The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.
Revisons/extensions (3:59 pm 1/19/2008) – Mike sent along the code to simulcast his live-blog. I’ll simulcast below, and ask that you give him some visits.
R&E part 2 (5:52 pm 1/19/2008) – I’m pulling double-comment duty, as I’m also at Justin Higgins’ liveblog.
Comments Off on No political predictions (or live-blogging) here
Allow me to state for the record that the title is a play on Allahpundit’s use of the “SECOND LOOK AT…” schtick. I am still firmly in the Fred Thompson camp, and I’m more-likely to jump back on the Duncan Hunter wagon than the Mitt Romney one if Thompson were the first to bolt from the campaign. However, if it came down to Romney versus Rudi McCabee, there is no real doubt I’d go onto the Romney boat.
The right end of the blogosphere is all a-twitter, from Michelle Malkin to Allahpundit to Mary Katharine Ham to Erick at RedState, over Romney-backer Dean Barnett’s piece in today’s New York Times basically complaining that we don’t know the “real Mitt Romney”. I don’t doubt for a minute that Romney is a nice, decent family man. However, Barnett inadvertantly points out the fatal flaw in the Romney campaign; he hasn’t been true to himself. Specifically, Barnett called Romney’s early focus on the social end of conservatism false. While Barnett asserts that this focus was the sole source of of the flip-flop “meme”, it’s Romney’s own record and words that bring the truth to the charges.
What would be worse is a suggestion that there be a refocus completely away from the social conservative end, in what Erick terms “unleashing the real Mitt Romney”. For better or for worse, Romney has made his bets. To change those this late in the game is going to simply reinforce the flip-flop, and if his campaign believes that is the only hope left, they may as well save the remainder of Romney’s fortune and concede. They can, and should, augment their existing messages with a stronger message that Romney knows business.
However, they’re even flubbing that. Once again, Romney is hitting up against the flip-flop card. Back in October, when he was the “inevitable early-stater”, he was unabashedly pro-business. His message, and more-importantly, delivery, on that back then was powerful enough to impress both MKH and me; indeed, my words were, “Romney blew me away.”
Now, he’s jumped on the “middle-class tax cut” canard. I remember a certain ex-President promising a “middle-class tax cut”, only to abandon it the moment he took the oath of office. I know that ex-President isn’t from the same party as Romney, but the principle of “fool me once” seems to ring true.
Even in the economic area, Romney has a major flaw; he is all-too-willing to force a public-private intrusion into private decisions. Specifically, there is precious little difference between MassachusettsCare and the various Democratic “universal” CubaCare mandates; the only significant difference is that Romney at least allows insurance companies a taste of the mandate.
He is also wedded to the idea that the federal government be very-actively involved in research and development; indeed, that is the push of his newest ad. While the rest of the world does exactly that, they also have the suffocating taxes to go along with it. Morever, even with all of that government involvement, most of the breakthroughs in the last 50 years have come from the United States, and most of those breakthroughs have come without a whole lot of government intervention. Coincidence? I think not.
Ultimately, we’re not electing Mr. Congeniality. We have tried that before, most recently in 2000. Like Romney after him, George Bush promoted himself as somebody who could work with Democrats. I believe we all know how far that got him when he found out that the Washington ‘Rats are an arrogant, stubborn bunch completely unwilling to work with anybody except on their terms.
We’re also not electing a manager who bends over parallel to the ground in the slightest of breezes. For all the good that Romney has done out of government, that field of grass is his legacy as a politician.
Well, the Fox crew did what they should have; keep just enough of a rein on things to let the candidates either shine or step in it. So, who shone and who stepped in it?
Fred Thompson – Get me my shades. He had Huckabee’s breakfast, lunch and dinner, and dined on McCain’s snack while tossing back New York Times’ martinis.
Mitt Romney – Mostly-solid, but he was reduced to playing Roast-A-Paul-Nut.
John McCain – See Romney.
Rudy Giuliani – He’s a real vanishing man. Going to be invisible soon.
Mike Huckabee – The Republican Party didn’t leave him, he left the Republican Party.
Ron Paul – When even Mike Huckabee roasts you, you’re a bad candidate.
I hope the blogosphere’s personal DVR, Allahpundit, is rolling hard drive on Mike Huckabee’s meltdown in the spin room. If his defense of his outright liberalism by saying that Reagan was also a tax-raising liberal doesn’t sink his fat ass, I don’t know what will.
