The Race So Far

It's been an interesting month in both the Democratic and Republican primary season, one filled with surprises and not-surprises-that-sort-of-looked-like surprises. I figure this is as good a time as any to assess where things seem to be headed.

First, the Republicans:

It seems pretty clear after Saturday's South Carolina win by John McCain that he has the momentum, and that the only serious challenger to his nomination is Mitt Romney, who could outfinance John McCain and still have enough left over for a downpayment on a Caribbean island like, say, Guadeloupe. If he can win Florida, Romney might be able to save enough of his fortune to buy Jamaica.

Rudy Giuliani, who has been all but anointed by the White House (if you scan back across the Bush administration and see how many times Rudy's name pops up in connection with appointees, you'll see what I mean), has lost any mojo he had as the presumed nominee of 2007. TOo bad for Rudy, the election is THIS year. In your next life, maybe you'll treat your wives with a bit more respect.

John McCain's strength in the primaries will be his name recognition. Second only to Giuliani, John McCain's name is one of those quirky things that voters who really could give a rat's ass who faces Hillary the Democratic nominee in November will remember when they pull the lever. That alone could give him a substantial leg up over Romney, but keep in mind that the South has barely had a chance to ratify Mormonism, and there is an awful lot of anxiety over Romney's religion in the deep Christian south.

It's been fun to watch this race, not so much for the main event, but for the sideshow: watching right wing pundits fall all over themselves to find a "true conservative in the mold of George W. Bush" (I can't imagine anyone saying that with a straight face), and failing miserably as each of their Chosen Ones has withered away like old roses: Hunter, Tancredo, now Thompson.

So much for the might of the Blogosphere, not that Blogtopia (© Skippy the Bush Kangaroo) has fared much better.

Prediction: John McCain delivers a severe blow to Romney in Florida, who had hopes of swiping Giuliani's thunder. He then racks up enough delegates on SuperDuper Tuesday to guarantee at least a seat at the table for any brokered convention.

Which of course means it's time to revive this old Googlebomb:

There was an odd pol, John McCain:
John McCain ate the Punditry's brain:
John McCain's silly "straight talk"
Made Tweety joyfully squawk --
And out of his Hardballs, he came.

Now, the Democrats

To be honest, I was deeply troubled by the Iowa results. While I never expected Hillary to win that state's caucuses, I expected Edwards and Obama to split the caucus more evenly, leaving Hillary a far better showing than ten points off the lead. It made me wonder if we were seeing a brand new historic moment to go along with all the others: the realization that Americans have an attention span and remember Edwards' miserable campaign at the Vice Presidential nominee in 2004.

That may well still be a valid observation-- it never pays to be in the number two slot on a losing ticket-- but as the polls suggested an huge Obama win in New Hampshire, you finally saw Hillary wake up. I think she took the loss in Iowa for granted, and only when she realized how much ground she had to make up did she wake up and start campaigning in earnest.

I don't mean working the crowds or anything like that. That has about as much to do with winning elections as sending an e-mail to a Congresscritter has to do with passing legislation. I mean, getting her ground game in business, and leaning on the people who were doing the fundraising, the networking, and the grunt work of shoring up the mechanical aspects of campaigning: making sure people vote. The Clinton strength has been the organization that elected Bill twice. I'm not sure why she delayed getting that into high gear. Perhaps she believed her own press.

Obama lost this election in the final debate before New Hampshire, and he knows what he did that caused it: his petulant attitude towards someone who deserved more respect than he was willing to give her. You'll notice that after Hillary stomped a mudhole in Obama in New Hampshire, Barack was quick to change the tone of discourse towards Hillary.

You know what they say about a woman scorned.

Obama's best hope, perhaps his only one, is to hang around long enough for Hillary to be lulled back into the "inevitability" thing again and start making mistakes. This weekend's Nevada caucuses tell me she's not likely to do that again. Say what you will about the Clinton machine: apart from sex scandals, they learn fast.

I think Obama knows he's about to get the fork stuck in. When you start picking fights with the spouse of your opponent, you're making a big mistake, and he's done that twice in four days now. As I've said before, Barack, your fight isn't with Bill Clinton and loony comments like praising Ronald Reagan ahead of him is just going to tie you up when you most need to be campaigning. He's good, he's very good, at antagonizing his opponents. Don't mess with The Big Dog until you've got some scalps in your pouch already.

Obama's worst enemy is John Edwards. Despite the appearance of being in agreement, these two men really should be at each other's throats, and I'm not sure that's not a dynamic based on some "between the lines" reading I've been doing.

For instance, while Edwards has "me, too'ed" a lot of Obama's comments towards Hillary's problems, that mere bobbleheaded agreement has caused Obama headaches as Edwards was more than willing to take things one step forward with his comments.

