McCain's realistic hope - Democrats blow it

By Rick Morris

The domestic economy is circling the drain and the global economy could well be on the way to following it. The country is at war and 3 1/2 years of George W. Bush trying to apply the "Dean Smith Four Corners Defense" to a bogged-down situation where outclassed terrorists are killing us with IEDs had left him, in the words of one insolent commentator, as less popular than gonorrhea.

Plus, this country doesn't elect politicians of the same party for three consecutive terms even in good times; aside from George Herbert Walker Bush gravy-training Reagan's third term in 1988 (was there even one person in America who voted for that clueless dipstick because they were psyched to have his penny loafers shuffling through the Oval Office every day?), it hasn't happened since FDR was winning like 47 elections in a row back in the day. So even under ideal circumstances, John McCain would probably be screwed this year, right?

Probably. But not necessarily.

There is ample precedent in this country for one political party being pronounced dead and buried only to be revived by the complete and utter incompetence of the other. Granted, things are looking so bad right now that even the Seventies are pointing and laughing and saying, "Man, what an f'd up decade!" But to deny that the Democrats could screw up badly enough to hand it to McCain is to ignore several such precedents in the last few decades:

^ 1964: LBJ massacres Barry Goldwater in the presidential election, and pundits are righting off the Republican party forever for nominating a "right-wing nut." Two years, later, Vietnam and a domestic civil war manifesting itself in the form of riots and anti-war extremism almost costs the Democrats control of Congress and in 1968, Richard Nixon of all people is elected president under the Republican banner.

^ 1972: Nixon is riding high, thrashing George McGovern in a mirror image of the curb stomping the GOP got from LBJ eight years before. He is invincible, King of the World, and the Democrats are a hapless mess. Until, uh, that Watergate thing. He resigns in disgrace in '74 and the Republicans get wiped out in the midterm elections that fall.

^ 1974: If Dubya is less popular than gonorrhea right now, Nixon was trailing jock itch in the polls that year after resigning in disgrace and seeing his party get buried that year in Congressional elections. But then Gerald Ford rallied in '76 to almost win re-election (El Klutzo shouldn't have checked off "Yes" on the "Debate RSVP" that year, though) and Reagan put a huge beatdown on Jimmah Carter in 1980.

^ 1992: The walking coma known as the first Bush Administration ended in ignominy, as a shyster country lawyer from Arkansas won over a nation and came in with much momentum. Having seen Carter get hamstrung by bad relations with Bob Byrd and Tip O'Neill, however, Bill Clinton loudly proclaimed himself the huckleberry for Democratic Congressional leaders and his party got drilled in the '94 midterms, losing both houses of Congress in a historic rout.

^ 2004: George W. Bush was headed for the same one-term status as his mediocre father. The war was being perceived as a mistake, Abu Ghraib gave the America-haters in the domestic and world media with enough rope to hang us and the economy was still largely perceived as sluggish. But in an example of the Feiler Faster Thesis and in a supreme example of good luck, his many deficiencies were overshadowed by the national disaster that was the John Kerry campaign. Dubya became the first president since his father 16 years ago to be elected with an outright majority of the popular vote.

So there you have it. Numerous examples in our recent history of how one political party blew it badly enough to be down forever only to be revived by the mistakes and foibles of the opposition. As a matter of fact, the majority of recent reversals of fortune in this country have resulted in unforced errors being exploited successfully by the other side. So while others may be quick to minimize the effects of an increasingly bloody and bitter battle between Hillary and Obama for the Democratic nomination, I see the chaos for what it is: John McCain's greatest -- and only -- chance.

Worst Presidential Campaign Song EVER

By Tony Mazur

At the 1984 Republican Nation Convention, Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" boomed from the speakers, and was used throughout Ronald Reagan's campaign for reelection, in which he won by a landslide.

Political songs aren't new. Some are decent. Some are bad. Some are horrible. But I heard one that was so awful, I almost tore the hair out of my scalp.

This is a pro-Hillary song, sung to the theme from Laverne & Shirley. This song is one of the many reasons why I will not vote for this broad.

Republicans in Ohio-2 beware: Jean Schmidt has NO CHANCE in the general election

By Nathan Noy

Let me paint a quick picture of what is going to happen this summer. Rolling Stone Magazine is going to give a great plug to help promote a film that is coming out that focuses on corruption in Ohio politics. The movie will almost certainly get significant traction and will have a major impact on the fall election if any of the featured individuals in the film are still candidates for political office.

