Right Wing Nut House

I am pleased to announce that I have accepted an invitation to blog at the excellent site Poligazette.com.

Michael Van Der Galien has put together a helluva team made up of right, left, center, and probably underneath although I can’t tell who that might be. The site also features Kevin Sullivan’s personal blog Independent Liberal which describes that excellent blogger to a “T.” There’s a great commenting community and as an extra added bonus, the site has double my readership.

I will mostly be cross posting stuff I write here but there will be times I write original material for PG. All in all, I look forward to working with Mike, Jason, and everyone there.

The tradition of the New Hampshire primary used to be yeoman farmers and small shopkeepers trudging through the late March snow and mud to meet in townhalls to discuss the issues of the day. A broken street light needed fixing. A pot hole needed filling. The school could use a new bass drum. And oh, by the way, who do we want our party’s nominee to be for President of the United States? Drop your ballot in the box by the door on your way out, please.

It was Estes Kefauver, the mob busting Democratic Senator from Tennessee who first realized that if you were going to beat the establishment, the only way to do it was by going over their heads directly to the people. In 1952, the party bosses were resigned to running Harry Truman again despite the president’s problems with the economy and Korea. But along comes ole’ Estes, wearing a coonskin cap and campaigning via dogsled sometimes all over New Hampshire, looking to make a splash in that state’s primary.

He won a smashing victory, defeating the wildly unpopular sitting President Harry Truman which finished Harry’s political career. Truman chose not to run for re-election in 1952.

Although Kefauver went on to win 15 primaries, the party bosses took one look at the Yale educated (cum laude) Senator whose cornpone demeanor was mostly an act and decided they didn’t care how many primaries the rube won, they wanted the “egghead” Stevenson. As a sop to Kefauver, Stevenson gave him the Vice Presidential slot on the ticket which was then promptly buried in the general election by Eisenhower.

But the damage had been done and New Hampshire’s place as a kingmaker in presidential politics was assured. In 1956, it was Kefauver versus Stevenson and Averill Harriman. And although Kefauver won again, he was badly outgunned by Harriman’s money and Stevenson’s weight with the establishment. After winning the Minnesota primary, Stevenson ambushed the Tennessean in California and Wisconsin, ending his candidacy.

By 1960, both Democrats and Republicans were on the ground in New Hampshire, realizing the importance of the first in the nation primary to their campaigns. And each election cycle for the next 48 years has seen New Hampshire grow in importance as the reach of television and now the internet has placed extraordinary emphasis on what New Hampshirites think of the candidates.

Forget whether that fact is healthy for democracy or not. It is simply the way it is and complaining about it only angers the residents of the Granite State who are fanatics about guarding their status as the first major electoral test for presidential candidates.

And they take their responsibilities very seriously. Most primary voters have actually met one or more of the candidates and most have taken the time to weigh their choices carefully. One crusty old New Englander said back in 1976 that the process of choosing a candidate reminded him of the way his daddy used to buy horses when he was a boy; checking to make sure the teeth were good, looking behind the ears for fleas and staring the animal in the eyes to determine its temperament.

Well, New Hampshirites have looked Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the eye and apparently have decided they like what they see in the Illinois senator rather than the former First Lady. And the question of why that is so has Mrs. Clinton almost in tears and many pundits scratching their heads.

How is it possible that a 3 term state legislator and United States Senator who has served just 2 years is now a prohibitive favorite to win the Democratic nomination for President of the United States? This, over a woman who has been involved in politics for the last 20 years as an acknowledged partner of one of the best politicians of the 20th century? A woman who has thought through most of the important issues facing the country and has fleshed out her ideas more than most candidates.

Say what you will about Hillary Clinton (and don’t get me started on her negatives) but no one can deny that she is very smart, very committed, and very knowledgeable about the workings of government. She, even more than her husband, is something of a policy wonk, finding pleasure in detail and nuance of an issue.

Then along comes this upstart, this interloper Obama whose platitudes about “change” and “hope” are sweeping people off their feet like Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday. The people have responded to this likable, non-threatening black man with an enthusiasm not seen since the 1960 campaign and the Kennedy “jumpers” - so-called by JFK aide Kenny O’Donnell who would play a game with other campaign aides in motorcades counting the number of people who were literally jumping up and down in excitement when the candidate passed.

You see that same kind of enthusiasm for Obama. Next time there is a clip of him wading into a crowd of supporters, look at the people’s faces and more importantly, watch people who are 3 or 4 rows back in the crowd. One would think that people are meeting a religious figure - or a rock star given the proclivities of most people today. The people’s faces light up like a Christmas tree when he reaches for their hand. And the people in the rows farther back are - you guessed it - jumping up and down in excitement.

But has anyone bothered to ask why? Certainly not the press - yet. Eventually, even the media is going to catch on to the fact that Obama’s campaign is the equivalent of cotton candy; light on facts, fluffy on details, mostly made up of thin air but tastes rather good.

Indeed, looking behind the curtain of the Obama campaign and you find precious little in the way of policy prescriptions and much in the way of vapid generalities and liberal boilerplate. His “positions” on issues mentioned on his website appear to be cut and paste jobs designed to appeal to almost everyone by offending no one.

For example, here’s our next President’s “tax plan:”

* Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama will create a new “Making Work Pay” tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The “Making Work Pay” tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.

* Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans: Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. Obama will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that the Obama proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees.

