Write in candidacies also exist because people want on the ballot but can’t get there. But now, according to the Alaska Supreme Court, none of that matters.

Lisa Murkowski’s campaign had managed to get poll workers to distribute her name in polling places which clearly amounts to electioneering and negates the barrier to getting on the ballot. Republicans sued to stop it and got a restraining order, which seem quite reasonable to me.

So what does the Alaska Supreme Court do? They stay the restraining order. So now all anyone who can’t get on the ballot has to do is have their name distributed at the polls.

Why bother having primaries at all? Just put everyone who wants to run on the ballot! That’s in effect what the court has just done, after all.

UPDATE:

It seems that a radio talk show host in Alaska, upset over the ruling, put out a call for citizens to sign up as write in candidates. The last count I heard was 56 new write in candidates poll workers have to distribute at the polls. That was an ingenious move and it perfectly illustrates my point. I wonder if the geniuses on the Alaska Supreme Court are rethinking their idiotic ruling?

Now, of course, I’ve dropped political blogging in favor of blogging about my experience as a growing Christian.  There is, however, a connection between the two in my mind.

When I went to Charleston Southern University I was a double major.  My majors were religion and political science.  People often looked at me as if I had grown two heads when I told them that.  The question in their minds was, “what in the world do those two things have to do with each other?”

For me the conservative political philosophy was a natural extension of my Christian beliefs. On issue after issue it has always seemed to me that the conservative position (as opposed to the Republican position) was much more in line with Biblical teaching than liberal positions.

I can just hear Christian Democrats screaming at me now so let me clarify.  I am NOT presenting a conservative Christianity apologetic.   I am explaining where I have come from in order to lay the ground work for what I have to say on the general subject of Christianity and politics.

You see, I did not stop political blogging because I changed my political views.  On the contrary, I hold essentially the same views I always have regarding what I believe to be correct or the best political philosophy.  What has changed is where I see that philosophy fitting in to the bigger picture of change in the world.

For many years I believed that if only we could, as a country, adopt the best political philosophy, we could turn America around and once again become a moral, Christian country.  I hope you see the problem with this.  I was placing my trust in a philosophy which is the same mistake Utopian thinkers have made throughout history.

Perhaps the biggest problem with this approach is that it ignores the basic inability of man to make himself better.  Utopian thinkers have always believed that if society only had the right approach, every social problem, every social injustice could be corrected and we could all live happily ever after.  But the fact is, mankind is hopelessly corrupt and morally bankrupt.  It is our nature to grab all we can for ourselves and not worry about everyone else.  If that were not true there would be no need for government in the first place.

That’s why conservatives are always disappointed when they elect Republicans they believe to be conservative.  While they may have been conservative when elected, they are subject to the same failings as all humans and when they face the temptations that come with power, they generally don’t handle it any better than anyone else.  So you end up with Republicans presiding over the largest expansion of government up to that time which is clearly not based on conservatism.

Regardless of which party is in power, it is still human men and women who are in power and they are all, along with the rest of us, fallen human beings in need of a savior.  Left to their own devices and their own personal philosophy, they will all become more and more corrupt because that is our nature.

As Lord Acton so aptly noted, “power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  This is true for the best of us as well as the worst.  It might take longer for the best but it is still the norm because we cannot improve ourselves.

This, of course, flies in the face of postmodern thinking which is generally committed to the idea that we can improve the human condition through our own efforts.  Never mind that thousands of years of history demonstrate the falsity of such a belief.  We still cling to the idea that, in spite of everything that has been tried before, if we just do this or that differently, we can achieve a different result.  Now there is absolute faith that flies in the face of all the evidence!

So if we are helpless to help ourselves, what hope is there?  The answer is that the God of all creation has already done for us what we could never do for ourselves.  He has provided redemption through His Son, Jesus, who died so that we might live.  Only through faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross can we hope to effect any change in humanity as a whole and American society more specifically.

Following the 2006 elections I was so disappointed that I could hardly function.  I thought we were doomed as a nation.  By the time of the 2008 elections, I had gone through a change.  Even though the 2008 election results were far worse from a conservative perspective than the 2006 results, I was not nearly so disappointed.  The reason was that I grasped much more fully that God is in control and He knows what He is doing.  I knew that I could trust Him no matter how it looked to me.

I still believe that a conservative approach to governance is the best way to go but attempting that without a Christian worldview is just wasted effort because people do not feel accountable to anyone but themselves and no one does a worse job of holding you accountable than you do.  “Unless the LORD builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the LORD watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain.” Psalms 127:1

So my focus has changed from politics to Christianity because that is the real, the true answer.  Political philosophy can never save us.  Only God can do that through His Son, Jesus.

Giuliani had a solid lead in Florida before the early primaries.  Some polls had him over 36%.  Then the early primaries happened and Giuliani was not playing in any of them.  That changed the political landscape.  Now Giuliani, who has spent heavily in Florida, is tied for third with Huckabee who hasn’t spent much and isn’t campaigning there.  Pretty much everyone believes that if Giuliani doesn’t win Florida his campaign is over.  I think it likely he’ll come in forth. 

The polls show Romney and McCain in a statistical tie for first in Florida.  I suspect Romney will handily defeat McCain in the sunshine state, giving McCain a likely second place finish.  Of course, the large liberal northeastern snow birds could tilt that the other way. Second is as good as last in this winner take all state and if that is where McCain ends up it hurts him a lot.  Huckabee will be third which will give him no delegates but it will still energize his campaign because he will again have done it without much money, meaning he has real, solid support.

