I know, after New Hampshire, we should just forget about the polls. Or should we?

To me, the Obama-Clinton polling faux pas says little about the value of political polling and a lot about the eccentricities of the Granite state .

But then that's me. If you disagree and want to just forget about the polls, I guess I'll see you later.

Still with me? Okay, then, let's look at the latest numbers.

	Michigan (Jan 15) Deleg=60	S. Carolina (Jan 19) Deleg=47	Nevada (Jan 19) Deleg=34	Florida (Jan 29) Deleg=114
Giuliani	10.3	7.0	23.7	26.5
Huckabee	19.0	24.0	15.3	21.3
McCain	19.5	22.5	7.3	14.3
Paul	4.0	5.0	5.0	3.7
Romney	20.3	16.5	23.7	16.5
Thompson	4.5	9.3	9.7	8.5

Who's leading in Michigan (Jan. 15)?

Going into Michigan next Thursday (Jan. 15), Romney, McCain, and Huckabee sit in a statistical tie. Of course, that may change after the South Carolina debates later tonight.

But then everything changes (except Gov. Romney "core beliefs"; sorry, couldn't help myself)--so what's new? Michigan, incidentally, will be divvying up 60 delegates--or 30 if you believe the GOP penalizes Mich. for moving up it's primary before Feb. 5. That means roughly 12 delegates apiece (or 6, with the penalty) for the three front-runners.

Then comes S.C. and Nevada on Jan. 19

After Michigan, it's S.C. and Nevada--both on Jan. 19. Huckabee leads in S.C. (by 1.5% over McCain), while Giuliani and Romney are now tied in Nevada at about 24% apiece.

Historically, S.C. has carried a lot of weight in the early primaries, so expect the race there to be hotly contested--especially since Thompson (and probably McCain too) sees S.C. as make-or-break time.

Giuliani's Florida strategy

And that leaves only Florida standing between the GOP candidates and Super Tuesday on Feb. 5. Florida, of course, is Rudy's "fire wall" (or life-jacket might be closer to the truth), as it's the first serious contest in the Mayor's so-called "big-state" strategy.

Giuliani continues to lead the Sunshine state with 26.5% of the vote. But Huckabee's only 5% behind and with a big win in S.C. could end up spoiling Rudy's party.

Well it's definitely been an exciting GOP primary season thus far!

So what's up with the Republican candidates after Iowa? Read on and see!

Wyoming caucuses get underway

Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson are looking to rebound in today's Wyoming GOP caucuses. (more...)

Ron Paul is top GOP fundraiser

It was announced this week that Ron Paul leads the Republican pack in raising campaign funds. (more...)

Elsewhere, Fox News is sticking by its decision to exclude Paul from it's GOP debate in New Hampshire on Sunday, Jan 5. The NH Republican Party has even petitioned the network to include Paul, but to no avail. (more...)

Huckabee new darling of late-night talk

Following last week's success on the Leno show, Gov. Huckabee is now scheduled to appear on CBS's "Late Show" with David Letterman on Monday, the day before the NH primary. (more...)

In an email to supporters, the Huckabee campaign says it's candidate now tops the polls in SC, Oklahoma, Montana, and Georgia--and is second in California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New York and Wisconsin.

Mitt says he's "Mr. Change"

Taking a chapter from Barack Obama's victory in Iowa, the Massachusetts' Governor now says he's the real deal when it comes to "change". (more...)

McCain basks in NH limelight

In NH for Tuesday's primary, McCain says his moment is at hand, predicting (with a few cautions) that he will capture Tuesday's presidential primary here, as he did eight years ago. (more...)

Thompson to skip NH

The TN Senator said he's skipping the NH primary in order to focus on Wyoming. Thompson told MSNBC "We're not competitive in New Hampshire. And we won’t be campaigning there other than to go in for the debates which are tomorrow night and sunday night." (more...)

Rudy supporters growing restless

With the mayor losing Iowa and now falling in the NH polls, Giuliani's "national strategy" is starting to raise doubts even among his own supporters. (more...)

Now that Iowa's spoken, it's time to see where the front-runners really stand.

So where do Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama weigh in on the issues?

