Embedded below are the speeches for Romney, Huckabee, Giulinani, and Palin.

Romney:

Huckabee:



Giuliani:



Palin:

With rousing convention speech, Palin becomes a force in McCain candidacy

~Nate Gunderson

Click here to view the whole transcript.

Topics discusses: The ‘Are Jesus and Satan Brothers?’ issue, the WV primary convention, the RNC convention, acceptability of Veep candidates, and a possible hurricane in New Orleans during the RNCC. The transcript also has a caller afterwards who says Huck is flat out lying about what happened in WV.

I was only able to skim the transcript. Does anyone who listened to it have some thoughts on it?

~Nate Gunderson

Recap by Lizzie (thank you for doing this):

I heard it. Rush pretty much asserted that McCain and Huckabee combined against Romney in WV. Huckabee said, not so, it was Ron Paul’s group that did it. I wasn’t sure if Rush was doubtful when Huckabee explained how the WV thing went, or if he was “set straight”. But, I do recall one thing of note. Rush said, I had no idea that is how the thing came down. Then Mike said, well that’s how it was, I know because I was there. Then Rush seemed to have a “knowing” sound to his voice, like, “oh, you were there, and you want me to really believe you had nothing to do with it.”

Of course, I’m just remembering this, I didn’t read the transcript. And it could be that I wanted to believe that that is what Rush was insinuating. It was a very veiled comment, but I thought that was the underlying thought.

I was happy that Rush defended Mitt when Huck was saying Mitt went all negative in his campaign. Rush said, yeah, so what, that’s just politics and you and McCain gained up on Romney yourselves. That’s what started the whole WV topic I believe.

Just read the article about Romney helping McCain so much in Florida. It seems like Romney would help signigficantly in several states. So what is all this talk about Kay Bailey Hutchison? Is that a decoy, or is McCain foolish enough to pass on the guy most people want for VP?

The Plank’s Ben Wasserstein assesses Giuliani’s campaign strategy and arguments of inevitability:

I don’t buy the arguments in the Giuliani campaign’s recent conference call outlining their candidate’s inevitable path to the Republican nomination–and not for the reasons suggested by the Romney campaign. On The Stump, Noam Scheiber argues that if Romney comes out ahead in the early primary states, Mitt could start picking up states in the Midwest and West, even Florida, Rudy’s supposed “firewall.” But another looming problem, seemingly unaddressed in campaign’s conference call, is the South. If Fred Thompson continues his swan dive, while Rudy keeps playing the supposed-frontrunner-who-gets-beaten, isn’t it possible that a high-spending family man like Romney could make a play in states like Mississippi and Virginia? Someone’s got to get those voters who are fleeing from Fred–why not the guy with the momentum? And with the RNC granting additional delegates to states that have voted red, Dixie has disproportionate clout. Maybe Giuliani can get away with basically ignoring Iowa and conceding first place in New Hampshire, but if Romney makes a strong showing in the South, he won’t get very far at all.

(One more note: On the call, Rudy’s aides reportedly said that they feel good about their current second-place position in New Hampshire. What if McCain keeps climbing?)

I think Wasserstein has the right idea. Giuliani’s projections assume a static situation once voting begins. As Justin’s historical example of Mo Udall shows, there is little predictability once you get past the early states. Votes will be fluid up until the day to vote based on voter assessment of the race at that time. That’s one of the reasons why winning early and often is so important: voters’ conceptions of the candidates and the dynamics of the race can change quickly (due in part to free media reports of how the voting went). The candidates gain a reputation and sense of viability based on performance. The race is, thus, more fluid than what can be gained from looking at polling in states that don’t vote until February.

In a sense, the Giuliani campaign is trying to (if you’ll permit a sports metaphor) flip a switch for the playoffs. He figures that the early states don’t really matter and that he can somehow shift gears at a later date. The logic for that kind of argument, especially in electoral politics, is flawed to say the least.

Is nothing sacred? Former New York Mayor, Rudy Giuliani is a self-professed Yankee fan. Last week he even joked about making Joe Torre his running mate. Yesterday in Boston, when asked who he was rooting for in the World Series, Giuliani stated,

“I’m rooting for the Red Sox”.

This is a pathetically obvious pandering for votes which no true Red Sox fan/voter would ever fall for. This is the biggest flip-flop in political history. Yankees fans are enraged. Giuliani has been known for his questionable loyalty in the past however as his ex-wife, Donna Hanover, accused him of “notorious adultery” during their divorce proceedings. What’s next? Is he going to start cheering “Yankees Suck” at the Republican Convention?

Mitt Romney would NEVER, EVER root for the Yankees in any game ever played. The Romney campaign’s response to the scandal?

“I guess if Colorado wants Mayor Giuliani to root for the Rockies, they’re going to have to move their primary up.”

This leaves carpet-bagger Hillary Clinton as the only “true” Yankee fan in the race even though she grew up in Chicago.

Go Sox!

Scott Allan

The AFA (American Family Association), one of the largest social conservative advocacy groups, just sent out a poll to its massive email list (P. Ruffini estimates its to be about 3.2 million – surpassing MoveOn.org).