Fact: As John Craig reported in the Cincinnati Enquirer I spent a few days with a Hollywood film crew in the fall of 2006.

Fact: My friend at Rolling Stone Magazine Matt Taibbi did a hilariously funny article about Jean Schmidt in November 2006 calling me a “classic Reagan-era Conservative.”

It is a virtual given that Matt will run another great piece this summer giving significant exposure to the aforementioned film. What did not get reported in the press was the purpose of the film: an in depth review of corruption in Ohio politics, focusing primarily on the likes of Tom Noe, Bob Ney, and Jean Schmidt.

I corresponded with the producers of the film this week and found out the release date is set for July 4, 2008. The ironic thing is that the time I spent with this film crew and producers actually cost me the endorsement of the Constitution Party in 2006. I had already wrapped up endorsements from the Reform Party and America First Party and I was informed that my relationship with the people from Hollywood had cost me the CP endorsement. It turns out the folks at the CP did some research and the producers of the film had strong ties to Michael Moore and the CP felt the film would essentially be a DCCC hit piece, I was skeptical of this at the time, but given what I know now, this in fact appears to be what we are in store for later this year.

I won’t spoil the film by divulging the gory details of what I gave the folks from Hollywood, but it can be safely assumed that the dirt I provided on Schmidt would rival the work of even the best investigative reporters. It was amazing how many people came out of the proverbial woodwork with information on Schmidt for me while I made my run in 2006, she has made more than a few enemies in her day.

I spent some quality time with the crew and they made it clear that my appearance in the film would be about Schmidt, not about me, but that is exactly what I wanted. After they finished with me they spent a day in Cincinnati with Jean Schmidt’s other greatest fan: Charles Foster Kane aka The Whistleblower. And if you doubt how much dirt I was able to provide on Schmidt you can rest assured that The Blower gave them enough dirt to make a dent in filling the Grand Canyon.

For those that still doubt Schmidt could have that much hanging out there consider that a person who is a sloppy enough liar to actually get publicly reprimanded by the OEC for a “reckless disregard for truth” has left more than just a few loose ends on her way up the food chain. Believe me when I say that not only will the movie paint Schmidt in a very similar light to Bob Ney, but it will also leave voters as likely to vote for Ney as they will Schmidt this fall. Also mind you that the aforementioned Ney and Noe are already doing time in the federal prison system, a place Schmidt may be headed as well if the proper authorities actually launch a few investigations after seeing the film.

The key thing in all this: everything and I mean EVERYTHING I gave these guys was 100% true. Jean Schmidt did it all, the fact that she was successful in covering it up and it finally will come back to haunt her is her own fault. When someone decides to go after a person as shady as Jean Schmidt it isn’t hard to build a strong case in a nanosecond as long as the proper stones are unturned.

So, Republicans in Ohio-2 you have the chance that the voters in Ohio-18 did not have in 2006. Imagine if the voters in OH-18 knew what they did about Ney before the primary and not after it? The seat would likely still be controlled by the Republican Party.

If Republicans want to keep this seat they MUST vote for Tom Brinkman. Oh, and by the way, Brinkman just happens to be the candidate of the two that actually voted against all of Bob Taft’s tax hikes. Brinkman happens to be the one with a clean conservative record who never bows to the special interests, and Brinkman happens to be the one that actually has an honest character. If Schmidt wins this primary, Republicans will regret it, especially as they watch a Democrat get sworn in next January.

Human Events: keeping integrity with Fred

By Rick Morris

Previously in this space, we've bemoaned the Who's Who of Republican politics and the right-wing intelligentsia who have either overtly or covertly gone in the tank for Willard Mitt Romney, the say-anything slick CEO running for president. The mad stampede to sell out to the deep-pockets trust fund tool has been infuriating and demoralizing, as these influential instruments of opinion have cited the need to back Romney to preserve the Reagan coalition all while marginalizing the true Reaganite candidate in the race in Fred Thompson.

Well, one publication has bucked the trend and I am not surprised that their integrity was not for sale.

