Brown V Coakley: The Homestretch

The Coakley campaign has turned into a series of gaffes. Mike Huckabee described it best last night on Hannity. He said that early in a campaign, you can overcome such gaffes. At this point

it's a sign of desperation

It's clear that Martha Coakley thought she would be coasting by now. She never took Scott Brown seriously as a challenger and, as such, she's now paying the price for it. The latest gaffes include this incomprehensible statement to a radio talk show host.

can have religious freedom, you, you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room

Coakley was asked about the controversial morning after pill. She responded that since it's now a standard medication that anyone that objects to it (namely a devout Catholic) shouldn't be working in an emergency room.

On top of that, the DSCC put out this ad.


Apparently, no one noticed that images of the Twin Towers might be, shall we say, insensitive. It's since been scrubbed but remains available on YouTube and thus fodder for folks like me.

The most troubling Coakley story is likely to be this one.

Yesterday, I reported on the horrific rape of a two-year old by Keith Winfield in 2005 in Massachusetts. Then-Middlesex County DA Martha Coakley failed to take action to bring charges against Mr. Winfield. Today, the story takes another turn. In part II of the Curling-Iron Rapist Case, let’s look at two of the key players in the case: The lawyer for the family of the raped toddler, Larry Frisoli, and his brother and legal partner, Frank Frisoli.

In this case a well connected police officer named Ken Winfield was accused of raping, with a curling iron, his nearly two year old niece. Then D.A., Martha Coakley, took a very long time to get a grand jury indictment. In fact, it wasn't until Larry Fisoli was hired by the family and put pressure on the D.A.'s office that charges eventually were drawn up. Winfield is now serving two life sentences. He was initially given a $20,000 bond upon being charged. Lisoli was so outraged by Coakley's handling of the case that ran against her in the next primary for D.A.

Watch for details of this case to trickle out over the weekend. Meanwhile, the Democrats are painting Scott Brown as "radical" because of his association with the Tea Parties.

With the race tightening, national Democratic heavyweights have stepped into the
picture and are lobbing harsh accusations at Brown's support network.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., claimed in an e-mail that "swift boaters" were trying to sink Coakley, a reference to the ads that targeted him in the 2004 presidential campaign. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called Brown a "far-right tea-bagger" in an e-mail, using a term that also can refer to a sexual act. Then on Friday, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., wrote in a fundraising e-mail that Coakley was "being attacked by tea partiers and right-wing radicals."

Levi Russell, a spokesman for the Brown-supporting Tea Party Express, said the
rhetoric is a "sign of desperation" from Coakley's backers.

"It's funny -- if your views differ at all with the Democratic establishment, then you're obviously a far-right extremist," he said. "None of that messaging is addressing Scott Brown on the validity of his views. It goes straight to name-calling."

Right on cue, a Tea Party group cut this ad.


Here's what President Obama's, Organizing for America, is saying in their last email.

There's a crucial Senate election in Massachusetts in just three days. We need your help to win it.

The polls are tightening as right-wing money floods the state, and one even shows the race to be a dead heat between progressive champion Martha Coakley and her extreme opponent. The truth is, special elections often have very low turnout and are notoriously unpredictable.

The stakes are just too high to leave Martha's victory to chance.

If we lose, Sen. Ted Kennedy's seat will be in the hands of someone who opposes everything he fought for. We'll lose a key vote for the President's agenda in the Senate -- and put all the progress we've made toward health reform at risk.

President Obama will be in Massachusetts this weekend. Finally, Scott Brown has turned into a fundraising machine.

Knowledgeable sources in Massachusetts tell The Daily Caller that Republican candidate for Senate, Scott Brown, has raised at least $1 million dollars every day this week, most of it online.

Although Brown’s campaign touted Monday’s money-bomb fundraiser that brought in $1.3 million dollars, the campaign declined to confirm totals for other days this week.

“I can’t comment on figures,” said spokesman Felix Browne.

His message of being the 41st vote against health care reform continues to be hammered home. It should be noted that as State Senator he voted for RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Brown calls the two bills much different but I find not a dime's worth of difference between them. If Coakley had any political acumen, she would have been attacking him on this mercilessly. Coakley, has however hit Brown with this health care related attack.

Democratic US Senate candidate Martha Coakley today highlighted her differences with her opponent, Republican Scott Brown, on health insurance reform by saying that Brown does not pay for health insurance for his campaign workers, while she does.

“We already knew that Scott Brown didn’t want to make health insurance more affordable for Massachusetts families and businesses. Now we learn that he won’t even make health insurance available for his own staff. If he won’t stand up for the people he employs, how could we ever trust him to stand up for us?" Coakley said.



Finally, here's some analysis of the race from Politico.

A House Divided in NY 23

It's hard to put into a box just who is supporting Dede Scozzafava in New York's 23rd special election and who is supporting Doug Hoffman in the same. At first, I thought it was the so called establishment supporting Scozzafava and those on the outside looking in supporting Hoffman. Yet, how do you explain the likes of Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann supporting Hoffman? I thought it was the conservatives in support of Hoffman and party loyalists in support of Scozzafava? How do you explain Newt Gingrich supporting Scozzafava?

In fact, what's remarkable about this race is two things, 1) you can't put into a box those who support Scozzafava and those who support Hoffman and 2) the race has unnecessarily taken on more significance than it ever needed to take on. This isn't the first special election and most aren't this controversial. In fact, here in the 5th district of Illinois we had one right after the election when Rahm Emanuel, who then held it, went on to become Chief of Staff in the White House. Both the Democrats and the Republicans held a primary and eventually Mike Quigley replaced Emanuel.

Therein lies the first problem. Dede Scozzafava wasn't chosen by the voters but rather in a dark room by power brokers. Insiders seem to never learn. When you choose someone in secret, with no transparency, the voters revolt. Such a corrupted process almost always leads to a flawed choice. For reasons that are still unclear, party insiders chose a moderate if not flat out liberal, Dede Scozzafava, for a seat that has comfortably gone to a Republican since 1871.

The race in 5th District took on almost no national signifcance. Plenty of local Democrats and Republicans ran. The people had a vote and a new Congressman was elected. In fact, about 10% of the registered voters voted. The race couldn't have been less interesting. This one has received attention from coast to coast. It starts with the process and ends with the selection of Scozzafava.

Dede Scozzafava has become the symbol, for many Conservatives, for what is wrong with the Republican Party. The Tea Party movement has decided to draw a line in the sand and flex its muscle electorally. Political heavyweights like Fred Thompson, Sarah Palin, and Dick Armey have all weighed in. Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney have been asked to weigh in. You'd think that we are nominating the president with all the attention of this race. Instead, it's a special election for the New York 23rd District of the U.S. Congress. Even after elected, this same person will have to be reelected in a year.

The consequences of this race can't be minimized. At some point, the Minuteman movement also decided to flex its electoral muscle. They backed Randy Graff in Arizona and Graff got crushed. JD Hayworth allied himself with the Minutemen and he is now a talk radio host. From there, the Minutemen became a marginalized group. That's what is at stake with the Tea Party movement. If this race goes to Hoffman, then the Tea Party movement has moved from an organizational force to an electoral force. If Hoffman loses, then the Tea Party movement will go the way of the Minuteman movement.

Meanwhile, if Scozzafava loses, what does that do the Republican establishment. If Scozzafava loses then the Republican establishment has no credibility electorally. If a candidate beats their candidate and they do it using all outside resources then the Republican establishment has little electoral power. If that's the case, what is the future of the party at large? If the Tea Party movement becomes the driving force in the Republican Party how will that transform the party? Those are all questions that remain unanswered but they'll need to be asked because of the dynamic of New York's 23rd.

From ObamaCare to Romney Care?

Foxnews is reporting that the White House maybe backing away from the "public option" in health care.

On Sunday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the so-called public option -- a government-run health care plan that would be just one component of a broader health care overhaul -- is "not the essential element."

Furthermore, on Fox News Sunday, Senator Kent Conrad said that the public option simply didn't have the votes to pass. Without the public option, the bill would look an awful lot like Romney Care in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, everyone was insured as well. Employers were mandated to provide coverage for their employees. Those that weren't working and couldn't afford insurance had it subsidized by the state government along with employers.

Now, the current bill, at least in the House, is much more complicated than that, but most key principles would now make ObamaCare and Romneycare indistinguishable. Those princples are these. In both, Medicare/Medicaid would be expanded. In both, employers would be mandated to provide coverage. In both, those without care would be fined. In both, the government would subsidize those that couldn't afford health care. It's also important to note that Romney Care is now bankrupting Massachusetts.

If Obama pulls out the public option, he will have no choice but to move the entire bill to the right and make it a center right bill. The reason for this is that removing the public option would peel off a significant portion of liberals in the Congress. Simply removing the public option won't get many Republicans on board.

