RAGGED THOTS

The smart young liberal journalist Adam Serwer of Mother Jones invited me to sit down -- in separate cities -- for a fine conversation on various political and cultural topics: Mitt Romney's "gifts" that keep on giving; demographics and the political parties; and, oh yeah, the rise of the Black Nerd on TV (I take full responsibility for introducing that topic -- while somehow forgetting to include the inimitable Donald Glover of Community in my list! D'oh!)!

Anyway, we had a good time. Hope y'all enjoy it -- either in small doses or for the full 43 55 minutes!

And without further ado:

Labels: 2012 presidential election; Barack Obama; race, Latinos; Hispanic; Asian-American, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, women voters

On Thursday, The Wall Street Journal's Jason Riley and I discussed President Obama's first post-election press conference and Mitt Romney's conference call with his donors.  This was the now much-criticized session where Romney blamed his loss on the various "gifts" that he distributed to various parts of the electorate.

Jason and I both shared our horror at Romney's comments -- not merely because of the content, but also because of the political foolishness demonstrated by allowing the press in on a call to one's donors! Apparently, there was more than one lesson Romney failed to pick up in the fallout from the "47 percent" debacle!

In any event, here's the video:


A rather perceptive observation on the "gifts" statement was also made by my former boss Newt Gingrich.  If it was all about "gifts," why did Republicans do worse with Asian-Americans than they did with Hispanics?  ("Right, seventy-three percent of Asian-Americans, seventy-one percent of Latinos," the Texas Tribune's Erik Smith corroborates.)

Gingrich follows up: "This is the hardest working and most successful ethnic group in America, okay. They ain’t into gifts. Second, it’s an insult to all Americans. It reduces us to economic entities who have no passion, no idealism, no dreams, no philosophy..." 

Some might want to jump on Gingrich by implicitly buying into the notion that the other groups Romney are into gifts, but put that aside. But his overall point is simply dead-on. If you go by the stereotype of Asian Americans being as family-oriented as Latinos and even more entrepreneurial, why would they be so hostile to the GOP (or friendly to Obama/Democrats, if you will). I would argue that this may well be considered "collateral damage" of Romney and the GOP's immigration problem.  

The party's blocking of comprehensive immigration reform didn't just send a signal of being tough on immigrants coming across the Southern border. It also made things remain difficult for those trying to enter the country for either education or technology jobs.  A significant number of those, duh, are coming from Asia.  If all Asian Americans see is a GOP seemingly opposed to overall immigration reform -- and hear its presidential nominee talking more "self-deportation" than actual policy -- it's only logical they might conclude that this is a party that isn't so friendly to their presence either.

Yes, elections have consequences.  

So, does the combination of  ill-focused strategy and thoughtless rhetoric.  

I think the same conclusion has come to Bobby Jindal -- the nation's first governor of South Asian descent.  This may explain why, perhaps moreso than any other outraged Republicans, he's been the most vocal in denouncing Romney's "gifts" comments. And Jindal doesn't sound like he's just making a rote "distance myself from our recent embarrassing party standard-bearer." He seems genuinely appalled. And I think there's a reason for that. This is as much personal as it is political for Jindal. 

The contrast with Marco Rubio's going rather easy on Romney is fascinating. These different post-election statements may be tactical moves by young Republican leaders who will be the ones seeking to define the party in the coming years. 

Labels: Barack Obama, Bobby Jindal, immigration, Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich

My alter-ego, Jason Riley of the Wall Street Journal and I chatted yesterday about the second presidential debate, including overtures to women, Romney's "binders" comment and the possible element of race in President Obama's rhetorical and political efforts.

Enjoy. Or don't! ;-)

Labels: 2012 campaign, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, race, women voters

The conventional wisdom on Mitt Romney in a general election contest is that his creation of a broad health-care program in Massachusetts makes it difficult to make the case against "ObamaCare." Indeed, Rick Santorum calls him the "worst candidate" to take that fight to the president.

But that's the case now.