Human Events, an important right-wing news and opinion outlet that has served this country well for decades, came to the only conclusion that any fair-minded and intellectually honest conservative could: Fred Thompson should be the next president of These United States.

I am prouder than ever that I have subscribed to this fine magazine and that I interviewed for it once when I was briefly considering relocating to Washington, D.C. Their endorsement article is outstanding and I urge everyone reading these words to click on it and review their many persuasive points.

If you still need to be convinced, please review Fred's comprehensive final address to the voters of Iowa just prior to the caucuses. While the references to the Hawkeye State are somewhat dated, they are few and far between and do not overshadow the many components of the plan he communicates to the American people.

Voters from across the political spectrum are united this year in the belief that these are urgent times for our country calling for steadfast leadership anchored to priceless principles. Only one man can provide that to us and lead us back towards greatness and his name is Fred Dalton Thompson.

A New Year’s Plea: Fred!

By Rick Morris

As managing partner of the FDH family, I want to wish all of the readers, viewers and listeners of our content a very Happy New Year.

Now, speaking only for myself …

Our 22^nd edition of The FDH Lounge program this past Sunday night featured our first fantasy presidential election draft and a tremendous political roundtable afterwards. During the course of that discussion, I ended up butting heads with my fellow Dignitaries Burrell Jackson and Chris Galloway. Burrell is explicitly for Mitt Romney on the Republican side in the upcoming presidential race and Chris, while agreeing with me that Fred Thompson is the best candidate, does not oppose Mittens with nearly the same intensity I do (to put it mildly!). The segment was a truly outstanding piece of broadcast entertainment, as three passionate followers of the political game let loose as only we can. As Burrell and Chris correctly noted, my usual insane level of intensity was even more pronounced than usual as I begged and pleaded for what seems like the inevitable to be stopped – the Republican nomination of Mitt Romney.

Chris did not agree with my use of the word “conspiracy” to describe what is happening right now, and we could perhaps quibble on the exact application of the word vis-à-vis this process, but it is indisputable that the Grand Poobahs of the Republican party and the conservative movement are closing ranks behind Romney at light speed. I have already written here on how these self-appointed arbiters of what’s best for America, including a who’s who of the right-wing blogsphere, are having it both ways by ignoring Romney’s past aversion to conservatism while trying to read Mike Huckabee and John McCain out of the conservative movement. Huck and McCain have their share of deviations, to be sure, but it’s the height of hypocrisy to denounce them while praising Romney as a “full-spectrum conservative.”

I believe strongly that Romney cannot be trusted given the fact that he ran on one set of beliefs to get elected governor of a radical left state and a contrary set of ideas when trying to get elected nationally. I believe strongly that Romney, given his plastic, calculated, say-anything, politics-as-usual persona, will have absolutely no appeal to independent and Democratic voters in the fall – and that his cold corporate persona reinforces every preconceived notion about the Republican party not caring about the little guy and is particularly unsuited to draw votes in these uncertain economic times. I believe strongly that Romney is outside the Judeo-Christian tradition that has governed our country since its inception (and I urge those who disagree with me about this to at least research Romney’s religion first rather than spitting out tired clichés about religious bigotry). And I believe strongly that Romney has served as a magnet for every phony conservative leader who can’t sell out his or her beliefs fast enough.

It didn’t have to be this way. Earlier this year, Fred Thompson served as a beacon of hope for not only Republican voters, but also open-minded independents and Democrats who related to his plain-spoken common-sense approach. He chose the unconventional approach of trying to enter the race as an official candidate in the autumn months while serving as an unofficial “non-candidate” earlier. We can perhaps quibble on whether he should have thrown his hat in earlier or put in more appearances in the early states or any other “inside baseball” notion that wouldn’t have any resonance at all with the American people if the professional pundit class wouldn’t beat it into the ground. But what is clear as day is the notion that I angrily spit out to Chris Sunday night when he alluded to some of these notions working against Fred: if he loses this race, in large part it won’t be because of the self-inflicted wounds everyone speaks of incessantly. No, if he loses, it won’t be suicide on the part of his campaign. It will be premeditated murder on the part of the self-serving parasites in the Republican party and conservative movement who could have heeded his call to join a purifying movement to save our country but chose instead to sell their souls to Romney’s well-heeled greasy machine.

