The Occasional Observer

Romney's is a must see, if you haven't already. MyManMitt has the video here. Mitt continues to hit all the right tones: he's optimistic, looks presidential, embraces fiscal, national defense, AND social conservatism, but does it in a way that is engaging and not confrontational. The fact that he's a convert to social conservatism will ultimately (in the general) be a positive, not a negative for him. Seculars will be able to say, "he started his journey where I am today, so how did he get where he is?" As opposed to the knee-jerk reaction (and I don't like it, but it's real) that northern secularists have when they hear a southern evangelical who they can simply pigeon-hole as "unsophisticated" or "trapped by his environment."

Not that Mitt was ever secular-progressive, but like a S-P, he previously viewed abortion and gay rights as "individual freedom" issues (like a libertarian or secular would). He later began to understand them as assaults on the family and against the best interest of children, as a SoCon would. Reason is all that is required to understand this transformation, not deep religious faith. That will help make Romney accessible.

I don't have video for Duncan Hunter's speech, but I did hear it on the internet. Here's a link. Hunter, showing his guts, opens right up with the trade issue, arguably his one stand that runs counter to the majority of attendees at the conference. He hits it strongly and forcefully, and gets only applause for his stance. He also is, smartly, approaching his fair trade policies from a national security standpoint: the "arsenal of democracy," the manufacturing base that churned out all of our tanks, planes, subs and armaments in WWII, has been scattered across the globe. In the age of high-tech weaponry, when extremely specific products are needed to make our advanced weapons systems work, Hunter speaks of the difficulty he had as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee finding domestic manufacturers who made the parts the military needed.

He left unspoken the fact that a fair-trade approach to China will be extremely popular in the rust belt, which just happens to be the key swing-region in Presidential politics. Hunter has a winning formula here, combining fair trade, an illegal-immigration crackown, a strong military, low taxes, and a consistent record of promoting social conservative positions. Whether Hunter can go the distance or not, I hope our front runners are paying attention.

Rudy gave a strong speech at CPAC. I've now seen it in its entirety twice. My observations are this:

• Rudy is not a polished speaker, but is very comfortable in his own skin.
• That works in his favor b/c he comes across as speaking from the heart, which is, IMHO, why he's currently polling so well.
• He is making the most concerted effort to stick to "big picture" conservatism, i.e., that the GOP is party of freedom, that individuals solve their problems best, etc. He's doing much less than other candidates in terms of specifics. Since most voters are not wonks, I think his approach works, but he will get criticism from the blogosphere for not making pledges he can be held to.
• He is avoiding social conservative issues completely. He simply quoted Reagan and said, "my 80% friend is not my 20% enemy." Translation: I'm pro-choice, pro-gay unions, and pro-gun control, but those aren't the key issues. Stand with me on everything else.

Given Rudy's likeability, hero status, and huge lead in national polls, where his campaign goes from here will tell us everything about the state of the GOP in 2007. If Rudy falls from grace, it will be because he is unwilling to throw in his lot on life, marriage, and immigration with the SoCons. If he survives, it shows SoCons are not as important to the GOP as the SoCons think. If Rudy wins the nomination, it would set the stage for a period where national candidates seeking the GOP nomination can safely ignore the SoCon wing of the party and take them for granted, much like the Dems do to African Americans (think of Bill's "Sista Soljah" moment).

I caught half of Huckabee's speech, and it was quite good. It's no surprise he's a former minister. He really engages his audience and leads them, quite effectively, from point A to point B, and he knows how to tug at your heartstrings. He used extremely aggressive rhetoric in discussing GWOT, frankly suprisingly so, especially in contrast with the muted quotes I'd heard from him on the topic before. And he's apparently latched onto the catchphrase "freedom conservative" for his campaign, b/c he used it about 20 times.

Lastly, I caught 10 minutes of Brownback, and he was a lump of milquetoast, as always, despite the fact that I liked everything he had to say.