What happens if -- as seems likely after arguments this week -- the individual mandate is struck down? And, with it, possibly the entire ObamaCare structure? What then?

Democrats make the case that if the entire law is struck down, it could blow up in the face of the GOP:

I’d argue, however, that on the margins at least, a decision invalidating the individual mandate would change the dynamics of the general election in ways that might prove uncomfortable to the GOP. Currently the Republicans “Repeal!” position is attractive, or at least not repellent, to a wide range of people with a wide range of concerns about ObamaCare, including those who would strongly support for more aggressive federal efforts to expand health care coverage or ban discrimination by private health insurers. If the individual mandate goes down, and with it prospective prohibitions on prexisting condition exclusions, the health care debate during the general election campaign will shift from scrutiny of ObamaCare from what, if anything, Republicans are prepared to offer. In effect, the much-dreaded and highly divisive intra-GOP debate on the “Replace” part of its “Repeal-and-Replace” agenda will be accelerated into the present tense. And at the same time, Republicans will be denied the base-energizing power of the passionate desire to repeal ObamaCare, which has become the default-drive unifying force among conservatives of every hue.

The corollary to this view is that liberals would be energized and furious at the Court for striking down the law. They'd turn out to vent their fury on the GOP.

The problem with this view, however, is that it works from a framework that the entire law is popular. It's not. Indeed, the individual mandate is the most unpopular part of the entire structure. Thus, the groundswell to "fix" it just might not be there. And, after the contentious nature of the original health care fight, there's not going to be enough will in Congress to revisit this in the middle of a presidential election year.

Conversely, a Supreme Court invalidation puts President Obama in an awkward position -- and Mitt Romney able to make an argument that he hasn't been able to clearly articulate during the GOP primary. And that may change the political "dynamics," as Ed Kilgore puts it.

Mitt Romney can say, repeatedly, "I brought broad health-care reform to the state of Massachusetts -- and I did it constitutionally. President Obama, a constitutional law professor, spent 18 months of the nation's time, while the economy was collapsing and millions were losing their job on an ideological scheme that has been proven unconstitutional. Is the economy slowly getting better? Yes, but think how much further we would have been if President Obama and Democrats in Congress hadn't been obsessed with pushing an unconstitutional agenda that the American people clearly didn't want?"

That's a powerful argument and it puts the responsibility for the uncertainty over coverage and pre-existing conditions that would follow with the loss of the individual mandate squarely on the president. The chaos wouldn't exist if he hadn't pursued, again, an unconstitutional path.

Combine that framing with conservatives energized over having won a major fight over the policy that helped bring forth the Tea Party and you have a completely transformed political framework going into the fall. The right will be just as -- if not moreso -- pumped to turn out than the left. Yes, broader factors like the overall economy and job creation will play into the election calculus, but there probably hasn't been an election upon which one major piece of legislation has played such a major role since the 1960s (Civil Rights Act) -- or perhaps the Great Depression.

It may not have seemed it at the time, but if Mitt Romney somehow squeaks out an upset win over Barack Obama in the fall, observers may look back at this week as the moment when everything changed.

Labels: Barack Obama, health-care reform, Mitt Romney, ObamaCare

All Florida polls have Mitt Romney with a significant lead over Newt Gingrich heading into tomorrow's primary, with NBC/Marist showing a 15-point margin and Rasmussen at 16 points. For the Sunshine State, at least, it appears to be all over. However, on Sunday, Public Policy Polling came in with a survey showing a much more compact Romney lead -- 39-32 (Santorum and Paul are way back at 14 and 11, respectively). That can be considered an outlier, sure, except PPP (yes, a Democratic outfit) pretty much nailed the breadth of Newt's South Carolina win.