We have Ron Paul in the debate this time, so I will be drunkblogging this thing. Between roasting PaulNuts and the alcohol, I expect to beam swearing like a longshoreman and not sugarcoating the expletives behind either the phonetic alphabet or a <expletive deleted> tag, so this will not be simulcast over at my little corner of TownHall’s wall. I’ll be back here somewhere around 7:45 to run this bout of insanity straight into the ground (quick, somebody call the NTSB).
With that warning out of the way, I’ll once again remind you how I do this. I’m not the fastest typist on the planet, and my wireless keyboard is starting to crap out on me, so I paraphrase a lot. The questions from the mods will be in italics, the answers from the candidates will be in normal text, if you see “DING! DING!” in-line with an answer, that’s the bell going off, not me agreeing, and anything in parentheses in-line with a question or an answer is my commentary.
Revisions/extensions (10:11 pm 1/10/2008) – The red pickup is reloaded. As of 10:10, we had $548,922 in it.
We got a new paint scheme for the truck, a new lease on life after making it through Iowa, and a new goal – $540,000 by the end of tomorrow, January 11. As I type this (just before noon Central), we’re $105,004 short of that goal. Why is it important to get those ads on in South Carolina? I’ll let Rick Moran explain:
But Thompson desperately needs to win in South Carolina in order to continue to be a viable candidate. And there are several factors at play in the Palmetto State that makes a Thompson win a realistic goal:
1. Romney has dropped out of the running in SC, having pulled his ads and is transferring staff in order to ambush John McCain in Michigan.
2. That leaves only three candidates with a realistic shot at winning in SC; Huckabee, McCain, and Thompson. Amazingly, none of the three candidates will have an overwhelming advantage when it comes to financing. This levels the playing field considerably.
3. SC voters have made it clear that opposition to illegal immigration is one of the top issues in the state. Looking at the three candidates above, who do you think has the most consistent, conservative record on immigration?
4. Outside factors may play a role in the dynamics of the race. McCain may very well be grievously wounded by a Romney win in Michigan – a state he won in 2000. There would be little time for McCain to right himself following a loss there what with the SC primary 4 days later.
In short, a Thompson win in SC is not only possible but within reach – if Fred has the money for media buys to get his message to the people.
Balance the budget and eliminate underperforming programs
Enact meaningful earmark reform
Eliminate improper government payments and prosecute fraud
Reform entitlement programs
Folks, I can’t force you to go through that door, donate to the Thompson campaign, and ultimately vote for him. I can only show you the door and why it would be wise to go through. So, please, go through that door, donate, and vote. For your convenience, you can either click on that button at the top-left of the blog or click on it below:
Revisions/extensions (6:45 pm 1/10/2008) – Actually, I have a pair of updates. The first is that the red pickup has $516,215 in it, which means we need another $23,785. The second is Fred talking about the experts (H/T – Austin over at The Fred File):
Those of you with sensitive sensibilities, don’t click as there are 4 f-bombs and 2 s-bombs just in the post (I lost count how many undeleted expletives are in the comments). The rest of you, enjoy Ace’s extra-crispy roasting of the head Paul-Nut.
Charlie got an e-mail this morning from somebody who, in Allahpundit’s words, is taking a SECOND LOOK AT MCCAIN! Since my response is going to bust the 500-character limit over there, I’ll let loose here, at least as soon as I get a couple of disclaimers out of the way; I’m a FredHead, and I don’t speak for anybody other than me.
Dear Charlie,
Don’t get me wrong I’m as conservative as they come, and as most conservatives have not been happy with John McCain lately. However, I have taken a second look at him since Iowa, and have realized he’s not as bad as I thought. Here’s my take.
I too have taken a second look at McCain; however, he is as bad as I thought.
1) He’ll be just as good as Guiliani on the war on terror, a lot of conservatives give Rudy a pass on a lot of issues because of his strong war stance. why not McCain?
I will grant that McCain understands the war must be fought, just like Giuliani, Thompson, Hunter and Romney. However, due to understandable personal reasons, he is mistaken on what needs to be done to get information out of jihadis that we capture.
2) At least he’s Pro-Life.
Just like Thompson, Hunter, Huckabee, and at least since 1995, Romney.
3) Cannot be criticized for being a hypocrite on the war, because he did serve honorably in the military.
Just like Hunter.
4) Media does like him a little, I know they will turn on him fast during the general election, but at least I don’t think it will be as venomous as it would be with; Huckabee, Romney and the rest.
Really? I believe they will be even more venomous because they will have to work extra-hard to get people to forget that they did like him.
5) Can claim the high road on the campaign, because of his campaign reform bill (I know I don’t like it, but it will make a good commercial).
