Both CNN and Fox are projecting that Mark Warner has defeated Jim Gilmore for the open Senate seat caused by the retirement of Republican John Warner (no relation).   This was widely expected.  Gilmore barely campaigned while Warner has been out in force for months.  Warner was a very popular governor, while Gilmore was largely an afterthought.

A WSJ editorial makes the most compelling case for electing John McCain, one that the campaign has barely touched upon: the need to check unalloyed liberalism.

If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.

Saved by the Filibuster

Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven’t since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.

The editorial lists various things that are likely to pass in a national government dominated by Democrats. Some of them, like restoring the right to vote for felons who have served their time, are arguably good policies. Others, like rules changes that “could cement Democratic rule for years to come,” are more scary.

Interestingly, the editorial doesn’t mention McCain at all. Given that Senate races are statewide and individual, though, it’s hard to see how people will have much impact on stopping this trend.  After all, I can vote for Jim Gilmore over Mark Warner (almost certainly to no avail) but have no ability to influence the other 32 Senate races.

Unless enough Republican Senate contenders win their individual races, then, the veto, not the filibuster is the check on this eventuality.

Virginia has long been considered a Republican hotbed — the last Democrat to win the state’s Electoral College vote was Lyndon Johnson in 1964 — it has now elected two Democratic governors in a row, has a Democratic Senator and may be about to have two. Last night, Democrats gained four seats to take control of the Virginia Senate.

Democrats wrested control of the Senate from the Republicans in yesterday’s legislative elections, picking up the four seats they needed to give them a majority of at least 21 to 19 and end a decade of GOP dominance in the chamber.

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) claimed victory in a celebration at Tysons Corner. The Republicans retained control of the House, but the Democrats also gained seats there. The party’s surge will help the governor advance much of his agenda during his last two years in office, including investing more in education, health and the environment.

[...]

The Democratic gains offered further evidence of a closely divided electorate as both parties gear up for next year’s presidential and U.S. Senate races. Although Democrats made advances in rapidly changing, diversifying Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, the GOP held on to several Senate seats in more rural parts of the state.

[...]

For most of the year, Republicans have been worried President Bush’s unpopularity could become a drag on their candidates. Several Democratic candidates, particularly in Northern Virginia, sought to make their race in part a referendum on GOP policies in Washington. The message appeared to be particularly effective in Hampton Roads, where Democrats won two seats over conservative Republicans.

[...]

The victory in the Senate marks the largest gain in that chamber by one party since 1991, when Republicans picked up eight seats during the administration of former governor L. Douglas Wilder (D).

Despite attempts to nationalize the election, most contests were fought on local issues: taxes, roads, and growth. Still, this is obviously a worrisome trend for the GOP.

The Commonwealth’s senior United States Senator, John Warner, is retiring. Popular former governor Mark Warner, a Democrat, is the odds-on favorite to succeed him (53%-37% over former Republican governor Jim Gilmore in one recent poll). A recent Rasumussen survey shows Rudy Giuliani barely edging out Hillary Clinton, 46% to 43% — within the polls’ margin of error.

Part of the explanation is that Virginia Democrats have done an excellent job in recent years of recruiting moderate candidates who are less vulnerable on the “family values” and crime fronts. Virginia Democrats, like Southern Democrats generally, have long been much more conservative than their national counterparts but that trend has continued.

Mostly, though, the trend is a function of the explosive growth of Northern Virginia, the suburbs and exurbs of Washington, D.C. This part of the Commonwealth is much wealthier, more urban in its thinking (mostly owing to traffic issues that the rest of Virginia largely escapes), and more beholden to the federal government for their livelihood. Despite the routine victories of “slow-growth” candidates (mostly Democrats, ironically enough) this shows no sign of abating.

Congressman Paul Gillmor (R-Ohio) has died of an apparent heart attack. He was 68.

