No Runny Eggs

I’ve now moved through the five stages of grief  following Blooper Tuesday.   I’m ready to move forward.   I have accepted the fact that John McCain will be the Republican nominee and the next move is up to me.

What to do?????

I think the next step is one that we conservatives have learned well from McCain over the past few years.    We  say how much  we respect and admire “Our friend” John McCain and then use him and all that he stands for to accomplish  our goal of electing a Republican majority in the House and make sure that the Senate stays near an even split.

At this point you may think that my fifth step was “delusion” rather than acceptance.   Hear me out.

In ’06 the Republicans lost 31 House seats while the Democrats lost none. Admittedly, these elections occurred during a large downdraft on the Republicans that came from the continual play of bad news from Iraq. While the Democrats want you to believe that the House turnover was some kind of a mandate, reading through this summary of the 31 races that were lost by Republicans in ’06, one sees that rather than a mandate, the races were lost due to issues that were largely specifc to the various districts or candidates.   Couple the situational nature of these loses with the fact that nearly all of these districts lean Republican, they now have a first term Democrat from a  Congress with nearly historical low ratings  and I think we have a recipe for turning this back to the good guys.

So where does Hill come into this?   In the few days since Blooper Tuesday, Hill has dropped and BO has increased by over 10 points in their likelihood of being Democratic nominee. I think this plan works only if McCain is running against Hill in the general.   As I’ve said before, I think a Hill/McCain election will bring a number of Democrats who can’t stand Hill to vote for McCain.   It may also cause some Dems to sit it out because of their disdain for her.   If McCain gets solid support from the Republican base I believe he can win with something that approaches a landslide margin.

Of course there’s no guarantee that a strong showing by McCain will extend to House races.   However,  most of the 31 “lost” districts have a history of voting Republican.    I would expect that we should at least see a rebalancing of traditional R/D voting breakdown versus the abberrance we saw in the ’06 elections.   Also, ’06 is the first time since 1948 that no Dem lost a seat!      These factors  should allow the 31 “lost” disctricts a fighting chance of returning to the R column with maybe a bit of cushion from a couple of “unexpected” Dem loses.

As odd as it may seem,Let’s regain the House!  join Team Hillary! (but only through the primaries!)

I see one of the cable alphabet soup stumbled in here on my “next 2 weeks” post. Oh well, I see Mike Huckabee took all 39 delegates in Kansas (all 4 districts at 3 delegates apiece for 12 district-level delegates, and the statewide vote for the other 27).

Next up is the Louisiana primary. The question on the Republican side is whether a candidate will get to 50%+1 to get 20 of the 47 delegates. The polls just closed, and it is too early to say whether anybody will take that majority. I hadn’t looked at the Dem half.

The Dems also had caucuses in Nebraska and Washington, and Fox says that Obama won both.

Finally, there’s the Washington Republican caucus, which isn’t over yet apparently.

I was just about out the door to head to DAD-WI when Mike Huckabee popped on Fox. I had expected him to drop out like Mitt Romney, especially since he had teamed with John McCain to deny West Virginia to Mitt Romney, but he isn’t.

I hope McCain likes that stab in the back.

I can’t yet say that I will vote for John McCain (indeed, I may never be able to say that, and the scales are still weighted against), but he has reached out and started to heal the rift between him and conservatives like me. There are still a lot of items that I need to have to either have explained or forgotten. Indeed, somewhere below I have 13 reasons to say, “To hell with him”, and I didn’t hear squat on any of those 13.

At the same time, I heard a lengthier explanation of why he can claim to be member of the low-cost portion of small-government conservative. I heard that he will be open to persuasion on his liberal tendencies.

I probably will just take the next few days off of national politics and run a heap of conflicting things through my head.

OK, it’s still early, the emotions haven’t even subsided to being generously considered “raw”. Even so, it’s time to start thinking about tomorrow and what we will do now that the last person with any hint of conservative credentials has dropped out of the race. Do we now just rally around McCain because the party says so? Do we sit this one out? Do we go to the dark side and vote for the Dem just so that the Republicans don’t get all the mud?

Let me offer this for some mashing and hashing on. Think of it as part of your cathartic process:

I’m beginning to think (and I’ll grant you I haven’t finished my creative using of foul language each time I hear McCain use the phrase “My Friend!”) that our best bet might in fact be to get behind McCain.

Before Steve bans my posting privileges forever, let me explain. I think we can all agree that McCain is as close to the squishy middle as you can be and still be a Republican. I think it’s also apparent that McCain has a fairly strong following among certain parts of the Rat brigades. I think this Rat following could, especially if Hill is the Dem candidate, put a decent amount of support for McCain from the Rats. If McCain got that support and got the support of the conservative R’s, I think there is a chance he could win the November contest in what would be considered a landslide.