Well, let's take a look.

Issue	Huckabee	Obama
IRAQ	Opposes timetable for troop withdrawal	Supports immediate (but gradual) withdrawal
TAXES	Would abolish IRS and institute national sales tax with "prebates" for poor.	Supports $85 billion tax cut for middle and low income. Supports increased capital gains & dividend taxes on "wealthy".
IMMIGRATION	Opposes "amnesty" for illegals. Opposes driver's licenses for illegals;	Supports "comprehensive" immigration reform, including "limited" amnesty (with fine and English requirement)
ABORTION	Pro-life: Opposes Roe v. Wade. Opposes embryonic stem cell research.	Pro-choice: Supports Roe v.Wade. Supports embryonic stem cell research.
TRADE	Opposes "unfair" foreign competition.	Would renegotiate NAFTA to include labor & environmental provisions.
CLIMATE CHANGE	Supports alternative energy & energy independence. Supports carbon emissions caps and 35MPH fuel efficiency standard.	Supports "cap-and-trade" program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Supports carbon emissions caps.

Well, there you have it--the basics of where today's front-runners stand. Time now to begin digging through the fine print!

To help get you started, you might want to check here and here.

Got a Comment? I want to hear from you!

In case you hadn't noticed, the 2008 Primary season is going to be shorter than ever.

Which raises an interesting question: which Republican candidate stands to benefit most from all the Primary schedule changes the States made in '07?

Before last week, the political pundits were all predicting a Huckabee victory in Iowa followed by a McCain or Giuliani triumph in NH. But that's before Governor Romney began resurrecting his early-primary campaign with a torrential advertising blitz in Iowa and NH this past week.

Now, with the actual voting set to start this Thursday, it's quite conceivable the Mass. Governor will win not only NH but possibly Iowa as well. And, more importantly, to go on from there to win the "big" primaries too!

The reason? It's those wacky Primary schedule changes I just mentioned.

Money will decide "Super Tuesday's" winner

First, a bit of history. Unlike the upcoming contests this year, past Primary line-ups tended to spread out the selection process over several months--rather than weeks and (in some cases) days this time around.

That gave each candidate repeated opportunities to make his case before the American voter. And that includes those candidates with the fewest financial resources (like Mike Huckabee) and the most limited medial coverage (like Ron Paul) this time around. Past Primaries also gave the candidates time to build (and replenish) campaign resources and recover from inevitable missteps along the way.

But that's all changed now!

This time around, there's just too little time between contests. The crunch gets especially bad right before the Florida Primary on Jan. 29.

The reason is Super Tuesday (on Feb. 5) which compresses twenty separate primaries into a single 24-hour period.

And it's not just the smaller states as in the early Primaries. Among those twenty Super Tuesday contests, the Republican candidates will be fighting for rich delegate slates in Illinois and Massachusetts as well as New Jersey--not to mention the grand-daddies of all the Primaries in California and New York.

Who profits from the new Primary schedule?

So back to our original question: "Who benefits from this hyper-compressed Primary schedule?"

Answer: The candidate(s) with the most money to lavish on TV ads.

Just think about it for a minute! There's simply no way a candidate can be in more than three or four states in a single day. At least not physically.

So the trick is creating a pseudo-presence in all key States simultaneously. And how do you do that? By blanketing the airwaves with campaign advertising, of course.

Just follow the cash!

But TV ads obviously don't come cheap these days. So who's got the cash to finance a Super Tuesday blitz?

The FEC's latest numbers show Gov. Romney ($61.6m) with the most campaign contributions by far, followed by Mayor Giuliani ($46.7m) and then Senator McCain ($31.4m).

Despite his surge in popularity, Gov. Huckabee ($2.3) is near the bottom of the Republican fundraising list--easily outdistanced by even Rep. Paul (at $8.2m) who's gotten little of the media attention lavished on the Arkansas Governor.

What it all means

So what's it mean for the impending Primary wars? I see two almost inescapable conclusions at this point:

1. The Republicans will have a Presidential nominee as early as Feb 6.

1. The most likely name of that nominee is Mitt Romney.

Whoever said "trash talk" doesn't pay?

