American Excess

Yesterday, I wrote about Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith's decision to switch from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.

Well, it's a slow news week. And political writers, who may be tired of writing about health care reform or simply have nothing else about which to write, are eagerly continuing to share their thoughts on the matter today.

It seems a bit excessive to me. I mean, there are other things to write about — and I'm not talking about just the health care reform vote that now appears to be scheduled for tomorrow morning in the Senate.

• At the Christian Science Monitor, Patrik Jonsson wonders if other Democrats will follow suit.
  
  "Mr. Griffith's defection could put pressure on other conservative and even moderate Democrats, especially in the Deep South, to jump ship to save their seats," Jonsson writes. "They've been encountering backlash from the public against a Democrat–controlled progressive agenda in Washington."
  
  That's possible. I wrote a little about the history of party allegiance in the South yesterday. And Southern Democrats may need to compare their own political philosophies against the agenda of the national party and see if they have more in common with their national colleagues or their constituents. That may even be necessary for Democrats in the Southern states Barack Obama won in 2008.


• Patricia McCarter writes, in the Huntsville Times, that Griffith wasn't comfortable as a Democrat.
  
  But the Republican who lost to Griffith, Wayne Parker, seems to be skeptical about that. "What's changed?" he asked. "In 2008 [Griffith] ran proudly as a Democrat, he had a history with the Democratic Party, he knew what it stood for, and he took money from Democratic national leaders, including [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi. They're doing exactly what they said they'd do.
  
  "Now the environment isn't looking so good for Democrats, and it strikes me as odd that he now decides the party isn't what he wants."


• In an editorial, the Decatur Daily said it wasn't surprised by the switch.
  
  "Since winning a heated and often nasty general election contest ... former Democrat Griffith has consistently voted with Republicans on big issues such as health care reform, economic stimulus and climate change legislation," the Daily wrote. "Griffith was a Democrat in name only."


• Peter Wallsten reports, in the Wall Street Journal, that Republican strategists don't anticipate more defections, but they are hopeful that Griffith's switch "will bolster their attempts to persuade at least nine other long–time Democrats to retire."

I understand why there is so much focus on Griffith's decision. But unless it starts a virtual avalanche of defections, I don't see much significance to it.

Even Parker's comments about Griffith and his history with the Democratic Party can be explained as sour grapes from a man who lost last year's House race by less than 10,000 votes.

At the moment, though, there are other intriguing political stories to write about. For example:

• The Quinnipiac University Poll reports that Obama's approval rating stands at 46%.
  
  Since I have written frequently in recent months about the problems that the parties of Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan — the last two presidents who inherited recessions — encountered in the midterm elections, it may be helpful — for comparison's sake — to see how that figure stands up against the findings for Clinton and Reagan at comparable points in their first years in office.
  
  Clinton was far short of 50% when he won the 1992 election against President George H.W. Bush and independent Ross Perot, and his Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress in 1994, but in mid–December 1993, his approval ratings offered no hint of the calamity that was to befall his party less than a year later. Three separate polls — NBC/Wall Street Journal, ABC/Washington Post and Gallup/CNN/USA Today — had Clinton's approval rating in the mid–50s.
  
  Reagan barely exceeded 50% in the 1980 election when he defeated President Jimmy Carter and independent John Anderson, but the Republicans captured the Senate for the first time in more than 20 years and gained nearly three dozen House seats. Two years later, the Senate breakdown was virtually unchanged, but the Democrats retook more than two dozen House seats.
  
  There may have been a little more warning of the difficulties Reagan's party would face in mid–December of 1981, but Reagan was in better shape than Obama. At that time, Gallup reported Reagan's approval rating was 49% — almost unchanged from where it stood less than two weeks after Reagan's inauguration but nearly 20 points below the level he reached after being the victim of an assassination attempt in March.
  
  In Obama's case, the numbers may not be cause for panic — yet — but 46% approval in December represents a sharp decline from his presidential high–water mark of 76% in a CNN poll in February, and graphic representations of Obama's approval/disapproval show a consistent trajectory in both numbers that, left unchecked, suggest that he will be in negative territory in early 2010.


• Meanwhile, Jonathan Chait of The New Republic insists on beating that mangy — and probably long dead by now — horse, "It isn't Obama's fault."
  
  In fact, his lead paragraph makes his feelings clear: "President Obama is like a pilot who took the controls of the plane in mid–flight after the engines fell out. It's obvious that he didn't cause the problem. But the passengers are going to focus on the fact that the plane was still airborne before he took over, and now, he's crash–landing in the ocean."
  