By removing the public option the president would guarantee that the only bill that would pass would be one that would ally Republicans and moderate Democrats. Such a bill could pass though it would look nothing like the current bill.

Republicans are not going to stand for a bill that forces businesses to provide health insurance to their employees. They aren't going to stand for a bill that imposes penalties on those that choose not to get health insurance. Republicans also want tort reform and many Republicans want health insurance to be able to cross state lines. Republicans are also big supporters of Health Savings Accounts. I said earlier that the President would need to embrace a health care bill in the style of Bennet/Wyden if he wanted sweeping reform to pass. Removing the public option could be the first step toward that evolution. If he follows through and moderates the bill entirely, not only will he get sweeping health care reform, with bi partisan support, but he will pull off an impressive piece of political jujitsu. He will move from a coalition of liberals to a coalition of moderate and conservatives.

Romney 2012? Two Words: Romney Care

The last few days conservatives have begun to demonize the health care system in Massachusetts. That's because, in the view of many conservatives, Massachusetts' health care system is congruent to the health care system that President Obama is attempting to construct. That's simplified. Here's how it's similar. It requires every citizen to have health insurance. It requires all employers, but the smallest, to provide health insurance to their employees. Finally, those that don't make enough money have their insurance subsidized. Here's how it's different. It has no public option.

Here's the important point. Universal health care in Massachusetts has FAILED.

The new state budget in Massachusetts eliminates health care coverage for some 30,000 legal immigrants to help close a growing deficit, reversing progress toward universal coverage just as Congress looks to the state as a model for overhauling the nation’s health care system.

Gov. Deval Patrick wants to restore $70 million to partly cover legal immigrants. The affected immigrants, permanent residents who have had green cards for less than five years, are now covered under Commonwealth Care, a subsidized insurance program for low-income residents that is central to the groundbreaking health care law enacted here in 2006.

Critics of the cut, which would save an estimated $130 million, say it unfairly targets taxpaying residents and threatens the state’s health care experiment at a critical time.

It's failure is the real world example of what happens when you add people to the system without adding doctors. That's what opponents of the current plan say. What the president says is that we already give those people care and without insurance they cost more to the system. Interestingly, and ironically, here's what the Governor Mitt Romney said when he was about to sign his version of universal health care.

Medical care for Massachusetts patients who lack health insurance is paid for by businesses. Companies -- mostly ones that already offer coverage to their employees -- subsidize a fund that pays for so-called "free" care when uninsured people end up in hospitals.

"We're spending a billion dollars giving health care to people who don't have insurance," Romney says. "And my question was: Could we take that billion dollars and help the poor purchase insurance? Let them pay what they can afford. We'll subsidize what they can't."

Replace Massachusetts with the U.S. and Romney with Obama and there's almost no difference between the way Romney sold his form of universal health care and the way the current president is selling his.

Is there any doubt that Republicans hate Obamacare? They don't merely hate it but with a passion. What's the signature piece of legislation for Mitt Romney? It's his version of universal health care.

While they aren't identical, they are plenty similar. It's failure in Massachusetts speaks for itself. Just today I see that Rasmussen has Mitt Romney leading among Republicans. Give me a break. Romney is supposed to be the fiscal conservative standard bearer and his signature policy is breaking the state's bank. I'm supposed to believe that three years after waging a fierce battle to keep universal health care from being imposed on the nation, the very same party will choose as its standard bearer the man that imposed it on his state. I don't think so. Romney's chances for 2012 went by the way of Romney Care.

Answering Frank Rich

I don't mind liberal commentators and pundits as long as they make an effective argument. It isn't very much fun to listen and read only those that hold the exact same position as you. In fact, one of my favorite pundits is Marc Lamont Hill who generally holds largely liberal positions. That said, when a pundit makes a partisan argument that is largely dishonest or even misleading they must be exposed and challenged. One of the worst offenders is Frank Rich of the New York Times and his latest column is no exception. While the column largely focuses on perceived deficiencies in McCain's economic policies, Rich can't refuse a jab at his foreign policy to begin with.

In a time of war,” Mr. McCain said last week, “the commander in chief doesn’t get a learning curve.” Fair enough, but he imparted this wisdom in a speech that was almost a year behind Mr. Obama in recognizing Afghanistan as the central front in the war against Al Qaeda. Given that it took the deadliest Taliban suicide bombing in Kabul since 9/11 to get Mr. McCain’s attention, you have to wonder if even General Custer’s learning curve was faster than his.

Mr. McCain still doesn’t understand that we can’t send troops to Afghanistan unless they’re shifted from Iraq. But simple math, to put it charitably, has never been his forte. When it comes to the central front of American anxiety — the economy — his learning curve has flat-lined.

Actually, it is Mr. Rich that doesn't understand. We have lots of troops besides those currently on the battlefield in Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, we have so many troops that for a year we were able to maintain twenty thousand more troops in Iraq than we do now and still maintain the same presence in Afghanistan. What Mr. Rich does is attempt to continue to perpetrate this liberal myth that Iraq is putting a burden on our military that we can't overcome.

Then, Rich spends the rest of the article taking jabs at McCain's economic policies. He spends several paragraphs attacking Phil Gramm. Gramm is of course an easy target after his very public verbal gaffe. It is a rather ludicrous guilt by association because while he attempts to paint Gramm as economically challenged he doesn't specify very much. This becomes a pattern because Rich spends quite a lot of time bashing McCain's advisors

Mr. McCain made a big show of banishing Mr. Gramm after his whining “gaffe,” but it’s surely at most a temporary suspension. When the candidate said back in January that there’s nobody he knows who is stronger on economic issues than his old Senate pal, he was telling the truth. Left to his own devices — or those of his new No. 1 economic surrogate, Carly Fiorina — Mr. McCain is clueless. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger, a supporter, said that Mr. McCain’s latest panacea for high gas prices, offshore drilling, is snake oil — and then announced his availability to serve as energy czar in an Obama administration.

...

Ms. Fiorina, the ubiquitous new public face of McCain economic policy, adds nothing to the mix beyond her incessant display of corporate jargon, from “trend lines” to “start-ups.” Before she was fired at Hewlett-Packard, its stock had declined 50 percent during her five-plus years in charge. She missed earning projections — by 23 percent in one quarter — much as she now misrepresents both the Obama and McCain records. This month she said Mr. McCain wanted to require insurance plans to cover birth control medications along with Viagra, when in fact he had voted against it.

...

Ms. Fiorina received a $42 million payout (half in cash) from H.P., according to a
shareholders’ subsequent lawsuit. With this inspiring résumé, she now aspires to be Mr. McCain’s running mate. So does the irrepressible Mitt Romney, who actually was a business whiz before serving as Massachusetts’s governor. Beltway wisdom has it that the addition of such a corporate star will remedy Mr. McCain’s fiscal flatulence.

But Mr. Romney, while more plausible than Ms. Fiorina, is hardly what America wants at this desperate time. His leveraged buyout dealings as co-founder of Bain Capital induced plant closings, mass layoffs and outsourcing. If Mr. McCain truly intends to “put our country’s interests” above politics and reach across the aisle to move the nation forward, as he constantly tells us, why not go for a vice president who’s the very best fit for the huge challenges at hand?

Rich says quite a lot there while saying oh so little. First, it appears that folks that were actually responsible for things like payroll, earnings, employees, and corporate health are now the sort of folks that are bad economic advisors. I suppose the sort of advisors that he thinks are best are academics and critics like himself. Anyone's record can be attacked especially when the attacker doesn't have to match their own accomplishments to that of the person they are attacking. I won't defend Ms. Fiorino's term as CEO of Hewlett Packard except to say that the position speaks for itself. Most of Obama's advisors are academics with no history of actually doing anything. Thus, it is more difficult to attack their accomplishment.

I also didn't miss how slyly Rich made Arnold Schwarzenneger the end all and be all of everything on oil drilling. Just because Arnold is against oil drilling, doesn't actually make it a bad idea. It's this sort of anecdotal evidence that is a hallmark of Rich's work. Furthermore, Rich claims that Arnold is a supporter that is also more than willing to serve in an Obama administration. So, what sort of a supporter does that make him exactly?

As for Fiorina's allusion that McCain wanted to cover both birth control and erectile dysfunction, that is a function of lack of communication not a lack of economic understanding. Birth control is a choice. Erectile dysfunction is a condition. Medical insurance should NOT cover a choice but should cover a medical condition. While Fiorina showed a lack of communication, McCain did show an acute understanding of proper insurance that Rich clearly doesn't.

Then, Rich proceeds to lay out the mother of all red herrings.

Romney vs. Bloomberg is not a close contest. Bloomberg L.P. has roughly three times the revenues and employees of Bain & Company, where Mr. Romney ultimately served as chief executive. Mr. Romney rescued the Salt Lake City Olympics while running it in 2002, but Mayor Bloomberg revitalized New York, the nation’s largest metropolis, after the most devastating attack in our history. The city he manages has more than twice the budget of Mr. Romney’s state.