Obviously, whoever it was never watched Governor Romney as he parlayed the black art of opponent decapitation over the political airwaves in Iowa and NH this past week. Attack ad after unrelenting attack ad--one embarrassing day followed by another. It seemed at times like the Romney attack machine simply couldn't quench it's voracious appetite for blood.

Huckabee conservative or McCain independent--you've gotta be wondering: Is this really the man the Neocons find so much to cheer about? And what of all those "honesty first" voters still out there who learn almost daily of some new reason to distrust the flip-meister from Massachusetts--errr, I mean Utah, errr, or is it Michigan?

Should they simply ignore all the Romney character questions and "candor gaps" in hopes of "lower taxes" and "fewer regulations" somewhere down the line? After all, unlike the average Neocon who's quite adept at flip-flopping himself (having leaped from the left to the right with the greatest of ease), Main Street Republicans still believe a person "means what he says"--and vice versa.

Now that Governor Romney's back in the early primary hunt, it's time to stop daydreaming about "what could have been" and start asking some hard political questions like . . .

What Happens now in SC and Florida?

Until Romney's withering TV barrage this past week, the gathering wisdom was that Huckabee wins Iowa and McCain takes NH. Now, with Mitts' unexpected resurgence, a new scenario has suddenly surfaced--namely Romney wins Iowa or NH or both.

Either outcome leaves only Michigan (on Jan. 15) and then SC and Nevada (on Jan. 19) for Huckabee and McCain to regroup before a final push in late Jan/early Feb.--following what would be back-to-back losses for one or both candidates. (You can throw Mayor Giuliani in the same boat too while you're at it.)

Now if that isn't bad enough for you Huckabee and McCain supporters, things just keep getting bleaker from then on. The reason? In two words, "time" and "money."

Because of all the Primary schedule changes the States made this year, it's quite likely the Republican nomination will be decided by mid-Feb at the latest, as Florida gathers on Jan. 29, followed by Maine on Feb. 1 and finally, twenty clincher contests on Feb 5-- "Super Tuesday". And who does this newly contracted schedule favor? You got it--the guy with all the money!

Money will decide who wins on Super Tuesday

Despite their other faults, past Primary line-ups shared at least one redeeming feature: they spread out the selection process over time, giving each candidate (including the one with the fewest campaign funds) the opportunity to make his case before the American voter. They also gave him some precious time to replenish his financial coffers and recover from minor mishaps and faux pas.

But that's not going to happen this time around; there's just not enough time between Primary A and Primary B. And unless the current scheduling problems are fixed, it won't be happening again in the foreseeable future either!

Any guess what else is going to happen under the new Primary scheduling system we've stumbled ourselves into? That's right, whoever has the most money to spend on TV ads is going to trump whoever's got the best character and foresight for leading our great nation!

Can't happen, you say? Well, just watch and weep as the best-funded campaigns start dominating the vote tallies and evening headlines starting next week!

Who gains most from the new Primary schedule?

And who might that be? According to the U.S. Federal Election Commission's latest tabulations (as of Dec. 30), Gov. Romney ($61.6m) has amassed the most campaign contributions by far--followed by Giuliani ($46.7m) and then McCain ($31.4m).

Where was Gov. Huckabee, you may be asking? Well, if you're a Huckabee supporter, you really don't want to know. Alright, if you insist, Huck was between Tancredo ($3.5m) and Thompson ($1.1m) at barely over $2m.

Now, of course, those figures have changed since the numbers were last tallied. But the basic picture remains the same. And that's even before you factor in Romney's considerable personal fortune just waiting to be added to all those contributions from the boys at Goldman Sachs.

Unless something happens to slow Romney's advance

So what's left for the other Republican candidates should Mitt steal the show in Iowa and/or NH?

Not much, unfortunately, if you're a Huckabee supporter. My guess is Pastor Huckabee will be back strumming his bass guitar by Feb 1--unless he can somehow regain his lost momentum in Iowa.

As for McCain, "cactus John" is likely to fare a little better--at least for a while. I say that for two reasons. First, unlike Huckabee, McCain actually has some financial reserves to draw upon. And second, should Huckabee be forced from the race, McCain is the likely benefactor of at least some of the Arkansas Governor's pro-life support.

