A recent Register opinion piece by two former Lieutenant Governors has caught some attention. The piece deals with the intersection of religion and politics, and emotionally asks people not to use religion as a wedge to separate people in this political season. The two authors claim that certain candidates are trying “try to make religion, or the form of it, or the lack of it, a qualification or disqualification for public office.”

The authors also want to “remind the nation that the Constitution prohibits any religious test for public office and that the divisive use of religion to manipulate voters is unacceptable.” They go on to say, “The president must serve all Americans without prejudice toward any religious or nonreligious beliefs.”

OK, let’s call this what it is. First, they’re ticked at Mitt Romney for saying that “freedom requires religion,” thereby (allegedly) alienating atheists. Second, they’re ticked at Mike Huckabee because they think he’s talking too much about faith and implying that he’s using his faith to try to get people to vote for him.

It really irks me when people who know better use the whole “the constitution prohibits a religious test” argument. The constitution prohibits the government itself from adopting a religious test for those who run for office. That has no bearing on what issues and factors individual citizens use to determine who they want to vote for to be president.

Faith is a legitimate thing for people to look at in making this decision, but perhaps not in the way you are thinking (or the way the above editorialists assume that us Bible-thumping, narrow-minded hicks would look at faith).

First, a person’s professed faith tells me a little about their value system. As the editorialists state, “our faith should inform our values, and those values are the bases of decisions and judgments we make in the public sphere.” I feel, as a voter, I want to know what faith will be informing a candidate’s values and decisions once in office. But what tells me even more about a person is whether or not their actions, conduct, and policy positions are consistent with their professed beliefs. Bill Clinton claimed to be a champion of women’s rights, but when it came right down to it, we all found out that he didn’t even have respect for the woman he married, so, in my mind, that makes him a hypocrite, and, therefore, someone who I don’t trust with the responsibility of public office.

This is also what bothers me about Mitt Romney. It’s not that he’s a Mormon. I have great respect for the Church Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for the strong pro-life and pro-traditional family values it has espoused over the years and continues to support to this day. The question for Mitt is this (and it’s the same one Jan Mickelson tried to ask before Mitt got all “intense” back in August): Why did it take you until you were almost 60 years old to figure out that abortion is wrong, when your church has been telling you it’s wrong your whole life? Why did you not support the marriage amendment that would have stopped gay marriage in Massachusetts? Why did you name a gay couple as Adoptive Parents of the Year when you’ve been taught from a young age that homosexuality is wrong and not at all an ideal environment in which to raise children?

As for Huckabee, I think he’s gotten somewhat of a bum rap on the faith front. The man can’t go anywhere without people asking him at length about his faith. Yes, he did include “Christian Leader” text in his ads. Is he not supposed to tell people that being a minister was his job for 12 years? He was criticized for his question about what Mormons believe regarding Jesus and Satan being brothers (which, by the way, I’ve heard many people in news interviews say is true based on statements from the official LDS website, www.lds.org).

I wasn’t there, and I don’t know how or why he asked a reporter that question. But let’s assume the worst, that Huckabee was trying to tell everyone that that is what Mormons believe. Huckabee had just been attacked by Romney and Thompson leaking to the press the fact that a long time ago, Huckabee and his wife had signed a newspaper ad put together by the Southern Baptist Convention. This ad was signed by numerous other Baptist leaders. The ad stated that, along with lots of other stuff, Baptists believe wives should submit graciously to the servant leadership of their husbands. Huckabee was raked over the coals in the press for that. So to summarize, it’s not fair for Huckabee to question Mitt’s religious beliefs, but it is totally fair for Romney and Thomson to question a tenant of Huckabee’s faith. Maybe it’s not what I would have done, but I understand Huckabee’s frustration over the double standard. The thing I find most upsetting is the insinuation from the indignant talking heads on cable that a minister shouldn’t be president. Isn’t that a religious test, too?

In short, I think it is absurd to suggest that people should not examine a candidate’s faith, and particularly, whether a candidate’s conduct adheres to their professed faith (and if not, why not). The Register’s editorialists plead, “Do not ask us to vote for you based on your personal religious affiliation. Do not ask us to stand in judgment of your opponents' religious beliefs.”

Here’s some advice for them: Don’t be so blinded by a candidate’s religious beliefs that you refuse to acknowledge his well-reasoned policies and leadership capabilities. Don’t distort the Constitution by claiming we’re violating the “religious test” clause when you know full well that’s not what’s happening. And most of all, don’t accuse others of imposing a religious test, when you’re actually imposing one of your own.

