Romney Whines About McCain Attacks

GOP Presidential candidate Willard "Mitt" Romney levied complaints against Sen. John McCain today, accusing the Arizona Senator of using "Nixon Era" tactics on the trail.

Romney said:

"Had he a question about this he could have raised it any time between April and now, but to raise it outside a debate and to do it … to people in Florida was something reminiscent of the Nixon era and I don’t think I want to see our party go back to that kind of campaigning."

[Link]

Were Romney a paragon of clean campaigning himself, I would be more sympathetic toward his argument (though his flip-flops on most issues would seem to lend credence to Sen. McCain's assessment of his record).

But this complaint coming from the guy who introduced the very first attack ads of the campaign rings hollow.

Ralph Nadar Set to Run

Consumer advocate Ralph Nadar is reported to be exploring a bid for the White House given the exit of John Edwards from the Democrat Presidential primary.

[Link]

Run Ralph, run!

Mainstream Media at Its Finest

We poke a lot of fun at the mainstream press on these ramparts.

Here's why:

Live Blogging the State of the Union

Just kidding.

Actually, quite the opposite this year. Instead, tonight will find me playing the State of the Union drinking game (with friends).

[Link]

With a dour economy and the primaries still undecided, it's the only way for respectable bloggers to make it through.

Here's hoping President Bush says, "Don't Mess with Texas" (Worth two drinks).

PS: Don't drink and drive.

Is Bill Clinton a Racist?

In my view, it's hard to call former President Clinton's likening of Barack Obama to Jesse Jackson racist. It certainly has racial overtones but I'm not sure it's intended to be 'racist.'

But then again, Don Imus raises a good point that the media has given Clinton a pass on the comments.

Imus observed:

If I had made that comparison to Jesse Jackson, I have a feeling that I'd be talking to Al Sharpton again.

[Link]

He's probably right.

Why not hold Billary to the same standard?

Caroline Kennedy: A President Like My Father

Caroline Kennedy daughter of former U.S. President John F. Kennedy ran the above titled op-ed in today's New York Times, endorsing the candidacy of Illinois Senator Barack Hussein Obama for President.

[Link]

One could reasonably wonder whether Ms. Kennedy is being unfair. We have no reason to believe Sen. Obama is a womanizer. We haven't any reason to suspect that he will accomplish little of note in domestic policy. Nor have we any reason to conclude that Sen. Obama will lead us to the brink nuclear war.

Why would Ms. Kennedy endorse Senator Obama while insulting him with a comparison to her father?

Obama Takes South Carolina

I've often said there was little difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I believe that assessment still holds true. But the difference tonight is that "six of one" (Obama) beat "half-dozen of the other" (Rodham-Clinton) in the South Carolina Democrat primary.

Perhaps most surprising about the contest is the lengths to which the Clinton political machine went in effort to up-end team Obama.

For anyone still wondering if the Clintons would play nice, such questions were firmly answered in the negative.

[Link]

Overtly playing the sore-loser card, Bubba Clinton himself down-played Saturday nights big loss, likening Sen. Obama to Jesse Jackson, further invoking race in an already charged Democrat primary. Insiders report that the Clinton strategy was to brand Obama as the "black candidate" in effort to hurt him in the south. By all accounts, the strategy payed off in the Palmetto State. Obama took only a quarter of the White vote while blacks voted for the IL Senator en masse by margin of 4/5.

[Link]

For Republicans, one cannot help but appreciate the fracture Billary is creating among the Democrats. The GOP debate last looked like a Tupperware party compared with the Democrats showdown earlier in the week. The racial aspect of the contest, however, is a surprising development from the alleged party of tolerance.

Apparently, the Clintons have re-written the old maxim: the tolerance of a liberal only extends to other liberals.

The Clinton caveat would read: the tolerance of a liberal only extends to other liberals, unless you're a black liberal. You're out too.

In all, we like to be fair and balanced here. From Pax Plena to Sen. Barack Hussein Obama. Congrats. Your politics will never be mine, but upsetting your party's establishment is good for your party and good for America.