According to an inter-conference email obtained by The Hill, Gillmor did not show up to the office this morning causing his staff to become concerned. When they went to his apartment to check on him, they found that the lawmaker had passed away. Capitol Police is currently investigating, but sources believe that the 10-term lawmaker may have had a heart attack.

In November, Gillmor won his district with 57 percent of the vote, holding on to his seat in a year that saw Democrats take over a GOP Senate seat and the governor’s mansion in Ohio.

A special election will be necessary to find someone filling out the rest of the term. While Republicans are favored to retain the seat, such an election will likely be costly and an added burden to the GOP.

Sad news.

My wife, whose firm did Gillmor’s polling, IM’d me about it. Until I clicked through, I thought she was referring to former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore.

Even though I follow politics very closely, I didn’t know much about Rep. Gillmore. Looking at his official bio, though, he had an impressive career:

Mr. Gillmor was unanimously elected in 2006 by representatives of the 26 NATO countries to serve as Vice President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

Mr. Gillmor serves as a Deputy Minority Whip for the current Congress, and is beginning his eighth term as a member of the Republican Whip team. Previously, he was elected a regional representative for four states to the House Republican Policy Committee. He served as a member of a bipartisan reform task force on ethics and congressional mailing practices. In 1994, Mr. Gillmor authored an article for the Harvard Journal on Legislation on “Reconstruction of Federalism: A Constitutional Amendment to Prohibit Unfunded Mandates.”

Prior to his election to Congress, Mr. Gillmor served in the Ohio Senate for twenty-two years. As a State Senator, he was unanimously elected Republican leader five times, and he served as President of the Senate for three General Assemblies.

Rest in peace.

Jim Gilmore is ending his presidential run six months before the first primary, citing his inability to raise funds and blaming a late entry into the race. This gives him the distinction, according to Yahoo! News‘ headline writer at least, of being the “first major candidate to drop out.”

Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore ended his long-shot campaign for presidency on Saturday, acknowledging he couldn’t raise enough money. The former Republican National Committee chairman is the first of the 10 GOP presidential candidates to drop out. He barely registered in the polls, and his latest financial disclosure report showed him with about $90,000 in cash on hand.

A former Army intelligence officer and state prosecutor, Gilmore had stumped on reducing illegal immigration and creating a new strategy in Iraq. “I’ve developed a national following,” Gilmore said in a telephone interview. “But that following really hasn’t included getting a fundraising group together.”

In a written statement, the 57-year-old meat-cutter’s son said his late start, near the end of April, and the front-loaded primary schedule “have made it impractical to continue.” Gilmore also underwent emergency surgery for a detached retina last month, which forced him to cancel at least a week’s worth of campaign appearances. “I’ve had a chance to appear with the other candidates, and I think I’ve stood toe-to-toe with them,” he said in the interview. But “the reality is we’re raising money in the hundreds of thousands, and the front runners are raising in the millions.” One GOP frontrunner, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani reported $18.3 million on hand Friday.

“I have come to believe that it takes more than a positive vision for our nation’s future to successfully compete for the presidency,” Gilmore’s statement said. “I believe that it takes years of preparation to put in place both the political and financial infrastructure to contest what now amounts to a one-day national primary in February.”

Well, yeah. I’ve known that for years, as have most of you. It’s baffling that a former national party chairman wouldn’t have clued in to that at some point.

The Virginia Pilot reports that Gilmore “is eyeing his own comeback in state politics, possibly as a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2008 should incumbent John Warner, a Republican, not seek re-election; or he might run for governor in 2009.”

Gilmore was governor before I moved back to Virginia and I don’t have any real sense of his popularity in the state. His legacy is not very impressive, if the Pilot’s summary is any indication:

Gilmore was governor from 1998 to 2002. He won the governorship largely on a pledge to end Virginia’s car tax, which he said would cost about $620 million a year. The actual cost, however, was more than $1.4 billion, and legislators strained to come up with the cash when the state’s economy began sagging in 2001. Democrat Mark Warner, who succeeded Gilmore, criticized Gilmore’s financial stewardship. The General Assembly eventually capped car tax relief at $950 annually, eliminating about 70 percent of the levy for most automobile owners.