You mean like Russ “I’ll take the high road” Feingold? Of course, the letter-writer ignores that the McShame-Slimeroad Lieberal Protection Act is patently unconstitutional.
6) Does have widespread name recognition, except for people who pay attention, no one knows who Romney, or Huckabee are.
There is such a thing as bad publicity, and that is what McCain has.
7) Has hardly any personal baggage to make him a easy target.
Does the Keating Five ring a bell?
8) His voting record in the Senate (which could be better) will look a lot more mainstream than the ultra liberal records of, Hillary, Obama, and Edwards.
Except for his records on judges, campaign “finance”, taxes, illegal immigration (shall I go on?)
9) Will attract a sizeable chunk of the Senior vote, which Republicans have been losing it’s share lately.
Really? That assumes that seniors as a whole are just as easily-led by the nose as Dem women and blacks.
I admit I have some hang ups still, but we need an electable candidate. No, I am not on his campaign, or affiliated with him in any way. Just a person worried what this Country will look like after four years of a liberal President. Thank you.
Will they be closer to the Iowa version of this or my Wild-Card Weekend lack-of-performance? Only one way to find out, and the vote-counting begins in about 3 hours.
Democrats
Barack Obama – 43% Hillary Clinton – 32% John Edwards – 21%
This race is over, folks.
Republicans
John McCain – 35% – Once again, the New Hampshire crowd will go for the maverick who will die in South Carolina. Mitt Romney – 28% – Romney’s Last Stand will come up short. Ron Paul – 10% – They love their Nuts in New Hampshire. Rudy Giuliani – 9% – There is a serious myth about New Hampshire being conservative. Mike Huckabee – 7% – The dynamic of the last couple of elections is setting up, and unfortunately for Huck, they hate Evangelicals in New England. Fred Thompson – 4% – See Giuliani’s wrap, and add in the fact that Fred didn’t kiss any hindquarters there. Duncan Hunter – 4% – It’s officially a “message” campaign for Hunter now.
Don’t let the title I gave this thing fool you, but Christian Schneider makes a pretty strong case for Jeri Ryan being the woman that changed the world over at his employer’s (the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute) blog. I can’t do him justice by either excerpting or stealing, so go read it. (R&E part 2 – 7:29 pm 1/7/2008) – If that crashes on you, Chris cross-posted it over at Atomic Trousers. I waited as long as I thought I could before doing theft below; sorry about that, Chris.
I can, however, offer the obligatory picture…
Revisions/extensions (7:03 pm 1/7/2008) – Michelle Malkin delivered a Malkinlanche to the WPRI that almost crushed the server, so I’ll steal it except for the pic Chris used (not the one I chose). While I would prefer the commentary to be either at the WPRI or Malkin’s place, I’ve already picked up a comment here, so I can’t exactly shut that down now.
With Barack Obama’s meteoric rise topping the news these days, many people have forgotten the bizarre series of events that paved the way to his stunning ascendance. It’s especially interesting given that some personal and minor details, thought at the time to be insignificant, could now eventually shape the world we live in – given that Obama has a realistic chance to win the presidency. In retrospect, Obama’s presidential run was the candidacy that almost never happened.
Back in 2004, Barack Obama was an Illinois state senator with some modest accomplishments on his resume. He spearheaded welfare reform in the Illinois statehouse, and took the lead in passing a law that required interrogations in murder cases to be videotaped.
After unsuccessfully challenging strong Democratic incumbent Bobby Rush in a Congressional primary in 2000, Obama returned in 2004 to run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Republican Senator Peter Fitzgerald. Obama emerged from a crowded Democratic primary that included multi-millionaire Blair Hull, who spent $29 million of his own money in the primary alone (including paying homeowners $75 a day to keep his signs in their yards). In an 8-candidate race, Obama garnered 53% of the vote, routing his opponents.
Yet despite running away with the primary, Obama still had a formidable challenge in Republican Jack Ryan. Ryan was an impressive candidate – attractive and wealthy, with law and business degrees from Harvard. After making a fortune at Goldman Sachs, Ryan left to teach in an inner city school.
Yet Ryan had a problem – during the campaign, he was going through a messy divorce from actress Jeri Ryan, of "Star Trek: Voyager" fame. Details of Jeri Ryan’s testimony contained lurid details about Ryan forcing his wife to go to sex clubs in Paris. These details were toxic to Jack Ryan’s campaign, and he saw his poll numbers plummet – eventually, Republican leaders pressed Ryan to quit the race, fearing he was toxic to the statewide ticket.