Nothing New in FL GOP Debate

Against my better judgment I opted to stay in and watch the GOP debate down in Florida. In truth, for those Floridians just tuning in to the election (or those living under a rock the past year) they were probably treated to a fresh look at the candidates in advance of next week's primary. For a political curmudgeon such as myself, it was little more than repetition ad nauseam of the same talking points we have all heard before.

But mainly, it was downright boring.

[Link]

It's a sad day when the cynic in me would rather see some fireworks on stage than see the candidates go to great pains to be civil toward one another. The ploy apparently worked (at least if one is to believe Time) but at this point there was little new offered by any of the candidates. In all honesty, I had more fun watching Lost in Translation afterwards but we'll keep such idiosyncrasies amongst friends (Note: As a complete aside, who knew Bill Murray was such a swell actor?).

Anyway, it was a seldom cited source on these ramparts which had the best summary of the present state of the Grand Old Party:

What do Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have in common?

Not all that much.

The first three have won a major state contest in the race for the Republican presidential nomination this year, and Giuliani hopes to join their ranks with a victory in Florida next week. Beyond that, there are significant differences in their résumés and political appeal — and that signals a crossroads ahead for the GOP.

[Link]

We could well call it the rule of four. Four very dissimilar men. From four markedly different backgrounds. All vying for the nomination of a party which at one point was said to encompass the interests of all four. I would normally make a joke about the horsemen of the apocalypse here to continue the farce but it seems too easy.

As noted before, the differences among the candidates have not kept them from invoking the last great party standard-bearer and tonight was no exception. Rudy Giuliani, for instance, made no less than two references to the erstwhile living President Ronald Reagan. Thankfully, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich summed up such platitudes best:

For all the fealty the Republican candidates have pledged to Reagan in this race, the former House speaker says anyone campaigning on a promise to replicate the Gipper "would have been like Reagan running in 1980 saying, 'We need Ike.' "

In brief, the baseline of the primary season remains as it was a week ago when Fred Thompson bowed out of the GOP race. While a FL win may swing some momentum toward McCain going into Super Tuesday, it is far from clear that the Sunshine State is a lock for the maverick Senator. Moreover with votes being tallied across the country in February, it's hard to say that anything at all will be concluded next week except for more of the status quo: uncertainty.

Least I seem overly cynical, it could well be the case that uncertainty is exactly what the GOP needs.

With the nominee set to chart the course and vision for the party in the immediate years to come, it makes sense for Republicans to debate the matter among themselves in each state primary which comes across the boards.

Vision and leadership have long been mired in the marsh of zero-sum politics. In some ways, 2008 offers a new opportunity for both parties to set the tenor for a fresh start. I would hesitate to conclude that the 2008 race will mark a generational shift in American politics as some have indicated. But I will enthusiastically conclude that it offers an opportunity for bold ideas to hold the day.

In an age of uncertainty across the aisles, it may bode well for Republicans to take a lesson from King Agrippa and allow themselves to be almost persuaded from week to week.

Photo courtesy of Tuftsprimarysource.org.

Chelsea Joins Team Clinton

CNN is reporting that Chelsea Clinton is assuming a larger role in her mother's campaign.

[Link]

Apparently, the former first kid is now allowed to talk to the media.

Chuck Norris v. Sly Stallone

With the exit of Fred Thompson, you might think the GOP field would look less like a gaggle of Hollywood-has-beens.

But as Sly Stallone's endorsement of John McCain indicates, you would be quite wrong.

[Link]

Then again, when one compares the GOP celebrity endorsements with the Democrat celebrity endorsements, I'd much rather have Rambo and Chuck Norris than Oprah and Ellen Degeneres.

Fred is Dead

Well, his campaign is anyway. Former Law and Order star Fred Thompson bowed out of the GOP primary after a tepid showing in last week's first in the south primary down in South Carolina.

[Link]

Some have alleged that the move will help former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee who competed for the same southern constituency as Thompson. To wit, Thompson's exit leaves Huckabee as the lone southerner in the GOP mix.

Time will tell.