For example, while Obama was careful not to comment on Hillary's moment of emotionality in New Hampshire, Edwards questioned Hillary's strength.

Since he had played hitman in the last debate before this show of emotion to Obama's mob boss portrayal, both of them suffered badly for that misstatement by Edwards, and directly attacking Obama's message of unity. That couldn't have played well in the Obama camp.

I can understand Edwards being pissed as all get out at Obama. After all, only ONE one term Senator should run for President on a platform of change at a time, and Edwards was there first!

Prediction: Hillary loses in South Carolina to Obama, who steals near-native-son Edwards' lunch. Hillary however goes onto Florida, wins there, and then takes California, New York, and Connecticut on SuperDuper Tuesday, all but guaranteeing her nomination with those contests, based on the selected delegates as well as the super delegate counts.

It pays to be in the Senate for more than two years, you see, because you get to meet the superdelegates: elected representatives to whom you can dole out pork. Hillary started the season over 100 delegates more than Obama had.

So it's shaping up as a John McCain/Hillary Clinton showdown in November, unless something brutally outside of the foreseeable happens.

There Must Be Something In The Water

A couple of news items tells me the Kool-Aid at RNC headquarters is being spiked up in anticipation of the November elections:

1) Bush sees Palestine state treaty within year - Now, nevermind that for sixty years, Israel and the Palestinians have been at each other's throats, and nevermind that both sides are guilty of atrocities of a nature that would make forgiveness hard for even Jesus, all you need to know in order to find this hilarious is that this is Bush's first trip to Israel during his Presidency. In the last year. Of a lame duck term. From an irrelevant politician who is advised by a group of neo-cons who aren't, to put it mildly, particularly objective about which side should get the lion's share of consideration.

2) Giuliani Targets Conservatives With Tax-Cut Plan - Nevermind that, as mayor, Rudy actually ended up raising taxes when the dust settled (he claims he reduced taxes, but by the time he left office, his last budget had created a net increase, at a time when the city economy was tanking. Too, the tax cuts were targeted towards businesses and the wealthy). Does anyone in the GOP realize (besides Mike Huckabee) that the Laffer Curve they're so fond of quoting has a downside, that you can cut taxes TOO MUCH and it starts to destroy the revenue stream that covers the basic needs of the nation????? We have failing infrastructure, a bloated government that's grown exponentially under a "compassionate conservative", debts to pay off AND an aging population. A tax cut is exactly what we DON'T need right now!

3) Romney's Fishy Delegate Claim - In layman's terms (especially if you own an Apple Computer), this is called the "reality distortion field" coming into play. The count based on election results is that Huckabee has 33 delegates, Romney has 19. By Romney's count, he has fifteen delegates, and Huckabee has 12. WTF?

Turns out that Romney is ignoring Iowa, claiming that it really didn't count since the caucus delegates are technically uncommitted, meaning Iowa was the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of primaries. *snark*

Sheesh! And these were supposed to be the adults of American politics!

Freedom Equals Religion????

Mitt Romney, December 6, 2007 - "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

Errrrrrrrrrrrrr, not so much.

Apparently, Mitt hadn't farmed out a study of history to his staff to discuss in committee and prepare an executive summary of religion throughout history.

Indeed, a cursory glance at history shows that religion thrives where freedom is denied. This is part of the reason that Marx called religion the opiate of the people.

Even today, no one would deny that Islam is a religion, and that fundamental Islamists are against freedom. Yet, there's religion, being used to both terrorize nations, as well as pacify them.

I'm fairly sure that's not what Romney meant, yet his words echo hollow in the corridor of current events.

Too, Christianity has its fair share of tyrannical popes and autocratic kings, both of whom used the cudgel of the Bible to keep their people in line, while cynically holding out the carrot of "life everlasting."

And if religion requires freedom, Mr. Romney, just why was a part of America formed by the Puritans? They were escaping...ready?...religious dogma in England!

Your own religion is rife with examples of organized religion shunning your ancestors. Look at how the Mormons were driven from New York State into Ohio into godforsaken Utah, where in the middle of one of the most desolate places on the planet, Joseph Smith decided he'd found paradise.

It was paradise, sir, merely because no one was around to harass and oppress your forebears and their...I'll be kind...quirky thoughts on God and who precisely was He? I mean, come on...the Angel Moroni? There's a clue there, sir, if you take off the "i"...

Freedom is not religion, and religion is not freedom, and neither requires the other to exist. Even the ancient Greeks, the first truly democratic society on the planet, used religion not for freedom but to keep the citizenry (and more, the slaves) in line.