Yes, Mr. Bloomberg is a closet Democrat and an alpha dog who doesn’t want to be a second banana. And his views on gay civil rights and abortion would roil the G.O.P. base. But Mr. Romney shared some of those same views before he flip-flopped, and besides, these are not ordinary times. Millions of Americans are losing their homes and jobs. Whole industries are going belly up. The national crisis at hand, not yesterday’s culture wars, should drive the vice-presidential pick.

I don't doubt that Mr. Bloomberg would be an excellent choice for an economic advisor, however that doesn't make the other two choices any less appropriate. Furthermore, if Bloomberg is really a "closet Democrat" as Rich proclaims, why didn't Obama make him his own economic advisor. Furthermore, there are plenty of other logistical reasons for Bloomberg not being McCain's economic advisor, like most of all that Bloomberg has his own Presidential ambitions.

Finally, Rich perverts McCain's vote against the Bush tax cuts.

But this is fantasy political baseball, not reality. Mr. McCain, sad to say, hung up his old maverick’s spurs the day he embraced the Bush tax cuts he had once opposed as “too tilted to the wealthy.” And Mr. Bloomberg? It’s hard to picture a titan who built
his empire on computer terminals investing any capital, political or otherwise, in a chief executive who is still learning how to do, as Mr. McCain puts it, “a Google.”

Democrats have fixated themselves with McCain's vote against the Bush tax cuts in 2003. Furthermore, they are fixated with the idea that he opposed them because they were too tilted to the wealthy. Of course, their tilt was of minor concern to McCain. What concerned McCain then was that they were done in the middle of a war and without the benefit of spending cuts. I don't need Google because we have McCain's own words. You will notice that he says,

I cannot AT THIS TIME vote in favor of tax cuts



It appears that to folks like Frank Rich there should be difference in policy positions in a five year time frame. When John McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2003 that was itself a flip flop. McCain has a long record of cutting taxes. His main opposition to the tax cuts was that they weren't met with equal cuts in spending at a time we were in two wars.

Now that McCain doesn't favor their roll back, or a tax increase, during a time of recession, they see that as a flip flop. This sort of distortion of McCain's record cannot be left unchallenged.

McCain, Conservatism, and Pandering

The term Conservative is hard to define into a quantifiable sphere and so it is hard to measure how or if John McCain is conservative. He has always been pro life, and he has long fought for good fiscal spending. (He is a founding member of Citizens against Government Waste for instance) He has long been a proponent of strong national defense, and on the GWOT no one is more hawkish and ready to prosecute it more effectively and aggressively. The problem McCain has with Conservatives is two fold. He strayed from them on certain key issues and he did it rather loudly.

The issue of illegal immigration is his main beef with conservatives. McCain/Kennedy included a provision to allow a path to citizenship for all those that entered the country illegally. McCain has indicated that if he could that provision would likely not have been in the bill. The problem is that McCain knows all too well that crafting bills and turning them into law requires a level of pragmatism that won't always match a rigid ideology. In order for a law to be passed, it has to get through two houses of the legislature and a potential veto. Unless your party controls both ends of the legislature, the White House, and it has a veto proof majority in the Senate, you are going to have to reach across the aisle to craft legislation. That's what McCain did with McCain/Kennedy. Working with the other side used to be a noble thing, however in this day and age, allying yourself with the likes of Ted Kennedy is nothing less than blasphemy in Conservative circles.

Frankly, McCain has a more liberal position on illegal immigration than most Conservatives. Unlike most conservatives, he doesn't necessarily think that all illegals should be punished with some sort of deportation. That said, for the most part, his position is pragmatic. He believes that illegal immigration is a serious problem. He wanted to craft legislation to attempt to solve it, and he believed that flawed legislation was better than no legislation at all. In the real world of legislating, crafting compromised bills that give concessions to the other side is a reality. On the other hand, in the world of true blue Conservatives, compromise on core principles is blasphemy and a flawed bill is much worse than no bill at all.

McCain's second biggest problem with Conservatives is McCain/Feingold. On this issue, I believe that McCain became obsessed with a real problem and just simply didn't realize that his solution was no solution at all. I believe that this legislation is a well intentioned but misguided attempt to solve a problem. Rather than solve it, the bill created all sorts of new problems. (like the proliferation of so called 527's that are the hallmark of the George Soros strategy) While I have serious problems with McCain/Feingold, I don't reduce a forty year career to one well meaning but misguided bill. True blue conservatives don't see it that way. They saw McCain/Feingold as an attack on the first amendment and a betrayal of Conservative principle.

The next problem Conservatives have with McCain is the so called Gang of 14. Conservatives wanted to strong arm the Democrats into eliminating the filibuster which they believed was abused by the Democrats against strict constructionist judges. Now, I found the Dems' ploys to be obscene. Elections have consequences and Presidents choose judges that have their type of philosophy. The Democrats didn't even have enough votes to stop the judges, so they filibustered them in a cynical attempt to stop what should have been a reasonable process. That said, I saw what happened when Tom Delay tried to strong arm Texas Democrats into accepting his re districting plan. The Democrats wound up being camped out in Oklahoma in a spectacle that frankly had all losers and no winners. Political gamesmanship has no winners, and the Democrats were likely not merely going to accept the nuclear option of eliminating filibusters on judges. The whole government might have shut down and who knows what else. That was likely what McCain was thinking about when he lead a group of fourteen legislators that agreed to a vague principle of extraordinary circumstances in filibustering judges. Again, that wasn't enough for true blue Conservatives. They wanted a confrontation and compromise was blasphemy.

The problem that Conservatives have with McCain is that he would rather do what he thinks is right than what some set of conservative principles tell him to do. He is generally a conservative thinker. His record generally bears that out. The American Conservative Union gives him a lifetime rating of 82. (that's out of 100) That is certainly not a perfect conservative but generally a conservative. The irony is that every Conservative's favorite non Republican, Joe Lieberman, only got a lifetime rating of 17. Lieberman is adored by most Conservatives more than most Republicans and that's because he dared to buck his party on the issue of Iraq and national security as well. Lieberman and McCain are very similar politicians. They generally look at an issue and try do what they think is right. One is generally liberal and the other generally conservative, however ideology doesn't drive their decision making. It is quite ironic that the exact same trait that warms conservatives to Lieberman, his independence to ideology, draws ire of McCain.

Both McCain and Lieberman are exactly the sort of politicians that I admire. Both value the good of the nation over their own careers and ideology. Unfortunately, given the manner in which the campaign has been going, I don't know that I can now classify most of the conservative leaders in the same way.

This brings me to Mitt Romney. There is plenty to like about Mitt Romney as a candidate. He has a long distinguished record as a successful leader and effective manager. That, to me, is the most important trait in a President. Of course, most conservative leaders have been drawn to him for other reasons. They see him as the new standard bearer for Conservatism. To me, this is pure nonsense. Most of Romney's conservative principles have been discovered just in the last couple years. Most of the conservative establishment from talk radio, to blogs, to Ann Coulter, they are all lining up behind Romney because they see him as the Conservative standard bearer. The problem is that Romney is no more Conservative than McCain. The only difference is that Romney bowed down to most conservative principles right before he got elected. Essentially, Romney is telling the Conservatives what they want to hear. In other words, Conservatives don't mind if you pander as long as you are pandering to them.

Here is how one commenter described Romney.

ABORTION RIGHTS "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard."

Boston Herald Debate, 10/29/02 "Roe v. Wade continues to work its destructive logic throughout our society This can't continue." Speech to the Massachusetts Citizens For Life Mother's Day Pioneer Valley Dinner, 5/10/07

IMMIGRATION REFORM "With these 11 million people [here illegally], let's have them registered, know who they are....those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship."

Lowell Sun, 3/30/06 "One simple rule: no amnesty. If that [Kennedy-McCain bill] is not a form of amnesty, I don't know what is." New York Times, 6/4/07 [Romney is apparently the only remaining GOP candidate who has actually employed illegal aliens -- at the Romney Mansion]GUN LAWS

"We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety." Romney in 2002 gov. debate, Boston Globe, 1/14/07 "

I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself. I'm a member of the NRA [for less than one year] and believe firmly in the right to bear arms." Boston Globe, 1/14/07 AMENDMENT TO BAN GAY MARRIAGE "Mitt does not support it...As far as Mitt
is concerned, it goes farther than current law, and therefore it's unnecessary." Romney spokesman, Boston Globe, 3/22/02 [As governor, Mitt Romney issued an executive order forcing justices of the peace to perform homosexual weddings, or resign. Then he ordered marriage licenses changed to read "party A" and "party B" – instead of "husband" and "wife."]