And the state’s most ubiquitous pundit offers this observation:

Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political scientist, said Gilmore’s withdrawal will hardly be noticed. “He had no impact at all, to be blunt about it,” Sabato said. “I never saw him above 2 percent in the polls. He was usually at 1 percent, and sometimes he was just a dash, meaning he registered no support at all.”

Unkind but, alas, true.

In recent years, Gilmore has practiced law in Washington and has been a frequent television commentator on conservative issues.

Dennis Kucinich is mad as hell and he’s not going to take it any more.

An angry Dennis Kucinich lashed out at John Edwards on Friday, saying his Democratic rival showed “a consistent lack of integrity” by suggesting fewer candidates should participate in presidential forums and then trying to explain his remark to reporters. “This is a serious matter and I’m calling him on it,” Kucinich, an Ohio congressman, said in a telephone interview Friday. “Whispering, trying to rig an election, then denying what’s going on and making excuses. It all reflects a consistent lack of integrity.”

Kucinich’s comments came after Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton were overheard Thursday discussing the possibility of limiting the number of participants in future presidential forums. In an exchange captured on camera and open microphone by broadcasters after an NAACP forum in Detroit, Edwards approached Clinton onstage and whispered in her ear. “We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group,” Edwards said, and Clinton agreed. “Our guys should talk,” Clinton said, complaining the format had “trivialized” the discussion.

[...]

Later Friday, Kucinich sent letters to both Clinton and Edwards challenging them to one-on-one debates, the Kucinich campaign said. “If you are truly seeking debates where there are fewer participants and where there is more meaningful and serious discourse, this is a great opportunity for us to join together in an open discussion on behalf of the American people,” the letter said.

That’s actually a rather clever response, although presumably not what they had in mind.

And, while I fully agree with the sentiments expressed by Edwards and Clinton in their private exchange, they’re not covering themselves with glory in their disingenous attempts to deny they meant it.

Both Edwards and Clinton were asked about the exchange Friday, and offered different explanations.

In New Hampshire, Clinton seemed to lay responsibility on Edwards. “I think he has some ideas about what he’d like to do,” she said, adding she liked participating in the forums.

For his part, Edwards told reporters in Iowa that he wasn’t in favor of barring anyone from future gatherings. Rather, he said he wanted to see them separated into two groups of four each, chosen randomly. “The result would be that we would have a much more serious discussion and people would actually be able to see what the differences are between us,” he said.

How hard is it to admit that they think it’s silly to invite guys like Kucinich and Mike Gravel to debates, eating up the time that could be given to serious candidates for the nomination? In addition to wasting everyone’s time, vanity candidates often derail the discussion with inflammatory rhetoric and off-the-wall commentary. There’s nothing unseemly about narrowing the focus to legitimate players.

UPDATE: Chris Dodd chimes in, a day late.

“I’d remind them that the mike is always on,” Dodd told reporters on Saturday after addressing a state convention of Utah Democrats. “Celebrity and money are not going to decide this race,” he said. “People take some offense at it in these early primary and caucus states.”

[...]

Dodd blasted debate organizers for giving Democratic candidates little opportunity to offer voters more than “bumper sticker answers” on important issues. “My problem is you’re insulting me and the American public when you give 30 seconds to talk about Darfur and Iraq,” he said. Sudan’s vast western Darfur region has been torn by ethnic conflict for four years, with more than 200,000 people killed and millions displaced.

But the reason they’ve got only 30 seconds each to talk about important issues? Too many candidates. Unless we subject people to five hour debates, truncated responses are the price of inclusion.

Unlike Kucinich, Dodd is a serious national figure. Like Jim Gilmore, though, he simply has no shot at winning the presidency.

