The highlight, though, was this cryptic exchange about President-elect Barack Obama:

NYT: Are you going to send him a little note congratulating him?
Rove: I already have. I sent it to his office. I sent him a handwritten note with funny stamps on the outside.
NYT: What kind of funny stamps?
Rove: Stamps.

That called to mind one of the more cryptic MnIndy interviews of the campaign season. It took place last month, outside a Todd Palin rally in Moorhead, Minn. Prompted by the Minnesota Independent’s Paul Demko, Moorhead resident Greg Rhodes, a McCain-Palin supporter, revealed that he’d just handed Alaska’s “first dude” some photographs. What kind of photographs?  Watch a less-than-a-minute MnIndy video clip after the jump to find out.

“Gutter politics are a gross insult to the good people of our district,” Rep. Jim Ramstad said Tuesday while praising Republican candidate Erik Paulsen for upholding of the “proud tradition of clean politics and ethical campaigns.” But as history demonstrates, there is a long and unadmirable record of flogging a political opponent’s unmarried status as a genteel means of throwing the race into the gutter. And since no accusation is ever actually made, the implication is not really susceptible to rebuttal. It just hangs out there with a wink.

It’s ironic that a tactic like this should arise in a race to replace Republican Rep. Jim Ramstad, who himself was single for most of his congressional career, until he married Kathryn Mitchell in October 2005.

But as I said, there’s a long track record behind this kind of ploy.

The Republican Party of Minnesota’s newest attack line on Madia’s unmarried status (he’s only 30 years old, after all) mirrors that of veteran political operative Karl Rove.

In 1994, Rove commissioned Republican operatives to engage in a whisper campaign against then-Gov. Ann Richards, a Democrat. The campaign started by attacking Richard’s status as a single woman and then devolved into criticizing her appointment of several gay and lesbian Texans to government positions.

The circumstances were ripe for Rove to encourage surrogates to ask around if she might be a lesbian, and as Richards defended her position that her appointments were made on merit regardless of sexual orientation, the press began asking her if she was a lesbian. Richards lost the election to George W. Bush, with some political experts claiming the defeat was spearheaded by the whisper campaign.

Janet Napolitano, the Democratic governor of Arizona, faced a similar smear campaign in 2002 when Republicans posted “Vote Gay” posters next to her campaign posters. Harold Ford, Jr., ran for Senate in Tennessee in 2006. His single life resulted in rumors that he was gay — that is, until his Republican opponent, Bob Corker, painted him as a womanizer (and added racial undertones for greater effect).

Are Minnesota Republicans as adept at whisper campaigns as Rove? Probably not. But the term “lifestyle,” employed by party chair Ron Carey, is certainly a loaded term; it’s commonly used in religious-right circles as a derogatory term connoting gays and lesbians.

Two weeks ago marked 2008’s Unmarried and Single Americans Week, promoted by Unmarried America, a nonprofit group that lobbies Congress on issues facing single, divorced, widowed or otherwise unmarried Americans. The group announced last month that 101 million households in the United States were headed by unmarried people. Unmarried America further points out that there are more than 80 members of Congress who are unmarried and that single legislators have been a part of Congress throughout history.

One difference, though: One hundred and seventy years ago, attacking a congressman on the basis of his marital status could get you killed. Calling into question the morality of “some unmarried Congressman” on the House floor ultimately resulted in a duel between two congressmen on the Capitol lawn in 1838. Rep. William Graves of Kentucky killed Rep. Jonathon Cilley of Maine on the fourth shot in an attempt to defend his honor.

Barb Davis White:

With the national economy in the tank and a seemingly never-ending war in Iraq, Republicans are looking to change the subject. But is abortion a winning issue in 2008? Some Minnesota Republicans seem to think so.

In national public opinion polls, abortion hasn’t registered with voters as a top priority at all this year. It reached 4 percent once this year, and more than 70 percent have said the presidential candidates’ positions on the issue aren’t a deal-breaker at the voting booth. The most recent SurveyUSA poll, which had McCain ahead by one point, found the Minnesota breakdown didn’t follow typical party lines. Only 45 percent of Minnesotans identified as “pro-life,” while 54 percent said they were “pro-choice.”

In late September, the Republican Party of Minnesota sent out its absentee ballot applications wrapped in an anti-abortion tract.

