Billionaire and presidential race spoiler Ross Perot is back. During the 1992 race Perot was famous for making economic charts and graphs part of his political process as he attempted to explain in clear terms the economic trends of taxation, government spending, GDP and national debt, and why he thought we were headed towards disaster.
Now Perot has launched a web site, Perot Charts, which is just stock full of charts and graphs highlighting America’s “economic crises” due to deficit spending.
In a statement Monday, Perot said the nation's debt reached $9.4 trillion in April and is rising more than $1 billion a day.
"We are leaving our children and grandchildren with debt they cannot possibly pay," he said. "The economic crisis facing America today is far greater than anything since the Great Depression."
There’s also a blog with some additional materials. I rather like this chart:
It clearly shows that the top 10 percent of earners pay an astounding 69.7 percent of the taxes in this country. Add in “earned income tax credit” and what we have here is wealth redistribution (can you say “socialism” children?).
Now we hear that Obama wants to eliminate the $250K limit on Social Security taxes:
The presidential candidate told senior citizens in Ohio that it is unfair for middle-class earners to pay the Social Security tax "on every dime they make," while millionaires and billionaires pay it on only "a very small percentage of their income."
This would be the largest expansion of FDR’s “New Deal” since LBJ’s “Great Society”. Obama would be turning something that was originally intended to be a pensioning program for retirees into yet another liberal wealth redistribution scheme. It’s bad enough that the government takes my money and returns it years later with a fraction of the interest that I could earn in the private sector. Now he wants to take money and flat out give it to people who didn’t earn it.
To further complicate matters, Obama is proposing a “Doughnut Plan” in which income between $102K and $250K would still be immune to Social Security tax. Any doubt that once in place, the hole of this “doughnut” would gradually shrink until it completely disappears?
McCain, on the other hand, would not consider an increase “under any imaginable circumstance” (something Obama would never promise). Then again, he is mangling the presentation of his Social Security plan to the point of appearing to be flip-flopping on the word that frightens liberals so much: “privatization”.
Hey McCain, when you allow younger workers to choose the accounts they want to put their retirement savings into it is in fact partial privatization, so don’t be afraid of calling it that. Old people will understand as long as you guarantee their retirement income too. We have to get out of this hole. Lead us there, and maybe even libertarians like me will follow.
The Politico has a poll up that asks what will happen with the Ron Paul supporters. Not too many responses yet, but the trend is undeniable.
I have to admit that I was one of the 82%.
After all, if McCain can’t get mainstream conservatives to support him, what hope does he have of gaining the support of Libertarians?
Personally, I’m starting to take a hard look at Bob Barr.
At Hillary's invitation, Obama visited her at her Washington home tonight. The blogosphere and MSM alike is buzzing with theories that she is now aiming to be VP.
Even Jay Leno is commenting on the story, with this quip tonight:
And today Hillary Clinton's camp said she is not actively seeking the vice-presidential nomination. And then her pantsuit caught on fire.
Personally, I think even the naive Obama will be too smart to allow Hillary into his political bed, especially after the hard-fought 13-month campaign of debates and sound bites. As the Delta Democrat Times says:
Young Mr. Obama has sought to cast himself as something of a lamb, a warmer, fuzzier member of the political herd, and as such I think he'd do well to remember the always relevant advice of one Woody Allen in such matters as this: “The lion and the lamb may lie down together, but the lamb won't get much sleep.”
But the American Spectator is jovially begging liberals to "throw us into the Obama-Clinton briar patch":
It might even be easier to run against Billary at the bottom of the ticket than it would be to beat them at the top. It was bizarre enough to imagine Bill Clinton as "First Gentleman" (or First Lout: "Better put some ice on that"). But trying to imagine him as the Second Fiddle to a Second Fiddle is enough to make any sane voter run away screaming. Not only would we have a frighteningly angry, priapic narcissist trying to butt in on presidential decision-making, but we would have a frighteningly angry priapic narcissist trying to butt in past a vice president who herself is trying to butt in on presidential decision-making. And all while both of them will surely again be dodging real subpoenas and imaginary sniper fire.