Well, that takes care of taxes. Aside from the fact that 29 million American wage earners - the bottom 15% - already pay no taxes thanks to the Bush tax cuts, there is little in the way of explanation of who else might need to exit the tax rolls. Nothing about the AMT or even repealing the Bush tax cuts on the “wealthy.” After all, no sense in getting people angry at you - even rich people.

How does he get away with this tripe? No one really cares at this point. As long as he is selling sarsaparilla and malted milk as a cure for what ails us instead of Castor oil, making people feel good about themselves because the man is so approachable and just so darn nice , he could probably get away without having any program at all - which is basically what he is doing judging by his “issues page” on the website.

There is no doubt that the Obama Phenomenon is real. The voters are wild for change. They are tired of wars abroad and wars in Congress at home and they yearn for someone who can ride into Washington on a white horse and bring unity and peace to the country.

In a very real sense, the American people want a “Return to normalcy” - the platform offered by then presidential candidate Warren Harding in 1920 where, after the upheavals of World War I and the bitter fight over the US participating in the League of Nations, the American people chose to put their heads in the sand and ignore the rest of the world, concentrating instead on getting drunk on bathtub gin and having sex with flappers.

Mickey Kaus first wrote about this impulse for a return to what some might consider a 9/10 world, something I believed the Democrats would try to do in this election cycle. In fact, Hillary Clinton rejected this theme and Obama embraced it. Look who is winning.

There have been two great elections for change in my lifetime. In 1960, John Kennedy offered himself as the candidate best able to lead the country into a decade that most people saw as a pivotal period of confrontation with the Soviet Union. Kennedy made the case that his war experience best prepared him to lead the nation through the trials ahead in a radically changing world. He successfully sold himself as an agent of change despite the fact he was a creature of the Democratic party establishment and a member of one of the richest families in the world.

The election of 1980 was also about change - and renewal. Reagan successfully sold himself as an agent of change despite the fact that he was the most conservative presidential candidate in history (conservatives being seen at that time as anti-change) and the oldest candidate ever to run for president. The Gipper captured the imaginations of young people and energized America as it had not been in decades.

Both of those men were seasoned politicians who were serious about issues and public policy. And now we face another election where “change” will apparently be the overarching theme and the self-proclaimed agent of that change is a relative political neophyte whose positions on the issues are as liberal as any politician in America. Obama received a lifetime 97.5% rating from the Americans for Democratic Action, the highest of any Democratic candidate running. And he has proved himself one of the most partisan of party members in the Democratic caucus, voting 97% of the time with the Democratic leadership.

This is “change” alright. Whether it’s the kind of change the American people want is another matter entirely. A “return to normalcy” may be a hypnotic and tempting theme to run on. But reality has a way of intruding on even the most powerful dreams and images. And exposing Barack Obama for what he is and what he represents - a mushy headed liberal idealist who has failed to think through what he wants to accomplish as president - should be the responsibility of both the press and the opposing Republican candidate whoever that might be.

UPDATE

Heh. Princess Obama:

Welcome to Planet Diana. It was only with the death of the People’s Princess that the extent of Britain’s transformation from a country of reason, intelligence, stoicism, self-restraint and responsibility into a land of credulousness, emotional incontinence, sentimentality, irresponsibility and self-obsession became shatteringly apparent. Princess Diana was an icon of the new Britain because she embodied precisely those latter characteristics.

The effect is electric, but short-lived. That is because Dianafication is essentially empty, amoral, untruthful and manipulative; eventually voters see through it and realise they have been played for suckers. But while it lasts — and it creates presidents and prime ministers — reason doesn’t get a look in. Warm fuzzy feelings win hands down because they anaesthetise reality and blank out altogether those difficult issues which require difficult decisions. Obama appears to be on the wrong side of just about every important issue going; indeed, were he to be elected president he would be a danger to the free world. But hey – the guy makes people feel good about themselves; he stands for hope, love, reconciliation, youthfulness and fairies at the bottom of the garden.

God help us if it comes to all that.

The tide has turned against Hillary Clinton and not just in New Hampshire. Public tracking polls have her nearly 20 point lead nationwide as recently as the day of the Iowa Caucuses last Thursday now slipping to 11% and dropping everyday.

But beyond the public polls is what is happening underneath her feet and behind the scenes of her campaign. And it is here that it is painfully obvious that something is radically, terribly wrong.

First, a sense of Hillary’s emotional state as well as a hint that she knows its over:

Exhausted and facing the prospect of losing the second test of her primary campaign, Hillary Rodham Clinton fought back tears as her voice broke at the close of a sedate event in a Portsmouth coffee shop.

She expressed the sheer difficulty of heading out to the trail each day — “It’s not easy,” she said — and suggested she faced “pretty difficult odds.”

And with audible frustration and disbelief, she drew the contrast between her experience and Sen. Barack Obama’s that suggests that her campaign’s current message — the question of who is ready — matches her profound sense that she alone is ready for the job.

“Some of us know what are going to do on day one, and some of us haven’t thought that through enough,” she said.

How can she think it’s over when there hasn’t been but one real contest in the race? It appears to me that her internal polling apparatus - judged to be the best in the business - has likely given her the bad news; the race has passed her by and the Obama bandwagon is getting farther ahead.