Assuming the above, can we use McCain the way he has been using us? Can we take his win and leverage it for a win for conservatives?   Let’s face it, the Senate and House races are going to be terribly important this year. In fact, they may be even more important if McCain gets in. They may be the groups that keep McCain holding any level of conservative principle. I believe that if McCain wins and does so in a way that I lay out i.e. large margins, he could have some decent coat tails to use in the districts that kicked the R’s out last election. Most of those districts tossed the R’s out on relatively narrow margins. Would there be enough good will with McCain to rebalance the House and keep the Senate from becoming any worse?

Could this be the silver lining?

Hot Air and others are reporting Mitt Romney will suspend his Presidential campaign, with the announcement at CPAC coming up shortly (carried by C-SPAN2). I don’t have enough time to set up a CiL, so we’re back to the old method for one time and one time only.

F*CK! FU*K! FUC*!

11:38 (all times Central and in 24-hour format) – Laura Ingraham looking real good in black. Also, a question from the Hot Air thread questions what the difference between “suspending” and “ending” is, with the immediate answer that a “suspension” does not release the delegates. Wait one while I go through the Romney roster and see what is and isn’t officially “pledged”.

11:45 – Ingraham introducing Mitt as the “conservative’s conservative” and a “class act” (she got one of two right). There’s the calm-down horseshit again.

11:47 – “What a welcome” as he gets cheered. Guess the crowd didn’t get the memo.

11:48 – (Reminder; I paraphase a lot) Blue tie (not good). Family affair, blah, blah, blah. Last year, CPAC gave me a send-off. Thank you, 11 states that voted for me.

11:49 – Thank you for showing up and speaking up. “Conservative principles are needed now more than ever…. Unless America changes course, we could become the France of the 21st Century.”

11:50 – (More paraphrasing) Only one nation has laid down millions of lives, won, and only took enough land to bury its dead, the US.

11:51 – The biggest challenge we have to face is the attack on America’s culture.

11:52 – “Culture makes all the difference…. What makes America unique?” The drive to succeed, a belief in either God or a higher calling than themselves.

11:54 – “The threat to culture comes from within…. Some think we won against (the culture of welfare), but the liberals haven’t given up…. Dependency is culture-killing.” (perhaps Mitt should have given this speech to Bush 7 years ago when he pushed No Child Left Behind and pushing more of the tax burden on the rich).

11:56 – Talking about fatherless families; sobering stats (60+% of black families, 45+% of Hispanic families, 25% of white families are single-parent families). Pass the Marriage amendment.

11:57 – The failed Europe today is the result of liberalism run amok, driving out God and traditional families. Now onto the economy.

12:45 – Sorry about that; the cable started crashing as I was about to post a rumor that Romney would endorse McCain found on the HotAir thread. Lots of expletives were tossed around the bunker, and it turns out that Romney is going home. Sure sounded like a virtual endorsement of McCain at CPAC, however.

13:13 – One last thought; I hope you weren’t counting on a very conciliatory speech out of McCain in about 45 minutes (if my watch and the schedule are right).

Despite a massive win by John McCain on Super-Duper Tuesday, he is still, at least by Flip’s calculations, 471 delegates short of actually locking up the nomination. As such, the other three remaining candidates, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul, are soldiering on as of this writing. There is a heap of contests the next two weeks, with depending on the results of Louisiana, either 238 or 258, including Wisconsin’s, so let’s take a quick look at how the delegates are allocated, courtesy The Green Papers:

– Saturday, February 9 –

• Kansas precinct caucuses, 39 delegates at stake:
  • District-level delegates (3 x 4 Congressional districts, 12 total) – All 3 per district allocated to the candidate winning the district vote; in the event of a tie, each candidate that is tied is allocated a single delegate and the remainder (if any) is “uncommitted” (I do not know what happens in a 4-way tie)
  • State party/at-large/bonus delegates (27 total) – All 27 allocated to the candidate winning the statewide vote as long as that candidate wins at least 2 districts; otherwise all 27 “unpledged”

• Louisiana primary, potentially 20 delegates at stake:
  • 20 delegates awarded to a majority-vote winner; otherwise, those 20 are “unpledged” when they are chosen at the state convention 2/16/2008

• Washington state precinct caucuses, 18 delegates at stake:
  • All 18 officially “unpledged” through the caucus/convention process

– Tuesday, Febrary 12 –

• District of Columbia primary, 16 delegates at stake:
  • All 16 delegates are awarded to the candidate winning the district-wide vote