Thompson's presence in the campaign mattered little until last week. As in issues of theology, questioning the presence of the absence of any entity is a always difficult thing.

Happy Black Monday

A smattering of scientists have dubbed today as the most depressing day of the year. The logic of the theory is that when one accounts for the weather (which is never an issue here in Tucson), consumer debt from Christmas shopping (check), and failed New Year's resolutions (already?) the net result is that January 21st is the worst day of the year.

[Link]

Apparently, world markets took the scientists at Cardiff University seriously.

Today was actually called 'Black Monday' as fears of a U.S. recession sparked meltdown among global markets. In the UK alone, some £60billion were cleared away in a massive sell-off. India was hit even harder. The Indian Sensex index fell nearly 11 percent at one point today, good for its second-largest fall on record.

The news made especially interesting waves in the U.S. Presidential election. Democrat Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton gave a dramatic response underscoring stark differences in fiscal policy among the American political parties. Mrs. Clinton's response to the emergent financial crisis was to increase the role of government in market regulation.

“If you go back and look at our history, we were most successful when we had that balance between an effective, vigorous government and a dynamic, appropriately regulated market,” Mrs. Clinton said. “And we have systematically diminished the role and the responsibility of our government, and we have watched our market become imbalanced.”

She added: “I want to get back to the appropriate balance of power between government and the market.”

[Link]

Sensible minds might beg to differ. Nevertheless, Hill's comments note the underpinnings of a potentially radical, left-wing economic policy. Far from embracing the free-market which has historically made our economy strong, Hillary's solution is to foster a feel-good work place which abrogates the cold reality that is the bottom-line:

“You had a corporate ethos, that, because of the more self-contained American economy, was really focused on community,” Mrs. Clinton said. “There was a sense of multiple obligations. It wasn’t just to one’s shareholders. It was also to one’s employees, to one’s community.”

America should be thankful that Hillary is not our President. Were the opposite true, her remarks alone would be enough to send the Dow on a long-term downward spiral. Black Monday indeed.

Lest today's news seem unduly depressing, there's always a silver-lining to every cloud. Even if subprime mortgages got you down, consider that someone else is probably worse off than you.

You could, after all, be living in an Ikea and God knows one can only take some much low-price shopping.

Or you could have a psychotic ex-girlfriend. One who doesn't so much stalk and pine, as kill and film. In the case of a guy in China, his ex was an especially adept videographer who filmed his execution and dismemberment. Some might say she had a killer sense of perspective and attenuation.

Anyway, just to hedge my bets (borrowing a line from Willie Nelson):

To all the girls I've loved before- Don't get any ideas. Leave me to enjoy black Monday in peace.

I'll call. I promise.

Reactions to SC and NV Contests

Of the commentary I read on today's contests, CNN seems to have the most succinct and accurate summary of the parties' state of affairs.

[Link]

Beginning with the Democrats, NY Senator Hillary Clinton pulled out an impressive win in NV thanks in large part to the neo-feminist wing of her party. Exit polls show that Hill claimed some 60% of the single, white female vote. More than this, what makes NV at all interesting is that it marks the second big win for team Clinton in a row. It's hard to say Hill has the big 'mo' but with a couple more wins like this, it will become increasingly hard for Obama to compete.

The role of John Edwards as spoiler will also play an interesting vignette from here out. One might wonder how committed Edwards really is toward his progressive ideals when (arguably) the one viable progressive candidate in the race (Obama) is hurt by Edwards' consistent siphoning of votes away from him.

On the Republican side, make no mistake, tonight was a big win for Sen. John McCain. South Carolina was very much intended to be a Huckabee repeat of Iowa. Rich in evangelical voters, Huck was expected to do well. He even predicted victory there earlier in the week. There are and will be a number of 'explanations' for Huck's loss (the weather might be among the more convincing). But the bottom line is the same. McCain did surprisingly well in a state Huck needed to win. On the other hand, winning isn't everything. After all, Mitt Romney's win in NV is almost a laughable after thought in comparison. While Romney's win will certainly not hurt his chances, all eyes were on SC tonight. Mitt may have added more delegates, but the win does him little good overall given that he skirted an opportunity to compete with the big boys.