There is a difference between the public polls, or “snapshots” put out by Gallup and Rasmussen and the internal polling done by campaigns. The behind the scenes polling is more of a survey operation where the pollsters examine trends in addition to raw numbers. The difference is that trends are a helluva lot more difficult to reverse. I would guess that the Obama surge has been on the radar for a while now in one way or another and more importantly, the slippage in support among key demographics has also been noted for some time. Like a snowball rolling downhill that reaches a cliff and falls off, Obama’s surge before and after Iowa shows a steady erosion of her position and then freefall.

Why should this be a permanent instead of temporary state of affairs? Again, I’m only guessing but the professionals probably note the movement of independent voters in huge numbers to Obama as well as a large drop in some of her core constituencies; single females especially (Obama won the women’s vote in Iowa 35-30%).

The drop in support of those two groups taken together could very well have precipitated this current crisis and may have led to this story in Drudge about her exiting after a loss in New Hampshire:

Facing a double-digit defeat in New Hampshire, a sudden collapse in national polls and an expected fund-raising drought, Senator Hillary Clinton is preparing for a tough decision: Does she get out of the race? And when?!

“She can’t take multiple double-digit losses in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada,” laments one top campaign insider to the DRUDGE REPORT. “If she gets too badly embarrassed, it will really harm her. She doesn’t want the Clinton brand to be damaged with back-to-back-to-back defeats.”

Meanwhile, Democrat hopeful John Edwards has confided to senior staff that he is staying in the race because Hillary “could soon be out.”

“Her money is going to dry up,” Edwards confided, a top source said Monday morning.

Key players in Clinton’s inner circle are said to be split. James Carville is urging her to fight it out through at least February and Super Tuesday, where she has a shot at thwarting Barack Obama in a big state.

It seems almost unbelievable to the uninitiated but trying to reverse a trend in politics - especially one that has at its core a huge desire for change - is extremely difficult. We are, after all, not talking about people changing their minds about what kind of car they want to buy. We’re talking about a decision on who they want to be president. Once people move from “soft” to “hard” support for a candidate, only some exterior force like a scandal or a horrible gaffe will get people to abandon that candidate and look elsewhere.

Even then, the decision on who to vote for president is so personal that many will stick with their candidate regardless of what they do.

So an educated guess on what is going on in Hillary’s campaign would be that their polling shows a catastrophic drop in support nationwide from constituencies that she needs to win coupled with a significant de-emphasis on experience being the most important attribute voters are looking for in a candidate. Since she built her campaign on those foundations, when there is a collapse, the writing is on the wall.

Other signs must have made her predicament obvious. Did we ever expect to see the day where this kind of thing would happen to Bill Clinton?

Former President Bill Clinton has been drawing sleepy and sometimes smallish crowds at big venues in the state that revived his presidential campaign in 1992. He entered to polite applause and rows of empty seats at the University of New Hampshire on Friday. Several people filed out midspeech, and the room was largely quiet as he spoke, with few interruptions for laughter or applause. He talked about his administration, his foundation work and some about his wife.

[snip]

But there was a similarly listless aura at the previous stop, in Rochester. And again, on Saturday in Bow, at just the sort of high school gym that the master campaigner used to blow out. Only 175 showed up in Bow — about one-third the capacity of the room — to hear Mr. Clinton hit his bullet points on the subprime lending crisis, $100 barrels of oil and how “10 of Hillary’s fellow senators have endorsed her.”

There were obviating circumstances at the Clinton events - notably that the college students at U of NH were on break. But it is nevertheless shocking to think that the Democratic party may have finally come out if its trance over the Clintons and move on.

One more factor in Hillary’s apparent fall was the inevitable exit of John Edwards from the campaign. Few Edwards voters would be expected to support Hillary which would make her uphill struggle against the trends even more difficult.

She still has money and a first class organization. But those are of little use when supporters are lacking. Her dilemma on when to get out is made more difficult by the historic nature of her campaign. There are millions of women who would love to cast a vote for her even if she wasn’t going to win. That’s why I think she will wait until after Super Tuesday before giving in to what is apparently the inevitable.

UPDATE: 1/9

Since a few have been visiting today and wondering about my response to last night’s Hillary win, here is my mea culpa.

With the prospects increasing that Barack Obama will be the Democratic party’s nominee for president, perhaps it’s time to look at the man and imagine a time when he would be president and face up to the challenges such an historic situation would present.

Obama would be the first post-baby boom president. His positions on issues are not totally informed by the old liberal-leftist verities that have dominated the Democratic party since the days of George McGovern. His rhetoric is much more of a classical liberal than that of an angry New Leftist. As such, his platitudes about “change” and “hope” are much less threatening than the rhetoric of a John Edwards or Hillary Clinton.

There are aspects to the Obama candidacy and proposed legislative program that go against liberal orthodoxy and could be embraced by conservatives. And while I believe this man should be defeated if he were to get the Democratic nomination, there is a chance that come January 20, 2009, he will be a reality that must be dealt with. The question then for conservatives will be whether some of his more extreme proposals - universal health care, tax increases, a dubious foreign policy - can be moderated or defeated while working with a president whose mandate was largely based on changing the divisive, poisonous political culture in Washington.

Outside of radical extremists (found largely on the internet), I don’t think there are too many Americans who don’t yearn for a new dynamic animating our political conversation in Washington. This doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be passionate disagreements on issues. But it is important to realize what an Obama presidency would represent - a truly historic, complete, total break with the past and an opportunity for change that has come very rarely in American history.