Here’s a quick snapshot of the email I received:

click to enlarge

The poll currently (found here) is running 25 to 1 against Rudy.

Together with the Dobson slam… is this the SoCon death knell for Rudy? Will FRC weigh in more heavily? Or does this demonstrate the waning influence of the SoCons as they vie for their key issues among of host of unknown and unfriendly Presidential candidates?

Ramesh Ponnuru at The Corner this evening:

So I finally read Wayne Barrett’s Giuliani takedown in the Village Voice (I linked to it a while ago). It goes through Giuliani’s five big lies about 9/11. The first three are, if true, pretty devastating. It appears that Barrett’s reporting was pretty meticulous. But he does have an axe to grind —see this Barrett hit on Giuliani’s personal life, for example—so I’m not sure whether he is leaving anything out that exculpates Giuliani.

Having thus far read through the first three (out of five) topics, and even keeping in mind that there is no love lost between Barrett and the former Mayor, devastating is exactly the word I would choose for it. It will be interesting to see whether Team Giuliani addresses these concerns head on, or hopes they can worry about it after the GOP primary.

• From abortion to nuclear pork projects, Thompson’s lobbying record leaves much to be desired for conservatives. Kenneth Vogel over at the Politico has the extensive details on the nuclear blemish on Thompson’s bona fides.

• Rich Lowry says it’s quittin’ time for Sam Brownback.

• “It sounds like an effort by Giuliani to make himself seem like a hawk on immigration when, in fact, he’s been a dove all along,” the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, Mark Krikorian, said. More here.

• So how is Huckabee taking advantage of his surprising second-place straw poll finish? Apparently courting the media instead of voters.

The top three McCain campaign operatives are out.

The LA Times reports on Fred Thompson’s not so distinguished conservative record in the Senate: “During his eight-year Senate career, his only stint in elected office, Thompson was far from a champion of the party’s conservative core.”

The Boston Globe reports on Giuliani’s unconventional campaign: “Giuliani is not devoting the same level of staff or resources in [early] states as other candidates. Even a lesser-known foe, Kansas Sen. Brownback, has more staff in Iowa.”

Apparently Giuliani made a poor choice for a state chairman in South Carolina. Thomas Ravenel was indicted on a cocaine charge on Tuesday. From The Greenville News:

[Larry] Sabato said the incident reflects on Giuliani, who accepted Ravenel’s aid when he was first putting his campaign together and most of the state’s top Republicans had committed elsewhere.

Giuliani, he said, has “egg — no, omelet — all over his face. To say this was a poor choice for his state chairman is an understatement,” Sabato said.

Hat tip to South Carolina ’08.com.

The Politico has an incredibly in depth story on Romney’s Race towards the White House.

First is Romney’s plan to game the primary system, in other words, play it smart:

Republican primaries are winner-take-all. Whoever wins statewide gets all the
delegates at stake. This favors front-runners, who, with their early money and
early support, can wrap up the nomination quickly.
But, in a barely noticed move, California Republicans have changed the system. Now it is winner-take-all by congressional district.
That means a candidate no longer needs to win the whole state to get delegates.

This means that California’s primary is now 53 individual contests and the candidates will be able to cherry pick which districts they want to be competitive in, limiting the expense of advertising in CA.

Romney also plans to bring a new kind of politics to CA:

he intends to treat California as if it were a “retail” political state instead of a tarmac state. (Because California is so large geographically, candidates spend most of their time flying from airport to airport, standing on the tarmac, doing a sound bite for local TV and then flying on.) Romney intends to emphasize more intensive, face-to-face campaigning in select congressional districts in which he has the best chance of winning delegates.

He is going to spend money.

He will exploit the differences between him and his chief rivals:

Romney intends to exploit what he perceives as two of McCain’s great vulnerabilities in the Republican primaries: the McCain-Feingold law, which restricts campaign contributions, and the McCain-Kennedy bill, which would change immigration laws and allow for a guest-worker program. And while Romney disagrees explicitly with Giuliani on issues such as abortion, gun control and gay rights, he implicitly draws distinctions between Giuliani’s rather turbulent personal life — he has been married three times — and Romney’s own marriage of nearly 38 years.

In Iowa he is going to go all out at the Ames straw poll August 11th

Finally, he is going to try to talk about the Mormon issue thusly:

Romney intends to recast the issue by emphasizing that he is a person of
faith and that that is more important to voters than what faith he is. Second,
his Mormon faith has been fundamental to his commitment to family, which he
believes people of all faiths can respect.

And realize he can be funny about it:

Romney quoted Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, a Mormon, telling other senators the
difficulty he has raising money among members of his own faith.
“You’d have had trouble raising money, too, if all the people you were asking money from were sober,” Hatch said.

Mormons generally do not drink.

Of course, Mittheads, he can’t do it alone. If you haven’t already please go to Mitt’s Website and sign up to volunteer and prepare for the battle ahead. There is much to do and barely a year to do it in. Also make sure all of your friends and family who support Mitt have done the same. YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!