Even though it's still a lead, high single digits is still different from 15 and 16-point blowouts. Caution should still be shown. So, one wonders exactly what Romney's people were doing giving the equivalent of an early victory lap to The New York Times Sunday:

David Kochel, an adviser who arrived here from Iowa to oversee the pressure campaign, described the strategy as “let’s go rush the quarterback.” A team of Romney boosters started infiltrating nearly every Gingrich campaign stop to offer instant rebuttals. Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah showed up to challenge Mr. Gingrich’s record to reporters and at one point tangled with Mr. Gingrich’s press secretary as the cameras rolled. Bay Buchanan, a longtime conservative activist, worked on the Romney campaign’s behalf to win over voters and commentators.
[SKIP]
A team of some of the most fearsome researchers in the business, led by Mr. Romney’s campaign manager, Matt Rhoades, spent days dispensing negative information about Mr. Gingrich, much of it finding its way to the influential Drudge Report, which often serves as a guide for conservative talk radio and television assignment editors and to which Mr. Rhoades has close ties.
The effort hit a peak by Thursday, when the site was virtually taken over by headlines assailing Mr. Gingrich, whose advisers said they eventually gave up on trying to persuade the Drudge staff to spare them, acknowledging, in the words of one aide, that “very little can be done.”
The Romney team was also carefully tracking Mr. Gingrich’s every utterance for a potential opening. What an aide described as a “eureka moment” came just hours before the debate on Thursday night. At a Tea Party rally in the Central Florida town of Mount Dora that day, Mr. Gingrich had opened a new line of attack, noting that Mr. Romney had investments in funds that included shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage lenders.
Mr. Romney’s opposition-research team in Boston quickly dug into Mr. Gingrich’s own publicly disclosed holdings to find that he, too, had mutual fundsinvested in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The information was quickly fed to Mr. Romney during his private debate preparation session at a hotel in downtown Jacksonville.
When Mr. Romney delivered the attack against Mr. Gingrich that evening, Mr. Gingrich was left with no substantive response, a killer blow that helped keep Mr. Gingrich from commanding the debate stage as he had in South Carolina.

Wow. If Gingrich need anymore ammunition on his charge that Romney is the hardball candidate of insiders and borderline dirty campaigning, this article sure provides it. Personally, all's fair in love, war and politics (well, except for attacks on the family), but this sort of press access -- before the primary is actually over -- seems, well, not exactly wise.

Labels: 2012 GOP nomination, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich

Labels: Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, sarah palin

After a universally panned speech, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is suddenly in danger of becoming the second GOP figure taken down by the satirical power of 30 Rock and its related stars.  In quick need of a pre-2012 reboot, here's a modest proposal that the Pelican State chief executive might want to pursue to recalibrate a possible presidential path:

1. Drop the "Bobby"; embrace the "Piyush". Obama realized in college that there would never be a president "Barry." He accepted who he was -- a multicultural boy living in a multicultural world. The rest is history (that there had never been a president "Barack" either is irrelevant to this discussion).

You need to realize that it makes more sense for a "Piyush" to succeed a "Barack" than a "Bobby." (Don't let yourself be out-weird-named by a "Mitt").

2. Have an affair: At the very least lie about having an affair. You need something of an edge.

Living in Louisiana presents you with myriad opportunities, AND dangers. Governors are expected to be larger than life. They're expected to have girlfriends, gambling problems, conflicts-of-interest, etc. Heck, this is the state that featured a campaign slogan of "Vote for the Crook:  It's important." (Appropriately enough crook Edwin Edwards beat racist David Duke and later went to prison for a variety of corruption offenses.)

An affair would give Jindal a hint of danger. Any subsequent pleas for forgiveness from his wife, the public (and the Catholic Church) would mark him as a vulnerable, principled man with human failings. (Oh, the other woman should probably not be too blonde/blue-eyed -- preferably Creole; this *is* still the South, after all.)

3. Pick a fight with a slightly effete goody-two-shoes Republican former governor who might be your biggest rival for the "competent, can-get-things-done" part of the Republican base (not naming any names). Paint him as slightly out of touch, pseudo-intellectual, squishy Northern governor from Massachusetts -- who tried to impose universal health care! You, on the other hand, helped reform Louisiana's health care system -- at least the hospital care portion. Go after him!