  I know there are several writers out there who enjoy playing the blame game, presumably because it gives them another opportunity to flog George W. Bush, but recently I wrote about a New York Times poll of unemployed Americans that reported that about 3% of respondents blamed Obama for joblessness.
  
  They were less charitable when asked a different question — how is Obama handling unemployment? Forty–seven percent approved, 44% disapproved.
  
  I don't know how many times this has to be pointed out to Obama's apologists before it penetrates their bullet–proof skulls, but Obama is being judged on his actions. Voters seem to understand that a president cannot choose the circumstances that exist when he takes office, but he can control what he does about them. The fact that the unemployed are split over his record in fighting joblessness after nearly a year in office speaks volumes.


• Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith suggest in Politico that Rudy Giuliani's decision not to seek statewide office in New York in 2010 "likely brings down the curtain on a fading political career."
  
  It's hard for me to believe this is the man my brother favored for president three years ago — but he ended up leaving Giuliani for much the same reason as others — described by Martin and Smith as "his defining moment — the Sept. 11 attacks — was reduced to a one–liner about a one–trick candidate."
  
  Am I the only one who thinks Giualani's decision deserves more attention than it has received?

There's a lot more going on these days than health care reform and Parker Griffith's party switch.

Rudy

Today is Rudy Giuliani's 65th birthday.

For nearly eight years, it has been hard, if not impossible, to think of Giuliani and not be reminded of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. With George Bush bouncing from one airfield to the next in Air Force One and Dick Cheney seeking refuge in a bunker beneath the White House, Giuliani was probably the most prominent politician Americans saw that day.

That's understandable. He was the mayor of New York City. At the time of the attacks, he wasn't very popular and New Yorkers were actually in the process of selecting his successor when the hijacked planes crashed into the Twin Towers, but he was expected to play a major role.

And the public's memory of that day is of a mayor who was reassuring in a crisis, whose leadership resulted in the nickname "America's Mayor."

Giuliani — who was barred by law from seeking a third term, anyway, but might well have been defeated if he had been eligible to run again and had been on the ballot that day and no attacks had taken place — cultivated the image. When Bush was nominated for a second term in 2004, Giuliani gave a speech endorsing the president, telling the delegates that, after the towers collapsed, he told Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, "Bernie, thank God George Bush is our president."

The authenticity of the statement was disputed by many, particularly after Giuliani recommended Kerik to be secretary of Homeland Security. When unsavory elements of Kerik's background emerged, it raised doubts about both Giuliani's judgment and the vetting process in the Bush White House.

Such criticism notwithstanding, Giuliani launched his own bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. In 2007, he led many polls, but his campaign fizzled in 2008. There were many reasons for this, but I've always felt that a big part of it was that, by 2008, being "America's Mayor" was not seen as sufficient qualification for the presidency — except, perhaps, among some who still saw terrorism as the nation's greatest threat.

But far more were concerned about escalating food and energy prices — and then, after the conventions, the main concern was the rapidly collapsing economy.

Actually, Giuliani didn't seem particularly concerned about terrorism in the years between the first World Trade Center attack in 1993 and the hijackings in 2001. He seldom mentioned the 1993 attack in public, and he was criticized for preparedness measures that were regarded as inadequate.

Given the nature of the 2001 attacks, perhaps it was unrealistic to think there was any way to be adequately prepared.

But there could have been little, if any, doubt after September 11 that Islamic extremists would seek to attack America again. What was uncertain was the kind of attack it would be, what the target would be or when the terrorists would strike.

I am convinced that, after the hijackings, the top law enforcement minds in America, whether they were in the FBI or the CIA, whether as part of a formal directive or undertaken informally, began trying to imagine what the next attack might be and encouraged preparations for it.

Some acted like generals, determined to fight the last war instead of trying to anticipate the next one, and they focused on preventing future hijackings and improving security in large buildings.

The next terrorist attack on American soil might very well involve hijacked airlines — but I have believed, ever since that day in 2001, that the terrorists would attack in some other way, some way that was not as heavily scrutinized as air travel had become.

Others, I am sure, sought to think outside the box. They used their knowledge of the Middle East, Islamic extremism and Osama bin Laden's previous statements — as well as their knowledge of the existing gaps in American security — as they formulated their scenarios.

Somewhere, in some file in the FBI or the CIA, I'm sure there is a plotline that closely mirrors what the next attack will be. It was written hypothetically, of course, but it may have inadvertently named the city where the attack actually will take place and what will be the next "Ground Zero." It may even have approximated the number of casualties.