Why only "some", you ask? Because, unlike Huckabee, who's managed to paper over many of his weaknesses on illegal immigration, the Arizona Senator has nowhere to hide from mainstream conservatives on the issues of "amnesty" and "border security."

Who's left?

So who's left? Well, let's see. First, there's Giuliani, who seems more content with getting a good Winter tan in Florida than actually competing for primary votes. Seriously though, the mayor does still sport a respectable warchest.

The real question is "can he pull the trigger" and actually work his way back into the race? It seems clear the former mayor will not gain much from a Huckabee departure. He's too hopelessly "soft" on mainstream issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) dear to social conservatives. But should McCain exit the race before him, it's conceivable some of McCain's "national security" supporters will find their way over to "Rudy's camp". We'll just have to wait and see.

That leaves only Fred Thompson and Ron Paul as credible Romney opponents. With Huckabee gone, a case could be made for Thompson as the sole remaining hope for social conservatives. But after Fred's curious "fire in the belly" comments this past week, it's unclear what it would take for the Senator's campaign to get off it's lethargic arse and get to work.

That said, Thompson's prospects as a "white horse" candidate obviously improve the less congested the race becomes. The Tennessee Senator has also shown some promise as a fundraiser ($12.7m by FEC numbers), but as with his lackadaisical campaigning style, he needs to pick up the pace there as well.

From a strictly fundraising perspective, Ron Paul would seem to offer Romney his greatest challenge . The blogosphere is electric with news of the massive warchest the Texas Congressman is assembling. And that's not all there is to fear if you're a Romney supporter. Of all the candidates (including the Dems), no one has developed a more enthusiastically committed grassroots organization than Dr. Paul.

The real concern for Paul supporters is whether the Congressman can overcome the equally real fears his antiwar rhetoric evokes in a campaign so heavily focused on national security. At this point, at least, my guess is he cannot.

What about possible alliances?

If you're Mitt Romney, you've got to be feeling good at this point. Looking out over the next three weeks, the man from Neocon seems to be ensconced in the proverbial catbird's seat. Of course, that assumes he'll be competing with the other candidates one-on-one.

Which brings up the possibility of potential alliances in this already strange and ever-changing Presidential primary campaign.

There was considerable speculation last week about one such possible alliance between the Huckabee and McCain camps. The basic idea there was that Huckabee would keep Romney pinned down in Iowa while McCain worked him over in NH--and visa versa. If a Huckabee-McCain alliance is indeed at hand, my only question is "What happens after NH?"

To remain viable on the eve of Super Tuesday, both Huckabee and McCain desperately need a win in SC. To think each would sacrifice himself in the interest of stopping Romney, seems a bit far-fetched at this point.

Unless, of course, a deal can be struck that puts the two campaigners on the same Presidential ticket. The only question then would be "Who heads that ticket?"--Huckabee or McCain. Stranger things have happened, but a Huckabee-McCain ticket is still a long-shot at this point. In fact, looking down the road a piece, a Romney-McCain ticket probably makes as much if not more sense than a McCain-Huckabee one. Only time will tell.

Politics and strange bedfellows

As the old proverb says, "Politics makes strange bedfellows."

So don't be surprised when the candidates start vetting their alliance options once the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries start settling. The pace will quicken as the MI results reveal who's strong and who's weak in the rust belt--and who still has a shot to win the top spot on the Republican ticked.

By the time the Republican candidates reach SC and Nevada (Jan. 19), it should be pretty clear who still can win the top spot on the Republican ticket and who might help the frontrunner(s) make it through the grueling Super Tuesday that lies ahead.

Ready for take-off?

So if you're a Romney Republican, sit back and enjoy the race. If not, I wish there was something I could say to pick up your spirits.

In either case, fasten your seatbelts. It's looking to be another Grand Old Party!

Huckabee links Bhutto assassination to Immigration

Huckabee told reporters in Pella Iowa--

"we need to understand that violence and terror is significant when it happens in Pakistan. It's more significant if it could happen in our own cities, and it happens if people can slip across our border and we have no control over it. That's exactly how it can affect us."

