Having had the national spotlight leading up to its elections last night, the Florida Presidential Preference Primary (and state property tax amendment) made some real winners, and confirmed a few losers.

Florida in general was of course a big winner having moved its Primary Election date up several weeks to January 29th giving the state and at least its Republican voters well-deserved national attention. The sunshine state can also be pleased in that there weren’t any major voting problems here in this state which has previously been known for serious cases of Electile Disfunction (both in who we elect and how we conduct elections).First and foremost, congratulations to Sen. John McCain who proved all the D.C. beltway insiders/establishment types wrong and showed that he has appeal that is broad and deep within the G.O.P. The senator won Florida’s closed primary — where only registered Republicans can vote — something many McCain naysayers said he could not do. McCain also certainly owes in-part much of his victory to Florida Governor Charlie Crist who made a last minute endorsement of McCain on Saturday night.

The “Straight Talk Express” travels next to the twenty-plus states that have elections on February 5th including New York, California, New Jersey, and Georgia.

For McCain, an expected endorsement from Rudy Giuliani, and possible nod from California Governor Schwarzenegger could provide him the momentum he needs to win a majority of states next week and lock up the G.O.P. nomination.

Florida voters showed Mitt Romney what he has already repeatedly learned: he can’t win in a state where others are competing. Mitt has spent all that money and doesn’t have much to show for it. Albert Einstein once said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.”

If Romney really believes he is as savvy with the dollar as he thinks he is, he ought to pack up this campaign and go home, and leave his children some of the inheritance they are expecting because no one is buying tickets to ride the Romney train.

The biggest loser last night had to be Rudy Giuliani who has provided fodder for Campaign School 101 instructors for years to come. The lesson they will teach: don’t try to defy conventional wisdom by foregoing competing in a half a dozen states before trying to make a strong showing. Momentum matters in politics, and Rudy just ignored that cardinal rule. Oh and Rudy, memo to your campaign team: all those New Yorkers who live down in Miami you were counting on, they’re all Democrats! Any Introduction to Political Science student could have told you that.

Mike Huckabee’s less-than stellar fourth-place showing would send most any other candidate home, but Huckabee is a believer and will march on at least to campaign in a handful of southern states next week. He currently leads the field in Georgia (if you believe the polls). But even a win in the Peach State wouldn’t be enough to re-energize this fading bunny.

Talk about believers, Ron Paul remains Ron Paul, and if nothing else provides some comic relief. The lesson for Ron Paul supporters is this: you can litter the streets of our lovely state with twelve million yard signs but they don’t influence voters. Now please, do the right thing and go pick all those signs up.

On the Democrat side, Sen. Hillary Clinton showed she’s a real Clinton by showing up in Florida on Tuesday night for a victory party in a state where neither she nor any of the other Democrats competed. Her little election night party made her appear (at least to less-sophisticated voters — which is of course her base), that she actually won something. But she didn’t win anything. Thanks to DNC Chair Howard Dean, the Democrats’ election was nothing more than a beauty contest, and nothing less than a meaningless straw poll.

The best Clinton moment was when she said she’d work to make sure Florida’s delegates get seated. Yeah, now she says that. Does anyone think she would have been so concerned with Florida’s disenfranchised Democrats if Obama had won?

The other big issue for Florida voters was of course Amendment 1, which gives some tax relief to homeowners, and creates a portable tax cap benefit when current homesteaded property owners move within the state. The big winner on Amendment 1 was Governor Charlie Crist who was the primary cheerleader for the tax exchange effort. The big losers on Amendment 1 were of course new homebuyers who will pay for the burden lifted from homesteaded property owners who can now take their artificially created tax rate with them.

Governor Crist can thank Howard Dean (at least partially) for the sizeable victory of Amendment 1. No doubt, with the Democrats’ presidential vote not counting, many Democrats stayed home and didn’t vote against the effort as many of them likely would have done.

As the old saying goes, politics certainly makes strange bedfellows.

And as Sen. Barry Goldwater once said, “Sex and politics are a lot alike. You don’t have to be good at them to enjoy them.”

Ain’t this fun?

An inside look at the Democrats running for president.

TAMPA — With less than a week to go before the first in the nation Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary to follow just days later, it’s a fitting time to assess the Democrat field of candidates running for president. You can read my assessment of the Republican field here. As with the GOP assessment, the candidates are listed alphabetically with their greatest claim to fame, my view of his or her strengths and weaknesses, and a short analysis.

Joseph Biden, United States Senator from Delaware

Greatest claims to fame: dropped out of 1988 Democrat Presidential race after the Dukakis campaign accused him of plagiarizing a campaign speech; has the best hair-plugs in the U.S. Senate.

Greatest strength: Biden has been in the senate for six terms which is not by itself something worth bragging about, but during much of that time he has served on the Foreign Relations Committee, and he is probably the only Democrat candidate who knows the difference between Macedonia and Madagascar.

Greatest weakness: Biden has struggled to define his candidacy with the media-driven fascination with Clinton and Obama. Unfortunately for Biden, his anemic fundraising won’t provide him the opportunity to overcome this obstacle.

Analysis: Joe Biden isn’t stupid and he knows he can’t win. No doubt he is running for Secretary of State in an Obama or Clinton administration, not President of the United States.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, United States Senator from New York

Greatest claims to fame: stood by her man when he got funky in the Oval Office with a twenty-two year old White House intern; proved New Yorkers really aren’t that bright when they elected a carpet-bagging opportunist to represent them in the U.S. Senate; known for condescending attitude, polarizing demeanor, and multiple scandals. Clinton could find a cure for cancer next week and yet that is not what she would be remembered for in the history books. Furthermore, Clinton is to U.S. politics what Leona Helmsley was to the hotel business.

Greatest strength: for whatever reason, her husband Bill is still beloved by Democrat party faithful and she’s playing up that asset as much as possible; she’s a fighter but probably too much so for her own good; has a strong network of loyalists and super fundraising so she has consistently been a top-tier candidate though less deservingly so than most of the rest of the field of Democrats.

