OnPrincipleBlog

Unless you travel via Horse and Carriage like our Amish friends or have been floating down the Amazon for the last week, you’ve heard the news that former Vice-President Al Gore has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Pundits and Analysts across all media forms are dissecting this award along predictable lines:

1. So what, look at past NPP winners
2. What does Global Warming have to do with World Peace?
3. What about nominee, seriously, Rush Limbaugh?
4. What about Al’s above average energy consumption?
5. Despite his foibles, isn’t this a worthy recognition of his exhaustive efforts?
6. Is Al Gore’s science even accurate?

I must confess that while expecting this sort of talk from “insiders”, I was just bracing for yet another mass acceptance of propagandist intentions from liberal leaning, academic elites. Until I saw this headline:

“CNN.com readers sound off on Gore, Nobel Peace Prize“.

Curious, yet instinctively dubious, I clicked through. Note a few key entries - from CNN, not FoxNews:

Roy Woodcock of Rochester, Washington

What a disgraceful choice. Al Gore has promoted bad science and dishonesty, but done nothing to promote peace. I must conclude that his selection is based on pure politics.

(Cbass Comment: Well, in fact, the Peace Prize is selected by Politicians. Unlike the Prizes for many other disciplines, such as Science and Medicine, it tends to be awarded to current leaders based on global perceptions of their current efforts. Other Nobel committees feature discipline specific academics and practitioners who review the PROVEN contribution OVER TIME of a particular idea, discovery or research finding. This Prize, while sometimes given to positive reformers, is intrinsically designed to be a political prize.)

Chris Smith of Bexley, Ohio

Al Gore? Nobel Peace Prize? Wow, that really degrades my image of that prize. Why not give it to Michael Moore while we’re at it? How sad.

(Cbass Comment: Great and original comment! I think the burden falls to the Nobel Committee to show how Al Gore’s work is much more than that of spokesman and polemicist. Perhaps Michael Moore could get the prize for Medicine. Oh wait, that’s right, the prize for medicine goes to someone how has made a lasting impact upon the field.)

Phillip Bernard of La Grange, Illinois

The peace prize should be reserved for furthering peace in our world. The work Mr. Gore has done is conjectured quasi-science. His research does not employ a scientific method, otherwise it would have been considered for the prize for science.

(Cbass Commnet: Another good observation. Why isn’t this the Prize for Science? Probably because it would never pass the first test outlined above. One really does need to show how this is related to Peace, however - and I mean something beyond the cliché, “In 100 years, the world will be so hot and so disrupted in weather that nations will battle for water and the few remaining stable environs”. This sort of predictive award is a bit of reverse of the “wait and see” attitude of the other Prize Committees.)

Matthew Whitley of Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Over the last decades, the Nobel Peace Prize has increasingly become a laughingstock. That Al Gore of all people should be honored this year is another nail in the Nobel Peace Prize’s coffin of legitimacy and relevance. Much like the prize for literature, the peace prize is becoming nothing more than a political bauble awarded to some political insider advocating the cause of the week.

Al Gore has been “working” for climate change for an enormous period of four whole years, coincidentally discovering this new passion right when his political career was slouching to its end. The Nobel Committee actually expects us to believe that, out of all human organizations working for peace and the improvement of the human condition, Al Gore’s paltry four-year media circus of climate change advocacy is the most significant achievement we have to show for ourselves?

How ridiculous. I’m embarrassed for the legacy of the Nobel Prizes, I’m embarrassed for my country, and, if I were Al Gore, I’d be embarrassed to stand in front of the world claiming to be a worthy, legitimate recipient of the peace prize.

(Cbass Comment: Pretty much stands on it’s own.)

Michael Chiu of ??

The Nobel Peace Prize should have gone to the Monks in Myanmar. I guess leading peaceful demonstrations for freedom and democracy and consequently suffering arrests, torture, and death is not enough though.

(Cbass Comment: But they have personal motivations. . .)

Just when I think we’ve all gone crazy - I see some glimmerings of hope in sanity.

On Principle,

CBass

It’s beautiful to see democratic voices in action.

There are many reasons for Central American countries, modern 2nd world players in the World economy, to resent the USA as a superpower. Yet, there are also at least as many reasons to for them to thank God for the generosity and stability of the the USA.