Eventually, Ryan bowed out, leaving the Illinois Republican Party to find a candidate to run against Obama. This led to the national embarrassment of Alan Keyes moving to Illinois to run. Naturally, Obama won 70%-27%, buoyed by his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention.
The rest is history. Certainly, Obama deserves all the credit for the way he has excited Democratic crowds around the country – leading to his rout of Hillary Clinton in Iowa. And he may have beaten Jack Ryan on his own. But it’s fascinating to think that the salacious testimony of a woman scorned could one day fundamentally alter the path of the world in which we live. Without it, Barack Obama could still be sitting in the Illinois statehouse, planning his next political move.
Note: this will be at the top of the blog through 10 pm; fresher stuff (if any) will be below):
Yes, it’s a bit early, but I need solace after an extra-chunky NFL weekend (0-3 straight-up, 0-3 ATS, 2-1 O/U so far and another set of losses setting up late in the first half of the last game). Guess CoverItLive got a bit too crowded last night. No matter; I’ll be back at it here at 6:45 Central, along with most of the Pubbies (Ron Paul will finally be shown the door, so the threat of a-, s-, d-, f- and h-bombs is significantly-reduced). The usual rules apply, namely I paraphrase heavily, questions are in italics, answers are in normal text, my own comments that are in-line with questions or answers are in parentheses, and because it’s Fox, if you see “DING! DING!” and it’s not in parentheses, it’s not me agreeing, it’s the bell ringing.
Revisions/extensions (8:58 pm 1/6/2008) – First, thank you, everybody, for making this a fun and busy live-blog. I had hoped to get to Mike’s, but much like his, things got real busy. Thank you, Stephen, for sending over the usual VodkaPundit crew.
As for who won and lost, I may go back through the tapes tomorrow. I need some sleep right now; I’m in the middle of a nice little chest cold that laid me flat most of the day.
R&E part 2 (10:00 pm 1/6/2008) – Fortunately, the debate got done before CoverItLive went down. Once it comes back up, that blank in the middle of the post will have the wrap.
(H/T – JammieWearingFool, who is having a better NFL weekend than I am; then again, who isn’t?)
How desperate is Hillary Clinton to demonstrate that her campaign isn’t Dead (Wo)man Walking? Desperate enough to bus in people from Massachusetts, says the Washington Times:
Reporters who walked into this Nashua high school today were immediately struck by the crowd "” there are visibly more people here for Sen. Hillary Clinton than were here for Sen. Barack Obama yesterday in the same location.
The Clinton crowd was loud and boisterous and their foot-stomping was thunderous.
Many of them were also from Massachusetts.
Clinton gave a few minute speech about how she sees the race for 2008 shaping up, then started taking questions. As she did, I noticed dozens of people start streaming out via the back doors.
Of the 7 people I interviewed, three said they had taken advantage of the short drive to come see both Clinton and Obama in the area in advance of the Feb. 5 Massachusetts primary.
But the others said they were Clinton volunteers who came up to canvass on her behalf this weekend.
Serap Sankoh, a biostatistician from Acton, Mass., said she had been actively recruited to attend and wave signs wildly by the Clinton campaign. “I got the telephone calls not last night but the night before and I’m a die-hard supporter, so I made the drive,” she said.
Another reporter noticed a charter bus parked outside "” and it wasn’t part of our traveling motorcade.
Yark – CoverItLive died about 9:20. Time to do this the old-fashioned way…
9:22 – To Richardson – Pushing national service for college education.
9:22 – To Breck – It’s the corporates. Destroy them (and not the Islamists?) for the sheeple.
9:23 – P-p-please mandate a carbon tax. – To Richardson – It’s a stupid idea because it’s a mandate and it is passed onto the people. Cap and trade is also a mandate, but it’s good. We need light rail (bullshi*)
9:25 – To Obama – I like cap-and-trade and mandating sacrifices on the altar of Gorebal Warming.
9:26 – To Hiliary – We’re headed to a recession, so we need more welfare.
9:28 – We have 3 engines out, we’re leaking fuel…oops, wrong speech. We have a housing crisis, a job crisis, and a looming recession. Defend taking away the Bush tax cuts. To Hiliary – Rich is $250K.
9:32 – Sorry about that; the PHP error popped up again (have to track it down). To Obama – I like trickle-up.
9:34 – How do you improve the economy? To Richardson – Balance the budget, pay off the ChiCom debt, line-item veto (so far, so good), kill corporate welfare (starting to go off the rails), tax breaks for those that overpay (way off the rails).
9:34 – What would you take back? To Hiliary – Why me first? They’re not talking about recession, education, and I’ll leave the rest to the pundits.
To Richardson – I’d take back backing Wizard White because he wasn’t lieberal enough.