Greatest weakness: no amount of money or advice from the best political strategists and media consultants can change the fact that Hillary Clinton’s personality is about as appealing as running one’s finger-nails over an old dusty chalk board.

Analysis: in American presidential politics, likeability trumps knowledge, competence, trustworthiness, or experience, and that is why Hillary Clinton will never be President of the United States – she just isn’t likeable.

Christopher Dodd, United States Senator from Connecticut

Greatest claims to fame: Dodd has been in Congress since 1974. I worked in politics on and off Capitol Hill for ten years and follow politics rather religiously. Yet I can’t tell you anything about Dodd other than his “special interest” is banking related issues, he goes on the Sunday talk shows a lot (though he rarely makes much of an impression) and I think he once dated Bianca Jagger and the actress who played Princess Leia in the Star Wars movies. Other than that, he’s basically about as milk-toast as you can get as a member of the U.S. Senate.

Greatest strength: someday some college professor from some third-rate school in Connecticut will write some book no one will buy about the strengths and weaknesses of Senator Chris Dodd.

Greatest weakness: see above.

Analysis: just like Biden, at this point Dodd is jockeying for an appointment in the Clinton or Obama administration. Given his background, Dodd would likely seek Treasury Secretary or a seat on the Federal Reserve.

John Edwards, former United States Senator from North Carolina

Greatest claims to fame: one-term senator; 2004 Democrat VP nominee; previously made millions as a trial lawyer who successfully sued anyone he could, thus driving up all of our insurance rates — so next time you get a rate increase from State Farm, thank John Edwards; runs around the country talking about how terrible it is to be poor – but lives in a $10 million plus house and gets $400 haircuts. Listen up kiddies, today’s Word of the Day is “hypocrite.”

Greatest strength: that $400 hairdo is unflappable; has strong organization in Iowa (but nowhere else). Edwards must finish in first or a very close second place in Iowa or he is done.

Greatest weakness: anyone who pays $400 for a haircut has questionable judgment. Do you want this guy’s hands on the nuke button?

Analysis: when he wasn’t getting $400 haircuts wherever it is you go to get a $400 haircut, Edwards has been living in Iowa for the last three years. He has strong organization there, so if his people get out to caucus for him, he could spoil or at least delay the nomination of Clinton or Obama. Oh, and for the record, I cut my hair myself with a seven dollar clipper I got at the local Wal-Mart so I guess I’m an atypical voter in that I get steamed about guys who pay four Franklins for a trim.

Mike Gravel, former United States Senator from Alaska

I don’t know much about former Sen. Gravel, but I tell you what, this ol’ guy was a hoot on the stage at the debates the way he lashed out at Clinton, Edwards, and all the other career political clowns in congress now running for president. He’s right about one thing: these people (and their Republican counterparts) are the problem. What Mike is wrong about is, he isn’t the solution. Where is Ross Perot when you need him?

Dennis Kucinich, member of Congress from Ohio

Greatest claim to fame: has a hot wife.

Greatest strength: has a hot wife.

Greatest weakness: admits to once having seen a U.F.O.

Analysis: when all that people know about you is your wife is hot and you’ve seen U.F.O.s, you don’t have much of a chance at becoming elected President of the United States — at least not yet.

Barrack Obama, United States Senator from Illinois

Greatest claim to fame: endorsed by Oprah Winfrey. Okay, yeah, I agree, it’s pathetic that a presidential front-runner’s greatest claim to fame is having been endorsed by some daytime TV talk show host. But really folks, what do you know about this guy?

Greatest strength: limited legislative record as public official for Republicans to attack; excellent speaker; easy going and friendly demeanor; wholesome looking wife and kids. While this is a subjective observation, I think most people can objectively agree that since TV became a major fixture in US politics in 1960, the candidate with the better personality, the guy whom you would most want to have a beer with, or the guy you would most likely let baby-sit your kids is the guy who won the White House. That’s why this guy is the most dangerous man to the Republicans’ sights on maintaining the White House. Also, Obama personifies the “American Dream” and that has voter appeal.

Greatest weakness: limited record as public official; has almost zero foreign policy experience. But hey, W. didn’t either! Maybe we should think about this some more…

Analysis: of the twenty typical/average Republicans I have spoken with about the presidential race in the last two weeks, eighteen out of the twenty have said something like “I could live with Obama,” or, “Obama doesn’t scare me the way most Democrats do.” If Democrat Party voters are smart enough (they aren’t) to send Hillary Clinton back to being the junior senator from New York, and nominate Obama, it’s all over for the Republicans. The goons in the GOP party headquarters in Washington have absolutely no idea what to do with anyone other than Clinton, not to mention no idea how to run a successful campaign against a nice, well-educated, attractive, non-threatening black man who uses the King’s English properly. Note to the GOP: if the Dems wake up and nominate this guy, save your campaign money until 2016 because the fat lady has sung!

Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico

Greatest claim to fame: former member of Congress; former Ambassador to the U.N.; former Secretary of Energy; five-time nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Greatest strength: has done more in any two year period of his professional political life than Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama have done in both of their lives combined.

Greatest weakness: as a friend of mine who works at the White House said, Richardson won’t get the nomination because he’s too fat. That sounds shallow, but what other reason is there, as this guy sure looks good on paper?

Analysis: being the best-rounded candidate in a field of extremely un-well-rounded candidates isn’t much to brag about. Yet if we all got our news from NPR instead of sound bites on Fox and CNN, we’d be hearing a lot more about Bill Richardson. But the situation is what it is, and Richardson will only stay in long enough to give a meaningful endorsement to whomever he thinks the ultimate winner will be (Clinton or Obama). And mark my words, Bill Richardson will be the Democrat’s V.P. nominee.