4. Go after Yukon Sarah Palin. Admit your own flaws (see above), while painting Alaska governor as being out-of-touch, practicing Addams Family Values -- and being a little too close to Russia (if you know what I mean). If Vladimir Putin wants to bring back the Evil Empire, you should hold the Diva of Nome fully responsible. Make sure that you don't  make this personal.  You can't appear to be beating up on a woman.  Make this a national security issue.  Just subtly point out that no foreign nation that you can see from your back yard has become more dangerous on your watch (for these purposes, ignore any recent problems in Mexico).

5. Become Jon Stewart's sidekick on The Daily Show. Stewart will help feel your pain -- even though he doesn't share your politics.  He got very bad reviews hosting the 2008 Academy Awards.  This year, the slot was given to an Aussie song-and-dance man-cum-mutant -actor.  Yet, he remains at the top of his game.  Does he let that unfortunate setback eat away at him? Absolutely not. He pokes fun at himself!

Governor, your path to the White House is clear.

Labels: Bobby Jindal, Mitt Romney

Oh, yeah!

Talk about perfect timing! Mike Huckabee has been busy since the end of the GOP primary - writing a book. And, he drops it even before Barack Obama is inaugurated. Unlike most political books -- which are filled with anodyne copy designed not to offend anyone (except, perhaps, one or two folks in the opposing party) -- this one takes no prisoners. He goes after Mitt Romney, the Club For Growth, John Hagee and a few other, ahem, "sacred" cows in the Republican/conservative firmament (if I may mix metaphors). Intra-party fights of this nature are somewhat unusual.

Romney, by the way, again demonstrates why he will never be president: He responds to Huckabee with a, "these attacks are beneath Mike Huckabee; we need to come together" line that is so wimpy that it could have been written by a veteran of the Dukakis, Gore or Kerry campaigns, i.e. losers who never realized that the best way to respond to a punch in politics is with one of your own.

Hmmm...this whole Republicans-in-the-wilderness thing could end up being fun.

UPDATE: A reader asks: "Does this mean Huckabee has given up the idea of running for president? Otherwise, why burn so many bridges?" Actually, he's not burning that many. Evangelicals will likely never get behind Mitt Romney -- either because of flip-flopping or because of his Mormonism is still a problem. Pat Robertson squandered whatever credibility he had left -- even with evangelicals -- with his endorsement of Rudy Giuliani. He'll be past 80 and not much of a player in 2012. Huckabee doesn't need John Hagee, who proved more of a headache than a help to John McCain anyway. Thompson isn't going to run again.

Economic conservatives will have to figure out what their respone to Obamanomics will be. My sense is that Huckabee is going to adopt the "Grand New Party Model" of Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam -- go after the "Sam's Club" members/Main Street folks rather than Wall Street. Frankly, the Club For Growth doesn't relate to those people.

Huckabee obviously wrote the bulk of the book before Sarah Palin was selected. However, this book is partly designed to clear the decks and knock out early the one other potential '08 rival that might think about '12. Just writing this now shows that Huckabee isn't just a "joke" candidate, but someone who's a lot more strategic and tactical than his detractors might have thought. He was the "happy warrior" in '08 because he had to be, but he's not going to be relegated to the "Kumbayah" role going forward. He's happy to start a fight and dare anyone else to mix it up with.

Labels: Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Republican fratricide

Three thoughts on John McCain's address at CPAC and and claiming of the Republican presidential nomination:

1) Whatever McCain speechwriter/ghostwriter/alter-ego Mark Salter gets paid, it isn't enough.

2) McCain was smart to take the advice of Kate O'Beirne and Ramesh Ponnuru in training his guns on the Democratic candidates.

3) While he genuflected before conservatives on the immigration issue, he didn't grovel. He reminded them of his conservative record -- like on Bork! -- but didn't make himself look bowed. That is important: While he needs the conservatives to stay with him, he can't afford to look weak. It is deadly for a candidate to look like he is being bullied (think about Michael Dukakis in 1988 with Jesse Jackson). Especially given that McCain's major issue is national security, he can't appear to look like he is being kicked around by his base -- as opposed to respecting and working with that base. I think McCain struck the right balance.

