Mika Brzezinski Becomes a White House Propagandist

The important part is here.

Do you want to know why I have a file that I've been working on with the White House—and I'll be very transparent about that? Because of your friend Rudy Giuliani who came here last week spewing out a whole bunch of nothing.

Now, it's good that Brzezinski said this but this is what happens in Iran, Syria and North Korea. Brzezinski just flat out admitted that she is running propaganda for the White House. The reason, in her mind, is entirely irrelevant.

Even if she thinks that Giuliani said a bunch of "nonsense", that's not an excuse to become a propagandist.

The Gulf Oil Spill: Why I Supported Rudy

Imagine if Rudy Giuliani was president. Do you think that the relief effort would look so disorganized? Do you think the government would look so impotent? Do you think the president would look so helpless?

For me, the presidency is much less about ideology and much more about leadership and effectiveness. Those are two things that go beyond ideology. That's why it never really bothered me that Rudy was pro choice and pro gay marriage. I didn't want someone ideologically mirrored to me. Instead, I wanted someone that could lead.

Presidents need to lead in crisis, in legislation, and simply day to day. In crisis, that's when leadership, and a lack of leadership, is most acute. Dick Morris described Obama's problem most succinctly.

And that intervention is the proper job of the president. He has to step in, ask the right questions, get inside and outside advice, and decide how to intervene to move the bureaucracy one way or the other. President Clinton had an excellent sense of how to do this and when to get involved. President Obama does not.

When the spill started, he and his campaign staff – now transplanted to the White House – reacted the way a Senator or a candidate would, blaming British Petroleum, framing an issue against the oil company, and holding it accountable. But what he needed to do was to review the plans for coping with the disaster and intervene to move the bureaucracy in untraditional but more appropriate directions. Instead, he let business as usual and inertia move the process.

The reason that Obama has been so incompetent in time of crisis is because he's a State Senator that ran for President while serving in the U.S. Senate. There's a reason why the last former legislator to be president was JFK. Ask any Governor that also served in the Senate and they'll all tell you they made more decisions in a month as Governor as they did their entire term as Senator.

They are two totally different skill sets. I didn't worry about Rudy in crisis because I already knew that Rudy handled crises effectively. Instead, Obama seduced people with his words and those that voted for him thought this was easy.

It's not. Leading and being effective don't just happen. They are skills that are difficult to find. Just because someone makes a great speech doesn't mean they can lead. Obama's no leader and that's becoming obvious.

No Bid Contract to Donor

Yet another Obama promise has been broken.

Despite President Obama's long history of criticizing the Bush administration for "sweetheart deals" with favored contractors, the Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News has learned.

The contract, awarded on Jan. 4 to Checchi & Company Consulting, Inc., a Washington-based firm owned by economist and Democratic donor Vincent V. Checchi, will pay the firm $24,673,427 to provide "rule of law stabilization services" in war-torn Afghanistan.

Of course, this was something that Obama railed against during the campaign.


During the campaign I remember Rudy Giuliani saying that the problem with presenting yourself as holier than thou is that it magnifies your weaknesses. The problem here isn't the contract itself but that President Obama was so visible in claiming such things would never go on.

Why Experience Matters

Back in December, when he was still a viable candidate, I saw Rudy Giuliani speak. His appearance covered many topics however his answers regarding taxes and spending will be ones I will remember for the long haul.

Rudy made a very fascinating point about the issue of taxes, and it is a point that one could only gather after the wisdom of experience. He said that when he decided the issue of taxes he always compared New York's tax rate on any particular tax to that of other large cities. He believes that the optimum tax is one that placed New York in the middle when compared to other cities. He made this point in the context of the corporate tax. He pointed out that the corporate tax rate in America is one of the highest in the world. He said that he wanted to cut it to just under 30% which would put it in the middle of the civilized world. He believed that if your tax rate was at the bottom, the city or country was leaving tax revenue on the proverbial table. On the other hand, if your tax rate was at the top that made your city or country uncompetitive.