AND CAN YOU imagine how easy it would be for John McCain to contrast himself with Obama-Billary? He's already going to be erasing Obama's image as a change agent and replacing it with the truth of Obama as a conventional liberal. With Billary beside Obama, though, Obama's whole slogan goes out the door: From "Change you can believe in" to "Conventional liberalism you can't trust." After all, an exit poll from one of the recent primaries showed that just two-fifths of Democrats thought that Sen. Clinton is trustworthy. (How even those two-fifths can be so deluded is a matter for psychologists, not columnists, to explore.)
Hilarious!
But as the UK Telegraph points out, the differences between Obama and McCain have a lot in common:
In fact, one of the deeply weird things about this already extremely weird campaign is that the two candidates have, both, in the past, appealed to precisely the same group of people: moderates, independents, non-partisan voters, whatever you want to call them. Whereas the past two or three presidential races have pitted Establishment Republicans (Bush, Dole) against Establishment Democrats (Gore, Kerry), both McCain and Obama have made their names by being something different.
True, McCain is not exactly a man of the Left. He doesn't object much to guns, opposes abortion, and has a Vietnam vet's way with swear words that would be unacceptable at most liberal dinner parties.
But he has nevertheless defied his own party's mainstream on a number of issues, putting his name on legislation designed to deal with campaign finance reform (together with Democrat Russ Feingold), climate change (together with Democrat Joe Lieberman) and, most defiantly of all, immigration reform (together with very liberal Democrat Teddy Kennedy).
So even with stories like Angry Clinton Supporters Start Rallying for McCain Online (check out their website), a lot of conservatives are going to refuse to vote for McCain -- not to mention virtually every Ron Paul supporter.
And this will only get worse if Bob Barr gets his way and is included in the debates between Obama and McCain. And with the liberal MSM in charge of the debates, do you think they will pass up the opportunity to split the "conservative" vote and guarantee their Obama a sweeping victory?
No doubt about it, the fun is going to continue right up through November.
The Condi rumor-mill is churning again, this time rumor has it that she is "actively campaigning" for the VP spot on the McCain ticket.
"Condi Rice has been actively, actually in recent weeks, campaigning for this," Senor said.
The party strategist said Rice could represent an ideal vice presidential candidate when paired with the Arizona senator, who is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
"What the McCain campaign has to consider is whether or not they want to pick a total outsider, a fresh face, someone a lot younger than him, a governor who people aren't that familiar with," Senor said. "The challenge they're realizing is that they'll have to have to spend 30-45 days, which they won't have at that point, educating the American public about who this person is.
"The other category is someone who people instantly say, the second they see that announcement, I get it, that person could be president tomorrow. Condi Rice is an option."
As far as cutting-edge, minority-rights politics goes, Republican black woman on the ticket trumps either of the Democrat nominees. Particularly one that grew up in the conditions that she did, and one that is as brilliant as she is.
And to have someone who actually believes in the Second Amendment is a dream worth thinking about. Not to mention that the up-at-4am-to-stay-in-shape angle will play well with the soccer moms.
U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement on District of Columbia v. Heller:
Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on District of Columbia v. Heller, a landmark case for all Americans who believe as I do that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. I am proud to have joined in an amicus brief to the Court calling for a ruling in keeping with the clear intent of our Founding Fathers, which ensures the Second Amendment rights of the residents of District of Columbia are reaffirmed.
Damn it. Just when I think the man's is totally useless, he comes out and does something good. Of course, I still don't trust him.
A week ago I predicted McCain's victory in November because, with Hillary's Texas and Ohio victories, the war in the Democrat party will continue with the end game being the complete alienation of half of the voters within the party, no matter who wins in the end.
The best proof that I could possibly ask for comes from the hard-left blog, Tennessee Guerilla Women. Once proud of the party that has both a woman and a black man running for president, the poster finds herself "stunned" that she may not be able to support Obama should he win the nomination:
There have been numerous statements by Barack Obama that have led me to this position. These include the persistent use of rightwing frames, the naive assertion that he can end the culture war, the repeated and absurd claim that the Clintons are to blame for the partisanship of the 1990s, the trashing of the Clinton presidency, the denigration of Hillary's experience as First Lady, the attacks on her character, and Obama's repeated use of sexist dog whistles. And then there is the shameful Donnie McClurkin affair, as well as Obama's pandering to Christians. And especially, there is Obama's failure to take a stand or speak out against the outrageously sexist media treatment of our first ever viable woman candidate. (To be fair, Obama is not the only one I hold responsible for the failure to stand up for the principles of the Democratic Party. Howard Dean comes to mind.)
