With Fred Thompson’s departure from the GOP field and Huckabee’s slow demise, the Republican race for 2008 is quickly coming into focus. The race is now between three candidates - John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. But is it?

There is significant speculation about what Thompson’s departure means, and which candidate will benefit. There can be little doubt however, that Thompson’s departure helps Mitt Romney, who now becomes the clear conservative choice in the GOP field.  This is particularly true given that Thompson did not endorse John McCain.  Whatever the flirtations with Huckabee, he was never a viable option for a national ticket, and he was consistently regarded by mainstream conservatives as anything but a true believer.

Many of the latest polls show McCain with a slight, but statistically insignificant lead in Florida, and Giuliani and Romney nearly tied for second place. Some however, such as the normally reliable Rasmussen, show Romney in the lead.

Florida is widely regarded as critical for Rudy Giuliani, and most analysts are probably correct. Although Giuliani could continue on after Florida, unless he demonstrates real strength in the Sunshine State, there is little to attract most voters to Giuliani on super Tuesday. Anything less than a win by Giuliani will be seen as a dramatic loss, and McCain’s continued successes will draw away the remaining support. Giuliani’s campaign has been based largely on his record of making government work in New York City, coupled with a “take no prisoners” approach toward the War on Terror, however Rudy’s true appeal was always the sneaking suspicion by many that he could win in November. Giuliani’s failures at the polls, particularly with Independents and Democrats, have cast doubt on that ability, and McCain’s war service record has overshadowed Rudy’s 9/11 warrior reputation. In the end, it seems that even a second place finish for Giuliani in Florida may not be enough, and a third place finish would almost certainly derail his candidacy.

The real race in Florida, as in the country, is now between John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Despite a healthy respect for McCain’s service record and his personal attributes, McCain is simply wrong on too many issues to be the choice of conservative Republicans. From illegal-immigration and campaign finance to taxes and environmental policy, McCain is simply in a different place than the majority of his party’s base.  Despite polls which show that McCain could be the strongest contender in November, regular Republicans simply cannot bring themselves to support a man who openly discussed leaving the Republican Party, joining John Kerry’s 2004 ticket in opposition to President Bush, and who presently has Al Gore’s 2000 runningmate, Joe Lieberman, stumping for him.

Though some still harbor doubts about Romney’s late conversions to some important conservative positions, and unease with what they view as Romney’s comfort with politically expedient ingratiation, Romney’s stated positions line up nicely with the majority of Republicans, and no one can doubt that he is an enormously capable and articulate leader, uniquely qualified to deal with the increasing worry over the Nation’s economy.

Moreover Romney enjoys the support of a considerable and growing sector of the Republican Party machinery, and is endorsed by unquestioned conservatives. Romney is the choice of conservative bellwether The National Review, which said of Romney:

“Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest…More than the other primary candidates, Romney has President Bush’s virtues and avoids his flaws. His moral positions, and his instincts on taxes and foreign policy, are the same. But he is less inclined to federal activism, less tolerant of overspending, better able to defend conservative positions in debate, and more likely to demand performance from his subordinates. A winning combination, by our lights. In this most fluid and unpredictable Republican field, we vote for Mitt Romney.”

Romney’s candidacy has also been bolstered in recent weeks by affirmation from conservative opinion makers such as Rush Limbaugh who has been generally supportive of Romney and brushed off doubts about Romney’s sincerity declaring, “I believe Mitt Romney’s conversion is genuine.” Moreover, with the endorsement of former presidential candidate and illegal-immigration hawk Tom Tancredo, Romney looks increasingly like the anti-McCain.

With Thompson’s departure, the conservative vote in Florida will slowly coalesce around Romney, and there was widespread evidence of such a shift today on influential blogs.  Huckabee will be largely abandoned and Giuliani and McCain will split the moderate vote, giving Romney the chance at a surprise upset and the unquestioned position of frontrunner. Given the early ballots that have been cast, the amount of time and money invested in Florida by Giuliani, McCain’s South Carolina momentum, and the persistent fluidity of this contest, it is difficult to predict who will win Florida. No one should be counted out, but look for Romney to do well among self-described conservatives, and possibly to take the Sunshine State. 

Barring some unforseen circumstances, and consistent with our earlier predictions, we believe that Governor Romney is increasingly well positioned to enter Super Tuesday, and ultimately to be the 2008 GOP nominee.

After seven years of suffering through the mangled articulations of President George W. Bush, and the juvenile, curiously incongruent attitude that has him joking at wartime press conferences, many in the GOP are looking for a savvy and articulate leader.

The “Bush fatigue” as it is commonly referred to is not simply confined to liberals and the international community.  In candid moments most dedicated Republicans will admit to the palpable discomfort experienced by his own supporters while watching a Bush press conference.

Bush’s failure to be able to effectively articulate even the simplest of positions has left his party and the Nation without an effective advocate on a host of critical issues.  Indeed, even Bush’s most impressive domestic achievement – an economy that has enjoyed nearly 6 years of uninterrupted growth is known by critics as ”the greatest story never told.”