An Obama presidency would represent a “hinge of history” where not only would a new door be opened to the future but what is on the other side of that door would be unknowable. Obama is not just some liberal politician spouting the same crap we’ve heard since the 1960’s. Yes, some of his programs are echoes of the dying New Left paradigm of massive government intrusion into areas that heretofore were the province of individuals and families. But more than liberal programmatic answers, Obama is not afraid of the free market nor does he denigrate wealth producing instruments as many liberals have been doing since the ’60’s. He has not demonized the rich as Edwards and Huckabee have done. Yes, he will raise taxes on the “rich” but also envisions a fairer tax system all around.

In this respect, I am not as much concerned with specifics regarding Obama - largely because he hasn’t fleshed any of his proposals - but rather his instincts. And while his foreign policy instincts are frightening, not so his approach to domestic issues. He appears to me to be open to compromise - far more so than Hillary Clinton - and would reach out to Republicans and conservatives in order to gain broad based support for many of his proposals. Of course, there will be areas where conservatives will not be able to follow him or compromise on. But on a wealth of issues including education, energy, trade, perhaps even entitlements, there may be opportunities to work together.

I can’t stress this enough to my fellow conservatives. If we were to play the role of total obstructionists after Obama would have been elected largely as a result of his perceived ability to work with us, the blame for Congressional gridlock would fall heavily on the GOP. We can oppose a President Obama on taxes, immigration, judges, and other conservative issues where our principles are at stake. But there are many other issues that we can find common ground and enact for the betterment of the country.

I will not vote for Barack Obama for President. But if he wins, I think we have two choices; we can either continue business as usual in Washington while the rest of the country leaves us behind, moving through that door to the future, reinventing this country as we have done in the past. Or we too can move through that door helping to shape that future to better reflect our values, our principles. One path will doom conservatism to a permanent minority status. The other holds the promise of having conservatives participate in shaping the future. One road leads to oblivion, the other to a shared future with the American people.

I like to think conservatives would take the high road.

UPDATE

I see there are many commenters begging for the GOP to become a permanent minority party and conservativism a fringe ideology. Don’t worry. If enough people think as you do, you will get your wish.

Meanwhile, DaveG at Race42008 has some thoughts on Obama as he reacts to Sully’s provocative article in the TimesOnline comparing Obama to Reagan:

Barack, like Reagan, is not only an unabashed man of the base, but is also a forward-thinking man of the future. He wants to move the country one step left and two steps forward, and in so doing wants to win the nation as a whole, not just half of it. Like Reagan, Obama exudes optimism and charisma and doesn’t appear to hate his philosophical opponents. Obama’s a liberal, but he’s not angry about it. This is similar to Reagan, who married Goldwater’s philosophy with a sunnier and more unifying temperament. Finally, Reagan was initially believed by pundits to be unelectable due to his foreign policy views, which were seen as too hawkish for a nation weary with Vietnam. But by translating his hawkishness into one that didn’t involve American boots perpetually on the ground, Reagan’s third way foreign policy ended up resuscitating hawkishness as a net electoral benefit in a post-Vietnam world. Similarly, serious political analysts, myself among them, have always believed that Obama would be crushed in a general election matchup against most of the Republicans due to his pacifism and dovishness. But Obama’s ability to turn out new voters in Iowa suggests that may not be the case. If Obama can articulate a third way foreign policy that breaks both from the Bush Doctrine and from the Democrats’ McGovernite past, he could neutralize the issue as effectively as Ronnie did.

But in order for Obama to truly be a liberal Reagan, a man who ends the red/blue divide and the current political parity that exists in the country, he would have to be able to win not only Democrats, but large numbers of independents and Republicans. So are there really any Obama Republicans out there?

Yes there are, as Dave points out. I would only take issue with Dave regarding Obama’s foreign policy experience. It’s a long way between now and November and I fully expect Obama, if he is the Democratic nominee, to commit at least one high profile verbal gaffe that would leave an opening for the Republican nominee to exploit. Obama’s inexperience is going to show at some point.

Besides the basic tension between his dovish inclinations and the need to be in an aggressive posture to protect the country may also trip him up at some point.

It was “Hit Mitt” night at St. Anselm College as the Republican candidates gathered for a little pre-primary piling on session with Mitt Romney the target and John McCain the beneficiary.

First, a couple of notes on ABC’s format. It was good. It was interesting in the sense that it seemed to encourage a little back and forth - always better than the press conference like atmosphere that is the format for most other debates. And I think being seated helped the candidates relax a little which allowed us to see them at their best - or nearly so.

Charlie Gibson was appropriately serious and asked penetrating questions. Less so his colleague from WMUR who asked the lamest question of the night on “excess profits” of oil companies (and was promptly made to look very small indeed when Fred dismissed his question almost absent mindedly as if to say “The adults are talking. Go outside and play with the other kids.”). Gibson was head and shoulders above just about any other debate moderator except Brit Hume.

Individually, there were no big winners or losers. Fred, the Huckster and McCain ganged up on Mitt Romney who managed to mostly hold his own (with some notable lapses) against the onslaught. Romney seemed slightly off his game. Given the relentless attacks, that shouldn’t be surprising. Huckabee’s thrusts were less aggressive than Fred’s but that’s because the Huckaboob can’t match wits with Romney.

A thumbnail sketch of how each candidate did:

Ron Paul

A kindler, gentler Paul? Not quite as bombastic or confrontational as in past debates although he did get in his “It’s our fault” talking point with regard to the war on terror. Mitt and Rudy especially effectively used Paul as a punching bag.