Oh, and Mitt Romney's, "I'm dropping out because we are at war?" Please. As if the country has never been able to work through the political process -- and elections -- during wartime. This was the first time that I really felt the irritating phoniness about Romney that others have noted.

Labels: conservatives, GOP 2008 President, John McCain, Mitt Romney

Okay, as of midnight Eastern time, 13 of the 21 Republican contested primary and caucus states were won by McCain and Huckabee -- the two candidates that the so-called conservative political talking-head elite declared were "not conservative." Meanwhile, Mitt Romney -- favored choice of this conservative punditocracy is stuck scrabbling a few states other than his "home" states of Massachusetts and Utah. Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, et. al. you're going to have to deal with the faces of the new Republican Party -- like it or not.

UPDATE: Clarification -- "punditocracy" added after "this conservative" in the second paragraph.

UPDATE II: Roughly speaking, McCain, Romney and Huckabee represent, respectively, what has been called the three "stools" of the Republican base -- national security, economics and morality/values. Well, don't look now, but across the country, the national security/values combination just trounced the economic/fiscal conservatism candidate. Is it just a coincidence that this result occurs the day after the "holy warrior" George W. Bush dropped his farewell "gift" to Congress -- a $3.1 t rillion budget with a $409 billion deficit? In a political environment where concern over the economy is higher than it has been in years, these developments spells bad news for the GOP come November -- unless something drastic occurs to change the playing field in the weeks ahead.

Labels: GOP 2008 President, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney

Well, I'm heading to the polls today.

With my my anticipated enthusiasm of voting against the former mayor of New York sadly gone by the boards (but, hey, my prediction that he wouldn't win a state outside of New York or New Jersey was, well, sort of right!), I now have to decide who I'm going to vote for.

Ron Paul had been my long-time favorite. Aside from raising the right questions on current U.S. foreign policy, the size of government, he's also the only candidate to actually mention the impact of the falling dollar on the economy (heck, if McDonald's commercials can make jokes about the falling dollar, don't you think politicians might realize that there's a potential problem here?). Unfortunately, Paul missed a strong opportunity to explain his rather repugnant newsletters from the '80s and '90s (as revealed in The New Republic last month). I don't think Paul is necessarily racist, but there should be a better explanation rather than, "Well, I didn't right write them." In other words, Paul -- who's a straight shooter in other respects -- could deal with a little "straight talk" when it comes to things that have his name on them.

So, that leaves me with John McCain and Mitt Romney. Neither is perfect. McCain was my guy in 2000 and there's still much I respect about him -- even despite McCain-Feingold. I hate his view that we might need to be in Iraq for 100 years. On the other hand, despite his stance on war, he was the one who was holding Rumsfeld's feet to the fire on troop strength and strategy. When few other Republicans were. He has also demanded some accountability from the administration on Guantanamo and waterboarding (a position that has caused many conservatives to now claim, bizarrely, that McCain is "wrong on torture"). Furthermore, he's been railing on spending and earmarks for years -- more than his fellow GOPers can say.

On the other hand, Romney has flip-flopped on so many positions (agree with McCain or not, he generally stays with the position that he adopts), how he can be considered a reliable "conservative" -- as many on the right now wish to declare him -- is beyond me.

Thus, I will, grudgingly, vote for John McCain today.

Others may respectfully differ.

Labels: GOP 2008 President, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul

It gets better.

This is one of those dumb self-inflicted wounds that drive campaign staff insane -- but journalists love. To see how potentially deadly they can be, check Joe Biden '88 (the Neil Kinnock chapter) and, to a slightly lesser extent, Al Gore 2000 ("Look for the union label...").