There is also Obama's arrogant assertion that Hillary would have trouble getting the votes of his supporters, while he would have no trouble getting the votes of her supporters. I'm accustomed to having my vote taken for granted, but I am not accustomed to having my face rubbed in it.
Apparently, I am not alone.
Precisely.
Another example from the opposite side of the war comes from a letter to the editor (one of many) in the SF Chronicle:
I served in President Bill Clinton's administration from 1993-1995 as senior speechwriter for HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros. I am appalled by Sen. Hillary Clinton's repeated insinuations that presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain is better qualified to be commander in chief than Sen. Barack Obama.
I have never before heard a Democratic presidential candidate suggest that their Democratic rival was less qualified to serve as president than a prospective Republican opponent. Drawing sharp comparisons between herself and Sen. Obama is acceptable "hardball" politics. But by implying that Sen. Obama's credentials are inferior to Sen. McCain's, Sen. Clinton has crossed the line between acceptable and scurrilous behavior.
Her scorched-earth tactics are absolutely reprehensible.
After a Democrat primary with historically high turnouts, Hillary's women will stay home in droves should Obama win, and African-Americans will fail to show should Hillary win.
The unfortunate consequence will be that Republicans will retain the White House by instilling John McCain. That will be the day that Republicans learn exactly what "Pyrrhic victory" means.
Today, Republicans are celebrating Victory over the Democrat Party.
Hillary won both Texas and Ohio, reviving her candidacy and giving her the momentum to keep her campaign going. From this point on, every Democrat primary matters, right down to the 3rd of June when Democrats in Montana and South Dakota go to the polls.
And so we have another three months of sniping within the Democrat Party and another $20 to $30 million in advertising in which Hillary and Obama tear each other apart.
Come November, three things will depress the Democrat turnout. First, all those young blacks that voted for Obama, and that gave money to a political campaign for the first time in their lives. If Hillary wins (or steals, via superdelegates) the nomination, those disaffected voters will stay home -- possibly for several voting cycles.
Second, there's all those women Boomers that supported Hillary, many of which dug into their fixed-income pockets and gave to her campaign. If Obama wins, look for them to stay home.
Third, enter Ralph Nadir, who will only siphon votes from the eventual Democrat candidate, whomever it turns out to be.
Complicating matters is the possibility of a Democrat primary re-vote in Michigan and Florida and those silly superdelegates. Both issues hold enormous emotional energy, the discharge of which could tear the Democrat Party apart.
Meanwhile John McCain gets to focus on framing his race the way he wants as he stands virtually unopposed. Huckabee has officially dropped out and Ron Paul, even though he gets to keep his day job, long ago became the Ross Perot of the 21st century.
Make no mistake, barring something on a seismic scale that alters the political landscape, John McCain will be our next president. Of the three Democrats running, he is the most electable. I only wish that there was a conservative choice that had a chance of winning.
On the other hand, I think back to the Conservative Leadership Conference in Reno last year, when every single panel member said emphatically and with great conviction that Hillary would be our next president, even the revered Captain Ed.
But for now, I'm sticking with my plan to vote for neo-Libertarian Wayne Allyn Root.
Postscript: Rush probably wasn't responsible for Hillary's win in Texas, but you know he'll be chortling today.
Muth's Truths has a number of reasons not to vote for McCain. Best quote:
Conservative columnist Ann Coulter said this week she’d vote for Hillary rather than vote for John McCain. Sounds pretty extreme, right? But guess what? She’s not alone. I overheard a Republican woman at a GOP event yesterday who said, “I’d rather slit a vein than vote for John McCain.” Nice bumper sticker. Many conservatives aren’t just saying “No” to John McCain. They’re saying, “Hell, no!”
I agree.