Very rarely does a candidate emerge who can change the course of not only their political party, but also the nation. These characteristics are sometimes difficult to see through an intense primary battle, especially when political opponents become desperate and have to rely on negative campaign tactics to save their campaigns.

People working on particular campaigns always find it difficult to take a step back and look at the larger picture. Many supporters of candidates also find this task difficult. I think all of the Republican candidates are remarkable individuals who bring a certain skill set that our nation would benefit from. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people say, “Wouldn’t it be great if we could combine all of these guys?” I agree, but it is never going to happen.

There is no doubt that Republican voters are searching for the next Reagan, and each of these candidates are trying to fill the void. While it is easy to evoke the name of Reagan on the campaign trail, it’s difficult to actually fill that void. I believe what people are really looking for is someone who is sincere and has the ability to communicate our conservative principles like Reagan did.

Not since 1994 and the Contract with America have Republicans been able to articulate what we stand for. And even then, the Contract was more of a platform of specific issues than a overall philosophy for the Republican party. Since the Contract with America, Republicans have moved away from having a cohesive message based on issues. When it comes to every issue except national defense, Republicans have been losing the debate for more than a decade.

We need a leader who can help reinvigorate Republican leaders at every level. There is no reason why liberals like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards should ever win the debate on issues like the protection of life at all stages, traditional marriage, education, and health care, let alone national security, and fundamental tax reform. These are not just issues that most Republicans believe in and support, but they are issues that most Americans are with us on.

Mike Huckabee is the one candidate who can relate to everyday Americans. Republicans now more than ever need a nominee the person who can provide our party with a vision of where our nation needs to go. To accomplish that, we need a candidate who can articulate that message. That candidate is Mike Huckabee.

On January 3^rd I hope you will join me in supporting Mike Huckabee.

After much thought, I have come to the conclusion that Mike Huckabee is the best man to lead this country as the next President of the United States.

There are a few other candidates who are also well qualified and also good men, but Mike Huckabee is the only one with the whole package.

I like that Mike Huckabee has executive experience, having served Governor of Arkansas for 11 years. I like that he was elected as a Republican in a predominately Democratic state, served with a massively Democratic legislature, and was still able to accomplish the goals on his conservative agenda. This tells us a lot about Mike’s ability to work in a bipartisan manner without giving up his conservative principles.

Mike has taken a lot of flack from Romney and his band of cohorts (yes, that’s you CFG) over the tax situation in Arkansas while Mike was governor. I look at that situation in a different way. I’m impressed that he took a failing education system and a transportation infrastructure that was in shambles and turned both around. These are worthwhile efforts that any good governor should address (think about the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis… I bet the Minnesota governor would like a do-over on that one so he could have paid a little more attention to infrastructure).

Given that he was re-elected multiple times in Arkansas, it’s apparent that the people of Arkansas recognized that these were worthwhile expenditures. I’m also impressed that Huckabee turned a huge budget shortfall into an $800 million surplus by the time he left office. Bottom line, there are some things you need to spend money on at the state level. If I had a president who didn’t want to properly fund the military because he was afraid of being accused of spending too much, that would upset me. Mike recognizes when there is a legitimate need and fixes the problem in a rational way. If you have any questions about Mike’s fiscal responsibility, look at the way he’s run his campaign. He is a national frontrunner and has gotten there on a shoestring budget. Good news: since he’s gotten more national attention, his fundraising has improved and he is now positioned to play with the big boys after Iowa.

One of the biggest reasons to support Mike is his strong positions and record on social issues. He is a huge pro-life advocate and supporter of a federal life amendment. Back in Arkansas, Mike helped pass Arkansas' Unborn Child Amendment. It is clear that this is an issue very near and dear to Mike’s heart.

Mike also supports a federal marriage amendment, defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This is an issue which separates him from some others in the race who claim to be socially conservative, or “true” conservatives.

I also appreciate that Mike has attained his position at the top of the polls by running on his positions rather than tearing down other candidates. I’ve said it many times before, but I’ll say it again. Iowans don’t like bullies. Both Mitt and Fred have put out some (at best) misleading and/or (at worst) completely unscrupulous attacks. This tells me a lot about those campaigns and those candidates, and what it tells me isn’t good.

