ConfirmThem

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2972

"Smith, William E.
Born 1959 in Boise, ID

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, District of Rhode Island
Nominated by George W. Bush on July 18, 2002, to a seat vacated by Ronald R. Lagueux; Confirmed by the Senate on November 14, 2002, and received commission on November 15, 2002.

Education:
Georgetown University, B.A., 1982

Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., 1987

Professional Career:
Private practice, Providence, Rhode Island, 1987-2000
Judge (part-time), Town of West Warwick, Rhode Island, 1993-1998
Staff director, Rhode Island Office of U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee, 2000-2001
Adjunct faculty, Providence College, 2000-2002
Private practice, Providence, Rhode Island, 2001-2002

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Male"

It is interesting to note that Smith once worked for Chafee. Is that a concession to Reed and Whitehouse or not? Is that something that should worry conservatives? I would like to know what Rhode Islanders think of him. Unless he is someone with a lot of local prestige and political pull like Lincoln Almond, he might have no chance for confirmation. Reed and Whitehouse will simply claim that he doesn't deserve confirmation because Bush did not consult with them in his nomination.

Unfortunately, I think Bush is making it more difficult to get more judges confirmed every time he nominates another white male. It is important to note that the Dems seem only interested in confirming Bush's female nominees. Livingston and Elrod had almost no opposition, and it is likely Haynes and Pratter will also generate little if any challenge. I'm sure there are plenty of little-known conservative female lawyers out there that he could nominate, especially in the Fourth Circuit.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/D0657C455...

http://www.projo.com/news/content/judgevacancy20_01-20-07_IJ414C8.1b1731...

"In the rarefied, black-robed atmosphere of federal court it is uncommon for a judge to be locked in a rift with his political patron. But that is precisely what has happened between former U.S. Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee and U.S. District Judge William E. Smith, two men who once referred to each other as friends.

Last March, Chafee announced that he was recommending Robert Flanders, a well-known Providence lawyer and former Rhode Island Supreme Court justice, to the prestigious bench of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, New England’s most powerful federal court.

That did not sit well with Smith, who wanted the promotion to the appeals court for himself, Chafee said in a recent interview. In fact, Smith informed Flanders that he was “promised” the appointment, according to confidants of Flanders who spoke on the condition of anonymity, but Smith did not say where the promise came from."

"Among the ironies in the Flanders nomination is that both of the state’s Democratic senators, Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse, who defeated Chafee in November, support Flanders. Both said they have high regard for Flanders’ skills. “He’s a very capable guy,” said Whitehouse.

Neither Whitehouse nor Reed would comment on Smith. They both said they would only comment on candidates who have been publicly nominated.

In Providence’s cozy legal and political community, all the major players know each other — Reed, Whitehouse, Smith and Flanders all worked at one time or another at Edwards & Angell — the tony law firm that also once employed Chafee’s father, the late Sen. John H. Chafee."

Since Reed and Whitehouse apparently supported Flanders' nomination, will they block Smith out of spite in addition to the obvious Democrat desire to let Hillary fill as many COA seats as possible in 2009?

I know a conservative, Reagan appointed judge who knows Judge Smith personally. He was thrilled by Judge Smith's nomination to the First Circuit. Even though Judge Smith was formally associated with Lincoln Chafee, I seriously doubt conservatives have anything to worry about, other than whether Judge Smith can be confirmed. His qualifications are excellent, but that doesn't seem to matter much anymore . . . .

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071206-16.html

"Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., of Missouri, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, vice Donald J. Stohr, retired."

"William E. Smith, of Rhode Island, to be United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit, vice Bruce M. Selya, retired."

http://www.courts.mo.gov/page.asp?id=200

"Dates of judicial service:

Appointed to the Supreme Court in August 1992
Retained in office at the November 1994 general election for a 12-year term expiring December 31, 2006. Retained in office at the November 2006 general election for a 12-year term expiring December 31, 2018.

Served as chief justice from July 2001 through June 2003
Previously served as a circuit judge in the 32nd Judicial Circuit of Missouri from September 1987 to August 1992

Education:

Educated in the Cape Girardeau, Missouri, public schools
Bachelor of Arts (major - history), Southern Methodist University, December 1973
Juris Doctor, Southern Methodist University School of Law, December 1976
Master of Laws in Judicial Process, May 1998, University of Virginia School of Law
Thesis: The Case of Ex Parte Lange (or How the Double Jeopardy Clause Lost Its "Life or Limb"), 36 AM. CRIM. L. REV. 53 (1999)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_N._Limbaugh,_Jr.

"Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. (born January 25, 1952)[1] is currently a Judge on the Supreme Court of Missouri. He was born in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, and is the son of federal district judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Sr., and a cousin of prominent radio commentator Rush Limbaugh."

Will this connection hurt his confirmation?

Smith's nomination to Selya's Rhode Island seat today leaves three COA slots that still need to be filled:

1) Trott's "California" seat on the 9th Circuit
2) Luttig's Virginia seat on the 4th Circuit
3) Edwards' seat on the D.C. Circuit

The first two of these seats need to have nominations made to them ASAP. The only one where a delay might be necessary is Edwards' seat on the D.C. Circuit so that the Dems don't use the nomination as a means of further sidetracking Keisler's nomination. If a Dem wins next November, Bush should still make a nominee to the 12th seat on the D.C. Circuit to make sure that his percent of COA judges confirmed accurately reflects of the number of open seats he was denied filling.

He is a solid conservative on the MO SC. The Dems might want him off of the MO SC. MAtt Blunt does not have complete control over who is nominated to replace him. That decision is largely made by a 7 member commission controlled by the ABA. Of course it is known as a non-partisan commission, which is the biggest joke ever.

http://www.projo.com/news/content/smith_nomination_12-07-07_2C85UO4_v18....

"'My opinion of Will is that he never approaches a case with preconceived opinions,' said James J. Skeffington, longtime legal associate and supporter listed as a Smith contact on the White House biography. “He neither leans to the left nor to the right,” said Skeffington, a partner at Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge, an outgrowth of the former Edwards & Angell.

Skeffington noted that Smith, who will turn 48 on Dec. 31, “is young enough to make a lasting contribution to the court.” If confirmed by the Senate to the appeals court job, Smith would leave a second vacancy on the U.S. District Court for Rhode Island.

“It’s wonderful to have a Rhode Island judge on the first circuit,” said Skeffington, “and he’s likely to serve there for some time. That’s good for the judiciary and good for the state of Rhode Island.”

Another Smith supporter, former Republican Rep. Ronald K. Machtley, said the judge has a “unique blend” of traits that would be well-suited to the appeals court. Besides the requisite legal skills and competence as a judge, Machtley said, he has 'a great ability to deal with attorneys as well as difficult cases.'"

There is a hearing for executive nominations on 12/18 in the SJC. I say this because last time it said executive nominations on their website, it also included some judges when ever the hearing happened. Just throwing it out there.

served with distinction for many years on the MO SC, I believe.

1. Bush should nominate a 'Feinstein moderate" with the most conservative leanings possible. It would be better than another Paez-Berzon if a Dem is elected next year. Danger: Senate Dems may push this nominee ahead of 4th and DC Circuit nominees.

2. Nominate someone from the Warner-Webb List, and hope for the best (which may well be a mirage).

3. Under no circumstances nominate someone to the unfillable 12th DC seat. This could further muddy the already dark waters around the DC 11th and 12th (Where is the Court Security Bill??) judgeships. And further undermine Keisler's chances.

The committee hearing on 12/19 is for Mark Filip to be Deputy Attorney General. I assume the one on 12/18 will be for Grace Becker and Nathan Hochman to be Assistant Attorney Generals. In that case, the questioning is likely to be too detailed to allow for any additional judicial nominees. Leahy and the Dems will want to use the DOJ hearings for some more anti-White House, anti-Gonzales pontifications.

...they are taking care of these DOJ nominees now rather than in Jan or Feb. Still so maddening that Filip is giving up a lifetime judgeship for a job that will last less than a year. What a moron!

Why in the hell has that DC DJ slot not been filled with a nominee yet. Why dont you withdraw Rogan from that CA-C DJ spot and stick him here where he cant be held up by Boxer. More nominees are needed there are still over 20 slots with no nominee.

Let's not forget about the importance of district court judges. There are 15 current vacancies at that level. I believe senators exercise significant influence over district court nominations, and non-partisan selection committees are also sometimes involved. Still, assuming there isn't some reason for delay, the President should make nominations to the vacant seats in AZ, MS, UT (two GOP senators) and DC (no senators) pronto.