The biggest question of the night from the Republican side will be to clock how long it takes for Fred Thompson to drop out. One would guess, given a dispiriting finish in a state he should have won, that Freddy T would drop out within the next couple of days. An imminent Thompson exit would probably open up the race even more as his supporters divide themselves among McCain, Huckabee and perhaps Romney.

As for Huckabee, tonight's loss conjures up a number of potential questions. Specifically, if Huck comes up short in an evangelical rich state like SC, how does he broaden his appeal in some of the more moderate electorates coming up in FL and on Super Tuesday? Another idea worth considering is that maybe he doesn't need to at all. If the GOP 'establishment' (viz., fiscally conservative) vote fractures among Giuliani, McCain, and Romney, could a values voter plurality swing the pendulum toward Huck in some of the bigger states? At this point it's hard to say.

The only clear result tonight is that Fred Thompson will bow out in the near future while the rest live to campaign another day.

Oh yeah, and Ronald Reagan is still dead.

Battle for South Carolina

Tonight unexpectedly finds me with a variety of things to do so analysis of tonight's Palmetto State bash may be a bit late.

ABC News offers that the election may turn on evangelical turnout. The smart money says this would help Huck but then again stranger things have happened. The weather also promises to play a factor. The forecast today has been a mix of rain and snow. All sides were hoping for better weather and turnout.

[Link]

Nevertheless, I will be careful to post thoughts and commentary in the next few hours. Should be an interesting race.

Bobby Fischer, RIP

With the madness of tomorrow's Palmetto State Primary, I nearly forgot to offer my condolences to the family of Chess great Bobby Fischer.

[Link]

Fischer rose to fame as a the first American chess champion who beat then Soviet era legend Boris Spassky.

Unfortunately, Fischer's fame would not be long lived. He would go on to denounce his American citizenship and praise the terrorist attacks of 9/11 while living in obscurity.

Although we might certainly consider him less than a patriot, his big win during the height of the Cold War brought much hope to the Nation during a volatile period.

One also has to admire the Grand Master's confidence:

"I don't play the old chess," he told reporters when he arrived in Iceland in 2005. "But obviously if I did, I would be the best."

Bobby Fischer, dead today at 64.

Rich Lowry: Evangelicals Can't Win

The National Review's Rich Lowry, a perennial naysayer to the Huckabee campaign, wrote an interesting piece for RealClearPolitics today.

[Link]

The crux of Lowry's piece is the following:

There are enough evangelicals in South Carolina and Florida for Huckabee to do well in the weeks ahead, but, ultimately, he is bound by the limits of his own Christian identity politics.

Lowry's basic claims in detail are that working-class voters have rejected Huckabee's message of populism (e.g. NH) and that even some pockets of evangelicals have abandoned ship (e.g. Michigan). Given the above, Lowry concludes that evangelical candidates have limited appeal nationally (hence Lowry and his publications' endorsement of Mitt Romney).

Here's the rub:

Huck lost NH because John McCain had always been the darling of the Granite State post 2000. Huck lost Michigan because Romney poured all of his money, TV ads and name recognition into winning its primary. The MI GOP in its obligatory message of congratulations called Romney it's 'native son' and this is mostly true. Daddy Romney, after all, was a former Auto-Exec and former Governor. It's not hard to see why a man with such ties to the state would win handily.

But Lowry's last claim that evangelical candidates are bound by the limits of their identity is the article's most dubious. Perhaps this is some limited appeal- atheists, agnostics and the like might be turned off to Huckabee as a matter of policy. Then again, how many of these personalities make up GOP primary goers is a curious matter anyway.

The real outrage of the question is that Lowry tacitly insinuates that Christianity itself has limited appeal. For Lowry to make the claim, it follows that he would have to agree with Huckabee Campaign Chairman Ed Rollins that the Reagan coalition is dead. In effect, Lowry's point isolates the entire evangelical faction of the party base. Assuming Lowry's voice is at all similar to the GOP establishment, the message to evangelical Christians is that we welcome your votes but not your attempts to lead the coalition.

