Right Wing Nut House

If, as expected, John McCain pulls away from Mitt Romney in tomorrow’s Super Tuesday primaries making his nomination inevitable, a legitimate question will arise as to who really wields power in the Republican party?

That’s because the movers and shakers we would ordinarily think control the party (or are able to influence it heavily) would have failed utterly and completely in derailing McCain’s Straight Talk Express. Most of the rightosphere on the internet as well as talk radio giants lined up behind Romney while the establishment politicians have swallowed whatever misgivings they have about McCain and sided with him.

Guess who wins that war?

The fact is the Republican party - like the Democratic party - is not one, single entity but rather a host of smaller parties united by electoral expedience. There is the Electronic Conservative Republican party - the aforementioned internet and talk radio bloc. Then there is the Traditional Conservative Party or Main Street Republicans who are closely allied with the Evangelical Republican Party but place less emphasis on social issues. There are Libertarian Republicans, Intellectual Republicans, even Extremist Republicans - smaller entities but present nonetheless. Then there is the Congressional Republican Party and the Presidential Republican Party that make up most of the party establishment.

The glue that held all of these separate parties together was supposed to be conservatism. The problem now is that I believe the Republican party is in a definitional crisis as to what exactly “conservatism” represents. Is it an ideology? Is it simply a label that we use for any pol who mouths allegiance to some core issues like abortion and the war? Or have many Republicans simply “moved the bar” and decided for themselves that being a conservative means supporting campaign finance reform or Kennedy-McCain immigration?

I speculated about this last week in my PJ Media column:

It could very well be that what we are seeing in the Republican party is a redefining – or perhaps more accurately, a “readjustment” – in how people identify themselves as conservatives.

Part of it could very well be based on issues. There may be many moderate and moderately conservative Republicans, as Jennifer Rubin muses in The Observer, who wish the party to do something about climate change despite the adamant opposition of many in the base. It could very well be that there is close to a majority of Republicans who want to solve the illegal immigrant problem by closing the border and then granting some kind of path to legality to those already here.

The proof is in the pudding, friends. John McCain supports those positions and is the presumptive nominee. All other GOP candidates opposed those positions and are toast.

While these positions would have been seen as “moderate” 8 years ago, those McCain supporters who identify themselves as “somewhat conservative” may also hold positions on continuing the mission in Iraq, fiscal responsibility, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and other issues where they would find agreement with the base.

In other words, the party itself may have been gradually moving toward the center over the last eight years. It is not inconceivable that there remains broad agreement on a host of issues while many conservatives have moderated their views on others.

How else do you explain McCain’s support among conservatives? So many people can’t be that ignorant of his record - not when it is has been plastered all over every media outlet for almost a month and not since Romney went on the offensive against him. We are just going to have to face the fact that a sizable number - perhaps a third - who believe themselves to be “conservative” support McCain’s stance on the issues - despite the fact that most of us can find two or three “deal breakers” when it comes to McCain’s positions on those issues.

The power in the Republican party is gravitating toward Senator McCain and his more moderate supporters. And I think we can almost guarantee that any McCain administration would give the deep freeze to conservatives when it came to cabinet appointments and other key policy positions. This may cause Rush Limbaugh to pop a blood vessel but there is little he or anyone else can do about it.

A political party and what it stands for is not set in stone. In my lifetime, Republicans have re-invented themselves twice; once in the 1950’s when the party of the isolationist Taft gave way to the internationalist Eisenhower. Then again in the 1970’s as the seeds planted by Barry Goldwater bore fruit and blossomed into the Party of Reagan.

Could such a shift be happening again? Unless you want to believe that millions of primary voters who will cast their ballot for John McCain tomorrow are idiots and don’t pay attention to what’s going on, you must accept that there has been a fundamental shift in the balance of power in the Republican party away from the old Reagan coalition and toward a still forming mass of more centrist, less doctrinaire conservatives.

Kevin Drum watching the Democrats debate in Hollywood the other night:

Another thing the debate brought home to me is something Matt Yglesias complains about frequently. Both candidates claimed that Democrats understand national security and terrorism issues better than Republicans (”Democrats have a much better grasp of the reality of the situation,” as Hillary put it), and both agreed that a successful Democratic candidate would need to be able to make that case to the public. Obama thought he could make that case better because he opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, while Clinton thought she could make the case better because she’s better prepared. But neither of them actually made that case. Both Obama and Clinton had a national stage where they had more time than usual to explain the liberal position on how to combat terrorism and make the world safer, and neither of them did it. They just said they needed to do it.

And they’re right. They do need to do that. So why didn’t they start last night?

Democrats “understand” national security issues better than Republicans but the cat’s got their tongue when trying to explain why?

Let’s buy into that dubious formulation and try to ease Kevin’s perplexity. First of all, both Clinton and Obama are hamstrung by one, overriding, overarching reality; they can’t support any policy, strategy, or proposal that has been implemented, offered by, or hinted at by the Bush Administration.

This is the baseline for any policy formulated by the candidates. The deranged nature of their base when it comes to anything Bush precludes the advocacy of some Administration policies that actually may have merit while other Bush policies regarding the use of pre-emptive force and the struggle against Islamic extremism have become an anathema to the entire Democratic party.