Freedom and religion, in fact, might be viewed as antithetical, antagonistic, even, and there's the rub and the idiocy of your comments yesterday. Rather than reassure the nation that you are, indeed, a mainstream conservative from a mainstream religion (and not a cult of blind fools), all you have succeeded in doing is handing the primary season to Mike Huckabee or Rudy Giuliani, by exposing a troubling neglect and ignorance of your own background, nevermind world events.

In short, Mr. Romney, you've gone from competent CEO to out-of-touch chairman of the bored.

And we on the left thank you.

The Hannah Montanans

There's this kiddie trope going around (you'll know this is if you parent a "tween" adolescent): a television program called "Hannah Montana" on the Disney channel.(WARNING: TREACLY TEEN POP IS PLAYED LOUD AT THAT LINK!)

The series focuses on Miley Stewart (played by Miley Cyrus, daughter of regrettable country music "star" Billy Ray "Mullethead" Cyrus), who lives a double life as an average teenage girl at school during the day and a famous pop singer, Hannah Montana, at night, concealing her real identity from the public other than her close friends and family.

Republicans, always seizing on the latest marketing gimmick that Madison Avenue and Hollywood (liberals!!) can develop, have adapted this to their own Presidential race.

Comes last night's debate:

ORLANDO, Florida (Reuters) - The top Republican White House contenders battled on Sunday over who was the better conservative, with Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney defending their records and views on social issues from strong attacks.

In a debate in the election swing state of Florida, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson accused Giuliani of being out of step with the conservative values of the Republican Party and Arizona Sen. John McCain attacked Romney's conservative credentials.

"Governor Romney, you've been spending the last year trying to fool people about your record. I don't want you to start fooling them about mine," McCain said. "I stand on my record of a conservative."

Thompson, a latecomer to the race who is chasing Giuliani in national opinion polls, said the former New York mayor's support for abortion rights and gun control put him in a league with Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, a New York senator.

"I simply disagree with him on those issues, and he sides with Hillary Clinton on each of those issues I just mentioned," he said.

Thompson, of course, is the ultimate GOP-Hollywood nexus, outdoing even Ronald "I missed World War II to make forgettable B movies in liberal Hollywood" Reagan with such classic conservative roles as DA Arthur Branch (Law & Order), Rear Admiral Joshua Painter (The Hunt For Red October), and Knox Pooley, the neo-Nazi Jew-killer in Wiseguy.

Oh, and we should probably mention the role most dear to the hearts of Republicans and conservative Christians everywhere, lobbyist for a pro-choice group.

Dude, you really can't make this stuff up!

So between Rudy and Romney's former liberal positions (can you say "flip flop"?), Fred Thompson's questionable commitment to Christian values, and John McCain's "Now you see it, now you don't" position on campaign finance reform or Baghdad's safety, we're looking at men who have, to put it mildly, ambiguous moral compasses.

Which brings us back to the Hannah Montana thing: it's OK, I guess, for Disney to show a girl who's so terrified of who she is that she has to hide herself from the world (metaphor: she's a lesbian), but the Republican party?

What I find so funny about all this is any one of the four men could easily have "outted" themselves, "outted" their pasts, and probably not lost a whole lot of standing in the Republican community (and indeed, might have attracted normally uninvolved voters frustrated with the whole Bush administration/christofascist regime thing), but chose instead to narrow their base to the tiniest sliver of scraps on the floor.

Contrast that with the Democratic primary where, for the most part, the candidates have been pretty forthright about who they are, and not running from their history (save Hillary and to a degree, Obama and Edwards regarding their positions on the Iraq invasion...in some ways, I'm not convinced that Iraq won't be the third rail of the 2008 elections the way Social Security reform has long been that same electrified iron).

I don't think it's any secret why the Republican primary, which should be generating enormous interest for a party that's controlled all three branches of government for the past eight years or so, is so bloody boring: no one is willing to take a stance, to chance a roll of the dice and speak what is on his mind.

Without attacking Hillary. That would probably be an added bonus.

It's almost as if these guys are positioning themselves for the 2012 race, when they stand a chance after four years of Hillary-dom, should she screw it up.

Which I wouldn't bet on.

McCain and Thompson all but have to win in this go-round. They'd be too old in 2012 (if indeed they aren't already). Too, Giuliani has to win in this go-round because "9/11 Tourette's" (h/t Jon Stewart) only gets you so far and he's milked that cow.

Leaving Romney, but even he has a shelf life: how much money can he afford to lend his campaign in 2012 if he has to eat tens of millions of dollars this time around?

No, I think this is the only shot for all four of the front runners and I think they've all realized they're going to be sacrificial lambs.

UPDATE: More evidence the GOP may have jumped the couch in this election cycle.