So yes, I agree that I was coming across with scary intensity Sunday night. Guilty as charged, because I’ve seen this routine before. The Republican party as a rule casts aside its best and most qualified candidate in favor of the person they cynically perceive as a winner for whatever reason. The insiders gathered in the smoke-filled rooms of D.C. in a panic in ’96 when their pet Bob Dole got smoked by the people’s populist Pat Buchanan in New Hampshire. Every piece of filthy politics imaginable got thrown Pat’s way over the next few weeks as the party succeeded in its foul desire to foist Bob Dole’s wrinkled bones on the American people in November. How’d that work out? In 2000, the process repeated itself as the GOP string-pullers decided early on that George W. Bush should be anointed as the prince. Pliable puppets like Rush Limbaugh slimed Buchanan on a daily basis and kidney-punched John McCain relentlessly when he emerged as Bush’s main competition. Is there any sane observer of the political process who is still willing to say that George W. Bush was the best possible candidate for president on the Republican side in 2000? Leaving aside Ronald Reagan, who I believe to be the best president of my lifetime (faint praise when you examine the weasels he’s measured against) and also the best since Lincoln, when has the GOP actually rallied behind a strong and attractive-on-policy candidate?

Again, I am not for McCain or Huckabee, I am strongly for Fred Thompson. But I do not brush off lightly the one-sided treatment these candidates have received from the GOP and right-wing nomenklatura. In this zero-sum game that we find ourselves in just prior to the Iowa caucuses, an attack on McCain or Huck for being unauthentic while ignoring every objectionable aspect of the Romney campaign is a blatant in-kind contribution to Team Mittens. Likewise, the simple-minded dismissals of Fred as a non-starter are dishonest because they serve the exclusive purpose of pushing Romney towards ultimate inevitability.

Burrell warned me that if enough people agree with me that Hillary Clinton will end up getting elected president. I repeat here what I said to him: it won’t be on our heads, it will be on the heads of those who crammed Romney down the throats of the American people as one of two nominees for president. The notion that absolutely any squalid excuse for a candidacy can be foisted on us with the bogeyman of Hillary Clinton being utilized to expect us to behave as robots will apparently have to be squashed the hard way when the Mittbots end up ensuring the third Clinton term.

Despite my pessimistic tone above, I must mention and reiterate that it is not too late for this country to come to its senses. Fred posted an unbelievable video summation of the rationale for his candidacy and for what he will do for this country if elected. Chris and I joked about how I as a paleocon see the glass half empty. But I do believe these are dire and urgent times for our country. The Republican party, for all of my many and profound differences with it, remains the institution closer to my belief set by far, and it needs redemption after the many problems with adherence to conservative principles and competent execution of policies these past seven years. As was the case in 2006, the political winds are blowing strongly to the Democrats and we face the very real possibility in 2009 of a President Hillary Clinton working with an enlarged Democratic majority in the House under Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid having a filibuster-proof 60 votes in his back pocket on any issue. Our country cannot be saved by cynical attempts to rally around a politician perceived to be slick enough to be a winner. We can only salvage our future by getting behind an honest man who doesn’t pander and tell us what we want to hear – a man with experience who commands confidence by communicating strongly to us a principled vision for the future. That man is Fred Thompson, and in lieu of a general wish of Happy New Year for this country, on this day I wish for our country to prove itself worthy of many happy years to come by getting behind Fred while we still can.

Is waterboarding torture?

By Rick Morris

Listeners to The FDH Lounge program are aware that fellow Lounge Dignitaries Burrell Jackson and Chris Galloway are good friends of mine dating back to our days navigating the political sphere at Ohio University. The same can be said of Scott Pullins, Ohio's foremost lawyer/political advocate/lobbyist/etc.

Scott penned a short introduction to a piece on his site last month denouncing our government's practice of waterboarding on terrorist suspects. Frankly, this is a strange topic for me in that I don't have a fierce and unshakable take one way or another, as I almost always do on any subject. I know that our government has considered it torture in the past and that it is not wise or moral for our government to indulge in torture. Without wanting to resort to something as cliche as the "Jack Bauer exception," I would probably be in favor of desperate measures under the most extreme circumstances (i.e. a nuke about to be detonated), but I would not want it to be standard operating practice.

