Check out these Rasmussen Report numbers about general election match-ups. Note that while all GOP candidates do not fare that well against Clinton or Obama, there is virtually no difference between Giuliani and Romney in this respect. In addition, they are both better in general election match ups than Fred Thompson.

Lessons Learned:

• Going with Fred is suicide.

• If Romney is as electable as Giuliani, go with the conservative candidate!

The 5 page letter by Mark DeMoss to Evangelicals is getting some MSM play. See the Time article here. The topic discussed further and generally by Charles Mitchell at Evangelicals for Mitt.

Former NYC Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik is feeling the heat. This as of this morning:

Bernard Kerik's legal nightmare is about to get worse, with federal prosecutors expected to file charges against the former police commissioner that will likely include allegations of bribery, tax fraud and obstruction of justice, the Daily News has learned.

Will this have any impact on his former boss Rudy Giuliani? The Daily News thinks so:

The indictment will have direct implications for Giuliani, the sources said.

For one, another Giuliani commissioner and a top inspector general during Giuliani's years as mayor will be called as witnesses to describe the secret meeting in Tribeca.

...

Giuliani has extensive ties to Kerik, promoting him to correction commissioner, then to police commissioner. Giuliani later also hired him at his firm, Giuliani Partners, and recommended him to President Bush for the job of Homeland Security secretary.

The relationship soured in December 2004 when Kerik withdrew from consideration for the Homeland Security job and a torrent of accusations of wrongdoing poured forth.

To be fair, Rudy has handled this very well. He's admitted that the nomination was a mistake and there is no direct implication Rudy's efforts in Kerik's aleged illegalities. Still, skeletons in the closet are not pretty... but first glances can be deceiving.

Romney has had his share of associates get banged up for legal and ethical problems and I can tell you from personal experience that some of these issues are just trumped-up silliness. I don't think that Kerik is any type of victim here... but the criminal-candidate connections are usually way overplayed.

So, the primary season is coming to a close. And then... it starts all over again! Only this time... the opponents will be clear and the focus will be forward. Time to prime ourselves on what it takes to raise money.

Here's the one rule you need to know about fundraising, everything else is ancillary. It is the one guiding principle I've used to set expectations and predict success over the last three years.

In short: fundraising is very hard work.

But with the right model in place and the requisite sweat equity, you can accomplish amazing things.

Here are some quick thoughts on what it takes to raise money.

First and foremost, understand some of the underlying rules of fundraising:

1. "People give to people to help people"
   I've been working with non-profit organizations for almost a decade. Without fail, a general clarion-call for money will fail compared to a plea for a specific cause, especially when it is linked with a picture and a story. You need to have a compelling story with a person who can conjure up a compelling reason to compel people to open their wallets.
   
   
2. "People give relative to their means"
   No matter what the cause, the dollar amount donations from the 35-65 crowd will far outweigh the 20-30 crowd for one simple reason: they have $ to spend. This is why online fundraising has not yet exploded on the scene. As Patrick Ruffini has noted, the Dean revolution was an email revolution not a website coup. The Facebook, blogging and Web 2.0 crowd are truly young at heart. It will be a few years before they can churn out the $$$ to make a difference in the fundraising sector.
   
   
3. "Those closest must set the pace"
   When Romney kicked off his exploratory committee with a national call day January 8th, the 5 Romney boys set the example for the other 400 fundraisers by sticking at their tables for the entire duration of the event. When Meg Whitman, CEO of Ebay takes 9 hours out of her day to sit down and ask her friends for money it makes an impact on everyone around her. The candidate, the board, the members, the founders must make their efforts public and powerful.
   

Next we need to take a look at the trends in fundraisings. I note some of the efforts that I've been involved in as quick case studies for each point:

1. Growing use of the Internet for fundraising.
   Again, "growing" is the operative word. By most accounts donations raised via the Internet are pithy and underwhelming. Only a handful of non-profit organizations and candidates can boast more than 6 figures in online fundraising. The trend is obviously toward the Internet but it has not been the harbinger of $$$ that many expected
   
   
2. Innovation and adopting new practices and models.
   The key to fundraising is innovation. I wager that any one of us receives half-a-dozen letters a week soliciting for donations. Standing out above the noise is the key to successful fundraising. Take for instance Romney's "Students for Mitt" program where college students can receive 10% back on everything they raise for the campaign.
   
