Senator Ted Stevens Convicted of Corruption

In the unlikely event that you haven't heard by now Senator Ted "Bridge to Nowhere" Stevens was convicted of seven counts of corruption related charges yesterday.

From the AP:

Stevens guilty on 7 counts, won't quit Senate race

WASHINGTON – Ted Stevens, a pillar of the Senate for 40 years and the face of Alaska politics almost since statehood, was convicted of a seven-felony string of corruption charges Monday — found guilty of accepting a bonanza of home renovations and fancy trimmings from an oil executive and then lying about it.

Unbowed, even defiant, Stevens accused prosecutors of blatant misconduct and said, "I will fight this unjust verdict with every ounce of energy I have."

The senator, 84 and already facing a challenging re-election contest next Tuesday, said he would stay in the race against Democrat Mark Begich. Though the convictions are a significant blow for the Senate's longest-serving Republican, they do not disqualify him, and Stevens is still hugely popular in his home state.

...

Stevens faces up to five years in prison on each count when he is sentenced, but under federal guidelines he is likely to receive much less time, if any. The judge did not immediately set a sentencing date.

Odds are he'll resign once the election is over. At this point he mainly just acting as a GOP place holder so that Gov. Palin can appoint a Republican to fill his vacant seat should he be reelected. That'll give the state GOP time to regroup and field a candidate with a chance of winning by the time the special election is held. Hopefully his conviction will mean an end to corruption in the GOP. And maybe the fact the Stevens conviction occured on Teddy Roosevelt's birthday is a portent of better things to come from the GOP once they finish their time in the woodshed.

Huckabee Agrees With Me?

If only on the course the GOP should take during this presidential election.

From the AFP:

Former US presidential contender Mike Huckabee urged his fellow Republicans on Wednesday not to denigrate Democrat Barack Obama, saying they should celebrate the historic moment of a black candidate.

"Republicans will make a fundamental if not fatal mistake if they seek to win the election by demonizing " Huckabee told a news conference on a visit to Tokyo.

Its good to see that there is someone in the GOP establishment who can see the forest for the trees. I said it earlier this week but I'll say it again if the GOP uses the tactics of the past rather than battling Obama on the field of ideas they risk becoming a permanent minority party. All Obama has to do is give them just enough rope for them to hang themselves.

Thanks to Memeorandum for linking to this post.

Last Call

Update: "The Letter" is scheduled to be sent on Nov. 5th

Over at Central Sanity Pete Abel has drafted (and redrafted) sort of an open Letter to Republican Leaders that is well worth reading regardless of your political affiliation or lack thereof. He sent it out to the groups mentioned and has received a response from the Republican Leadership Council requesting a conference call.

If you believe that the GOP needs to make the changes he has suggested then please either email him to sign it and/or post it on your blog. So without further adieu here it is:

We, the undersigned, are Republicans.

Through separate but cooperative organizations we are a growing force within the Party.

Republican candidates will need to increasingly reckon with us in the months and years ahead, as we organize and mobilize for no purpose less dramatic than the rescue of our Party and the refocusing of its platform on the bedrock principles of individual liberty and limited government; lower taxes and free markets; a strong national defense and collaborative foreign policy.

We intend this letter as an encouragement to GOP leaders who: (a) embrace those bedrock principles but recognize that the narrow-minded strategies of certain social conservatives have made our Party a shadow of its former self, and thus (b) reject these social conservatives’ alienating approach and prefer what former U.S. Senator John Danforth has labeled a politics of “reconciliation,” a politics wherein we seek to emphasize what unites rather than what divides us. If you fit in this category, we encourage you to speak up and boldly state your beliefs, without equivocation. And if certain social conservatives attack you for doing so, we – the real Republican base – will be there to lend our support.

We believe the wise use of taxpayer dollars requires our government to avoid deficits and the enormous and unnecessary burden those deficits will place on future generations.

We believe in personal responsibility, self-reliance, capitalism, and the power of markets – markets that are allowed to operate with the least possible degree of regulation that is necessary to safeguard fair play and equal opportunity.

