No way. Way!

This has got to be, by far, the most interesting primary season that I can recall. Looks like one of my predictions from yesterday was actually spot on. Of course, my Florida predictions were rather akin to a shotgun blast...

At any rate, McCain beat, not handily, but he did beat, Romney in Florida. Rudy's out, and probably going to endorse McCain. Will that hurt Romney? Probably. But, Mitt still has some things going for him, leading up to the convention:

• There are enough Western states, where Romney is likely to perform well, on Super Tuesday to catch up, or at least keep within striking distance, of McCain's delegate count.
• He has the support of a sizable majority of the "uncommitted" delegates (akin to the Democrats' SuperDelegates)
• If Huck makes it all the way to the convention, his delegates could, in theory, be sent to one column or the other, tipping the balance. My guess is that Huck is going to send them to Mitt, rather than John, because Mitt is closest to Huck on social issues.

As for the Dems, Hillary continues to shore up her delegate count, while Barack is wooing establishment Dems like Teddy into his camp. Hillary's ace in the hole has always been the SuperDelegates; Teddy's defection suggests that they may not be a lock for Hill. Still, Barack is going to have to pick up some delegates on Feb 5 if he wants to stay in this thing.

As for Super Tuesday? Hell if I know.

Bye Bye, Rudy

Odds are against America's Mayor tonite.

Was a time I thought Rudy might have been the most electable guy in the Republican field. (Note that I didn't say he was the guy I would vote for, but he was the most electable). Truth be told, he's probably still the most electable in a general election, at least against Hillary. Obama he'd have a harder time with, I think.

At any rate, there are several scenarios that could come out of Florida, not just for Rudy, but for the Republican field. Since I suck at predictions, I won't tell you which I think is most likely. You'll just have to guess.

• Under scenario #1, Rudy wins the Florida primary. The momentum carries him all the way to the Convention. Alternatively, there is no momentum and he fizzles on Super Tuesday, leaving Mitt or John at the top of the delegate count.
• Under scenario #2, Mitt takes it. This is pretty much the nail in the coffin for the rest of the field; If Mitt takes Florida, he probably takes Super Tuesday as well.
• Under scenario #3, Huck makes a comeback. We have a 3-way race, maybe decided on Super Tuesday, maybe later. Maybe third round of balloting at the Convention.
• Under scenario #4, John picks it up. It's a 2-man race, with Mitt in the lead. John could easily pass Mitt on Super Tuesday.
• Under scenario #5, Fred Thompson remembers who the hell Terry Schaivo was, makes a Santa Clause/Superman tour of the state and wins it as the "hands down" candidate.

Sorry, couldn't help it. I had to put something light in there. No way Huck's coming back. Some things just ain't possible.

McCain is NOT going to win. Not even against Hillary.

Frank Rich thinks that the combination of Hillary Clinton on the Dem ticket and John McCain on the Republican ticket means a Republican victory.

Respectfully, I must disagree with Mr. Rich. Or maybe not respectfully, we'll see how it goes. Depends on whether he starts to behave himself or not. If not, I might suggest he go back to reviewing Broadway plays. Poorly.

At any rate, Frank Rich has got to realize something: the people that want to see John McCain as the Republican candidate, primarily, aren't Republicans. They are Independents and crossover Dems. They're people like Frank Rich who have the good sense to be tired of the Clintons. But, most Republicans would rather have another candidate. Practically any other candidate.

You see, the buzz about McCain, like it was in 2000, proves something about Republicans: we aren't willing to nominate someone just because the media thinks that they could be electable. If you don't believe me, I've got two words for you: Bob Dole. The media never thought Dole was electable (he wasn't) but we put him out there anyways.

The thing is this: with the exception of defense, John McCain offers nothing different from what any of the Dems are offering. Independents and crossover Dems will vote for McCain in the primary, because 1) they have no scruples, and 2) because they know that, regardless of which Democrat is nominated, they are probably going to be OK.

McCain vs. Hillary, or McCain vs. any Dem, is a loss for McCain, no matter how you slice it. You see, he isn't going to win in a general election because those Independents and crossover Dems aren't going to vote McCain in the general; they're voting Democratic. Add to this the fact that the Republican base is not going to get any more fired up about McCain than it got for Bob Dole, and you've got a solid Dem victory.