That leaves each candidate trying to show how much more accommodating they would be to the cutthroats of the world than Bush - a prospect that no doubt has the Iranians, Syrians, Hamas, and others wishing devoutly for a Democratic triumph at the polls next November but that may leave large segments of the American electorate cold.

Hence, the attempts by both candidates to obscure the truth by mouthing platitudes and offering generalities in lieu of specific ways to deal with the threats that we will face over the next decade. I think both candidate’s emphasis on nuclear non-proliferation is spot on and is something they should probably highlight even more. And I think that Clinton, at least, has a grasp of the nature of the terrorism threat and could be counted on to be creative in confronting it.

But we hear precious little about revitalizing NATO so that Afghanistan can be saved. Nor do we hear anything about regional security regarding our Gulf allies who truly see an existential threat coming from Tehran. Lest anyone doubt that fact, the recent flurry of diplomatic activity by both the United States and France in the region that included Bush’s tour of the region, the sale of sophisticated weaponry to the Saudis, and Sarkozy’s nuclear diplomacy with other Gulf states proves the point.

In the end, the real debate is over the use of force; when, against who, and if ever. Both candidates say they would respond forcefully to a terrorist attack against the United States. Bully for them. If they didn’t, they would be impeached by their own party.

What the American people want to know is would they strike to prevent an attack and what they would do about a regime that planned and/or executed another 9/11? What would be done about an attack that was something far less than another 9/11? Would there be a “proportional response” to such an attack - stopping short of regime change while lobbing a few cruise missiles on to some vital economic or military targets?

And what about regime change? Is there any criteria where it would be justified? Both candidates have roundly criticized - with some justification - Administration policies in Iraq. Would our experience there keep them from taking down a tyrant or regime that threatened America directly?

I suppose it somewhat unfair to ask Democrats to answer these questions when Republican candidates haven’t been very clear themselves although both Romney and McCain have come out in support of pre-emptive war to some extent. But for the Democratic front runners, being obtuse is a survival tactic. If they sound too tough in the primaries, they lose the base. If they sound too weak, the GOP makes hay during the general election campaign.

Hillary Clinton seems to have found the answer to that dilemma simply by speaking out of both sides of her mouth at the same time. She can sound as tough as any Republican when she talks about the War on Terror while offering soothing platitudes regarding negotiations and scathing criticism of Bush at other times. This has the dual effect of keeping the Democratic base at bay while not offering an opening for Republicans if she wins the nomination.

So both candidates end up promoting a “Wonder Bread” national security policy; very soft and full of air but tastes good going down. It is enough to satisfy their base but will it work on the voters in the general election campaign? I think that depends on how important national security will be as an issue next fall. If the economy is in the tank, I doubt if people will give much weight to GOP criticisms of the Democrat’s obscurant policy positions. But all bets are off if the United States is attacked again or if the economy isn’t quite as important as it is today. Then the Democratic candidate will be forced to be a little more specific about what they intend to do to protect the US from the threat of international terrorism.

Watching Barack Obama during the debate last night I was struck by the notion that here indeed, the torch of leadership was being passed to a new generation of Democrats. In many ways, it’s the same coalition of unions, special interest groups, and race and class warriors who have dominated the left since the 60’s that make up the bulk of Obama’s supporters. But there is a decidedly centrist thrust to his candidacy - a welcome rejection of some of the outward manifestations of New Left politics in favor of a more inclusive, less abrasive style of governance.

What I find in Obama that I never expected were echoes of the kind of classical liberalism that I admired in my youth but was eventually corrupted by the radicals who captured the Democratic party and turned it into a haven for those who preferred to make America the scapegoat for the world’s ills while playing off one race against another, one class against another.

Where those Democrats sought to divide and conquer, it appears to me that Obama really is making an effort to unite the center and center left - not by trying to hide his true intentions but rather by appealing to what most can agree are broad national interests using admittedly non-specific language and platitudes to get his message across.

Of course, the devil is in the details and Obama’s health insurance plan for example, is just as statist in nature as any other Democrats. But with an almost certainly augmented Democratic majority in the House and Senate being seated in January 2009, one wonders if even a Republican president wouldn’t be forced to deal with some kind of statist approach to health insurance given the huge support for it among voters.

If it sounds like I admire Obama, I do. And given the distinct possibility that John McCain will be the GOP standard bearer next November, I thought it might be interesting to take a closer look at my home state senator. If I am going to hold my nose and vote for the GOP nominee, before I punch a hole by his name it makes sense to look closely at the other candidate in the race to see if he is any more viable.

If it were between Hillary and McCain, that would be no contest. But try as I might to dismiss them, there are certain personal and even political aspects to Obama’s candidacy that I find appealing. Would he have a chance to get my vote?

Not likely. Obama would have to demonstrate an understanding of the threat posed by radical Islam and a willingness to confront it before I would seriously consider voting for him. I would guess that there are many who feel the same way - that there are some things about Obama that are deal breakers when it comes to supporting him. For myself, it is the War on Terror. For some it may be national health insurance. For others, it would be his decidedly squishy approach to border security and illegal immigration.

But I feel confident that a Republican minority would be able to block most of the onerous proposals coming from the Democrats. They have proven adept at doing so to date and I have no reason to believe that they wouldn’t be able to muster the unity to defeat mandated health insurance or any kind of amnesty legislation.