• Maryland primary, 37 delegates at stake:
  • District-level delegates (3 x 8 Congressional districts, 24 total) – All 3 per district awarded to the candidate winning the district
  • State party/at-large/bonus delegates (13 total) – All 13 awarded to the candidate winning the statewide vote

• Virginia primary, 63 delegates at stake:
  • All 63 awarded to the candidate winning the statewide vote

– Saturday, February 16 –

• Guam convention, 6 delegates at stake:
  • The 6 (at-large delegates) allocated proportionally (at least that’s the way I read it)

– Tuesday, February 19 –

• Washington State primary, 19 delegates at stake:
  • District-level delegates (1 x 9 districts, 9 total) – Each one awarded to the winner of that district
  • At-large delegates (10 total) – The 10 awarded proportionally, with a 20% minimum

• Wisconsin primary, 40 delegates at stake:
  • District-level delegates (3 x 8 districts, 24 total) – All 3 per district awarded to the winner of that district provided that candidate received 1/3rd of the vote, otherwise all 3 “uncommitted”
  • State party/at-large/bonus delegates (16 total) – All 16 awarded to the winner of the statewide vote provided that candidate received 1/3rd of the vote, otherwise all 16 “uncommitted”

One last semi-drunk/semi-hung over post before I grab a quick wink. The popular meme is that it will be Mike Huckabee, based on the deal the two reached to help send Mitt Romney into the Super-Duper Loseday death spiral. That is not exactly a sure thing. McCain doesn’t exactly need a lot of help in the South; he held his own south of the Mason-Dixon line. Further, Huckabee is a social conservative, and McCain is likely going to be drunk with delusions of grandeur since he (all-but-)won the nomination of the “conservative” party by spitting in the eyes of the conservatives, be they economic, governmental or social.

Rather, I suspect he will go with a moderate-to-liberal woman, probably Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe or Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Given there will be either a black man or a white woman at the head of the other ticket, he will be under intense pressure to respond in kind. Rudy Giuliani would be the RNC choice, given that the schedule was originally set up with him in mind, he is also a liberal, and he yielded and endorsed McCain to deliver the Northeast. However, he is a white guy, and that just won’t do. At last check, Colin Powell and Condelezza Rice, who would both be yet another spit in the eyes of conservatives, are not interested. Michael Steele and J.C. Watts, while qualifying on the minority front, are probably too conservative for McCain.

Thoughts? Suggestions? The comments are open.

Note; I wrote most of this yesterday afternoon/evening; I’m rushing this out while hung over because the inevitable has happened.

Back in April, the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute asked some of Wisconsin’s best and brightest right-of-center minds to answer the question, “Is Conservatism Out Of Gas?” (easier-to-follow archives than what they provide here for week 1 and here for weeks 2-4). I threw in my two cents on both Wisconsin and the national scene, and given the events of the Republican Presidential primary/caucus season, it’s high time to revisit this.

As the title says, this revisit will focus on the national scene, but I would be remiss if I didn’t briefly mention the Wisconsin one. While the situation hasn’t changed since I last visited the question, there is some progress on the judicial front. We did find a judicially-conservative judge, Mike Gabelman, to take on Doyle appointee Justice Louis Butler for the Supreme Court. Depending on what happens in that race, I may revisit that portion.

There are four basic legs of the conservative coalition, three of which are essentially unique to American conservatism and two of which are shared by libertarians. The first one I’ll deal with is governmental conservatism, shared with libertarians. At the federal level, it is a basic respect for the Constitution, and for federalism, which precludes using the federal government as an “overlord” to either push a particular philosophy or to buy votes. The three candidates who espoused this, Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, and Ron Paul, all were summarily rejected. In no state did the three of them even amount to a quarter of the vote. Mitt Romney attempted some outreach in this regard after a governorship spent growing the public-private partnership in Massachusetts; however, his only success in a state where he faced competition was after once again dipping into the bigger government well.

Why did this die? Simple; decades upon decades of government cultivating a dependence of the populace on it has, as surely as nicotine, marijuana, cocaine, or caffeine, created a dependence on government that is exceptionally hard to break, even as the country plunges into an economic mess caused by the creation and expansion of that dependence. One could say that it died when the 104th Congress lost the government shutdown battle in 1995, and he or she would have a valid point. One could also say it died when George W. Bush ran as a “compassionate ‘conservative'”, and again he or she would have a valid point. It just hasn’t been recognized until now.

The second portion that is at best on life support, almost as a direct result of the death of the first, is economic conservatism, also shared by libertarians. The few tax cuts that aren’t specifically targeted at a small subset of the few taxpayers left are sold not as actually reducing the amount of money the federal government receives. Indeed, it is hard, if not impossible, to use government as a way to buy votes without a complete lack of fiscal restraint.