On spending, Rudy said that being fiscally responsible came down to leadership. He said that in all his years of being mayor he never once had a department head produce a budget in which their particular budget was cut. Every department head wanted to make sure that their department maximized their budget. All of these were fine folks and of course they were his own appointees. Still, it isn't as though the head cop is going to produce a budget that cuts the budget of the police force. The same is true for the head of education and every other department. As such, in order to be fiscally responsible, it takes a leader willing to say no. It takes a leader that looks at all the budgets and figures out which ones need cutting.

These answers weren't just sensible and logical. They were also the answers of an individual that had the benefit of wisdom that came from experience. The reason that Rudy held such simple and logical ideas is because that is what worked in his eight years as mayor of New York. It's remarkable that in all of Barack Obama's speeches you'll never hear such simple logic. You'll hear all sorts of platitudes and broad and sweeping ideas. You won't hear anything that allows him to take those ideas and apply them to the real world. That's because he has no experience in the real world. The sort of wisdom that Rudy Giuliani has attained comes from the experience that Rudy Giuliani has attained. It is the sort of experience that is vital before becoming leader of the free world. It is the sort of experience that Barack Obama sorely lacks.

The Conservative Establishment Strikes Again?

There appear to be rumors that John McCain is considering a pro choice indvidual for his Vice President. Along with those rumors, the Conservative establishment is threatening a revolt. (more revolting here)

But while national defense necessarily occupies the front burner, McCain would make a fatal mistake to assume that social issues, especially abortion, are ever off an equally blazing front burner for an inestimable number of social conservatives, the Republicans' most reliable voting bloc over the past three decades.

Last Wednesday, McCain "floated the prospect" of picking a pro-choice running mate and said that former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge would be an acceptable -- and possible -- selection. He told The Weekly Standard: "I think that the pro-life position is one of the important aspects or fundamentals of the Republican Party. And I also feel that -- and I'm not trying to equivocate here -- that Americans want us to work together."

McCain must quit echoing the Democratic talking point that places form over substance and the illusion of bipartisanship above principle. Who says Americans "want us to work together" if that means abandoning legal protection for the innocent unborn or other inviolable principles?

Ironically enough, many of the same establishment threatened the same sort of revolt when John McCain was nominated. Of course, folks like James Dobson et al have since toned it down. It seems most of the same folks that snicker at Democrats for having an abortion litmus test want the exact same test only the other way around. It is of course unclear how a pro life VP would affect the issue of abortion in any tangible way, though frankly, I don't think that is the issue at all. This is more a power play for control of the party.

Let's face it. The Conservative establishment never really fielded a viable candidate that was acceptable to them. George Allen, the candidate I was initially drawn to, didn't win re election in Virginia. Then, Fred Thomspon turned out to be a weak candidate, and finally, they settled on the Johnny come lately conservative, Mitt Romney. None of them really had much of a chance. Instead of allowing McCain to be what he is, they are demanding that he pander to their whims. McCain is not a down the line conservative, period. The establishment finally accepted that and focused on defeating Obama.

Yet, now that McCain is daring to pick a VP that holds a different position on abortion than the establishment they are again threatening revolt. It appears they want the exact same litmus test they condemn some Democrats of having.

The reality is that the VP pick should be McCain's to make. He shouldn't be extorted into leaving someone out. Furthermore, on all practical levels a pro choice VP would put him in the best position to defeat Obama, which to me is the most important thing. Finally, McCain has long established that on the issue of judges, the place where abortion would be decided, he would pick strict constructionists. Rudy Giuliani has made the same pledge.

Yet, that isn't good enough for the Conservative establishment. Rudy Giuliani, for instance, is a fiscal conservative, foreign policy hawk, with a history of successful management and tough law and order credentials, but he is, in their view, not acceptable because he dares to stray on the issue of abortion.