"When I was Governor, we took every conceivable step within the law to stop, block or slow down this unprecedented court decision." Speech to National Right to Life Convention, 6/15/07 "

NO NEW TAXES" PLEDGE "I'm not intending to, at this stage, sign a document which would prevent me from being able to look specifically at the revenue needs of the commonwealth" Associated Press, 3/27/02 "

Signing the pledge now sends a very clear message to those in Washington
who have voted against tax relief and for tax hikes that such actions will never
grow our regional and national economies." Romney spokesman, Boston Globe,
1/5/07

MINIMUM WAGE "I think the minimum wage ought to keep pace with inflation. I
think the minimum wage is a good thing to have in our economy and I think it
ought to be updated." Boston Globe, 10/17/94 "[T]he challenge with raising the
minimum wage excessively is it is a hurt to those that are entering the work
force, the very poor, those that are trying to get early jobs, get those first
jobs." Associated Press, 7/25/06

CUTTING SOCIAL SECURITY"I don't think you go back and rewrite the contract
the government has with people who've retired." Boston Globe, 10/17/94 "Personal
accounts would be a big plus."... [Romney]also said changing the retirement age
could be considered, as well as basing the Social Security cost of living
adjustment on a different inflation gauge. Union Leader, 6/7/07

ADOPTION NON-DISCRIMINATION Governor Mitt Romney and a legislative leader yesterday delivered unwelcome news to the Catholic bishops of Massachusetts, who plan to seek permission from the state to exclude gay and lesbian parents from adopting children through its social service agencies. The governor said he was not authorized to give such an exemption... Boston Globe, 2/17/06 "And then another slide along the slippery slope. The Catholic Church was forced to end its adoption service, which was crucial in helping the state find homes for some of our most difficult to place children... Now, even religious freedom was being trumped by the new-found 'right' of gay marriage." Speech to National Right to Life Convention, 6/15/07

STEM CELL RESEARCH [Romney]endorsed embryonic stem cell research, saying the controversial science might one day help treat his wife's multiple sclerosis...."I am in favor of stem cell research. I will work and fight for stem cell research. I'd be happy to talk to [President Bush] about this, though I don't know if I could budge him an inch." Boston Globe, 6/14/02 "

FACT: Governor Romney Opposes Using Taxpayer Money to Fund Embryo-Destructive Research." MittRomney.com A Record of Protecting Life

BUSH TAX CUTS Governor Mitt Romney refused yesterday to endorse tax cuts at the heart of President Bush's economic program...In addition to refusing to endorse the president's tax cut, the governor surprised several people at the meeting by saying he is open to a federal increase in gas taxes.

Boston Globe, 4/11/0 [Romney] said it was "absolutely critical" to renew tax cuts proposed by President George W. Bush. Letting them expire would result in a "massive tax increase" that would retard economic growth, Romney said. Detroit Free Press, 2/8/07

The commenter went on. I don't have time to check the veracity of each of the points, however there is no doubt that many of Romney's conservative positions are new found. I have been in sales for years and I know the power of telling people what they want to hear. That is what Romney is doing here. He is telling the Conservatives what they want to hear. The Conservative establishment is eating it up. They have turned this individual, who only recently became a Conservative, into the new Conservative hope. This is no different than the employee kissing the boss's a$$. That is what Romney is doing, only the boss is the conservative establishment and he is kissing their a$$es by bowing down to their principles.

The whole thing makes me sick. The Conservative establishment is rewarding the exact behavior they would abhor if it were done to the other side. They are rewarding exactly the sort of behavior that cheapens the process. They are doing it because they value ideology more than principle. Because McCain has his own set of principle and he refuses to bow down to anyone, the Conservative establishment has made him their enemy, even though more times than not he is with them. The Conservatives don't want a person of principle. They want someone that bows down to their ideology. The whole process has made cynical. A good man has been demonized because he dare stray from their core set of values. They reward obvious pandering because that pandering is directed at them. I wish it were different but my fellow ideological brethren have disappointed me.

The Primary Coverage: Hyperanalysis, Saturation...Enough Already

Here is how much of a political junkie I am. I get emails from the Rudy campaign, the McCain Campaign, the Duncan Hunter Campaign, and even Hillary's campaign, and that doesn't include the plethora of political websites and interest groups like GOP USA and the Minutemen that also send me emails on a regular basis. This political junkie has had it with the primary season and I am quite curious about the new evidence in the Natalie Holloway case and that's only because it has nothing to do with the primaries. At this point, I am searching for a tv station that constantly produces the sound of nails on a chalk board only because that also has nothing to do with the primary election.

Everywhere I turn, I find good honorable candidates get cut up and hyperanalyzed by folks who frankly have no standing or credibility to criticize a garbage man let alone long standing public servants. The last two days everywhere I turn, I find an endless stream of hyperanalysis of whether or not Mitt Romney did or didn't call for a timeline...whether or not John McCain did or didn't lie about it...and whether or not John McCain did or didn't say he wouldn't nominate someone like Sam Alito to the bench. Both professional and amateur pundits hyperanalyze every word, every movement, and every sound until no one is sure what the debate is.

The whole entire thing is trivial and worthless. Let's look at this battle over timelines for instance. Comparing the record and credentials of John McCain to Mitt Romney on issues relating to Iraq, GWOT, and foreign policy in general is sort of like comparing the basketball games of LeBron James to my own. There are many good reasons why Mitt Romney would be a great President however none of them relate in any way to being ready to be Commander in Chief.

Many amateur and professional pundits then try and paint John McCain as a liar for suggesting Romney was for timelines. No living American has sacrificed more and served more honorably for this country than McCain. To question his character and principle, especially if you are one with little sacrifice or accomplishment of your own, is really the height of hubris. Most of these folks that question his integrity have an agenda. They may hate McCain/Feingold or McCain/Kennedy, but that isn't enough for them. Thus, they create imaginary issues of character to further demean McCain. Make no mistake similary tactics have been used against all the candidates on both sides.

All these amateur and professional pundits are preaching to the choir. No one is going to be swayed by their obvious and clearly biased rants. Furthermore, they all say the same thing. I can't turn around without someone proclaiming that they refuse to vote for this or that candidate under any circumstances, or that you must vote for this or that candidate or face the wrath of a third or fourth candidate winning the White House. Every Republican candidate has been portrayed as being the end of the Republican party as we know it as well. Most of these rants are frankly nothing more than an homage and a regurgitation of the rants of the likes of Rush Limbaugh. It is one thing for Rush to do it, but when his rants spawn a million other rants that are frankly no different, well, then, this political junkie has had it.

Blogging evolved from so called citizen journalists who felt the media had ceased to do its job effectively and decided that they would do it for them. It turns out that most bloggers aren't very much different than the very pundits they rail against, only they are a lot less eloquent, they don't get paid, and their political ideology is different. The very same citizen journalists that scream about bias, lack of disclosure, and corruption in the media, then turn around and write a biased, corrupt, piece in which they fail to disclose that they support an opponent of the very politician they rail against.

All of this writing is written for the benefit of no one but sycophants. Here is just one example of what I mean.

I oppose a McCain nomination not only because he has a liberal record and his hallmark legislation was 1) a blow to free speech (McCain-Feingold), 2) an attack on democracy and capitalism that enabled people like Hillary Clinton and Mr. Hsu to raise millions of dollars through apparent fraud, meanwhile preventing people like you, me, and Chuck Norris from donating more than a few thousand dollars to a candidate we support (McCain-Feingold), 3) an attack on national sovereignty and the rule of law (McCain-Kennedy), 4) capitulation to global warming hysteria (McCain-Leiberman), and an attack on free markets (All of the above cited legislation), but most of all because he has been dishonest in his campaign.

At least this blogger disclosed his bias, however the only one being dishonest is th blogger themselves. McCain has a long a distinguished career and he has never had his character questioned, at least not with any credibility, even if he did misconstrue Romney's position, and that is not at all clear, wouldn't forty plus years of distinguished service give McCain some slack to cut. In fact, the blogger doesn't like McCain, I believe, specifically because of McCain/Feingold. There is no problem there, however creating this red herring about so called lying in the campaign is nothing more than a means to blunt a politician that he doesn't support. With all of the accusation traded by every campaign against every other one, it is beyond irresponsible to isolate one attack and hold said politician to a standard that you refuse to do with any other.

The whole entire thing makes me crazy. Today, Michelle ran a piece questioning McCain's allegiance to the free markets. Apparently, something that McCain said last night spawned this latest attack. I am frankly fed up to even bother reading the contents and figure it out. All I know is that he has had thirty plus years of public service. If he really was anti free market, it wouldn't have taken until last night to realize it. The politicians frankly attack each other enough for me. I really have no use for people that are supposed to naturally suport them following suit and attacking them some more. Isn't there anything positive that anyone can say about anyone of the candidates on either side?