Andrew runs a clip of Romney explaining what he means by the word "saw"! Andrew also notes that 30 years ago, Romney claimed that he actually walked with his dad and MLK. The confusion stems from the little-known fact that Martin Luther King, Jr. is Romney's actual father. George Romney apparently graciously agreed to adopt Mitt at an early age to prevent the civil rights leader from being tainted by the scandal. Secret Mormon experiments later fused the elder Romney's DNA to Mitt Luther King. This explains why Mitt was so overcome with emotion during his Meet The Press appearance.

Labels: GOP 2008 President, Mitt Romney

Remember after Mitt Romney's big speech on faith two weeks ago, I questioned whether the line, "I saw my father walking with Martin Luther King," would actually cause people to re-examine the racist issues in Mormonism? That happened to a certain extent -- Tim Russert brought it up on Meet The Press last week. However, now it seems there's a greater problem: Evidence that it never happened -- that George Romney and King never walked together.

And then, finally, an admission that, well, he made it up.

Geez, there's always a bit of stretching going on in politics, but to put something like this in Romney's big speech where he talks about the centrality of faith in his life and in America is stunning in its audacity.

There you go -- a book title, "The Audacity of Hype."

And, yes, the fact that Mitt lied stretched the truth on a part of the speech that was implicityly dealing with race will revive all of those racial issues again. As well it should.

Labels: GOP 2008 President, Martin Luther King Jr., Mitt Romney

Romney For President says National Review.

UPDATE: While John Derbyshire happily dissents in an a-Paul-ing manner!

Labels: GOP 2008 President, Mitt Romney, National Review

I don't know whether Mitt Romney hit a "home run" with his speech on faith. In fact, trying to use a baseball metaphor on a political speech about faith seems to me just wrong.

However, there are a few things that jump out.

1) It's interesting that "Catholic," "Christian," "Jew" and "Muslim" all appear more times than "Mormon" (which appears exactly once). Given the speech build-up, will that imbalance unwittingly draw more attention to the religious issue than away from it? Time will tell.

2) When an ardent social conservative like Ramesh Ponnuru observes: "It would have been nice if Romney, while making room for people of all faiths in this country, could have also made some room for people with none," that may foretell some problems down the road.

3) Given that the speech is a plea to ask voters to not to impose a religious -- and implicitly see his religion as being part of the broad faiths practiced by other Americans -- did Romney leave himself vulnerable with this line:

These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.

While Romney's father may have had the "American values" and "moral heritage" to march with MLK, was his Morman faith instrumental in that -- the same faith that taught until 1978 that blacks were such a lesser race that they couldn't be ordained as priests? The statement says wonders about George Romney's values, but actually draws uncomfortable attention to one not-too-long-gone aspect of the religion's tenets.

On the whole, however, I have to give Romney major credit for both the trappings of the speech (doing it at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library) and, more importantly, its broad substance. Over the last couple of weeks, there have been a number of moments on both sides where the campaign has veered into "silly season" territory. The Hillary-Obama "kindergarten" story is the most obvious example on the Democratic side and the how-low-can-you-dance go against illegal immigrants among Republicans.

For one day, the main discussion is on an a significant thoughtful speech by one of the contenders. People will differ about parts of the speech -- or whether he should have given it. But, the reality of the speech is that it has elevated the tone of the campaign -- and for one day at least, put Romney on a slightly higher plane than his competition.

That's not a bad thing.

UPDATE: Romney won over Pat Buchanan.

UPDATE II: This helps take a bit of bloom off the rose. Apparently, the non-mention of non-believers was not unintentional.

Labels: Mitt Romney, Mormon, Religion and Politics

The Huckabee breakout.

Rasmussen Reports has Huckabee taking the lead in Iowa -- devastating news for Mitt Romney. Rasmussen also shows Huckabee coming on strong in third nationally among Republicans. The GOP-leaning Insider Advantage poll in Florida has Huckabee surging into second place behind Rudy. Fred Thompson is collapsing in the Sunshine State -- as he is in many places (except South Carolina -- see below). Stephen Bainbridge is convinced that he's toast, though, like me he notes the irony that Thompson, ironically, is the candidate putting forward the most comprehensive policy statements. Too much, too late?