To Breck – I take back what I said about the Black Pantsuit jacket a few debates ago, you look mahvelous, Hill.
To Obama – We’re different than the people we eliminated and the the Pubbies (no shi*, Sherlock).
And we’re done.
Thanks for coming on out. Sorry about the outages, both on the CoverItLive and this place. I’m headed to bed; I don’t feel like listening to ‘Rats spin ‘Rats.
I haven’t yet decided whether to be nice or surly (you’ve got a few minutes yet to vote)…
Should I do a nice-blog or a surly-blog of tonight's ABC debates?
Up to 1 answer(s) was/were allowed
Just swear, Eggy. (80%, 8 Vote(s))
Be nice and don't swear. (20%, 2 Vote(s))
Total Voters: 10
Loading ...
…but whatever the decision, it will be below. If you’ve never watched a live-blog with CoverItLive’s software, it’s quite a bit nicer than just watching it on a blog. First, you don’t have to hit refresh. Second, you can participate (all comments on the CoverItLive portion are subject to my approval). Third, if I do decide to be nice, I can multicast this puppy. Going in, Mitt Romney took Wyoming with 8 delegates, Fred Thompson was second with 2, Duncan Hunter picked up his first delegate, and the 12th was still up in the air as of post time.
Revisions/extensions (5:29 pm 1/5/2008) – Hate to disappoint those of you who want me to show my AoSHQ colors, but this thing’s going multi-cast. I will, however, be making massive use of the <expletive deleted> tag. I will also be keeping an eye on the NFL.
Also, I almost forgot the ground rules; I paraphrase a lot, questions will be in italics, answers in plain text, and any personal comments in-line with questions or answers will be in parentheses.
First, the Wyoming county caucuses. This thing slipped my mind, partially because it is so archane (H/T – John Hawkins) it makes the Dem half of the Iowa caucii look sane and partially because the delegate total was halved, but it’s on as I type. At stake are 126 12 of 28 14 delegates, and the story (cribbed from Rich Moran) is pretty convoluted. Originally, Wyoming’s plan was to do their county caucuses to select 12 of the 28 delegates to the national convention the same day as New Hampshire’s primary, January 22, with the remaining 16 chosen at the state convention in May. Because of the leapfrogs, they eventually settled on today. Because, unlike Iowa’s and Nevada’s caucii, the delegates are bound to candidates, the RNC halved the grand total because it’s happening before Super-Duper Tuesday, which would have cut the bounty from the caucuses to 6. In a desperate attempt to keep some form of meaning, the Wyoming Republicans decided to once again make it 12 and cut the number selected at the convention from 8 (already reduced from 16) to 2.
Jim Geraghty reports that the party insiders are still anticipating a romp by Mitt Romney, the only candidate to set up an office in Wyoming. However, Fred Thompson has also worked the state relatively-hard (no jokes about being lazy; reserve them for the Liberal Three this round), and those two as well as Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter have made recent phone efforts. Meanwhile, the Liberal Three of John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Rudy Giuliani treated Wyoming as though it didn’t exist.
Next, most of the candidates will be on back-to-back debates on ABC tonight starting at 6 pm (Central; refer to your local listings for station and time). I’ll be here with live-blogging; since I haven’t yet decided whether to be nice or surly, I do not know whether I’ll be simulcasting the live-blogging at some of the other places I have blogging keys to (namely, my hole-in-the-TownHall wall). I’ll leave that decision up to you. Mind you, I won’t guarantee I’ll listen to the majority (unlike government, I’m not a democratically-elected representative republic), but it will weigh heavily in my decision.
Should I do a nice-blog or a surly-blog of tonight's ABC debates?
There’s a certain dearth of pro-Huckabee blogs on my roll and reader (no, that’s not by design; most of the blogs there got there long before the primary season started a year ago, and I didn’t drop anybody because of who they supported), as well as a dearth of Democratic ones (that’s by design) so this is not likely going to be pretty. Let’s roll with those that didn’t simply choose to drink the night away (and see if I can inflate the TTLB ranking of some good blogs):
– Jack M is rooting for a brokered convention.
– Kate, in a common theme, wonders, “(W)hat the hell are those Iowans smoking anyway?”
– Gaius calls it unhappy returns for both Clinton and Romney/McCain (the latter is an unusual call).
– Trail-Mix has a long, laundry list on both sides of the aisle.
– Sinistar is doubling down on Fred. (side note; I agree; let it ride)
– Swint is blaming Mormon bigotry and spinning madly for Mitt
– Ed Driscoll has a two-parter: “A Mormon in the Dog House?” and Obama’s victory over both Clinton and the Jackson/Sharpton wing of the party
– The Fred folks won a ticket to the next dance.