Yeah, Romney, Giuliani and Huck all have their problems in terms of electability. Fact is, so did Reagan. We need to be less concerned about electability, and more concerned about ideas and competence. If we put forward the candidate that has the best ideas for America, and that is competent to implement them, we've got a shot at winning.

Fred Drops Out

Read all about it. No surprise here, but I'm sad to see it happen. Hindsight being what it is, I suppose it's the right time to reflect a bit about Fred's candidacy, and how it went sour. Here are the things that could have been done differently:

• Got in earlier. July 4 would have been ideal, and may have given him more momentum. September was, in retrospect, definitely too late.
• Debated more. Fred performed well in the debates; it was a mistake to announce on Jay Leno during a debate that he could have won.
• Media management. Fred's campaign had no idea how to handle media criticisms. When even Fox News is accusing you of being a lazy candidate, you need some serious PR help to disprove them.
• Created a winning delegate scenario. Fred needed to be able to focus on the states where he could win. He could have done what Rudy is doing for Florida, and taken Iowa South Carolina. Instead of focusing on a place he could win, he seemed all over the map.
• Been easier on James Dobson. True, the Focus on the Family founder's initial criticisms of Thompson's faith was uncalled for, and unsound; but Fred could and should have been conciliatory, rather than standoffish. This put off a good number of evangelical supporters, driving them over to Huck.
• Smartened his message. His slogans were a bit trite. I think the campaign underestimated the intelligence of the Republican base.

Just my thoughts, informed by the light of hindsight.

And Now For Something Completely Different

Taking a day off from news, elections, politics, and the like, I'd like to make a few arbitrary declarations. These are some of the deep down ideological secrets I carry with me, the ones that compel me to turn on Hannity or Rush, those evil little voices inside of me that say, "Go ahead, talk to your wife about politics. Deep down, she enjoys it." So, here we go:

• I always find myself voting for the underdog, at least in the primaries. Whether it's Alan Keyes or Fred Thompson, it just sort of winds up that way. Not sure why. At lest I'm not a Rudy guy this year, things just don't look good for America's Mayor.
• My knowledge of economic theory is shallow, at best. I know what I need to know about economics to study history, and that's about it. Milton Friedman was convincing enough that, once I found him, I didn't feel the need to go any further.
• I'm OK with having shallow knowledge of economic theory. Econ majors were always a little bit odd in college. And, I'm a historian, not an economist.
• There are two people that it literally pains me to hear on the radio or see on TV: Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton. Presidential prayer breakfasts were especially difficult in that 1990s.
• Like many people, I'm done hearing about Britney. Time for her to OD, so we can all get on with our lives.
• I shouldn't say that; it isn't Britney's fault that these bastard news editors keep putting her in the headlines. Maybe it's time for them to OD.
• I do like more Girl Rock than other music right now. Not sure what that says about me. I like to think it just says, "Dad of 3", but that may be wishful thinking.

Oprah is in trouble with women. As it turns out, there are plenty of women who believe that you ought to put a person in office just because she's a woman. These women believe, it would seem, that race is not a good enough reason to put a person in office.

But, as it turns out, in the U.S. race has most often trumped gender (or class, for that matter). After all, in the mid-nineteenth century when Europe was undergoing its class revolutions, we got into a civil war instead. We granted "all men" the vote long before we granted it to women. Not saying it's right (I don't believe it is) but it is how things are here.

To get mad at Oprah for not supporting your favorite liberal democrat is just plain silly. As an American, I don't identify myself, politically, as a white male. In fact, the one person I really wanted to see in this primary season, and the one person for whom I would have fervently campaigned, is Condi. But I have a sneaky suspicion that if there were a general election between Condi and, let's say, John Edwards, Oprah and every one of her little minions would be voting Edwards. Would they be traitors for doing so? Of course not. It would just mean that they had the sense to vote for the candidate whose ideas most fit their own.

Three-Ways aren't always good

Just a quick update from South Carolina:

Looks like McCain will narrowly take it over a close second Huck. Looks like we forgot about the 25% of voters in South Carolina that are veterans, as it seemed they tracked extremely high for McCain.

While I'm here, let me say this: I thank John McCain for his service. America owes him a great debt that we can only repay by insuring future generations of Americans grasp the freedom for which he was imprisoned.