“Please complete the attached Absentee Ballot Application. And when you vote, please vote Pro-Life,” it read. “The next President will likely have the opportunity to appoint as many as three Supreme Court Justices. Those of us who vote Pro-Life know the importance of supporting candidates pledging to appoint Justices to the bench who will protect life. Vote Pro-Life because the unborn are depending on you.”

The tract could be a ploy to get anti-abortion votes, but even federal candidates are putting abortion forward as the most important campaign issue.

In Minnesota’s 8th Congressional District, which encompasses the northeast quarter of the state, the Republican candidate, Mike Cummins, is running an anti-abortion campaign. At a recent meeting of Republican party activists in Hubbard County in north-central Minnesota, party officials and candidates hammered that point home. Steve Booth, who ran for state Senate in 2006, introduced Cummins and said that same-sex marriage and abortion are vital to the party.

“It’s the number one and two criteria in making life’s decisions,” he said. Booth said he wants candidates who oppose gun control and who will work to abolish abortion in Minnesota, according to the Park Rapids Enterprise.

“The Democrats don’t want us to focus on the sanctity of human life and marriage,” he said. “They know their position is indefensible.”

Adding that the “devil” will attempt to persecute Republicans and others on high moral ground, he said. “We need to force Democrats to justify killing unborn babies. … That’s our platform; that’s why we’re Republican.”

Cummins, the Republican who is running against Rep. James Oberstar in the 8th District, echoed those sentiments. He said that politicians’ stance on abortion is the “number one question.”

“I’m 100 percent pro-life. We need to continue to hammer on morality,” he said. “Nothing is as important as life.”

In the 5th Congressional District, the most liberal in the state, Republican Barb Davis White is trying to unseat Rep. Keith Ellison. Her campaign sent out a press release in late September attacking Ellison’s position on abortion.

“The killing of thousands of innocent baby’s everyday must stop! As a Patriot I believe that the first right according to the Constitution of the United States is that of LIFE,” wrote Davis White. “My opponent Keith Ellison does not and votes for the notion that the killing of babies should not be discussed by script from a physician to a mother as to what was going to happen to her and her baby.”

According to the report from the Department of Interior inspector general, Earl E. Devaney, 19 members of the RIK staff accepted illegal gifts from 2002 to 2006 and several were found to have manipulated the contract process. The report indicated that oil companies Chevron, Shell, Gary Williams Energy Corporation and Hess Corporation provided the gifts to RIK employees.

RIK was not limited to ethical corruption either. Employees engaged in sexual encounters with “prohibited sources.” A few members of the RIK staff were referred to as the “MMS Chicks” by oil industry representatives and lascivious emails often preceded industry functions. Rampant cocaine, marijuana and alcohol abuse was also reported.

“The single-most serious problem our investigations revealed is a pervasive culture of exclusivity, exempt from the rules that govern all other employees of the Federal Government,” Devaney reported.

The timing of the report comes at a particularly difficult time for Republican lawmakers currently pushing new energy legislation that loosens regulations on drilling on the outer continental shelf.

Weber is the best I know at promoting his (Republican) side and his (conservative) cause without denying the obvious or making those who disagree with him feel that he is insulting their intelligence.

An early and ardent supporter of the Iraq War, Weber’s presentation of even that awkward topic combined qualities of candor with at least the best defense of what President Bush has done, and the possibility that it won’t sink the Republican ticket this year, as you can imagine. I’ll give chapter and verse on that below. But first, his overview of the Republican presidential field at this moment in the contest:Weber started by, as he said, “acknowledging the obvious,” that according to the current polling, the Republicans have given back over the last three years all of the gains they had made since 1978 — gains that had enabled them to win five of the last seven presidential elections. Having pulled to parity in party identification, the GOP now trails the Democrats by 12 points. The Dem advantage is bigger among younger voters.

The Republicans are no longer the party that most Americans trust on issues of national security or prosperity/economic security.

Front loading of caucus and primary schedules has backfired

If the states that moved up their primaries and caucuses thought they were going to increase their impact and force the presidential candidates to spend time and money there, they have brought about almost the opposite effect.

With 20 states (including New York and California) holding primaries or caucuses on Feb. 5 (and the Dems have 22 day), the nominations have an excellent chance of being decided that night.