There is a little bit of hope in this regard; John McCain does recognize the need to not have earmarks; however, the fight against earmarks is but a small part of economic conservatism, and that’s the only part that McCain recognizes. Morever, the fallout from the method of his primary win, including the likelyhood of humiliation in November, makes even that moot.

The third leg, a victim of suicide, is social conservatism. Rather than embrace candidates that also espouse the remainder of the conservative coalition, the voters listened to the RNC’s thinly-veiled call to push out those that believe in small government and fiscal restraint and pushed a candidate who, franky, is a big-government socialist, Mike Huckabee. The remainder of the conservative coalition pushed back, and after a surprise win in Iowa, Huckabee didn’t have a single win until today with a “stop-Romney” parliamentary move in West Virginia, with follow-on wins in his home state of Arkansas and heavily-Southern Baptist Arkansas.

That leaves the last leg, foreign policy. It is the one that is not, at least historically, uniquely-American. I will note that Paul is the outlier here; as a libertarian, he espouses weakness in the face of attacks, and that has been roundly rejected by the Republicans. The remainder of the candidates, both surviving and withdrawn, do recognize that to retreat in the face of attacks is only a recipe for the ultimate defeat of America. However, that is not, on its own, enough to carry the day. By focusing solely on this to the mutual exclusion of the other three legs, the RNC has planted the seeds of its humiliation in November. There are many conservatives, both influential and bloggers, who have vowed not to vote for John McCain.

I briefly considered tossing this, or at least postponing it again, after a rather lengthy discussion with Brian Fraley over beers. However, I’ve put it off too long. I hope the RNC is happy with the separation of the Republican Party from the conservatives and the resulting death spiral last experienced by the Whig Party. I also hope the rank-and-file is happy with being a national minority party for the remainder of its marked time as it is poised to nominate a candidate who would rather be a member of the other party. Lastly, I hope the “conservatives” who participated in the systematic destruction of every candidate who came forth to carry the broad-based conservative banner by voting for or supporting somebody else because of some perceived slight are happy about being shoved into the dustbin of history, because neither McCain nor the Democrats will let conservatives back into the political game if they can help it.

Revisions/extensions (1:06 am 2/6/2008) – There is a lot of good discussion over at Michelle’s place, as she notes there is an actual CPAC topic called, “Is the GOP lost?”.

There’s an old story about two guys who are out hiking in the woods.   Long into their hike, in the deepest part of the woods, they stumble upon a bear.   The startled bear turns and begins to growl at the two men giving every indication that it  is about to charge.   Immediately, the first of the two men sits down, takes a new pair of high quality running shoes out of his backpack and starts putting them on.   The second man looked incredulously at the first man  says, "What are you doing?   You can’t out run that bear!"   The second man replies matter of factly, "I don’t have to, I just have to out run you!"  

OK this is an old joke but it seems to sum up John McCain’s approach to winning the Republican nomination.   McCain’s shenanigan’s in WV show that if he can’t win outright he’ll do whatever he needs to make sure that Romney gets eaten by the bear!  

Some of you folks may find McCain’s tactic in WV surprising although I can’t imagine why.   McCain has shown on numerous occasions that his need to be in the MSM spotlight far outweighs any sense of team or camaraderie, at least with anyone that would be considered conservative.   Off the top of your head, can you name any legislation that McCain sponsored that didn’t include one of the most liberal of liberals as a cosponsor?   McCain/Kennedy, McCain/Lieberman, McCain/Feingold?  

Anyone who thinks that a "President" McCain will reach across the aisle (to the right!) or move towards the right are living with greater H.O.P.E. than the staunchest Obama supporter.

I’m working on a couple of divergent things, and I am preparing for the Fat Tuesday Drinking Right, so I will not be offering coverage of Super-Duper Tuesday. I can’t speak for any of my guest-bloggers (except for Fred, who will also be face-down in beads before the night is over; just don’t tell Mrs. RDW).

If you are looking for coverage, I highly recommend the following places (hopefully I remembered to shut off the pingbacks for those few who I’m putting links to posts instead of the main blog for; since this place will likely be silent tonight, I don’t need the traffic of those looking for SDT coverage):

– Michelle Malkin
– Mike’s America (he’ll have a live chat going)
– American Princess (E.M. will be a bit late)
– Hot Air
– TownHall
– Pajamas Media
– VodkaPundit (who is also part of the PJM coverage)
– Free Republic
– Sister Toldjah
– Suitably Flip
– Little Green Footballs
– Ace and the fellow moronbloggers
– The Campaign Spot
– bRight & Early

If I forgot you, I apologize; this one’s going up early. Leave a comment/pingback/trackback, and hopefully a few people will find their way into your place from the comments section (no, I will not be updating this; I don’t feel like having to check and uncheck the auto-notification option).