Weighing the Pro’s and Con’s of this relationship are on the ballot in Costa Rica today. No matter the result, the healthy outpouring of democratic participation should be an encouraging sign for us in the US.

Through our left-leaning media, we see repeated glorification of Hugo Chavez and his Communist, militarized, fascist government blitzkrieg over the welcoming political terrain of South and Central America. But as we see in Costa Rica today, this just isn’t a holistic view of the current state of affairs and opinions of our southern friends.

An interesting summary of opinion from the Pew Global Attitudes Survey appeared in a recent Weekly Standard:

Of the seven Latin American nations polled, large majorities of Chileans (75 percent), Brazilians (74 percent), Peruvians (70 percent), Mexicans (66 percent), and Bolivians (59 percent) express little or no confidence in Chávez “to do the right thing regarding world affairs.” As Pew puts it, “He is widely recognized–and widely mistrusted–throughout Latin America.” Even in Argentina, perhaps the most anti-American country in the region, a full 43 percent of respondents have little or no confidence in Chávez.

That’s not all. Majorities in Brazil (65 percent), Chile (60 percent), Mexico (55 percent), and Bolivia (53 percent), along with a plurality in Peru (47 percent), agree that “most people are better off in a free market economy, even though some people are rich and some are poor.” Indeed, a whopping 72 percent of Venezuelans agree with that statement. “There is broad support for free-market economic policies across Latin America,” Pew reports, “despite the election in the past decade of leftist leaders.”

Just when the US seems to have discounted our President, our economy and our standing in foreign affairs - citizens in nations like Costa Rica stand in line for hours to express their voices in the the great decision of aligning with us in the march toward a collaborative future.

It seems the truths of our Declaration truly are universal and self-evident. . .

On Principle,
CBass

Japan has a new Prime Minister and, perhaps more importantly, the Free World is reminded it has a faithful friend.

The results are in. Yasuo Fukuda has won a very lopsided win over his rival Taro Aso. The two men both represent the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), which in Japan is actually a group closely aligned with George W. Bush conservatism.

Most Americans would remember the LDP’s most colorful leader, Junichiro Koizumi; the Elvis loving, staunch ally of the US and personal friend of President Bush.

What’s important about this election is definitely something about who won, but it’s more about their shared position on policies which most American’s would assume to separate the two rivals - Japan’s continued support for coalition efforts in the Middle East.

After a full week of campaigning, there were few policy differences between the two candidates on many important issues. . . both have also inherited Abe’s insistence on continuing Japan’s support of coalition forces in Afghanistan through its refueling operations in the Indian Ocean.

Students of history will remember that Japan acquiesced to a humiliating surrender in the face of America’s nuclear arsenal. Since those days, Japan’s constitution, both its written document of governance and its wounded national psyche, has forbidden the nation to raise and launch an offensive military force for over 60 years. In this light, it was amazing to see Japanese soldiers involved in the coalition of nations who fought to overthrow Saddam and wrest control in Iraq. After several years of struggle, Japanese soldiers left the theater of Iraq, but the Japanese military has been continuously supporting the Coalition forces in the Middle East theater ever since.

Say what we will about how Pres. Bush has “supposedly” lost all international support, Japan will be a key player in a world of power which is shifting the Pacific.

It’s nice to have faithful friends.

On Principle,

CBass

I know many folks on the electoral front lines who are dispirited about Republican chances in the 2008 election cycle. Whenever we discuss their ennui, I always share my high spirits, optimism and expectation toward 2008. After one such conversation, a wise friend challenged me to give her 5 bulleted talking points as to why I think a Republican probably will win the Presidency of the United States in 2008. Here are those talking points:

1. The Democratic Line-up: The GOP’s greatest strength in the general election will be the Democratic opposition. No matter who the Dem’s select, they will be no match in terms of experience for the Republican selection. Further, some Dem’s carry even more baggage than others. I look forward to seeing the GOP draw those comparisons.

2. The Republican Line-up: By any standard, the Republican field is impressive. Especially when compared to the utter lack of experience of the Democratic field. The Republicans all have high Executive or Legislative experience and none of them carry any baggage from the current Administration. They are in a great position to constantly contrast themselves with the Democrats on important issues.