Guardian WatchBlog breaks his blogfast to encourage conservatives to vote for Mitt Romney. As always, a great post. Best quote:
To paraphrase an old joke: one of them is an amnesty-granting, rights-limiting, global warming-believing, terrorist-coddling, industry-destroying Democrat. The other is Hillary Clinton.
In the latest sign that a conservative backlash is starting to build against John McCain, conservative commentator Ann Coulter said Thursday she is prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton over the Arizona senator in a general election match up. . . .
"If you are looking at substance rather than if there is an R or a D after his name, manifestly, if he's our candidate, than Hillary is going to be our girl, because she's more conservative than he is," Coulter said. "I think she would be stronger on the war on terrorism."
McCain touts his rating with the American Conservative Union frequently, trying to prove that he isn't indistinguishable from a Democrat. American Thinker performed an analysis of McCain's ACU score:
First, a rating of 82.3 is not really that high. It puts Senator McCain in 39th place among senators serving in 2006, the latest year for which the ACU has its ratings posted online. For that most recent year in particular, McCain scored only 65, putting him in 47th place for that year.
Hmmm, 47th out of 100 when the Democrats have a majority. He is far from the most conservative Republican out there. 39th isn't much better.
Further analysis shows:
So where did McCain differ from the ACU? The big areas were taxes, campaign finance reform, the environment and, most recently, immigration. There was also a smattering of support for trial lawyers; federal intervention in health, education, safety or voting issues; internationalism; and some social issues. He was more consistently conservative on spending and defense issues.
AT notes that in one third of the votes scored by the ACU, a swing of only two senators would have changed the outcome. In two thirds, a swing of only ten were necessary.
As someone remarked, McCain is like a baseball player who gets all his hits after two outs and no one on base, and all his outs with men in scoring position.
Money quote:
What this means is that McCain's ACU ratings since 1998 put him on the liberal side among Republicans. The few Republicans consistently more liberal than McCain would be Chafee (formerly R-RI), Collins (R-ME), Snowe (R-ME) and Specter (R-PA). One could expect senators from northeastern states to be more liberal since their constituencies demand it, but McCain represents the fairly conservative state of Arizona. (Arizona's other senator, Kyl, has a lifetime rating of 96.9, and half the representatives from there have ratings of 94.7 or higher.)
How much more liberal would McCain vote if his constituency put even the slightest pressure on him in that direction?
Exactly. And just how much will his presidency differ from that of a Democrats?
Ann Coulter concurs, observing:
The bright side of the Florida debacle is that I no longer fear Hillary Clinton. (I mean in terms of her becoming president -- on a personal level, she's still a little creepy.) I'd rather deal with President Hillary than with President McCain. With Hillary, we'll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of the responsibility. . . .
At least under President Hillary, Republicans in Congress would know that they're supposed to fight back. When President McCain proposes the same ideas -- tax hikes, liberal judges and Social Security for illegals -- Republicans in Congress will support "our" president -- just as they supported, if only briefly, Bush's great ideas on amnesty and Harriet Miers.
A McCain administration will wreck the Republican party and do irreparable harm to the conservative movement in America. God help me, I may end up abandoning Root and voting Romney, just to stop McCain.
As I look at the array of available candidates left in the smoking ruins of the 2008 presidential primaries, several things occur to me. First, I understand the Left being jerked to the left by the MoveOn.org and George Soros crowd. I really do. It makes sense. The socialists have taken control of the liberal movement.
But what the hell is jerking MY party to the left?
Why is it that there is not a single candidate that represents anything even close to what I believe?
Where was I when Reaganism died?
With "Bye, Bye Miss American Pie" playing softly in my head (now with new meaning -- think about it), I return to the question I have been struggling with since Fred Thompson left the race: who do I support now?
Given that Huckabee and Giuliani seem to be lost causes (not that I could support either one, anyway), and given that I do not consider doing nothing a viable option, I am left with seven choices.
I could support Mitt Romney, the man that went to Michigan and made promises no one could possibly keep in order to woo Detroit voters. The man whose campaign spread a lie in order to suppress support of Thompson during the crucial Iowa caucus. The man that has flip-flopped on at least 15 issues, including my beloved Second Amendment.