I have watched good man after good man...from Rudy, to McCain, to Romney, to Huckabee, and now McCain again, get put through the gauntlet. Because folks are unhappy with one thing, or two things, or even three things, they must be unhappy entirely. McCain is unacceptable because of McCain/Feingold or McCain/Kennedy. A lifetime worth of work is rendered irrelevant because one or two or even three political actions weren't what some people wanted. Back in April, John McCain gave an empassioned and eloquent defense of the surge and the war in Iraq in general. At the time, the conventional wisdom was that such a defense was political suicide. McCain didn't care and he risked his entire political future on the outcome of an unpopuluar war. He was fond of saying this...

I'd rather lose an election than a war

When the chips were down, he was the only one to stand up for a policy that was successful but unpopular. Yet, none of the so called critics that incessently hyperanalzye and hyper criticize McCain ever give him even one iota of credit for this political courage.

Frankly, and ultimately, McCain is demonized by Conservatives because he dared to stray from the Conservative line from time to time and he chose a different path. He did it from time to time mind you. On the whole, he is quite conservative, but that isn't enough. Because he dared to cross the line and work with liberals on some issues, he must be destroyed and demonized.

Of course, McCain isn't the only one to face the firing squad. He is just the one to face it now. Romney's been called a flip flopper. He's had everything from his health care plan, to his tax plan, to his border plan, hyper analyzed for any hint that it too might stray from the conservative party line. If there was a hint, then that was also immediately hyperanalyzed and demonized.

Don't get me wrong. Of course, candidates should be criticized and they should be scrutinized when it is appropriate. I don't have a problem with any questioning anyone else's record. The problem I have is when that is all there is. Going by what I have read each and every candidate in the field is one step above the devil. They will each destroy the party and the country, and they are all ruthless tyrants with no ethics, morals or principles. The whole thing makes me sick. I heard that there is movement in the Natalie Holloway case and also that Brittney is in trouble again. I can't wait to get more details not because I care, but because neither has anything to do with the election.

The Florida Primary or Rudy Gets Doped by his Rope a Dope

Florida turned into Rudy's Waterloo rather than his Rope a Dope and John McCain is now the clear front runner in the Republican field. Florida is also the second state, and the two largest so far, to not count for the Dems.

There is really little to add. Rudy's strategy turned out to blow up in his face rather that to be the sort of genius that I surmized a while ago. John Edwards dropped out in the aftermath of the results. The CW is that this will help Obama. CW hasn't been right more than it has been wrong in this election cycle so what it actually will do is to be determined.

It is clear that the entire nominating process should be analyzed after this is over. Rudy was pretty much stuck with an impossible strategy because in the end he had no choice. Florida and Michigan won't have any delegates count toward the Dems even though they will toward the Reps. Iowa and NH continue to play a role way more than they deserve in nominating the President, and no one can explain to me at least how these two states hijacked the process and forced the rest of us to bow down to them.

The race now comes down to Mitt and McCain for the Reps and Obama and Hillary for the Dems. Anything can happen on either side and events remain fluid.

Why Do We Do It This Way, Again?

So, the first sets of primaries are almost over. The Dems will have their first in the South, SC, later this week and then everyone will focus on Florida. It is time again for my primary rant, and to ask why do we do it this way again?

Let's look at some of the things that happened. Mike Huckabee won in Iowa on the strength of a huge Christian Conservative contingent. That is all well and good but Iowa is in no way representative of the rest of the country in terms of the representation of Christian Conservatives in the Republican party. John McCain won in NH. NH is a state with a heavy independent contingent. He appealed to independents, who number about as many as Reps and Dems, and went on to victory. In Michigan, Mitt Romney rode his native son status to victory.

On the Democratic side, we have had three major states vote and as of yet there has not been any significant numbers of African Americans able to vote. Worse than that, in Iowa only 200,000 people voted for both parties. Thus, 200,000 people played a vital role in an election for a country with a population of about 300,000,000.

Ethanol is an alternative fuel that has been explored for viability as an alternative to petroleum. Some believe it gets too much exploration. Studies have found that the best case scenario would have only about 15% of our automobiles being powered by ethanol. Well, John Stossel, among many, believes that ethanol gets too much attention because Iowa, a state with a plethora of corn, is the first state to vote in the primaries.

So, why do we do it this way again? What I can't understand is how two relatively unimportant states have held the rest of the country hostage and forced their will upon it. Why again is it that these two states are always the first two to vote? There is absolutely no logical rhyme or reason for having them ALWAYS go first, and I have pointed out one piece of evidence of how this dynamic twists our politics.

By having Iowa and NH go first every single time, what we do is create winners out of candidates best suited to field those states. These two relatively small states have unique demographic makeup. You saw how well Huckabee took advantage of it in Iowa, and how effective it was for McCain. You see how it has caused Rudy to stay down low until Florida and caused him to ride an extremely risky strategy. Furthermore, Barack Obama has not been able to compete in a state where African Americans make up a large contingent yet. Had Hillary won both Iowa and NH, this race would have been virtually over before any significant numbers of African Americans had voted.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why the rest of the nation cedes so much power to these two states. Michigan moved its primary up and the DNC cancelled their delegates and the state was moot for them. Yet, Iowa and NH insist that they go first every single time, and no one challenges them. It's as though they would revolt and secede from the country if the rest of us dared to challenge their "right" to host the two first elections.

Meanwhile huge states like California, Texas, and Illinois are nearly irrelevant in the primary process. This is despite the fact that their populations are not only much larger but also much more diverse. It is random and illogical to have two relatively random and small states like NH and Iowa play such a huge role in the primary process. SC, which normally chooses third, has chosen the Republican winner every single time. How is it fair, or logical, or proper to have this relatively small state be such a power player in the primary process?

My state, Illinois, will finally have some say in the selection process since it was moved up to Super Tuesday. There has never been an election in the primaries where the candidates paid any attention to Illinois. By the time Iowa votes, most of the candidates will have traveled to nearly each of their counties. I doubt any county but the most important, Cook, ever sees any candidate in Illinois.

There is absolutely no reason for this and I can't figure out why we all continue to do it. This is puzzling much like the BCS. In both cases, we have a flawed system that everyone knows and agrees is flawed. In both, no one seems to want to do anything about it.

Digesting the Michigan Primary

There were two main winners: Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. The two big losers were momentum and Hillary Clinton.



With the Michigan primary we now have three winners in three primaries on the Republican side. Mitt Romney took home this primary and rather decisively. The whole week was dedicated to the so called momentum of John McCain. He was suddenly leading in the national polls, Florida, and South Carolina. He was leading in just about every poll except for the only poll that mattered, the voting in Michigan. With Romney winning in Michigan, Rudy's rope a dope strategy looks more and more ingenius. It appears after analyzing the results of the first three states, that momentum is meaningless. Huckabee supposedly had momentum after Iowa and it lead to a fourth place 12% finish in NH. McCain supposedly had momentum after winning NH and it lead to a ten point loss in Michigan.



Now, it appears to be Romney's turn as the so called front runner. As Sean Hannity pointed out, this is two gold and two silvers in the first four states. (Wyoming voted however it wasn't taken too seriously for whatever reason) He now leads in the delegate count and he will supposedly enjoy the so called momentum into South Carolina.



The best analysis of Romney's victory went something like this. McCain made a statement that inferred that it was likely that many of Michigan's lost jobs will be lost forever. Romney pounced on it and countered with his own plan that called on all sorts of government spending to bring jobs back. The voters apparently liked Romney's plan better than McCain's straight talk.



If this is the case, it goes to show again that the dynamic in one state won't transfer to the next. Huckabee consolidated most of the Christian Conservatives, who were plentiful, in Iowa and rode them to victory. That couldn't be replicated in NH because the voting bloc is totally different. In Michigan, the state's own economic malaise, which apparently is large, was the main topic.



None of this means anything going into South Carolina. Fred Thompson is apparently riding on his last solid debate performance. Huckabee has already put a line in the sand and is staking out that state. McCain was leading however that was before the Michigan primary. I don't know how Romney's message will resonate.



Rudy is lying low watching this go on, while he practices good old fashioned retail politics in Florida. He continues to have dozens of campaign events per week. His organization is strongest, and I saw several of his commercials from my home Chicago during the Michigan primary coverage. It appears more and more as though the other candidates will battle it out for meaningless delegates while no one gets any momentum and Rudy will be waiting for everyone in Florida.

On the Democratic front, it is apparently a long and complicated story why Hillary nearly lost to none of the above. That said, the whole story, sad to say, doesn't matter. Because Michigan and the DNC couldn't come together, their delegates are not being counted in the convention. Everyone else, short of Kucinich, boycotted the primary entirely. Her victory would only have helped momentum and nearly being beaten by "uncommitted" won't help that. That said, this race will have most of its story written in Florida and super Tuesday. This result will likely have little effect either way.

Rudy's Rope a Dope?