But Paul’s performance never matters in these debates. He has garnered just about as much support as he’s going to so it’s no longer a question of convincing anyone for him.

Rudy Giuliani

Rudy was his normal, combative self trying to shake off his disastrous immigration policies by framing it as a question of compassion. That works when talking about health care and education for illegals but it doesn’t cut it when he tries to defend his simple lack of enforcement of immigration laws - even for perpetrators of violent crimes.

Rudy was simply treading water, hoping to survive until Florida on the 29th where most analysts agree is his Waterloo.

Fred Thompson

Fred was at home in this format and showed it. He was sharp as a tack and actually quite eloquent at times. He skewered Romney on health care, flustering the former governor to the point that he actually said he liked health insurance mandates. And his dismissive answer about oil company profits was vintage Fred.

I wish Fred had engaged the other candidates more in the sidebars and back and forths. Nevertheless, many, including Marc Ambinder, thought Fred won. Perhaps, but it won’t do him any good in New Hampshire. Elsewhere - like South Carolina or even Michigan - we’ll have to see.

Mike Huckabee

Aggressive at the beginning, Huckabee seemed to fade toward the end. He looked lost in most of the foreign policy debate. He was even caught by Romney’s people in a flip flop on the surge in Iraq. Huckabee was also on the defensive regarding his immigration policies.

It appeared to me that he never got his fake sincere populist shtick going. He also, will not be a factor in New Hampshire.

John McCain

McCain’s strongest debate performance to date. He was relaxed, engaged, confident, and when he talked about national security you listened. His barbs directed against Romney were personal and effective.

All the hits Romney took from other candidates benefited McCain so in the broadest sense, you would have to name him the winner for the night.

Mitt Romney

Romney survived the multiple attacks just fine. He had some shaky moments on immigration and health insurance but overall, another excellent performance. The man is smart and has put a lot of thought into his positions - unlike Huckabee whose mind doesn’t appear to me to be supple or nuanced enough to grasp complex issues.

But Mitt is running uphill now and all his carefully laid plans have been blown up by his collapse in Iowa. At the moment, I don’t see how he wins New Hampshire. McCain has the maverick thing going for him while Romney is being successfully portrayed as an establishment candidate. All Mitt did tonight was survive when he really needed to knock McCain down a peg or two. He never got a chance thanks to the other candidates who would like to see him out of the race before South Carolina ganging up on him, forcing him into a defensive posture.

But Huckabee and Fred are dreaming if they think Romney is going to go home before he is virtually mathematically eliminated. In Mitt’s case, he will remain the leading conservative alternative as long as Fred’s campaign limps along without his millions to draw on. So it is probable that Romney will remain in the race regardless of his support until a single candidate emerges from this scrum to claim the mantle of prohibitive front runner.

McCain meanwhile, if he wins New Hampshire, moves on to South Carolina where he, Fred, and Huckabee will fight it out. Amazingly, none of those candidates will necessarily have a big money advantage. Romney will spend his fortune but I don’t see him playing well south of Mason Dixon in a primary. I think Fred has a decent shot. But it is more likely that the race will be between McCain and Huckabee. Of those two, you have to like Huckabee’s chances given his built in ground game of churches to get out the vote for him.

From there it’s on to Florida where it will be Rudy’s turn to win or go into Super Tuesday as damaged goods. I don’t know if Giuliani can turn it around at this point but he has some excellent allies in the state and is extremely well organized. The McCain surge may be halted by a SC loss which would help him enormously. Whether he can overcome Huckabee’s advantages with evangelicals will depend on whether Rudy can get his own large group of retired northerners to go to the polls for him.

After that, Super Tuesday and Lord knows what will happen. Maybe Mitt makes a comeback. Maybe McCain shines. Perhaps Rudy steals some of the bigger states. Let’s say Huckabee sweeps the 5 southern primaries.

If you’re thinking “brokered convention” you win a cookie.

This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect, as to save the Union between the election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he cannot possibly save it afterwards.
(Abraham Lincoln, early August 1864)

If Obama is elected president this coming November, Iraq devolves into chaos. So Lincoln’s lament above in 1864 has an echo for George Bush today. If Obama is elected in November, he is going to have to work with the new President to prepare Iraq as quickly as possible to be abandoned.

Obama today:

Roland Martin: If you are elected what is the very first thing that you focus on as Commander in Chief of this country?

Barack Obama: Well, we will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I will give them a new assignment and that is to bring our troops home in a careful, responsible way, but to end this occupation in Iraq. I will call in my Secretary of State and initiate the diplomacy that’s needed to make sure that exit is accompanied by negotiations between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

Obama responds to a number of revealing questions, including discussing how he would stop the tax breaks for the wealthy.

As far as the claim that he lacks experience, Obama pointed out that if he lacks experience how is he out organizing political campaigns that have been running for years.

It does no good to point out the idiotic naivete of this “plan” Might it not have occurred to the Iranians and Syrians that Obama’s stupidity offers them the opportunity to simply stall in hopes that the inexperienced and ultimately desperate American would give them most of what they want in his haste to abandon the Iraqis?

And what does Obama think the US government has been tearing its hair out trying to do for the last 4 years with the religious factions in Iraq? Is Obama such a witless child that he believes all we have to do is snap our fingers and everything will be sweetness and light with the Sunnis and Shias?