So, what exactly is the conservative establishment planning on doing? Will they not vote? Will they vote for Bob Barr? Will they vote for Barack Obama? It appears that the conservative establishment is hell bent on performing voting hubris. Elections are not about some candidate meeting some sort of minimum threshhold. Rather, they are about looking at the potential candidates and choosing the best one. To demand that one candidate choose a certain VP even though they are the best either way, is nothing short of voting hubris. Is Bob Barr or Barack Obama really a better choice if McCain happens to pick a pro choice VP? I think not, and thus, these threats are made by folks full of arrogance. Here is the bottom line...

If Conservatives stay home, vote for Bob Barr, or vote for Barack Obama, then either of those choices means that Barack Obama is the next President. What that means is that at least two new judges will be just to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. It means our medicine will be socialized. It means will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. It means we will cut our defense, and negotiate with our enemies. It means a plethora of new government spending and taxes, and it means a quasi socialist form of economics. It appears the conservative establishment is willing to risk all of that in the name of principle. Ironically enough, every single principle will be trampled on if they in fact do hold to their so called principles.

Enemy Combatants in Election 2008

A few days ago Barack Obama said this about the latest Supreme Court decision and its effect on the upcoming election.

At a town hall meeting in Wayne, Pa., today, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., embraced an issue hardly made for his own TV ads: the rights of detainees accused of terrorism.

"I think we should make it an issue," Obama said, referring to the 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Boumediene et al v Bush "that said we are going to live up to our ideals when it comes to rule of law.

Basically what it said was those prisoners that we hold in Guantanamo deserve to be able to go before a court and say, “It wasn’t me” or “I didn’t do it.”

Obama is absolutely right that the two candidates couldn't be more different on this issue. Here is how McCain described the issue.

I think it's one of the worst decisions in history. It opens up a whole
new chapter and interpretation of our constitution.

The politics of this decision could in fact play a key role in deciding which of these two will get elected. It appears that John McCain sees this as an issue that benefits him just as Obama does. McCain immediately tied Obama's response to a "September 10th" mindset.

Senator Obama is a perfect manifestation of a September 10th mindset. He brings the attitude, the failures of judgment, the weakness and the misunderstanding of the nature of our adversary and the dangers posed by them to a series of policy positions,” said Randy Scheunemann, McCain’s senior foreign policy adviser.

The 1993 car bombing underneath the North Tower failed to cause a collapse of the building but killed six people and injured 1,042. Four of the co-conspirators were convicted in 1994 and two more in 1997.

His surrogate, Rudy Giuliani, echoed this sentiments.

Throughout this campaign, I have been very concerned that the Democrats want to take a step back to the failed policies that treated terrorism solely as a law enforcement matter rather than a clear and present danger," Giuliani said in a statement released by the McCain campaign.

"Barack Obama appears to believe that terrorists should be treated like criminals -- a belief that underscores his fundamental lack of judgment regarding our national security. In a post-9/11 world, we need to remain on offense against the terrorist threat which seeks to destroy our very way of life. We need a leader like John McCain who has the experience and judgment necessary to protect the American people."

The Democrats maybe stepping into a landmine on this issue. Here is how the responded.

(McCain) has fully embraced, willfully, openly, fully embraced the failed tragic policy of the Bush Administration over the last 7 and a half years, and he’s really defending a policy that’s indefensible.

Said Clarke: "I'd like them to show where in the record Sen. Obama has ever said he is in favor of a pure law enforcement approach."

Now, no matter what the issue they will say that McCain supports Bush and that it was disastrous. You will hear this over and over. That may work on the economy or Iraq where there is clear signs of problems, (or with Iraq where there were and then no one noticed when things turned around) but on this issue I think most folks are fine with terrorists being stuck in GITMO. I don't know how comfortable they are with these folks making their rounds through federal courts. Democrats can tie this policy to Bush all they want, but in effect, they are saying they want to see terrorists making their rounds through federal courts.