But just the fact that I am at least somewhat sympathetic to Scott's arguments would put me afoul of the absolutists he references in his post. Now, I know from many, many conversations that I am way more of a paleocon than any of my fellow members of "The OU Mafia," so I won't associate Scott or anyone else with what I'm about to argue.

What Scott references, the people who can't form a single cogent thought beyond "Support the president" or any other cliche -- they are the neocons who have taken over the conservative movement and the Republican party. Revisionism aside, unrestrained militarism was never a cornerstone of the conservative movement. How many hot wars did Ronald Reagan engage in on his way to bringing down the Soviet Union? He showed that he was prepared to commit the military where necessary (Grenada, the Libyan president's mansion), but used proxies in other instances (Central America, Afghanistan). In short, he used the full range of options for every situation, unlike today's hairy-chested tough-talkers like Bill Kristol -- whose response to the Israeli-Hezbollah War of '06 was to call for the United States to invade Iran!

Somewhere along the way, those of us on the right side of the spectrum have allowed the neocons, who have historically not placed a tremendous amount of importance on traditional conservative issues like the right to life, to hijack this ideology and to paint anyone with legitimate questions about any aspect of American military or foreign policy as un-American. I will note in the very same breath that many on the left deserve the vitriol of the neocons and are actually interested in undermining our nation's standing in the world. But for the main conservative organs in this country, such as National Review, to act as though neoconservatism is the only legitimate strain of thinking is a slap in the face to those of us who read it and cherished it for the decades prior to its decline into intellectual sloth. To disagree, from another vantage point on the right, from the doctrine of Jonah Goldberg or Hugh Hewitt is not to be lacking in patriotism, it is to live up to the definition of the word. And whether Scott Pullins and I agree on every last point on political or military policy, that is definitely a point of agreement for us both.

Pakistan debacle exposes our overreach

By Rick Morris

I wonder how many people heard the news that Pakistan President/General Pervez Musharraf’s seizure of power over the weekend and assumed that he led off his announcement with a little sample from Jay-Z (THIS … IS … STATE OF EMERGENCY!). Nobody? Just me?

Regardless, the move represents a major black eye for the United States and exposes in humiliating fashion once again the consequences of our imperial overreach over the last five years.

In justifying the Iraq War, Bush administration officials disparaged the policies of their predecessors (including the president’s father!) over several decades in “tolerating” the repressive regimes of the Middle East. The deposing of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, we were told, represented a radical change in how we would utilize our power in the Middle East. No longer would we dirty our hands by dealing with repressive dictators and Third World thugs – freedom was now on the march! The president’s second Inaugural Address made this theme the centerpiece, which came as a surprise to pundits of the time.

Although it’s hard to remember clearly though the fog of our hard times in Iraq over the next two years, George Bush did have some momentary wind at his back as he took his victory lap in early 2005. Iraqi elections had just been held, and the images of jubilant voters waving their ink-stained purple fingers at the camera were compelling. Also at about that time, in a part of the world not far away, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine peacefully toppled a corrupt government trying to cling to power by illegitimate means. Shortly thereafter, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon drove out the brutal occupiers of Syria by rallying the country in protest. No less a Bush Administration critic than Jon Stewart wondered aloud whether Bush might be on to something with his insistence on the mandatory, immediate and unfettered institution of democracy anywhere and everywhere.

But inevitably, the moment did not last and the world was reminded again why sager minds had resisted the suicidal path of placing Wilsonian democracy above all else that Bush had embraced. Homicidal Hamas won the Palestinian elections and turned the Gaza Strip into even more of a terrorist hub than it had been previously (which really says something!). Iraqis subsequently elected tribal leaders and warlords to their government who, to put it mildly, had no appreciation for the sacrifices our country had laid down for them. The democratic experiment in Afghanistan was fraught with difficulty as well, with a similar ingratitude from many who we had freed there as well.

Granted, we had no choice but to promote democracy in Afghanistan as an alternative to the terror state we rightly annihilated after 9/11, but we should not have become so intoxicated by the early signs of success in that country that turning decades of established policy on its head could ever become an attractive option. After driving the Taliban from power, we were at a stronger point strategically in the world than we had been at any time since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and arguably the most powerful position since our arrival as a world power with our decisive presence in World War I. We accomplished in weeks what the mighty Red Army could not all throughout the ‘80s and we rebuilt the credibility that had been squandered by Bill Clinton’s cowardice in the ‘90s in the face of terrorist attacks on our interests worldwide. We had the world in the palm of our hands in early 2002, while still maintaining the sympathy of peoples everywhere in the wake of the devastating attack we suffered the previous autumn. Since the security and prosperity of the American people and free peoples everywhere depend on U.S. capacity for deterrence against war and terror, the tragedy of 9/11 had yielded, however briefly, a better world in its horrific aftermath.