Not that this matters to the left. Or the American people for that matter. Obama’s election would have been secured as a result of his stated desire to abandon Iraq - no residual forces, no “permanent” bases. Hopefully, he will be gracious enough to allow a small Marine guard at the embassy although whether they will be armed or not will probably be the stuff of a dramatic Senate debate.

Hence, Bush would be in the position that Lincoln never found himself thanks to Admiral Farragut’s stunning victory in Mobile Bay in August of 1864 and ultimately, Sherman’s taking of Atlanta on September 1; he would have to do his best between November 4, 2008 and January 20, 2009 to make Iraq secure because once Obama gets into office, the mission alters dramatically.

If I thought for a minute Obama could pull off a coup that would insure Iraq’s stability both internally and externally while getting our troops home at the same time, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. But in the real world, it is not doable nor is it likely, nor is it even a fantasy.

It is the platitudinous mouthings of a dangerously naive man. But with the American people wild for change, whatever his shortcomings in foreign policy will be forgiven thanks to the desire for a “Why can’t we all get along” kind of government.

It happens every once and a while. You write something while angry and instead of being funny, you end up being hurtful.

Such was the case yesterday with this post on Huckabee. Many commenters - in fact the overwhelming majority believe I went too far.

I agree. I never should have hit the “Publish” button. Not to make an excuse but this is the nature of blogging - raw, immediate, and occasionally inappropriate.

I apologize for offending people of faith. My brush got too broad in painting the religious right since more than half do not support Huckabee.

However, my point, if I may make it a little more delicately, still stands. There is going to be a reckoning within the conservative movement between classic conservatives who believe that a society must have a just, moral order to survive and social conservatives who wish to “take back (sic) the country for Jesus” while imposing a moral order on the rest of us via top down, government solutions. It does no good for social cons to deny the latter - not when couching issues like abortion and gay marriage in moral terms. There may indeed be secular arguments against both. But the solution will eventually be found in local communities who will decide for themselves the definition of “moral order” without diktats from Washington.

Perhaps after the New Hampshire primary I will write further on this issue to get a discussion going on the topic. I should give it some thought first - unlike my post yesterday that was clearly over the top.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

Fresh off of disappointing finishes in Iowa, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson are hoping to rebound on Saturday when Wyoming Republicans gather in county conventions across the state to choose delegates to attend the national convention in September.

Both candidates shelled out $10,000 each for a precious list of party members who are eligible to participate in the 23 county conventions and it would appear from press reports that they have been the most active in contacting potential delegates.

Convention attendees are mainly precinct committee members but about a quarter of the total were chosen at precinct caucuses last month. The contest to be a delegate to the Minneapolis-St. Paul convention is wide open. A potential delegate can either have a friend nominate them or they can nominate themselves at which point, they get a chance to get up and make a statement in favor of their candidacy. It is expected that the delegate candidates will announce their presidential preference in order to draw as much support as possible. Questions can be directed at the candidates after which voting will commence. The vote will continue until one delegate receives 50% + 1 of the convention.

It sounds simple and it is. The problem is that no one is paying any attention.

Last February, the state GOP had the idea that they could grab some attention for Wyoming by jumping ahead of almost every other state and holding their county conventions “on the same day as the New Hampshire primary” then scheduled for January 22. As the year went on, however, state after state began trying to leapfrog New Hampshire and Iowa which led to the debacle of Iowa and New Hampshire constantly having to readjust their own nominating contests to keep ahead of the pack.

After the dust settled, Wyoming decided in August to squeeze its county conventions in between the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire primary by holding the event on January 5.

Now I have nothing against Wyomites. But asking “What were they thinking?” is not out line. The consequences to the state party have been heavy with very little in the way of a payoff in either media exposure (zero) or visits by the potential next President of the United States. John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani never bothered to show up at all. Mitt Romny is the only candidate with an office in the state.

Fred Thompson, on the other hand, has worked the state hard. He visited Wyoming back in September and has a network of supporters throughout the state who have been touting his candidacy. Thompson may also have a secret weapon. Dick Cheney’s daughter Liz is a supporter although it is unknown just how much influence she may wield. Other high profile endorsements include former Gov. Jim Geringer who is has backing Mike Huckabee and State Auditor Rita Meyer who has said she supports Romney.

But the price the Wyoming GOP paid for their shot at fame was steep. The Wyoming Tribune-Eagle blasted the decision to hold the conventions now:

But making matters worse is that Wyoming’s decision to move its caucuses to early January will end up hurting the state.

That’s because the Republican National Committee has a rule that the earliest states can pick delegates to the convention is Feb. 5. That’s why so many states are having their delegates picked on Super Tuesday.

Because Wyoming Republicans so badly wanted to stand out, they will lose half their delegates to the national convention along with New Hampshire, Florida, Michigan and South Carolina.

Yet even now Wyoming Republicans are hoping to gain some clout out of their decision to hold caucuses on Saturday. Indeed, they want the event to end by 3 p.m. so the state can get a mention in the Sunday New York Times. Since when does this state care what the New York Times has to say? This is just further proof of how badly this state wants to be noticed.

Starting with only 28 total delegates to begin with, the loss of 14 delegates (the party has decided that all delegates chosen at the conventions will get to attend the national convention) would seem to be a huge price to pay simply to get a few candidates to come into the state for a drop by. But then, judging by comments made to the media , party leaders seem reasonably pleased at how things turned out.