Civil rights are great in the abstract however here they are squarely for the civil rights of terrorists, at the expense of the safety of our own citizens. Here is how Kerry surrogate responded to a question from Bill Sammon about whether or not this would mean that Osama Bin Laden would be able to challenge his detention in a U.S. court if captured on the battlefield.

Let me answer that on several levels. This is John Kerry. First of all the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that they have those rights. This is not Barack Obama. This is the Supreme Court of the United States. If John McCain were president, he would have to give them those rights. This is a phony argument. And it is typical of what the Republican playbook is, which is say anything no matter what the other side has said. Just say it. And enough people may believe it unless you folks write the truth and write it boldly and clearly.

That sounds like a yes, and he can claim it is a phony argument, however Barack Obama supports the decision. He has made that clear. If UBL is captured and sent to GITMO, he would be able to challenge his detention in a U.S. Court. Barack Obama supports UBL challenging his detention in federal court then. That is not a position he wants to take to the U.S. public at large.

This issue can be tied to the issues of judges in general. Remember it was the four judges that were most similar to the philosophy that John McCain would support that voted against this decision. I continue to believe that the California decision to legalize gay marriage will be the most effective way in which to make judges a major campaign issue. Judges are usually a backburner issue, and that may still be the case this year. That said, it is also an issue that the base gets charged about. McCain has done plenty to turn off the base. Here is an issue that can energize the base on his behalf. There's almost nothing more that gets the Republican base more riled up than activist judges. There is few red meat more soothing than the sound of strict constructionist judges. On this issue, John McCain is lock step with the base.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, may see the issue of judges as a strong one because of his background in Constutional law. I think that maybe an overstatement. I don't know how much credence the general public gives to Ivy League type academics. Furthermore, if his background leads him to conclude that judges can usurp and create a right for gays to marry and enemey combatants to challenge their cases in court, then his experience is not worth all that much.

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.

The South Carolina Review

The only thing that it appears we know with each primary is that the race gets more muddled after each primary. Barack Obama took full advantage of South Carolina's large African American population. He won the state in a landslide and he won nearly eighty percent of the African American vote. The race continues to be muddled. Obama has important victories in South Carolina and Iowa while Clinton has victories in Nevada and New Hampshire.

Clinton continues to maintain a significant lead nationwide and in many of the Super Tuesday states. On the other hand, Obama may now enjoy the big mo from South Carolina. Of course, the big mo has turned out to be the big hype so far on both sides and so it is unclear if this victory is due to local demographics (a large African American population) or if it will lead to more victories in other states.

Obama has proven Dick Morris to be quite prophetic. He predicted long ago that this race would be neck and neck to the end and he also predicted that Hillary would end up victorious. So far, he couldn't have been anymore accurate.

The next major state is Florida for the Reps. It will be Rudy's Waterloo, and if you believe the polls, it will be the end of his campaign as well. Of course, if you believed the polls, Barack Obama would have won in NH, and Michigan would still be counting.

At this point, the only thing we know is that we know very little. I think the Dow Jones over the next week is easier to predict than the races on either side. Anyone who claims otherwise is fooling themselves and you. Stay tuned...

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.

Election Open Thread

It looks as though Hillary and Romney will win in Nevada. SC is wide open for the Reps. My guy, Rudy, is likely to be rooting for Fred Thompson and more realistically Mike Huckabee. If McCain wins, we will see if 2008 will ever have any momentum for anyone when the next primary hits Florida. There appears to be some bad weather in the Northern part of SC which may or may not affect the race. Stay tuned...

Rudy continues to live in Florida having as many as fifteen events weekly there. His Rope a Dope will either be proven genius or flawed after Florida.

On the Democrat's side, I don't think any of this matters much. I don't think there will be any clear leader heading into super Tuesday February 3rd, and so these early states are for show.

The race on both sides continues to be fluid.

Are FisCons the Key?

A couple nights back Dick Morris had an interesting analysis of the Republican race that I had few problems with. He said that because there is no one candidate that lives up to everything the Republican base is looking for, they are split into three camps. He believes there is the social conservative camp that is backing Huckabee. He thinks there is the GWOT hawks that are supporting either McCain or Rudy. Finally, there are the Fiscal Conservatives that are supporting Romney.