Interestingly, among the establishment types, this point too has its precedent. Among conservative publications, Lowry's National Review did an about face in endrosing Mitt Romney- a man formerly decried by Human Events as one of the top Republicans In Name Only just a couple of years ago (HE is another conservative cross-publication containing many of the same Big Business Republicans which bankroll the NRO).

The paradox for the party is that while the establishment attempts scuttle notions that the Reagan coalition is dead, hit pieces against evangelicals like Lowry's only serve to reinforce the point that it is.

WSJ on Huckabee Campaign

The Wall Street Journal provided an intimate look today at the Presidential Campaign of Mike Huckabee. For anyone who has been in the trenches and worked a major campaign, it is a refreshing trip down memory lane. Here's a teaser in hopes you will read:

The light tone of the campaign is a good match for the quick-witted candidate. Mr. Saltsman's final words of wisdom to his boss before a debate last week: "Don't suck."

[Link]

If only law school could be delayed a year...

Mort Kondracke: Will Democrats Ever Acknowledge Progress in Iraq?

No.

[Link]

Candidates on Health

The folks over at HealthCentral.com have a new website up flagging the positions of the candidates on health care.

The graph offers some surprising representations of the candidates health care positions relative to one another.

For instance, among Democrats Denny Kucinich is the only candidate with a direct plan for universal health care. The top contenders have a mixture of bad ideas but only Denny K is over the top. Among Republicans only Mike Huckabee places an emphasis on preventative care, while his opponents have an assortment of tax breaks and deregulation for insurers.

[Link]

My own view on the matter is that less accountability for insurers in an age of spiraling medical malpractice claims is probably not smartest idea. Universal health care is of course a wretched idea (see the UK). I'm also not sure that the Democrats' Mitt Romney-lite plan for mandatory coverage is the way to go either. Many young people are quite healthy in their 20s/30s so why force them to waste money on coverage they will never need?

I am of course partisan but Huck's focus on the state interest in fostering healthy citizens seems like the most reasonable aim. This is especially so given national obesity rates and the reality that obesity invariably leads to many other health issues later in life. Healthy habits beget healthy lives. Or so the saying goes.

Via Voxbaby

Romney Win Shakes Up GOP Race- Or Does It?

As one might expect given past critical posts of Mitt Romney, I was less than joyed to embrace the "Mittmentum" his campaign seems to have found. But we go to great lengths to give credit where credit is do around these parts, and love him or loathe him, Mitt Romney picked up a do or die win last night in Michigan.

Of the commentary on the race which I have read, the New York Times, oddly enough, seemed to have the best assessment of the GOP race. The bottom line? See below:

The convincing victory by Mitt Romney in the Michigan primary on Tuesday means three very different states — with dissimilar electorates driven by distinctive sets of priorities — have embraced three separate candidates in search of someone who can lead the party into a tough election and beyond President Bush.

[Link]

Of course, the Times attributed the closeness of the race to a Republican party that is adrift, deeply divided and uninspired when it comes to its presidential candidates and unsure of how to counter an energized Democratic Party.

While the spin is cute, if Democrats are energized, then we truly have tested the limits of what the AARP can do. In reality, the race on the Republican side was always going to be much more fluid. For Republicans, the matter is much more than a race to pick the least of evils. This race is in many ways about the future of the party and the direction the new standard bearer will choose to lead.

The Times assessment is correct, however, in one very interesting aspect of the race. The three men who have won each represent a faction of the old Reagan coalition: Romney- fiscal conservatives; McCain- foreign policy conservatives; and Huckabee- evangelical conservatives.

And truth be told, each wing has tended to be critical of the candidate most closely aligned with the others.

Fiscal conservatives and foreign policy conservatives alike criticize Huckabee for being inexperienced in foreign affairs and an economic 'liberal.' Foreign policy conservatives and evangelicals tend to criticize Romney for being inexperienced in foreign policy matters also and for being soft on social issues (or a flip-flop at best). Meanwhile, fiscal conservatives and evangelicals both criticize John McCain for a) McCain-Feingold and b) his moderate views of traditional marriage/squishy position on abortion which doesn't sit will with some evangelicals (viz., he would leave it to the states).