When it comes to the War on Terror, however, there is little the Republicans would be able to do to give Obama a different perspective on the nature of the threat and why we must continue to confront it rather than sit back and wait to be hit again. Obama is a weak sister when it comes to the War on Terror and unless he is able to convince me and others that he understands what is at stake and will take the steps necessary to protect us, there is no way I could see myself voting for him.

But he is an interesting politician nonetheless. And if he fails in his bid this time, I fully expect to see him make another run in the future. He is an immensely gifted man with a compelling story. A little more seasoning, perhaps a rethinking of some basic issues, and he could very well make it all the way to the oval office.

I must apologize for my cynicism up front because I know it is not shared by many - at least not in polite company. But I just can’t help it.

There were times during that debate last night where I had to remind myself that these were actually Republican candidates for President. At times, it sounded more like a John Edwards political rally with talk of “evil” Wall Street companies and Huckabee’s “two Americas lite.” And Romney’s penchant for throwing a couple of hundred billion dollars at voters sounded more like some other Massachusetts politician except I’m sure Mitt is a better driver.

When the presidential selection process began, there were several candidates that any conservative could have supported if not enthusiastically then at least by giving lip service if they had ended up the nominee. Now by default, we are left with a man who ran for governor as a center left moderate, governed as a centrist, and then adopted a slew of conservative positions on the issues just in time to be seen as a viable candidate for the White House. For many, giving Mitt Romney the benefit of the doubt for what John Hawkins has refereed to as his “Road to Damascus” conversion to conservatism is a matter of desperation. There isn’t anyone left in the race who espouses bedrock conservative principles mostly across the board except Romney.

For me, the question has never been that Huckabee and McCain aren’t “true” conservatives. By the lights of most who read this blog, I am not a “true” conservative either. The question is one of conservative governance and in both men, there is a lack of commitment to some truly basic conservative principles that calls into question just what kind of president they would be.

Huckabee cannot see beyond class. He has wedged class in his campaign in a pale imitation of John Edwards by trying to demonize the wealthy and speak for “ordinary Americans.” He has further carved out support by shamelessly and constantly appealing to Christian conservatives, calling himself a “Christian leader” and invoking the name of God every chance he gets.

Since when is initiating class warfare a conservative campaign tactic? Pundits call his philosophy “conservative populism” but it’s really much simpler than that. He is using class as a political scalpel to snip away a portion of the Republican electorate while slicing the bulk of Christian conservatives away from more traditionally conservative candidates. There is no path to the White House for Huckabee employing these tactics. But he should be able to harvest a couple of hundred delegates on Super Tuesday by winning 2 or 3 primaries while picking up delegates for finishing second and third elsewhere. He will then be in a position to humbly offer his services as Vice President to John McCain who will, if things remain relatively unchanged, come out of Super Tuesday with a huge lead in delegates on Mitt Romney.

For McCain, I suspect his fealty to conservatism and conservative principles will last until he wins the White House. It will be at that point that we will get a glimpse of just how important he thinks his conservatism is by looking at his cabinet appointments and the manner in which he fills other important posts in his Administration. I daresay there will be many “maverick” choices - including Democrats - that will curdle the blood of most movement conservatives and dismay the rest of us.

Would Romney be any different? The former governor and CEO would almost certainly look for the most competent people he can find to run the government. No doubt we would be disappointed in some of his choices. At least we could be assured that his selections were not made to “stick it” to conservatives - a disease McCain seems to have acquired over the years as his contempt for the right has been demonstrated on numerous occasions.

McCain and Huckabee can say they’re the best conservatives in the race until doomsday and it won’t make it so. And Romney can call his conversion to conservatism true and honorable until the cows come home and there will always be that nagging doubt in the back of everyone’s mind.

In my PJ Media column today, I look at McCain, Huckabee, and Giuliani and see a Republican party that is moving inexorably toward the center.

There may be many moderate and moderately conservative Republicans, as Jennifer Rubin muses in The Observer, who wish the party to do something about climate change despite the adamant opposition of many in the base. It could very well be that there is close to a majority of Republicans who want to solve the illegal immigrant problem by closing the border and then granting some kind of path to legality to those already here.

The proof is in the pudding, friends. John McCain supports those positions and is the presumptive nominee. All other GOP candidates opposed those positions and are toast.

While these positions would have been seen as “moderate” 8 years ago, those McCain supporters who identify themselves as “somewhat conservative” may also hold positions on continuing the mission in Iraq, fiscal responsibility, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and other issues where they would find agreement with the base.

Does this mean that the party has lurched leftward while no one was looking? Perhaps not as much as it would appear but more than the base is willing to admit.

Would independents and even some Democrats really support McCain in a general election against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? Not unless McCain made a conscious decision to virtually abandon the conservative base and adopt a more centrist platform. That’s because the country itself has moved slightly leftward in the last 8 years. On a variety of important issues including health insurance, the environment, and Middle Class entitlements, the American people appear ready to accept more government as the solution to perceived problems.

So in the end, it becomes a question of how many conservatives are willing to hold their noses and vote for McCain so that Hillary Clinton - the presumed Democratic nominee - is prevented from getting her clutches on the levers of government. I will probably be one of those conservatives who votes to keep Hillary Clinton out of the oval office. How many others would follow that example will determine the winner in November.

