Thatcher. President Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher formed a powerful conservative trans-Atlantic alliance in the 80s.
The elderly and frail Thatcher was once a powerful force with which to content when she forcefully and vigorously pursued conservative principles, including anti-Communism, in the face of heavy opposition in the British Parliament.
Thatcher's blessing on a Fred Thompson candidacy would be seen as a bona fide conservative 'seal of approval' in spite of the fact that Thatcher is not an American. Conservatives in this country well remember her valiant fight for liberty in a dangerous world, and her strong ties to Ronald Reagan give her opinions a great amount of weight with American conservatives.
With Hillary Clinton now running away with the Democratic nomination, pulling ahead of her closest rival Barack Obama by double-digits, Fred Thompson's bid for the White House becomes of crucial importance. Never before in the history of the country has an election been so important nor the choice any clearer. A European-styled Socialist who has stated repeatedly that she is going to take money from corporate profits vs. a Reagan Conservative who upholds the principles of the Constitution, such as personal liberty and free commerce.
Although Thompson has not yet announced, there is no doubt that Fred is IN. And today's good news from the Rasmussen Poll will certainly be no insignificant factor in Thompson's decision to run.
Click here for the specific poll numbers:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_republican_presidential_primary
Friday, June 08, 2007
What's Going On In California?
Washington, DC (TLS). News sources in the state of California are reporting a massive upheaval in the political landscape over the past few weeks. Clearly, Rudy Giuliani has maintained a substantial lead ever since he announced, but recent days have shown that lead slipping.
Plus, another unexpected phenomenon has occurred.
Fred Thompson has surged ahead to tie John McCain at the Number Two spot in the polls among likely Republican voters in California. And this is before Thompson has even announced.
Polls in California are showing both McCain and Giuliani slipping, particularly Giuliani. The Fred Thompson surge is most unexpected due to his solid conservative views in a state that has clearly turned Leftward over the past two decades.
Read more about the Thompson surge in California here, at the McCarville Report:
http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2007/06/fred-thompson-surges-in-california.html
Plus, another unexpected phenomenon has occurred.
Fred Thompson has surged ahead to tie John McCain at the Number Two spot in the polls among likely Republican voters in California. And this is before Thompson has even announced.
Polls in California are showing both McCain and Giuliani slipping, particularly Giuliani. The Fred Thompson surge is most unexpected due to his solid conservative views in a state that has clearly turned Leftward over the past two decades.
Read more about the Thompson surge in California here, at the McCarville Report:
http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2007/06/fred-thompson-surges-in-california.html
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Ratings of Republican Candidates--3rd Debate, 6/5/07
Manchester, NH (TLS). The 3rd major Republican debate is history. Once again, CNN did an admirable job, with the exception of the 'stupid question' we have come to expect from the mainstream media.
The stupid question tonight was, 'If you are elected how will you use former President George W. Bush?'
Other than these types of stupid questions, Wolf Blitzer and the CNN team did a very good job at managing the debate.
All of the candidates were in top form this evening, and we saw no one who appeared to be having a bad night or struggling with answers.
GENERAL EVALUATION OF DEBATE SKILL/PRESENTATION
In terms of overall communication skill, several candidates competed for top honors, including Duncan Hunter, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul. Each of these 5 candidates did an exceptional job at presenting their views.
Those who did very well but not quite up to the level of the aforementioned candidates were Tom Tancredo, Jim Gilmore, and Tommy Thompson. However, even these candidates presented themselves very well and showed very few weaknesses.
Perhaps one of the key moments during the debate came during the second half, when Duncan Hunter took on Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney for espousing views that are far outside the Republican mainstream. Hunter made a strong case for Reagan ideals being key to reaching out to moderate Republicans and Independents, rather than allowing conservative values to be usurped by the support of more gun control, socialized medicine, and other such dubious positions.
Giuliani's strongest area tonight was his ability to articulate the clear differences between Republicans and Democrats on national security and defense, and the War on Terror. He stated that, 'Not a single Democrat on this stage Sunday night would even utter the words "Islamic Terrorist." He also took direct aim at both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, particularly Edwards' contention that the War on Terror is merely a bumper sticker slogan.
Thus, in terms of presentation, Duncan Hunter showed the strongest improvement. Rudy Giuliani continued to exhibit a clear penchant for leadership, credibility, and a natural ability to look 'Presidential.'
RATINGS OF CANDIDATES ON THE ISSUES IMPACTING LIBERTY
The Liberty Sphere uses our exclusive 'Liberty Scale' for rating candidates based upon the following key issues: national defense, taxes, abortion, gun rights, the War on Terror, healthcare, immigration, and U.S. foreign policy.