Don't let a narrow focus on the confirmation wars lead you to make intemperate remarks. The guy didn't take an oath to die with his robes on. It's disapointing he chose to step down because we lose a great judge, but we shouldn't begrudge him because he decided to take his life and career in a different direction.

http://howappealing.law.com/120707.html#030432

Earlier today, How Appealing revealed a potential stumbling block to Stephen Limbaugh's confirmation: his father is a senior district court judge in the same district. A 1998 law forbids such close relatives serving on the same court.

http://howappealing.law.com/120707.html#030441

Later, Howard Basham muses on the reason why a state Supreme Court justice would want an apparent demotion: a federal district court judgeship. The answer: more money.

http://howappealing.law.com/120707.html#030444

Finally, Howard reports that Limbaugh's 80 year old father has agreed to resign as a senior status district court judge in order to facilitate his son's confirmation.

The Dems will wait to see who wins the MO governorship next year. If Jay Nixon wins, McCaskill will push Limbaugh through in Ded 08 so that Nixon may appoint a liberal to the MO SC. Limbaugh may still make it even if Blunt wins re-election next year. A 7 member ABA controlled commission controls who is appointed to the MO SC. Last year they sent a slate of 3 liberals for Blunt to choose from.

This guy has an awesome resume. Perhaps he's trying to pad it a bit more and make a few more connections for a future AG or SCOTUS nomination??

More than a year ago rumor had it that Dabney Friedrich was going to be nominated to the seat. It hasn't happened for some reason. She certainly has a great resume, but perhaps her connection to Bush makes her radioactive at this point.

Dabney Friedrich
Professional Career
presently - Associate Counsel, White House
2002 - 2003 - Counsel to Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee
1995 - 2002 - Assistant U.S. Attorney
1998-2002 - prosecuted criminal cases in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria, Virginia
1995-1997 - " " in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California, San Diego
1994 - 1995 - Associate, Latham & Watkins, San Diego office
1992 -1994 - Law Clerk to now Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Education
1992 - J.D., Yale Law School
1989 - Diploma in Legal Studies, Oxford University
1988 - B.A. Economics, Trinity University

http://www.semissourian.com/story/1296133.html

"And Limbaugh earned warm words from U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, the Democrat elected in 2006 to the seat Ashcroft once held. "I consider Steve and [wife] Marsha friends of mine and I'm very aware of his strong qualifications for the job," McCaskill said in a statement issued through spokeswoman Adrianne Marsh."

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071209/NEWS01/...

"Admired by colleagues as man of keen intellect, fairness and integrity, Martin Reidinger is thought to be the first practicing Asheville lawyer to win a spot on the federal bench."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i_V-APfQyxx4N4b7aqy10JoVCaUwD8TAVKLO0

His replacement, Thomas clerk Greg Katsas, has still not been nominated. I wonder what's up.

"two people whose nominations have not yet been sent to the Senate are:

_Kevin O'Connor, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut who was tapped to be associate attorney general, the department's No. 3 job; and

_Gregory G. Katsas, an assistant attorney general who has been selected for assistant attorney general overseeing civil cases.

Administration officials said the White House is probably waiting for the FBI to complete background checks of ... O'Connor and Katsas before they are nominated officially."

First, I apologize for the threadjack. I don't think there are enough open threads when I need them for a question.

I read the oral arguments for the SCOTUS case from last week dealing with the Gitmo detainees. I enjoyed reading the arguments very much.

IS there anyone here that would like to take a swing at reading the tea leaves, or writing a story about the arguments? I thought the solicitor general made the better arguments, but of course I am biased. Trying to set aside my personal views, it DOES seem to me that the petitioner was trying to upset years of precedent. I was most swayed by Scalia's constant reference to the lack of jurisdiction over foreigners on foreign soil.

My guess (from the questions) is that the govt won't prevail (unfortunatly), but that Kennedy will try to create new law trying to strike a balance between the two sides. In other words, the Gitmo detainees will pick up rights that unlawful combatants have never enjoyed, but with some limits.

Again, I apologize for the threadjack and will accept a deletion of this posted comment if I am out of line. Thank you in advance for any light anyone can shed on this.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

Kennedy appears to want a limited review for the Gitmo detainees. I do not think he will go as far as the liberals want.

http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1196893584.shtml

"By my read of it, Justice Kennedy clearly seemed to lean toward a view that DTA review was indeed adequate. Which means that he appears to favor the government position."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/legalities/2007/12/kennedys-turn-s.html

"after the Court first decided it was premature to take up the detainees’ case, Kennedy later took the highly unusual step of switching his vote to jump into it (as did Stevens). So most people, including me, thought he was a sure bet to again abandon fellow conservatives in this highly significant case.