We believe in prudent actions that advance our national security, grounded in a foreign policy that, quoting former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, is “premised on the understanding that the rest of the world matters to us,” and that thus we should guard “against becoming ensnared in nation-building enterprises and push for policies that engage us with the world community and show, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, ‘a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.’”

We believe in the U.S. Constitution, its checks and balances, and importantly, the protections it affords our states and citizens. We further believe those protections should be consistently applied, both in times of war and of peace. The war on terror should not be a war on habeas corpus.

We believe in maximizing personal liberty and minimizing government interference in our private lives, including the lives of pregnant women, terminally ill patients, gays, lesbians, and all other categories of responsible, law-abiding adults. Again quoting Governor Whitman: “The defining feature of the conservative viewpoint is a faith in the ability, and a respect for the right, of individuals to make their own decisions – economic, social, and spiritual – about their lives. The true conservative understands that government’s track record in respecting individual rights is poor when it dictates individual choices. Accordingly, the conservative desires to limit government’s reach as much as possible. Traditional conservatives adhere to the maxim, often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, that government governs best that governs least.”

We further believe that the truest pro-life position is one which allows and encourages the ethical pursuit of all scientific research that holds promise for mitigating diseases that afflict our families and friends.

We believe the education of our young people is critical to our future as a nation and that realistic, fiscally conservative policies should be developed to further advance educational standards, opportunities, and access, from the lowest grades to the highest, from kindergarten through college.

We believe in reasonable policies that will advance the health of our citizens, with an emphasis on children, seniors, and others who are truly in need and cannot otherwise afford health care.

We also believe in reasonable policies that will advance the health of our environment, with careful attention paid to protecting our economic vitality and objective analyses of the pro’s and con’s of alternative energy sources.

In summary, we embrace what management guru Jim Collins – in his bestselling book Built to Last – called the “Genius of the AND.” We believe the GOP and its members can and should be simultaneously pro-choice and pro-life; pro-environment and pro-economy; pro-family and pro-liberty; pro-budget and pro-opportunity; pro-security and pro-Constitution. These beliefs need not be contradictory nor exclusive.

If you are or know an incumbent or prospective Republican candidate who shares these beliefs and who wants the larger GOP to stand united behind them, we encourage you to let us know, so that we can add you or your candidate to our roster of those we will support with our votes, voices, volunteers, and dollars.

For info on how to sign it please visit Central Sanity.

Regula to Retire?

From CNN:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) – Rep. Ralph Regula of Ohio, the second longest-serving Republican in the House, will announce Friday that he will retire rather than seek re-election to a 19th term next year, two GOP congressional sources told CNN Thursday...

The departure of Regula, first elected in 1972, brings the number of GOP House members retiring next year to at least 10, adding additional difficulty to the party's chances of taking back the House in 2008.

In addition to those 10 retirements, another Republican member, Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico, is running for the Senate, and Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia is also expected to leave to seek a Senate seat."

Additionally five Republican senators have announced they will retire so far. Given the current mood of the American people I seriously doubt the GOP will be winning all of those seats back. They'll be doing good just to keep the seats they have. What the GOP is truly fearing is that the Dems pick up enough seats to have a veto proof majority (well that and Clinton as president) My question is that should the Dems pick win across the board will we see the same levels of pork, corruption, and scandal we saw under the Republican majority? If I were betting I'd have to lay odds on yes.

Is the GOP Crashing?

Because its traditional supporters are certainly bailing out fast. Take the business sector for example:

From the WSJ

GOP Is Losing Grip on Core Buisness Vote

WASHINGTON -- The Republican Party, known since the late 19th century as the party of business, is losing its lock on that title.

New evidence suggests a potentially historic shift in the Republican Party's identity -- what strategists call its "brand." The votes of many disgruntled fiscal conservatives and other lapsed Republicans are now up for grabs, which could alter U.S. politics in the 2008 elections and beyond.

Some business leaders are drifting away from the party because of the war in Iraq, the growing federal debt and a conservative social agenda they don't share. In manufacturing sectors such as the auto industry, some Republicans want direct government help with soaring health-care costs, which Republicans in Washington have been reluctant to provide. And some business people want more government action on global warming, arguing that a bolder plan is not only inevitable, but could spur new industries....