That attack is still in the future. But I'm sure its outline has already been written, along with hundreds, if not thousands, of others.

And, when that next attack occurs, as it almost certainly will, I have no doubt that some investigator will discover the existence of this file and will question the director of Homeland Security about it. That investigator will want to know why more wasn't done to prepare for this attack since it clearly had been envisioned by someone long before it happened.

What will the director of Homeland Security say?

Will he/she point out that there were hundreds, perhaps thousands, of such scenarios in the agency's files, that the budget did not provide enough money or manpower to adequately prepare for them all?

Will he/she say that intelligence did not provide sufficient time to prepare, even if it was able to identify which scenario was the correct one?

I believe Joe Biden was right when, during the campaign, he said Barack Obama would face a test.

On the international stage, I do not believe Obama has faced that test yet.

I do believe that time is coming. I hope America will be ready when it arrives.

One and Done

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was gambling that he would get a strong showing in the Florida primary that would propel him to an even greater showing in next week's "Tsunami Tuesday" primaries and caucuses and, ultimately, to the Republican nomination.

But the numbers told a different story. The gamble didn't pay off.

Following Giuliani's distant third-place finish in Florida, the word is out that he will withdraw from the race today and endorse John McCain, the winner of the Florida primary.

"I'm proud I ran a positive campaign," he told his supporters in Florida Tuesday night. "I ran a campaign that was uplifting."

He also ran a campaign that was about one issue -- terrorism.

Certainly, there are voters whose only concern is terrorism/national security. And there's no disputing the importance of fighting terrorism and making sure the nation is secure.

But what Giuliani apparently never realized was that a presidential candidate cannot be, essentially, a one-trick pony and appeal to enough voters to be successful. There are too many other issues that voters care about.

It's fine to be concerned about fighting terrorism. And, given Giuliani's experience as the mayor of New York City during the September 11 terrorist attacks that brought down the World Trade Center, it's understandable that his top priority would be fighting terrorism.

But what was his answer to the millions of Americans without health insurance? And what was his answer to escalating energy costs, which led to escalating food costs?

It's for the best that Giuliani appears to be on the verge of dropping out of the presidential race, even though the New York media, especially the New York Post, appears to be mourning the end of his candidacy.

"The dream New York match -- Rudy vs. Hillary -- is not to be," writes the Post. "And that's too bad."

Of course, it remains to be seen if Hillary will keep her date with destiny.

And now, let's listen to tonight's Republican debate and find out what the remaining candidates propose to do about the many issues that face this country.

The Democrats will hold their final pre-"Tsunami Tuesday" debate tomorrow night.

As They Prepare for the Caucus and the Primary ...

Today is Christmas, and my gift to my readers is my view of the presidential races and what is likely to happen when Iowans hold their caucuses a week from Thursday and voters in New Hampshire hold their primaries two weeks from today.

DEMOCRATS

Hillary Clinton likes to use the word "experience" to describe her qualification to be president. But this is her first national campaign as the candidate. Previously, she was in a supporting role.

The one with the experience in a national campaign is John Edwards, and he has a network of support in place in Iowa that propelled him to a second-place finish there four years ago. The question in the caucus is whether those supporters will actually turn out this time. Are those voters as reliable in 2008 as they were in 2004?

I've heard political analysts say that only about 10% of Iowa's electorate turn out for the caucuses, so the old adage about how "every vote counts" really is true in Iowa.

I have the feeling that Edwards is poised to spring a surprise in Iowa. He can survive until the New Hampshire primary the following week, even if he finishes second again in Iowa. But to remain in the race, he needs a strong showing in one or both of those states -- if only to demonstrate his appeal and vote-getting ability outside the South.

Can Barack Obama fail to win Iowa and New Hampshire -- and still be a factor in the race? That depends on how well he does. If he loses either state -- or both states -- by double digits, it may be over for him. If he is close to the top finisher, his campaign can survive awhile longer.

If Mrs. Clinton finishes first in both states, the party is over for the rest of the field, and momentum will take over. If she loses in both states, the party may be over for her.

REPUBLICANS

I think Mike Huckabee is likely to win Iowa, where evangelical Christians represent a sizable bloc. They seem comfortable with him. He's apparently the kind of candidate those voters thought they were getting when George W. Bush first sought the nomination in 2000.

Mitt Romney will likely finish second in Iowa. I think he and Huckabee will combine for perhaps 60% of the Iowa vote. The remaining 40% will be divided up among the rest of the Republican field.