3. Mobilizing a Wider Base: In a tight election cycle, there are two keys to winning: 1) Draw in moderate centrist voters and 2) mobilize the base. Two of the GOP front runners (Mitt Romney and Giuliani) and very well positioned to draw in moderates. Fred Thompson is riding a wave of Base excitement and has high name recognition among moderates. When compared to the likely Dem nominee (Hillary), all 3 should be able to excite the base and capitalize on the moderates’ displeasure with the Dem.

4. It’s the Economy: By all measures, this economy is fantastic. It is hitting some hiccups now, but some action from the current Administration and the Fed will likely keep it on the growth track. Even moderate growth over the next 12 months will result in a reduced deficit, high wages, an enlarged GDP, record highs in stocks, historic lows in unemployment and interest rates and a stabilized housing sector. Any decent candidate should do well with this message.

5. The War on Terrorism: It’s hard to say which direction this war will go, but Iraq is clearly on the right military track and we know the Surge will be drawing down next Spring. Thus, the GOP candidate can probably point to some positive signs in Iraq, praise the draw down in troops and constantly focus on the real threats of China, Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Pakistan, etc. If the electorate sees some success in Iraq and understands the threat from other quarters, the GOP should do well.

Now, in a bit more detail:

1. The Democratic Line-up:

Possibly the greatest strength for the GOP this election cycle is the Democratic field of candidates and their complete dearth of true experience (Executive, International or even Legislative):

1. There is no serious candidate with any real depth of experience in Government or in running a large, competitive organization. This will be an easy contrast to make in the general election. Hillary can reference her years in the White House, but not without making the Clinton years fair game for the campaign. This was the saving grace for the GOP in John Kerry’s “Reporting for Duty” speech at the Democratic National Convention; once he introduced it into the campaign, his military service and political activities just afterward became the championed target of conservative activists.

2. Hillary is far and away the most likely contender for the position of lead Donkey. Her negatives are among the highest of any candidate to enter the Presidential race (not necessarily the absolute highest). Most candidates with Negatives in the upper 40’s have “earned” them through making the tough decisions inherent in leadership. Hillary, by contrast, has earned them by being Hillary. Remember, she’s not a new face to most Americans. She’s been a household name and media personality for 16 years. If 49% of likely voters dislike her, having known her for 16 years, it’s difficult to move those numbers. Possible, but extremely difficult.

3. And what if Obama is selected as the Dem nominee? Well, first, that would be Barack HUSSEIN Obama. The man who has held a serious, elected Federal office for all of 2 years. The man who has attended an Islamic school, bears an Islamic name and who has stated he would love to meet - without condition - the worse human rights abusers on the planet. While he could run a perfect campaign from this point forward, surprisingly sweep the Dem nomination and run tightly with the GOP - if he does all of this, his seriously erratic statements regarding national security (civil liberties in Iraq aren’t worth defending, willingness to unconditionally meet with tyrants, desire to bomb an nuclear-armed ally, etc) will make for excruciating footage in the general election.

2. The Republican Line-up:

Any comparison of the GOP candidates, whomever wins the nomination nod, is a favorable one to the Dems. They are all polling highly, have impressive experience and don’t fit the mold of the current Administration.:

1. All Republican candidates can boast of leadership experience which runs rings any of the leading Dems about 10 times. The least experienced lead GOP contender has 10 years in the summit and makes the Dem’s look like kids. In an age of Terrorism, the distinction between maturity and juvenility should make for easy positioning. Further, none of the current front runners is a shill for the current Administration. This allows all of the front runners to distance themselves from all the perceived weaknesses of the current Administration while embracing the popular attributes.

2. If Giuliani wins the nomination, he can cash in national name recognition, storied success in leading one of the World’s leading cities (a city larger than many countries), respected performance in a time of national crisis, and historic experience prosecuting terrorists. Now, let’s compare that with the Dem’s above. To top it off, he has the moderate social values to win the middle and some Dems (ala Reagan Democrats) and the national security chops to probably maintain the base in an age of conflict.

3. If Romney wins the nomination, he can cash in on being the newest “Come back kid”, storied success in business and international Olympics and arguably impressive performance in Governing a tough, liberal state. His “flips” on social policy should enable him to snag some Dems. If Hillary is the opposing candidate, his solidly conservative policy pronouncements are likely to enable him to count on an active base, if not for excitement, then due to her negatives.