Romney might take real heart that a Clemson University poll has Rudy dropping like a rock in South Carolina. It will be interesting to see if Romney's recent comments on whether he would appoint a Muslim to serve in his Cabinet becomes a topic on tonight's CNN/You Tube debate.

However, given Huckabee's surge, the spotlight is likely to be on him tonight. Already, the economic conservatives have the knives out for the other "Boy From Hope." (Your not-so-humble host noticed this phenomenon beginning last month.) Jonah Goldberg recently called him an example of "compassionate conservatism on steroids." But after waiting all these months, if social conservatives have decided that Huckabee is "the one", will they tolerate a gang-bang on their golden boy? If he is seen as being "taken out" by the Mormon governor and the liberal New York mayor, will the social cons keep their allegiance to the GOP.

In any event, these latest developments force all the leaders to reassess their strategies.

Romney has to take Huckabee seriously, because a defeat in Iowa could be fatal for the former Massachusetts governor. But things have changed for the former New York governor as well. Previously, it was in Giuliani's best interest to ignore Huckabee and allow him to take the wind out of Romney's sails in Iowa (which Rudy wasn't seriously contesting anyway). That strategy was good if Huckabee was only doing well in Iowa.

If, as it appears, he has become the social conservative's breakout candidate -- and a charismatic Southerner to boot -- Huckabee suddenly becomes a major threat to Rudy's "Florida Firewall." Giuliani's plan all along was to ignore Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and then pick up the big states on February 5th and beyond. That might still work for California, New York and other Northeast states, but if Huckabee (conceptually) upsets Romney in Iowa, either wins or comes in second in South Carolina, he may have the momentum to upset Rudy in Florida.

At that point, everything is up for grabs. The question may end up being will the likely GOP ticket be Giuliani-Huckabee -- or Huckabee-Giuliani.

Labels: GOP 2008 President, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani

Never underestimate those Arkansas boys. The Mike Huckabee surge begins (in fact, it began with his second place showing at the straw poll several weeks back). Given the way Iowa works, I wouldn't be surprised at this point if the Huckster wins the caucases in January.

That would be disastrous news for Romney -- and great news for Rudy Giuliani who has basically given up on Iowa. The only thing keeping Giuliani from being the undisputed front-runner in the race is that Romney has been leading in both Iowa and New Hampshire -- and gaining ground in South Carolina. If he ran the table in the three early contests, that momentum could eat away at the leads Rudy has in the big states that vote on Feb. 5 (New York, Florida, California, etc.). However, divided results (Huckabee in Iowa, Romney in NH and Thompson -- though that doesn't look likely -- in South Carolina) would fit perfectly for the mayor.

Of course, there is always the possibility that a Huckabee surge could also work wonders for, uh, Mike Huckabee. The one thing keeping him down right now is money -- and that can be cured by a few positive polls.

Labels: GOP 2008 President, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney

Madscribe:
In light of RAG's post this week, I'm surprised that one of my all-time favorite songs from one of my must-have-on-desert-island albums didn't immediately pop up into my thoughts.

Official Video, which I couldn't embed in RT but with better sound and horn section, here. Lyrics for the Non-Gen X ear here. Story behind the song here. Famous example of a father explaining the role of a chickenhawk to his son here.

Labels: Ben Folds, Chickenhawks and their Li'l Peeps, Mitt Romney

RT has, generally speaking, tended to ignore the Mitt Romney campaign (aside from Madscribe's little mash note a few days ago). Nothing personal (in fact, a friend of mine is one of his spokesmen). But with Ron Paul, Hillary, Barack, Rudy and Fred (and the occasional John McCain), there's only so much time to focus on the presidential candidates. (We even overlooked stories on Romney's pre-Michael Vick dog incident a couple decades ago.).