What does all that mean going into Super Tuesday?  I think it will be a three man race at that point with Romney leading the pack.  McCain and Huckabee will be fighting for second place.

There are, of course, some wildcards in play.  Where will Thompson supporters go?  They should go to Huckabee since both Huckabee and Thompson were going for the same constituency.  Some will go to Romney because he is the most conservative of the front runners (if you don’t consider Huckabee a front runner).  Some, like ALa of Blonde Sagacity, seem determined to go with McCain, primarily I think, because of his war record.  I’m mystified by that since these people consider themselves conservatives but they can ignore McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, etc.  But many of them bought pretty much anything Thompson said and Thompson attacked Huckabee relentlessly.  That was no surprise considering Huckabee was his main opponent.  They were, after all, reaching out to the same constituency.  Once again, violation of Reagan’s eleventh commandment takes its toll.

Then there’s the small group who supported Duncan Hunter.  Hunter is now endorsing Huckabee, which has to really irk some of the pundits on the right as well as Thompson supporters.

I still think Huckabee has a decent shot but I concede he has an uphill battle and the odds are against him.  If, as I am predicting, Giuliani comes in third or forth in Florida, he is toast.  His support has already shrunk considerably and without a win in Florida it will pretty much dry up.  That leaves a three man race with Romney, McCain and Huckabee going into Super Tuesday.

I am convinced that McCain cannot win overall in states that have closed primaries.  In the South Carolina primary McCain did not do well among those who consider themselves conservative or very conservative.  He also did not do well among those who are pro-life.  Additionally, Protestants and those who attend church regularly went largely for Huckabee (Source).  I said last week, McCain barely won South Carolina and it took independents crossing over to give him that win and had Thompson not been in the race Huckabee would likely have won anyway.  None of this bodes well for McCain going forward.  The best thing he has is the claim of momentum coming out of South Carolina and I’m not convinced he really has any momentum, though the media has worked hard to generate some.

Based on what is known now, I believe Romney is the most likely winner on Super Tuesday.  How well Huckabee does will depend on his ability to stretch a dollar and enlist the active support of the organizations that already exist in the FairTax community and the evangelical community.  That carried him in the Iowa Straw Poll, it carried him in the Iowa Caucus and it has the potential to carry him on Super Tuesday.  The question is, will those organizations mobilize?  If they do Huckabee could defy the odds and the pundits and be positioned to take the nomination.  If they do not, Romney wins on Super Tuesday.  Either way the best McCain can hope for is second and that would mean the end of his candidacy.  Indeed, if Romney is the clear winner after Super Tuesday he will likely be the nominee.  As much as that thought does not appeal to me, it is infinitely preferable to a McCain win.  Still, I have hope, if not giddy optimism, that Huckabee can pull this off.

If, by some miracle, McCain emerges from Super Tuesday a winner, the Republican Party is in real trouble!  More on that possible outcome in another post.

Because it was still quite close I don’t think second place does too much damage to Huckabee.  And, because independents won it for McCain, I’m not convinced that will translate to states that hold closed primaries.  I certainly hope it won’t because McCain is many things but conservative is not one of them.

Thompson came in a distant third.  Had he been a close third he might have still had a decent position but he was 13-14 points behind Huckabee.  In my view that pretty much ends it for Thompson.  He may hang in there a little longer but his campaign is effectively over.

Listening to FOX News the consensus seems to be that after today the race has been reduced to McCain, Romney and Giuliani.  I pray that isn’t the case considering none of them is conservative.  They further believe that if Giuliani doesn’t win Florida it will be down to McCain and Romney  If that eventuality occurs, I’ll have to do some serious soul searching about how I will respond.  I am a conservative and I don’t know that I could vote for McCain under any circumstances.

I simply do not buy the argument from most of the talking heads on FOX News that this is the end of the road for Huckabee.  Second is not what he wanted but the fact is he’s still viable.  Florida is next and neither Huckabee nor McCain is going to win there.  Next is Super Tuesday and lot of states do not have open primaries.  I don’t believe McCain can win in the south without independents and Huckabee will win in those states.  What is more likely in my judgement is a spread of delegates following Super Tuesday that has Huckabee squarely in the pack along with others, none with enough delegates to take them over the top.

It’s going to be a while before we know who the Republican nominee is and it could end up in a brokered convention, something we haven’t seen in some time.  If that happens who knows what the outcome will be?  At that point anyone could get the nomination, even Fred Thompson.

We got in the building to vote and there were maybe 10-15 people in the line.  The poll workers said it had been steady all morning but not a great turnout.  That was a disappointment.

We cast our votes, me for Huckabee, and headed home to watch the news.  Of course all morning the coverage was on Nevada where FOX News called the GOP race for Romney very early.  There was a lot of speculation about how Nevada might impact South Carolina (idiotic speculation in my opinion).

The weather appears to be an obvious factor today.  According to all the talking heads, Huckabee is strongest in the upstate where they’re getting snow today, though nothing is sticking according to my son in Greenville.  McCain is supposed to be strongest in the Lowcountry where it has rained pretty steady all day.  Who will be hurt most by the weather?

Some analysis of exit polls on FOX News I found interesting.  As expected Huckabee has the highest percentage of evangelicals and McCain the highest percentage of veterans.  According to the report, there has been a higher percentage of evangelical than veterans in the exit polls, not unexpected since there are more of them in the population.  The most interesting part of the analysis was that conservatives were breaking for Huckabee by six points over McCain.  That’s encouraging.