There is no doubt that the mainstream media has consistently opposed and undermined the President from day one, but given the proclivities of the press, this is entirely unsurprising.  That a modern White House communications team could be this ineffective despite nearly seven years of practice and a press office once headed by someone with as much media experience as Tony Snow is further evidence of the centrality and importance of any president’s ability to articulate a clear vision.

Given this reality, and the real sense of fatigue, Fred Thompson’s folksy demeanor and simplistic explanation of policy sound far too familiar to imbue him with the quality of competence or the sense of change that most voters are desperately seeking.

Indeed, Thompson’s single best retort in Sunday’s debate came in response to a question about his own widely perceived laziness. While his supporters cheered him, the reality is that effective presidential campaigns are not won by playing defense. 

Despite the hopes of many, Thompson is clearly outmatched by several of his articulate GOP rivals, and his country tune out of place with an audience itching for an effective voice for conservatism.

(more…)

Rudy Giuliani:The Michigan debate may have been Giuliani’s best. The affable mayor seemed relaxed, optimistic, and in command of the issues. His attacks, waged largely against Hillary Clinton, did much to elevate him above the other candidates and helped to feed the notion that Giuliani is both the inevitable nominee and the best match-up against Hillary Clinton in a general election. Giuliani was able to avoid many of the social issues that have plagued him in earlier debates due to largely policy-focused questions, and his retorts were generally articulate and on-point. When coupled with some humorous if slightly contrived lines, Giuliani’s performance was exactly what he needed to help build on his frontrunner status. 

  Mitt Romney: Romney continues to shine in the debate forum. His command of the issues is solid, his style is confident, and there is little doubt that he is competent. Unfortunately Romney’s handlers have gotten to him; forcing the normally cheerful and easy Romney to take on Giuliani over a trumped-up difference in policy. Moreover, Romney’s endorsement of the unconstitutional federal line-item-veto does nothing to bolster his constitutional credentials (nor does his leave it the attorneys position on war powers) or his already suspect conservative credentials as a strict constructionist. Romney is at his best when he leverages his business acumen against the failed big-government policies of those on the stage as well as likely Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. Romney should take a page from Ross Perot and treat his campaign as a hostile takeover of a badly managed government, while using his easy, clear, style to build confidence and optimism. Romney should campaign on his strengths rather than on Giuliani’s unapparent weaknesses, and should avoid the kind of forced lines that bolster his critics claims of phoniness.

Fred Thompson: Given the high hopes among rank and file conservatives, Thompson was almost sure to disappoint, but the veteran actor proved even less of a star than expected. From a stumbling start that was far to reminiscent of George W. Bush’s grating inarticulateness, to platitudinous answers to policy questions in which his eyes frequently diverted to his notes, Thompson did little to rebut his solidifying reputation as a candidate running on image rather than on ideas. Moreover, on the debate stage, compared to optimists like Romney, Huckabee, and even Giuliani, Thompson seemed dower and distant. Thompson’s forte is clearly not a staged debate, but rather the folksy one-on-one encounters with everyday citizens. Thompson has yet to prove that he has the “fire in the belly” to be president, or the command of the issues to defeat the intelligent, if overtly leftist, Hillary Clinton.

John McCain: McCain’s Michigan performance may have been his worst. The once aggressive McCain seemed tired, downtrodden, and at times gave rambling answers to questions that he is known to have a better command of. Though McCain’s strong position on the war continues to lend credence to his campaign, and there is no question that McCain would be a strong commander-in-chief, the candidate himself seems to have been deeply affected by the precipitous (illegal immigration-driven) decline of his campaign. Moreover, McCain seemed plagued by technical difficulties that left him unable to hear the questions, resulting in a series of awkward pauses that undoubtedly if subconsciously highlighted his age. McCain’s performance was competent, and honest, if uninspiring.

Mike Huckabee: Huckabee continues to surprise and excel in the debate forum. His clearly articulated, folksy and cheerful demeanor makes him among the most engaging on the stage and continues to generate interest in his candidacy. Though some may deride Huckabee’s slightly “hickish” last name (certainly no worse than Millard Fillmore), there can be no doubting that Huckabee continues to gain popularity, and his common sense approach to governance seems refreshing and relatively genuine. Unfortunately, Huckabee continues not to receive the type of serious policy questions from moderators that he increasingly deserves. 

As for the other candidates, who have yet to emerge from solid second-tierdom, the results were mixed. Duncan Hunter’s tough, assured style continues to resonate confidence and decisiveness. Unfortunately his unrelenting focus on the issues of Chinese trade policy and a strong military begin to paint a portrait of the Congressman as an overly one-dimensional candidate. Indeed, it appears as if Hunter is campaigning full time for secretary of defense, rather than president of the United States. Sam Brownback continues to sound rational and clear, and gives the impression of a competent and dutiful public servant… perhaps suitable as a future head of the Department of the Interior. Ron Paul’s slightly hysterical personal style continues to erode any gains that his principled constitutional positions might otherwise engender, and Tom Tancredo, though right on illegal immigration, simply is out of his league as a presidential contender. Border Czar Tancredo has a nice ring to it however.

If Thompson and McCain were the debate’s big losers, Romney and Giuliani came out far ahead of the pack… and due to his poise, clarity, and skill the winner was clearly Giuliani.