The last thing we need to talk about regarding Mike Huckabee is the best. You can’t talk about Mike without talking about his gift of communication. I think gift is the appropriate word for it. Mike has the ability to connect with people through his words in a way that no other candidate in the race does. I think this is how Mike was able to accomplish what he did in Arkansas with a 90% Democratic legislature. I think this is also the reason that Mike has been able to withstand the misleading and unfounded attacks against him in recent weeks. He’s asked why he signed over 1000 pardons and commutations, and he explains how the system in Arkansas is different, requiring that more requests for pardons and commutations be considered. He explains that, in the post-9/11 era, more people have to undergo background checks, and sometimes some minor convictions from long ago are preventing people from becoming productive, tax-paying citizens.

When Mike Huckabee is criticized, he doesn’t run from the allegation or change his position on fundamental conservative issues. He faces it head-on, he explains himself, and he wins the debate. That’s what we need in a president: someone who can win hearts and minds for conservative values. That’s why we need Mike Huckabee.

So, Mitt Romney has decided to attack John McCain (which, I suppose, is to be expected since McCain is gaining in New Hampshire).  The exchange that’s gone on between these candidates is highly entertaining.  According to Foxnews.com, it goes a little something like this:

“Right now Senator McCain and I are both battling for your support and your vote. He’s a good man but we have differing views on this. He voted against the Bush tax cuts. He voted against eliminating the death tax forever, and so we’ve got some differing views here,” Romney said.

“I believe in pushing taxes down. I also believe in trade around the world and that’s a place where Senator McCain and I agree.”

McCain’s campaign didn’t take long to fire back, needling Romney on the tax issue as well as a number of the former Massachusetts governor’s recent public relations gaffes.

“Welcome to Mitt Romney’s bizarro world, in which everyone is guilty of his sins,” McCain adviser Mark Salter said.

Salter continued, saying Romney “didn’t support Ronald Reagan. He didn’t support President Bush’s tax cuts. He raised taxes in Massachusetts by $700 million. He knows John McCain is gaining on him so he does what any small varmint gun totin,’ civil rights marching, NRA endorsed fantasy candidate would do: he questions someone else’s credibility. ”

“New Hampshire is on to you, Mitt. Give it a rest. It’s Christmas.”

 It is Christmas... God bless us, every one.

With the end of the year quickly approaching, I thought it might be a good time to look back at 2007 and see what the Republican campaigns did well and where they tripped up here in Iowa. I’ll be the first to admit that hindsight is 20/20, but many of these campaigns made what I think were fatal mistakes, while only a few avoided them.

If you talk to any Republican insider, each and every one of them will tell you this is a caucus cycle like none they have seen before. Some will say it’s that way because McCain and Giuliani have not focused on building top-notch campaign efforts in Iowa. Others will say it’s because of the frontloading of the nomination calendar which is providing multiple routes to the Republican nomination.

I’ve been amazed at the difference between the Democrat and Republican campaigns in Iowa. Now, I’m not talking about the number of staffers.  Democrats need more people on staff as they need to identify people’s second choice and find people to pick up supporters for candidates who didn’t reach viability. I’m talking about the amount of activity these campaigns have committed to Iowa. Not a day goes by when at least four of the six Democrat candidates are not in Iowa campaigning. On the Republican side, campaigns make short visits to Iowa and leave to visit other states.

If I were running one of these campaigns, I would have kept an eye on these Democrat campaigns because they have already been through a somewhat compacted nomination race in 2004. It’s apparent how important Iowa is to each of the Democrat’s chances to win the nomination. The same goes for the Republicans, but many of those campaigns failed to realize it early this year and now are screwed.

So, let’s take a look at each one in the race. It's in alphabetical order.  I’ll be doing some final power rankings real soon.

A look back on Rudy Giuliani and his Iowa efforts.

Giuliani began his foray into Iowa in April with a visit to Des Moines and Cedar Rapids. Little did the two largest communities in the state know then that the majority of Giuliani’s time in Iowa would be spent there. Such a strategy is used by a presidential nominee or sitting president running for reelection.  Just one problem here: Giuliani wasn't, isn't, and the way it looks, never will be either the nominee or a sitting president.

Sometimes it seems to me that the media has a perception that candidates like Giuliani and McCain stand no chance in Iowa where social conservatives or evangelicals dominate the electorate. The truth is that recently (2000 and 2008), the more moderate candidates have ceded the state to that segment of voters, giving them even more power and influence in Iowa and nationally when the winner of Iowa is announced on caucus night.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Giuliani would have used his celebrity to introduce himself to Iowans, he would have found plenty of fertile ground on which to grown his campaign. Instead Giuliani stuck to the large population centers and ignored much of the rest of the state.