I have a confession to make to my fellow conservatives: I don’t hate Bill Clinton.

Don’t get me wrong. I have a pronounced animus toward his policies, what he stands for generally, and his scorched earth, take no prisoners, political attack dog style of politics.

But I have to admit to a sneaking admiration of Bill Clinton, as a man.

He isn’t someone I’d want to sit down and have a beer with. This is someone I’d love to go on a lost weekend with. He appeals to the juvenile in all of us men - a rogue’s rogue who I could see playing marathon poker games and going on weekend trips to Vegas. Good cigars, good whiskey, and of course, the guy is a chick magnet.

No, he’s no gentleman. But if I ever had an impulse to lose control and regress back to a time when I had few responsibilities and less judgement, I’d want Bill Clinton by me as combination sidekick and hedonistic guide.

And let the good times roll, brother Bill.

A “lost weekend” or two may actually be what his wife has in mind for him after what transpired in South Carolina. Bill Clinton didn’t cost his wife the South Carolina primary with his sometimes harsh and belittling criticism of Barack Obama. But almost all agree that he may have overplayed his position as a former president by getting down into the partisan trenches and throwing mud at Hillary’s opponent.

I know I’m an old fuddy-duddy for being in love with tradition and respecting precedents and all that conservative stuff - all the things most liberals despise regardless of whether the traditions and precedents are efficacious to promoting a just moral order in society and allowing each succeeding generation to stay in contact with America’s past.

But Bill Clinton’s unprecedented role in Hillary’s campaign is getting to be something more than just enjoying the luxury of having a powerful surrogate to do her dirty work for her. Bill Clinton is giving us a glimpse of a Hillary White House and just what kind of mischief the the Spouse-in-Chief would be capable of getting into.

The SIC assures us that he won’t sit in on cabinet meetings or NSC briefings. So what? The White House, as the tour guidebook informs us, is also the president’s residence. Much government business has always been transacted on the second floor over dinner or drinks. Are we to assume that the SIC will recuse himself from these discussions? (”Bill, could you watch the football game in the study please? We’re going over plans to strike Iran.”)

But this is pretty small potatoes when it comes right down to it. That’s because where this SIC is concerned, one must remember he still has a “top secret” clearance and probably his own sources in the intelligence agencies and defense department. In fact, he probably has sources peppered throughout the government, people who might be eager to serve him.

A spouse with that kind of clout would have to deny himself the power to set up what would be in effect an alternate center of executive power. Or at the very least, a duplicate information center where the SIC knows as much as the CIC. In all fairness I would say to my liberal friends who occasionally stop by this site, do you see Bill Clinton denying himself or not availing himself of this kind of power? Would you argue that I am overstating the case?

The latter I will admit to being a possibility. But where one cannot overstate the SIC’s impact nor his clout is in the very personal and private relationship he has with his wife. And it is in that unknowable, hugely complex relationship that exists between a man and a woman who have been married as long as the Clintons - especially the Clintons - where even the most rank partisan must pause and give some thought.

Presidential spouses have been hugely influential in the past so I am not arguing against Bill Clinton being denuded of having a large impact on policy. But there has never been a spouse who has served 8 years as President and Commander in Chief. He knows very well - as any longtime spouse knows - how to manipulate his partner, what buttons to push, perhaps even how to bend Hillary to his will. (Hillary has the same weapons at her disposal but she’s the elected leader and using her wiles to convince her husband with regards to a course of action is not the same as Bill doing something similar).

We’re walking on untrod territory musing about this and frankly, I’m not entirely sure it’s relevant. But at the same time, it fills me with unease that a former president, unelected that he is, so close to the reins of power and with more influence and less accountability than any other official in government, would be in a position to subtly or otherwise affect the president’s decisions.

Would he do so to protect his own legacy? Would he use his special position for selfish reasons? I daresay any objective chronicler of the Clinton years would worry about the latter.

Perhaps I’m getting carried away by the purely historic nature of a Billary presidency and there is absolutely nothing to worry about (that’s what my liberal friends will tell me anyway).

But there are also advantages to having a former President so personally close to a Chief Executive - especially one so well respected throughout the world and blessed with Bill Clinton’s considerable gifts. As an envoy to let’s say the Middle East, he would be dynamite. And as a lobbyist in chief, he would know how to twist arms with the best of them. The SIC’s relationship with the president will grant him access, instant credibility, and a fair hearing in most capitols of the world.

But the nature of the universe is balance. And for every advantage a Bill Clinton brings to his wife’s presidency, there is a disadvantage waiting to be exploited. So far, I have seen little in the press that analyzes this historic and troubling phenomena. I would hope that eventually, heads wiser than mine will begin to look at the potential co-presidency of Bill and Hillary Clinton and make some judgements about the pluses and minuses such an arrangement would entail.

This bit from Kathy Lopez at The Corner speaks to at least some of us who view Obama’s historic candidacy through a slightly different prism than other conservatives:

I tell you, he almost had me tonight until he talked about the war that shouldn’t have been authorized and reminded me there are real policy issues at stake in this election! But listening to his inspirational, rallying speech tonight it’s clear and obvious that if he’s the nominee, he will be tough to beat.