It’s been way too long since a HamNation has come down the pike, but this one’s worth it. Since I don’t want to steal from The Hammer, go, watch, and marvel at the genius that is MKH.

Stephen Green describing Congress to somebody north of the longest undefended border in the world (no, not the Mexican-American border, at least not yet):

The Senate is kind of like the House of Lords, only we’ve been stupid enough to let them hold on to real power.

The House is 435 people so offensive that their neighbors think it’s worth spending a couple hundred thousand dollars a year just to ship them away to Washington. These same bozos determine our taxes.

To which I add, the Speaker of the House tends to think that he or she is Prime Minister, when it is the executive that presides over the Senate.

While I tend to feel strongly about positions I take, I try to ensure that emotion doesn’t come into play until I’ve made a sound decision.   This is why I’ve been puzzled by why I have such a strong aversion to John McCain as the potential Republican nominee when I hear that the American Conservative Union (ACU) has given him a lifetime rating of 82.3.   Is it possible that I’ve gotten myself wrapped up in the McCain derangement rather than doing a thoughtful analysis?   After looking at the ACU it turns out that like most things McCain has said lately, while the fact snippet is true, there is much more to the story.

McCain does indeed have a lifetime rating of 82.3 from the ACU.   However, his recent ratings tell a different story.   In 2005 McCain’s rating was 80, still not bad.   In 2006 McCain’s rating dropped to 65.   Why has McCain dropped?

One might say that McCain’s drop is somehow related to issues that are peculiar to his representation of the people of Arizona.   One might say that, but if they do they would have to ask McCain’s Arizona counterpart, Senator Kyle why he has a lifetime rating of 96.9, a 2005 rating of perfect 100 and a 2006 rating of 80.   Obviously the issue isn’t representation of Arizona residents.   No, Senator McCain’s issue is that in 2006 he decided to vote against positions that are solidly conservative.

Everyone is aware that McCain went AWOL regarding the amnesty issue but does anyone remember that in July of last year McCain voted against the building of the border fence?   Oh yeah, I forgot, he’s learned his lesson now!

How about taxes?   I can’t figure out whether McCain is for or against Bush’s tax cuts.   He seems to dance around the issue each time it is asked.   Does anyone remember when McCain voted for a Senate bill that would have increased the number of votes required to LOWER TAXES from a simple majority to 60 votes?   Does this really sound like someone who thinks tax cuts are important?

How about prolife?   McCain’s record is consistently conservative when it comes to abortion.   However, in my book, prolife issues also extend to embryonic research.   I find it hard to reconcile being prolife but accepting the use of embryonic stem cells.   At the very least, embryonic stem cell research should not be funded by the federal government.   Yup, that would be the consistent prolife position but it’s not McCain’s.   McCain voted FOR the bill that allowed the use of federal funds for embryonic research.   I could go on with other examples of McCain’s recent lack of conservatism but I won’t.   The nauseating details can be found here:   http://www.acuratings.org/2006senate.htm

So why do I think I’m schizophrenic when thinking of McCain’s lifetime ACU ratings and his non-conservative rap?   The answer is I’m not, he is!   While having a lifetime rating that is not perfect but is acceptable, during the most recent 18 months his liberal leanings have become more apparent.   When the likes of Chuck Hagel and Norm Coleman have better ACU ratings than you do I think it’s safe to say that you’ve left the conservative wing of the party!  

Revisions/extensions (5:11 pm 2/4/2008; steveegg) – Fixed some formatting issues.

Revisions/extensions (1:30 pm 2/6/2008) – McCain is now inevitable. “Thank” you RNC, rank-and-file, and “conservatives” who refused to back and ultimately coalesce around a conservative candidate.

Flip has been doing a bang-up job on keeping track of the delegate counts. Indeed, I’m going to, er, borrow his GOP Primary Scoreboard – Maine Edition…
Sorry, I blew up my pics folder
Flip also ran the math on what Mitt Romney would need post-Super-Duper Tuesday to get the nomination based on what he gets on SDT. He figures that, for any candidate to remain viable after SDT, the candidate would have to need no more than 2/3rds of the delegates unspoken for by SDT. In Romney’s case, that would mean he would need to get at least 34% of the delegates in SDT.