– Mary has the triple play – Obama in the racial time warp, a warning for the Huck-a-Soldiers that not everybody is like Iowa, and Smilex for Clinton.
– Elliot declares Obama the Dem king, but isn’t ready to hand over the Pubbie crown to Huckabee.
– Bruce recaps his radio show with the obvious; Obama and Huck win big, Clinton and Romney lose big.
– HeatherRadish tried to stay awake to avoid being eaten by her cat, got embarrassed by the Huck-A-Iowans.
– The Headless One thinks the unthinkable nightmare scenario; Obama v Huckabee v Paul v Bloomberg.
– Allahpundit asks whether we can dance on Hillary’s grave (answer; not yet; we need that race alive long enough to sort out our own problems without having the “false-flag” Paul-Nuts really deliver a SNAFU package).
– Bryan asks, “What now?” (Well, Clinton’s going to go grab a pair of pliers and a blow torch)
– Jib continues the common theme and asks, “Really, Iowa?”
– Brian of Liberty Pundit has a lengthy view that I can’t do justice in a few short words.
– Jim Lynch says it went as expected.
– Jessica McBride has a bullet-point review.
– Michelle Malkin focuses on some of the eclectic – Duncan soldiering on despite a 1% showing (makes sense; he used the ignore-Iowa strategy, and his campaign is more to raise awareness than anything else), unions losing (again), and asking whether the LeftStreamMedia will stop race-based fear-mongering (short answer, upon Obama’s numerical inevitability as the nominee and not a moment later).
– Dean continues the theme of the night/morning, “Anybody but that goob,” and warns there is one last gasp out of the Clinton Slime Machine for Obama.
– Gopfolk may be wrong and he may be right (wasn’t that a song?)
– Peggy Noonan says, “Out with the old, in with the new.” (I would’ve went with the “bold” from the old Miller Brewing commercial; Obama and Huckabee aren’t exactly “new” as much as “bold”).
– Bill Bradley says it’s historic.
– Mark McNally says it was Preachers’ Night in Iowa.
– Fred (Dooley, not Thompson) came oh-so-close to using actual swear words to describe Clinton’s reaction (I normally would supply them, but since this mega-link post will likely draw in some traffic and hopefully send out some as well, I won’t here; I probably will repeat them in another post because I can’t get rid of my AoS moron itch).
– Matthew declares winners and losers in the Huck v Mitt battle.
– Jon Ham has a two-parter: he asks how a black guy can beat a white woman and a white man in a state that’s 90% white, and points out Chuck Grassley’s idiotic defense of the caucii.
– John Hawkins does a lengthy “What now?”
– Silent E has a unique way to state the obvious.
– Slublog’s at stage 2 of grief, and has used his anger to become a late-blooming FredHead. He’s also fearful of the coming split, which explains the bloom.
– Kathy Carpenter is almost alone in saying there were no surprises.
– Teresa does the wrap in pics.
– Peter has a 2-parter – who’s left to stop the Huckster except Fred (along with F-bombs and flying ashtrays from Clinton), and Huck’s the man with the glass jaw (er, at this point, it’s Romney with the shattered glass jaw)
– Asian Badger continues the theme of the night/morning with “Huckabee, Schmuckabee”.
– Jim Geraghty has Master Rove’s review (dammit; I missed Jim’s on CNN; anybody have video?)
– RAG rejoices that skin color is no longer a barrier to victory.
– Mary Katharine has the last-second New Hampshire itinerary for Huckabee (please burn that mo in NH, Mike)
– USCitizen points out that Thompson took 3rd despite the Fox News Blackout.
– Stephen Green punches out an angry open letter to Iowans that starts off with Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.
– Will Collier takes the Giuliani/Hunter approach to Iowa; it doesn’t matter.
– Zip says, “It don’t mean nothin’, not a thing.”
– James Wigderson sings “Two Tribes” by Frankie Goes to Hollywood.
– Brian Fraley gives some free professional analysis (pssst, hey Sean, The Markesian Group is available)
– Erick declares war on the Politico, which has declared war on Thompson and congratulates Ron Paul R&E part 1 (10:17 am 1/4/2008)
– Nick gives this round to Jesus (note to Nick; Giuliani wasn’t competing in Iowa, and he isn’t competing in New Hampshire, so he’s going nowhere). R&E part 2 (10:44 am 1/4/2008)
– Curt is ready for the South Carolina round.