Okay, so there you have it, my assessment of all the Democrats.

Now here are my predictions for Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina:

In the Democrat race, Clinton barely wins wins Iowa, with Obama on her heels and Edwards in a close third. In more meaningful New Hampshire, Obama wins with Hillary in close second and Edwards in a distant third. In the palmetto state, Obama wins big setting the stage for his nomination with Hillary in a distant second, and Edwards in third place with just single digits. Edwards quickly withdraws and endorses Obama. The Clinton campaign sends out all its big guns to crush Obama but the strategy backfires because Hillary Clinton is a real (fill in the blank) whom even Democrats can’t stand. Obama is the clear nominee by February 5th.

In the GOP race, Romney wins but just barely beats Huckabee in Iowa. In the granite state, voters who know him better than most, say “no thanks” to Romney, and instead give John McCain another victory with Huckabee finishing second, and Romney in a close third. Down in South Carolina, Huckabee squeaks by McCain for first place, with Romney in a close third again. This thing doesn’t have a front-runner until at least Jan. 29th when Florida votes and when Giuliani may emerge. But more than likely Giuliani proves you can’t forego Iowa and New Hampshire and expect to later overcome the momentum candidates who competed in earlier states gained with decent showings. We likely won’t know who the eventual nominee is for another week when twenty-three states vote on February 5th, now known as “Tsunami Tuesday.”

Hey this is fun!

Stay tuned…

TAMPA — Walking out of Wednesday night’s Republican presidential debate, I asked my friend and fellow political consultant Jamie Miller who he thought won the debate. Jamie’s response was right on the money. “Mike Huckabee won,” he said. Adding, “though on paper John McCain probably looked just as good.” Jamie didn’t have to add that voters don’t read transcripts of debates, so the token “on paper” victory is meaningless for McCain’s struggling campaign.

So what made Huckabee the winner? First and foremost, he actually answered the questions he was asked (unlike Mitt Romney). And he wasn’t nearly as scripted as some of the other candidates (most notably Giuliani). Furthermore, Huckabee has an easy-going, non-threatening demeanor. This works well for any candidate because it translates into likeability and voters tend to support candidates who have a likeable personality. Huckabee scored big points (based on audience applause) when he told Mitt “say anything/say nothing” Romney we Americans “shouldn’t punish a child because of a parent’s crime” when referring to whether the children of illegal immigrants should be denied college education benefits.

Huckabee’s response to the question about whether or not Jesus would support the death penalty was the night’s best line. Huckabee demonstrated he is quick on his feet and has a great sense of humor when he told CNN host Anderson Cooper “Jesus was too smart to run for public office.”

The Florida Chamber of Commerce sponsored a post-debate poll which was reported in numerous newspapers the day after the debate showing 44 percent of undecided Florida voters who watched the debate believed Huckabee won, with 18 percent saying Giuliani, and 13 percent McCain. Some newspapers that reported on the poll made it sound as if the poll was an “open” survey which anyone could call in to – which would make it meaningless and prone to hijacking by Ron Paul supporters. Earlier in the day I spoke with Tom Baxter, an old acquaintance and reporter with the Atlanta Journal who explained the methodology of the chamber poll to me. He said: since federal law prohibits polling after 9 p.m. the polling firm hired by the paper had to identify people who planned on watching the debate and then asked them to call-in when it was over. Those who were willing to participate were mailed a post card with the call-in number and a one-time code to ensure there was not any vote stacking. In short, the poll conducted by Insider Advantage was a legitimate poll that would make Theresa LePore choke on a hanging chad. Congratulations Mike Huckabee!

Here is something you probably didn’t see on TV. After the debate in the media “spin room” some guy pushed down a staffer of Mike Huckabee’s. Huckabee caught the tail end of this incident and appeared to be ready to join the brawl to protect his lowly staffer. As a one-time lowly staffer myself, I can tell you, any candidate who is willing to go to the mat for an easily replaceable campaign aide is a good man. The guy who made the attack on the staffer was later escorted out of the debate hall by about a half-dozen of St. Pete’s finest men in blue and they were overheard discussing charging the man with battery. I’m not sure if they did or not, but it sure did provide some post-debate excitement — nothing like a good brawl.

So Mike Huckabee won, but how about the rest of the bunch?

No doubt Governor Mitt Romney was a big disappointment to anyone looking for an honest answer to a question. Several times the audience snickered listening to Romney (aka Eddie Haskell) as he dodged specific questions or tried to explain his flip-flops on issues like abortion, gay rights and other important issues. About the only refreshing thing he said was when he admitted he was wrong and changed his position (on abortion, on gay rights, on gun control, on immigration, and on pretty much every other issue he was asked about). Being honest about being wrong could be embraced favorably by voters if it were believable. But coming from Romney it just sounds more like a poll-tested response that some consultant told him to say.

When he wasn’t scrapping with Romney, Rudy Giuliani appeared overly prepped and scripted. His answer to a question about how to balance the budget and cut the national debt droned on about cutting federal government spending five to ten percent across the board and not replacing retiring federal workers. The answer was evasive and sounded more like bureaucratic gobble-dee-gook than a well though out plan to address one of the biggest problems facing our nation (out of control spending). The way to control spending is to cut taxes. If Washington doesn’t have your money they can’t spend it. Oh wait, yes they can. They do it every day by running up the national debt. Anyhow, Rudy should have had a better answer. Note to Rudy: get Frank Luntz back on the payroll. And work on that response about gun control. The booing heard in the debate hall doesn’t suggest GOP voters believe or like your answer.