But, this one's a bit too good to pass up. Romney was asked recently about why none of his son's are in the military. This is, frankly, one of those de rigeur "gotcha" questions that most pro Iraq War politicians should have figured out how to answer by now. Instead, Romney gave a response that was, well, kinda dumb, as Salon enjoyed pointing out:

"One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."

Romney noted that one of his sons is driving around Iowa in an R.V. to help spread the Romney message. Which is like driving a Humvee through Baghdad , only different.

So, this response started a nice hullaballoo around the 'Net. Not surprisingly, the left side of the blogosphere is eating it up. However, also not surprisingly, Romney cheerleader/biographer/***kisser Hugh Hewitt is blaming the controversy ONLY on "lefty bloggers".

Filling in for Andrew Sullivan, right-of-center blogger Professor Stephen Bainbridge puts things in perspective:

Lefty bloggers? Me? Liz Mair, who called it just plain stupid? James Joyner, who said it might "be the dumbest answer ever by a presidential candidate" and also rejected the Romney camp's spin by explaining that "the longer version is more harmful to Romney than the AP story"? Steve Benen, who quotes the Romney spin and then says "Romney still believes driving a Winnebago and writing for a campaign blog is “showing support for our,” on par with serving in the military"? Jim Geraghty, who says "Romney seems a little off-key" and says the Romney spin "leaves me a little cold"? Sorry, but trying to spin this as a lefty tempest in a teapot simply won't work.

Yeah, Professor, put me on your list or right-of-center bloggers who think the former governor of Massachusetts has this too-cute-by-half aspect to his character that inevitably causes him to put his foot in his mouth.

UPDATE: One of Josh Marshall's readers delivers a viciously witty quip (Saving Private Ryan fans will get the reference).

Labels: GOP 2008 President, Mitt Romney

(Madscribe, With apologies to Mr. Carroll ... )

'Twas brilliant, and in slimy tones
Did George and Lenore's son get nabbed
All flimsy when he sound like Rove
His Mormon's wrath out-gabbed

The fact that candidates for president from both parties threw their hats (pillbox, porkpie, or otherwise) into the ring so early in the process means that they've set themselves up for a lot of potential "Dean Scream" moments.

I've been pretty cool (hell, downright cold) to a Romney candidacy considering his church's teachings on the black race for most of its history. ("I'll have a bowl of Oatmeal Cush with a side of Cursed Ham.") That aside, I found it amusing that when the cameras are officially "on," Romney sounds like a cue-card reading idiot. However, when the official cameras and mikes are 'off," (about seven minutes into the video) he actually makes intelligent, reasoned and rational points about the need for the separation of a politico's personal religious beliefs and the imposition of public policy and laws on the beliefs of others.

We now have the true Jabberwocky candidate for our times. In "real life," he's a flip-flopping GOP counterpart to John Kerry. When the mixing board gets turned down, however, Romney is the Republican equivalent of the gun moll in Superman III. When in public, she acted like a brain-dead, blonde idiot. Whenever she was alone and thought no one was looking, however, she would grab paperbacks of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard from under the couch to contemplate existential philosophy.


UPDATE: New RT hyperlinks, now with extra SMARTYNESS©.

If any readers would like to pleasantly surprise Rodak and me, links to Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche now included. My own introduction to Nietzsche, I kid you not, was as a six-year-old looking up "Superman" in the set of encyclopedias given to my parents as a gift when I was born. I remember sitting in front of the TV in 1972 with the "S" volume and reading "SUPERMAN: See also Nietzsche, Friederich." What the heck, I thought, everyone knows Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster created Superman! Thus was my introduction to modern philosophy. So, existientalism and lousy films by the Richards Lester and Pryor all cosmically tie together in one big blog knot.

For the conservatively inclined, the one book by Dr. Laura that I own, from 1996 when she still made sense and hadn't become her fascist kid's mother yet ...

UPDATED UPDATE: Thanks to Rodak, I realize that I really have become an American Idiot (cue Green Day). I used to read books with titles like this and this in high school. Now ... I actually watch Family Guy. AAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Labels: GOP 2008 President, Mitt Romney