But since none of the candidates has the resources to compete in that many widely scattered state races, the candidates are focusing even more of their time and money on Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, believing a strong showing in those traditional early contests is the best way to do well on the superest of Super Tuesdays.

Mitt Romney (Weber is a high-ranking Romney advisor) has built his early strategy around the traditional one-two punch in Iowa and New Hampshire. His problem is that his big lead in Iowa has disappeared. In a hallway conversation with me, Weber acknowledged that Romney hasn’t come across well in the recent debates, and appears to be on the defensive.

Rudy Giuliani’s best states (like New York) are in the Super Tuesday lineup, and Giuliani had originally hoped to avoid seriously competing in the early states, but he has now realized that if you start 0-for-4, you head into Super Tuesday looking like a loser. So he’s now changed his strategy and trying to gin up a decent showing in New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Mike Huckabee, the dark horse of the year so far, has a strategy based on pulling a big come-from-behind win in Iowa. Weber acknowledged that “there’s every possibility he could win in Iowa,” which would be a big blow to Weber’s guy Romney. But Huckabee has little organization or natural appeal in New Hampshire and little money in which to run in the big Super Tuesday states. So Weber doesn’t see an easy way for Huckabee to build on his Iowa surge,

John McCain (whom Weber backed in 2000) started out thinking he could run a national campaign as the natural frontrunner, but has found out otherwise and is now betting everything on New Hampshire. He will drop out soon after New Hampshire if he doesn’t win there.

Fred Thompson is betting the farm on South Carolina. But Weber says Thompson isn’t strong “anywhere north of Nashville,” and Weber has never understood what made Thompson think he had a chance for the nomination.

The problems of neo-Reaganism in 2008

Thompson is supposedly the most Reagan-like of the candidates, and Republicans still believe in the Reagan magic. But Weber said that Reaganism “is not something you can just pick up the way it was invented in 1980 and say the same lines all over again.” Weber took apart the three strands of American conservatism — economic, social and national security — that Reagan wove together into a winning coalition, and explained the current Republican challenges with each of them.

On Reagan-style economic conservatism, Weber said the problem was that 40 percent of U.S. households don’t pay any income taxes. It’s hard to construct a tax-cutting message that has widespread popular appeal, Weber said. He mentioned that Huckabee is promoting the so-called “Fair Tax,” which does away with income taxes entirely. But  Weber seems to think that idea is pretty crazy and most people figure this out when they learn that the income tax would be replaced with a 23-30 percent sales tax on everything they buy.

On social conservatism, Weber said he was nervous about Republicans who, as they contemplate the possibility of nominating a pro-choice candidate like Giuliani, say that the social conservatives will have to stick with the Repubs because they have nowhere else to go. Weber said evangelical Christians used to be Democrats.  They became Republicans almost entirely because of the abortion issue. If they decide the party has broken faith with them on that issue, they are not necessarily economic or national security conservatives. Right now they are excited about Huckabee, a Baptist preacher who speaks their language and has been steadfast on the social issues.

“My view is that Mike Huckabee can’t win the Republican nomination,” Weber said, “but Republicans can’t win without those voters.” If Huckabee loses in a way that makes social conservatives feel ignored, disrespected or abandoned, it could be a major blow to the Republican ticket, he said.

Iraq

But the “motherlode” of Republican support over recent years has been the widely held view that Republicans could be trusted to protect the country while the 1972 McGovern candidacy turned the Dems into a party that the public perceived as dangerously weak on military issues, Weber said.

The Iraq War has cost the Republicans that reputation, Weber said. That’s the kind of acknowledgment of painful (but indisputable) truths I referred to at the top that wins Weber points with me for credibility. And he went further during a Q and A with political scientist Larry Jacobs after the talk.

The level of violence in Iraq is down, and is starting to show up in polls, with more Americans saying the war is going well. But Weber said: “I don’t think Republicans should take much solace from the improved polling.”

The poll numbers haven’t improved on the question: Was the war a mistake? Weber’s interpretation: “The country has decided that it wasn’t worth it. They’re saying: ‘Yes, it’s better to win than to lose. But it would have been better not to have done it at all.’”

The only hopeful sign for his party on that score, Weber said, is that the salience of the war as a voting issue seems to be declining. He didn’t say this, but implied that if the 2008 election is basically a referendum on the Iraq War, the Repubs will lose.