But in analyzing the race, is this really surprising? The pundits seem to think it is. But really, the Reagan coalition was at best an unwieldy amalgam of disparate interest groups which coalesced around candidates who made platitudes toward the three interests. With no such consensus nominee this time around, it was almost inevitable that the vote would be split. In some ways, this election will be about which wing of the GOP has the most pull. But even this assessment is misguided for ultimately the matter should neither be about Ronald Reagan nor his coalition at all.

What has hitherto been sorely lacking in the race so far is a breakout plan aimed at addressing the concerns of rank-and-file Americans. The party of Reagan lost its way because of its persistent failure to recognize, and its refusal to address, the anxiety and insecurity of the middle class. I wish I could take credit for the obvious, but this was pointed out by a master thereto in much more succinct form: Pat Buchanan.

The quick and dirty on the race is that Republicans cannot win by rehashing the old, tired arguments put forward by the Gipper himself (RIP). The Gipper is gone. Times have changed. It's time for Republicans to stop living in the 1980s and embrace an agenda which will highlight the issues that concern most Americans. Fortunately, conservatives generally tend to have much more latitude in coming up with creative solutions to problems. For Democrats, the solution is always the same: more government. More regulation. While our gaggle of conservative interests may be more dogged in this particular primary, even the worst of Republicans can out govern the best of Democrats.

But more to the point, there's nothing unhealthy about Republicans having a frank discussion of the party's future. The mixed results so far seem to reflect this basic reality and are about what one might expect from such a contest.

Romney's Got a Gal in Kalamazoo...

Or so he hopes. Today is the battle for Michigan. Thoughts and projections tonight after the returns come back.

[Link]

Myspace for Huckabee

As most readers know, I'm a firm supporter of Mike Huckabee for President. For those similarly enamored, the link below will take you to a social networking site set up by Huckabee's netroots.
Be sure to add yours truly as a friend.

Link


Update:

For Fair Tax enthusiasts the following was forwarded me by the campaign. For readers and fans in Nashville, this might be a good opportunity:

Calling all FairTaxers!

April 15th is right around the corner and the Internal Revenue Service is taking aim once more on America's working class and small business owners. We individual FairTaxers have another opportunity to get our message out into the public forums on a national scale.

The National Fair Tax Freedom Rally will be held in Nashville, Tennessee, on the Saturday prior to the April 15th deadline. This event is not put on by the Americans For Fair Taxation group in Houston, TX. They have their hands full with the Presidential election focus, so this is an independent grassroots event!
The AFFT staff and volunteers are certainly invited and encouraged to come and join in as honored guests. Also, we will be inviting any and all candidates for Washington's governmental offices, including incumbents, to attend and tell us why they do or do not support the bills HR25 and S1025 in Congress. Maybe one of them have what they think is a better plan; we want to hear that as well!
The date of the event is Saturday, April 12, 2008, at Riverside Park located near the State Capitol Building. There are other events going on in the city the same day, so plan to have some fun while you're visiting.

If you would like to learn more about FairTax, you might want to check out this website: www.fairtax.org .

The Nashville event is www.nationalfreedomrally.com .

Visit the site and plan to attend the party.

Thanks
Jim Tomasik

Ronald Reagan Debate 2

My friend Matt of CatchPenny acclaim flagged the video below to my attention.

It features proof that Republicans need to let poor Ronald Reagan rest in peace.

The Ronald Reagan Debate

Tonight I was able to watch the Fox News debate featuring the GOP Presidential candidates. The record of one man fell under close scrutiny. So much that it was cited in nearly every exchange.

In fact, this aspect of the debate lucidly demonstrates the problem which besets the current state of the Republican Party.

News flash to the Republican Party: Ronald Reagan is dead.

Let me begin by saying that I am no Reagan basher. When the former President passed away, I stood outside the United States Capitol some four hours so that I could pass through the Rotunda to pay my respects.