4. Fred Thompson, if he were to win the GOP nomination, can cash in his household face and experience delivering before a camera, 10 years of senate experience, an impressive performance moving Chief Justice John Roberts through a stubbornly opposed Congress and a ground swell of base support. If communicated correctly, Thompson’s commitment to Federalism, keeping government out of legislating coercive morality, may just keep the moderates at home on election day - if not turning up to vote for him.

3. Mobilizing a Wider Base:

In a close election, there are two factors to victory, drawing in moderates and mobilizing the base. And the base can always be mobilized in greater numbers than the moderates can be drawn in.

1. In a contest against Hillary, her negatives (49%) are higher than the percentage of self-identified Republicans (31.9%). In such a contest, she may actually manage help the GOP contender do both, rally the base and draw in moderates.

2. With a highly mobilized base, as Hillary’s entrenched negatives may yield, GOP candidates would reap unusually high support down the ticket - in Senate and House races and in volatile State races.

4. It’s the Economy:

It’s hard to lose an election with a strong economy. Al Gore proved it could happen, but in this election cycle, the GOP has some powerful messages to clearly parlay.

1. When Bush’s tax cuts were first passed through Congress, powerful Dems insisted they be limited to 2010, after which they expire. Bush and his advisers agreed to this because the expiration of the tax cuts would allow for an incredibly clear and easy political battle 2008. Normally, conservatives run against the unclear (and thus somewhat uncertain) specter of a numberless possible tax hike by the Dem’s. In 2008, the GOP nominee will be able to clearly communicate the EXACT amount of the tax increase in 2011 and EXACTLY what that will mean to families. This is the clearest economic message I’ve ever seen in an election cycle.

2. The stock market has hit new record highs, home ownership is at all time highs, salaries are increasing, unemployment is at historical lows, interest rates are at historical lows, job creation is very high and GDP growth is impressive, the Federal deficit is being cut quicker than originally forecasted. No one knows how the economy will fair 12 months from now, but it is likely the Fed will cut rates even lower, the housing market will at least stabilize (if not rise), the stock market is showing really strong core strength and is likely to continue to rise, jobs will continue to increase, salaries will probably continue to increase, inflation will probably stay low. If all projections hold,

5. The War on Terrorism:

No one knows how the long, global War on Terrorism will trend in the next year. But there is much to commend the GOP in this conflict:

1. There is virtually no one who doesn’t agree that the military progress in Iraq is trending favorably for stability and US interests. The surge will end, by necessity, in the Spring. So during the heat of the general election, troop levels will be reducing, violence in general may be down and political progress may be moving forward. Suddenly, the Iraq anchor may actually be a selling point. Not definitely, but very possibly.

2. No matter what happens in Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea, China, Russia, Palestine, Iran, Afghanistan and possibly even Venezuela may be hot security topics. Who among the Democrats is a serious contender on national security issues? Of them all, Hillary is the only candidate who even sounds serious in terms of national security. In light of all the negatives she brings to the race, most observers see this topic as a GOP advantage - especially, again, if Iraq continues to stabilize.

A Brief Note of Some Humility:

All of these prognostications are just that - they are educated guesses based upon current events and trends. In politics, one (1) week can feel like a eternity of news, breaking scandals and international events. In addition, each of these points is built from a substrate of assumptions regarding who is selected from each campaign. For example, if the GOP nominee is Mitt Romney, a small-state Governor with no military experience, I may assume the “War on Terrorism” to be less of an asset than if the nominee is Giuliani. These projections also don’t take into account the “Newt” factor in the GOP race - which could be a seismic change in the current field.

Why Won’t a Republican Win:

Just as I outline above the reasons I foresee a serious advantage for the GOP in the Presidential cycle, there are other developments which could spell the ruin of the GOP:

1. Immigration Reform
2. Ethic Scandals
3. Housing and Stock Turmoil
4. Collapse of Stability in Iraq
5. Oil Inflation which Cripples the Economy

On Principle,

CBass

Somehow, the same commentators who bemoaned the unprecedented length of our current Presidential Primary process are also condemning Fred! Thompson for not officially entering the fray in July or August. I would like to quickly examine these propositions.