After that, Romney's main challenge in New Hampshire appears to be coming from John McCain. Like Edwards in Iowa, McCain has a strong core of support in New Hampshire from his successful primary campaign there eight years ago. But McCain must contend with questions about his age. He will be 72 when the next president is sworn in.

I think Romney may be able to pull off the win in New Hampshire, but I think he will be wounded in Iowa and may not be an effective candidate in the other primaries that are coming up in January and early February.

If he's unable to win in New Hampshire, McCain's campaign is probably finished.

I think Rudy Giuliani's best chance to win comes later in January when voters in Florida will vote. Giuliani has been polling well in Florida. American Research Group, for example, has been reporting that Giuliani consistently has been receiving between 26% and 33% in Florida, which leads the field there.

If Giuliani's support in Florida collapses in favor of McCain (following a hypothetical McCain triumph in New Hampshire), Giuliani should consider withdrawing from the race.

Fred Thompson needs to win somewhere early in order to establish the momentum he needs in the primaries to come. The super Tuesday primaries on Feb. 5 will be costly for candidates and only those with the best financing and the best organizations will be competitive that day.

One last thing ... VOTE! If you live in Iowa, participate in the caucus. If you live in New Hampshire, vote in the primary.

And a Merry Christmas to all.

Comings and Goings From The Campaign Trail

The Iowa caucuses are two weeks away and ...

* Tom Tancredo dropped out of the Republican race today.

The congressman from Colorado was a longshot from the beginning, much like Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, who dropped out of the race a couple of months ago.

Tancredo credited himself with making illegal immigration a key element of the debate and said he was supporting Mitt Romney. With the latest polls showing Tancredo getting less than 1% of Republicans' support, one has to wonder how much his endorsement is worth.

But, as Romney falls farther behind Mike Huckabee among Iowa Republicans, I'm sure he welcomes any support he can get.

* An interesting side note ...

Historically speaking, it's not too surprising that Tancredo never caught on with the voting public. Although they've had other opportunities (such as Kerry, Gore, Dole, Mondale, Humphrey, etc.), Americans haven't elected a president whose surname ended in a vowel (unless you count the y at the end of Kennedy's name) since Calvin Coolidge in 1924. Before that? You'd have to either go back to 1900, when William McKinley was re-elected, or go back even farther to 1852, when Franklin Pierce was elected.

I guess that doesn't bode too well for Messrs. Giuliani, Huckabee and Obama. Or Romney -- if you count the y at the end of his name!

And no one with a surname exceeding two syllables has been elected president since Kennedy in 1960. But multi-syllable surnames have been a little more common in the Oval Office than surnames ending in vowels. Before Kennedy, Eisenhower was elected to two terms. Franklin Roosevelt was elected four times, and Theodore Roosevelt was elected once.

Before that, McKinley was elected twice, Benjamin Harrison was elected once, James Buchanan was elected once and William Henry Harrison had the shortest administration -- one month -- after falling ill on Inaugural Day and dying a month later.

And, of course, the very first president, George Washington, had more than two syllables in his surname. And so did another president whose face adorns Mount Rushmore -- Thomas Jefferson.

In fact, three of the four presidents on Mount Rushmore had surnames with more than two syllables. The exception? Abraham Lincoln.

* According to the Associated Press' David Espo, Ron Paul, who is virtually the last "longshot" remaining on the Republican side, is shaping up to be the Republicans' "spoiler."

Oh, that's right. Duncan Hunter is still in the race, isn't he?

* Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani returned to the campaign trail today after he was released from a St. Louis hospital following an overnight stay for "flu-like symptoms."

Giuliani, who was treated for prostate cancer in 2000, returned to New York after receiving a "clean bill of health" in St. Louis.

* Former Democratic congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of Georgia has decided to enter the presidential race as a Green Party candidate.

McKinney says the Green Party is "my new political home."

* A good friend of mine passes along a web address that will provide you with obscure information about methods used in the nominating processes in each state.

It's called The Green Papers.

Thanks, Doug.

Life Imitates Art?

Well, maybe not exactly.

I was just thinking about "The West Wing" and the fictional presidential campaign that consumed most of the final two seasons of that program -- and its similarities to our current presidential campaign.

Devotees of the series already know how that campaign turned out -- while the first vote has yet to be cast in the 2008 presidential campaign.

Still, we can paint this one in fairly broad brushstrokes. We don't need to know how the story ends right now.

For starters, Rudy Giuliani may not be the only Republican candidate who is pro-choice, but he's really the only one who hasn't run away from that position. And he's been leading in most Republican polls for most of this year, although Christian conservatives have been looking elsewhere.