But, in as much as Republicans laud the Reagan coalition, the fact remains that this election is not about the past accomplishments of Ronald Reagan but about the vision and direction of our party's future.

It is imperative that Republicans embrace the principles of Reagan but look realistically at the policy issues of the day and find serious, creative solutions to implement them.

When Republicans pander on the border of obsession to the record of a dead man it is no service to the American people and no substitute for fresh vision.

Pardon the mini-rant.

By way of analysis, I see this debate having negligible impact on the race. It largely featured most of the same talking points and featured no watershed moments.

Romney Folds Up Shop in SC & FL

For Romney stalwarts, the news has to be disconcerting.

[Link]

The Associated Press is reporting that Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is pulling all advertising efforts in SC and FL, indicating that the former MA Governor plans to place the remainder of his political chips on Michigan.

Ron Paul's Racist Past?

Of course, the jury's still out.

But recent newsletters unearthed by the New Republic from Libertarian Presidential candidate Ron Paul confirm that the Texas Congressman just might be as crazy as everyone thought.

[Link]

Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? Dems Talk Change in NH Primary

Well, the books are closed, up in New Hampshire. Though written off as recently as this morning, Sen. Hillary Rodham-Clinton took home a surprising win over Sen. Barack Hussein Obama in the Democrat Primary.

In NH, miracles never cease. By her own admission, after nearly 30 years in public life, Sen. Clinton found her voice. Who knew core principles could be obtained so quickly?

[Link]

So, what exactly did Sen. Clinton's new voice sound like? Mostly like the old one but with the addition of one word: change.

On the surface, it would seem a bit incongruous that the Democrat establishment embodied by Clinton would sound the trump for change. But like Conoco, change is the hottest brand going and Democrats are often quick to shift with the political winds. Fortunately for Sen. Clinton, the ploy worked and NH voters were naieve enough to believe that shedding a couple tears meant the ice queen had melted.

What's most interesting about the outcome is that it indicates what most Americans already know; the pundits and the main-stream media are about as reliable as your local weatherman. Talking-heads have successfully gotten wrong their projections in both Iowa and NH.

For the gamblers out there, the lesson so far is that the smart money will be on whomever the press does not pick.

In making sense of the madness from here out, I draw from some four years in the state and six years total in New England: NH is quirky.

In the Republican race, the Granite State hardly represents the GOP rank-and-file. Republicans in NH tend to be of the libertarian, socially liberal stripe and under-representative of the evangelical base of the party. For selfish purposes, this explains Huck's third place showing and also explains why Huck is ahead in SC, FL and tied in MI.

Look for the GOP race to remain fluid until SC and MI have been decided. MI will be the real make or break race despite the attention which will be given to the SC race preceding it. In MI, the Romney family calls the state home and Mitt's father was a former Governor; John McCain won the Republican Primary back in 2000; Huckabee plays well with the state's large Dutch community and evangelicals in the west.

All three bring something to the table and all three could be competetive.

For Dems, none of the up-coming contests will be make or break. Look for both Clinton and Obama to remain in contention until Super Tuesday. Clinton's win tonight successully blunts Obama's momentum out of Iowa. But team Clinton is far from out of the woods.

Obama's win exposed severe vulnerabilities in the Clinton armor of inevitability and demonstrated the power of his anti-establishment message among voters.

In all, it should be an interesting month.

Fox News: Stolen Rodeo Bulls Recovered, Rustler Still at Large

Sometimes, Fox News tries way too hard.

[Link]

Then again, only in a redneck city like Nashville would $100,000 mechanical bulls go missing in the first place.

The foolishness all evens out really.

Boston Herald on Why Mitt's Millions Lost

Today finds me still on holiday in the Mountain West and still in dire need of a wireless connection. Nevertheless, my trusty BlackBerry has more than pulled through in the clutch and I am glad to flag the article below for your attention.

Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr, long-time observer of MA Governor Mitt Romney, weighed in with the piece below on team Romney's big loss last night in Iowa .