But after hearing yesterday’s arguments—and Kennedy’s questions--I’m much less confident of his leftward course. And when you factor in the emerging dynamics of the new Roberts Court, it seems even less certain."

"[Kennedy] didn’t ask that many questions, and those he did pose to both sides indicated he was inclined to preserve the present system—and reluctant to have the Court intervene at this point to impose its own safeguards."

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_12_02-2007_12_08.shtml#119687594...

"What is likely to happen in the case? My guess is that the Supreme Court will reverse and remand. They'll probably say that there is a Constitutional right to habeas jurisdiction for the Guantanamo detainees, and then remand back to the D.C. Circuit to shape its proceedings in light of the constitutional requirement. Based on Kennedy's questions, I expect they'll also say that they interpret the DTA to allow a wide range of Constitutional challenges by detainees when they bring suit in the D.C. Circuit following their CSRT decisions."

http://www.projo.com/news/content/smith_nomination_09_12-10-07_5486C4B_v...

"Democrat Reed supported Republican Smith’s nomination to the U.S. District Court when it cleared the Senate with no opposition in 2002. Reed said Friday, however, that Smith should get another extensive review before he is seated on an appeals court where judges are “literally making the law” because they rule on disputes over weighty constitutional issues."

"Reed noted ... that the nomination must be considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said he did not know whether there is enough time for that panel, and later the full Senate, to consider Smith before Mr. Bush leaves office in January 2009."

Basically, Reed is trying to run the clock out on both Smith's and Almond's nominations with the phony excuse that the Senate Judiciary Committee will be too busy to consider such "late" nominations. Late? If the SJC must take more than a year to process a nominee, the problem is not with the nominee - it is with the committee.

I think the more disturbing thing is where Reed openly says that judges "are literally making the law." Isn't that the legislative branch's job. Oh that's right I forgot the Article III Courts are a superlegislature. Silly me.

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.projo.com/news/politics/content/POLITICAL_SCENE10_12-10-07_SP...

"Judgeships no done deal

President Bush last week nominated two Rhode Islanders — William E. Smith and Lincoln D. Almond — to seats on the federal bench. But it probably wouldn’t be prudent for either Smith or Almond to get measured for black robes yet.

That is the word from Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who heads the committee that has jurisdiction over confirmation of federal jurists.

Leahy was in Rhode Island Friday to attend a fundraiser for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, at the East Greenwich home of Democratic activists Mark and Susan Weiner.

In an interview before the fundraiser, Leahy scored Mr. Bush for failing to consult with Rhode Island’s two U.S. senators — Democrats Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse — about the nominations.

“You wonder how serious they [the White House] are,” said Leahy. “Are they playing politics?”

Smith, of East Greenwich, who is currently a U.S. District Court judge, has been nominated by Mr. Bush for the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals to succeed Judge Bruce M. Selya. Selya left full-time bench duty in December 2006, assuming senior status.

Almond, son of former Gov. Lincoln C. Almond, the former Republican governor, is currently a federal magistrate who, like Smith, once worked at the prestigious Providence law firm of Edwards & Angell. (Reed and Whitehouse also both worked at the firm.)

Leahy said neither nomination will move without the consent of both Whitehouse and Reed. The two have given the Almond and Smith nominations noncommittal responses."

I think Reed's comment is just to underline the gravity of a COA nomination. This justifies his patently false claim that some unbelievably long amount of time must be spent on the consideration of any COA nominee.

I think Rhode Island's two Dem senators are in a real bind. Both know that Smith and Almond are well-qualified. That means they can't use their professional qualifications to block them. They also know that both men have good reputations among the legal community of the state. As a result, they are desperately searching for some plausibly non-partisan sounding way of obstruction. Obviously, Reed and Whitehouse do not want to appear to be as partisan as Levin, Stabenow, Mikulski and Cardin.

I think eventually both will be confirmed. They each have too much political support in the state. This is just the leftist Senators preening for the cameras over their glorious power. Soon enough, the roles will be reversed again, and pay back will be a bitch. These losers never learn....

The current rate of CCA confirmations in this Congress is approximately 1 every 2 months (assuming Tinder is confirmed this month). That means that if the Senate Judiciary Committee takes up the Smith 1st Circuit nomination, the already faint possibility of a 4th Circuit confirmation next year is really and truly dead (Haynes and Pratter will consume 3 months at the least, starting no earlier than late January).