On "The West Wing," Alan Alda played a pro-choice Republican who won the nomination but struggled to get the support of Christian conservatives and even put one on his ticket to make his candidacy more palatable to Christian conservatives.

Now, on "The West Wing," Alda's character was from California. Giuliani, of course, is from the opposite coast, the former mayor of New York. But Giuliani's nomination would put a large Democratic state in play, much as Alda's character did.

On the Democratic side, it now appears that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will be nominated. If that happens, we will have the first woman or the first black at the top of a national ticket. On "The West Wing," the Democrats nominated the first Hispanic candidate -- played by Jimmy Smits.

The fly in the ointment looks like it could be Mike Huckabee, who is now leading in Iowa polls and has pulled into second place, behind Giuliani, in the latest national poll from CNN/Opinion Research Corporation.

Huckabee is a former Baptist minister. "The West Wing" had its Christian conservative making an unsuccessful run for the Republican nomination -- and then declining to be considered for the No. 2 spot. It's far from clear whether Huckabee would accept or reject the No. 2 spot if it is offered to him.

If the rest of the story follows the lead of "The West Wing," it will be a cliffhanger of an election. As divided as the country seems to be politically, it's not much of a stretch to predict that.

It could be a bumpy ride!

Willie Horton Redux?

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney took a position last night that, at first blush, appears to demonstrate the kind of character I'd like to see in the White House.

Romney acknowledged that a judge he appointed while governor "showed an inexplicable lack of good judgment" in a hearing that ultimately allowed a convicted killer to be freed.

Following his release, the convict fled to the state of Washington, where he murdered a young couple who lived near him.

Romney said the judge "needs to resign."

On the surface, that shows a quality that is needed in the Oval Office -- the ability to learn from and try to correct negative results from faulty decisions.

But Rudy Giuliani, citing crime statistics from the FBI, pointed out that murder and violent crime went up in Massachusetts while Romney was governor. The case to which Romney referred was not an aberration.

A past president of the Massachusetts Bar Association said the judge did the right thing based on state law "and for Romney to call for her to resign is nothing more than political expediency."

As I see it, what Romney did was make this judge the scapegoat for the failings of Romney's administration.

It also sounds like we're getting set up for the 2008 version of the infamous "Willie Horton ad" that contributed to George H.W. Bush's victory over another former Massachusetts governor, Michael Dukakis, in 1988.

Giuliani Struggles With Social Conservatives

One of the most influential social conservatives on the scene today, Tony Perkins of Family Research Council, wrote in a column in today's Politico that Rudy Giuliani's pledge to appoint "strict constructionist" judges is not enough to make up for his more moderate views on abortion in general and Roe v. Wade in particular.

"Many of [Giuliani's] supporters are using the language of 'strict constructionism' to defend their dubious decision and to urge 'pro-life' Americans to join them," Perkins writes. "They are making the spurious argument that only judicial appointments matter."

Perkins points out that, during a Republican debate at the Reagan library in May, Giuliani said it would be "OK" if a strict constructionist judge repealed Roe v. Wade and he said, “It would be OK also if a strict constructionist viewed it as precedent.”

That's not the kind of language that will attract social conservatives and Perkins wanted to make sure that point was not lost.

"For us and for most Americans," Perkins wrote, "[strict constructionists] mean that decisions like Roe cannot stand. It is precisely on this point that Rudy Giuliani dissents, and it’s a fact that every 'pro-life' American should know and that every 'pro-life' commentator should frankly admit."

Clearly, if Giuliani appears to be on his way to the Republican nomination, there will be a battle among the ranks over abortion. Wait and see.

Some high-profile conservatives have been supporting Giuliani because of his credentials from 9-11. But the thing that a lot of people forget is that 9-11 was Election Day in New York City. The election was halted that morning when the attacks were well under way, and the voting was re-scheduled, to be held at a later date.

If the attacks had occurred 24 hours later, there would have been a mayor-elect in New York -- and Rudy Giuliani's political career might not have received the boost it received as a result of the attacks.

Someone else might well have been "Mr. 9-11." (Except, I guess that would be "Mr. 9-12.")

How Will It Play?

With the negative reaction he received from social conservatives at the Values Voter Summit, Rudy Giuliani must feel pretty good about getting the endorsement of Pat Robertson, arguably the most influential social conservative in American politics, following the death of Jerry Falwell in May.

Personally, I would have expected Robertson to endorse someone like Mike Huckabee. Or even Mitt Romney, who aggressively sought Robertson's support.