   
3. Involve everyone in fundraising
   I know some professional fundraisers who were very upset at the Romney campaign for opening the floodgates to anyone and everyone. But it's paid off. For example, as a "Patriot" level fundraiser I have the ability to create "associate fundraisers" I get credit for whatever money they bring in and they in turn get credit for being part of a successful team of advocates. Many non-profit organizations are building bonus structures for their staff based donations that they bring in.
   
   
4. Contemporary corporate marketing practices
   Like any aged market, the political sphere has its own consultants, approaches, and software packages. Most every political campaign uses Aristotle Publishing for voter lists and most every 501(c)4 uses Capitol Advantage for online advocacy. Romney has broke the fundraising mold by utilizing a contact management system called SalesForce.com typically utilized by large and dispersed sales and business development groups. Many non-profit organizations are using ROI models to predict success and maximize margins on the donations.
   
   
5. MOST IMPORTANT: FOCUS ON DONORS
   When you give $2300 dollars to a campaign you are the man (or at least you should be treated like "the man".) Next to your unpaid fundraisers, you must focus like a laser beam on your high end contributors. By creating incentives and time factors into your efforts you create an energetic need to get involved and "max out". Everytime a donation comes into the Lighted Candle Society, I personally call the contributor to thank them.
   

Lastly, you need to understand WHY people give:

• They believe you are making a difference in a cause they care about.
• They value your work
• They see it as an investment
• They get something in return
• They feel good about themselves
• Returning a favor
• Solving a problem
• Sending a message
• Receiving quality information
• Aligning with peers
• Bringing justice to the world

If you cater your message to these efforts your fundraising effort might just work. But note this: by my calculations 60-70% of the money that Romney has raised has been at in-person events.

You may have heard about the $80,000 we've raised at MyManMitt.com for the Romney campaign. I should admit here openly and honestly that $40,000 of that money came from me working the phones. Of course, the website became the fulfillment engine for those donation, but the work to get the people there was manual.

But once that momentum was in place I was able to do some amazing things online. In the last two days of the quarter we raised $5000 and I didn't make a single phone call. I basically customized an email to my previous donors and asked them to make a difference.

Next week I'll talk in more detail about why I think the Democrats have been so much more successful at fundraising online that the GOP.

Labels: fundraising

My name is Beth Barnat. I have been posting comments at conservative websites since 2003 when the United States invaded Iraq.

Recently, Jason invited me to post my thoughts and comments here at mymanmitt.com, and I feel honored to do so.

Just a little intro: I am a child of the 50s -- That idyllic time when life was an imitation of Leave It To Beaver. It wasn’t really, but everyone tried to come across that way. At least my parents did.

I grew up in a Fundamentalist Evangelical Christian home in Indiana. After high school I attended a four year interdenominational Bible College in Miami, Florida, in hopes of getting a degree so I could go and preach the gospel of Jesus to the poor people in the inner cities of America.

Somehow, I managed to get that degree, and now … many years later … I live in a small farm town in Winters, California, far from the ghetto, just trying to make a living as a single mom in this great blue state.

During the 80’s I was busy raising my children, watching Sesame Street with them, helping out in the Winters Parent Nursery School and had no idea that one of America’s greatest presidents was presiding over our country.

During the 90’s I was going through a divorce, experiencing my second adolescence, trying to keep everyone sane (including myself), and thank God, had no idea that the Clintons were ravaging the dignity of our country.

It wasn’t until 9/11 that I woke up.

I was getting ready for work, watching the news and heard that a “small” plane had flown through one of the Twin Towers. It must have been an accident. I watched as the second plane flew through the second tower and then … everyone knew … we had been attacked.

My boyfriend called me and told me, “Don’t even try to drive to San Francisco. They are closing all the bridges.”

That is the day that changed my life.

I thought, “Who are these people? Why do they want to kill us? And what are we going to do to stop them?”

I love this great country of ours, and everything that I do, everything that I think, every political urge that I have drives me to do all I can to continue to keep our country the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

That may seem corny to some, but for someone who is a child of a World World II veteran and who grew up in a time when being proud to be an American was a given, it just seems as natural as breathing.

I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts with you and hope that you will share your thoughts with me, as well.

Remember the incident earlier over the sumer where Romney staffer Jay Garrity supposedly intimidated a reporter and ran his license plate number? NYT reporter Mark Lebovich reported this incident with baited breath in his article.