Based upon these 8 key issues that impact human liberty, The Liberty Sphere rates each of the Republican candidates in tonight's debate as follows (10 being the highest score):
Duncan Hunter--10
Mike Huckabee--10
Jim Gilmore--10
Tom Tancredo--8
Ron Paul--7
Rudy Giuliani--7
Tommy Thompson--7
John McCain--5
While John McCain can be given high marks for his stand on the War on Terror and its tributary in Iraq, The Liberty Sphere is still very concerned about his long-standing opposition to gun rights, immigration control and border security, and his assault on First Amendment/free speech through McCain-Feingold.
Frankly, however, we would have no problem supporting McCain if he is chosen to go up against ANY Democratic candidate in the general election. In this contest, even the very weakest Republican candidate is a vast improvement over the outright socialistic, pacifistic anti-freedom exhibited by each of the Democratic candidates.
McCain may well have succeeded in regaining his 'number three' position among the front-runners with tonight's strong performance. While Mike Huckabee came on very strong, we are concerned with the 'ministerial' moniker that is increasingly hanging around his neck.
The Liberty Sphere has no problem with ministers running for office, and we believe that Huckabee is a very good man and a strong candidate. Our concern is that the Baptist Minister tag will hurt him among certain portions of the electorate.
It will be interesting to see how the polling data falls out over the next few days with regard to McCain and Huckabee.
Look for Duncan Hunter to move upward in the polls.
The stupid question tonight was, 'If you are elected how will you use former President George W. Bush?'
Other than these types of stupid questions, Wolf Blitzer and the CNN team did a very good job at managing the debate.
All of the candidates were in top form this evening, and we saw no one who appeared to be having a bad night or struggling with answers.
GENERAL EVALUATION OF DEBATE SKILL/PRESENTATION
In terms of overall communication skill, several candidates competed for top honors, including Duncan Hunter, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul. Each of these 5 candidates did an exceptional job at presenting their views.
Those who did very well but not quite up to the level of the aforementioned candidates were Tom Tancredo, Jim Gilmore, and Tommy Thompson. However, even these candidates presented themselves very well and showed very few weaknesses.
Perhaps one of the key moments during the debate came during the second half, when Duncan Hunter took on Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney for espousing views that are far outside the Republican mainstream. Hunter made a strong case for Reagan ideals being key to reaching out to moderate Republicans and Independents, rather than allowing conservative values to be usurped by the support of more gun control, socialized medicine, and other such dubious positions.
Giuliani's strongest area tonight was his ability to articulate the clear differences between Republicans and Democrats on national security and defense, and the War on Terror. He stated that, 'Not a single Democrat on this stage Sunday night would even utter the words "Islamic Terrorist." He also took direct aim at both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, particularly Edwards' contention that the War on Terror is merely a bumper sticker slogan.
Thus, in terms of presentation, Duncan Hunter showed the strongest improvement. Rudy Giuliani continued to exhibit a clear penchant for leadership, credibility, and a natural ability to look 'Presidential.'
RATINGS OF CANDIDATES ON THE ISSUES IMPACTING LIBERTY
The Liberty Sphere uses our exclusive 'Liberty Scale' for rating candidates based upon the following key issues: national defense, taxes, abortion, gun rights, the War on Terror, healthcare, immigration, and U.S. foreign policy.
Based upon these 8 key issues that impact human liberty, The Liberty Sphere rates each of the Republican candidates in tonight's debate as follows (10 being the highest score):
Duncan Hunter--10
Mike Huckabee--10
Jim Gilmore--10
Tom Tancredo--8
Ron Paul--7
Rudy Giuliani--7
Tommy Thompson--7
John McCain--5
While John McCain can be given high marks for his stand on the War on Terror and its tributary in Iraq, The Liberty Sphere is still very concerned about his long-standing opposition to gun rights, immigration control and border security, and his assault on First Amendment/free speech through McCain-Feingold.
Frankly, however, we would have no problem supporting McCain if he is chosen to go up against ANY Democratic candidate in the general election. In this contest, even the very weakest Republican candidate is a vast improvement over the outright socialistic, pacifistic anti-freedom exhibited by each of the Democratic candidates.
McCain may well have succeeded in regaining his 'number three' position among the front-runners with tonight's strong performance. While Mike Huckabee came on very strong, we are concerned with the 'ministerial' moniker that is increasingly hanging around his neck.
The Liberty Sphere has no problem with ministers running for office, and we believe that Huckabee is a very good man and a strong candidate. Our concern is that the Baptist Minister tag will hurt him among certain portions of the electorate.
It will be interesting to see how the polling data falls out over the next few days with regard to McCain and Huckabee.
Look for Duncan Hunter to move upward in the polls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)