But it is surprising to me that someone who is on the record as being in favor of abortion rights and gay rights would earn the endorsement of someone like Robertson.

How surprising is Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani? McCain summed it up pretty well when he said, "Every once in a while, I am left speechless. This is one of those times."

I have to wonder how this is going to play with social conservatives. They're not apt to be speechless at the ballot box. And that's where the impact of endorsements will be felt.

More From The Polls

Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York is locked in statistical dead heats with her main Republican rivals, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson, according to Rasmussen Reports.

In a matchup with Giuliani, Clinton comes out on the short end, 46% to 44%. Clinton wins her matchup with Thompson, 47% to 45%.

But both results fall within the margin of error, so the candidate who trails in a given matchup may actually be leading.

Rasmussen also reports that there seems to be a distinct gender gap involved in Clinton's candidacy. According to polls, about 18% of Republican women would vote for Clinton, but about 20% of Democratic men would vote for the Republican running against her in the general election.

Romney, Huckabee Favorites At The Values Voters Summit

Republicans have been gathering in Washington this weekend to appeal to Christian conservatives at the Values Voters Summit.

There never really was any question that abortion would be a hot topic at the summit.

And former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani deserves credit for facing up to his stated position, which isn't very popular with Christian conservatives. Giuliani is pro-choice, and he didn't walk away from that position to win some votes.

"Isn't it better that I tell you what I really believe instead of pretending to change all of my positions to fit the prevailing winds?" Giuliani asked his listeners.

The sentiment was admirable, but not successful.

Even though Giuliani spoke about his own faith and his reliance on religion being "at the core of who I am," former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney finished first in a straw poll of Christian conservatives at the Values Voters Summit, receiving 1,595 votes (27.6%) from 5,775 that were cast online, in person or by mail.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee came in a close second with 1,565 votes (27.1%), Texas Rep. Ron Paul was third with 865 votes (15.0%) and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson was fourth with 564 votes (9.8%).

The remaining 20% were divided among the other Republican candidates. In that group, Giuliani received just 102 votes (1.8%).

Based on that, it appears that Giuliani has considerable work to do to convince Christian conservatives to support him in both his bid for the nomination and, if successful, his bid to win the general election -- even though Giuliani tried to reassure the restless Christian conservatives by telling them that he would appoint conservative judges, support school choice and demand victory in Iraq.

Those are all issues that are important to Christian conservatives -- but it appears that abortion remains the No. 1 issue with that voting bloc.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, who emphasized his own conservative credentials and his opposition to abortion, appears to be increasingly irrelevant to the presidential campaign. He received only 81 votes (1.4%).

Among those who voted in person at the summit and heard all the candidates speak, Huckabee, who criticized the "holocaust of liberalized abortion," was the clear choice, receiving 488 of 952 in-person votes (51.3%). Romney received 99 in-person votes (10.4%).

It's odd that Romney should win the overall vote, based on his support for the anti-abortion cause. His original position was pro-choice, but he has switched to pro-life since deciding to enter the presidential race. Romney also has some work to do to persuade Christian conservatives that Mormons are Christians. About half of Christian conservatives polled are unconvinced.

On the Democratic side, there's some news from Iowa. The Storm Lake Times endorsed Delaware Sen. Joe Biden for the presidency, following Biden's recent visit to the small town of Storm Lake in western Iowa. The newspaper told its readers that Biden has the "professional skills and ... the personal strength" to be president.

News From The Campaign Trail ...

There are more developments in the presidential campaign today.

* Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback apparently will end his presidential campaign on Friday.

Sam who?

Don't feel bad if you haven't heard of him. Brownback hardly made a ripple in the polls, remaining in single digits throughout his ill-advised venture into presidential politics. In the latest CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, conducted last weekend, Brownback had the support of 1% of respondents.

And his campaign warchest reportedly has less than $100,000.

You don't win presidential campaigns with that kind of support and that kind of financial backing.

Nevertheless, Brownback was one of the few, unabashedly genuine social conservatives running on the Republican side. With a social moderate like Giuliani one of the leaders in the race, it begs the question -- Who will win the social conservative vote?

* Jeb Bush Jr., nephew of the president and the son of the former Florida governor, endorsed Rudy Giuliani in his quest for the Republican nomination.

“I know that Rudy has the leadership qualities and unmatched experience to be the next president of the United States,” Bush said. “I’m honored to join his campaign and look forward to working with the many young professionals throughout Florida supporting the mayor.”

