Redstate

See the Academy

It's great news for Romney & Company, but I'm still holding to my promise of not sending any money to anyone until December of this year at the earliest.

I wonder what Presidental campaigns cost on a constant-dollar basis when Abraham Lincoln was running? Just in terms of the bang/buck quotient, I don't think anyone running right now will be a greater President than Abraham Lincoln was, and so I'd like to know how much extra we're all paying...

I really don't like Mitt, just because he comes off as such a fake. What sort of Supreme Court justice do you think he'd appoint? The one he would have appointed back when he was running against a Kennedy? Or the one he's making noises that he would appoint today? And after he's elected President of the United States, where would his allegiance be then?

Rudy seems like a straighter shooter to me. He doesn't change his views on things like abortion for tactical reasons. He's comfortable enough with his sexuality to support basic rights for homosexuals without seeming gay himself. And I like how strong he is too. I'm really concerned when I hear other politicians talking about closing down Gitmo or being all weepy-eyed for Habaeas Corpus when there are REAL cutthroats out there who want to kill us all. Rudy has that Italian toughness thing going on, and I think he could be a really firm leader, not so much in a make the trains run on time kind of way, but in "let's build an aqueduct and kick some Gaulish @ss" kind of way.

"The bulk of Romney's $23 million is money he can spend in the primary"

It should say "All of Romney's $23 million is money he can spend in the primary"

You may be right about Rudy and Romney being the last men standing but if Rudy keeps it up this is going to be a one man show.

Here's Ramesh from the corner:

Rudy Mark 2 was straightforwardly for taxpayer funding of abortion. That was the Giuliani we all knew from 1989 until this year. (By the way, if anyone has any quotes from Giuliani expressing his deep personal disapproval of abortion dating from his time as mayor, please send them along.) Since then, things have gotten more complicated.

Then Bill Simon told Kathryn Lopez that he had "assurances" that Giuliani supported the Hyde amendment, which in its present form bars federal funding for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or threats to the mother's life.

Then the Giuliani campaign explained to The Hotline that he hadn't changed his position: that he merely respected the Hyde amendment as current law. The Hotline took this to mean that getting rid of the amendment would not be a priority for a Giuliani administration. It didn't publish any follow-up suggesting that the campaign had disagreed with the interpretation. Left open was the question of what a President Giuliani would do with a Democratic Congress that sent him an abortion-funding bill. (I don't mind that some of my conservative friends are for Giuliani, but I do wish they weren't such cheap dates.)

The latest comments still leave that question open, and raise some new ones. Giuliani seems to be under the impression that as long as the Supreme Court says that abortion is a constitutional right, states are in some sense—legally? morally?—obligated to help poor people have access to it. Never mind that the Supreme Court itself has said (in a series of 1977 cases) that there is no constitutional right to taxpayer-funded abortion. Are there any other constitutional rights whose exercise Giuliani believes requires taxpayer assistance? We can start with the first amendment and keep going.

which was raising capital, has to be helpful here.

But whenever the people decide they WANT someone, that someone's money problems will vanish, so I wouldn't count McCain out, or some of the less well known candidates should they catch on.

You said "John McCain, who raised $12.5 million, can't spend all of that in the primary, because a good bit was general election money too." Where are you pulling that from? The Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3416.html) says that "All but $48,000 of McCain's money was raised for the primary, giving him the opening to harvest later contributions for the general election from the same pool of supporters."

I am not saying for sure that you are incorrect but given the fact that you didn't quote any figures...

Anyone who is predicting McCain's CERTAIN demise is overstating their case. I agree that this is a politically vulnerable time for him but his recent comments on Iraq I think will be much more damaging to him than the fundraising figures. If you take the time to look past the raw total, you'll see that McCain had the widest fundraising base of any GOP candidate with 60,000 contributions and the lowest average contribution at $200. He's done the hard part of building a small-donor base. In 2Q he will go after the low hanging fruit.

While Romney's numbers were impressive, there was a lot (in the words of Chuck Todd) of "low hanging fruit" for him to choose from. We'll see if Romney is able to continue his stellar fundraising through the next quarter.

Meanwhile, ModerateMike is right: McCain tapped over 60K sources, which is a strong indicator of support. So while McCain took a hit this week, its far-fetched to say he's out of the top tier. Especially since there's no guarantee that Romney's millions will move him in the polls.

... it's always a good idea to stop yourself.

Contra Colbert, facts do not have a well known liberal bias. They simply are what they are, no matter who reports them.

Anyway, in these circumstances, there's just no way you can reasonably call media bias. McCain made a big deal out of something that was flat out wrong - despite having every opportunity to gracefully back away - and the journalists knew the truth.

It's their job to be skeptical of public officials, remember?

I sincerely apologize for "crying" about your baseless conclusion and insisting that you use actual figures to back yourself up. My bad--I thought everyone valued fact-based arguments.

Given the turbulence of the primary and the lack of any consensus especially among the Left, it is entirely possible that the next presidential election may have multiple candidates, especially if the primary vote is close.

A scenario-Clinton, Obama, and Edwards run so close a race that no clear wimmer emerges. Obama decides to run as an independent candidate with Kuchinich as his vp.

Another scenario. Gore, feeling rebuffed and ignored by both parties, decides to take his flat earth, I mean his global warming platform to the public as an independent.

A third possibility- unlikely though possible. Hillary loses the nomination in a photo finish. Disheartened, though undeterred, she decides to mount her own independent candidacy as America's matron messiah.

Just some mussings.................

Siddhartha