As of 5:00 I’ve seen no actual returns for this primary and as much as I’d love to see some numbers, I think that is preferable since it isn’t influencing voters.  The bottom line is, this race is too close to call.  I still think Huckabee is going to pull it out but it could be late this evening before I know if I’m right or not.

I’ll be staying up as long as it takes to follow the returns this evening and as soon as someone is declared the winner, I’ll be back to write about it.  In the mean time, if you’re in South Carolina and you haven’t voted yet, get out there and do it!

Here’s how I see it.  McCain was counting on winning in Michigan, or at least running a close second.  As it stands now it looks like he’ll be a distant second.  That hurts him in South Carolina.  The McCain campaign spin is that the large contingent of veterans in South Carolina is well organized and they will carry the day.  I don’t think so.  I think McCain comes in second or third on Saturday.  Those veterans may have done it for him had he won in Michigan but that didn’t happen.

Thompson has really been working hard here the last week and it is clearly paying off.  But he came in behind Ron Paul in Michigan which could hurt him as some see him as a lost cause.  That can only help Huckabee who hasn’t been sitting on his laurels either.  I think Huckabee wins in South Carolina.  Thompson comes in second or third.  If McCain can hold on to some of the numbers he’s built and comes in second with Thompson third that could spell the end of Thompson’s run.  Even Newt Gingrich thinks Huckabee is the man to beat here and he doesn’t see it happening either.

I’ve said before that from an ideological perspective I like Thompson over Huckabee.  I wish Thompson had executive experience though.  For the most part the voters prefer former Governors over former or current Senators.  Unquestionably Huckabee has the executive experience and Thompson doesn’t.  But otherwise I really like Thompson’s positions pretty much across the board.  The problem is, I don’t think he can win.  His abysmal showing in Michigan strengthens that view.  Huckabee, on the other hand, has shown his ability to build support and gain momentum in spite of a lack of funding.  Now he’s raising money at a much faster rate with the added momentum.  Thompson seems to be on fire now but I still think it’s just too late.

The latest Rasmussen poll has McCain with a strong lead in South Carolina, nine points over Huckabee but Real Clear Politics still has gives Huckabee +3.7.  While I generally like the Rasmussen poll I have strong doubts about this one.  I live here and talk to people.  I think I know a little about what’s going on here.  McCain may have a small lead going into today but if it’s actually a lead it will shrink following his distant second place finish in Michigan.  Besides, people in the south aren’t fans of McCain.  I think the Rasmussen poll is way off and I think Saturday will demonstrate that.

Now Newt Gingrich is saying much the same thing.  From This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

We are at the end of the George W. Bush era.  We are at the end of the Reagan era. We’re at a point in time when we’re about to start redefining — as a number of people started talking about, starting to redefine — the nature of the Republican Party, in response to what the country needs.

Rush just didn’t know what to do with that.  He’s been a Gingrich supporter for years and Newt says something like that.  It put Rush in a spot.

Rush had this to say on his show today:

Every one of these Republicans is starting to talk about redefining the party, and this has been going on since the early days of this, not just now. If you recall, all during last year, I told you this was my big concern: that Reaganism and conservatism were going to be redefined so as to fit the mold of whoever these guys on our primary roster are.  One of the things that Newt said is "redefine the nature of the Republican Party in response to what the country needs." Something about that rubs me wrong.  Something about that sort of grates on me.  The Republican Party is supposed to sit out there and I guess (slurps) moisten its index finger, stick it in the air, find out what people want, and be that?  That’s not who we are!  Now, it may be who populists are.  In fact, it is exactly who populists are.  Even if you have no intention of following through on what you plan to do as you promise all these wonderful things to your supporters, as a populist. But this is not what the Republican Party has been.  It’s what the Democrat Party had been.

This fits right in with what’s been going on with the Republican race for the nomination.  The lines are drawn, the assumptions have all been made and everyone is hearing what they expect to hear rather than what is actually being said.

Newt was on Hannity and Colmes tonight and Sean asked him about the comment.  Newt went on the explain that the Republican Party cannot continue trying to hold on to the issues of the eighties.  He pointed out that most of the major concerns we have today didn’t exist when Reagan was in office.  Gingrich made the point that if Reagan was in office today he’d be tackling today’s issues, not the issues of the eighties.  In effect, the Reagan era is over and it’s time for a new era if Republicans want to win.

Newt was NOT denigrating the Reagan legacy or conservatism.  He made it clear that he was always a Reagan supporter.  But what Rush and others seem to want is Reagan himself.  Too bad.

No one is a bigger fan of Ronald Reagan than I am.  Reagan stood for conservatism long before it was fashionable and he is the model of conservatism.  But we aren’t facing the Soviet Union, Reagan defeated that.  We aren’t facing many of the problems we faced in the eighties.  We have a whole new set of problems and we have to face them head on as a party and decided how we’ll deal with them and articulate that to the electorate.  We can’t do that if we’re constantly bickering over Reagan.

It’s not going to happen but Rush, Laura Ingraham and the rest of the right leaning pundits need to stop living in the past and take a look at the present.  Reagan is dead.  We aren’t going to return to the eighties much as some of those pundits might wish we could.

I want conservatives in office.  But if every candidate that takes a look at the changing landscape ends up characterized as a populist we’re facing a long uphill battle.