Democrats may decide that is a worthwhile trade. Anyway, they will still have the power to scuttle a Smith confirmation after wasting 2 or so months processing it, thus killing two birds with one stone.

Thank you so much for your response. In hindsight, I think you are probably right on Kennedy.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_12_09-2007_12_15.shtml#119726487...

Former Kennedy clerk Orin Kerr says,

"Putting...clues together, I wonder if the Court is going to start taking lots and lots of the D.C. Circuit's war-on-terror-related habeas cases. In passing the MCA/DTA, Congress and the Administration wanted to make sure these cases ended up in the D.C. Circuit rather than across the country (gotta keep'em away from Reinhardt, obviously). Meanwhile, the D.C. Circuit has been taking its time with these cases, and in some cases deciding them as if the Supreme Court wasn't just a few blocks away. The clues from the last week raise the possibility that the Supreme Court is planning on being more actively involved; perhaps one answer to the Court's low docket will be a whole lotta habeas cases over the next few years."

Will there ever be a recess again? If so, I think Bush has to recess appoint the whole lot of them, at least those who will accept it.

Good strategy, if the opportunity presents itself.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071211-9.html

"Gregory G. Katsas, of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant Attorney General, vice Peter D. Keisler, resigned."

So the White House has finally nominated Greg Katsas to be head of the DOJ's civil division. Does that mean that Keisler has already resigned, or that the date of his resignation is to be determined based upon Katsas's confirmation? Does anyone know the answer to this question?

Also at the link BoBo has above, there are two District Court nominations - Arizona and Northern District of New York. On the latter, it will be interesting to see if Schumer immediately comes out about "no consultation," or if it was pre-cleared.

"G. Murray Snow, of Arizona, to be United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, vice Stephen M. McNamee, retired."

"Glenn T. Suddaby, of New York, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of New York, vice Lawrence E. Kahn, retired."

http://www.cofad1.state.az.us/BIOS/Snow.htm

"G. MURRAY SNOW
BIRTH:
1959, Boulder City, Nevada

EDUCATION:
J.D., magna cum laude, Brigham Young University, 1987
Brigham Young University Law Review, Editor-in-Chief, 1986-87
Order of the Coif
B.A., magna cum laude, Brigham Young University 1984

JUDICIAL CLERKSHIPS:
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Judge Stephen H. Anderson, 1987-88

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Meyer, Hendricks, Victor, Osborn & Maledon
Phoenix, Arizona 1988-1995

Partner at Osborn Maledon
Phoenix, Arizona 1995-2002

Arizona Court of Appeals, Judge, 2002 - present

COURT ADMISSIONS:
U.S. District Court, District of Arizona 1988
U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1989
U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit 1987
Arizona Supreme Court 1987

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES:
Arizona Association of Health Care Lawyers, 1991-2002
J. Reuben Clark Law Society, 1990-present

COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES:
Arizona State University
Adjunct Professor of Political Science, 1992-1999
State Bar of Arizona
Ethical Rules Review Group 2000 - present
Committee on Professional Rules of Conduct 1998 -
present"

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nyn/attorney.htm

"Nominated by President George W. Bush to be United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York in September 2002."

http://www.syracuse.com/articles/state/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1190192904...

"U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer said he and the White House agreed on the choice of Suddaby, a Republican, to replace Lawrence E. Kahn as United States District Judge for the Northern District of New York.

"This is great news for Central New York," Schumer said Tuesday evening. "Glenn Suddaby is a class guy. He's just the right guy to be a judge. He's honest and he's smart. He was a consensus choice.

Schumer, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he expects a swift confirmation for Suddaby, who is the process of undergoing government background checks. The senator said he has been impressed by Suddaby's work to prosecute gang leaders in Syracuse, and by the way he has worked with government leaders from all political parties.

"This is how government ought to work," Schumer said. "He's a middle-of-the-road, smart, effective guy."

Rep. James Walsh, R-Onondaga, supports the choice of Suddaby.

"Congressman Walsh has been a strong advocate for Mr. Suddaby's potential nomination and, as the Republican dean of New York's House delegation, has communicated his avid support to the White House," said Dan Gage, Walsh's chief of staff."

See Drudge.