Having said that, the fact remains that, while a veteran may be emotionally connected to McCain, it doesn't mean he'd be a good president. It's not that much different than a woman who votes for Hillary, or an African American who votes for Obama. Being able to relate to a candidate does not qualify them, and voting on that basis is plain foolish.

Aw hell, at least Rudy's way down at the bottom. Still, I'd prefer him to McCain. And Mitt may actually be in trouble here if he can't make some deeper progress in the other southern states.

Goodnight, Fred, we hardly knew ye. If you'd have run 200 years ago, you'd have won in a landslide.

The Michigan Republican Primary, Part 3

With just one day left until the Michigan primaries, it's time for me to finish out my analysis of the Republican field. I'll hit two of the candidates this morning, and the remaining candidates, including my choice, this evening.

Mitt Romney. Mitt is an interesting candidate. As a Michigander who is too young to remember his father as governor, I can't speak intelligently about his political heritage. His religious heritage worries me, however. I know I'm not supposed to care that Romney is a Mormon any more than I care that Bush is a Methodist, or that Rudy is a Roman Catholic. Still, Mormonism is a relatively new player in the grand scheme of things, and several of its core tenants go against the most ancient of Christian tenants, including the doctrine of the Trinity. Does that disqualify Mitt to be president? No. But it does speak to his judgement.

The Mormon thing would probably be all right if Mitt hadn't been Governor of the same state that keeps electing Teddy Kennedy and John F. "I served in Vietnam" Kerry. Fact is, he had to do an awful lot of cow-towing to the left in Massachusetts, and while he says he's changed his ways, I'm skeptical, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Still, given all of this, Romney's stated positions make him my #2 choice. I'd have no problem getting behind a Mitt presidential campaign, even if I don't prefer him in the primaries.

Giuliani is a bit of an enigma to me. While I get that Mayor of New York is kind of a big deal, I'm not sure his experience there is far-reaching enough to work as president. Experience in the senate helps Thompson and McCain in that it has given them a taste of national political life. Experience as governor helps Mitt and Huck, because it covers so much wider a geographic spectrum. But Rudy's entire political life has been New York politics, which is fine for New York, but worries me at the national level.

I'm confident that Rudy would be all right for defense. I'm worried about his approach to social issues, and to the supreme court. He's saying the right thing as far as the court and things like gun rights, but his track record is worse than Mitt's here. I'll vote for Rudy in a general election, but I'd do it a bit begrudgingly.

Yabba Dabba (Friggin) Do!!!

My good friend Phil believes that, if there is a Republican who can beat out Hillary, it is Fred Thompson. He thinks that Rudy's too moderate to energize the Republican base, and that Romney is still a moderate deep down as well, despite the rhetoric. McCain, well, he's just a couple deuces short of a full deck.

But Fred Thompson, more than anyone in the field, has a folksy, populist, Reagan-like appeal. Thompson presents well on TV, and Arthur Branch is embedded in many of our minds in the same way that "The Gipper" was in a former generation. Not only that, Thompson has the wherewithal to look Michael Moore in the eye, tell him he's nuts, and then blow a big puff of smoke in his face. That, my friends, is the testicular fortitude that a Republican presidential candidate needs to have.

Now, all of the big conservative radio guys have held off of a full endorsement of a particular candidate. My bet is that, as we get closer to this thing, that's going to change. Thompson is the kind of candidate that someone like a Sean Hannity or even a Rush Limbaugh can get behind, I believe.

Reagan said it once, "How can a president not be an actor?" I can see Fred saying that. Reagan also said, "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." I can see Fred saying that, too.

It is looking like Fred is finally going to declare, quite fittingly, on Independence Day. Let Freedom Ring!

Three weeks in hiding

I decided that it was time to take some time away from the political commentary scene for a bit. I was getting way too frustrated with way too many things. And, since Rosie decided to leave the View, I felt like my work was, at least for a little while, done ;)

Anyways, I've got to admit that I'm finally getting a bit excited about 2008. While my Michigan heritage wants me to support Romney for the GOP, and while my emotional knee-jerk reaction is to support Rudy for his post-9/11 spirit, I can't help but be frustrated with these guys. Romney's record is more center than it is right, and that's just frustrating. Rudy is out there somewhere near the loony left on the social issues. And McCain, well, he just seems to be out there somewhere all around. Certainly I can't vote for the guy who came up with Campaign Finance Reform. Like many conservatives in the GOP, I'm frustrated. On top of that, I'm not sure any of these guys can really beat Hillary.