But polling data confirm business support for Republicans is eroding. In the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in September, 37% of professionals and managers identify themselves as Republican or leaning Republican, down from 44% three years ago...

And then there are members of the religious right:

From Salon

Religious Right May Blackball Giuliani

A powerful group of conservative Christian leaders decided Saturday at a private meeting in Salt Lake City to consider supporting a third-party candidate for president if a pro-choice nominee like Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination.

The meeting of about 50 leaders, including Focus on the Family's James Dobson, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins and former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, who called in by phone, took place at the Grand America Hotel during a gathering of the Council for National Policy, a powerful shadow group of mostly religious conservatives. James Clymer, the chairman of the U.S. Constitution Party, was also present at the meeting, according to a person familiar with the proceedings.

"The conclusion was that if there is a pro-abortion nominee they will consider working with a third party," said the person, who spoke to Salon on the condition of anonymity. The private meeting was not a part of the official CNP schedule, which is itself a closely held secret. "Dobson came in just for this meeting," the person said.

I'm can't blame either group. Speaking as a fiscal conservative I wouldn't support the GOP either. Once they had all three branches of government they behaved as badly with America's money as the claim Dems do.

I expected the religious right to stay home rather than endorse a third party though. After all they were expecting an end to abortion and a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and all they got was the faith based initiatives program. By threatening to jump ship they are sending the strongest possible message to the GOP. However if you read both articles you find that a strong attempt to retain the religious right will cause them to lose more people in the business sector unless they prove that they have mended their free spending ways. For now though its good news for Dems (and probably The Constitution Party) and yet another sign that its going to be a tough couple of election cycles for the GOP. That is unless the Dems behave just as badly once they have control of the Oval Office, the Senate, and the House.

Hey, it could happen.

GOP Not Participating in Minority Debates is Pure Folly

I'm not one to buy into or promote stereotypes which is why when the front running GOP candidates pulled a no show at the NAACP debates I didn't post about it. Additionally when the same candidates blew off the debates hosted by Univision I didn't post about that either. (They also all blew off a conservative Christian forum in Florida around the same time.) However now that they have all opted out of the PBS debates at a historically Black college we officially have the beginning of a pattern. While many may attribute the worst possible motives to this behaviour I see other more likely and more logical reasons.

Number one being that by and large the GOP has written black voters off much in the same way the Dems had previously written off the South. Meaning that the numbers have shown that spending time and effort elsewhere turns out a greater number of voters or wins more districts. However in regards to the Hispanic debates I see another motive altogether. Simply put the odds of having to answer really tough questions about immigration are about one hundred percent. In a debate like that the odds of you having a better answer than the guy after you (who had more time to think) go down drastically. Given the strong anti-illegal immigrant sentiment amongst certain subsections of the GOP base actively engaging Hispanics or seeming sympathetic will invariably swing their votes to another candidate. Additionally given the fact that Hispanics are not a solid voting block there is no guarantee of a decent return for ones efforts. So by not engaging Hispanics the GOP front runners avoid losing votes from the base.

The problem with this "its all about the numbers" strategy is that it puts short term individual gains ahead of long term party growth. Couple that strategy with the fact the GOP leadership has in the past exploited racial strife in order to turn out white voters and the Dems have free reign to paint the Republicans as the little tent party. Now I'm no marketing expert but it seems to me that allowing your competition to define your public image isn't the best way to be successful. In order for the GOP to be viable in the long term it must take steps to engage minority voters even if it costs them votes from members of the base. Because given current demographic trends those members of the base that have been lifting them up will soon turn into an anchor that drags them even further down.

Craig Flip Flops on Resigning

From the AP:

Sen. Larry Craig is reconsidering his decision to resign after his arrest in a Minnesota airport sex sting and may still fight for his Senate seat, his spokesman said Tuesday evening.

"It's not such a foregone conclusion anymore, that the only thing he could do was resign," Sidney Smith, Craig's spokesman in Idaho's capital, told The Associated Press.