July:

I, like most conservatives, was keenly interested in seeing Fred! Thompson officially throw his hat in the ring of GOP contenders. Thus, when I heard rumors swilling about in June that Fred! would announce the launch of his campaign in around July 4th - with $5 million in June donations, I was excited. It quickly occurred to me, however:

1. How has Fred had the time to assemble a viable national campaign? Romney invested 6 months developing a network of support which would yield $6 million in “overnight” donations to his campaign in January. Both Romney and Giuliani have sunk more than 1 year in building campaign operations which are only now starting to roll out substantive policy positions. Fred was going to do this in 2 or 3 months???
2. He’s already getting so much media attention (at least from the few folks who pay attention to these things in the summer months), why would he need to rush #1?
3. As long as he’s getting free media and can quietly focus on prepping a campaign, why would Fred! risk ruining all this for the sake of an early announcement?

For these and probable other reasons, Fred! Refrained from announcing in early July.

August:

Conventional wisdom then commanded an early August announcement. Still I questioned this:

1. August certainly gave Fred! more time to organize, but this time was filled with attracting new leaders and restructuring his not-a-campaign. Why announce while there’s still important work to be done?
2. Despite the summer doldrums, Fred! was polling in a solid second place nationally and near the top in two of the early primary states. Why announce early when you don’t need the name recognition?
3. Fred! Is almost guaranteed to get a boost in the polls for several weeks after announcing. Why do this just 2 weeks before the largest event prior to the primaries - the Ames, Iowa straw poll? The poll was certain to garner media attention, again - what good that does in the summer - and would automatically severe whatever boost he would get from announcing.

In fact, Romney invested heavily in Iowa with the expectation that a win there would be necessary to get his name into the “living rooms” of Americans who know nothing of him. Similarly, Mike Huckabee, the “dark horse” of Ames was hoping to ride media accolades right into the company of first tier candidates. Rasumssen Reports has found that media coverage of these men’s commendable performances has been missed by most Americans.

This simply goes to reinforce that Fred’s! announcement of candidacy in August would have done very little for him above what his free media coverage is already winning.

September:

Announcing in September allows Fred! to take advantage of the following:

1. Time to build a message and a campaign structure, which has clearly been undergoing drastic change during the summer.
2. Time to raise more funds, but cover (hey, Fred’s not even a candidate yet) if funds come in short of expectations.
3. Free media coverage and a predictable bounce in the polls without any other major campaign news to distract from it until eyes turn to Newt at the end of September.

In all, the only folks who would benefit from Fred having announced earlier would be:

• The news media, who would do anything to create excitement and viewership during the ratings slump that is July and August.
  
• Rival campaigns who know candidate Thompson can’t possibly live up to expectations. So the early he enters, the earlier he fails and the earlier they can reclaim support which has been stored up for him.

On Principle,

CBass

I’m extremely excited to see the White House stepping up their seriousness in communicating the vision for our struggle in the Long War on Terrorism - especially its currently central battle ground in Iraq. More importantly, it’s extremely gratifying to see the President personally promoting meaningful measures of our success in the surge of operations in the Iraq theater.

In his much maligned speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) gathering in Kansas City, the President supplied one of the measures for which I have been advocating: Combatant Eradicated.

From the Speech:

In Iraq, our troops are taking the fight to the extremists and radicals and murderers all throughout the country. Our troops have killed or captured an average of more than 1,500 al Qaeda terrorists and other extremists every month since January of this year.

That’s between 10,000 - 12,000 combatants removed from the battle field - since January!

As I proposed in a former post, this particular metric, while superior to Vietnam era measures of enemy “kills”, is still orphaned of interpretive context without being paired with some additional metrics.

I hope that that this new surge of communication from the President will further embrace a full-throated, hearty display of defense which makes use of a full arsenal measures. Perhaps the upcoming surge of support from candidates, media savvy supporters and political leaders will also present the American people with a substantive sense of our progress by referencing success factors which stretch beyond the obvious stale examples for which opponents are well prepared to refute.

On Principle,

CBass

If you, like most Americans, have been living your life this weekend, you may have missed the news and analysis regarding the Iowa Straw Poll held in Ames, Iowa.