But I bet this guy can. Who else in the Republican field has the audacity to blow smoke in the face of Michael Moore, other than Fred Thompson? Even Bush, for all the suggestions by his enemies that he's just a cowboy, had a relatively tame reaction to Moore's Farenheit 9/11. But this just took balls. Big ones. The kind that we need our president to have in order to stand up to radical Islam, for example. While I like Newt, and would be happy to see him as president, I think Fred Thompson may be the last, best hope for both conservatism and for the GOP.

Hillary and the Common Good

Sometimes, we have to be reminded. Hillary Clinton is a socialist, tried and true. While Bill may have been more pragmatic, Hillary really believes in the cause. And there is nothing more dangerous than a true believer in socialism.

Now, I have nothing, in a personal way, against socialists. It's just that our Constitution expressly embodies the opposite of socialism. The founders were all about limited government. Hell, even the so-called "Bill of Rights" was, by many of the time, seen more accurately as a "Bill of Prohibitions" - against the federal government. "Congress shall make no law..." is a pretty explicit phrase in regard to what it's trying to do. And, if there were any question, the ninth and tenth amendments spell it out: if the constitution doesn't specically proscribe a particular power, that power belongs to the states, and to the people.

The problem is that, by and large, even the conservative politicians don't tend to see the Constitution as sacred any longer. Politicians of both parties invoke the phrases they like the most, and that most fit their particular situation. But at the end of the day, even the most simple-minded gradeschooler can tell you that socialism and the U.S. Constitution are mutually exclusive.

Why the Dems want a timetable

Democrats want us out of Iraq. That's not news. A millitary withdrawal would make for the ultimate black eye on any administration. Just ask LBJ's ghost, he can tell you all about that.

But, this timetable thing is especially interesting. Hillary, of course, previously said that Bush shouldn't leave Iraq for his successor to clean up. That would mean, then, that we should be out of Iraq by January of 2009, right? Nope. The Democrat timetable for the pullout of Iraq is August, 2008. Why?

It is simple. The Dems don't want the war on terror to be an issue in the 2008 campaign. The fact of the matter is that, unless Lieberman decides to run for prez as a Dem, they don't have one candidate on the block that is strong on defense. And the Republicans are overflowing with them. And, while I don't personally like McCain because of his encroachment on free speech (which was initiated and executed by the Democrat Feingold, by the way), you damn well better believe I'd rather have him at the helm during war than Barry or Hillary.

The Democrats know it. Even if support for the war is at an all time low, none of their candidates can get elected if we've got troops deployed in an active conflict zone.

This is also, by the way, the same reason the Dems want to negotiate with a guy who denies the holocaust ever took place. God forbid that we should be in active conflict with Iran in August of '08, just three months before the presidential elections.

Hillary wants the Confederate flag removed from the South Carolina statehouse grounds. Something bothers me about this.

OK, I know, I know. I've heard it. The Confederate flag, even if it doesn't represent slavery or racism to Bo and Luke Duke, it does represent slavery or racism or something to Jesse Jackson and his friends, so it's offensive. It's about reception as well as intention. Fine, fine. I disagree, but I'm tired of this particular argument for a while. We can revisit it another time.

I'm not even upset at the hypocrisy of Hillary. She never suggested removing the Confederate star from the Arkansas state flag, or pulling down the "lone star" Republic of Texas flag down off of the Texas Statehouse grounds. (Although, that would be a fun one to watch. Can you imagine the hell that Hillary would catch?)

And, honestly, the "support the troops from South Carolina by removing the Confederate flag, yet let's demand Bush bring them home without victory" argument is, by any logical estimation, flawed at best. But, that's not new, we've seen it a lot from Hillary. And I'm sure we'll see a hell of a lot more. That doesn't especially bother me today.

Nope. My big problem is this:

Hillary Clinton is a Senator. From New York. She thinks she needs to dictate to another State, South Carolina, what it should and should not do with its flags.

Hillary Clinton wants to be President. Of the United States. As which she, we should assume, would actually think she had the power to dictate to a state, like South Carolina, what it should do with its flags. Now, that is scary, my friends.