Is Rudy playing a rope a dope with his fifty state strategy? That is the perverbial 64 thousand dollar question. I have actually been known to add a dig or two to the strategy from time to time. Have I been to harsh and does Rudy know exactly what he is doing?

The genius of the plan is that if it works, it will work from the effective use of old school, textbook politics: retail politics. While the rest of the field is criss crossing South Carolina and Michigan, Rudy is about to embark on a bus tour of Florida...

That's the question after a two-day bus tour morphed late Thursday into a five-day swing through the state, further buttressing Giuliani's bet on winning Florida to make a serious stab at the GOP nomination. He arrives Friday in Coral Springs, and then on Saturday, hits Bradenton for a town hall meeting and speaks in Port Charlotte, both on Saturday.

And then the bus tour starts Sunday through Tuesday across the state.

Rudy has chosen to put all his resources in Florida and the states that follow on Super Tuesday. That's why I was treated to a commercial from Rudy Giuliani during the Republican debate from my place in Chicago. I have already attended a Rudy event and their office in Illinois (downtown Chicago) is full staffed with phone banks twice a week. While I haven't studied the campaigns of his opponents, I have to believe that in states like Florida, Illinois, California, New Jersey his organization is heads and shoulders more superior. He is relying on good old fashioned retail politics trumping the hype of the supposed momentum that others will get from winning the earlier and smaller states.

It will also come down to good old fashioned math. The sort of resources that Romney poured into Iowa and McCain poured into NH, Rudy is pouring into Florida. Florida's delegate count along with that of the other states (Illinois, California, New York, Washington, etc) Rudy is putting the majority of his resources into states with most of the delegates.

Rudy is also riding demographics. Huckabee won Iowa mostly appealing to the unusually large Christian Conservative base in that state. That is not the sort of constituency that Rudy will do well appealing to. NH is more moderate and there was fertile ground to Rudy, however McCain made a stand there appealing to many of the same type of folks. South Carolina and Michigan are also states where Rudy wouldn't be appealing to a good constituency. Florida is just right for Rudy. There is lots of wealth. They are more moderate. His social positions are a lot less of a drag in Florida than in say Iowa or South Carolina.

The other thing Rudy will need is luck. He can't have any one individual winning too many of the states, and so far things have fallen down quite nicely in front of him. Huckabee won Iowa but then finished fourth in NH. We will see how he will do however his momentum is questionable. McCain won NH and currently has momentum, but that would all be reversed if Romney wins there. Thompson has made South Carolina his final stand. This will open up very nicely for Rudy if Romney wins Michigan and Thompson wins South Carolina, however it is likely that McCain can ride his momentum into victories in both states.

By focusing on Florida, he becomes the only game in town so to speak. It is grass roots politics at its finest. He has about a dozen of events in Florida in just the next week...townhall meetings, speeches, barbecues...if there are Florida Republicans gathering Rudy will likely be there. The pundits were constantly pointing out that folks in NH and Iowa liked the politicians to meet them face to face. That is what Rudy is doing in Florida. Why should that state be any different? Only in Florida he is the only one doing it.

If he wins Florida, he will immediately take over the delegate lead. Furthermore, he will move into Super Tuesday and battle in states in which his organization is far superior to any other candidate. Taking the blows of losing states like Iowa, NH, South Carolina may seem like some sort of a failed strategy, but it may just be Rudy's rope a dope.

Deconstructing Barack Obama

This piece would have been a lot more timely yesterday at about four P.M. Central time when every person of note was predicting an Obama ten point victory and clear sailing to the nomination. Still, his campaign is formidable and should not be underestimated. He has three things that make any candidate formidable in any free election: charm, charisma and likeability. That said, I believe a combination of incompetence and little substantive difference has stopped Hillary from stripping Obama's message down and exposing it for the house of cards that it is. He is running on a very powerful message... a message of hope and unity. From my perspective that message is built on nothing. Obama doesn't say anything any other politician wouldn't say, he just says it in a charismatic way so that folks believe him. The problem for Hillary is that her policies aren't substantively any different than his. Thus, she can't attack his policies and thus his message gets out to the public.

The Republican candidate should have no such trouble, and so here is how I believe his opponent should deconstruct Obama and strip him of his hopeful message.

The first issue is illegal immigration. I pointed out earlier that in words and deeds Obama has a steadfast record of open borders policy that shows more compassion for law breakers than for the rule of law. In last summer's illegal immigration debate, he voted against two amendments of note: one to outlaw criminals and terrorists from entering the country and the other to commit to following the laws already on the books. When Obama was in the Illinois legislature, he was one of the legislators leading the charge to grant driver's licenses to illegals in the state. Driver's licenses for illegals was rejected by seventy percent of liberal New York staters. That gives you an idea of how it would play in the rest of the country.

Here is what Obama said to the open borders group La Raza...

And I will never walk away from the 12 million undocumented immigrants who live, work, and contribute to our country every single day.

He has absolutely no plan for securing the borders. He skipped a vote to outlaw sanctuary cities like his hometown, Chicago, and voted to allow children of illegals amnesty through the DREAM Act. These maybe positions that are favored by the Democratic base but are totally untennable in any general election. The Republican candidates all have tough border enforcement credentials, yes even John McCain, and they can and better attack his open borders policy.

His social policy can be summed up this way...he stands to the left of Planned Parenthood on abortion. He once voted for a bill that actually allows doctors to still abort a baby even after it is out of the womb. The bill was called the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and here is how Amanda Carpenter described his actions on this bill...

But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”

Let's remember Obama is not merely pro abortion but he goes so far as to be pro partial birth abortion. The Supreme Court decision on partial birth abortion became an issue in the Democratic Primary this past spring. Here is how Obama reacted...

I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women,

Now, any veterans of my work know that I have a serious problem with emotional rather than logical arguements. That said, his support of partial birth abortion presents a great opportunity for any Republican (Rudy included who is against partial birth abortion) to run an advertisement appealing to emotion. Most people have no idea how brutal the act of partial birth abortion is. Any add that describes its brutality and links Obama to it can easily appeal to folk's emotions.

Here is how the process is described.

The entire infant is delivered except the head. A scissors isjammed into the base of the skull. A tube is inserted into the skull, and the brain is sucked out. The now-dead infant is pulled out.

Now, that makes for a visual advertisement. The brutality and inhumanity of partial birth abortion is unspeakable and Obama is not only on record as supporting the process but condemning a Supreme Court decision as some sort of a slippery slope intrusion on reproductive rights. Clearly, Obama will look to appoint judges that see this practice as perfectly constitutional and that is something for his opponent to exploit. Again, while partial birth abortion may play in the Dem primary it won't in the general election.

On Iraq and the GWOT he also has issues to exploit. His position is on Iraq becomes less and less tennable each day. He will have to BS his way through the position. The surge continues to show more and more signs of progress and we are still eleven months from the election. Keep in mind that Obama favors a withdrawal of forces. That withdrawal would reverse every single gain the surge has produced and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. A vote for Obama means a victory in Iraq for Al Qaeda. It is as simple as that and the Rep opponent must hammer that home. On the GWOT in general, his position is convoluted and naive. He favors dialogue with sociopathic dictators like Ahmadinejad and Assad. He has even hinted at an opening of dialogue with Castro in Cuba. Obama foolishly believes that he can charm the despots and dictators of this world.

The key to countering his naive message and exposing it for what it is..is credibility. John McCain has the most credibility on the war in the Rep field. Most of the candidates have some credibility, however McCain would be in the best position to expose it. Keep in mind that Obama insinuates that his plan for dialogue is new. It isn't. The Clinton admin met many times with both Assad and Arafat. It didn't work, and dialogue with sociopaths never works. The only way dialogue would work is when those despots are in a clear position of weakness. Reagan first created an arms race the Soviets couldn't win and only after the Soviets knew it did he dialogue. Obama's dialogue is described by himself as unconditional and that position can be exposed for the naive and inexperienced that it is.

On the economy, attacking Obama is a lot more difficult. The economy will likely be in trouble and many of his domestic programs, like universal health care, poll well. That said, I would attack them two ways. The first is with my favorite Reagan quote

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Obama thinks our health care system is broken and he wants to help. He thinks our mortgage system is broken and he wants the government to help. He, like most traditional liberals, thinks the government must ultimately control the economy. I personally would merely like one of the Republicans to invoke the phrase in response to anyone of his numerous big government, ultimately more taxes, proposals, however the concept is there no matter how it is described.

Second, the Reps must make it known that this election comes down to those that believe the government knows best and th market knows best. I pointed out yesterday that embryonic stem cell research is one of many examples of liberals believing that the government is a better arbitor than the free market. Obama is like any other standard liberal who believes that on issue after issue: health care, global warming, mortgages, embryonic stem cell research, it is the job of the government to make decisions and not the free market. I disagree and I firmly believe that any candidate that wants to put all this control in the hands of the government is a candidate that will lose.