Our previous Iraq War FAQ column addressed the crumbling of our military deterrence in the sands of Mesopotamia in the last half-decade. But equally damaging to our deterrence has been the disintegration of our diplomatic capacity. While promoting the “Freedom Agenda” as the cornerstone of our foreign policy efforts worldwide, we have done ourselves terrible damage by blowing our hard-won credibility:

^ While pronouncing democracy as a vital and non-negotiable concept in our dealings with repressive regimes, we never seriously challenged Saudi Arabia and the oil-rich Gulf states we rely on so completely – and the world noticed.

^ We talked tough on North Korea and said that we wouldn’t reward that murderous regime for their behavior – until we did – and the world noticed.

^ Now, we have rewarded Musharraf’s backsliding from democracy not with the calm backroom diplomacy that would have been available to us had we not made such a fetish out of imposing complete democracy anywhere as soon as possible but with the impotent whining of a country whose bluff has just been called – and the world noticed.

In its haste to pronounce George W. Bush as the Ronald Reagan of his time, a designation that could have seemed fair for as long as six months after 9/11 but now seems a grotesque insult to the Great Communicator, the American right has embraced the imperial overreach that has so damaged our national interest these past few years. This is largely because the neoconservative wing of the movement has taken hold almost completely in the 2000s and driven out the traditional adherents of the Old Right, who believed that the only relevant question to ever be asked was “does this serve America’s vital national interest?” Contrary to what today’s “mainstream” conservative followers remember, Reagan’s presidency featured a blend of neoconservative and paleoconservative policies (for example, while Reagan believed largely in free trade, he did not allow Harley-Davidson to be victimized by cutthroat foreign competitors). His United Nations ambassador, Jeane Kirkpatrick, famously distinguished between authoritarian regimes (bad guys aligned with us) and totalitarian regimes (bad guys working against us). Once upon a time in this country, we used to put our own national interest ahead of sweet-sounding ivory tower dreams about filling the world with daisies and democracy. Now, in a world in which we have disavowed working with authoritarians who could be useful to us, we have been exposed as powerless without them. Did that decision make us safer? I think not.

Real Republican or Phony Plastic Panderer?

By Rick Morris

Mitt Romney's laughable assertion that he represents the "Republican wing of the Republican party" in the 2008 presidential race represents a rare misstep in his preprogrammed plastic pandering path to the GOP nomination. His creepy Max Headroom affectations aside, Romney has tried to get ahead by essentially repudiating the status quo moderation which had previously represented his career -- and now, by taking his "I'm one of you" gaga a step too far, he's invited the kind of rhetorical beatdown that John McCain has since dropped on him. Frankly, it doesn't take someone with even a fraction of my "Mad Google-Fu Skillz" to expose Mitt the Mendacious for the Fantastic Fraud that he is:

* He famously said that he was an independent in the '80s and didn't want a return to the days of Reagan-Bush.

* He said during his 1994 Massachusetts Senate campaign that abortion should be safe and legal and praised Roe v Wade as the law of the land.

* He disregarded the Second Amendment when it suited his needs in the People's Republic of Massachusetts.

* He was a great pal of "the love that dare not speak its name" back in the aforementioned Bay State.

* He trumps up similarities to standard Christianity to attempt to suck up to the Republican base while belonging to a religion that has, among its many "interesting" points, the notion of no unified Trinity, the Book of Mormon being a co-equal document to the Bible, and the notion that God has a physical manifestation.

His convenient reversal on the first four points just happened to coincide with his move from electoral pursuits in the Chomskyite state of Massachusetts to the national stage and a conservative base unforgiving of his heresies. While Romney has his useful idiots who are willing to sell out all principles for whatever jaded reason to be a part of his demeaning sideshow, legitimate conservatives are distinguishing themselves by choosing not to be part of the poser campaign of Romney or New York liberal Rudy Giuliani.