I too have felt the pull of the man’s personality. And despite the fact that there is an element of media creation in his candidacy, no amount of glowing press coverage can obscure the fact that Barack Obama is a special person with special gifts and it is my belief he is destined to achieve special things - some day.

James Antle at AmSpec Blog:

I also think Barack Obama is a good and decent and honorable man. I think he represents liberalism at its best, rather than its worst. To a certain extent, I would view his triumph over the awful Clinton machine as a triumph of all Americans of good will. I am as proud of him as I am ashamed of the Clintons. Nevertheless, I think Obama’s candidacy is a threat to conservatives in a way that the nauseating Clintons are not. He has the potential to revive liberalism that is as strong as the Clintons’ ability to discredit it entirely. He is every bit as wrong on the issues as they are, if not worse. Should he somehow slay the giant and win the Democratic nomination, conservatives must oppose him with all their might.

Antle is talking about an ineffable quality found in Obama that has not been seen in a liberal since perhaps Hubert Humphrey - a joy and pride in being American and a liberal. Those of us who inhabit the internet know full well that a happy liberal is largely a misnomer. Indeed, in Congress and elsewhere, happiness and liberalism appear to be mutually exclusive concepts.

But as Dave over at Race42008 points out, Obama’s kind of liberalism - he refers to it as Liberalism 2.0 - is seductive to independents and even some Republicans because it speaks to what people think they need in their own lives:

Just when liberalism was thought dead and buried, it appears to be rising like a phoenix from the ashes. The new version is not your father’s liberalism, to be sure. It’s post-racial, optimistic, and it’s not ashamed of America nor her greatness. Like I said before, Obama is liberal, but he’s not angry about it.

So why are millions of disaffected Independents and Republicans, as well as millions of new voters, embracing a liberal candidate, even one of a Liberalism 2.0, given the failures of liberalism in the past? The answer can’t be fully described in a single paragraph. A changing world combined with neither a Republican nor a Democratic establishment capable of addressing those changes effectively has much to do with it. On foreign policy, the failures of Iraq, combined with the fact that the failures of Vietnam have been all but forgotten by now, have leveled the playing field between the two parties for the first time in forty years. On economics, the center of gravity in the U.S. and throughout the Western world has shifted leftward over the past few years due to middle class economic angst caused by globalization, which requires up to a decade of post-K-12 education in order to remain economically competitive as an individual, as well as to the rising costs of health care and declining fertility rates that threaten entitlements and retirement security. And culturally, while most people just want their government to implement practical policies that help families, such as making sure marriage isn’t punished in the tax code, the fact that many “pro-family” social conservatives continue to rail against gays and Hollywood has left many families thinking that these folks are concerned more about their own pathologies than about the actual concerns of most families. And, thus, the search begins for a new approach to governance.

A “new approach to governance” is Obama’s biggest weakness.

Andrew Sullivan once referred to Obama as a liberal version of Ronald Reagan. While there are some immediate and obvious similarities between the two, Reagan spent 25 years thinking, talking, and writing about the nature and role of government in society. They both might share a superior ability to communicate optimism and hope, but in the end, it is crystal clear that Obama simply isn’t ready to be president because he hasn’t thought about “governance” very long or very hard.

I have often referred to Obama as an empty suit. The analogy is apt because despite his obvious gifts, Obama has not fleshed out many of his basic, fundamental principles and how they would play a role in his presidency. Just what exactly does he stand for besides the vague platitudes about “hope” and “change” that pepper his speeches like little dollops of whipped cream? Where is the rock to which he tethers his beliefs?

I don’t think this is a question of intellectual laziness but rather it is a matter of not having spent enough time confronting, questioning, strengthening, and ultimately adopting in his own mind the bedrock foundation of a political philosophy. This is especially true because Obama, more than any other liberal politician in a couple of generations, really does want to re-define liberalism.

But to this point, there simply isn’t any “there” there. There are position papers. There is a nebulous appeal to some idealistic “crusade” to remake politics in America. But there is nothing behind the curtain of campaign platitudes that would lead one to believe that Obama has given any serious thought about how these concepts play into an overall framework of beliefs that he can call his own.

For this reason, at the present time, Obama would make a terrible president - beyond the fact that I believe his policies to be wrongheaded and even dangerous. And given the perilousness of the times, it is very possible that an Obama Administration - like the Bush Administration - would find itself eventually crashing on the shoals of history; battered and bruised by the inconstancy and contradictions that would afflict a basically rudderless chief executive.

Another term in the Senate or perhaps a turn as governor will give Barack Obama the kind of experience in government that would be beneficial to deepening his understanding of what I sense is his biggest deficiency - a better comprehension of the relationship between the government and the governed and how that fits into his own personal political belief system.

Last November when the DNC handed down its “death sentence” punishment to Michigan and Florida for holding their primaries prior to the party mandated February 5 date, there was immediate speculation that the penalty of taking away all of their delegates would never stand, that the party would never risk alienating two of the 10 largest states in the union.

During the intervening months, most of the pros I talked to were at a loss as to what would happen. Most didn’t think the penalty would stand and that some kind of accommodation would be reached prior to the convention.