But, having presented the Iraq War as a political problem for his party, Weber said two other things that amounted to a half-defense of the war, and a half-prediction that it doesn’t have to sink the Repubs in 2008.

The half-defense was this:

When Jacobs asked him directly whether the war had been a mistake, Weber said that it turned out to be a mistake to topple Saddam Hussein when the Bush administration did it.

If Bush had known that there were no weapons of mass destruction (Weber clearly implied that Bush believed the weapons were there, and wasn’t challenged on that point), it would have been wiser to wait to topple Saddam until U.S. troops were no longer tied down in Afghanistan.

BUT, he noted that Bill Clinton had endorsed regime change in Iraq as a U.S. goal, and that Madeleine Albright had compared Saddam with Hitler. Weber asserted that the sanctions regime that had restrained Saddam over the previous decade was unraveling. Weber said that even the Dulfer Report, the final definitive post-invasion statement of the U.S. government on the absence of WMD in Iraq, had concluded that the acquisition of nuclear weapons remained a priority for Saddam.

The half-prediction was this: The Iraq issue doesn’t have to be a big factor in the election if voters can see through the hype and realize that the concrete differences between mainstream Democratic and Republican position on Iraq are not that big.

The Bush administration is planning to start reducing U.S. troops strength in the spring of 2008 (if only, Weber acknowledged, because the current troops levels can’t be sustained). Top Democratic candidates like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are talking about a schedule of 16 months or more to withdraw combat troops. Neither Clinton, Obama nor John Edwards would guarantee to have all U.S. troops out of Iraq during the next presidential term. The Democratic position “is not hugely different from what Bush is saying,” Weber said.

Is this clever spin, wishful thinking or a partial truth? My gut feeling is that it has elements of all three.

Rankings and analysis after breakIf the GOP caucuses were held tonight, this is how we think they would turn out:

  1. Mitt Romney — Romney has put by far the most resources into building an organization in Iowa, and so far it has paid off.  His large staff and well-connected network of supporters keep him on top of what is otherwise a very volatile field.  Although other candidates are showing signs of strength, Romney will not give up the top spot without a big fight.

  2. Mike Huckabee — Huckabee appears to be the flavor of the month.  Although he failed to capitalize on his surprise 2nd place finish at the Ames Straw Poll to the degree many expected he would and turned in lackluster third quarter fund raising numbers, the winds seemed to shift a few weeks ago, and Huckabee started getting buzz.  Despite high profile evangelical endorsements going to other candidates, one gets the sense that rank-and-file social conservatives in Iowa are breaking his way.  And although his Iowa staff is tiny in comparison to Romney’s, it is led by talented heavy-hitters at the top.

  3. Rudy Giuliani — Reports of Giuliani’s reasonably high poll numbers in Iowa are generally followed by statements about what might happen “when Iowa Republicans find out about the real Giuliani.”  So far, either most GOP caucus-goers have not found out about the former mayor’s personal history, or fewer than expected are turned off by it.  Although one might expect Giuliani to slip farther down the list by January 3, we expect he would finish third if the caucuses were held tonight.

  4. Ron Paul — Paul’s support comes from the least likely corners of Iowa, making it very difficult to measure with “likely voter” polls.  Cynics expect his unlikely coalition to stay home on caucus night, and they might; but if the depth of a candidate’s support is one measure of his likely success in the caucuses, Paul has the rest of the field beat.  While Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, former Sen. Fred Thompson, and Sen. John McCain appear to swap supporters every few weeks, Paul’s fans remain squarely in his corner.  And there is the oft-ignored fact that polls show that a majority of likely GOP caucus-goers favor withdrawal from Iraq within six months, which many analysts are hard-pressed to explain.

  5. Fred Thompson — Before Huckabee became the flavor of the month, there was Thompson, who entered the presidential race late amid significant fanfare.  But entering late makes building an organization difficult, and so far Thompson does not seem to have spent enough time relationship-building with activists to have put an infrastructure in place.  His national endorsement from Right to Life showed a glimmer of promise for his Iowa operation, but hopes were dashed when Iowa Right to Life, which could have given the former senator the organizational jump he needed to catch up to his opponents, decided to remain neutral.