Turns out there was no there, there:

Attorney General Kelly Ayotte said Tuesday that her office found no evidence that anyone, during the time in question, had requested registration records for the car New York Times reporter Mark Leibovich was most likely driving.

She concluded no crime was committed.

Leibovich refused to cooperate, except to say that while he was following Romney in May, a staffer told him they had run his license plate.

Many Romney opponents were quick to pull out the beating sticks on this one. Did something actually happen or is just another case of the MSM over-excitement?

I'm not saying the incident was made up but it proves my theory that we can usually trust the MSM to blow things out of proportion and therefore... we shouldn't trust them... even when they provide fodder against our non-prefered candidate.

Labels: msm

"Stop Spending"

It seems that way. The Washington Times cites statements by both Tony Perkins and Gary Bauer that seem to suggest support of Romney. Perkins also rules out Huckabee saying:

"I was disappointed that in a recent speech he suggested that we should offer economic incentives to Iran to deter their development of a nuclear bomb and urged more negotiations," Mr. Bauer said. "I don't see how you negotiate with a Holocaust denier."

Here's the thing, and it seems to have accelerated in the last few weeks, essentially every major social conservative leader has shut the door on Romney's major rivals for the nomination. Dobson has eliminated McCain, Giuliani, Thompson. Perkins and Bauer seem to be eliminating Huckabee. All the while, these leaders plus Richard Land have praised Romney and found his conversion on life issues to be sincere. Is this an explicit endorsement? No, but it's not far off. Add to that, the explicit endorsements by persons with real gravitas like James Bopp, Jr. and Mark DeMoss and we seem to have a good idea of who social conservatives should endorse. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a general consensus among social conservative leaders after the Values Voter Summit next week.

Labels: Gary Bauer, james dobson, Tony Perkins, Washington Times

I'm continuing to push the theory that this is narrowing down to a two-man race. I could be wrong. Fred might push forward and actually make some momentum... but the polls, the money and the organizational prowess currently favor Rudy and Romney, not Fred.

Leaving Fred aside, to date, I have felt confident that either candidate would be a good choice against Hillary Clinton in the general election. Rudy has a national connection to the electorate and Romney has the "fix-it" mantra.

But today... I worry about judges. I worry about a third party break-off and I worry about Rudy towing the conservative line and possibly tearing the party apart. In short, I'm less convinced of a conservative victory if Rudy is the nominee.

At the National Review conference in January I had a conversation with Kate Obeirne who made the point that if we elect a pro-choice candidate we lose a huge point of differentiation.

Non-social conservatives put forward some good rebuttals to this claim but they cannot deny that pro-life and value voters constitute a major part of the conservative and Republican movement. This is the "third leg" question of Reagan's stool. How powerful is it and will they risk a Clinton presidency to stand up for their core issues?

Two recent pieces have left me wondering about Rudy and his viability as a candidate given a huge value voters block. (Full disclosure here, I work with Ed Meese with the Lighted Candle Society.)

Robert Alt writes in NRO about the historic rift between Rudy and Ed Meese (attorney general under Ronald Reagan:)

Attacking Meese was fashionable at the time — all the Democrats were doing it. And, for someone who had aspirations of running for mayor of New York, this was a position which would undoubtedly curry favor with his constituents. While numerous commentators have lauded Giuliani’s decision to criticize his boss as an example of his independence, it is better evidence of how beholden he was to liberal New York public opinion. If he was willing to sell out Meese to raise his standing with liberal New Yorkers, do we really think that he will withstand the withering criticisms of New York’s elite if he fails to deliver justices in the mold of David Souter?

To be fair, Alt attributes this disdain primarily on the fact that Rudy, as a US Attorney in New York defended (indeed owned up to) statements calling Meese a "sleaze." Alt concludes:

Attorney General Meese is a man of consummate character. He served honorably as attorney general, and, unlike Rudy Giuliani, deserves significant credit for shaping the legal legacy of Ronald Reagan. Anyone who casts aspersions of the kind that Giuliani did against Meese calls his own judgment into question — particularly when he is asking for us to trust that judgment in picking judicial nominees.

Next, I call your attention to a letter sent out by Mark DeMoss (.pdf) to several religious leaders. He also sees a Rudy/Romney race shaping up. DeMoss, who has endorsed Romney for over a year now, believes that the following is at "at stake":

• Someone is almost certain to appoint two, three, or four justices to the Supreme Court. Do we want that person to be Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney?