During Ronald Reagan’s 1966 campaign for governor of California, Republicans established the so-called Eleventh Commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”

It was proposed by State Republican Chairman Gaylord Parkinson to help prevent a repeat of the liberal Republican assault on Barry Goldwater that laid the foundation for Goldwater’s trouncing in the 1964 presidential election. Just as Nelson Rockefeller and his East Coast cronies had branded Goldwater as an “extremist” who was unfit to hold office, so candidate George Christopher and California’s liberal Republicans were leveling similar personal attacks on Reagan. Party liberals eventually followed Parkinson’s advice, and the rest is history.

Source

All the Republican candidates have invoked the name of Ronald Reagan numerous times.  It seems they all want to be associated with the Reagan legacy.  But most have forgotten Reagan’s eleventh commandment.  It is one thing to contrast one’s record with that of another candidate.  it is quite another to resort to character assassination and that is precisely what some have done.

The pundits are even worse and they don’t seem to realize the risk they are taking.  The quote above illustrates why Reagan was unwilling to speak ill of his Republican opponents.  He stuck to issues because he understood that it was important that Republicans won in the end the constant assaults in the primary process made that less likely.

The lesson holds true today but you wouldn’t know it listening to the pundits.  I have to admit that I have been guilty as well.  I’ve made my views on John McCain, for example, very clear.  But as I said in my last post, I have to think about the possibility that McCain will be the eventual nominee.  What do I do then?  Can I reasonably blog in support of McCain at that point after all the negative posts I’ve written about him?  I’m not sure anyone would take such post seriously but I’m quite sure some would use my older posts to argue in favor of whoever the Democrat nominee is.

Therein lies the problem.  I need to tone down my rhetoric against McCain, Romney, et.al. in favor of arguing for my candidate.  I think others need to do the same thing.  otherwise we all contribute to making the Democrats’ job easier and our nominee’s job tougher once the nominees are chosen.

Regular readers will recall that I was an early Thompson supporter. To this day I believe Thompson is a more conservative candidate than Huckabee is, excepting his position on the FairTax. But Fred took so long to enter the race and when he did, he was all but invisible by choice. He gave few interviews and was not to be found in the media. At the same time Mike Huckabee was making his name known and moving up.

I believe that Fred’s showing last Thursday was too little too late. He threw everything he has at Huckabee because they are going after that same voters. It wasn’t enough. Huckabee has the lead and I don’t expect he’ll lose it. In fact, I expect that after the South Carolina primary we may see Fred Thompson drop out of the race. If he doesn’t come in at least second his viability will be in serious jeopardy. If Thompson drops out, who does he endorse and where do his supporters go?

The safe money is on Thompson backing his long time friend McCain. But I suspect many of Thompson’s supporters will have a difficult time moving over with him.

There are plenty of people calling John McCain a conservative. I remember a little online political test I took that said the candidate I agreed the most with was John McCain. That might be true on rhetoric alone but it certainly isn’t true when it comes to his record. John McCain is not a conservative, he is the maverick he’s portrayed himself to be. He’s unreliable when it comes to advancing the conservative agenda. How can Thompson supporters support McCain after Thompson drops out?

If they do not support McCain, where will they go? I can’t see them going with Giuliani who is a social liberal and opponent of the second amendment. What about Romney? Perhaps. But he’s a long time RINO recently converted to conservatism when it suited his ambition. I don’t trust him and I don’t see when conservatives in general should. What does that leave? It leaves Huckabee.

The problem is, Thompson supporters have joined the Huckabee bashing bandwagon. It will be difficult for them to support a guy they’ve invested so much into destroying.

All of you who hate Huckabee need to think about what you will do if he ends up being the nominee. Just like I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about what I’ll do if any of the current slate of RINOs ends up with the nomination. This thing is pretty wide open right now. I think as a party we need to give some serious though to how we’re going to win in November, not just how our candidate can win the nomination.

This isn’t really an analysis post, rather, it’s some of my impressions for tonight.

The biggest problem with John McCain is his inherent inability to admit that he has even been wrong.  He’s implied he was wrong on immigration reform by switching his position to border enforcement, yet he steadfastly refuses to admit that what he supported previously was amnesty.  Chris Wallace hammered this point home and McCain still claimed he’d never supported amnesty and never would.  Now McCain says he just wants to move on.  Well Senator, admit the facts and moving on will be far easier.

Huckabee was again asked about his support of in-state tuition for the children of illegals and whether his recently announced plan for immigration didn’t “punish the children for the sins of the parents” just like denying in-state tuition would.  Huckabee vehemently denied that it would.  This is an issue on which I disagree with Huckabee and his response to the question seemed particularly strained.  He did, however, point out that Reagan signed the amnesty bill in the 80s.

The fact is, everyone one of the candidates in the forum except Fred Thompson, have significant weaknesses on the issue illegal immigration.  Giuliani ran a sanctuary city, McCain supported the amnesty bill, Huckabee supports in-state tuition and Romney had illegals working at his house.

Thompson’s point was clearly the best.  Our policy must not encourage more illegal immigration.

Overall I think all the candidates came out okay tonight.  No one committed a big gaff and no one hit a home run.  The focus group on FOX said Romney clearly won.  I completely disagree with them and so did all the pundits.  It was a great informational forum and I think the real winner was the voters who watched.  If anyone lost tonight it was probably John McCain.  He didn’t look good on immigration or taxes.  On taxes he still maintains his vote against the Bush tax cuts was right because he wanted to reign in spending.  I’m with him on spending but that’s like a drowning man refusing to raise his nose out of the water because he can’t also raise his mouth.  Okay, drown then!