Some analysis on this further below, but first, the results:

• Mitt Romney 4516 votes (31.0%)
• Mike Huckabee 2587 votes (18.1%)
• Sam Brownback 2192 votes (15.3%)
• Tom Tancredo 1961 votes (13.7%).
• Ron Paul with 1305 votes (9.1%)
• Tommy Thompson 1,009 votes (7.3%)
• Fred Thompson 231 votes (1.6%)
• Rudy Giuliani 183 votes (1.3%)
• Duncan Hunter 174 votes (1.2%)
• John McCain 101 votes (0.7%)
• John Cox 41 votes (0.3%)

Some tricks to understanding these results:

1. Presidential primaries are unique beasts - not intended for the general public. The Primary is nearly completely focused upon the active base of each party.

2. The Iowa Straw Poll precedes the first Primary by at least 6 months and is held during August - the month when families are rushing to complete vacations, family moves, rituals, wedding and other rituals of summer prior to the start of school in late August - early September.

3. Put these together, and what you get in the Iowa Straw Poll is an event tailored to excite the core of the party’s base. The real die-hards who follow primary machinations while on vacation, 6 months before anyone casts the first vote.

4. To really make this point, remember: In 6 months, most Primary voters (the active base of the party) won’t even remember who was on the ballot in Ames this weekend. Even fewer will remember who was on the ballot by the time the general election rolls around in 15 long months.

So, then what good is the Iowa Straw Poll:

1. Despite the fact that the voters in Ames tend to be the energized core of the party’s always active base. Iowa is hot and humid in Iowa. Iowa is a large state. Voting in the Straw Poll costs folks money. It interferes with summer family plans. And the results are completely non-binding. So, getting supporters to attend the hot, sweaty masses in Ames is a demonstration of a candidate’s appeal to the base (at least the base in Iowa).

2. Iowa is a big state. To assist supporters in attending, candidates tend to run free shuttle buses from as many population centers as possible. Identifying supporters, encouraging them to attend, informing them of travel arrangements, taking care of 1,000’s of supporters on site in Ames, etc are all assumed to point to the candidates’ ability to organize a broad, effective state organization and to attract and train the types of volunteers which will prove critical in turning out voters on actual election day.

3. All of the campaigning, organizing and logistical support mentioned above take money. So it is assumed that the great Iowa Straw Poll provides an excellent early indicator of a candidate’s ability to attract donors.

4. Perhaps more importantly, the Iowa Straw Poll is, above all things, a media event. And, as with all media events, to the perceived victor go the spoils. Historic well performers at Ames have attracted, in the afterglow of media and pundit praise, seasoned leaders and increased donors to their campaigns.

5. Sometimes overlooked, Ames is also an important historic filter. While some candidates meet the tests described above with much aplomb, others flail below the high-set bar of performance. Some of these read the results with an air of reason and remove their entries from the remainder of the primary race. Once withdrawn, their staff, supporters and donors flock like fleas around the big dogs of the poll - multiplying the boon for victory.

6. And for all the above - - - at least on in the minds and writings of the pundits. Nothing ever really goes exactly as described here, but the patterns are fairly predictive.

And now for the analysis:

1. Mitt Romney: The first observation is that Romney won. Yes, he won the most votes, but he won more than that. Romney invested about 2 x’s as much budget into the Straw Poll as did any other candidate. He and his entire campaigning family have virtually lived in Iowa for the last month. So assumed was Mitt’s victory that Giuliani’s campaign withdrew from the Poll. All told, these factors built an added expectation handicap of not just winning, but needing to win by 10%. Mitt was up by 13%, so to Mitt goes the victory.

2. Mike Huckabee: Huckabee has been little noticed by the general press, but party faithful and political commentators have been whispering his praises with little peeps of surprise after each debate - yes, still surprised after admitting he’s performed superbly at each (yes every) debate. Huckabee has been said to have raised few dollars and developed no campaign structure, yet he turned in a very impressed 2nd place. One can only assume that:
1. He played the expectations game like a maestro.
2. He organized a better campaign infrastructure than was previously noted
3. He spent his limited budget shrewdly.

3. Sam Brownback: Brownback was forecasting a strong second. He spent the second highest budget in Iowa and lives next door. His campaign infrastructure in Iowa has been developing literally before he officially entered the race. So, by finishing 3rd, he lost the expectations game. At the same time, most folks regard his candidacy as something of a joke nationally. So his close 3rd may win him some respect in terms of national expectations. Time will tell.