Because I’m not satisfied by looking at just the latest candidate the LeftStreamMedia is trying to dump out of the race, I decided to resynthesize the viability factors for the remainder of the candidates, taking each through the full gamut of 0% of the SDT delegates (or the percentage a particular candidate would need just to remain mathematically in it without taking from one of the other 4) to 100%. Of particular note, I also ran a set for John McCain that assumed he would get all of Mike Huckabee’s delegates after SDT, and that Huckabee would have 165 delegates coming out of tomorrow (in short, his percentage of delegates now). First, the chart for McCain and Romney:

Note that, if McCain does not get Huckabee’s delegates, he will need to get 34% of the SDT delegates to remain “effectively viable”, that is, he needs to get no more than 2/3rds of the remaining delegates. That is the same (give or take rounding) as what Romney needs. Similarily, for McCain to become “effectively inevitable”, that is, he would need no more than 1/3rd of the remaining delegates, he would have to get 69% of the SDT delegates, compared to Romney’s 70%.

Where it gets interesting is when one adds Huckabee’s delegates to McCain’s. I’ll ignore the “effectively viable” number I originally calculated, as an 18% showing would make McCain anything but viable. However, if McCain and Huckabee got a combined 66% of the SDT delegates (the example in my chart has McCain getting 53% and Huckabee 13%), and all of Huckabee’s delegates went to McCain (or vice versa if you’re a Huckster), he would become effectively inevitable. Also, even if McCain and Huckabee took every delegate on Tuesday, their combined delegate count would not be enough to mathematically lock up the nomination.

Next up, the surviving also-rans, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul:

In order to remain “effectively viable”, both Huckabee and Paul would need to get at least 40% of the delegates on SDT. Morever, while both could theoretically be mathematically eliminated, only Paul is in serious danger of that. He would need to more than double his average delegate performance in order to have any shot whatsoever.

(Extension) Now that Super-Duper Tuesday is over, let’s go back to Flip for an analysis of the numbers. He does assume that McCain got all of California’s delegates because he won every county, while Jim Geraghty says that Romney will end up winning between 2 and 4 of California’s Congressional districts and thus between 6 and 12 delegates. There are also currently a few anomalies between plugging the percentages into the above analysis and the current Flip analysis that I cannot currently explain.

What is clear by any metric that includes California is that McCain has somewhere more than 60% of the delegates he needs to get the nomination on the first ballot. Worse, specifically for those hoping for a brokered convention, there already has been a deal cut between McCain and Huckabee, specifically in the West Virginia convention, where the McCain delegates flipped to Huckabee en masse on the second ballot. If the inverse holds true, McCain would have roughly 75% of the delegates he needs.

The road is all-but-impossible for Romney. Most if the states and territories up in the next 2 weeks, including Wisconsin, use by-district WTA schemes, and I expect McCain to take both of the “state”wide WTA contests (the largest prize of Virginia and the District of Columbia) as he is the Beltway and veteran candidate.

Bill Quick has the first 10, John Stephenson has the last 3. They both do a better job of explaining than I, and since I pretty much agree with the explanations, I’ll simply list the thirteen here…

#13 – The McCain-Snowe-Dorgan Drug Reimportation Act of 2004 (which would have shut down pharmaceutical research and development)

#12 – The McCain-Edwards-Kennedy Patients’ Bill of Rights Lawyers’ Bill of Sale

#11 – McShame’s defense of John F. Kerry against the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

#10 – McShame’s siding with the gay activists in a case when the Christian Civic League of Maine attempted to generate grass-roots support for the federal Marriage Protection Amendment

#9 – The Keating Five (mark my words; should McCain become the nominee, the moment he gets the required number of delegates, the presstitutes will be all over this)

#8 – Siding with the pro-abortion lobby when Wisconsin Right to Life attempted to generate grass-roots support to bust the filibuster of an attempt to prevent minors from crossing state lines for the purpose of getting an abortion without their parents’ consent during the re-coronation of Nobody’s Senator, Herb Kohl

#7 – Siding with the pro-abortion lobby again when Wisconsin Right to Life wanted to bust the judicial filibusters while his good friend Russ el-Slimeroad (Moonbat-Al Qaeda) was up for re-coronation

#6 – McShame’s starring role in the Gang of 14, which buried several good Constitutionalist judicial nominees

#5 – McShame’s ongoing class warfare

#4 – The McCain-Kennedy-Bush Shamnesty Act

#3 – McShame’s support for full Constitutional rights for terrorists

#2 – McShame-Slimeroad Lieberal Protection Act

And the #1 reason why I will never vote for John McCain…

#1 – If John McShame is not a RINO (he said in 2004 when he was flirting with running with Kerry – "I believe my party has gone astray. I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have no problems with it, in their views and in their philosophy."), I don’t know what a RINO is

Like I said, I’d rather deal with the flip-flops I do and don’t know about than somebody who, but for the War (and even on that, there’s a vital portion he agrees with the ‘Rats on), would be happier than a pig in day-old shit as a ‘Rat.