Now, I agree that there is no candidate that the base can settle on. Each of them has problems with the base in one manner or another. I agree that the Republican party is made up of these three factions however I disagree that the factions have chosen candidates quite so neatly. I don't think any of the camps are quite so monolithic or frankly simple.

Along with Iraq, what everyone will tell you is that the Republicans lost in 2006 because they lost their sense of fiscal discipline. The base finally got fed up with bloated prescription drug benefits, education programs, and a plethora of endless pork barrel projects (bridge to nowhere anyone). The fiscons were taken for granted and they lashed back. The party got crushed as a result.

I am still not so sure the Congressional Republicans have learned their lessons, however one thing is clear, the Presidential candidates have. As this race is unfolding, what is becoming obvious is that the one faction that no one is overlooking is the fiscons. Rudy is a social liberal who will have to win despite the Social Conservatives not because of them. Ron Paul is running as the dovish candidate and Romney and Huckabee have little if any foreign policy experience. McCain has ticked off all sorts of factions within the party.

What I have noticed is that along with stronger border enforcement, fiscal conservatism is a staple of each campaign. McCain has been out front as a champion of fiscal restraint. Here is the line he has used in multiple debates.

I guarantee you I’ll veto those bills. I’ll ask for the line item veto and I’ll veto them and I’ll make the authors of them famous.

Huckabee, Romney, Rudy, and Fred Thompson have each emphasized their records as not only tax cutters but as champions of fiscal restraint. Ron Paul has long been emphasizing shrinking government and taxes. We have an eclectic group of candidates: the former pastor running as populist conservative, the maverick war hero, the accomplished mayor, the business tycoon... Each of them has appealed to certain factions and also written off others. Except for one faction that is, the fiscal conservatives. It appears clear the one faction each of them will appeal to is the fiscal conservatives. Each candidate is highlighting their own record as a tax cutter and model of fiscal restraint while many times subsequently attacking their opponents record as less than acceptable fiscally.

That was the subject of Fred Thompson's attack on Mike Huckabee. He referred to his policies as big government, the fiscon death knell. Romney's record has been attacked and Rudy's record has been questioned. Most of the other candidates have attacked McCain's vote against the Bush tax cuts, the holy grail for most fiscons.

The one thing we know about the Republican Presidential race so far is that we know very little. It continues to be up for grabs. If we know anything though is that it appears that the candidates see the fiscal conservatives as key. Two years too late for most people but better late than never.

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.

Rudy's New Tax Plan

Here is the press release from the Club for Growth about Rudy's new tax plan.

Club for Growth President Pat Toomey praised Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s new comprehensive tax reform and reduction plan, unveiled today in Florida, calling it “a bold and innovative proposal that will reward hard work, encourage investment, and promote economic growth for Americans across the economic spectrum.”

The Giuliani tax cut plan would extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts immediately; eliminate the Death Tax completely; lower the capital gains and dividends tax rate to 10% and index capital gains to inflation; lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%; and permanently index the Alternative Minimum Tax to inflation with a plan for eventual elimination.

The Giuliani tax cut plan also contains a particularly bold pro-growth tax simplification strategy that would give taxpayers the option of opting into a simple tax plan in which their taxes could be done on one page. Instead of the current tax behemoth, the voluntary tax plan would constitute across the board cuts in marginal tax rates by proposing three simple rates of 10%, 15%, and 30%.

“Giuliani’s tax cut plan will encourage capital formation, and capital is the key driver of productivity, higher wages, and a better standard of living for all Americans,” Mr. Toomey continued. “He does that by not only lowering the capital gains and dividends rates, but also by indexing capital gains to inflation. Also, the Mayor’s plan dramatically lowers marginal tax rates at the personal and corporate level, which will encourage a significant burst of economic activity and growth.”