"We're still preparing as if Senator Craig will resign Sept. 30, but the outcome of the legal case in Minnesota and the ethics investigation will have an impact on whether we're able to stay in the fight — and stay in the Senate," Smith said.

Craig, a Republican who has represented Idaho in Congress for 27 years, announced Saturday that he intends to resign from the Senate on Sept. 30. But since then, he's hired a prominent lawyer to investigate the possibility of reversing his plea, his spokesman said.

Craig was a no-show Tuesday as Congress reconvened after a summer break and it wasn't clear whether he'll return at all since deciding to resign over his guilty plea in a sex sting this summer at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport...

I held out about posting about this till now mainly because the circumstances that led up to Craig's arrest really weren't conviction worthy. Strange and questionable but not criminal. However his decision to plead guilty followed by his apparent decision to recant his resignation do show the beginnings of a pattern of poor judgment. I say this primarily because given the facts of the arrest a third year law student probably could have gotten the charges dropped. Additionally declaring one's resignation and then recanting is exactly the kind of hypocrisy that the public would expect from someone who holds themselves up as a "family values" political leader who then goes and solicits sex in a public lavatory.

However it also occurs to me that had the GOP not already been rocked by sexual and other scandals as of late then Craig might not have been so quick to plead guilty . After all in the court of public opinion there are no dismissals.

Iowa Judge Rules Gay Marriage Legal

From The Nation via Yahoo:

The Nation -- Iowa will in all likelihood remain the state that opens the process of nominating the Democratic and Republican candidates for president in 2008. As such, it is a "must visit" and "must impress" state for contenders in both parties.

Iowa is now something else, however.

With the decision of a county judge to strike down Iowa's law banning same-sex marriages, the state becomes a front-line battleground in America's ongoing political wrestling match over gay and lesbian rights.

When Polk County Judge Robert Hanson concluded that the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and ordered the county recorder in Des Moines to issue marriage licenses to six gay couples, he did not merely give an unexpected courtroom victory to plaintiffs likes Iowa City's Jen BarbouRoske, who declared Thursday, "This is kind of the American Dream."

Hanson also reshaped the presidential races of both parties.

Democratic and Republicans candidates will not be able to campaign in Iowa -- as all will be doing in coming days and weeks -- without addressing the ruling and the broader issue of same-sex marriage.

Of course, most of the candidates have already done this with varying degrees of specificity. But now they will be thrust into the center of a real-life struggle in a state where they will be spending a great deal of time between now and the day in December or January when Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses are held.

As Judge Hanson's ruling is appealed, and as conservative legislators move to counter it, the same-sex marriage debate will move much closer to the front of the agenda -- not just in Iowa but, because of the caucuses, nationally. more

Which means you can expect certain GOP candidates to start touting a ban on Gay marriages again to mobilize the base behind them. Of the current frontrunners odds are high that Giulliani won't be among those pursuing the politics of division. Additionally both John Mcain and hopeful Ron Paul are both opposed to a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage. That leaves Huckabee, Thompson, and Romney left on the pro-ammendment side of the column.

This issue is an excellent barometer of the status of the GOP. If a candidate who opposes the ban on gay marriage gets the nod we might well be looking at a more moderate GOP in the future. Lets hope that proves to be the case.

Poll: GOP Losing Youth Vote

From SFGate:

Poll: Young voters disenchanted with Republican party

... A Democracy Corps poll from the Washington firm of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner suggests voters ages 18 to 29 have undergone a striking political evolution in recent years.

Young Americans have become so profoundly alienated from Republican ideals on issues including the war in Iraq, global warming, same-sex marriage and illegal immigration that their defections suggest a political setback that could haunt Republicans "for many generations to come," the poll said.

The startling collapse of GOP support among young voters is reflected in the poll's findings that show two-thirds of young voters surveyed believe Democrats do a better job than Republicans of representing their views - even on issues Republicans once owned, such as terrorism and taxes.

And among GOP presidential candidates, only former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani registers with more positive views than negative with young voters, the poll shows.