It will be one of the more interesting facets of the upcoming party conventions to see if the RNC and DNC go ahead and deny Michigan and Florida - two of the ten most populous states in the union - half their delegates or, in the case of the Democrats, all of them. Dare they risk alienating so many voters by denying their states full representation in choosing a party leader? Of course, if they forgive the two biggest states their sins it would stand to reason they would allow the other three states full representation as well.

No polls have been done but press reports indicate that the contest could be between Thompson and Romney based on the declared support for both candidates. If Romney wins, it may assuage some of the sting from his Iowa loss while demonstrating some strength in one of the most Republican states in the nation.

But the candidate who would gain the most with a victory in Wyoming is Fred Thompson. The last two weeks in Iowa saw a slow but steady increase in support for the former Tennessee Senator which allowed him to finish in a virtual tie with John McCain for third place. A win in Wyoming would energize the “Fredheads” for a run at the South Carolina primary on January 19th which Thompson led at one point in the polls but has fallen back considerably with the rise of the other southerner in the race, Mike Huckabee.

But Thompson is confident he can come back in South Carolina and a win in Wyoming would prove - at least to his supporters - that he is still indeed a viable candidate with a shot at getting back into the race with both feet if he can secure a victory in the Palmetto State.

The stakes then are not very large. But for some of the candidates, The Cowboy State might give them just the boost they need to become competitive.

UPDATE

Geraghty has it in the bag for Romney.

I don’t believe we are possessed with a “soul” in the traditional Catholic or religious sense - a mysterious “life force” perhaps that animates us and gives us consciousness, but not an ethereal presence that floats off to heaven once we die.

But I’m not so sure that Andrew Olmsted wasn’t possessed of something that not too many of the rest of us have that may be - could be - what the poets and writers of scripture were thinking about when they invented the term.

Andy died in Iraq yesterday. And before I go on, I will post his thoughts written in anticipation of his death on the question of using his passing as a political football:

I do ask (not that I’m in a position to enforce this) that no one try to use my death to further their political purposes. I went to Iraq and did what I did for my reasons, not yours. My life isn’t a chit to be used to bludgeon people to silence on either side. If you think the U.S. should stay in Iraq, don’t drag me into it by claiming that somehow my death demands us staying in Iraq. If you think the U.S. ought to get out tomorrow, don’t cite my name as an example of someone’s life who was wasted by our mission in Iraq. I have my own opinions about what we should do about Iraq, but since I’m not around to expound on them I’d prefer others not try and use me as some kind of moral capital to support a position I probably didn’t support. Further, this is tough enough on my family without their having to see my picture being used in some rally or my name being cited for some political purpose. You can fight political battles without hurting my family, and I’d prefer that you did so.

That frees all of us to write and talk and remember Andy as the extraordinary individual he was rather than the way his life ended.

Except, like Hilzoy, I am unable to find the words. Her simple, eloquent farewell I shall shamelessly steal - in the finest tradition of blogging (something I’m sure Andy would appreciate):

Andy was a wonderful person: decent, honorable, generous, principled, courageous, sweet, and very funny. The world has a horrible hole in it that nothing can fill. I’m glad Andy — generous as always — wrote something for me to publish now, since I have no words at all. Beyond: Andy, I will miss you.

I got to know Andy through his all too brief participation in The Watchers Council. And, of course, through his writing. His occasional emails to me were always incisive and funny. His courtesy and kindness always appreciated.

Please read his entire posthumous post. If you knew Andy at all you will have trouble getting through it. But if Andy does have a soul, it is locked up in that last post - as he intended - so that we can visit him whenever we want and reflect on a life that may have been interrupted but was nevertheless lived with a fullness the rest of us should envy.

THE PARTY OF LINCOLN?

There is much angst and hand wringing in the rightosphere today. While our opponents gleefully gloat about the surprisingly easy win by Baptist-Preacher-Turned-Presidential- Prophet Mike Huckabee in the Iowa Caucuses last night, many of us are left with a feelings of utter astonishment and ultimately despair over this revolting development.

Stephen Green pulls no punches or minces any words as his “Letter to Iowa Republicans” drips venom and spits acid into the faces of the social cons who gave Huckabee his victory:

I’ll put this in language even your tiny little Iowa brains can understand: What the f*** is wrong with you people?

The news coming out of Des Moines (literally, French for “tell me about the rabbits, George”) tonight is distressing in the extreme. 32 years ago, your Democratic brethren took one look at Jimmy Carter — the worst 20th Century President bar Nixon, and the worst ex-President ever — and declared, “That’s our man!”

Three decades later, and along comes Mike Huckabee. Same moral pretentiousness, same gullibility on foreign affairs, only-slightly-less toothy idiot’s grin. Then you so-called Republicans took a look at Carter’s clone and said, “That’s our man, too!”

Having lived in Iowa for 7 years, I would say that there is nothing much wrong with the people as much as the process of choosing a Caucus winner. It virtually guarantees an extraordinarily small group of people can have an enormous impact on the choice of a candidate for president.

Iowa has about 600,000 registered Republicans. Mike Huckabee got 39,000 votes. That’s about 8% of Iowa Republicans choosing a man who will now seriously compete for the GOP nomination.

Are we really prepared for this? A man whose foreign policy experience lies in promoting Perdue chicken sales to South America? Or was governor of a state whose major University has a battle cry of “Soooeeeeeeeey…HOG?”