4. Losers: Tommy Thompson and Ron Paul. Both candidates focused heavily on Iowa and built expectations for a strong performance. I assume both did this in hopes of bolstering waffling supporters to invest a weekend in traveling to Iowa to cast an expensive ballot on their behalf. Thompson promised a 2nd place finish. Ron Paul proudly forecasted a top 3 finish. Both men performed miserably by comparison with these expectations.

Predictions for Losers:

• Tommy Thompson: I predict he’ll announce his withdrawal from the race by day’s end Monday.
• Ron Paul: While he should follow Thompson’s noble lead, I predict he will not withdraw, will contest the results and will continue to stir up his quite vocal supporters in the conservative “blogosphere”.

5. Not Winners: Giuliani and Fred Thompson. One can’t win elections without winning votes. Conceding the straw poll may make sense in terms of the huge expectations both would be expected to meet. But at the same time, Romney and Huckabee are alone positioned for media attention, punditry praise and the spoils of name recognition, respectability, donor support and activist/volunteer support. These are the currency of a campaign. Currency which will flow away from Giuliani and Fred Thompson in the next 2-3 weeks.

6. Dark Horse: Tom Tancredo. I view these results with a bit of dismay. Like so many others, I view Tancredo’s candidacy as nothing more than a single issue hobby horse being ridden to draw media attention toward immigration reform. His strong 4th place finish, a sure surprise to me, will certainly draw attention to his flagship issue and is almost as certain to encourage him to dig in his heels and stay in the race. Yikes.

7. Filtered: I love the idea of Duncan Hunter, but he just hasn’t campaign convincingly or debated impressively. He should leave the race now - while his influence in Congress is still strong. John Cox, another individual who has impressive credentials on paper, but a completely unsuccessful campaign should pull of camp and head for home. I sincerely mean him no respect, but I think I could go to Iowa and purchase 41 votes. I predict both respectable men will do the respectable thing. May we all remember them in 6 and 15 months not as bottom feeding candidates, but as successful men in their other realms of achievement.

On Principle,

CBass

Update: It looks like Tommy Thompson has already announce the inevitable. I bid adieu to a good man doing a good thing.

This must be the week for thoughts on Fred Thompson. There are two recent themes being kicked around in media which are perfectly positioned from my earlier post on “Fred! 101″:

1. Attracting Leaders:

A candidate can’t win a campaign by himself. It takes an incredible team of workaholics, true believers, glory hounds and connected leaders. If I had to take any of the above, give me the connected leaders. There are plenty of the others to be found if the vision is motivating and the message is clear.

Party nominations and Presidential campaigns are won by knitting together a state-by-state strategy - across 50 dynamic, individual states. Only leaders with deep local connections can lead an efficient, effective campaign tailored to the people, the issues, the powerful interests and the funding sources in each state.

This is why I wrote: “Will the Thompson campaign emerge from the Summer with clarity, vision, disciplined execution? One early indicator is to see what seasoned veterans are jumping on board.”

In seeming answer to this question, two big fish bounded onto the deck of the USS Thompson:

Spencer Abraham:

After an initial hissy induced by media reports that Spencer Abraham was the new Campaign Manager for Fred!, the campaign was finally able to calm the fomenting waters of reporting from the nation’s left-leaning media. Abraham will be the “ambassador” to Washington. Something tells me he’s this an more.

Spencer was in Bush’s original cabinet, was a member of Congress, runs a successful DC-based consultancy, is an expert on Energy Policy and. . .

He was Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for much of the 1980’s. Who’s Co-Chairof the party today? Jane Abraham, Spencer’s wife.

Do you see what’s so important about luring leaders with deep connections in influential states?

Randy Enwright:

Will the real campaign manager please stand up? Come on down, Randy Enwright!!!!

What, no applause? Haven’t heard of him? Well, you must not be from Florida or Iowa. Randy Enwright has been the executive director of the Republican Party in both Iowa and Florida - both incredibly important states in the first round of Primary voting (more on that in a future post - soon).

Poke around a few Florida blog sites and it is easy to see that this elevation of Mr. Enwright has been warmly received.