The anti-GOP shift for this generation - which is expected to reach 50 million voters, or 17 percent of the electorate, in 2008 - represents a marked contrast from their predecessors, the Gen Xers born in the mid-'60s to mid-'70s whose demographic represented the strongest Republican voters in the nation, pollster Anna Greenberg said.

Today, "on every single issue, Democrats are doing better with young people - no matter what the issue is," said Greenberg.

Catherine Brinkman, 28, of Foster City, who heads the California Young Republicans, said she hears from many of her Republican friends who say, " 'Look at our (presidential) candidates compared to the Democrats: They have Hillary, everyone knows her ... and you have this phenomenal (senator) out of Chicago, who is African American and energized.' "

The perception is that "we're still selling the same old white guys," Brinkman said.

Another sign that should the GOP continue to use its base pandering strategy it will relegate itself to being the minority party within a decade. However if the Republican leadership is actually paying attention to changing attitudes, demographics, and calls from party members for moderation we might just see a kinder gentler GOP just in time to keep that from happening. My bet is that they spend a few years as a minority before they wise up.

Republicans vs. Birth Control or Why the GOP is Going to Lose in 2008

From The Baltimore Sun:

The quiet campaign against birth control

At National Right to Life's conference this year, Mitt Romney set out to convince anti-abortion leaders he was their candidate. At the podium, he rattled off his qualifications. To a layman's ears, it sounded pretty standard for abortion politics. He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. He supports teaching only abstinence to teens.

But for those trained to hear the subtleties, Mr. Romney was acknowledging something more. He implied an opposition to the birth control pill and a willingness to join in their efforts to scale back access to contraception. There are code phrases to listen for - and for those keeping score, Mr. Romney nailed each one.

One code phrase is: "I fought to define life as beginning at conception rather than at the time of implantation." The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines pregnancy as starting at implantation, the first moment a pregnancy can be known. Anti-abortion advocates want pregnancy to start at the unknown moment sperm and egg meet: fertilization. They'd also like you to believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that the birth control pill prevents that fertilized egg from implanting in the womb.

Mr. Romney's code, deciphered, meant, "I, like you, hope to reclassify the most commonly used forms of contraceptives as abortions."
(snip)

Presidential hopeful Sen. Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, beefed up his anti-contraception resume by co-sponsoring a bill to de-fund the nation's largest contraception provider, Planned Parenthood, by excluding it from Title X family planning for the poor. Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain's campaign officials boast he has "consistently voted against taxpayer-funded contraception programs." And Mr. McCain reports that his adviser on sexual-health matters is Sen. Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, who leads campaigns claiming condoms are unsafe and opposing emergency contraception.

Another presidential candidate, Rep. Tom Tancredo, like Mr. Romney, has ventured far into the "contraception-is-abortion" territory. According to Mr. Tancredo, a Colorado Republican, emergency contraception "cheapens human life and simply uses a woman's body to dispose of the child instead of a doctor."
(snip)

The American public is unaware of the new wave of anti-contraception activism by opponents of abortion, which makes it much easier for politicians to appease the anti-contraception base. Take, for example, President Bush. While he has delivered some big anti-abortion victories for the religious right in the last seven years (Supreme Court Justices John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr., and the so-called partial-birth abortion ban), anti-contraception work has taken up more of his energy. He attempted to strip contraceptive coverage for federal employees; appointed anti-birth control leader David Hager to the FDA panel that approves and expands access to contraceptive methods; chose another contraception opponent to oversee the nation's contraceptive program for the poor; defunded international family-planning programs, and invested unprecedented sums into sex-ed programs that prohibit mention of contraception.

For now, the candidates vying for the Right to Life endorsement are doing their best to avoid directly answering mainstream voters' simple questions on the subject, such as, "Do you support couples having access to safe and effective birth control options, including emergency contraception?" Considering that even 80 percent of self-described "pro-life" voters and a majority of Republican voters strongly support contraception, it's no wonder why.
full article

Now any reasonable person realizes how ludicrous the idea of getting rid of birth control is. Period. But the fact that GOP hopefuls are willing to court the extremists of their party by deception shows some of the very real problems the GOP is facing. First there's the honesty factor. Romney implying that he's anti-contraception is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. He never came out and said it. He just led them to believe he did. It seems that every candidate has an issue they treat like that when it comes to competing for the base. (Imagine Hillary speaking at PETA meetings implying "meat is murder" and you start to see my point.)