As for my candidate, Huckabee, he did fine overall.  He clearly defended himself once again against Romney’s “half truths” as Huckabee put it.  He isn’t likely to win New Hampshire but he will do good enough there and perhaps better than expected.  He’s in this race for the foreseeable future and he will be a force to be reckoned with.

Tomorrow I’ll make my predictions for the New Hampshire primary.

Yes, evangelicals and churches mobilized in Iowa and that certainly helped Huckabee.  But the assumption that they mobilized because Huckabee is “one of them” is, I think, misleading.  The fact is Huckabee came in a strong second in the Iowa Straw Poll several months ago, not because of churches and evangelicals, but because of his strong support of the FairTax.  It just so happens that for the most part evangelicals are also strong supporters of the FairTax.  but they are not the only strong supports of the FairTax.

It may well be that Huckabee won’t win in New Hampshire.  But I think it quite likely that he will do well even if he doesn’t win.  Moving on the South Carolina puts Huckabee back in the drivers seat again because there is an incredible FairTax organization in South Carolina and the vast majority of those FairTax supporters are also Huckabee supporters.  I know this because I’m part of the South Carolina FairTax organization.

I was at the FairTax rally in Columbia, SC back in May.  It was held across the street from the Koger Center where the Republican debate was taking place the same night.  We had something like 9,000 people at that rally.  We marched around the Koger Center, silencing all other groups while we marched.  Indeed, small groups of supporters of the various candidates were in awe of the crowd we had.  Many spoke to me, completely amazed that we had such support and so many people there.

The media virtually ignored that rally.  Watching debate coverage that night it was striking to see video of numerous pockets of supporters for each candidate and no video whatsoever of the FairTax marchers.  We were ignored.

We are still being ignored by the pundits on both sides and the media.  With few exceptions the FairTax and its supporters have been given virtually no credit for Huckabee’s meteoric rise.  But the reality is it is FairTax supporters that brought Huckabee that strong second place in the Iowa Straw Poll and it is FairTax supporter who have lifted Huckabee to the national stage.  And so long as Huckabee continues to be the most articulate supporter of the FairTax, they will continue to lift him up.

I heard this verbalized yesterday on a radio talk show.  I can’t remember which show it was but the guest was saying that both Thompson and Romney has looked at the FairTax and liked it but bowed to advisors who convinced them it was a losing issue.  He claimed that both regretted listening to that advice.  I don’t know if that is true or not.  Having attended a couple of Thompson events it seems unlikely to me that Thompson ever even understood the FairTax, much less liked it.  All I know is, the FairTax is a winning presidential issue and Huckabee has tapped into it.

To be sure there are lots of other very important issues and over the next few weeks Huckabee will be thoroughly scrutinized on all of them.  He may or may not survival that scrutiny.  But so far the myriad charges against him haven’t stuck and he’s continued to rise in popularity.  Rush has said that Huckabee supporters aren’t interested in hearing anything negative or factual about Huckabee because they’ve made up their minds.  Perhaps.  But the same could be said (and I will say it) about all those “conservative” pundits who have been slamming Huckabee the last last few weeks.  Some of them have slightly moderated their tone in the last few days.  I suspect that’s because they are realizing that not only have they been unsuccessful in derailing Huckabee but they are going to have to deal with him going forward and that might be a little easier if they don’t have such an adversarial position but that’s pure speculation.

That bottom line is, the pundits and opponents of Mike Huckabee will continue to underestimate him so long as they don’t understand why he’s doing as well as he is.  The FairTax is the biggest key.  Yes, evangelicals support him and that helps.  But that wouldn’t support him if there wasn’t a lot of common ground on key issues and one of those issues if the FairTax.

Caucuses don’t exactly involve votes per se.  Instead caucus goers gather in a large room around their candidate.  Any candidate that doesn’t have at least 15% of the caucus goers is ruled not viable and their supporters physically move to the area of their second choice. That’s where it gets interesting and it’s what causes pundit predictions to sometimes be incredibly wrong.  Predicting who will have less than 15% isn’t too difficult but predicting where their supporters will go is not so easy.

On the Democrat side Dennis Kucinich has already told his supporters to support Obama should he not make the first cut, which is likely.  Indeed on both sides there will be a number of candidates who will not meet the 15% threshold and all their supporters will move to someone else.  That makes predictions difficult.

I don’t plan to make predictions on the Democrat side, primarily because I don’t really care.  I’m much more interested in the Republican caucus.

Mitt Romney has spent a boat load of money to buy the Iowa caucus and a couple of months ago the conventional wisdom was that he would walk away with it.  Today Romney finds himself in a dead heat with Mike Huckabee even though he’s outspent Huckabee by something like 20 to 1.  The pundits are pretty much universally saying everything depends on turnout.  Which candidates can get their voters out to the caucus will determine the outcome.  I agree with that to a point but I think there is more at play here.

The Iowa Straw Poll in August was an eye opener for many.  Romney was widely expected to win, as he did, but no one predicted Huckabee to come in second.  Since the Iowa Straw Poll is mostly about buying votes Romney clearly had the edge.  No one could compete with the money he could spend on the effort.  Huckabee, on the other hand, had virtually no money to spend, yet he came in a strong second.  There were a couple of reasons for that showing and keep in mind that Huckabee supporters pretty much had to pay their own way to the poll unlike Romney supporters.