I found myself secretly hoping Fred Thompson would land a knock-out punch. Instead, poor Fred’s attacks come across as mean and negative. That’s no way to appeal to voters already skeptical of your candidacy. It’s too bad Thompson’s campaign is run so poorly because he is the only serious candidate who has taken unpopular but necessary stands on some of the most important issue facing our nation – reforming Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. All of the other candidates merely pander to senior citizens by saying they want to “preserve and protect the system for current and future generations.”That’s about as responsible as a dentist noting you have four cavities and need a root canal but won’t do the procedure and instead sends you home with a bag of Tootsie Rolls. Thompson’s way of thinking would actually make these programs viable for the long-term but given the voting public likes only to hear what it wants as opposed to what it needs, it’s not the winning strategy for Thompson to resuscitate his overly-hyped campaign.

In the spin room Thompson was aided by none other than George “mucaca” Allen. Now the former U.S. Senator is a nice guy who just happened to have had a momentary lapse of good judgment. But still Fred, is this the guy you want talking to the media on your behalf? And really Fred, with thirty some-odd years in Washington is he the best spokesman you can come up with? Whoever is calling the shots at the Thompson campaign needs to go back to campaign school. Maybe once the Hollywood writer’s strike is over Fred will drop out and go back to Law and Order. You can’t win a presidential race with no enthusiasm for campaigning.

John McCain came close to having some knock-out punches but his penchant for talking too much and hearing his own voice left his potential good one-liners lying flat. Still, he got three standing ovations from the crowd – the only other standing Os were received by non-candidate Florida Governor Charlie Crist before the debate started. McCain looks old and tired – anything but the Maverick fighter he used to be. Perhaps President Huckabee will make him Secretary of Defense.

In case you didn’t know it beforehand, Tom Tancredo said he believes legal and illegal immigration is wrong. I wonder what Tom’s ancestors would have thought about this position. Tom also thinks there aren’t any jobs American’s aren’t willing to do that need to be available to immigrants. Note to Tom: you’re wrong. Here in Florida, oranges rot on the ground because growers can’t find enough legal or illegal workers to harvest the crop. So unless you’re willing to pay $12.00 for a head of lettuce Tom, recognize we need immigrant labor.

If you blinked you might have missed it, but yes, Duncan Hunter was in fact on the stage and he was asked a few questions. However, his answers were not memorable, funny, or thought provoking. Hunter should drop out and go back to building border fences.

Finally, poor Ron Paul was on the defensive all night. This is not where you want to be on the national stage.He basically had to defend the wing-nut, “black helicopters are coming to get us” conspiracy crowd of which he is the honorary Grand Poo-Pah. Paul is the Chevy Nova of political campaigns. That car’s sales bombed when GM tried to sell it in Mexico because Nova translates into “no go” in Spanish. Packaging and marketing matter in politics and Ron Paul doesn’t get it. The more you watch him, the weirder you realize he is. I’ll bet he has seen (just like Democratic freak-case Dennis Kucinich) UFOs. Somebody should ask him about that.

In my last column I said this column would focus on the Democrat candidates. But since the GOP debate was in town, I decided to put the Democrats off for the next column. Besides, what’s the point? We all know the party of big government is foolish enough to nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton. If you have any questions or comments, please email me at at chris@411communications.net.

Welcome to the Irreverent View, my new column appearing on FrontPageFlorida.com. The column will focus on political topics of interest to Floridians.

According to Dictionary.com “irreverent” means:

1. Lacking or exhibiting a lack of reverence; disrespectful.
2. Critical of what is generally accepted or respected; satirical: irreverent humor.

This column will be more of the latter than the former. I’ll only be disrespectful when an elected official or candidate disrespects the voters. That’s fair game.

Just who am I and what makes me qualified to spout my opinion about politics? I worked in Washington, D.C. on and off the Hill for nearly ten years. I’ve been a campaign strategist, chief of staff to a member of Congress, and a political pollster, and pundit on Fox and CNN and have contributed columns published in the Washington Times, National Review Online, and United Press International. Today, I am the president of my own Tampa-based company 411 Communications , a public opinion research and communications firm for corporate and political clients.

So there is the short version of my background. You can read my full bio here. (URL to bio is: http://www.411communications.net/chrisingrambio.html) My background doesn’t make my opinion any better, or any more right (or wrong) than yours. It’s just my opinion. But my opinion is here on FrontPageFlorida.com and yours is not because I know the publisher and he thinks I’m a swell guy.

So here it is, my inaugural column for FrontPageFlorida.com. What I think of the 2008 Republican Presidential Candidates:

As the Republican presidential candidates pander to the right-wing of the party and try to “out Reagan” one another, it is important to cut through all the consultant created, poll-tested messages and recognize the candidates all have certain strengths and weaknesses. For voters, the toughest thing to do is to see through all of the campaign rhetoric and accept each candidate for what he is – bunions, blemishes, bad hair, bad ideas, and all.

Since I don’t buy into the notion of “top tier” candidates – there are only top tier media darlings – here is an equal look at each candidate, (in alphabetical order for fairness) with my view of his strengths and weaknesses and a short analysis.

Rudy Giuliani, former Mayor of New York City

Greatest claims to fame: did the impossible by cleaning up New York City; 9-11 leadership following Twin Towers attack; used to have really bad comb-over; keeps divorce lawyers busy; once photographed dressed in drag.

Greatest strength: he’s anti-gun, pro-gay, and pro-choice; Hillary’s “November Nightmare.”
Greatest weakness: he’s anti-gun, pro-gay, and pro-choice; Republican Primary voters will never elect this guy who has more baggage than an airline terminal.

Analysis: if the American public still perceives the economy is in the tank on Election Day, Rudy will have a hard time capitalizing on his 9-11 leadership as his signature issue because economic issues trump terrorism as a voter motivator. In addition to his liberal social positions, what GOP voter is going to trust a liberal New York Republican to be tough on taxes and spending? He couldn’t overcome all his personal obstacles and face Hillary in the 2000 N.Y. Senate race. What has changed Rudy?

Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas

Greatest claim to fame: got really fat and then lost a lot of weight.

Greatest strength: for Republicans looking for a “true conservative,” Huckabee is the only real deal in the bunch.