I am bereft today. What was once unthinkable has now become slightly more realistic. The odds of Huckaboob getting the nomination are still pretty long. After all, there are plenty of states where they have churches that are for, you know, worshipping God and not plotting the downfall of the Republican party by nominating a fellow who believes the earth was created 6,000 years ago and that it took only 7 days for the universe to expand, cool, coalesce, and create an infinite number of galaxies filled with uncounted numbers of stars. And let’s not start with the notion that God simply plopped millions of creatures on planet earth because the elderly gent was lonely. In those states where rational, thinking Christians outnumber the kinds of loons who voted for Huckabee in Iowa, the Huckadisaster will have trouble.

And well he should. This is a man who thinks that man walked the earth with dinosaurs. This is a man who thinks the Cambrian Explosion was a Fourth of July celebration at a college in England. This is a man who will consult Christ before the American people or Congress.

Myself, I prefer the reverse order of the above, thank you. I don’t think Jesus knows much about improving health care or building the next generation Air Force fighter.

Does any of this matter to the superstitious nincompoops in other states who are salivating to vote for this guy? Does it matter that thugs like Hugo Chavez are sharpening their knives at the thought of a Huckabee presidency (admittedly a virtual impossibility but we’re talking about the thought processes of people who would be envious of birds if they knew the average size of the avian brain)? And can you imagine what a cutthroat like Vladmir Putin would be thinking if the Huckafu*k ever made it past the gate to the White House? He might consider simply backing up a truck into Foggy Bottom and making off with the State Department fine china.

The prospect of what would be going through the mind of Osama Bin Laden at the thought of a Huckabee presidency cannot be put down on paper lest the sheer, abject horror of it were to give the reader a heart attack.

And yet here we are the day after the Iowa Caucuses gazing up into the dopey looking visage of a rube who, with his fake sincerity and oily words have hypnotized the faithful into thinking that he’s the man to lead the way to the New Jerusalem.

Huckabee is a party killer. He is a rogue asteroid on a collision course with Planet GOP and looking around, the only saviors in sight are John McCain and Rudy Giuliani (please my fellow Fredheads, don’t stop me I’m on a roll). And if those guys are the only thing standing between Huckabee and an historic meltdown, I weep for the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan.

UPDATE

Allah believes that posts like Green’s play into the hands of Huckabee:

It’s being interpreted by some, I think, as a veiled swipe at the intelligence of evangelical voters, who made up 80+% of Huck’s support, or even rural voters. VP doesn’t say a word about either, although I admit to cringing at it just because it plays right into the type of identity politics Huckabee’s worked so hard to cultivate and which our own resident evangelical incisively exposed last night. Like I said when Coulter attacked him for being “easily led,” he’s trying to fuse religious, class, and regional grievances into some sort of “simple folk vs. the elites” movement. Every time an “elite” hits his supporters for being stupid, it’s more grist for the mill to allege that what those elites really find stupid is Christianity or farmers, as opposed to pretty much everything he’s said about Pakistan in the last two weeks.

The irony is, while it’s true that most of Huck’s supporters last night were evangelical, it’s not true that most evangelicals were Huck supporters. From what I hear, a little more than half broke for other candidates. We have plenty of evangelicals commenting here, first and foremost among them my esteemed co-blogger, and the Hucka Hucka burnin’ love is nowhere to be found. It bears reminding people of that, since the more his supporters are falsely equated with Christians in the public mind, the easier it is for him to disingenuously spin attacks on him as attacks on Christianity or Christmas or whatever. Which isn’t to suggest I’m accusing VP of attacking religious voters, merely that making it an issue of intelligence is the wrong “frame,” as the nutroots like to say.

In a slightly different vein, frequent commenter B. Poster offers this:

Insulting the so called social const is probably not the best approach to forging an acceptable compromise with them. The philospy represented by Stephen Green and others like him are the dominant forces in the Republican party.

The question is does the Republican party want to survive or not? If it does, the Stephen Greens of the world will need to get busy on trying to work out a compromise with the so called social cons. The current one sided arrangement we have where the social cons get very little except being ignored and insulted is not very helpful. If the Conservative movement is going to survive, the powers that be in the Republican party will need to work on forging a compromise with social conservatives that is based upon mutual respect. Perhaps the Republican party needs to take a drubbing before the Stephen Greens of the world and those like him will be humble enough to work constructively with social conservatives. If this is the case, so be it. Perhaps, after the drubbing, the Republican leadership will be humble enough to work construcively with Social Conservatives.

I plead incredibly guilty.

I would say to both of those thoughtful gentlemen that the war has already started, that simply papering over differences with the various factions is what has brought us to George Bush, a Congress drunk with power and besotted with overspending not to mention a party whose best hope now lies with a moderately left leaning former Mayor of New York City and Senator so in love with his being labeled as a “maverick” by the media that he will stick it to conservatives any time he thinks he can get away with it.

What Allah and to a certain extent B Poster are trying to prevent has already happened. Putting a bandaid over the open wounds for the sake of electoral victory only delays the inevitable reckoning. Cobbling together a broken coalition using chewing gum and kite string won’t address the fundamental concerns that some of us have; that the GOP is getting out of touch with the modern world because it continues to live on past glories rather than do the intelligent thing and reform itself to better reflect the realities of 21 century America.

Call me an apostate. Call me a fool. Call me a liberal if you want. It won’t change what I see as a total, unmitigated disaster represented by the candidacy of this guy.

UPDATE: 1/5

Updated with an apology.