John McCain will be forced to withdraw from the race before the first primary unless fundraising and poll numbers reverse themselves in a hurry, the Sunday Times claims.

The speculation, vigorously denied by McCain’s camp, is sweeping Republican circles after a disastrous few weeks in which the principled Arizona senator has clashed with the party’s conservative base on immigration and also alienated independent voters by backing President George W Bush’s troop surge in Iraq.

Randy Pullen, chairman of the Arizona Republican party, said: “He’s a battler, so I’d expect him to carry on, but everyone is waiting to see what his new fundraising totals are. That’s pretty critical. If he doesn’t have the money, he won’t be able to run.” The second fundraising quarter for candidates closes at the end of June and McCain’s results should be known by mid-July.

Dan Schnur, McCain’s communications director during the 2000 presidential campaign, said it was “possible” that he could drop out: “There are all sorts of challenges McCain is facing, from fundraising to Fred Thompson and the Iraq war, but the biggest single boulder in his path is the immigration issue.”

One veteran Republican consultant put the odds of McCain remaining in the race beyond the autumn at 3-1 against. “He’ll be gone by September,” predicted Tom Edmonds, who is not affiliated with any campaign. “The wheels are coming off his wagon and it’s hard to see how he can recover. He won’t be able to pay all the good talent he has hired and they’ll want to drift away from a loser.”

A poll by Rasmussen Reports last week showed McCain lying joint third with Mitt Romney, the Mormon former governor of Massachussetts, with the support of just 10% of Republican voters. This compared with 28% for Fred Thompson, the former Tennessee senator, and 27% for Rudy Giuliani, New York’s mayor at the time of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Another poll in Iowa, a crucial early voting state, put McCain in fifth place behind Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, with only 6%.

McCain has long been distrusted by the base but he at least had the support of independents, who thought of him as a “maverick” and a “straight talker.” Unfortunately for him, he is bucking the tide by backing the president on the two least popular issues, the war and illegal immigration. I just don’t see how he turns around the numbers given that.

The irony is that many of the people who hate McCain because he’s “not conservative enough” and who are angry at him for McCain-Feingold are enthusiastically rallying behind Fred Thompson, who voted for that bill and is less conservative than McCain on most key issues.

UPDATE: Elsewhere:

Steven Taylor sees a self-fulfilling prophecy at work: “If it becomes the accepted wisdom in fund raising circles that McCain has no shot, then that perception will become reality.”

While McCain clearly has lost most, if not all, of his 2000 mojo, I still wonder if he chances are as dire as the conventional wisdom makes it out to be. I still maintain that Giuliani is going to face real problems over his social policy views when the voters actually come out to the primaries and Thompson is currently popular at least in part because no one knows all that much about him. As such, there is still space for McCain to surge back to some degree. However, his support for immigration reform may be enough to kill his candidacy this year all by itself, given the anger rampant in the base on that issue.

Ed Morrissey observes,

[S]even Republican candidates would kill for McCain’s position in the race at the moment. None of the second-tier candidates have dropped out yet, nor have they given any indication of doing so. Why would McCain drop out when he’s still outpolling and outraising Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee, let alone lesser lights such as Tom Tancredo, Jim Gilmore, Tommy Thompson, Ron Paul, and Sam Brownback — combined?

Joe Gandelman believes McCain sealed his fate by cozzying up to the Religious Right and by, quite literally, embracing President Bush.

Rob Bluey thinks it’s immigration, pure and simple.

I caught perhaps half an hour of last night’s so-called debate between Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and eight other guys. I don’t feel deprived at not having seen the rest. The format was awful and the not unreasonable decision to include people whose candidacy has no shot (Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul, at a minimum) made the time to valuable information ratio even lower than usual for these things. The Politico’s Mike Murphy writes that, “Despite the 100 laptops urgently typing away here in the press room, it’s hard to say much really happened tonight at the first Republican presidential primary debate.” And his fledgling paper was a co-sponsor!