But not one politico from either party that I spoke to in the last months foresaw a scenario where one of the candidates would brazenly claim solidarity with those state parties and seek to have their delegates seated at the convention:

“I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee.

“I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan. I know not all of my delegates will do so and I fully respect that decision. But I hope to be President of all 50 states and U.S. territories, and that we have all 50 states represented and counted at the Democratic convention.

“I hope my fellow potential nominees will join me in this.

“I will of course be following the no-campaigning pledge that I signed, and expect others will as well.”

To review the situation, the DNC forbade candidates from campaigning in those states or running any advertising. Obama and Edwards went so far as to remove their names from the ballot in Michigan, believing that the DNC stricture would stand. Clinton didn’t think it “necessary” to remove her name from consideration in Michigan and a later effort to restore the two candidate’s names to the ballot failed in court.

Of course, this left Hillary a wide open field on January 15 when Michigan Democratic primary voters went to the polls and gave her 55% of the vote and 73 of the 128 available delegates - if the Michigan people were going to be seated at the convention. “Uncommitted” received 40% and 55 delegates.

Tuesday’s Florida primary will have all Democratic candidates on the ballot but none of them have campaigned in The Sunshine State and Hillary leads Obama by double digits in the most recent polls.

And now Clinton - in what has to be considered a shocking display of naked power politics - is seeking to change the rules in the middle of the race in order to benefit her campaign.

Ezra Klein:

This is the sort of decision that has the potential to tear the party apart. In an attempt to retain some control over the process and keep the various states from accelerating their primaries into last Summer, the Democratic National Committee warned Michigan and Florida that if they insisted on advancing their primary debates, their delegates wouldn’t be seated and the campaigns would be asked not to participate in their primaries. This was agreed to by all parties (save, of course, the states themselves).

With no one campaigning, Clinton, of course, won Michigan — she was the only Democrat to be on the ballot, as I understand it, which is testament to the other campaign’s beliefs that the contest wouldn’t count — and will likely win Florida. And because the race for delegates is likely to be close, she wants those wins to matter. So she’s fighting the DNC’s decision, and asking her delegates — those she’s already won, and those she will win — to overturn it at the convention. She’s doing so right before Florida, to intensify her good press in the state, where Obama is also on the ballot. And since this is a complicated, internal-party matter that sounds weird to those not versed in it (of course Michigan and Florida should count!), she’s adding a public challenge that, if the other Democrats deny, will make them seem anti-Michigan and Florida.

I wish I could be outraged by Hillary’s gambit but frankly, the way Ezra describes it, one can’t help but admire its underhanded brilliance. Ultimately - and this would hold true especially if the race for delegates extends beyond the primaries - I doubt whether the results in Michigan and Florida will stand and the lion’s share of the victories simply handed to her. But by raising the issue on the eve of the Florida primary, she lays claim to the sympathies of both state parties while putting the DNC on notice that there’s s new sheriff in town and that the rules other candidates may play by simply don’t apply to the Clinton’s.

My oh my, I feel like the Belle of the Ball all of a sudden. Email after email from my internet friends hitting me up to support this candidate or that one. With Fred dropping out, my buds must think I am searching frantically for some candidate to latch on to - as if I were lost without tying myself to one of the current crop of GOP con(pre?)tenders.

Believe me when I say I’m flattered. I haven’t gotten this much attention since I lost my bathing suit halfway through a 500 yard freestyle race while swimming competitively in high school.

But I must confess to being totally uninterested in who gets the Republican nod for the nomination from here on out. I will, like Bob Krumm, vote for Fred in the Super Tuesday primary in Illinois. I will then be able to sit back and watch with amusement as the party turns handsprings trying to make John McCain acceptable to most of the rest of us.

By the time the convention rolls around, McCain will be seen as a savior, just the right man to defeat Hillary Clinton. We can then be further amused as McCain loses handily to Clinton, admittedly as a result of factors largely beyond his control but which could have been mitigated by nominating someone who didn’t deliberately (and with apparent relish) piss off conservatives for much of his career. McCain’s questionable stands on core conservative issues are expertly covered up by his campaign. But Mark Levin exposed the senator’s record in a devastating piece in NRO that included these legislative measures with McCain’s name on them:

McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.

McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.

McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.

McCain-Reimportation of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety…

McCain’s disdain for the party and for conservatives will almost surely come back to haunt him in November if he is the nominee.

Or let’s say the unexpected happens and Daddy Warbucks outlasts McCain and buys his way to victory. Here’s a guy who wouldn’t be able to remember what he said previously about an issue, the end result being he would end up flipping and flopping so much the media would have to keep a scorecard as to where he stood on an issue on any given day. This is a man who, in his only spin at elective office, governed as a center-left politician. And now we’re supposed to take his word for it that he had, as John Hawkins calls it, a “road to Damascus conversion to conservatism?”

John made the conservative case against Romney pretty convincingly:

When Mitt ran against Ted Kennedy in 1994, he came across as a squishy RINO of the sort that you typically expect to be running for office in states like Massachusetts. Yet today, he sounds like a cross between Newt Gingrich circa 1994 and Rush Limbaugh. Did Mitt have a road-to-Damascus conversion to conservatism during that relatively short period of time or is he just pretending that he did to sucker conservatives into voting for him? The problem is that it’s impossible to really know. The idea, I suppose, is that conservatives should get him into the White House and then we’ll find out where he really stands.