Bush will be the chairman of Florida Young Professionals.

It remains to be seen how much positive influence an endorsement from a Bush will have in the race. But Jeb Bush Jr. becomes the second well-known person to join Giuliani's campaign lately. Texas Gov. Rick Perry took a national co-chairmanship in Giuliani's campaign yesterday.

* If Barack Obama expected to unite black registered Democrats behind his bid for the presidential nomination, the latest CNN poll shows he is failing in that effort. The CNN survey reports that Hillary Clinton is the choice of 57% of black registered Democrats, and Obama is favored by 33%.

Clinton's lead over Obama among black Democrats seems to be fueled by support from black women, who pick Clinton over Obama by 68% to 25%. Apparently, black women's allegiance to their gender is more significant than their allegiance to their race.

Among white Democrats, Clinton has 49% support, while Obama is at 18% and former Sen. John Edwards has 17%.

You can read more about the survey here.

* While we're on the subject of polls, the latest CBS News poll shows Giuliani leading among Republicans with 29%.

His nearest competitors are former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson with 21% and Arizona Sen. John McCain with 18%. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has 12% and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who was included in the poll for the first time, has 4%.

* It looks like we won't have to get too far into the new year before people will start voting in the presidential race.

Iowa is scheduled to hold its caucuses on January 3. That's 11 weeks from now.

New Hampshire still hasn't decided when to hold its first-in-the-nation primary, but to retain its status, New Hampshire will have to hold its vote at least before January 15, which is the date voters in Michigan go to the polls in that state's presidential primary.

To be first overall, New Hampshire will have to schedule its vote for January 1 or 2 -- or take the unprecedented step of holding its primary in the calendar year before the general election is to be held.

Anyone for a little post-Christmas politics? 'Tis the season ...

What Giuliani Needs to Do

Fred Barnes, in an article in The Weekly Standard, says Rudy Giuliani needs to demonstrate to social conservatives that he's committed to an anti-abortion posture when he speaks to the Values Voter Summit in Washington next weekend.

Polls have shown that more than a quarter of Republicans would vote for a third-party candidate who has the support of social conservative leaders if Giuliani is the Republican nominee.

Some social conservative leaders, like Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Gary Bauer of American Values, are speaking unfavorably about Giuliani's social conservative credentials and his efforts to score points with social conservatives, such as his pledge to appoint "strict constructionist" justices to the Supreme Court.

As Barnes points out, Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but enough people voted for Ralph Nader in Florida to deprive Gore of that state's electoral votes -- and, thus, swung the state and the election to George W. Bush (with the help of the mostly Republican-appointed Supreme Court).

A mass defection on the scale that polls are suggesting almost certainly would doom Giuliani in the general election, Barnes says.

It's a reasonable argument. But I think there's another question that social conservatives who have supported the Republican Party need to ask themselves.

The Republican Party has had an anti-abortion plank in its platform since 1980. In nearly 28 years, we've had 7 presidential elections, and Republicans have won 5 of them. Republicans controlled the Senate from 1981 to 1987, and Republicans controlled both houses of Congress from 1995 to 2007.

With all those Republican office-holders -- who, apparently, owed their elections in part to the anti-abortion movement -- why has nothing been done on this issue?

That's not something that can be blamed on Giuliani.

Even if social conservatives defect to support a pro-life candidate, they've already had all the cards on their side for many years -- and nothing has been done.

What else did they need?

Faith and Politics

How does the religious rhetoric from presidential candidates stack up?

One way to measure it is by taking a look at beliefnet.com's "God-o-Meter," which updates a candidate's rating based on interviews and other statements concerning religion. So each rating apparently is current.

Members of the religious right are said to be likely to bolt the Republican Party for a third-party candidate if Rudy Giuliani wins the nomination. Based on the God-o-Meter's current rating, that may be correct. Giuliani currently gets the lowest rating of any of the presidential candidates -- tied with Democrat Chris Dodd.

Does religion belong in a political debate? Many people swear by the principle of "separation of church and state," but, in reality, church and state have never been legally separate.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan owed his election as president, in part, to the activities of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority. Four years earlier, Jimmy Carter had no problem talking about being a "born again Christian" who was seeking the presidency. In 1960, John F. Kennedy had to deal with criticism for being a Catholic running for president of a nation that had always had Protestant presidents.

The discussion of Mitt Romney's Mormonism is just the latest chapter in the story.

Whether overtly or covertly, religion has always had a role in political campaigns.

The question each voter has to answer is, how much of a role does religion play when you're deciding which candidate to support?