Greatest weakness: fundraising is not what would qualify as “top tier;” may be too conservative for General Election voters; hails from Arkansas (this could be a fun asset against Hillary as he reminds voters of her opportunistic tendencies in debates when he reminds her she used to be an Arkansan but is now a New Yorker).

Analysis: Huckabee has earned the title of the religious conservatives’ candidate having forced ultra-fringe Sen. Sam Brownback out of the field last week. And Huckabee is starting to appear as a media favorite earning accolades from the New York Times’ David Brooks who says he’s earned the right to be a top tier media darling. The challenge for the other man from Hope will be to balance gaining support from religious conservatives while simultaneously appealing to mainstream voters While all the GOP candidates invoke the name of Ronald Reagan at every Iowa BBQ or New Hampshire town hall meeting they attend, Huckabee may be the only one in the field who could actually be the next Ronald Reagan.

Duncan Hunter, member of Congress from California

Greatest claim to fame: never got really fat and had to lose a lot of weight.

Greatest strength: he’s strong! Listening to this guy you would think he single-handedly built a 730 mile section of border fence on the U.S./Mexican border. Don’t take Duncan’s slender frame for granted, he could be the next Jesse Ventura; as president, would have a take no prisoners approach to China trade and illegal immigration; if elected, buy stock in companies that manufacture bricks.

Greatest weakness: no one knows who he is; close ties to disgraced former Congressman Duke Cunningham (now in prison) and Defense Contractor Mitchell Wade (also in prison and the same Mitchell Wade who took former Rep. Katherine Harris out to a $2,800 dinner).

Analysis: if one of the media’s top tier candidates had Hunter’s baggage (Cunningham/Wade scandal) that is all you would hear about. It’s not an issue with Hunter because as far as the media is concerned, he’s not a serious candidate.

John McCain, United States Senator from Arizona

Greatest claims to fame: spent five years in P.OW. camp in Vietnam; involved in Keating Five congressional bribery scandal; put a whooping on W. in New Hampshire Primary in 2000 then got horse-whipped by Karl Rove in S.C.; authored worst piece of federal legislation (campaign finance “reform”) ever enacted; disdains pork-barrel spending.

Greatest strength: this guy is a fighter. Don’t underestimate John McCain and his anemic fundraising, low poll numbers, and staff defections.

Greatest weakness: beltway insiders loathe him, right-wing conservatives don’t believe he is a true conservative, soccer moms, NASCAR dads, and other “mainstream/moderate” voters no longer see McCain as a their Maverick hero.

Analysis: to say the “Straight Talk Express” broke down is an understatement. The bus has been headed down a dead end street ever since George W. Bush rear-ended it on some dirt road in South Carolina in 2000. McCain hasn’t been able to realign the front-end ever since. His appeal in that campaign was he was a Washington Maverick and didn’t mind being well, irreverent. That had appeal. Now he’s Bush’s Number One cheerleader on Iraq and (along with the president) dead wrong on immigration reform. McCain’s problem this year is he has no political strategy or identity. But don’t count him out just yet. For all of his flaws, out of this bunch, McCain is probably the candidate most-qualified to be president.

Ron Paul, member of Congress from Texas

Greatest claims to fame: one of only six Republican members of the House of Representatives who voted against the Iraq War Resolution; 1988 Libertarian candidate for president; medical doctor who continued to delivered babies while in Congress; once accused Bill Clinton of fathering illegitimate children and using drugs.

Greatest strength: this section left intentionally blank.

Greatest weakness: looks like the character Montgomery Burns on the television show “The Simpson’s.”

Analysis: for every great idea Ron Paul ever has, he has three really stupid ones. That’s why he isn’t a serious candidate and is not a media darling. But like Democrat gadfly Mike Gravell, he’s fun to have on the debate stage. So whoever is sending this guy money, please keep it up!

Fred Thompson, former United States Senator from Tennessee

Greatest claim to fame: Hollywood actor turned politician, once married to Jane Wyman – no wait! That was Ronald Reagan. This guy is no Ronald Reagan.

Greatest strength: occasionally appears in a good movie – plays roll of president/leader well; once wrongly believed by political pundits and prognosticators to be the next Ronald Reagan; took what felt like twelve years to decide and prepare for presidential run; fell flat on his face and still looks like it hurts.

Greatest weakness: looks like a whipped mule headed for a glue factory.

Analysis: I struggled with what to say about Thompson. Earlier this year I thought he was going to be the next Ronald Reagan (I thought the same about George “macaca”Allen about two years ago – maybe I’m not so good at this…). But boy, has Thompson been a disappointment. Substantively, he talks a good game about seriously addressing issues like saving Social Security and doing something about our national debt and immigration. In the senate though, he didn’t accomplish much – unless you consider opposing the fight to end lawsuit abuse and passage of McCain/Feingold campaign finance “reform” an accomplishment. Thompson’s problem now is he never looks like he actually wants to be doing what he’s doing (running for president). Instead he looks like an actor who took a job in a B-rate movie because he needed the money. Fred, next time, read the script first. Watching this campaign hurts. Word is his wife (who is an accomplished political consultant in her own right) is a big meddler in the campaign. Spouses can be an asset, or a liability, and in this case she appears to be the latter. There is still time for Thompson to turn it around, but he is no longer the 800 pound gorilla everyone thought he was going to be before he got in. The bar of expectations has been Thompson’s unraveling. Too bad Fred. Hope to see you back on Law and Order next season.

Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts

Greatest claims to fame: elected Republican governor in 2.5:1 Democrat leaning Massachusetts; took credit for turning around scandal-plagued Salt Lake City Olympics; once strapped dog crate and dog to roof of the old family truckster en-route to summer vacation with the kids.

Greatest strength: great smile; handsome; will gladly change position on any important issue for a vote.