My wife, who has lived in Virginia the last twelve-plus years, was surprised that Jim Gilmore, the state’s former governor, was running. Despite the fact that we’re both longtime political junkies who vote Republican, neither of us recognized Tancredo, Mike Huckabee, or Ron Paul on sight. That’s probably not good news for those guys.

According to the experts, either McCain, Giuliani, or Mitt Romney won; the most interesting person was Fred Thompson, who wasn’t there; and none of the also-rans did anything to change their status.

Erick Erickson: “John McCain won. Let’s not dance around this. Mitt Romney shined, he stood out, he did well. Rudy Giuliani imploded. Rudy totally and utterly self-destructed tonight. He had many chances to get in good with the core base of Republican voters and ignored every moment.”

Peggy Noonan: “It was an incomplete field that made its debut, but not an unimpressive one. For the first time, as I watched, I thought: Fred Thompson shouldn’t take forever to get in. History moves.”

Ed Morrissey: “Mitt Romney won this debate. He looked relaxed, answered clearly, showed real warmth and a sense of humor, and actually answered the questions asked of him — even the stupid ones.” As to the Thompson Boys, “Fred helped himself tremendously by staying out of this debate” while Tommy “mumbled, stumbled, and vacillated his way through this debate.”

John Hawkins: “Winners: 1) Mike Huckabee 1) Mitt Romney — Both were very charismatic.”

Paul Mirengoff: “John McCain had the best night. He seemed a bit nervous at first, but soon found his stride. He managed more ably than his chief rivals, McCain and Romney, to give answers that will appeal to a reasonably full spectrum of Republican voters without seeming to pander to anyone.”

Kim Priestap: “On the whole, I was impressed with Mitt Romney. ”

Roger Simon: “I think Mitt Romney won. And I think John McCain came in second and Rudy Giuliani came in third.”

Marc Ambinder: “Rudy Giuliani’s answers on Iraq, terrorism and national security were spot on and crisp. His body language showed confidence. For nearly every question about domestic policy, he was able to pivot to his experiences in New York City.” And: “Mitt Romney is great with first impressions, and it’s hard to say whether the spit-polish of his answers dripped off the stage… or whether Romney appeared natural and comfortable. He certainly seemed presidential.” And: “At least five guys on that stage were presidential. If [Fred Thompson] gets in too late, will Republicans be comfortable enough with the field by then?”

Rich Lowry: “This might be … the night when Rudy stopped being solely the hero of 9/11 and started being a presidential candidate like everyone else. It was inevitable at some point.”

Mike Murphy: “None of the dark horse candidates broke through, although several performed credibly and probably increased interest in their campaigns.”

Pollster.com reports that 13% surveyed in California immediately afterwards said they watched the debate and that, “Of those who both watched and are likely to vote in the California Republican primary, 30% thought former Mayor Rudy Giuliani won, 17% thought Sen. John McCain won, and 13% though former Gov. Mitt Romney won.”

Emails from the McCain (5 6 of them so far!) and Romney (just 1) camps assured me that their candidates won. No word yet from the other eight participants.

Live blogs: Michelle Malkin, John Hawkins, Jim Addison, N.Z. Bear (there in person), Stephen Green (drunk)

Other roundups: Matt Sheffield, Glenn Reynolds

Hotline has full transcripts: Part 1, Part 2.

Videos of moments that people are talking about:

Giuliani defends public funding for abortion in New York:

Jim VandeHei asks Mitt Romney, “What do you dislike most about America?” (courtesy Brent Baker)

“Do you believe in evolution?”

(Crooks and Liars has a longer version and notes that “Brownback, Tancredo and Huckabee” raised their hands who the group was asked, “Who does NOT believe in evolution?”)