And this is not just about abortion, where Mitt’s position seems to have radically shifted, it’s about a whole host of issues. He used to try to disassociate himself from Ronald Reagan and the Contract With America, but now he assures us that the Gipper and the Contract are close to his heart. He used to be pro-gun control and wanted nothing to do with the NRA, but now he’s against gun grabbers and thinks the NRA is peachy. He came across as a member of the open borders and amnesty crowd whose position wasn’t much different than that of John McCain on illegal immigration — until it became a hot political issue — and now he’s running ads that make him sound like Tom Tancredo on the subject. Then there are the Bush tax cuts, embryonic stem cell research, and the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. There have been so many flips that the flops are still running about two blocks behind, trying to catch up.

Are these shifts genuine? Are they purely for politics’ sake? Is Mitt Romney a conservative or is he a squish telling us what we want to hear while planning to take 3 or 4 steps back towards the middle once he feels less pressure to pander to the base? Probably the former, but there’s no way to really know the truth. Do we really want a nominee in 2008 that we have this sort of questions about?

I have little doubt that to please the inside the beltway commentators and pundits, Mitt would revert to his centrist “squish” style of governance - hardly what many of us believe is needed in these perilous times.

And then there’s Rudy. Suppose lightening strikes in Florida and Rudy wins while McCain is outed as a transvestite and Romney’s stock portfolio is drained by his 5 sons who take a weekend trip to Aruba to have a good time - a REALLY good time. Rudy sweeps to victory and is crowned at the GOP convention.

Aside from giving James Dobson apoplexy, the prospect of pro-gun control, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and a great big flip flopper on immigration Rudy Giuliani being the standard bearer sends our southern brethren shrieking for the exits in St. Paul, swearing they’ll never vote for that Yankee in a million years.

Yeah, but at least Republicans will take New Jersey.

Finally, there is just one scenario where Mike Huckabee can win the nomination and it has to do with his buddy Jesus coming down from heaven and campaigning for him.

We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.

I would say quite honestly there is something to hate in each of the remaining candidates for the nomination. You don’t even have to try very hard to find it either. So I will say to all my concerned friends who have taken the time to invite me to join in supporting one candidate or another that I’m embarrassed by all the attention but you really shouldn’t have bothered.

I will pick my own loser in my own time, thank you.

This election should be a cakewalk for the left. I mean the GOP is handing this contest to liberals on a silver platter.

Dispirited, disorganized, hating their choices for president, wrangling over whether the Reagan coalition is dead, many conservatives threatening to stay home on election day - what more could a political party ask for when it comes to an opponent? From the looks of things, they might as well start measuring curtains for the Lincoln bedroom right now, save themselves the trouble.

The Democrats should also be trumpeting their ideas to the skies, speaking in glowing terms about how their liberal agenda will turn the economy around, end the wars, make the US respected in the world again, promise health insurance for all, a college education for anyone who wants it, a chicken in every pot and a Studebaker in every garage…

Got a little carried away there…heh.

But they’re not doing that, are they. They are being very, very cautious in proposing anything at all that would reveal their ideology. Why? Because they are ashamed of being liberals:

One possibility is that Obama would get everyone inspired, but not inspired about a specifically progressive agenda. That would be bad. A second possibility, however, is that he’d manage to convince the public that his liberal agenda isn’t really “liberal” — a word that’s been successfully demonized by the right — but just common sense. So he gets the public support he wants, but he gets it by repositioning liberal ideas not as ideology, but as post-partisan problem solving. That would be good. The question is, will it work? Or is the direct approach more effective?

“Liberal” being “demonized” by the right? I hate to inform Mr. Drum but the fact of the matter is liberals did very well all by themselves in demonizing that word. They didn’t need any help from conservatives to destroy black families, devastate the inner cities, create towers of hopelessness in public housing, expand the size of the federal government until it became a behemoth, run away from international challenges, destory federalism, poison the culture, and generally make an absolute mess of this country.

Conservatives were out of power and in the wilderness during the 1950’s, 60’s, and 70’s when liberalism, triumphant and drunk with power destroyed the national polity by creating identity politics and cataloged people according to their age, race, sex, national origin, cultural heritage, and sexual orientation. They demonized white males as the perpetrators of all evil. They destroyed our heroes, denigrated our myths, belittled patriotism, and promoted and made amorality acceptable.

And Drum is saying that conservatives “demonized” liberalism?

No wonder Kevin wants Obama to hide his liberalism. No wonder they can’t even call themselves liberals any more. And that’s why Democrats may win this election but there will be no “realignment” to the left. Any ideology with which its adherents are ashamed to associate is not a successful ideology.

They don’t even try to hide the attempted subterfuge:

But I think it’s increasingly clear what Obama is actually trying to do — put a moderate face on a liberal platform, in the hopes of expanding the Democratic pie. Maybe that can work, maybe not, but I think the suggestions that he’s some kind of triangulating, Gingrich-loving closet-Reaganite are misguided.

Why not try to “expand the Democratic pie” by standing up and proudly proclaiming your liberal principles? Why not try to further define those principles so that all of America knows exactly who you are and what you stand for?