Romney launches new ad attacking Huckabee

Mitt Romney has a new ad out criticizing Huckabee's leadership credentials and promoting his own.

Fred Thompson hits Dems on Bhutto reaction

Thompson warned other candidates against calling for Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf to step down, saying a more deliberate approach is needed. (more...)

Ron Paul touts "prolife" credentials in new tv ad

Ron Paul showcases his leadership credentials in a new TV ad airing in Iowa and NH. (more...)

Giuliani leaves Florida; returns to Iowa

Before leaving Florida, Giuliani stressed the importance of police and law enforcement officers in thwarting terrorism. (more...)

Minnesota Gov. to stump for McCain in NH

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty plans to introduce McCain at townhall meetings in New Hampshire this weekend. (more...)

As promised, here are the correct matchings between each Republican candidate and that candidate's quoted statement on Immigration. My source for the quotations is the NY Times. Hope you enjoyed playing the "Immigration Game".

Candidate	Actual Quote
Rudy Giuliani	3. "If anybody is here illegally, they should never get to be put ahead of a line of people that are here legally. They should have to pay a penalty, because there should not be amnesty. It's a civil wrong. Civil wrongs are compensated by paying penalties. They should pay the back taxes. And if you ultimately find a way to make them citizens, then there should be a very, very strong requirement that they speak English, read English, write English, and understand American history."
Mike Huckabee	4. "We shouldn't have amnesty where we just say, "Fine, everybody's good, we're going to let it go." We should have a process where people can pay the penalties, step up and accept responsibility for not being here legally. But here's the point. The objective is not to be punitive. The objective is to make things right. Right for us. Right for them."
John McCain	6. "[W]e need to have a guest worker program.our proposal is basically you can get a tamper-proof visa after your job has been proven that it cannot be filled by an American citizen. Now, what do you do with the 11 million people that are already here?[M]ake them earn citizenship because they have broken our laws My friends, thats not amnesty. Amnesty is forgiveness. Were not forgiving anything."
Ron Paul	1. "The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked."
Mitt Romney	2. "My view, you have to secure the border, number one, have an employment verification system, number two, and number three, say to those that are there illegally, get in line with everybody else; you're not going to have a special doorway, any particular advantage, by having come here illegally, to become a permanent resident."
Fred D. Thompson	5. "You know, if you have the right kind of policies, and you're not encouraging people to come here and encouraging them to stay once they're here, they'll go back, many of them, of their own volition, instead of having to, you know, load up moving vans and rounding people up."

Getting tired of reading about the Primaries and who's leading in the latest poll? Well then pull up a chair and let's play the immigration game.

Here are the rules. Simply match the candidate on the left to the quotation on the right. That's all there is to it. I'll post the answers tomorrow so you can see how well you did.

If you leave a Comment with your answers, I'll announce the commenter with the best score when I give you the answers.

Who Said What?

	Candidate	Quote
1	Rudy Giuliani	"The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked."
2	Mike Huckabee	"My view, you have to secure the border, number one, have an employment verification system, number two, and number three, say to those that are there illegally, get in line with everybody else; you're not going to have a special doorway, any particular advantage, by having come here illegally, to become a permanent resident."
3	John McCain	"If anybody is here illegally, they should never get to be put ahead of a line of people that are here legally. They should have to pay a penalty, because there should not be amnesty. It's a civil wrong. Civil wrongs are compensated by paying penalties. They should pay the back taxes. And if you ultimately find a way to make them citizens, then there should be a very, very strong requirement that they speak English, read English, write English, and understand American history."
4	Ron Paul	"We shouldn't have amnesty where we just say, "Fine, everybody's good, we're going to let it go." We should have a process where people can pay the penalties, step up and accept responsibility for not being here legally. But here's the point. The objective is not to be punitive. The objective is to make things right. Right for us. Right for them."
5	Mitt Romney	"You know, if you have the right kind of policies, and you're not encouraging people to come here and encouraging them to stay once they're here, they'll go back, many of them, of their own volition, instead of having to, you know, load up moving vans and rounding people up."
6	Fred D. Thompson	"[W]e need to have a guest worker program.our proposal is basically you can get a tamper-proof visa after your job has been proven that it cannot be filled by an American citizen. Now, what do you do with the 11 million people that are already here?[M]ake them earn citizenship because they have broken our laws My friends, thats not amnesty. Amnesty is forgiveness. Were not forgiving anything."