I could support John McCain, war hero and experienced Senator. Of course, Ann Coulter properly points out that McCain's "Straight Talk Express" takes a very crooked path as he "enthusiastically (promotes) amnesty for illegal aliens, Social Security credit for illegal aliens, criminal trials for terrorists, stem-cell research on human embryos, crackpot global warming legislation and free speech-crushing campaign-finance laws." Not to mention his repeated opposition to the Bush tax cuts, waterboarding terrorists and drilling in the ANWR. And Ann completely left out McCain's poor record on gun rights and that he is a danger to the Second Amendment.
I believe Mitt will tell voters anything they want to hear, and will take his own liberal path when elected. With McCain, at least I know what I'm getting. The trouble is, apart from the continued prosecution of the War on Islamofascism, I don't like much of it.
I could support Ron Paul, a man who absolutely will not prosecute the War on Islamofascism. So no, I won't vote for him. Besides, as the Club for Growth said, the man is a purist to a fault (literally).
And so I come to choices 4 through 6: Hillary, Edwards or Obama. That's right, I could cross party lines in the primary and vote Democrat.
On the night of the Iowa caucus, I listened to the speeches of Edwards, Hillary and Obama. I will tell you now that Edwards' and Hillary's speeches scared me to the point that I decided right then and there that if either one of them is elected then I'm joining a militia to prepare for the coming disintegration of the Union. In fact, if I can't find a militia then I'm going to start one. Buy a few hundred acres of Tennessee wilderness and go practice war and survival.
Obama's speech was scary, but not to the point where I fear for the survival of my offspring. I can see me crossing the line to vote for him.
One major problem: I want to support someone in a local race (Bill Giannini for county Tax Assessor!) and voting in the Democrat primary would make that impossible. I have a larger impact in local races, so the Democrat options are out (until November, that is).
My seventh and final option is to vote for Fred Thompson in the primary (he is still on the Tennessee ballot) and Libertarian in the fall. I could easily get behind Wayne Allyn Root. These would be pure protest votes, a message to the collective GOP that they no longer represent me. [Besides, I saw Root speak at the Conservative Leadership Conference and absolutely loved him. His speech is on YouTube and also his campaign site.]
You often hear people say that they didn't leave the party, the party left them. I used to feel that way. But now I feel that I didn't leave the party, the party has run screaming past trying to be "moderate" to a total abandonment of all that makes it a force for good in this dangerous world.
And so I am decided. Fred Thompson in the primary. Then a few months to think about it with a probable vote for Wayne Allyn Root (current frontrunner in the Libertarian race) in the fall.
Update: The Fourth Horseman writes via email:
The only real issue I see between McCain and Clinton is Iraq, and I don't think there will be that much difference in the result once Clinton stops running to the left, i.e. after she has the nomination. I am almost to the point of "let them have it for four years" and then let's see if we can't have a candidate who can get it right. That might be better than letting McCain "work" with the Dems to pass "bi-partisan" socialist legislation.
To which Advised by Wolves responds:
Agreed. . . Either a McCain or a Clinton Presidency will be a failure. Let the “D” get the blame.
My problem with that is the fact that it would be Clinton with a Democrat (of the Pelosi flavor) congress working together -- a dangerous combination that could very well do irreparable harm to our flavor of freedom. Besides, with the press solidly on Hillary's side, the fact that the presidency is a failure won't come out for another 20 years. Just look at how many people still think Bill will be thought of kindly by history.
Still, their positions lend credence to my support of the Libertarian option.
So reports The Hill:
During a private luncheon with Republican chiefs of staff on Capitol Hill, DeLay — who has criticized McCain for years — stepped up his attacks in the wake of the senator’s reemergence as a top presidential contender. DeLay said McCain has no principles and indicated he would not endorse the senator if he won the GOP primary.
“If McCain gets the nomination, I don’t know what I’ll do,” DeLay said at the Capitol Hill Club, according to a source in the room. “I might have to sit this one out.”
He added that a McCain triumph for the GOP nomination would destroy the Republican Party.
DeLay, always insightful.
