Republicans debate, sans Thompson

The GOP was holding a debate on Fox News tonight, while "new candidate" Fred Thompson was busy announcing his candidacy on Jay Leno. Of note:

• Romney and Giuliani went head to head. The two have been increasingly aggressive over the past few weeks, seeking to take advantage of the vacuum left by McCain collapse and Thompson's reluctance to officially start campaign to gain the upper hand. Tonight showcased their opposition. Romney attacked Giuliani on immigration, repeatedly referring to New York as a sanctuary city. Guiliani's reply? "I didn't have the luxury of political rhetoric. I had the safety and security of people of New York City on my shoulder." But these back-and-forth exchanges can also work at both candidates' advantage. By engaging each other as they are doing, Romney and Giuliani could make the race about them, thereby forcing the media to concentrate on a two-way horserace that would exclude other candidates and deprive Fred Thompson of the space he so desperatly needs right now. We will see in the coming weeks whether this strategy works.


• In further indication that the campaign is turning around the two of them, Giuliani and Romney were asked the most pointed questions. Romney had to endure a military father's reproach that he had compared the job of his kids on the campaign trail to what soldiers do in Iraq. And Giuliani had to deflect a question about his personal history. He answered, "I am not running as the prefect candidate for president as the United States. I am running as a human being."


• The Thompson campaign seemed to think that tonight's winner is, well... Thompson. Talk about a surprise. You have to admit their argument seems a bit of a stretch, though. From the campaign's communication director: "I am of course watching tonight's Fox News debate and it is clear to me already that though Fred Thompson is not on stage, our opponents are already letting us dominate the narrative of this campaign."


• McCain has been tring to get back in the top-tier, and he is doing so by hugging the surge very tightly. He has always been identified with Bush's Iraq War policy, and while it might not be the best place to be today, you can bet McCain would rather talk about Iraq than immigration. With Republicans regrouping on the Iraq issue lately, McCain was feeling triumphant - and let everyone know. When Romney dared say that the surge "appeared to be working," McCain jumped in to correct him: "It is working. Not apparently."


• McCain also went after Giuliani today, attacking his national security credentials: "I know the conflict, I know war, I have seen war. I have led." McCain was specifically commenting on comments he had made yesterday stating that Giuliani's tenure as NYC mayor did not qualify him to be commander-in-chief. This was an especially significant attack since Republican voters have been attracted to the Giuliani campaign precisely because they view it as strong on national security because of Giuliani's post 9-11 leadership:
  
  

  I think the nation respects the mayor’s leadership after 9/11, and I do, too, and I think he displayed leadership at a time that Americans needed some steady hand, and I think that his conduct was very laudatory following 9/11. I don’t think it translates, necessarily, into foreign policy or national security expertise. I know of nothing in his background that indicates that he has any experience in it, with him or Romney.

  
  For those of you who have not gotten a chance to read it, the Village Voice's Giuliani's Five Big Lies on 9-11 is a must-read article.


• But in what is unmistakable proof that he is no threat to win the nomination, Giuliani did not even respond to McCain's allegations. He said instead that he would probably have supported McCain if he himself had not been running. Talk about a diss! This did not prevent The Washington Post's Chris Cilliza from praising McCain's performance.


• In other news from the Republican field, a new ARG poll from Michigan tells a fascinating story. Romney is now leading with 39% of the vote, with Giuliani, Thompson and McCain far behind at 13%, 12% and 9% respectively (the Democratic poll has Clinton dominating the field with 43%, 21 points ahead of Obama). This is even better than the EPIC/MRA poll from last week that had Romney narrowly ahead. It does appear that Romney has opened up a significant lead in the three first voting states (IA, NH and MI) and this could lead to him straight to the nomination. As I wrote a week ago,
  
  

  If Romney confirms his dominance in IA and NH, he is likely to roll to victory in Michigan (the same would not have been true if SC or FL had been third in line). And thus, Romney will get the big state win he needs, making sure to capitalize on early successes. And if Romney wins Iowa on January 5th, NH on the 8th and Michigan on the 15th, does anyone expect Giuiliani to remain as strong as he is in Florida and the later states? Certainly not!



• A new poll from South Carolina, however, paints a different picture. SC is Romney's weakest state, and it shows as he comes in at only 11%. However, Romney has two saving graces in SC: First, no other candidate seems to have taken the lead, as Thompson leads with only 19%. Second, if Romney wins his third primary in as many contests in Michigan on 01/15, won't he get a huge boost in SC on the 19th? And even if he doesn't will it matter?


• The Democratic numbers are more interesting in SC. Clinton leads with 26%, followed with Obama at 16% and Edwards at 10%. And in what I think is the most interesting subplot of the Democratic race, Clinton is winning the African-American vote, 28% to 23%. Obama needs to dramatically reverse those numbers if he is hoping to prevail in SC. For now, he has been unable to win the black vote in most South Carolina polls. This also damages one of Obama's arguments on the campaign trail - that he is the most electable Democrat because he would drive up black turnout in the general election and put Southern states in play. If he cannot even win the African-American vote in the primary, can Obama really expect to drive up turnout by significatn proprtions? Sounds doubtful, though Obama still has a few months to make his case.