A highlight reel

To McCain: “if you would be comfortable with tom tancredo, a staunch opponent of illegal immigration as head of the immigration naturalization service?” To Romney: “What Do You Dislike Most About America?” To Romney: “Would the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed be a good day for America?” To Romney: “What do you say to Roman Catholic bishops who would deny communion to elected officials who support abortion rights?” To Rep. Paul: “Do you trust the mainstream media?” To All: “Do you think Scooter Libby should be pardoned?” To All: “Does anyone want to pardon him? I want to see .. does any Gentlemen want to raise his hand and say pardon him?” To all: “Would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?” Romney: “You have got to be kidding.”

There has long been frustration among the party’s social conservative wing that there were no “real conservatives” in the race, despite guys like Tom Tancredo, Mike Huckabee, Jim Gilmore, and Duncan Hunter being in the race. I guess they mean “real conservatives who have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning.”

Enter Fred Thompson. The former Tennessee Senator and current “Law and Order” actor has debuted in third place among Republican contenders in a new Gallup poll.

Ron Paul, Tancredo, and Huckabee poll at 1% and Gilmore, George Pataki, Chuck Hagel, and Hunter get less than that.

This is a survey of adults, not subjected to a likely voter screen, and the margin of sampling error for the Republican sub-sample is +/-5%. Thus, technically, you or I might be ahead of Mitt Romney and Sam Brownback. Call it CPAC karma.

CQ’s Greg Giroux examined Thompson’s voting record on a dozen or so key votes during his eight years in the Senate and constructed a chart [PDF format] comparing his votes to those of his rivals who also served in that body, McCain, Hagel, and Brownback.

Thompson and McCain voted together on 83/102 votes, or 81.4 percent of the time; Thompson and Brownback 57/70 (81.4%) and Thompson and Hagel 57/71 (80.3%).

Thompson joined McCain, Brownback and Hagel in voting to authorize the current war in Iraq, to cut taxes for married couples, to ban an abortion procedure opponents call “partial birth” abortion, to approve tax-sheltered education savings accounts, and to enact a balanced-budget constitutional amendment.

Among the instances in which Thompson and McCain differed were votes in 2002 to effectively extend a repeal of the estate tax beyond 2010, to authorize oil drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and to postpone tougher automobile fuel efficiency standards. Thompson voted “aye” and McCain voted “no” in all three cases.

Also in 2002, Thompson agreed with McCain but opposed Hagel and Brownback — and most Senate Republicans — in backing a rewrite of campaign finance laws that barred the national party committees and federal officeholders from raising the unlimited “soft money” dollars upon which the parties had come to rely. McCain was a chief sponsor of that law.

In 2001, Thompson opposed and McCain supported a Democratic bill to bolster the rights of patients in managed care plans. Hagel and Brownback joined Thompson in opposition.

So, Thompson supported McCain-Feingold, the bill most often cited by Republicans as to why they distrust McCain’s conservative credentials. Thompson was more conservative on environmental issues. A glance through the chart reveals that most of the other differences were on spending matters, with no obvious pattern emerging painting either as more fiscally conservative.

It’s not therefore clear in what sense Thompson is more “conservative” than McCain. Mostly, I think, it’s that Thompson hasn’t gone around grandstanding on issues that would win him media acclaim at the expense of his party.

It’s clear, though, that Thompson would be an instant contender for the nomination were he to enter the race. That he’s already got four times the support of Romney, long considered one of the “Big 3″ in the Republican field, is impressive indeed.

RalphHallow reported in yesterday’s Washington Times that,

Former Virginia Gov. James S. Gilmore III will become the first Republican presidential contender to say publicly that the three top-ranked party candidates are phony conservatives. Unlike the Democratic competition for the presidential nomination next year, where supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois already are trading snide remarks and negative innuendos, Republicans have been observing their 11th Commandment about not speaking ill of one another.

However, Mr. Gilmore singles out former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and Sen. John McCain of Arizona in an ad that will be posted tomorrow on YouTube.com and his campaign Web site (www.gilmoreforpresident.com) as well as e-mailed to likely voters in the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses.