Greatest weakness: when forty percent of the American people say they would not vote for a candidate for president who is a Mormon and you are a Mormon, that is your greatest weakness. You don’t have to be a highly paid political consultant to figure this one out…

Analysis: at first look, Mitt Romney is a dream candidate. He’s good looking, extremely smart, and for conservative Republicans, he’s right on the issues. Today. Where he was yesterday is a different story. Simply put, this guy is the Republicans’ version of one William Jefferson Clinton. Personally, I don’t want a Republican Bill Clinton. I don’t want to win so badly that we have to nominate a candidate who clearly believes in nothing other than the sheen on his perfectly pasted smile. Who are all of these people supporting him? Do they not have any convictions on any issues? Whether you’re pro-choice or pro-life, a second amendment supporter or a gun control advocate, how will you ever know what this guy actually believes? The answer: not until the damage is done.

No matter who gets the G.O.P. (or Democrat) nomination, the November election promises to be a battle like American voters haven’t seen in decades. And the election has a number of firsts or potential firsts. This is the first election since 1928 in which there is neither an incumbent president nor vice-president running. It has the potential to be the first election with a black, Latino, or woman as the nominee of a major party. It will be the first time since 1952 (with the exception of 1964) in which a Nixon, Dole, or Bush was not on the G.O.P. ticket. And if (God forbid) Hillary Clinton got elected, it would be the first time two families were elected to the presidency for six consecutive terms. Oh the thought of President Hillary… Pass the Rolaids.

Now that the election has passed and the candidates for president and congressional candidates from both parties have avoided talking about most of the critical issues facing United States, perhaps Congress and the president will work to address several looming crises.

The most over-spun but under-addressed issue is of course Social Security. Often called the “third rail” of U.S. politics, no candidates — Republican or Democrat — prior to the 2000 election showed the spine, will, or fortitude to tackle this issue. The fact is, Social Security is close to going broke and there is absolutely no way to fix the system if you don’t do one or more of the things politicians are most reluctant to do. Those politically difficult solutions to fix the system include: raising the payroll tax, cutting benefits, raising the retirement age, or a combination of the three.

Another solution would be to raise the income threshold on which Social Security taxes are collected, but that option is rarely mentioned as few Americans know Social Security taxes are collected on about the first $80,000 of income.

For his part, President George W. Bush has pushed for a partial fix by advocating a portion of Social Security benefits go into personal retirement accounts. Yet what Bush has proposed will only offset the damage he did when he signed the Medicare Prescription Drug bill. According to government estimates, this boondoggle will cost at least $500 billion the first ten years. And if government estimates are wrong (as they often are) it will be double that amount before the first drug is dispensed. The burden Bush and the Congress have saddled on young Americans is overwhelming.

Speaking of costs, the national debt has grown to more than $7 trillion. Congress just shamelessly keeps raising the debt-ceiling and spending more and more of the earnings of future generations. Ten years ago, Republicans were traditionally viewed as “fiscally conservative” and imagining this kind of recklessness under GOP control was unimaginable. Then the GOP came to power and found out that spending liberally is the best way to get re-elected. It’s shameful what my party has done to the United States’ economic future. Let’s hope common-sense prevails and the party returns to its fiscally responsible roots.

Of course Republicans aren’t all bad. A Republican in the White House and the GOP controlling the Senate means we’ll get perhaps up to four Bush appointees to the Supreme Court. And with the Republicans still in control, we can expect further tax cuts for the American people which will stimulate economic growth — they just need to make sure that tax cuts parallel or exceed cuts in spending.

Don’t get me wrong, I couldn’t have been happier that the president won re-election and the GOP picked up House and Senate seats. Had John Kerry won, we’d have bigger problems in Iraq, and would never get further tax-relief, and lets not even think about the liberal judges he would appoint to the courts. As for Kerry’s solution for saving Social Security, all he could come up with in the campaign was to suggest appointing another government commission to consider the options. Thanks but no thanks John, I think we’ve talked about this issue enough.

Make no mistake it is good that the House, Senate and White House are held by Republicans. The United States just needs the GOP to get its act together and start being more fiscally responsible to future generations. Please President Bush, future generations are counting on your leadership.

By Chris Ingram

Recently I had the opportunity to visit Sudan on behalf of the International Republican Institute and the U.S. Department of State. I was asked to join a team visiting the country in order to help train leaders of the emerging democracy with their party governance and communications.

The people of Sudan have endured decades of civil war between various regimes in the North and those seeking liberty both in the South and in the western and eastern peripheries. Today, the hope for peace between the two main warring factions is closer than ever. While the international community remains concerned about the Government of Sudan’s engagement in the conflict in western Sudan’s Darfur, one cannot let pass the idea that the proximity to peace between North and South may become a reality.
Signing a peace deal between North and South isn’t the end of the process — it’s merely the beginning. Indeed, this is where the hard work begins – building a democratic state and a functional government. This means the terms democratic and functional will not just be for the government that is to emerge from the South, it will cover all of Sudan, as the opposition Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) is expected to participate in Sudan’s national government. Thanks to the foreign policy established by President Bush, America is committed to helping expand democracy in Sudan. Unlike any lone super power before it, the United States of America has not and does not use its superior strength to take advantage of weaker nations. In fact, as the world’s lone remaining super power, the United States of America works to rid the world of tyranny and oppression around the globe.

The people of Iraq are better off today now that Saddam Hussein is gone, and no doubt the people of Afghanistan are also better with the Taliban on the run and stable leadership in place. Democracy is evolving in both countries and our efforts to promote freedom continue around the world in such seemingly far-flung places as Sudan.

America’s greatest export is democracy. People who have lived under repressive regimes are being freed because of the foreign policy of the United States. “Thank you America” was frequently heard in Sudan. In East Africa, U.S. involvement is not only needed – it is wanted and appreciated.

For the Sudanese, the tasks that lie ahead are tremendous and overwhelming. Unlike other areas where the U.S. is involved in democracy building such as former Soviet Republics, Iraq, and Afghanistan, Sudan has been ravaged by its internal wars for so long it would be an understatement to say they are starting from the ground up.