First, Huckabee’s very outspoken support of the FairTax was probably the primary reason he showed so well.  FairTax supporters are well organized and they mostly support Huckabee because he supports the FairTax so strongly and articulately.  While there has been some acknowledgement of the roll of the FairTax by the pundits in the media, I believe they broadly underestimate how big that roll actually is.

Second, Huckabee unapologetically supports the issues so called “values voters” care about.  He is pro life, pro family, pro second amendment and against gay marriage.  He’s also an outspoken Christian and makes no bones about it.  That scares some people who think any Christian will usher in a theocracy but evangelicals by and large are behind him.

The latest polls all have Romney and Huckabee in a tie while no one else has even 15% in the polls.  So Romney and Huckabee will certainly make the first cut.  Who will be out after the first round? 

Giuliani and Paul will not make the first cut.  Predicting where their supporters will go is somewhat difficult.  Giuliani supporters will likely split between McCain (should he make the first cut) and Romney but Paul supporters are anyone’s guess.  As rabid as those folks are they could pack up and go home, not moving to any candidate.  If Thompson does not make the first cut his supporters will almost universally go to Huckabee.  Romney is viewed as a RINO and Thompson supporters are real conservatives.  They will not support the RINO.

McCain has more than 15% in only one poll but I think it likely he will make the first round.  If he does not his supporters likely will not go for Romney because Romney has now gone after McCain in some of his ads. That gives most of those supporters to Huckabee if it comes to that in the first round.

Back to the turnout question.  Remember how FairTax supporters buoyed Huckabee in the Iowa Straw Poll?  I predict the same thing will happen in the caucus.  I believe that in the first round Huckabee will have a significant lead over Romney.  That will have some impact on the second round as the supporters whose candidates don’t make the first cut decide where to move their support.

Thompson is really the wild card.  If he makes the first cut Huckabee could be hurt in the second round and it is then possible that Romney or even McCain could take the lead.  I consider than an unlikely but possible outcome.

I predict the first round goes to Huckabee by a fairly wide margin.  Romney will be second and McCain third in the first round.  All of Thompson’s supporters will go to Huckabee, Giuliani’s supporters will split between McCain and Romney and Paul’s supporters (those who stay) will go to McCain.

In the second round Huckabee’s support grows the most because he gets all of Thompson’s supporters.  Romney gains the least in the second round and McCain ends up in the middle.

The end result will be Huckabee first, McCain second and Romney third.  That will leave the Romney campaign shell shocked and scrambling to regroup for New Hampshire.  Romney will dramatically increase spending in New Hampshire and the number of negative attack ads he runs will increase dramatically as well.

These are, of course, only predictions.  They could be wrong and indeed, almost certainly will be wrong in some details.  I chose to be pretty specific about how this will go which increases the opportunities to be wrong.  But I think the analysis is pretty sound and it will be interesting on Thursday to see how it turns out and how close I come to the actually results.

Stay tuned for caucus results analysis.

It’s going to be an interesting years.  Who will win the White House?  Will the Democrats expand their margin in Congress or will the Republicans be able to capitalize on the missteps of a lack luster Democrat Congress?  These an other questions will be addressed in the weeks and months ahead.  I hope you’ll come along for the ride and maybe even participate rather than just read what I have to say.

It has always been my goal to stimulate conversation and discussion, not just get readers.  That’s why I have comments open, I want to hear what you think.  I’m open to Democrat opinions too, just don’t expect me to agree very often.  But I’m open to discussion.

As for the conservatives in the audience, we have to buckle down and get to work if we’re going to bring the Republican Party around to our way of thinking.  We have to support conservative candidates with our money and our energy.  Without that support we will have nothing to complain about when RINOs run the party and conservatives aren’t elected.  It’s up to us folks.

I’m looking forward to 2008.  I’m looking forward to following and blogging the primaries and the election.  It’s going to be a very interesting year!

I’ve been a Huckabee supporter for some time now.  I’ve heard most all the criticisms and I’ve heard Huckabee’s defense of those criticisms.  Take ethics charges in Arkansas.  Like attacks against Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay on the national level, Democrats always resort to spurious ethics charges when when they can’t defeat a Republican on the merits.  I have no problem believing this is the case in Arkansas.  In the case of the wedding registry issue, Huckabee’s explanation is completely credible and sensible.  Opponents who stick to that charge look stupid, just like Giuliani’s constant charge that Romney hired illegals when he did no such thing.  Giuliani looked stupid then and Huckabee opponents look stupid sticking with spurious and silly charges.

On the immigration question I take issue with Huckabee.  I think he is wrong about the children of illegal immigrants but I respect his position because I have anguished over the question of what to do with kids who’ve been here nearly all their lives.  They don’t know any other country and they are not responsible for the situation they are in, their parents are.  I disagree with Huckabee’s approach because it rewards and encourages illegal immigration but I understand where he’s coming from and this one issue is not a deal breaker for me.

There is one charge, leveled by Ann Coulter and others, that Huckabee wants to use the government to implement Jesus’ plans for the poor, that gives me serious pause.  If true that would be a real deal breaker for me.  I have no patience for social gospel advocates and I won’t have patience for Huckabee if I find he’s a social gospel adherent.  But so far I’ve seen no evidence that it is true.  Indeed, Huckabee has said that he’s running for President, not pastor in chief.  Yes, he will make decisions based on his worldview.  That seems to scare the pants off some people.  But the fact is, everyone running will make decisions based on their worldview, Christian or not.