Finally, there is experience. The reason that this hasn't worked for Hillary isn't only because the Democratic electorate is looking for a message of hope and change, it is also because her so called experience is a fraud. The major Rep candidates have no such problem. Whether it is Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney, all of these candidates have real, practical experience and a history of effectiveness and leadership. Obama has nothing. The biggest thing he has run is his Senate office. Obama has a standard response that involves saying that experience could be the wrong kind of experience. That is true with Hillary because she really had no experience. Rudy turned around a city deemed ungovernable, and lead them through crisis and turmoil. Is that the wrong kind of experience? Huckabee governed his state for ten plus years and left as one of the most popular and successful in his state. Is that the wrong kind of experience? Romney ran a successful business, olympics and then a state...is that the wrong kind? John McCain is a war hero, Senate leader and a main of unquestioned principle, toughness and moral being. Is that the wrong kind of experience? Barack Obama's inexperience only appears to be a non issue because he is matched up with folks who's experience is really no different than his. In the general election, that will no longer be the case.

The New Hampshire Review...or Rumors of Hillary's Demise Were Greatly Exaggerated

My favorite political pundit is Dick Morris. I recently wrote about his prophetic words in the aftermath of the 2006 election about the troubles the Dems would have controlling Congress. He turned out to be right and for all the reasons he mentioned. In the beginning of the year, he also said that the Democratic race would go back and forth in a bitter struggle and he predicted that Hillary would win in the end. While we certainly don't know a winner yet, his prophetic prediction of a back and forth struggle appears to be quite accurate.

A day and a half ago, the punditry was writing Hillary's obituary. She was all but written off and now she is the favorite once again. There are two ways to look at this race. The first is that the two first states were split and so there is no momentum. If there is no momentum, then Hillary is the favorite since she has a rather large lead in the national polls. The second way to look at it is that Obama nearly swept the first two states and we haven't even gotten to any states with any significant African American voting block. I won't make the mistake of other folks and even venture a prediction, however I will state the obvious: it is definitely one of those two.

On the Republican side, I must first admit that McCain's victory speech was so powerful I nearly switched my support, nearly I say. The only thing we know about the Republican race is that we know very little. The conventional wisdom now has McCain as the frontrunner though the same CW had Huckabee as the frontrunner after Iowa. I think Romney is through, however there is no doubt he is going to make one last stand in Michigan. He had the traditional strategy, win Iowa win NH, and he needed it. While he lead in both states for a long time, he was far down nationally. Without victories in either state, I don't see him getting the kind of momentum he would need to compete in important states like Florida, California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois.

Now, I referred to McCain as Rudy's proxy in NH. I believe that McCain needed to win NH in order to stop the momentum of Romney and Huckabee. He did that however there is a divergent school of thought. The other school of thought is that McCain's victory will push Rudy to the side because they occupy the similar tough, strong on the GWOT, moderate space. It is hard to know who is right, however Romney becomes Rudy's proxy in Michigan and Fred Thompson will become Rudy's proxy in South Carolina. If those two folks win each of those two states, then the race opens wide for Rudy to win Florida and ride super Tuesday to the nomination. Well, as a late friend of mine loved to say...

if if was a fifth we'd all be drunk

What I think the scenario I laid out shows is that Rudy's strategy is terribly flawed. He has a supposed fifty state strategy however it includes none of the early fifty states. There is something to be said for focusing on the huge delegate count of Florida and not overemphasizing Iowa and New Hampshire, however not only does this strategy have huge and obvious risks but he could have at least been competitive in each of these states while maintaining his overall strategy.

It is onto Michigan. The DNC has shunned the state for moving their primary up so it matters not to the Democrats but the results there will make the Rep race a bit, a bit I say, more clear

Hillary's Theme Problem

You really gotta love politics. A couple months back the whole entire punditry was wondering just exactly how inevitable Hillary's candidacy really was. Now, Drudge is reporting that Hillary's campaign maybe through. Four years ago, Barack Obama was struggling to get the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate (I believe it was Blair Hull that was leading for a while before scandalous information was revealed about his divorce, and ironically Jack Ryan's campaign in the general election against Obama suffered a similar fate), and now he is on the verge of the Democratic nomination for President.

Now, I certainly don't believe the reports from Drudge. I don't think that even if Hillary loses in New Hampshire she is through, and I certainly believe that she will only go down with a political scorched earth strategy. Thus, this nomination is anything but wrapped up by anyone, however while the numbers in New Hampshire should concern Hillary there should be something much more concerning. Why is she running for President?

If you look at any of the major candidates, they all have themes to their candidacy. For a while, the theme the media helped construct was inevitability. The problem is that being the inevitabl candidate is not a reason to vote for someone. Obama has the politics of hope. He is hoping to ride a positive, uplifting and inclusive message to the White House.

John Edwards has his two Americas. He is looking to ride a populist message to the White House. Rudy Giuliani wants to ride effectiveness and leadership to the White House. Huckabee has a similar positive and uplifting message to Obama's. Fred Thompson is trying to be the only true conservative in the race. Mitt Romney is trying to ride a similar experience and effectiveness theme to the White House. John McCain is running as the principled, courageous leader who was not only was out front on criticizing the failed Rumsfeld strategy, but was the only one standing up and supporting the new policy that now has many backers.

What is Hillary's theme? She tried to ride a theme of experience, however I believe that didn't work well because she isn't all that experienced. Most of her experience comes as the wife of another individual that was governing. She has little to show for her own experience. She tried to ride a theme of being the toughest in the campaign, however this was no less silly since her husband went on the attack everytime she was challenged.

She has most recently tried to be the agent of change, however her opponents have quickly and accurately painted her as all too much part of the establishment. She isn't calling for the immediate withdrawal of forces from Iraq, and she isn't saying she wants to win in Iraq. Her foreign policy amounts to bashing the current policy. That isn't going to do much since every Democrat's foreign policy will center around bashing the current one. Her domestic policy is standard liberal and its differences between that of her rivals amounts to trivial nuance that most voters don't understand or get.

She tried a charm offensive only the main problem is she has no charm. I believe the real problem is that Hillary doesn't know why she is running for President besides her own lust for power. She has some standard liberal things that she wants to accomplish, however they are substantively no different than any of her primary opponents. Besides that, she doesn't have a theme like her opponents. Someone needs to know why they are supporting a candidate. I look at Rudy and see an accomplished and effective leader and that is the reason I support him. A Fred Thompson supporter sees the only true conservative in the race. Even Ron Paul supporters see someone that is beholden to the Constitution. Obama supporters see a fresh face that brings hope back to politics. All those themes I get, I don't see a theme there for Hillary.

Quick Post Iowa Thoughts

Here is the latest GOP Presidential Futures data. The futures market saw the big winner as John McCain. He is now the favorite in the market. McCain continues to be all in in NH. He must win and that is still no easy task given that Romney is essentially a favorite son. Keep in mind that a third of folks in New Hampshire watch Massachusetts television. Despite coming in a very distant sixth, Rudy also had a good night last night. His proxy, Mike Huckabee, took the victory and foiled Romney's momentum strategy. I continue to believe that Romney was the biggest threat to Rudy because only Romney had the resources to challenge Rudy nationwide. Huckabee might get the sort of funding he needs as a result of this victory however that is not likely. He is unlikely to finish better than third in NH and so some momentum will be stalled.

Even with victory in NH, McCain faces a similar national problem to Huckabee: organization and cash. Rudy is of course likely rooting for McCain in NH, and would pull off the trifecta if say Fred Thompson won in South Carolina. This is Rudy's dream scenario and it would turn his campaign into an oracle even if it was likely by accident as i suspect.

Fred Thompson finished third in Iowa, tied with McCain. The blogosphere was jubilant. They treated it as a victory and continued to throw venom on a report by the Politico that he would drop out. I am of the opinion that most of the right blogosphere is totally out of their minds and cheer leading rather than analyzing. Thompson is likely to not finish better than third anywhere and is fourth nationally. If there is a winning strategy there, I am missing it.

Ron Paul got double digits which will no doubt send his supporters screaming revolution all over the internet.

The situation remains fluid and the nomination is still up in the air. I believe Romney is through whether he wins NH or not. McCain must win NH or he is through, though a victory could give him the sort of momentum necessary to make a national run. Huckabee needs to ride this momentum into cash or organization or soon enough folks will realize that Iowa doesn't have many delegates. He will likely not do as well in more moderate and independent NH, but will be on more friendly turf in South Carolina. Rudy must simply sit back and hope no one gains any momentum and hope his lead in Florida maintains till the 29th. If he wins Florida, he will win the nomination because that is a victory with real momentume, however as a friend of mine liked to say,

if if was a fifth we'd all be drunk

The Democratic race is now a serious two horse race. Hillary maintains a national lead, with money and organization. Still, her performance in Iowa must bear the question: what is the purpose of her campaign. Obama is running on the politics of hope and he has charm, charisma and likeability. I, myself, don't buy the act at all however I am his political opponent. At least, I get the point of his campaign. Edwards has his two America's shtick. I don't buy it either but at least he has a shtick. What is the purpose of Hillary's campaign? I think the folks in Iowa were asking that question.