  6. John McCain — Having failed to captivate Iowa’s social conservatives with McCain version 2.0, the Arizona senator has reverted back to the straight-talking McCain 1.0 — the candidate who ended up skipping Iowa entirely in 2000.  What remains of his organization here appears to be spread too thin, and his willingness to speak his mind about ethanol and immigration, among other subjects, has not won him many friends.

  7. Tom Tancredo — Tancredo has very small pockets of deep support across the state, but, as a self-admitted one-issue candidate, he does not even seem interested in broadening his appeal.  While his ‘explosive’ new TV ad may have been a bold enough strategy to land him on cable news for a few days, we wonder how much money he actually put behind the buy, because we have spoken to very few GOP caucus-goers who have seen it.

  8. Duncan Hunter — Hunter has no real organization in place here, and he has spent very little time campaigning to build one.

  9. John Cox — Free potato chips may win Cox a few votes, but he has no institutional support and very little name recognition.

Also, check out the original post for some heated discussion.

]]> http://minnesotaindependent.com/2737/iowa-independent-power-rankings-republican-presidential-candidates/feed 0 http://minnesotaindependent.com/2176/the-presidential-race-kicks-off http://minnesotaindependent.com/2176/the-presidential-race-kicks-off#comments Sat, 11 Aug 2007 01:00:00 +0000 Robin Marty http://www.minnesotaindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=2176 Campaign season has started, with the largest Republican presidential candidate straw poll commencing this weekend in Ames, Iowa.  And the coverage has already begun…

A new University of Iowa poll shows “Don’t Know” leading Iowa Republicans with 35 percent.  Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is in first place among actual candidates with 22 percent, followed by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani at 10 percent.  Arizona Sen. John McCain, a one-time front-runner, is at 2 percent.  Even Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have more support from Iowa Republicans.

For the freshest of presidential coverage follow along at Iowa Independent, where reporters Doug Burns and Chase Martyn will be inside and on the floor with the latest news and results.

There’s a little boy who believes a monster lives in his closet. As it turns out, the monster, who is big and ugly and creepy, is just as afraid of the little boy as the boy is of him. They finally realize that they have a common bond and become friends. The end.

Many Minnesota Republicans insist there is a nightmare in their closet. It’s called taxes, which can be big and ugly and creepy if you perceive them to be that way. Or they can become your friend if you respect them and utilize what they have to offer.

more inside
Generally speaking, higher taxes go with higher standards of living and more egalitarian societies. The Scandinavian countries are a good example. Minnesota is another good example. The quality of life in Minnesota is one of the highest in the nation. It is also a relatively high tax state.

Put simply, taxes are a shared way in which society pays for common properties, goods and services that everyone uses. Examples include schools, parks, roads, police and fire protection and public defense (in the case of a nation). Taxes also help pay for health care, food, housing and business incentives.

Indeed, taxes are not to be feared but to be utilized.

The logic of treating taxes as if they are a nightmare hiding in a closet is beyond me, unless, of course, it is done for purely political reasons. In that case, treating taxes as if they were a big and ugly and creepy monster makes perfect sense if you put your own political agenda, personal opportunities and personal wealth above everyone else’s. To me that’s called selfishness

A revolution? Not quite. But the first paragraph of an editorial from a southeastern Minnesota newspaper chain speaks volumes about the change that has overcome the American electorate, at least as represented by a small-town newspaper publisher in a chiefly rural area in the upper Midwest.

more inside…David Phillips of the Bluff Country Newspaper Group writes:

The voters’ mandate for change reached all the way down to the bottom of the state as Democrats made strong inroads within Minnesota and the nation. When January rolls around, it will be the first time that I have been represented by DFL members in the state House and Senate since I moved here 25 years ago. For many people living in this area, it will be the first time they have ever been represented by DFL party members in both chambers in the state as well as the U.S. House of Representatives all at the same time.

That’s the microcosm, which offers an inkling of the future in a traditionally conservative district. But the macrocosm as well speaks of the possibility of a new long-term trend. Generally, if nothing else, Americans are (a) trusting and (b) wary of change. This is why they have tended to believe their leaders in the White House and Congress when they have insisted that (a) the war in Iraq is going fine, (b) big deficits don’t matter, (c) one-party rule is the best way to govern, (d) government is the enemy of the people, and (e) global warming does not exist