Justin Wax from the Tennessean supported Huckabee, even to the point of sending him an early campaign contribution. But then he started learning the facts:
I was completely shocked when I read an Arkansas Leader article stating Huckabee issued more than 700 commutations and pardons during his tenure, more than Arkansas' six neighboring states combined. I was even more repulsed when I learned the list of pardons and commutations included convicted murderers and rapists.
As a fiscal conservative, I was annoyed with Huckabee's protectionist-sounding rhetoric and particularly his name-calling, labeling the conservative group Club for Growth, the "Club for Greed." His immigration policies as governor also gave me cause for concern, but I pushed all of Huckabee's faults to the back of my mind, instead choosing to dwell on his pro-life record and position on the war. However, when I studied the Wayne Dumond story and Huckabee's "desire" to see the convicted rapist released into society, alarm bells went off. After reading the Arkansas Leader article on Huckabee's shocking propensity to side with convicted murderers and rapists over victims, I meekly pulled off my Huckabee bumper stickers.
Wax then lists his problems with the rest of the "conservative" candidates:
As nice a summation as I have seen, although I have problems with McCain that aren't listed, primarily the fact that he hates both the First and Second amendments.
Now go read Wax's excellent reasoning as to why Thompson is his choice for president. Money quote:
Thompson "hands down" possesses excellent judgment, and he will win because he is the most reliable, consistent, principled conservative in this race. Unleash the Fredmentum.
Nice.
The Washington Post addresses some of the tales that politicians tell:
Mitt Romney says he "saw" his father "march" with Martin Luther King Jr. Rudolph W. Giuliani claims that he is one of the "five best-known Americans in the world." According to John McCain, the Constitution established the United States as a "Christian nation." Ron Paul believes that a "NAFTA superhighway" is being planned to link Mexico with Canada and undermine U.S. sovereignty.
On the other side of the political divide, Sen. Barrack Obama says there are more young black males in prison than in college. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton claims she has a "definitive timetable" for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. John Edwards insists that NAFTA -- the North American Free Trade Agreement -- has cost Americans "millions of jobs." Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. boasts about his experience negotiating an arms-control treaty with Leonid Brezhnev.
All those claims, made over the past four months as part of the presidential campaign, are demonstrably false. . . .
When a candidate is caught making a clearly false statement, embarrassment or ridicule often ensues -- and over time a reputation can form. But the electoral rewards derived from stretching the truth or distorting a rival's record just as frequently outweigh the fleeting political costs.
One would hope that the political cost of telling a lie would be long term and the electoral rewards would be fleeting.
On the good side, however, WaPo also says that blogs, YouTube, information databases such as LexisNexis, and the 24-hour news cycle has resulted in mistakes and inaccuracies (and outright lies) are being identified quicker than ever. The most recent example is Huckabee's claim that "we have more Pakistani illegals coming across our border than all other nationalities except those immediately south of the border."
So Mitt handily wins the Iowa GOP straw poll. Of course, fellow front-runners Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Fred Thompson didn't even bother to participate. And Mitt spent two million dollars on television ads alone, far outpacing anyone else.
On Politics does a cost-benefit analysis of the Iowa straw poll:
More than a thousand dollars a vote? Do we really want someone who throws money around like that to be in charge of our tax dollars?
On the other hand, what kind of guy do we want? Laura Ingraham ponders that question as she notes that Huckabee is a really nice guy, but:
Which brings me to the question: Do we really want a nice president? I kind of want a mean, tough S.O.B at this point — who can cut the legs out from underneath the Dems and the dinosaur media who are invested in America's defeat. Someone who seems pleasant on the surface but who knows how to send in the daisy-cutters when al Qaeda or Taliban thugs are sleeping.
Evidently Ms. Ingraham isn't the only one that feels that way. Byron York notes that fourth-place Tancredo received the biggest applause of all the candidates:
The unexpected thing was that Tancredo’s applause-getter wasn’t about immigration. Instead, Tancredo told the story of Danny Dietz, a Navy SEAL who was killed in Afghanistan in circumstances Tancredo blamed on restrictive rules of engagement. “When I am president, I will never, ever, ever send anyone into harm’s way with a CYA memo drafted by a Pentagon lawyer,” Tancredo told the crowd. “The only rule of engagement I’m going to have in a Tancredo administration is this: We win, you lose!”