This time, it’s in Maine’s caucuses, which CNN had Romney winning 52%-21% at last count. For the record, that’s 5 caucii/conventions, 3 wins for Romney, 1 for McCain and 1 for Huckabee (and in that one, Romney vastly outpolled McCain). Bravo Zulu, Slu.

Tell me again why the fuck a guy who twice wanted to bolt to the ‘Rats in the last 7 years is leading the Pubbie nomination process.

Since I’m doing lists, I’ll bring one created by Mr. Pelican Pants up from the comments….

1980: Bush is VP
1984: Bush is VP
1988: Bush is Prez
1992: Clinton is Prez
1996: Clinton is Prez
2000: Bush 2 is Prez
2004: Bush 2 is Prez
2008: Clinton 2 is Prez??

In other words, if HRC is elected this year, two families will have effectively run this country for 32 years.

If she’s elected, it would more likely be 36 years when all is said and done, Pelican. There have been only three “natural” one-term Presidents (which takes out the never-elected Gerald Ford) since the turn of the last century (William Taft, Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter), and only Carter did not take the Oval Office from a fellow party member. Also, all 3 turned over the Oval Office to the opposition party.

It wasn’t exactly a secret at the time, and when the story finally made print with details in March, 2007, I don’t remember if I had already considered it old news. However, Drudge pulled it out of the memory hole today (H/T – Allahpundit, who is also the one that remembered it was 10 months old). Another new bit comes from Jack M., who offers some fresh first-hand confirmation. Guess it’s time to break out the ugly stick (on page 2 because it will not be for the squeamish or for those at work at a place they don’t own).

Leave it to the Emperor to come up with an elegant, kick-ass solution – write in Fred Dalton Thompson for President. Of course, that still would leave the bottom half to solve. Question; who for the bottom half? It would have to be somebody not in Virginia.

I don’t recall specifically hearing this scary-sobering factoid, but I’ll toss this list out there.

1945-1953 – Democratic Party
1953-1961 – Republican Party
1961-1969 – Democratic Party
1969-1977 – Republican Party
1977-1981 – Democratic Party
1981-1993 – Republican Party
1993-2001 – Democratic Party
2001-(at least 2009) – Republican Party

I started with 1945 because, while Franklin Roosevelt was elected in 1944 to a 4th term, his Vice President, Harry Truman, assumed the office near the beginning of the term and thus the term was more his than Roosevelt’s, and the 22nd Amendment term-limiting Presidents was ratified during Truman’s administration, though it did not apply to him.

What is scary-sobering is only once in the last 63 years (64 by the time President Bush is officially term-limited) has a party maintained control of the White House for more than 8 years, and the party in control now is the Republican Party. Of course, the one long-term outlier is the Republican Party.

Revisions/extensions (11:44 pm 1/3/2008) – This was originally posted 12:51 pm 12/17/2007; I bumped this to the top because the Iowa caucus is today. Also, I redacted Tom Tancredo’s bit; he dropped out after the initial posting.

R&E part 2 (5:08 pm 1/3/2008) – I didn’t realize that with “pretty” permalinks, I had destroyed those that had linked to the page before I bumped this up to the top. Sorry about that. I fixed that oversight.

R&E part 3 (7:58 pm 1/7/2008) – Back to the top again just in time for New Hampshire.

R&E part 4 (5:59 am 1/29/2008) – Cold, hard reality has set in with the ouster of Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter. At this point, I can’t recommend anybody, but I’ll put this back at the top.

R&E part 5 (6:37 am 1/31/2008) – Call it rationalization, call it what you will, but if the Double Talk Express wants to lie through his teeth, I will do whatever I can to stop him. Also, scratch Rudy Giuliani.

I wanted to do this last week as a companion piece to the “24 campaigning days to Iowa” one, but things got a bit topsy-turvy. John Washburn took me to task for not including Ron Paul in the look at why the top-runners would and would not get their party’s nomination; I’ll briefly explain why not. While Paul’s support is a mile deep, with another $4 million+ money bomb yesterday, in terms of Republican voters, it’s two feet wide, with no real support in any early-state poll.

With that bit of housekeeping out of the way, it’s time to note that there are 17 campaigning days until the Iowa caucuses and climb the molehill. Wisconsin set its too-late-to-matter Republican primary ballot order in a very convenient way for me (H/T – Jib/Badger Blog Alliance), so that’s the order I’ll take the candidates. John, and supporters of Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, will be glad to know I’ll include them this time.

Rudy Giuliani

Why I could support him: He is very willing to engage in the war against radical Islam, indeed calling it just that. He says he wants to appoint conservative judges. He has a track record of cutting taxes.