“The three leading challengers for our party’s nomination may be good men, but they simply do not share our conservative values,” Mr. Gilmore says in the ad.

Here’s the video:

It’s not a bad ad, although Gilmore seems a little fidgety. Reagan was right, though. The problem with name-calling in the primaries–especially by dark horse candidates like Gilmore–is that it provides fodder for the other side to use in the general election campaign.

The classic case was the 1980 election itself, when Reagan added his former chief rival for the nomination, George Bush, to the ticket as his running mate. Bush’s characterization of Reagan’s fiscal agenda as “Voodoo Economics” was used to bash Reagan throughout the cycle and again in 1984. Now, granted, Reagan won both elections rather easily. But Bush gave the Democrats extra ammunition.

In 1988, an obscure ad that got major attention thanks to being played over and over again on the news shows pointed out that Michael Dukakis had signed a furlough for a prisoner by the name of Willie Horton who committed unspeakable crimes while out on said furlough. It was Al Gore’s team who had dug that one up in the primaries, only to see it used against Dukakis in the general election. Again, it’s not as if Dukakis was going to win anyway. But Gore didn’t do him any favors.

It’s much better for candidates to contest the primaries based on why they’re right for the job rather than tearing down their opponents. After all, one of those guys might win. Sure, Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Gingrich, and others have some major flaws that will not please parts of the conservative coalition. All all better conservatives than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore came by to shake hands and I managed to talk to him one-on-one for a few minutes. His term preceded my having moved back to Virginia in 2002, so I mostly knew him from his time as RNC Chair and a few appearances on the Sunday shows. He was quite impressive.

What most impressed me about him is that he seems to have a very firm grasp of foreign policy issues, which I wasn’t expecting from someone with a domestic-focused political career. It turns out his undergraduate degree is in international relations and he served his first few years out of college as an Army intelligence officer. More importantly, I had forgotten his tenure as head of the Congressional Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, aka the “Gilmore Commission.”

I asked him about how he would approach breaking out of the pack of the second tier candidates, many of whom have genuine conservative credentials, and establish himself as the “conservative alternative” to the Big Three. He said that they’re raising a lot of money, to be sure, but they’re having to spend it to convince people they’re something they’re not, while all he had to do is tell people who his is. He thinks that’ll be cheaper.

Via Kevin Drum, I see that Micah Sifry has done some comparative analysis and found that the Republicans mentioned as leading contenders for the 2008 presidential race are “almost invisible on the web.”

To give you just one example, if you add up all the friends all the Republican candidates have on their MySpace pages, and compare it to all the friends the Ds have, the totals will amaze you: 4,007 to 51,471. If I take fringe candidates Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo out of that equation, the Republican total drops below 2,000.

Same with total incoming blog links, which for the Republican are woeful in part due to the fact that most of them don’t have serious websites yet. Counting links to their primary unofficial sites along with official sites (and in some cases, like Newt Gingrich, George Pataki, Chuck Hagel and Mike Huckabee, none of whom are officially in the race, I’m counting links to their government sites or, in Newt’s case, to his personal site, and in Hagel’s case, to a draft site), we get a total of 3,069 incoming blog links. That compares to 8,488 to the eight sites of the Democratic candidates who are officially in the race. If I included some of the Democratic non-candidates who might still get into the race, like Al Gore, I’m sure the totals would be even more imbalanced.

Same is true for photos posted on Flickr. There are a total of 789 photos of members of the Republican field, even with those non-candidates counted. (In fairness, I started hunting for photos of Tommy Thompson, Jim Gilmore or Ron Paul the politicians, and when I discovered that there are plenty of regular folks with those names who have photos on Flickr, I gave up about three screens into my search.) By comparison, there are 3,977 of the official Democratic field.