See also Hugh Hewitt interview of Rich Lowry that indicates William F. Buckley signed off on this decision.

post at Hugh Hewitt's site today. An unabashed Rudy supporter, he's able to look at the overall GOP race with objective analysis.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Defusing the Huckabomb
Posted by: Patrick Ruffini at 12:28 AM

A particularly shrewed corresponded emailed tonight with this observation:

Not to confuse the Romney camp with the Kremlin, but using Huckabee to take out Mitt in Iowa seems to resemble using the Muhadjadeen to remove the Soviets from Afghanistan…once they are done they will be as big a problem for us as the old enemy was.

Huckabee has moved from niche regional contender to (for now) bona-fide national frontrunner. He is now within 1 and 2 points of Rudy Giuliani nationally in two national polls released this evening (with a decent post-speech bump for Mitt). This is the first time anyone has gotten so close to Rudy in a non-Rasmussen poll (which uses a very tight likely voter screen — itself ominous for the Mayor). Huck is now overperforming Fred at his peak.

This is no longer just an Iowa deal. Huckabee leads in South Carolina. He can win Florida. He can play in Michigan with the help of the unions, and the Wolverine State has a habit of awarding unorthodox primary wins.

With Huckabee no longer content to play foil to Mitt Romney, he becomes a threat to Rudy. Rudy’s recent dip in the RCP average coincides precisely with Huck’s meteoric rise. Sooner or later, both Mitt and Rudy will have to deal with Huckabee.

Mitt’s attempt starts tomorrow, in the form of a negative TV ad aimed at Iowa households. It’s unlikely this alone will do it, but the idea here is to start a drumbeat of negative buzz and scrutiny of Huckabee that crests just in time to eeke out a narrow win or loss on the 3rd. Since Iowa is effectively a two-man race right now, Romney’s people are probably betting they can evade the murder/suicide scenario.

How does Romney put away Huckabee? I’ve written “the memo” before, but it bears repeating: Mitt Romney’s progress in the polls has been plodding at best because he appeals to people’s heads and not their hearts. My advice to Mitt simple: let people get to know you. Talk about the Olympics, talk about your business successes, talk about how you’ve turned around everything you’ve touched — and go light on the policy stuff. Do an ad straight to the camera and say, “I’m not the flavor of the month — but if you want someone who has the real world experience to turn things around, I’m your guy.” On conservatism, tell people you’ve got “the whole package” — and scratch the awful, elitist “three legged stool” metaphor. Rudy’s a social liberal. Huck’s an economic liberal. Mitt’s just right.

For Rudy to survive, his campaign mantra for the next 29 days must be: national security, national security, national security. Is the national security party really going to nominate a former governor with zero national security experience to face al-Qaeda? This is Rudy’s key differentiator against Huckabee — and Mitt too. It is also McCain’s narrative — I saw first hand at the Florida debate how McCain gained goodwill just by being the only one to talk about the war. But by owning McCain’s issue — and by remaining the stronger of the two — McCain’s voters may finally get the hint and go Rudy.

The rap on Rudy is that he talks about 9/11 incessantly. If only that were so, he’d be doing a lot better. The reason Rudy has remained so strong for so long is not that he cut the welfare rolls in New York City, it’s not because he kicked the squeegies out, and it’s not even the dramatic reduction in crime he’s best known for. He loves to talk about these things, but primary voters don’t care. The one and only reason Giuliani was ever a national frontrunner is because of his performance on 9/11 and what that said about his ability to lead in a crisis.

Why he hasn’t run a campaign that is singularly evocative of that theme — just as Mitt has glossed over his experience as a turnaround artist — is baffling. Rudy’s message seems to have devolved into a 1996 Bill Clinton school uniforms message, just as Mitt’s has become a conservative panderfest.

Rudy needs to seal the deal on national security. Unlike McCain, who is Mr. Iraq, he can broaden it to toughness on Iran and the broader terror war. The central theme of a Rudy-Huck fight will be “Who do you trust as Commander-in-Chief?”

GOP primary voters feel passionately about two things: values and the war. Huckabee has cornered the market on the first. His success is not about ideology, but identity. For his voters, he’s a Christian first, and a conservative second. Attacking him on conventional conservative issues won’t undermine his core support because it has nothing to do with being a conservative.

And McCain, poised ominously for a comeback in New Hampshire, is on track to win the second by default, despite his narrow focus on Iraq, the weakest link in our national security message.

Can Romney reassert himself as the best all-around conservative when people believe he’s a conservative of convenience? Can Rudy steal back the national security issue?

The survival of the GOP’s conventional frontrunners hinges on the answers to these questions.

Not that we're not using this one as one, but ...