“The current U.S. tax code is a monstrosity of inefficiency and deterrence, with some of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world and a tax code that totals more than 66,000 pages. Mayor Giuliani’s tax cut proposal today would dramatically move the American tax code and economy in the right direction. This is exactly the kind of plan economic conservatives should embrace.”

There are several things to add. First, when I saw Rudy, he said something interesting and illuminating about taxes. He saw taxes in two ways: productive and unproductive. He thought unproductive taxes were those that were high compared to other entities. When he was mayor, he compared his tax rates to other large cities in the U.S. As President, he will compare our tax rates to those of other civilized nations. He specifically mentioned corporate taxes which he intends to cut as an unproductive tax. He believes that when taxes are higher than most other places, it drives business and people away. On the other hand, those taxes that are right in the middle are productive.

It is also clear that the battle lines will be drawn come the general election between the Republicans who will defend the Bush tax cuts and point to them as the catalyst to a four year pro growth agenda and the Democrats who will blame the tax cuts for what they see as a faltering economy. (Here is my defense of the tax cuts.)

Simplification of the tax code is something that a lot of pols have promised and so far it hasn't been delivered. Rudy also touched upon the alternative minimum tax. I am also in favor of its elimination, however, I have already pointed out that merely eliminating it is not that simple. I don't know the specifics of Rudy's plan to eliminate AMT however it must account for the significant loss in revenue.

Finally, this endorsement of Rudy by CFG is not their first, here is how they described his economic management as mayor of New York.

"Mayor Giuliani's economic record is not perfect, but he deserves credit for the remarkable nature of his accomplishments," Club for Growth President Pat Toomey said. "In a city long accustomed to high taxes and ballooning budgets, Rudy Giuliani successfully cut taxes; kept spending below the growth of inflation and population; instituted sweeping welfare reform; privatized and deregulated many aspects of the city's bulky bureaucracy; and fought aggressively for school choice."

The white paper emphasizes the liberal context in which Giuliani was forced to govern. Although the Mayor took a number of anti-growth positions-such as his opposition to NAFTA, his support for McCain Feingold, and his opposition to several tax cuts-he used free-market, limited-government values to turn around a faltering economy in a political environment dominated by a left-wing City Council; public sector labor unions; social welfare activists; and an unfriendly media.

"Rudy Giuliani will still need to flesh out his positions on a number of federal issues, and we hope he will reconsider his few anti-growth positions," Mr. Toomey said. "But it is impossible to ignore Giuliani's overall commitment to a pro-growth philosophy and his executive talent for implementing that philosophy in a hostile political environment."

This plan should be music to the ears of all fiscal conservatives, a huge base for Reps. Rudy needs to get back in the game. Only time will tell if this plan gets him there.

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.

Rudy to Announce Surge Plan for Afghanistan?

Rudy Giuliani will announce a new four point foreign policy plan in New Hampshire today.

Mayor Giuliani will announce a new four-point war strategy in New Hampshire today, an effort to refocus a primary campaign season for Republicans that has centered in recent weeks less on foreign affairs and more on immigration and domestic issues.

Specifically, Mr. Giuliani will call for a new military surge in Afghanistan, a change in the way America's spies are promoted so that officers are rewarded for finding actionable intelligence and not just the number of agents they recruit, and a new war on Al Qaeda's intricate network of Web sites, sites used both to communicate with its agents in the field and to recruit new jihadis.

As Republican voters have changed the conversation, Mr. Giuliani's campaign has dipped in the national polls and has pulled out of Iowa's first in the nation caucuses scheduled for tomorrow. Instead, Mr. Giuliani has focused his efforts on winning in Florida and South Carolina, and will be campaigning for a respectable showing in the first primary in New Hampshire.

Mr. Giuliani's new proposal also comes as President Bush heads to Jerusalem this week for his first trip there as president, and as the White House comes to grips with the crisis in Pakistan after the assassination of the country's former premier, Benazir Bhutto.