The sad fact is that currently the GOP actually needs that subsection of votes because the war in Iraq and a handful of other issues has caused it to hemorrhage moderates and independents thereby leaving more a more socially conservative Republican party. By being forced to endorse positions that they may not actually believe in they are shooting themselves in the foot by making themselves appear to hold positions not held by the majority and simply put this current batch of front runners aren't good liars (I think Giuliani could lie with the best of them but he's using the "I was there on 9/11" strategy so he doesn't have to.)

I really believe as long as the GOP keeps pandering to its base it is going to be relegated to the minority party until the Dems royally screw up and I'm guessing it'll be eight years of Dem control before that happens.

h/t The Gun Toting Kitten

CA Electoral Votes to Be Split?

From The New Yorker:

Two weeks ago, one of the most important Republican lawyers in Sacramento quietly filed a ballot initiative that would end the practice of granting all fifty-five of California’s electoral votes to the statewide winner. Instead, it would award two of them to the statewide winner and the rest, one by one, to the winner in each congressional district. Nineteen of the fifty-three districts are represented by Republicans, but Bush carried twenty-two districts in 2004. The bottom line is that the initiative, if passed, would spot the Republican ticket something in the neighborhood of twenty electoral votes—votes that it wouldn’t get under the rules prevailing in every other sizable state in the Union.

The Tuesday after the first Monday in June is California’s traditional Primary Day. But it’s not the one that everybody will be paying attention to. Five months ago, the legislature hastily moved the Presidential part up to February 5th, joining a stampede of states hoping to claim a piece of the early-state action previously reserved for Iowa and New Hampshire. June 3rd will be an altogether sleepier, low-turnout affair. There may be a few scattered contests for legislative nominations, but the only statewide items on the ballot will be initiatives. More than two dozen have been filed so far, ranging from a proposal to start a state-run Internet poker site to pay for filling potholes to a redundant slew of anti-gay-marriage measures. Few will make it to the ballot. Many are not even intended to; they’re a feint in some byzantine negotiation, or just a cheap attempt to get a little attention—for a two-hundred-dollar fee, anyone can file one. (Actually getting one on the ballot requires more than four hundred thousand signatures, and the outfits that collect them usually charge a dollar or two per signature.) Initiative No. 07-0032—the Presidential Election Reform Act—is different. It’s serious. Its backers have access to serious money. And it could pass. full article

The article goes on to point out that due to CA's moving up it primary date there will be this year the big primary and a smaller primary for state (including ballot) issues in June. That means a fraction of the usual turnout in June. All the GOP has to do is turn out its base and get the talking heads ranting. Should this initiative pass then the Dem's have to find a way to swing the pendulum back in their favor or they are so totally screwed. Once they've restored the balance by unlocking another states electoral votes independent presidential candidates will have a much easier time running for election. Thats a winning proposition to many Americans that are tired of voting for lesser evils.

h/t to Donklephant

None of the Above

From the AP:

WASHINGTON - And the leading Republican presidential candidate is ... none of the above.
The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that nearly a quarter of Republicans are unwilling to back top-tier hopefuls Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and no one candidate has emerged as the clear front-runner among Christian evangelicals. Such dissatisfaction underscores the volatility of the 2008 GOP nomination fight.
(snip)
A half year before voting begins, the survey shows the White House race is far more wide open on the Republican side than on the Democratic. The uneven enthusiasm about the fields also is reflected in fundraising in which Democrats outraised Republicans $80 million to $50 million from April through June, continuing a trend from the year's first three months.
(snip)

More Republicans have become apathetic about their top options over the past month.

A hefty 23 percent can't or won't say which candidate they would back, a jump from the 14 percent who took a pass in June.