– I’m horrible at self-promotion, but I may as well point you at my own lack of cognitive consciousness. R&E part 3 (12:20 pm 1/4/2008)
– William Smith gives a Granite insight into what’s next.
– Just a Grunt offers a $10 commentary for 2¢.
– Eric takes a typical long Tygrrrr look at a Pope and a Hope.
I’ll have more tomorrow after a good night’s sleep, and I may well revise and extend this then, but I won’t let a lack of cognitive consciousness stop me from putting out a few overtired thoughts.
First, on the Democratic side, John Edwards is DONE!!! with a capital E and three exclamation points. Yeah, he took second to Barack Obama, but he needed to both get much closer than 8 percentage points (in delegate-equivalents; the Dems have goofy rules that don’t let vote totals get out) to the lead and more than a half a percentage point ahead of Hillary Clinton. Iowa was his make-or-break state, and he didn’t quite make.
Speaking of Clinton, she is now on life support. I won’t say that race is over, if only because there is enough of the Clinton Slime Machine for one more slime, but if she can’t capture New Hampshire, we will have Dem nominee Barack Obama long before Super-Duper Tuesday, with potentially-frightening consequences for the Republican process.
On the Republican side, almost everybody, including the temporary-cheering section in the media, grossly underestimated the Huck-A-Boom. Mike Huckabee has survived a very heavy round of Hack-A-Huck, mainly by tapping into both the logical conclusion of “compassionate ‘conservatism'” (namely, using the power and full weight of government to force a particular set of values that at best bear a passing semblance to conservatism) and the evangelical factor to destroy the well-(and self-)financed person that exlemplified the “mere” extension of “compassionate ‘conservatism'” and the rest of the field. The problem is the next state, New Hampshire, isn’t exactly evangelical-friendly. However, he’s game to try.
Destroyed best describes Mitt Romney. In the span of 6 weeks, he went from the prohibitive favorite to a 9-point loser despite outspending the competition and flopping from view to view to fit the perceived message, and he’s headed to another state where he’s in unexpected serious trouble. He’s uncomfortably stuck in the middle of the road with the loser toe tag on.
The view on Fred Thompson is very mixed. As I type, he’s holding onto a 0.26-point lead for third with 7% of the precincts left to report. The good news is his original competition in his next competitive state, Romney in South Carolina, is dead in the water, listing, settling, and ablaze, and Thompson is, if barely, the last broad-spectrum conservative relatively unscathed. The bad is New Hampshire lies between the two, and South Carolina is arguably very evangelical-friendly (remember, John McCain’s campaign died there in 2000 immediately after he pissed off the evangelicals).
John McCain lives on to fight another day. Even if he doesn’t come back to take 3rd, he exceeded expectations, which combined with Romney’s fall, will be more than enough to give him New Hampshire again. However, the field is too crowded, and he’s not enough of a media darling to take that and do what he didn’t do in 2000.
Ron Paul is the third surprise. He has the ability to be a very nasty spoiler (with the emphasis on nasty), though beyond helping to finish off Romney in New Hampshire because of his Libertarian background, I do not know who else he will spoil, mainly because there is still barely a Democratic race.
Perhaps the night’s biggest Republican winner is also the night’s second-biggest Republican loser. Despite getting only 3%, Rudy Giuliani has to be happier than a pig in slop over the devastation of Romney. While Huckabee could easily get 2 of the 3 early states that Romney had hoped to sweep, Huckabee’s base is far more dissimilar to Giuliani’s than Romney’s is. That leaves the Giuliani strategy of using the large, socially-liberal states to rack up the delegates pretty much unassaultable directly.
So, what now? To cleanly paraphrase Marcellus Wallace (which means I lose the most-colorful half of the language), let me tell you what now. Thompson has to get a few hard-cases to go to work on the Huck in South Carolina. You hear me talking, Huckleberry boy? We ain’t through with you by a damn sight. We’re gonna get medevial.
Comments Off on Iowa fallout, the immediate edition
If you believe the presstitute and Politico meme, you would think so. Well, get ready to eat that meme. Erick at RedState reports that Thompson raised a cool $1.8 million since December 12, and yes, that includes that $260,000+ from the combo blogburst/fill the red pick-up last week.
TownHall has a friendly pool going on the results of the Iowa caucii. They’re calling for what percentages the Big 6 Republicans (Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Paul, Romney and Thompson) and the top 3 Democrats (as well as their names; not necessarily Clinton, Edwards and Obama) will get. Since I didn’t want to crowd the thread with my explanations, I’ll do so here. As usual, I’ll start with the Dems because I have a lot less to say about them. Also, much of my Pubbie analysis will come from both Jim Geraghty’s and my analyses of the 2000 Republican caucus final polls and actual results.