In case you missed CBS' "Face the Nation" interview with Mike Huckabee, host Bob Schieffer asked Governor Huckabee his take on today's Republican Party. In Schieffer's words, "Are you running to change the Republican Party as well as running for the nomination?"

Here is Governor Huckabee's answer:

I am a Republican. And I am out to change the Republican Party. It needs changing. It needs to be inclusive of all those people across America for whom this party should stand.

And it's not just the people on Wall Street. It's the people on Main Street. And there are a lot of people in America that come up and shake my hand. They get out of cabs. They come from behind the skycap counter and they tell me that they appreciate the fact that I understand what it's like to struggle.

The Republicans are not just a group of people who sit at the top. They're people who sit around their kitchen table and worry about how they're going to pay their rent.

I think sometimes there's this perception that Republicans all belong to the same club. Well, the one club they belong to is loving this country and loving its future and wanting to do the best for their children. I think I represent those folks.

I'm not angry at all the folks at Wall Street. In fact, I think my policies would do more for them, but it wouldn't just be for them. It would also be for those guys that don't necessarily have a stock portfolio. It would be also for the people who don't have a lobbyist in Washington.

When we do the kind of policies that I'd like to see happen in terms of taxes and regulation, a guy could sit down at his kitchen table, sketch out the idea for a small business, and know that the government isn't his biggest opposition, that he actually might be able to live the American dream. And that's what Republicans ought to be about, helping not just big business but small business as well.

You can find the taped interview here on the CBS website.

What do the Neocons have against Mike Huckabee?

First it was National Review (see my blog below); then President Bush; and now Rush Limbaugh.

In case you missed it in my earlier blog, National Review (NR) used its December 10 endorsement of Governor Romney to take a swipe at Mike Huckabee, accusing the former Arkansas Governor of "alienating economic (and foreign-policy) conservatives."

Then just this week, the Bush administration took aim at Huckabee, first in a critical statement by former Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer, followed by similar criticisms Friday by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

To top it off, conservative icon Rush Limbaugh joined the chorus of criticism Friday, accusing the Huckabee campaign of "trying to dumb down conservatism in order to get it to conform with his record."

Meanwhile, the Romney campaign has been busy all week parsing and channeling the Huckabee criticism into support for their own candidate.

What's going on?

So what's it all mean? As far as the Huckabee campaign is concerned, it's mostly just "sour grapes". Ever since their candidate's unexpected surge in Iowa, campaign officials have been warning supporters to brace for the negative publicity that typically accompanies front-runner status.

The "mainstream" media, on the other hand, repeatedly point to Huckabee's recent criticisms of President Bush's foreign policy likening it to an "arrogant bunker mentality." It's this Bush-bashing, the press tells us, that's responsible for the political heat Huckabee's receiving.

There's clearly truth in both explanations. Everybody loves the underdog who somehow manages to defy the odds--everyone, of course, but those who end up losing the race. And Huckabee's harsh language in Foreign Affairs probably couldn't have been more poorly timed. After all, who needs to make enemies with your party's political base before a single primary vote has even been cast? Save your Bush-bashing for the general election, any sensible advisor would surely have cautioned the Huckabee campaign.

Is there Another Explanation?

But be that as it may, I think there's another explanation for the current firestorm of criticism threatening to engulf the Huckabee campaign. Go back and read some of the backroom deliberations taking place among Evangelical leaders in early Autumn of this year. As late as Thanksgiving, no consensus had been reached on which Republican candidate Evangelicals should support. Some already leaned toward Huckabee, but just as many seemed to find good reasons to support either Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. About the only thing all seemed agreed upon was the unacceptability of John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.

Then, around Thanksgiving, the same Evangelical leaders began sensing the need to make a choice. Would it be Thompson, who seemed to have the right credentials, but who's campaign looked uninspired and struggled daily to gain traction? Or would it be Romney, who seemed to embrace the right positions, but left prospective supporters wondering if he could be trusted to deliver on his promises. And finally, Mike Huckabee, who exuded trustworthiness on all key issues, but seemed to lack national organization and essential fund-raising skills.