I’ve been reading the criticism and looking for evidence but so far I’m not seeing it.  I’ve been quiet for a while now because, honestly, I was afraid some of this stuff might be true.  But so far all I see is accusations.  In every case Huckabee has responded and responded well.  The one time he seemed somewhat flummoxed was in a interview with Laura Ingraham.  But the reality is Ingraham was extremely combative from the start and Huckabee has little chance to finish an answer.  It was clear to anyone listening that Ingraham was gunning for Huckabee.

Coulter also got some mileage from Huckabee’s plan to bring music and the arts back to education.  She carries on like that’s just the silliest idea ever introduced.  But it seems to me that Huckabee is simply talking about a liberal arts education, something most of our founding fathers strongly supported.  There is something of a resurgence of the idea among private schools today and it’s an idea I support.  The idea is that you cannot have a well rounded education without covering arts, literature, music, foreign language, history, science and math.  Modern thinkers want to focus solely on science and math and maybe a little language thrown in for good measure.  I believe the liberal arts approach is superior and it was unbecoming of Coulter to treat it like it was silly.  I’m not sure where she got her undergrad but I suspect it might have been a liberal arts school.

Now let me be clear.  I’m a fan of Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter and many others who are taking pot shots at Huckabee.  In virtually every case it seems clear to me that they have already made up their minds for someone else.  Ingraham is a case in point.  I’ve heard her interview Mitt Romney.  She threw softball questions one after the other.  Not once did she go after him on anything.  Clearly Romney is her guy.  Now that’s fine but she isn’t being real honest about that fact.  She’s acted as if she’s unbiased regarding Republican candidates when she clearly is not.  It’s human nature to see anyone who threatens your chosen candidate as the enemy but that alone doesn’t make the criticism valid.  It requires evidence and there seems to be precious little of that.

So far the only one I’ve seen who truly seems unbiased is Rush Limbaugh.  If he’s picked a candidate I am hard pressed to tell who it might be.  The Huckabee campaign takes on El Rushbo at their peril.

I will continue to watch the situation carefully.  If there is something that might change my mind about Huckabee I want to know about it.  Yes, he’s my guy.  But I am willing to switch if he turns out not to be the real deal.  To date I’ve seen nothing to sway me.  And lest you think I’m not as willing to change as I say I am, recall that I started out supporting Fred Thompson so I’ve already switched once.  I’ll switch again if new information comes along that convinces me a I should.

For now I’m just disgusted with the constant “conservative” attacks on Huckabee.  I think it’s a mistake and it’s damaging to the party.

Conventional wisdom is nothing more or less than what most people think. Or at least most people within a specific group. It is certainly possible that conventional wisdom on a particular subject is the best course but I think it is unlikely. Conventional wisdom says you should limit your risk, taking only those risks that don’t cost much if you are wrong. That may lead you to a safe retirement but it won’t lead you to be a millionaire.

The conventional wisdom in Republican circles seems to be that Rudy Giuliani is the only candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton. Why is that? What makes Giuliani the one guy who can beat Hillary? It appears to be that he is so tough when it comes to foreign policy and terrorism. His strategy has been to create just the thinking that leads to the common conventional wisdom. He has worked to scare the Republican base into believing he can defeat both the terrorists and Hillary Clinton and no one else can. His strategy has certainly worked thus far but is the resulting conventional wisdom accurate?

I submit that it is not and I have several reasons for thinking so.

First, I think it doubtful that Giuliani can defeat Clinton in the first place. Everyone places their hopes on the polls but there are several problems with that, not the least of which is that the actual election isn’t for another year and polls are worthless that far out. Additionally, the polls only look at what the pollsters are interested in looking at. So, for example, there has been no poll pitting Hillary Clinton against, say, Mike Huckabee as was pointed out in a previous Republican debate.

Another reason for doubting that Giuliani can defeat Clinton is my belief that very many social conservative and evangelical Christians simply will not vote for him. Pat Robertson may have endorsed him but that isn’t going to go very far. I think James Dobson is more on the right track in terms of what evangelical Christians and social conservatives are likely to do. They will take one of two courses. They will vote for a third party candidate or they will stay home. Either course leads to a Clinton victory in ’08. We saw similar results in both of Bill Clinton’s elections where he never had a majority of the vote. Indeed, Bill Clinton never would have won without the presence of Ross Perot in the elections.

The simple fact is, Rudy Giuliani is not a conservative. Socially he is a liberal and he does not hide that fact. He has made certain concessions like saying he will nominate justices in the mold of Scalia or Roberts but there is no certainty that he won’t change his mind considering how he feels about abortion, gay marriage and other social issues. In essence he would have to betray his own beliefs to follow through on his promise and I have little faith that he will do that.

A second reason for disbelieving that Giuliani is the only candidate who can beat Clinton is that when candidates with solid conservative records run on conservative platforms, they win. Giuliani does not fit that description. He is closer to Democrats than Republicans on a host of issues. In the end, why vote for a Republican who acts like a Democrat when you can get the genuine article?

I’ve said over and over that the reason Republicans lost in ’06 was that they had abandoned conservative principles. As the minority they had long held to conservatism but as the majority they governed much like Democrats. They hardly passed on a chance to expand government. So, rather than Reagan’s goal of eliminating the federal Department of Education we got No Child Left Behind, a massive expansion of the Department of Education. Never mind the fact that there is no Constitutional authority for that department. Republicans spent like their lives depended on it. And it all cost them the majority.

Now we have a Democrat Congress that has the lowest approval rating of any Congress since ranting have been taken. As bad as the Republicans were, the Democrats are worse. That presents an enormous opportunity if only we can take advantage of it.