Giuliani's popularity continued to decline steadily as he faced a spate of headline headaches, came under increased scrutiny and saw the potential entry of Thompson in the mix; his support is at 21 percent compared with 27 percent in June and 35 percent in March.

The former New York mayor is running virtually even with Thompson, who has become a threat without even officially entering the race. The actor and former Tennessee senator has essentially stayed steady at 19 percent. McCain, the Arizona senator who is revamping his nearly broke campaign, clocked in a bit lower at 15 percent, while Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, remained at 11 percent.

None of the top candidates has a clear lead among Christian evangelicals, a critical part of the GOP base that has had considerable sway in past Republican primaries. Giuliani, a thrice-married backer of abortion rights and gay rights, had 20 percent support — roughly even with Thompson and McCain who have one divorce each in their pasts. Romney, a Mormon who has been married for three decades, was in the single digits.

Nine Republicans and one all-but-declared hopeful, Thompson, make up the crowded GOP field. It shrunk in recent days when former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore, an underfunded long shot, dropped out. Such discontent with the top-tier could lead Republicans to reconsider lesser-knowns such as former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee or Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback.
(snip)

Andrew E. Smith, a polling expert at the University of New Hampshire, said the number of voters in flux is no surprise, given that the primaries aren't for another six months. "People really don't decide who to vote for until the last couple months or days," he said. full article

I can see why interest in the candidates are low. No one candidate has the record, the credentials , and is perceived as having the right moral fiber. You have some Reagan lites, some Dubya lites, Giuliani, and that Ron Paul guy.

The "money quote" form this story is, "I'm looking for a strong, honest person. Do you know of any?" and to many Republicans the answer seems to be no.

One has to wonder if they are looking at their line up of contenders and asking themselves,"Where's our Obama?"

Ron Paul Nearly Excluded in S.C.

Frome the Spartanburg Herald Journal:
Beltram tells Paul to 'come on down' here

So much for that whole closed door thing.

Two days after saying Ron Paul could stay out of Spartanburg, county GOP Chairman Rick Beltram on Thursday reversed course and invited the Republican presidential candidate to come on down.

And Thursday afternoon, Paul's campaign agreed. The only thing left to be settled is a date.

Beltram on Tuesday called Paul a "lunatic" for defending a theory that American intervention in foreign affairs contributed to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. Paul made the comments at the GOP debate in Columbia in May, and he drew an angry response from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

After the debate, Beltram decided he had heard enough from the Texas congressman and said Paul could "stay home." A flood of e-mails and voicemails from across the country apparently changed Beltram's mind.

"I was told by at least 125 e-mails and 25 voice mails that I didn't hear correctly, newspapers didn't report it correctly and live TV didn't reflect it correctly," Beltram said. "If we're all that naive and we all misunderstood, I think they should come on down and tell us how we're wrong, and I think the people of Spartanburg will be anxious to listen." more

Interestingly enough Mr. Paul is proving to be a excellent test of how inflexible GOP leaders can be to those who voice ideas outside of its mandated talking points. Whether or not he wins the primary, he may prove to be an excellent measure of just exactly how big the GOP's tent is.

Obama finding new allies: Republicans

Many cite war in Iraq, spirit of political unity as issues

June 19, 2007

BY JENNIFER HUNTER Sun-Times Columnist

There is an interesting phenomenon that has arisen over the last few months: a trend of moderate Republicans who want to vote for Barack Obama. It may seem counterintuitive, conservatives supporting a candidate who wants to tax the wealthy and embrace the conventions in the Kyoto Accord, but there is something in Obama's message about ridding politics of partisanship that is appealing to these Republicans.

He doesn't carry the baggage of a Hillary Clinton. He is new; he seems authentic -- although his connection to indicted fund-raiser Tony Rezko has made some previous supporters wonder -- and he has more gravitas than pretty boy John Edwards. The Republicans who like him may have supported John McCain in the past, but after eight years of the Bush White House they feel they can no longer support the Republican field. The idea of a congressional glasnost -- a harmonic nonpartisanship in Washington -- is an Obama goal they endorse. more

On the heels of the previous post this just goes to show how badly the GOP is hemorrhaging moderates.