Of course, we all know the answer now. Mike Huckabee became the evangelical choice by a landslide.

But what's curious is this. Soon after Huckabee's initial surge in the polls, counterforces began mobilizing and steadily grew with each new "Hucka-bump" in the polls. Until finally, National Review's editors let loose with their dismissive characterization of the Arkansas Governor as a hopeless populist in the mold of Pat Buchanan.

Neoconservatives versus Theoconservatives

I believe it's this neocon/theocon split in the Republican party that's resurfacing now. Last week's announcement of Ed Rollins as Huckabee's new national campaign director seems to have added further fuel to the fire, especially Rollins' intimation that Huckabee is the rightful heir to former President Reagan's political legacy.

So what's to this split between the neoconservatives and their theological rivals on the right? I'll be addressing that issue in my upcoming blog. For now, just remember this. If I'm right and the conservatives are already splintering along ideological lines, a bitterly-contested convention seems almost certain, especially with Giuliani starting to fade from the race. And if that happens, expect the GOP to lose badly next November.

What's your take?

You just heard from me. Now I want to hear from you. What's your view on the issues I've covered today? Click "Comment" below and tell me what you think.

In case you hadn't noticed, the Presidential primaries begin in just 18 days. And what a lineup we've got. Unlike previous Presidential campaigns, most states this year will be deciding their party's nominee in January and February. That means almost nonstop fireworks for eight frenetic weeks starting January 3 and ending February 24.

Except for Texas (on March 3), Ohio (on March 4), and Pennsylvania (on April 22), the big delegate states will all be decided before March. Iowa, of course, starts the ball rolling Jan. 3. Two days later, the Republican contest moves to Wyoming and three days after that (Jan. 8) both parties pick their delegates in New Hampshire.

From there, we get a one-week pause in the action before the political festivities resume again, this time in Michigan on Jan. 15 (assuming no Michigan boycott by the Democrats). One week later, on Jan. 26, it's the Democrats in South Carolina.

Both parties go at it again Jan 29 in Florida (assuming the Democrats do not boycott the state for moving up its primary). From there, the Republicans move to Maine on Feb 1. Then on Feb. 5, all heaven breaks loose as 43 contests occur simultaneously, 23 hosted by the Democrats and 20 by the Republicans.

So there you have it. In just six short weeks, we should know whether Hilliary or Obama will be heading the '08 Democratic ticket --barring an unlikely surge by John Edwards or an even more unlikely stumble by both front-runners. Things are more fluid on the Republican front with today's Big 3--Huckabee, Romney and Giuliani--each poised to capture at least one of the early primary states.

Altogether, on the Republican side, we've got 7 primaries in January, 32 in February (including delegate-rich California, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts), 7 in March, 1 in April, 7 in May, and 2 in June. For the Democrats, we've got 6 primaries in January, 32 in February, 6 in March, 1 in April, 7 in May, and 3 in June.

For all you detail junkies, here's a month-by-month breakdown of the primary season schedule (with the primary dates in parentheses):

January '08

Rep: IA (3), WY (5), NH (8), MI (15), SC, NV (19), FL (29)

Dem: IA (3), NH (8), MI (15), NV (19), SC (26), FL (29)

February '08

Rep: ME (1), AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CN, CO, DE, GA, IL, ND, MA, MN, MO, MT, NJ, NY, OK, TN, UT (5), GU, KS, LA (9), DC, MD, VA (12), WA, WI (19), AS, VI (23), PR (24)

Dem: AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CN, CO, DE, GA, ID, IL, ND, MA, MN, MO, MT, NJ, NY, OK, TN, UT (5), LA, VI (9), ME (10), DC, MD, VA (12), HI, WA, WI (19)

March '08

Rep: OH, RI, TX, VT (4), MS (11)

Dem: OH, RI, TX, VT (4), WY (8), MS (11)

April '08

Rep: PA (22)

Dem: PA (22)

May '08

Rep: IN, NC (6), NE, WV (13), KY, OR (20), ID (27)

Dem: GU (3), IN, NC (6), NE, WV (13), KY, OR (20)

Jun '08

Rep: NM, SD (3)

Dem: MT, SD (3)

With all the action upcoming, guess you no longer need to worry about what you'll be doing during those long cold Christmas holidays before the college football bowl schedule swings into full gear.