What mitigates against supporting him: Oh, where to begin? Let’s start with his unabashed support of Roe v Wade and subsequent court rulings imposing abortion-on-demand from the bench. Instead of cutting spending to match cut taxes, he raised fees. He ran a sanctuary city. He loves the idea of grabbing guns. I could go on all day, but I’m out of time.
The policy takeaway: Given I believe that borders are meant to be enforced, the role of government and especially the judicial branch is to be limited, and the Second Amendment means we the people can defend ourselves against among other things a tyrannical government, I cannot support Giuliani in the primary.

Mike Huckabee

Why I could support him: He won’t attack Christianity or gun owners.

What mitigates against supporting him: Oh, where to begin, part deux? I’ll start with his tax record; he begged for tax hikes while in Arkansas. Staying with taxes, he wants a national sales tax of 30% to replace everything else. He is a lover of big-government solutions to problems. He likes the idea of an intrusive government. He is, at best, terribly naiive on foreign policy and at worst the second coming of Jimmy Carter. Once again, I could go on all day, but I’m out of time.
The policy takeaway: There is absolutely, positively nothing conservative about Huckabee, so I cannot support him in the primary.

Duncan Hunter

Why I could support him: He recognizes we need a secure southern border, and pretty much alone among the candidates, he recognizes the threat that Red China poses.

What mitigates against supporting him: His support of the “Fair”Tax.
The policy takeaway: Hunter is very intriguing.

John McCain

Why I could support him: He’s pretty tough on the war against radical Islam, and very outspoken against pork-barrel spending.

What mitigates against supporting him: Again, where to begin? He does not comprehend the First Amendment. He has a rabid opposition to tax cuts (not to be confused with his opposition to tax hikes). He has a mistaken, though personally-justifiable, aversion to torture and near-torture.
The policy takeaway: Between McCain-Feingold and his opposition to tax cuts to try to force a cut in spending, out goes McCain in the primary consideration.

Ron Paul

Why I could support him: On most domestic issues, he is a Constitutionalist.

What mitigates against supporting him: How many times am I going to ask, “Where to begin?” Let’s start with a complete lack of comprehension of how those outside of the United States think. I’ll toss in a lack of knowledge of world history. He is a goldbug who refuses to acknowledge the Golden Age of Gold has ended.
The policy takeaway: Given I’m an amateur student of history, Paul’s lack of comprehension is a disqualifier in the primary.

Mitt Romney

Why I could support him: All of his flips have been to the right.

What mitigates against supporting him: He who flips tends to flop back (I didn’t mention it earlier, but Michelle Malkin has the transcript on the flopback on amnesty). One of those flips that haven’t happened and indeed was reinforced was his gun-grabbing tendency.
The policy takeaway: If only I could believe,….

Tom Tancredo

Why I could support him: He is the strongest candidate against illegal immigration. He does exhibit some federalist tendencies.

What mitigates against supporting him: He also is the strongest candidate against legal immigration.
The policy takeaway: So close, yet so far.

Fred Thompson

Why I could support him: He’s strong on the war against radical Islam, his tax plan (borrowed from my Congressman, Paul Ryan) is eminently supportable, and he has serious federalist tendencies.

What mitigates against supporting him: He had a significant lapse of reason regarding the First Amendment, and that was only partially remedied.
The policy takeaway: He’s the second-most-intriguing candidate on the issues.

With the policy cases made, I can now take intangibles into account, such as popularity. I would have recommended Duncan Hunter, and indeed, I have donated to his campaign, but he failed to catch on with even the Republican faithful. Similarily, I would have recommended (and did recommend) Fred Thompson, but once again, he didn’t catch on with even the Republican faithful outside the blogosphere.

Taking everything into account, I am recommending Fred Thompson nobody at this time Mitt Romney in the Republican Presidential primary.

Revisions/extensions (11:18 pm 1/1/2008) – Welcome, those of you who followed in from the subtle pimping over at Hot Air. Well, Michael in MI asked for a listing of each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses, and I had noticed a certain lack of collation of same. I am usually a man of few words, but I tried to stick to “hard” items I could verify.

Folks, I don’t know if you paid any attention to last night’s debate, or the McCain/Alito mess, but between McCain saying in private and denying in public that Justice Alito is too conservative, McCain outright lying about Mitt Romney’s position on Iraq when he had the exact same position a couple months prior, and McCain’s double-talk on the Bush tax cuts, he cannot be allowed to get the nomination.

I’m now on my third choice for President, and while I said I wouldn’t support Mitt Romney nearly as much as I did Fred Thompson, I’d rather deal with the flips I do and don’t know than the knives I know will be shoved in my back. Therefore, I’m officially a FredHead for Mitt.