Cudos! to Fred! for landing big fish which may help deliver important states. An encouraging sign for avid Fred-heads.

2. Raising Dough:

The venerable candidate in waiting had to announce the results of the fund raising efforts for his “testing the waters” not-yet-a-campaign “thingie”. I had written: “But the Thompson campaign will need to perform well when compared to the numbers of Rudy and Mitt in Q2 and Q3. If not, the smart money won’t come his way when it starts entering the race. If he does well here, it is very likely Fred! could exponentially attract more donors come Q4.”

So, how does Team Thompson stack up against the 2 leading GOP’ers, Mitt & Rudy?

Mitt:

Q2 Contributions: $13.8M

Spent: $20.7M

Burn Rate: ~150%

(Mitt loaned 6M of his own cash during Q2. With that included, the burn rate is pretty close to a perfect 100%)

Avg Monthly Contributions: $3.45M

Rudy:

Q2 Contributions: $17.2M

Spent: $11.2M

Burn Rate: 65%

Avg Monthly Contributions: $4.3M

Fred:

Q2 Contributions: $3.4M (only for June)

Spent: .6M

Burn Rate:18%

(Sometimes it is nice not to have a hungry campaign to feed!)

Avg Monthly Contributions: $3.4M

Not bad. June is probably the hardest of fund raising months (w/ summer vacations, expendable cash is a bit more scarce and focus on politics is all but gone). Team Fred sill isn’t much of a team. And there is no developed structure to speak of in most states for a true ground-up swell of fund raising.

Oh yeah, and he’s not a candidate yet. . .

My guess is still that most GOP donors are still waiting for him to actually declare candidacy before they part with their hard earned lucre (see comments here and here). If so, things may be looking pretty good for Thompson. Time will tell. Q3 donations will be a far better indicator of Mr. Thompson’s viability.

Also, this is still just an early glimpse of but 2 indicators which MAY indicate the strength of candidate Fred! None of them will mean much until heading into Oct.

On Principle,

CBass

“Federalism is not an 18th century notion. Or a 19th century notion. It retains its force as a basic principle in the 21st century, because when federalism is ignored, accountability, innovation, and public confidence in government at all levels suffer.“

Well, I guess timing really is everything.

In a recent post, I sketch a quick summary of thoughts regarding the assumed candidacy of Fred! Thompson.

The first point of this piece was to reflect upon the ways Fred! does and does not reflect the Reagan of history - rather than the Reagan of imagination. Central to my findings is that Fred probably most resembles the Reagan of history in his commitment to a limited role for the Federal government in areas outside of defense, homeland security and interstate trade.

About the next day, the Thompson campaign released this piece from Fred! Outlining his commitment to limited Federal government and the devolution of power back to the various states.

It’s nice to sometimes find oneself riding the very pulse wave of punditry!

A few key paragraphs from the piece if you don’t have time to read it all:

>>>>>>>>>>>>

We developed institutions that allowed these principles to take root and flourish: a government of limited powers derived from, and assigned to, first the people, then the states, and finally the national government. A government strong enough to protect us and do its job competently, but modest and humane enough to let the people govern themselves. Centralized government is not the solution to all of our problems and – with too much power – such centralization has a way of compounding our problems. This was among the great insights of 1787, and it is just as vital in 2007.

<<<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>>>>>

This in no way diminishes the important role played by the national government, including ensuring our national security, and regulating interstate commerce to promote free markets. Indeed, a commitment to federalism would help the federal government do a better job in addressing national emergencies and emerging threats, because it could focus on these issues rather than on everything else it is trying to do. A proper regard for constitutional boundaries would also go a long way in avoiding the arguments that follow when Washington acts by decree, disregarding the elected representatives of the fifty states.

<<<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>>>>>

This in no way diminishes the important role played by the national government, including ensuring our national security, and regulating interstate commerce to promote free markets. Indeed, a commitment to federalism would help the federal government do a better job in addressing national emergencies and emerging threats, because it could focus on these issues rather than on everything else it is trying to do. A proper regard for constitutional boundaries would also go a long way in avoiding the arguments that follow when Washington acts by decree, disregarding the elected representatives of the fifty states.

<<<<<<<<<<<<

On Principle,

CBass

“Once again our national team has shown that there is only one, united Iraq.”