• Someone will cast vision and lead Congress on matters of national security, including securing our borders against illegal immigration. Should that be Hillary, Rudy or Mitt?


• Someone will deal with the definition of marriage in America—and will either defend and model a faithful marriage and strong family, or not. Who should that person be?


• Someone will either defend unborn life—or defend those who place their rights and desires above those who can’t defend themselves. Would we prefer that Clinton, Giuliani or Romney be in that position?


• Someone will need to deal with radical Islamic Jihadists and the threat they pose to our nation. As evangelicals, do we want to entrust Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney with that critical assignment?


• Finally, someone will either welcome evangelicals and people of faith into the White House and their administration; or shut them out of deliberations and consideration for various appointments. Would Hillary, Rudy or Mitt be most accepting of evangelicals and people of faith?

These are excellent questions to ask. Notice that DeMoss is pretty much denouncing the third-party route and imploring his colleagues to get someone elected that cares about the "third leg".

He addresses the Mormon question in this paragraph:

Now, I fully recognize some evangelicals take issue with me for supporting a Mormon for the office of president, and I respect their concerns. Indeed, I had to deal with the same concerns in my own heart before offering to help Gov. Romney. But I concluded that I am more concerned that a candidate shares my values than he shares my theology. (If I believed similar theology was paramount in a president, I would be writing this memo urging support of Mike Huckabee.)

Meanwhile Tony Perkins, of the FRC, continues to voice his concerns about a Rudy nomination:

Many social conservatives view Republican Rudy Giuliani and Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as "indistinguishable" on key social issues such as abortion, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins just told reporters during a telephone conference call.

Because of that, he said, "it would be very problematic" for many social conservatives if Giuliani wins the GOP presidential nomination. "To sing the ABC song -- anybody but Clinton -- is not enough to rally social conservatives" behind Giuliani, Perkins said.

There are three questions left in this race in my mind:

1) Is this a traditional election where early primary wins provide insurmountable momentum?

2) Will "third leg" voters really bail on Rudy if he gets the nomination or is this just a shot across the bow?

3) Which is more risky: a candidate that can appeal to potentially broader general election base but could split his own party (Rudy) or a candidate that has a smaller national footprint but can pull the base together (Romney)?

It's Wednesday, which means bath night for my kids. But when they got out the tub I was the one dripping wet... from the rushing deluge of satire and classic Coulter criticism.

Her latest article cuts deep:

Conservatives unhappy with our Republican presidential candidates seem to be drifting aimlessly toward Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee in the misguided belief that these candidates are more conservative than Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. This is like breaking up with Bobby Brown so you can date Phil Spector.

First she slices away at Huckabee:

On illegal immigration, Huckabee makes George Bush sound like Tom Tancredo. He has compared illegal aliens to slaves brought here in chains from Africa, saying, "I think frankly the Lord is giving us a second chance to do better than we did before."

(Frankly, I didn't know that quote) She drives on:

(I just realized why Mike Huckabee can't run for president as a Democrat -- they've already got Mike Gravel.)

Then, onto Fred:

In 1999, Sen. Fred Thompson joined legal giants like Sens. Jim Jeffords, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to vote against removing Bill Clinton from office for obstruction of justice.

Thompson, whom President Nixon once called "dumb as hell," claimed to have carefully studied the Constitution and determined that obstruction of justice by the president of the United States did not constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors." He must have been looking at one of those living, breathing Constitutions we've heard so much about.

...

Only a handful of Republicans voted against all law and reason to keep Clinton in office, and only one of them was from Tennessee.

This isn't the time to be toying with any Republican who had a Clinton in his sights and ended up shooting himself in the foot.

If you're bored with our top candidates, go see a slasher movie. Don't take it out on a presidential election.

OK. I was at CPAC when she dropped the "F" bomb on Edwards. I thought it was way overboard but that didn't seem to stop the book-signing line meandering out the door. If she comes back to CPAC... I think the line will be shorter.

When Gov. Romney was told at the CPAC bloggers table that Coulter had "endorsed" him... he grew a bit uncomfortable in a comical way shrugged his shoulders and said: "well, I guess we welcome everyone." He got a good laugh.

In my opinion, Coulter is a combination of Jonathan Swift, Chris Rock, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, all wrapped up in one thin blond package. No one can deny her talent for writing but her shock-value comedy overwhelms her articulation of conservative values.

Labels: ann coulter, fred thompson, huckabee