Would Rudy Split the GOP?

A source in the Dallas Morning News suggests that the nomination of Rudy Giuliani to head the Republican ticket in 2008 will lead to a split in the Republican ranks, resulting in a third-party candidate who espouses traditional Republican positions on social issues like abortion, gay rights and gun control.

The outcome of that, the head of the Morley Institute for Church and Culture told the Dallas newspaper, would be the "siphoning off" of 5-10% of Republican votes -- and the election of the Democratic nominee, presumably Hillary Clinton.

Giuliani may have been the man at Ground Zero on September 11, 2001. And many people may be supporting him now because of their memories of his role on that day. But it remains to be seen if, as the Dallas Morning News suggests, "The Giuliani campaign is ground zero in the fight over the future of the religious right."

Giuliani's campaign is clearly counting on the belief that religious conservatives are more concerned about national security right now than they are about social issues. But that would mark a radical shift for them, a shift I'm not convinced has occurred.

If another terrorist attack happens, national security will become the top issue for both parties -- and all bets are off. But the more distance there is between 9-11-01 and the primaries, the more likely it is that voters in both parties will forget how it felt on that day. And the more likely it is that voters in both parties will continue to vote on pre-9/11 concerns.

Stay tuned.

Giuliani's 'Gender Gap'

In June, the Los Angeles Times was reporting a "gender gap" in the support levels for most of the leading Republican candidates for president.

Rudy Giuliani enjoyed the support of 35% of Republican men, but only 21% of Republican women were backing his candidacy. Fred Thompson hadn't entered the race at that time, but the Times reported that the former Tennessee senator was supported by 33% of Republican men but only 15% of Republican women favored him. Mitt Romney wasn't getting much support from either group, with only 5% of Republican men and 14% of Republican women on his side.

According to a Gallup Poll released last Friday, Rudy seems to have narrowed his "gender gap" in the last three months, with support from 34% of Republican women and 31% of Republican men.

That still translates only into about one-third of the Republican electorate. If you're going to win the nomination to be the standard-bearer for a major political party, you have to do better than that.

Although it's hard to deny that Giuliani, who has a record of supporting the right to choose, gay rights and other issues that Republicans haven't been supporting since before Ronald Reagan was nominated (if then), is moving in the right direction with women in his party.

At first glance, it looks like he's slipping among men in his party, but that "slippage" is actually within the usual margin of error. It could be that Giuliani's support among Republican men has remained about the same while his support among Republican women has risen dramatically.

So dramatically, in fact, that he may be supported by more women in his party than men.

I wonder if these Republican women have heard the latest diatribe from Ann Coulter, whose newest extremist tome hits bookstores this week. In an interview with The New York Observer, the Queen of Mean claims that we'd never have another Democratic president if women were denied the right to vote.

What The Polls Say

National polls tell us that Hillary Clinton, senator from New York, and Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City, are the leading contenders for their parties' nominations.

But presidential politics is really about momentum as much as it is about anything else, and momentum will be established by what happens in the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. And the voters in both of those states have shown decidedly independent streaks in the past. They don't seem to care what people elsewhere are thinking. They are intent upon making up their own minds.

We're less than four months away from Iowa and New Hampshire. And, according to the latest Newsweek polls from Iowa, neither Clinton nor Giuliani have "the big Mo," as the first President Bush called it.

Newsweek reports that, on the Democratic side, Barack Obama is getting 28% from likely caucus participants, Clinton is getting 24% and John Edwards is getting 22%. Clinton had been leading in previous polls of Iowa Democrats, but every poll suggests that support for all three of the top contenders is soft and that anything could still happen there.

On the Republican side, Newsweek says Mitt Romney, whose father was governor of nearby Michigan, has 24%, while his nearest competitor, Fred Thompson, has 16%. Giuliani is polling at 13%, Mike Huckabee is getting 12% and John McCain is in single digits at 9%. Again, polls suggest that support remains soft, but Romney has been in front, by varying margins, in every poll I've seen from Iowa for a month or more.

The Iowa polls were conducted a few days ago, September 26-27. You can read more about the Newsweek polls in Iowa here.

If these polls continue to hold until the caucus in January, Obama and Romney, not Clinton and Giuliani, will have the momentum heading into primary season.

Or will they? Jonathan Martin, of The Politico, asserts that Giuliani is Mr. September after enjoying perhaps his best month as a candidate for the Republican nomination.

The question now is, will he be Mr. November of 2008? Or will Hillary be Ms. November?

Or will they both be merely memories of the political season after the parties' conventions next summer?