Simply put, in South Sudan, there is no pre-existing government. Services are provided by humanitarian aid groups and other non-government organizations. Infrastructure is below typical third-world levels. Experience in government is nearly non-existent. Educated leaders are few and far between. Disease runs rampant. Tribal differences must be sorted out. The challenges are immense.

It is in “New Site,” the temporary capital of South Sudan, from where democracy will emerge. A misnomer, New Site is nothing more than a small village consisting of perhaps three dozen tents, and even fewer permanent structures for housing, a dining hall, and a school. The words “Judicial Administration” printed in black magic marker adorn the side of one tent, and “Agriculture” on another.

The city has running well water and electricity which is supplied by diesel generators. The city also recently acquired four computers with internet access and permanent satellite phone access. These few modern conveniences those of us in the West take for granted every day will be the lifeline of the new government.

Despite the lack of adequate infrastructure, the spirit of the South Sudanese all but ensures they will succeed. The people of South Sudan have fought long and hard to get to this point and they will fight even harder to ensure a safe, open, and democratic system as the country moves past the civil war.

The Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), leading the peace negotiations with the Government of Sudan, has been preparing for its role as guide for the transformation to peace by transforming itself into a political party from a proto-military organization. Leadership at this time is daunting enough for any group that seeks to “bootstrap” themselves into responsibility, but couple that with the politics of tribes, regions and ethnic realities, saying that factionalism will be a problem is an understatement.

No, leadership and internal transition will not be easy, but the spirit I witnessed in their eyes, heard in their voices, and felt through the shake of the hands of the South Sudanese cannot be faked. They recognized that democracy will be the tool that they need to overcome their hurdles. They are determined to import democracy and we must not abandon them.
With great conviction, SPLM leaders spoke of their appreciation for President George W. Bush and his leadership and assistance to the area. Not being able to escape the ever-present American political pundits, they are concerned that the “experts” say Bush may be defeated. I told them the experts are wrong. Just like the South Sudanese, the American people recognize the need for a strong leader who says what he means and means what he says.

President Bush has successfully changed a wait-and-see foreign policy on Sudan to an aggressive policy of engagement between the South and the North. Only through this policy change do the South Sudanese believe the two sides would have ever come to the table to negotiate a lasting peace. For that, they are grateful. On the cusp of an agreement, the South Sudanese are beginning to develop the newest democracy in East Africa. The greatest challenge is the enormity of developing the government from scratch, not over-promising to their people, and balancing the interests of various tribes within the South.

All of this has to be done while dealing with an absolute lack of basic needs, transportation routes, and communications infrastructure. Under normal circumstances this would prove difficult. Add to the mix hundreds of thousands of hungry people, a war torn economy, disease, and a lack of medicine, and you have a recipe for failure.

Having visited New Site and the people who live and work there, in addition to a ten year old refugee camp of over 7,500 displaced Sudanese, I can only shake my head when considering the enormity of the work to be done. But the children all smiles and there is hope in the eyes of the adults.

It appears failure is not in the blood of the South Sudanese. While the challenges are immense, they are achievable. The hope for peace is close to reality. Today’s young people will carry books not weapons, and the country will slowly make up for its years lost to war. That is truly something to smile about.

For the West, we must not forget where the Sudanese have come from when considering where they need to go and how long they may need our help. The South Sudanese know they need our help. They long for it. They know that without President Bush’s continuing interest and long-term commitment to unifying Sudan, democracy will fail.

As the world’s lone super power we have an interest in seeing Sudan succeed. As Americans, it is our duty. Democracy is our greatest export.

(By Chris Ingram as published by GOPUSA.com, 2003)

Ten years ago, I was cursing Governor (now Senator) Zell Miller.

At the time, Miller was the governor of Georgia. He had given the nominating speech for Bill Clinton at the 1992 Democratic convention — where he uttered the line, “Bill Clinton is the only candidate who feels your pain” — and was viewed by many as a very partisan Democrat. Miller’s detractors called him “zig-zag-Zell” because he frequently changed his stance on tough issues.

Fast forward to 2002 when Senator Paul Coverdell died unexpectedly and Zell Miller was appointed by Democratic governor Roy Barnes to fill the remainder of his term. The day he was sworn in, Senator Miller said he would vote like Sen. Coverdell – apparently meaning as a conservative. At the time most who knew Zell thought “Yeah right.”

But Sen. Miller has been true to his word – a rarity in Washington. As senator, Miller took up many of Sen. Coverdell’s pet initiatives including cutting taxes and working to restore responsibility in government. He voted for President Bush’s tax relief package and has been on the side of common sense conservatism on most important issues.

Miller has been a thorn in the side of Sen. Tom Daschle and the rest of the out-of-touch liberal leadership — whom Miller scolds in his book “Conscience of a Conservative Democrat.” As Miller rightly points out, the Democratic leadership just doesn’t get it. That is, they don’t know how to appeal to moderate to conservative Southern white male voters – which is arguably the most coveted segment of voters in America going into next year’s elections.

If you don’t believe the importance of Southern white male voters, just consider that if Al Gore had carried just one Southern state (or won just one of the Border States he lost) in 2000, he would be President Al Gore today.

In 2004, neither party can win without this group of voters. The difference is, the Republicans work for the Southern white male vote, the Democrats in Washington don’t. They just talk like they do, as they lust for their support.

But for the Democrats, the problem is deeper than just not working for the Southern white male vote. The Democrats are so out of touch they don’t even know how to appeal to Bubbas because they don’t understand them. But understanding Southern conservative white male voters isn’t all that hard. It’s simple really. And you don’t need to fake knowing the difference between Rusty Wallace and Dale Jarrett to do it.