Now, frankly, I’m not too concerned with the lack of GOP presence on MySpace. While young lipstick lesbians posting pictures of themselves (no guyz pleaz!) in the altogether using garish 1994-style Web graphics complete with instant-on music blaring at you has its place, I suspect it will not be a decisive factor in the next presidential race.

Ditto FaceBook. Really, who wants to see a lot of pictures of Tommy Thomson or Mike Huckabee?

The blog issue is more interesting, since that has indeed shown itself a powerful venue for issue advocacy and fundraising. I’m not sure that Technorati links are much of an indicator, however, since of the multiple millions of sites tracked, perhaps 500 of them are meaningful players.

There’s not much doubt that the Republicans are about two years behind the Democrats on the Web. Partly, as Drum suggests, “Democrats are hungrier than Republicans because they’ve been out of office since 2000.” Further, as Chris Bowers and others have persuasively argued, the Democratic “netroots” are much more communitarian than their Republican counterparts.

I’m rather amused, as will be might right-of-center brethren, at the notion that the Republican candidates do not “appear to have much outreach to blogs going.” Many of the candidates have hired blog outreach coordinators and are already spamming us with deluges of poorly-thought-out blanket emails. They are, however, lagging behind their Congressional brethren. The “Ways and Means Press” deserves honorable mention for 63 messages on the year, which is only 26 days old. (They are 0 for 63 in my actually reading said emails, I should note.)

The blog outreach business is a burgeoning field. It’s a double edged sword for bloggers, especially prominent ones, however. Well done, it provides useful information and access to important officials. Done poorly (as it usually is) it generates a lot of spam. Moreover, as I discovered in an exchange with Henry Copeland earlier, it’s probably costing us substantial money as “outreach” and the attempt to get free placement is likely displacing advertising campaigns, thus literally taking money out of our pockets.

Regardless, by the time the 2008 race really gets underway, I suspect the GOP will have largely caught up with the Democrats in the Web game. Smart operatives quickly learn to copy the best practices that are employed by their opposition, so the advantage lag tends to be small.

While good pundits, especially those with multiple degrees in political science, are supposed to qualify all predictions about elections nearly two years into the future with some sort of disclaimer, I will eschew that convention and predict that the following people will not be elected president in 2008 or thereafter:

• Dennis Kucinich
• Christopher Dodd
• Ron Paul
• Mike Huckabee
• Sam Brownback
• Tommy Thompson
• Chuck Hagel
• Duncan Hunter
• Tom Tancredo
• Jim Gilmore
• Mike Gravel

I actually like some of these people and it’s not inconceivable one or two of them would make fine presidents. But they’ve got zero chance of getting a major party nomination, let alone winning in November.

Add Jim Gilmore to the 2008 White House spelunking society.

James S. Gilmore III, a former Virginia governor and chairman of the Republican National Committee, announced today that he would form a committee to explore a presidential bid in 2008, saying the Republican field lacked a “committed conservative” capable of making a credible campaign for the White House.

“A void exists,” Mr. Gilmore said in an interview. “There is just no conservative right now who can mount a national campaign.”

Mr. Gilmore, 57, was governor for one term, all that Virginia allows. He also served one year as chairman of the Republican National Committee before being forced out by the White House after clashing with Karl Rove, the president’s chief political adviser.

While Mr. Gilmore is not particularly well-known nationally, he and his associates argued that there might be a path here for a little-known candidate who could corral support of the party’s critically important conservative wing.

While John McCain and Mitt Romney are both trying to position themselves as the main conservative candidate in the race, both face obstacles. McCain has alienated the Religious Right in countless ways in has annoyed fiscal conservatives with McCain-Feingold. Romney is a Massachusets Mormon.

With another former Virginia governor, George Allen, almost surely out of the running after a disastrous re-election campaign, Gilmore has a shot. He may not be well known to the public but he’s well known to the party apparatus from which he must put together a team and do his initial fundraising. He’s definitely a longshot, though, and isn’t the most charismatic guy in the world.