Democrats
John Edwards – 30% Barack Obama – 29% Hillary Clinton – 28%
What is there to say but things are pretty much evenly divided. The second-choice factor will break to the third wheel.
Republicans
Mike Huckabee – 26% – Pollsters consistently undervalue the evangelical factor, and even though Huckabee is starting to bust, it hasn’t completely gone away from him yet. Mitt Romney – 24% – He’s the closest thing in this election to the “compassionate conservative” that George Bush was in 2000. That’s worth a couple points off the top. Fred Thompson – 19% – The pollsters have historically missed somebody entirely in Iowa. Thompson is the closest in ideology to that person in 2000, Steve Forbes. Yeah, I know, Forbes endorsed Giuliani; I haven’t figured that one out yet. Ron Paul – 10% – The caucus is all about turnout. That works both for and against the Paul campaign, as the “false-flaggers” are going to be at the Dem caucus. However, a not-insigificant number of Iowans like their Nuts; just ask Alan Keyes about his 2000 run. John McCain – 9% – Ignore all of the “McCain is surging” hype, at least for Iowa. Even though McCain has put some time in and for a time had kissed Iowan hindquarters, he has reverted to type, and so will the Iowans. Duncan Hunter – 5% – Yes, you heard me right; Duncan Hunter will beat Rudy Giuliani in Iowa. The other reason is because illegal immigration is an issue in Iowa, and Giuliani is on the wrong side of that. Rudy Giuliani – 5% – The main reason why Giuliani will finish behind Hunter in Iowa is Giuliani put in essentially no time in Iowa. Alan Keyes – 2% – This isn’t 2000, and there is another Nut running this time.
Des Moines Register – George W. Bush 43%, Steve Forbes 20%, Alan Keyes 8%, John McCain 8%, Gary Bauer 6% (with scattering and undecided 15%)
University of Iowa – Bush 55%, Forbes 12%, Keyes 9%, Bauer 8%, McCain 5% (scattering/undecided 11%)
Research 2000 – Bush 46%, Forbes 23%, Keyes 9%, McCain 7%, Bauer 7% (scattering/undecided 8%)
LA Times – Bush 43%, Forbes 25%, Keyes 10%, McCain 8%, Bauer 7% (scattering/undecided 7%)
Average poll – Bush 46.75%, Forbes 20.00%, Keyes 9.00%, McCain 7.75%, Bauer 6.25% (scattering/undecided 10.25%)
Actual results – Bush 43%, Forbes 30%, Keyes 14%, Bauer 9%, McCain 5% (scattering/rounding error 1%)
Geraghty asks whether Huckabee or Keyes 2008 is the closest one to Keyes 2000. I’ll submit Huckabee is closer to Bauer (Gary, or perhaps Graem, definitely not Jack) than Keyes 2000 mainly because Bauer was that year’s “evangelical” candidate, and Keyes 2008 is a complete non-factor. The real question is who will be this year’s Forbes and 2000 Keyes, or whether there are (Geraghty says the pollsters are better than they were, but also points to Zogby’s 2004 Dem failure).
I’ll submit that Thompson is this year’s Forbes, with Paul being this year’s Keyes 2000 (take that whichever way you want; forehanded or backhanded).
Regarding McCain, Geraghty notes that he isn’t skipping Iowa this time around. I counter that his final poll numbers also reflect that, and once again, he will underperform because of the built-in biases.
I know, the Iowa caucii are tomorrow, but I do have to take some time to point you to a pair of broadsides launched at the bipartisan Party-In-Government execution of the common incandescent light bulb. First, we have BrianR over at The View From The Island, who links the coming ban on the good light bulbs to the broader affront to freedom the envirowhackos pose. Next up, Brian M. Carney at OpinionJournal/The Wall Street Journal points out how GE and Philips are making out like bandits.
Matt Wolking makes a rather lengthy and well-researched case in an open letter to all conservatives, evangelicals and homeschoolers over at Blogs for Fred Thompson. I highly recommend you read it, especially if you are either still undecided or are leaning toward Huckabee.
Jim Lynch, inspired by Rick Moran’s Marblehead call, set up both a Marblehead Regiment multi-user blog system and a Marblehead Regiment forum. One of the neat things about WordPress MU, which Jim is using to run the blogs half, is that anybody can set up a Marblehead blog (though if you’re an anti-Fredhead, I don’t recommend tempting fate). I’ve set up mine, and am in the process of working various Thompson posts over there.
Loading ...