In June, Giuliani also decided to skip the Iowa Straw Poll, an early test of a campaigns organization. His reasoning was that it would have cost him three million dollars to compete.  So instead of competing, he would use those resources in the fall when more people would be paying attention. In addition to not participating in the Straw Poll he also passed on other party events.  While not the end of the world, Iowa caucus goers are always watching and tend to reward those who take them seriously.

So what is Rudy Giuliani’s biggest mistake in Iowa? It’s simple, his lack of commitment to Iowa gave birth to Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. As I write this today, both have a better shot at winning the Republican nomination than Giuliani does. I never would have thought that this summer. In fact, there are very few people who give Giuliani’s Florida/February 5^th strategy any chance of working.

Caucus Lesson: If you are running for a president, it’s a good idea to take the first contest seriously. If you invest in Iowa, Iowans will reward your campaign.

A look back on Mike Huckabee and his Iowa efforts.

Let me try and put this is perspective for all of you. This spring, the hot rumor going around was that Huckabee was going to abandon his presidential campaign and run for the United States Senate in Arkansas. Rumors fly around in politics all of the time, but this one had legs. At the Straw Poll many people expected Huckabee to be the casualty at the end of the day, not Tommy Thompson.

Huckabee didn’t just survive, he thrived. As the field began to dwindle, more and more people began to pay attention to the former Governor of Arkansas. He turned in solid debate performances, catchy one liners, and let Iowa Caucus goers get a glimpse of who he is as a person. The latter is something many candidates either have a hard time doing or simply will not do. Huckabee showed a fun side by bringing his band up to Iowa for a number of appearances.

A number of people I talked to said they didn’t think it seemed presidential. On the other hand there were a number of people like me who are political junkies that love to go to events, but wanted to see something different and fun. Huckabee used his band to show voters some personality and that politics can be fun.  It also created an opportunity to get Huckabee supporters to invite their friends and family members to come out and have some fun while introducing those people to a presidential candidate.

Now just a note to any future presidential candidates. Just having a band will not get it done in Iowa. Mike Huckabee also can deliver a speech better than anyone else on the Republican side. Every time I’ve seen him give a speech he has the audience in the palm of his hand. If you don’t believe me, ask anyone in the press corps here in Iowa who gives the best speech.  They will unanimously tell you its Huckabee.

I think Huckabee is the one candidate who best understands the makeup of Iowa caucus goers. They want the whole package; they want someone who is solid on the issues of marriage, life, and taxes. But Huckabee also strikes a cord when he talks about education and health care. Issues alone can get you a long way in Iowa, but the final piece of the puzzle is being likable and approachable. He smacks that one out of the part. People like Huckabee; they like him so much that he is somewhat immune to the negative attacks from Romney and Fred Thompson.

Huckabee needs to deliver on Caucus night to complete his epic rise from the nowhere, but for the most part, he has used his limited resources wisely and has a good chance of parlaying them into what could be the Republican nomination.

Caucus Lesson: Keep your head down and do your own thing. Don’t get wrapped up in what people are saying in July. This is advice every other campaign should heed.

A look back on Duncan Hunter and his Iowa efforts.

I really wanted to leave this blank, but Congressman Hunter is a great man.

I laughed when I wrote the word Duncan Hunter and Iowa efforts because he hasn’t done anything in this state. Instead, Hunter has spent substantial time in South Carolina. For his efforts he is currently sitting at just 1% in South Carolina.

Now I’m not going to spend much time writing about Duncan Hunter, but he really messed up by not committing to Iowa. I give him credit for attending RPI events including the Straw Poll, but he could have done so much more. Hunter poured early money into pointless radio and TV ads in South Carolina. That money would have been better spent on hiring some good Iowa people to run his Iowa operation.

Caucus Lesson: If you are a no-name going to run for president, Iowa is for you. Just watch and see what Chris Dodd does on the Democrat side on Caucus Night. Hunter should have moved to Iowa and spent his time driving all around the state. He would have gotten more bang for his buck.

A look back on John McCain and his Iowa efforts.

McCain started off 2007 with a bang in Iowa. He assembled a great staff and eventually brought in a talented campaign manager. At the start of the year it looked like Iowans were is store for a battle of two titan campaigns McCain vs. Romney.