What Democrats need to understand about Southerners is they don’t like having out-of-touch liberal values shoved down their throats. And they should also understand Southerner’s can’t stand Al Gore. So if you happen to be a Northeastern former governor from a small state with extreme leftist tendencies (ok, Howard Dean), getting Gore’s endorsement isn’t going to help you. Remember, he lost the South (including his home state), as well as such traditional Democratic Border States such as West Virginia.

Instead, Dean should focus on appealing to these voters and their sophistication. Yes, people who shop at Wal-Mart can be sophisticated.

How? Here are a few starting points:

1) don’t try to place restrictions on guns;
2) forget about forcing quotas and set-asides for special interest groups;
3) don’t give special “victim’s rights” for specific groups of people;
4) don’t give needles to drug users; and finally,
5) Lord knows (hey, you can’t write about Southerners without bringing up the Lord), don’t give same-sex couples the right to marry.

Here is why you shouldn’t touch these issues based on how Southerners think:

The right to possess guns is in the Constitution. Read it. Enough is enough. Even Al Gore had enough sense to leave this issue alone in 2000. Washington, D.C. has the strictest gun control laws in the country and yet the city consistently has one of the highest gun crime rates in America.

As for quotas and set-asides, two wrongs don’t make a right. Hire the best person for the job and forget about their color. We should be a nation of individuals, not a nation of groups.

Liberal Democrats think if you’re gay, black, or Muslim and someone smacks you over the head with a golf club, the attacker should be charged with a “hate” crime and face tougher penalties. But if the same attacker hits a white, Christian, Rebel flag waving, Chevy pick-up driving male with a gun rack and a number three sticker in the window ten minutes later, the charge should not be so severe. Who is being discriminated against now?

As for needles for drug addicts, you wouldn’t hand out six-packs of beer to people walking into an “AA” meeting would you? So why do national Democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi support giving needles to drug users? No Southerner in his right mind understands this.

Finally, a majority of Americans (and Southerners) support the right of gay people to have the same rights as everyone else. But they don’t support diminishing the sanctity of marriage, plain and simple. Even most of the current Democrats running for president understand this. Liberal Nancy Pelosi who represents the San Francisco area apparently does not.
Pelosi and Daschle’s lack of understanding on these issues is the reason the Democrats lose. Zell Miller has stood up and told them so. But as is often the case in Washington, being told what you don’t know isn’t appreciated.

The Republican Party is known to eat its young and promote its out-of-touch elders. The Democrats appear to work in reverse. They try to euthanize their elders and promote their out-of-touch up-starts. Fortunately the Democrats haven’t been able to stick the needle in that old dog Zell’s neck yet – a needle that ought to be aimed at Gore, and Dean, and other out-of-touch liberals.
One thing is for certain, if Dean is going to win the presidency, he’ll need to win at least a handful of Southern states — something Gore didn’t do despite his roots. Being from Vermont, Dean’s challenge is even greater. He should read Senator Miller’s book and forget about Al Gore.

A Southerner, Chris Ingram is the former Washington press secretary to Sen. Paul Coverdell and chief of staff to Rep. Max Burns. He is the president of 411 Communications, a political polling and communications firm based in Arlington, Virginia.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 21, 2003 (UPI) — Madeleine Albright is on a mission.

In the past few weeks she has circled the globe attacking the policies of the Bush Administration. Nothing President Bush has done is sacred from Albright’s scorn. The range of criticism spans from his leadership on the war in Iraq and efforts to fight global terrorism to U.S. foreign policy toward Cuba.

Never mind that the terms “foreign policy” and “genius” were rarely if ever muttered in the same sentence when describing the Clinton administration — which Albright served as secretary of State. Albright apparently believes Bush, Powell, Rice and company are to blame for the ills of the world and that Clinton and friends were excellent stewards of the helm with all the right answers.

While most Americans likely couldn’t cite a single foreign policy success of the Clinton-Albright foreign policy team, one thing is certain — international quagmires were a hallmark of the duo.

From the misguided effort to bring peace to Somalia which led to the unnecessary and horrific deaths of U.S. troops, to their failed efforts to bring peace to the Middle East, and their absent response to mounting global terrorism, Clinton-Albright were lackluster at best.

The bombing of the USS Cole, the first attack on the World Trade Center, and two U.S. embassy bombings in Africa — those are the legacies of the Clinton administration’s foreign policy expertise. They did nothing to combat growing Islamic-terrorism prior to these tragedies. And lest we not forget, Clinton’s response afterward: nothing. Unless of course you count dropping a few missiles in a camel stable in Afghanistan in a mindless attempt to “get” Osama bin Laden.

So now Albright is taking her experience addressing global terrorism and as a Mideast peace problem-solver on a World Tour. While she isn’t espousing how she would handle the current situation (thankfully), she is pointing out all of her perceived failures of Bush policy. The question is, why?

The answer is easy. Like most things in Washington, to find the answer, follow the money.

In this case, it is in books. Albright’s new autobiography, “Madam Secretary,” is just out and, apparently, her public relations folks at Time Warner Books believe criticism creates controversy and controversy sells books.

Her recent attack on the Bush administration’s policy toward Cuba came last week when she was in Miami. And her statements that U.S. policy in Iraq, and the alleged lack of coalition building prior to the war — specifically lacking French support — came in, you guessed it, France.

Offering to French radio that current U.S. policy “is not good for America, not good for the world,” her criticism in an attempt to increase book sales is appalling. Some have likened her behavior to that of Jane Fonda while hanging out with the enemy in Vietnam — but Fonda, from all appearances, did not have a financial stake in her words. Albright should not be easily forgiven for her comments given their not-so-veiled intent to help increase book sales and Madam Secretary’s pocket book.

What is next? Albright in Berlin declaring President Reagan was wrong to declare “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall”? Only if it means a few more book sales.

– Chris Ingram is president of 411 Communications, an public opinion research and communications firm.

– United Press International’s “Outside View” commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues.

Copyright 2003 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.