Right on, Tancredo! I'd have applauded too.
While Huckabee's second place finish was a surprise, so was Ron Paul's fifth place. Blog Critics exclaims:
Wow. He's not polling under 1% anymore, now is he? Everyone is just going to have to come to terms with the fact that Ron Paul really does have a significant base of support, as evidenced by his impressive fund-raising and his strong online presence. He won't win the nomination, of course, but I do expect him to be the last candidate to concede, and to give one helluva interesting speech at the GOP Convention (assuming they let him come within 100 meters of a microphone).
In spite of some very dedicated Fred Heads, Fred Thompson garnered only 1% of the vote. Still, he hasn't even announced or started marketing himself, yet he came in ahead of well-known candidates John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. Barely, but that's got to mean something.
(Jeez, McCain came in behind Duncan Hunter. Who's he?)
Fred won in one way: Tommy Thompson said that he would quit the race if he didn't come in first or second -- and he finished in sixth place. If he keeps his promise, this should put a stake in the heart of his campaign. So when Fred Thompson announces and starts running in earnest, voters won't be confused by having two Thompsons to try and keep straight.
But the real question is, "So what?" Captain Morrissey thinks that the low turnout is meaningless (there were 40% fewer votes than the one in 1999).
Personally, I think a poll that is mainly a fund-raising event for the GOP party in Iowa and that is held this far in advance of the primaries is fairly meaningless. On the other hand, W won the '99 Iowa GOP straw poll with about the same percentage as Mitt did today, so maybe it means something after all.
Nah.
Forbes polled voting age Americans and asked them to match attributes to presidential candidates:
It's not clear how "activist" might describe a president. Presumably, all holders of that office would pursue their own agendas vigorously. But it does seem to indicate a perception among voters as to how engaged in important issues a candidate is, rather than simply issuing position papers or repeating a canned stump speech. At the same time, however, Gore also happens to be rated as the most boring candidate of both parties.
There's more information at the link, but here's the high-level data:
| Candidate | Percent |
| Al Gore (D) | 51 |
| Hillary Clinton (D) | 36 |
| Barack Obama (D) | 36 |
| Dennis Kucinich (D) | 28 |
| John Edwards (D) | 24 |
| Bill Richardson (D) | 21 |
| Rudy Giuliani (R) | 19 |
| Newt Gingrich (R) | 19 |
| Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D) | 19 |
| Christopher Dodd (D) | 19 |
| John McCain (R) | 18 |
| Mitt Romney (R) | 13 |
| Michael Bloomberg (I) | 13 |
| Tommy Thompson (R) | 13 |
| Fred Thompson (R) | 10 |
McCain's Straight Talk Express seems to be going in reverse. Only 8% of likely Republican voters in Nevada support him, according to the most recent Mason-Dixon poll.
Even worse, he is also polling in single digits in two key early-voting states: 6% in Iowa and 7% in South Carolina.
If he fails to pump up his fundraising and continues to poll badly, rumor has it that McCain could pull out of race by autumn.
It's a little early to count him out, but the writing seems to be on the wall. According to Mason-Dixon:
Expect Edwards to be declared unelectable now that his wife, Elizabeth Edwards, has come out in support of gay marriage.
You have to admit, Rudy is doing pretty good for a guy whose South Carolina campaign chairman was indicted for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute last week.
And you have to give Fred Thompson props for running the most effective non-campaign in history.
True conservative former senator Rick Santorum said that he'll back any Republican nominee for president in 2008 except John McCain.
"The only one I wouldn’t endorse is McCain. I don’t agree with him on hardly any issues. I don’t think he has the temperament and leadership ability to move the country in the right direction.”
Over the years, Santorum said he and McCain have disagreed on campaign finance reform, environmental policy, tax cuts, immigration and other issues, and he feels the Arizona Senator isn’t as strongly anti-abortion as he would like.
Putting McCain in the White House would be like electing a "centrist" Democrat. You'd have four years of a "Republican" that governs like the last "Republican" congress.