Instead, what we have in Obama is a candidate willing to sneak around, hiding his true ideology while packaging his agenda in vapid platitudes so that no one can glean his true intent.

Strategy is one thing. Lying to the people and trying to fool them into thinking you’re something you’re not is something entirely different. Conservatism may be in disarray. It may be exhausted and suffering from poor leadership. But if the day ever comes I write something like Kevin Drum wrote above I would hope some liberal calls me out for such incredible cynicism.

Rather than give my own take on Fred’s campaign, I will direct you to Bob Krumm’s excellent and thorough critique which leaves us all wondering what could have been.

Jim Geraghty has a source inside the Thompson campaign:

He’s still with his ailing mother. “He’s just being a good son.”

He has not spoken to any other campaign or any other candidates, nor does he intend to at this time.

He will not endorse, I am told by this source close to Thompson.

I am also told, “he has no interest in a vice presidency or a cabinet position.” At an “appropriate time” he will outline his plans for the near future.

This source believes that the race has demonstrated that whatever happens from here on out, the GOP has to stand for consistent conservative policies across the board.

Geraghty also reports that Fred has dropped out of the Florida debate.

So the writing is on the wall and we are left contemplating why such a substantiative candidate failed?

Krumm lists the familiar reasons but I think it goes a little deeper than that - or at least, there is a more basic reason Fred failed; he was not entertaining.

I am amused by the laughter on the left over “Grandpa Fred” and his laid back demeanor. Perhaps if they examined their own fascination with the celebrity candidates on the Democratic side - an empty suit of a man running a campaign of cotton candy platitudes and half thought out policies along with a ruthless shrew whose grasp for power and influence is only slightly less nauseating than that of her philandering husband -they wouldn’t be quite so dismissive. Given that their likely candidate has a personality that makes Leona Helmsley look like a civic saint, one would think a little less gloating on their part might be in order.

After all, Fred thought about government and the relationship with the governed more than 10 Obama’s and 5 Hillary’s put together. Next to Fred, the Democratic party candidates come off like game show hosts. Democrat Bill Bradley comes to mind when looking for candidates who had given what to do after being elected so much thought. But Bradley too, was forced to run against a game show host in Al Gore and lost in the 2000 primaries. This current crop of small minded sophists on the Democratic side remind me of auctioneers bidding for votes among a grasping electorate who refuse to pay for government programs they already benefit from while begging for more.

Could Thompson have changed this dynamic? It’s an interesting thought experiment in that many conservatives in the think tanks believe that enacting federalism would impose a certain kind of civic discipline on Americans that would make most of us stop and think about whether a program or a benefit is really worth having. That’s because once responsibilities like that are returned to the state and local government, there is little doubt that people would be forced to pay for the benefits they desire. It would make both government and the citizens responsible adults when it comes to government spending at all levels.

No Democrat would ever contemplate such a radical shift and a Democrat controlled Congress would very likely not given Fred much of what he wanted if he had been elected. But even the Democrats can’t avoid the issue much longer. Fred literally wrote the book on the near future catastrophe at hand unless reforms in entitlement spending are initiated. In Government on the Brink (Volume II here) Thompson shows with a clarity lacking in so many of the superficial debates over “government spending” that there will shortly come a time when servicing the debt and paying for entitlements will eat up so much of the budget that it will not be possible to adequately defend ourselves or fund other, much needed domestic programs.

At any rate, this is what excited conservatives about Thompson in the first place and why I mourn the end of his campaign today. Fred Thompson talked about these and other issues that no other candidate would dare address. He didn’t speak in apocalyptic terms but rather explained his concerns in a straightforward, no nonsense, “Look people, this is the way it is and the way it’s gonna be” kind of way.

Krumm said that Thompson spoke in paragraphs when he needed to speak in sound bites. I don’t disagree strategically but I question whether Fred would have ever been able to do it and, given the substantiative subject matter, whether it was possible or not. I called him “The Anti-Soundbite Candidate” and indeed, it may have been a part of his undoing. But as I mentioned earlier, soundbites were only part of the problem.

Fred was running for president in a world where the selection process for the highest office in the land is conducted like auditions for American Idol. And the Simon Cowells in the media and punditland just didn’t think Thompson would ever become a star.

UPDATE

Just received this email from the campaign:

Statement from Sen. Fred Thompson

McLean, VA - Senator Fred Thompson today issued the following statement about his campaign for President:

“Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people.”

Thanks, Fred.

UPDATE II

Allah, playing it straight, has a point I don’t believe I’ve seen elsewhere:

So I’m chalking it up to disorganization. The alternative, that Bush killed the Reagan coalition dead and left Thompson types inviable no matter how efficiently their machines might run, is simply too terrible to contemplate.

Romney will certainly try to claim Reagan’s legacy but we all know that’s a crock. It would have been interesting to see Fred try to bring the factions together but Allah is suggesting that it may not have been possible to begin with.

One more thing, this may be bad news for Giuliani. Thompson was only pulling 6% in Florida but I think most of that will end up in Romney’s column. I wonder if Thompson’s national security conservatives who refuse to vote for McCain will end up in Rudy’s corner? That’s got to be a fairly small number of voters, however, and Rudy must be hopng that Huckabee discovers some cross over appeal to traditional conservatives in Florida.