While Edwards beat Hillary, he was all in in Iowa. He has little presence outside Iowa and less cash, and worse than that Hillary and Obama are drowning in cash. His campaign continues but it is in the beginning of a slow and painful death.

Obama could take control of this race with a victory in NH. He would ride that momentum to a likely victory in South Carolina and winning each of the first three states would make him difficult to beat regardless of his position nationally.

Hillary is not through by a long shot, however I see her campaign as weak. While a loss in Iowa is not the end, I don't see how she will re gain momentum. She tried a charm offensive except she isn't charming. She has equivocated on Iraq and driver's licenses for illegals. She frankly has equivocated on everything. She touts experience even though it seems even the Dems get that it isn't really her experience. She has no messag, purpose, or theme to her campaign. That is a problem.

A word about John McCain from A Supporter and More Election Coverage

My cohort, Josh Levy, of Win The War, wanted me to pass along this message about the candidate he supports, John McCain...

No one is as prepared as John McCain to lead in foreign policy. McCain will bring us victory in Iraq and stop radical Islamists in Iran and Syria. At the same time, he will cut federal spending, and appoint originalist Justices to the Supreme Court.

Now is the time to give. McCain needs to win New Hampshire in order to win the nomination, and he's on the verge of doing just that. $25 from you will help him run the commercials necessary to gain the lead.

Please go here to contribute.

Of course, Josh was much more forceful in drawing comparisons in his own blog...

Last summer it looked as if the U.S. was going to suffer defeat in Iraq - not because American troops had been defeated but because public support at home was disappearing. The new Democratic majority was pushing almost every day to "redeploy" (read: "retreat"), and it looked more and more as if Republicans were going to cave in. In July, one Republican senator after another started going wobbly.

Unlike the doubters, Sen. McCain put himself at the head of the political battle to win the war. When the odds were against him, he staked the future of his career on victory. To drive his point home, he launched the "No Surrender" tour and spent several weeks speaking to crowds in several states, almost single-handedly renewing Republican support for persevering in Iraq.

Meanwhile, where was Romney?

He was awfully quiet that summer.

When he did speak, he hedged his bets. As he told Chris Wallace on August 12, "if we’re making progress that suggests there's a reasonable probability of success in stabilizing Iraq, that’s a course I'm going to follow.”

Hardly a Churchillian moment.

I have nothing but respect and admiration for Senator McCain. I think he would make an excellent President, however I have found a candidate that I believe is even stronger. Rather than getting into an ideological battle here,
I will simply let the audience see why I support Rudy for themselves if they like.

Now, Josh is right about several things. First, McCain certainly stood alone for the surge long before it was fashionable if it is even now. Second, McCain does need to win in New Hampshire in order to get the nomination. The latest averages from RCP continue to have Romney leading however that lead is dwindling. The latest average has his lead down to 2.8%. The very latest poll out of NH even has McCain leading by 6 points though I am not a big fan of isolating one poll.

Interestingly enough, the biggest fan of John McCain in NH is probably my guy Rudy Giuliani. Just like Mike Huckabee has become Rudy's proxy in Iowa, McCain has become the same in NH. If Romney loses either state, he is in some trouble. If he loses both he can pack it in. If he wins both, he probably gets the nomination on the other hand. Rudy continues to do poorly in both states, however he continues to maintain tenuous lead nationally. He is counting on no other candidate gaining too much momentum going into late January when some delegate rich states like Florida, California, Illinois, New York and New Jersey vote. He maintains leads, sometimes dominating, in those states, and unless the momentum of early victories captures momentum for another candidate, he will maintain those leads.

This sure is the season for all junkies of politics.

Analysis and Reaction to Mitt Romney's Speech

Mitt Romney gave a speech many believed he needed to give discussing his faith. I didn't hear it or see it so I will act merely as a sort of weigh station of news and reaction to it.Power Line has audio of the speech and a full transcript.

Over the last year, we have embarked on a national debate on how best to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America's greatness: our religious liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my Presidency, if I were elected.

There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams’ words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today.

The view from the right blogosphere was generally impressed.

He appealed to religious liberty, the liberty that America was founded on. He pointed to what a lack of religious freedom can lead to. And I think he did an excellent job of showing Americans that he is indeed an ally in the fight for the collective faith of all Americans and the religious freedoms we too often take for granted.

The right punditry was more balanced.
There was much in the speech that evangelicals and other religious conservatives will find to their liking. First, there was Romney's treatment of religious liberty. He said it is an inalienable right "with which each is endowed by his Creator." He implied it is, amongst all our liberties, the very first. Romney said he understood the religion clause of the First Amendment as being fundamentally about securing "the free practice of religion" and pointed out that while achieving religious liberty has been a long and arduous process, its benefits--"diversity of cultural expression" and "vibrancy of .  .  . religious dialogue"--are evident and contrast sharply with what you find in Europe, where established churches seem to be "withering away."

Second, Romney took a whack at those (unnamed) who take "the notion of the separation of church and state .  .  . well beyond its original meaning" by seeking "to remove from the public domain any acknow-ledgment of God." It is, he said, "as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America--the religion of secularism. They are wrong." Romney called for public acknowledgments of God--"in ceremony and word." God "should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places." Romney even managed to work in a reference to judges, saying we need jurists who will stick to original meaning and let stand, for example, "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Third, Romney affirmed that religion is a force for the nation's well-being. "No movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people," he said, citing as examples abolition in the 19th century and civil rights in the 20th. He also mentioned "the right to life itself," a movement not yet finished--and clearly of importance to many Republican primary voters.

The rest of the punditry was a lot more mixed. Here is some from E.J. Dionne.

Romney's speech at the George H.W. Bush library in College Station, Tex., was by turns brilliant and frustrating, inspiring yet also transparently political in its effort to find the precise balance that would satisfy Republican primary voters.

When he spoke of the dangers of subjecting candidates to doctrinal investigations, Romney had perfect pitch. His opponents -- particularly Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister who is reaping a great harvest of evangelical Christian support in Iowa -- should join him in warning against religious bigotry."

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines," Romney said. "To do so would enable the very religious test the Founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president, he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."There was also his poetic assertion that "we do not insist on a single strain of religion -- rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."

But in light of all this, it was a neck-snapping moment when Romney declared: "What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind."

With those words, Romney legitimized the most fundamental test being imposed on him in some evangelical Christian quarters. He was telling them he deserved an "A" on the religious exam they cared about most. He has every right to declare his faith in Jesus, but didn't his profession, in this context, undercut his central and proper contention that a candidate should not be asked to "describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines"?

Here is one from the Salt Lake Tribune...

The Creator] should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in
the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and
menorahs should be welcome in our public places.

Clearly a nod to religious conservatives who are pushing for religious expression in the public sphere.

So many of the [European] cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer.

This speaks to the fears of the religious right that if they don't protect and promote religion now, America will go the way of secular Europe.

Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom. . . . killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood.

This is pure religious right rhetoric, but it is also offensive to Muslims to use "Islamists" as a term of fear and horror.

We do not insist on a single strain of religion - rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith.

The "symphony of faith" may be Romney's best metaphor, but critics are already using it against him, pointing out that humanists, agnostics and atheists seem to be excluded from playing.

Finally, just for fun here is the view from the Kos.

He didn't say the word "Mormon" once, I don't think. [UPDATE II: Final word count score -- Mormon: 1; Muslim/Islam/jihad: 5] So to the extent that you bought the hype and tuned in because you had genuine questions about the LDS church, you came away empty-handed. And possibly with the nagging feeling that Romney's hiding something after all.

What the speech did succeed in showing is that the Romney operation is the nearest successor (to date) to the Bush operation in its willingness to play the press corps for suckers. Promise a "major address" on some pressing issue, play the expectations game according to the Conventional Wisdom -- that is, raising the stakes by having surrogates use back channels to inflate expectations about the importance of the substance to be addressed -- and then turn it all on its head by delivering nothing of what was promised, and daring the press corps to write their stories with their pants down, having played into the game of promising something big.

The other master stroke here was the choice of venue: the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library. That puts the Romney name next to the Bush name in the papers -- a grab at the mantle, if people will just look past the "H" -- and it allows Romney to deliver what was essentially Republican religionist pablum (I believe in God, He should be on our money, plus we need "our kind" of judges) from behind a podium bearing the presidential seal. A media consultant's dream come true, and what should be a fat bonus for the advance team (but they never get the money).

There is the full view.