Unfortunately for McCain, his campaigns fundraising team could not meet their goals, but his campaign spent like they did. Faced with a bloated campaign with too much overhead, McCain had to retool in early summer. He slashed his staff, he didn’t play at the Straw Poll, and many people left him for dead.

Most Iowa insiders expected McCain to pull the plug on Iowa and focus just on New Hampshire. He didn’t. McCain did focus on New Hampshire but kept the lights on in his Iowa HQ. McCain’s decision to keep an Iowa presence might be the most brilliant decision in 2007. As John McCain now challenges Romney in New Hampshire, he can also come to Iowa and mess with Romney.

McCain has also mopped up on newspaper endorsements in Iowa. He received the nod for the Des Moines Register and the QC Times. While newspaper endorsements don’t do much on the Republican race in Iowa, it has provided McCain with some much needed earned media. McCain now has momentum leading into the final days before the caucuses. If McCain does poorly in Iowa, it doesn’t matter, but if he finishes 3^rd or better, it's bad news for Romney no matter what he does in Iowa.

Caucus Lesson: This is a weird one. I really think he overreacted in June when he blew up his staff. I have always thought that McCain could do well in Iowa, which the polls are now showing. I think the lesson is one that McCain learned in 2000: don’t ignore Iowa.  You might not win it, but getting one of those three tickets out of here can be valuable, especially if you have something cooking in New Hampshire.

A look back on Dr. Ron Paul and his Iowa efforts.

Ron Paul’s Iowa campaign took shape on June 30^th when Paul wasn’t allowed to participate in the Iowans for Tax Relief/ Iowa Christian Alliance presidential forum. In a wise decision the Paul campaign rented the room next door and had their own event which attracted a crowd equal to the size of the forum.

Paul then put staff on the ground in Iowa and took part in the Iowa Straw Poll. Since then, Paul hasn’t run a traditional Iowa caucus campaign. He has very rarely visited the state and hasn’t made it to many communities across the state. Instead he has flooded mail boxes and answering machines with the traditional issues on which Republican caucus goers agree: life, tax policy, and limited government.

I don’t really know what I would have done differently if I was running the Paul campaign. I guess I might have played down my position to bring all the troops home as soon as he takes office. I know that many of his supporters flocked to him because of his anti-war stance, but on the other hand, it paints him unfairly to caucus goers who don’t know him. I always ask people what they think about Ron Paul, and I always laugh when they say they think he is too liberal. By being anti-war, people just assume that he is also pro-choice, which couldn’t be farther from the truth. This is what makes it almost impossible for him to hit the road and go county to county. People either love him or hate him. There is no in between, which makes it difficult to attract a crowd outside of visiting college campuses.

Caucus Lesson: Having fanatic supporters is a bonus on a presidential campaign, but you need to be able to turn their energy into useful things for the campaign. I think they have done this with his internet fundraising events, but earlier this year, his supporters got out of hand harassing the folks at ITR and ICA. I understand why they were pissed, but those are not the people you want to piss off in a caucus state.

A look back on Mitt Romney and his Iowa efforts.

Romney’s presidential efforts started long before his term as Governor of Massachusetts ended. In fact Romney’s Senior Iowa Advisor, David Kochel, was Romney’s mail vendor in his 2002 campaign for Governor. In addition to Kochel, Romney nabbed Gentry Collins to be the Executive Director of the Republican Governors Association when Romney chaired the group. Romney used his position at the RGA to travel around the country and give large sums of money to gubernatorial candidates in 2006. Romney brought the RGA’s annual meeting to Des Moines in 2005. In June of 2006 Romney hired three field staffers to start laying the ground work for his presidential campaign.

When looking back at the Romney campaign, I think its best to break it up in two parts, Pre-Straw Poll and Post-Straw Poll.

In the months leading up to the Iowa Straw Poll, the Romney campaign implemented a flawless ground game in the state. In fact, they were so effective, I believe they alone forced Rudy Giuliani into believing there was no way he could compete. John McCain, for financial reasons, then followed Giuliani’s lead and also skipped the event. Romney was in a difficult position.  On one hand, he had to do some chest pounding so the national media would consider him a viable candidate, which they did. Unfortunately, he also scared the guys he really needed to beat at the Straw Poll from participating. No matter how you look at it, Romney’s Iowa strategy centered around the Straw Poll, and they got exactly what they wanted out of participating in the event.