In case you missed it, the big news today on the Republican campaign trail is the endorsement of Mitt Romney by National Review magazine. Brushing aside the endless questions about his "sincerity", NR's editors proclaim Romney "a natural ally of conservatives" and praise his executive experience and political effectiveness as the CEO of liberal-minded Massachusetts.

Of course, it's still very early in the campaign season so many of these platitudes remain to be proven in the tough primary fights ahead. I suspect that's a major reason why National Review has come out so early with their Presidential favorite. Governor Huckabee's unexpected surge this past week is obviously casting a long shadow across the political landscape.

Be that as it may, NR's endorsement obviously comes as good news for the beleaguered Romney campaign, which sees their candidate's popularity dropping almost daily. What's more, it's given the Romney website a flashy banner showing Romney on the cover of National Review Magazine.

Not to rain on Mitt's parade, but I want to call your attention to a startling claim (at least to me) made by NR's editors in the same editorial piece. While explaining why Governor Huckagee and Mayor Giuliani both fail to meet their mark, the NR editors dismiss them both as polarizing (my term) influences in the conservative camp. In the editors' words,


Now many of you may agree with this assessment, but I dare say it's going to open a whole new can of worms once the Giuliani and Huckabee campaigns have time to digest this latest slight. I think I understand what NR's editors are saying here, as National Review sees itself as the voice of American Conservatism and has a long history of guiding the conservative movement through the rocky shoals of Presidential campaigns.

But I have to ask you, coming at this early point in the campaign, is it really fair of National Review to use its considerable weight to sandbag the two leading Republican contenders before a single voter in this country has had a chance to even register their opinion?

Please click "Comment" below and let me know what you think about this issue!

The Huckabee campaign announced last night it would air a new TV spot in Iowa today. The theme? Huck's tough new stand on Border Security, of course. Ever since his ill-advised defense of a "scholarships for illegals" program in the CNN/YouTube debate in Florida, Huck's been trying to regain his conservative credentials on today's #1 hot button issue.

To see the ads (if you're not lucky enough to watch local Iowa TV), check out the Huckabee website. When you've finished viewing the ad, I recommend you read some of the comments by the Huckabee faithful. Almost unanimously positive which I guess isn't too surprising. But don't get the idea that every conservative is now solidly behind Huckabee (as the constant press coverage of the recent Business Week poll would have you believe). To see what I mean, check out some of the comments appearing below the very same ad on the YouTube site.

If you're like me, you'll amaze at the divergent reactions to Huck's persona on illegal immigration. Something's obviously going on here--and it isn't just that all the crazies blog and comment at YouTube these days.

After viewing Huckabee's "border security" spot, I was surprised how short it was on specifics. I know, it's only a sound bite. But still, my sense is it will leave undecided voters, in Iowa as elsewhere, wondering how this new "get tough" rhetoric jibes with Huck's poorly-received (by conservatives, at least) "scholarship for illegals" defense in the Florida YouTube debates.

Here's my friendly suggestion to anyone in the Huckabee marketing department who might be reading this post. Why not take the obvious passion from the "border security" ad and build it around 2-3 points from Huck's new Secure America Plan. At least, that would give voters somewhere to go to find for themselves whether the ad is to be trusted.

My favorite talking points from the Secure America Plan would be (1) Enforce the Law on Employers, (2) Ensure Document Security (esp. Mexico's infamous "matricula consular" card), and (3) Modernize the Process of Legal Immigration (to soften the ridiculous liberal charge of "racism" and "bigotry" on the issue). By showing the multifaceted nature of the immigration problem and it's solution, Huck would go far to achieve one of his announced campaign goals: educating the American voter on the critical issues of the '08 elections.

What do you think? Use the Comments link below to let me know whether you agree or disagree with my observations.