[Link]

The crux of Carr's article is that Mitt could well be "one and done" after Iowa- destined to join the ignoble ranks of Phil Gramm and Steve Forbes for 2008. In brief, Mitt is all hat and no cattle.

The article is both witty and well-written. It pokes quite a bit of fun at Mitt's millions. Romney stalwarts would be wise to avoid the suggestion. To all others who have seen the light, enjoy!

Huckabee Takes Iowa

Well, the lights are out and the party's over down in Iowa. Final tallies have proven the earlier Fox News forecast correct.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee came through with a big win in tonight's Iowa Caucus.

The talking heads will have a field day tomorrow, but for tonight the victory is sweet.

[Link]

The baseline is that tonight's results mark a significant blow to the establishment candidates of both parties.

Clinton's decisive third place finish was a surprise to many. Clinton had the backing of most top Dems and campaigned hard throughout the race while building a massive political organization. Hillary had all the requisites: name recognition, inevitability and money- all of which earned her a third place finish behind Barack Obama and John Edwards.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney out-spent Huck 20-1 and led polls for most of the year. In fact, he was picked to win by GOP insiders as early as this past week (For proof, see Bob Novak's recent diatribe against Huckabee). Tonight, Mitt's millions earned him a loss- perhaps a mortal blow should he lose in NH. All sides note, Romney took the hardest hit.

My sense of the matter is that most likely the wins signal an uptick of momentum for both Obama and Huckabee in what will surely be a very long primary.

The Democrat field will winnow as it already has with the exit of Senators Dodd and Biden.

Meanwhile, the GOP race remains fluid. The difference is that now Huckabee is a bona fide contender for the Republican nomination. The GOP establishment would be wise to recognize Huck's win. Crow tastes a lot worse in spring than it does in January.

In sum, it has been said that tonight marks a shift in the race. Perhaps even the dawn of a new front-runner. I'm not inclined to disagree on either point. For those on board with Huck from the start, it marks a point of departure and a buoy of hope- that the politics of the people will prevail against the power of the purse.

Fox News Calls Iowa for Huckabee

It's 8pm in Des Moines and Fox News has just called Iowa for Mike Huckabee.

Mitt Romney appeared on screen a short while ago and all but conceded defeat lowering expectations and putting a nice smile on what must be a disappointing second place finish.

To wit, Romney out-spent Huck 20-1 in the Iowa caucus.

I'll try to add analysis and updates once the numbers crystalize, but for now it's a big win for team Huckabee.

Early Returns from Iowa

With only my Blackberry and a prayer, Fox News has provided me all interesting updates from Iowa.

According to the earliest polls Mike Huckabee leads Mitt Romney 36% to 23%.

All signs point to a large Evangelical turnout for tonight's caucus.

Could be a big night for Huck!

Rep. Lantos (D-CA) Set to Retire

With the Iowa caucuses set to kick off tomorrow, one might rightly expect a fairly divisive political post to mark the occasion.

But given my comments over the past year on Mike Huckabee, I'm not quite sure what I can add which has not already been said- except to wish him well tomorrow.

On this election eve 2008, I would instead like to take a different course and applaud the service of a Congressman from across the aisle. In turn, from Pax Plena to CA Democrat Tom Lantos, here's wishing you all the best.

Congressman Lantos has announced his retirement from the House today upon discovery that he has cancer of the esophagus.

[Link]

As the only holocaust survivor to serve in Congress, Rep. Lantos faithfully served his CA district 14 terms.

While I find few areas to agree with Lantos politically, so long a commitment to public service is nonetheless admirable.

This is the crux of Election 2008- finding such admirable individuals who are able and willing to serve. America is greater than the sum of its parts, as I believe we will see in this election. Commitments like that of Tom Lantos are a big part of the reason why.

Saudis Detain Top Blogger

Blogging may be sporadic the next couple of days as I take a mini-holiday of sorts visiting family in rustic Taos, NM. Please pardon the interruption.

For now, here is a brief vignette on liberty to ring in the new year.

It's a freedom yours truly takes for granted nearly everyday.

[Link]

Sadly, bloggers in other parts of the world are not so fortunate.