After the Iowa Straw Poll, many insiders expected Romney to continue to do the things in Iowa that elevated him to his frontrunner status nationally. For the most part they did, but Romney’s front runner status now required a more complex multi-state strategy, rather than just an Iowa strategy. Initially, Romney’s campaign seemed to adjust, but they started to believe their own headlines. In late August and September, people inside and outside of the Romney campaign believed that Romney had Iowa all wrapped up. Romney focused on visiting other parts of the country.  He sent his wife, Ann, to the Republican Party’s Reagan Dinner in October, and then passed on the Fox News debate that was to be held in December. Meanwhile, the field narrowed with the exit of Tommy Thompson and Sam Brownback, and their supporters were looking for a new home.

While Romney still has the most routes to the nomination, he also has to overcome something no other campaign does; he has to fight a two-front war with two very different candidates. In Iowa, he is battling the populist Governor from Arkansas, Mike Huckabee. Huckabee has ignited the support of Iowa’s evangelical community, who also make up a huge block of traditional caucus goers. In New Hampshire, he has to battle John McCain.

So, as the campaign approaches caucus day, Romney can’t simply camp out in Iowa.  He can’t continue to just attack Huckabee.  He also has to pay attention to John McCain, who isn’t just doing well in New Hampshire, but is also climbing in the most recent Iowa polls. It will be difficult to stay on message fighting a two front war, and it doesn’t help that Christmas and New Years is going to take away a bunch of campaigning days.

So what’s been Romney’s biggest mistake? I really don’t know. I think it’s the lack of killer instinct. This summer Romney ignored John McCain after dropping out of the Straw Poll, and he also dismissed Huckabee after Huck's surprise 2^nd place finish because they believe he just got lucky in Ames and didn’t have the necessary organization to win Iowa.

You could also make the case that Romney’s biggest mistake is trying to be everything to everybody. It’s safe to say that people don’t agree with Huckabee and McCain on everything, but people can get beyond those things and look to the larger picture with a candidate they trust.

Caucus Lesson: If your Iowa strategy works, don’t shy away from it, embrace it. When you have the opportunity to kill off an opponent do it, because if you let them get up and dust themselves off, they will come back to haunt you.

A look back on Fred Thompson and his Iowa efforts.

This summer, I truly believed that Iowa was Fred’s for the taking. I was amazed by the amount of media he was able to generate without being an official candidate. It’s important to understand that he was doing this during the lead up to the Straw Poll, which is similar to what we are experiencing now in regards to the amount of campaign activity by all the candidates.

Thompson’s poll numbers were great, but he missed his window of opportunity by not announcing until late summer. By the time he strolled into the race, the Republican field had changed dramatically. Tommy Thompson was out, Tancredo and Brownback were basically dead in the water, and people became frustrated with Fred Thompson’s flirting with the electorate. Some speculate that the reason Thompson dawdled during the summer was because of the Straw Poll. By delaying their entry into the race, they could avoid spending resources at the event and avoid being embarrassed by the lower tier candidates who had been working on turnout for months.

While I think the Thompson campaign made the right choice in regards to the Straw Poll, the decision did have negative consequences. First and foremost, it gave birth to an alternative to Romney in Mike Huckabee.

When Thompson announced in Des Moines and went on his first tour of the State, there was still plenty of excitement. What really hurt his campaign, however, was the simple fact that Candidate Thompson could not live up to the expectations that the media and the talking heads had put on him. Instead of Ronald Reagan, we got a slow talkin' old guy. He said the right things, but the delivery was terrible, something you wouldn’t expect from an actor.

For all of Fred’s faults, he is still a viable candidate in Iowa. Last week he kicked off his statewide bus tour, and got a nice little surprise when Congressman Steve King endorsed him. A few days later, he picked up former Tancredo state chair, Bill Salier. It might be too late for the Thompson campaign to consolidate all of the conservatives around him, but these two endorsements, in addition to a flurry of Iowa activity, should help caucus goers who are flaking off of one campaign or who are still undecided.

Caucus Lesson: Never assume you are going to fill some void the media is talking about. Voids are just opportunities; just saying that you are running will not seal the deal with these folks.

As we enter into the final days before the caucuses, each of these candidates have a shot at being the story on caucus night, except for Duncan Hunter. I’ll be writing a story on the battle for 3^rd place in the coming days.

Have a Merry Christmas,

Nathan Greene