The conventional wisdom also says that the Democrats will expand their majorities on Congress in ’08 but I don’t see that as inevitable. If Republicans would only coalesce around a solid conservative platform and nominate a solid conservative candidate for President, they could take back control of Congress and keep the White House. That isn’t going to happen by nominating Rudy Giuliani.

It is time to throw out conventional wisdom. It is time to step out and embrace conservatism. That is the winning strategy.

The only thing I can come up with is this visceral fear that only Giuliani can beat Hillary Clinton. Certainly many feel that way but I wholeheartedly disagree with them. In fact, I believe that ONLY a solid conservative can beat Hillary Clinton. But that is beside the point here.

The fact is, Robertson has sold his soul for this endorsement. Not that Pat Robertson is all that credible but what credibility he had is gone now. I’m sure there are some people who would follow the man straight into hell but I think most evangelicals will see this as a total compromise with the devil.

I’ve been critical of James Dobson for his public stand against anyone who isn’t a total social conservative but that criticism is not because I disagree with him. My criticism is that Dobson has made a habit recently of saying things publicly that were better said in the pulpit. In truth, I have a real problem with any candidate who is not a social conservative and I doubt that I could vote for one. The very real probability is that many evangelicals will stay home come election day if Giuliani is the Republican nominee. They simply will be unable to pull the lever for him and rather than vote for someone worse they just won’t vote at all.

As implied above, Pat Robertson hasn’t has much credibility except with his faithful following for some time. He has a habit of running off at the mouth and saying some pretty ridiculous things. But this really tops the charts. I cannot fathom how a follower of Christ, someone who holds the sanctity of life so dear and fights for the traditional family, can come out and publicly endorse a man who stands in opposition to these principles.

Truth be told, I’m not sure what I will do come election day if Rudy is the Republican nominee. But I know there is not chance that would work to put him in that position. That Robertson is working to put him in that position is just inexcusable.

Blogged with Flock

As I said, I am not a fan of George Bush.  Other than judicial nominations and tax cuts, he has not impressed me much.  But the level of partisan attacks is simply amazing.  There are plenty of Democrats I dislike intensely but I cannot imagine going to such lengths to demonize them.  What makes Democrats so unable to act rationally when it comes to George Bush?  I know, they all think he stole the 2000 and 2004 elections but that cannot be all there is too it because it’s not just Bush they do this too.  Harry Reid and others tried it with Rush Limbaugh and got humiliated for their trouble.

I wonder how this country can possibly pull together and move forward as one nation with so many willing to go to such lengths to destroy others.  Hillary Clinton and Democrats in general love to bemoan the politics of personal destruction but the reality is they not only invented the strategy, they have elevated to an art form.  They are constantly assisted by their willing accomplices in the media, like Chris Matthews asking such an asinine question to Garamendo above.  And much of their rank and file seem to just eat it up.  There is never any shortage of moonbats willing to come out to prevent some conservative from speaking somewhere.  But you never see similar actions from the right.  Doesn’t this tell you something?

Whether you are a conservative or not you must admit that conservatives are far more rational.  We don’t go around making wild accusations and blaming liberals for everything from the sun rising to the rain falling.  And we don’t make any effort at all to silence those with whom we disagree.  We are perfectly content to debate the merits of our arguments.  Not so liberals.  They cannot tolerate dissenting opinions unless it is their dissenting opinion.

So if you are a liberal give this a little thought.  If your argument is superior, why can’t you let it stand in the arena of ideas?  If your ideas are better, why do you need to personally attack those who disagree with you rather than debate their arguments.  The only real reason anyone ever has far such actions is they don’t believe their arguments can prevail.  Otherwise why go to such lengths to silence or discredit your opponents?  Of course, lust for power might just enter in somewhere.

When I spoke to Mark May [sic-Mays], he and I thought this probably wouldn’t make much money-a letter, written by Democrat Senators, complaining about something…[T]he [final] bid [was] more than two million for this… Never did we think that this letter would bring money of this nature… I don’t know what we could do more important than helping to ensure that children of our fallen soldiers and police officers who have fallen in the line of duty have the opportunity for their children to have a good education.

These are the words of Senate Majority Leader “Dingy” Harry Reid. I cannot imagine the nerve required to actually take credit for the $4.2 million raised. Reid and the 41 Senators who signed the letter were challenged by Rush Limbaugh to individually match the winning bid, just as Limbaugh himself was doing. The winning bid ended up being $2.1 million so with Rush’s match the total was $4.3 million. Reid didn’t match a single cent! But the man still took credit for it. He has no shame!

Reid is following in the footsteps of his predecessor, Tom Daschle. You will recall that Daschle was continually shocked at anything conservatives did. You will also recall that Daschle received his walking papers from his constituents in 2004. Reid is on track to follow Daschle right out of office. Power Line Blog yesterday reported that Reid’s approval rating in Nevada is below President Bush’s and it appears to be falling.

Reid and his Democrat colleagues in Congress have yet to figure out that the American people are sick and tired of partisanship for the sake of partisanship. Even a poll on the DailyKOS asking the question, “Do you approve of the way Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is doing his job?” has Reid with 82% saying no with more than 15,000 responses as of 7:30 this evening.

I would not argue against partisanship when there is a clear difference on policy. But Congressional Democrats, lead by Reid and Pelosi, are determined to take any action to deny President Bush a victory if they can and it is taking a toll on them. Congressional approval ratings are consistently lower than President Bush’s, taking away the ability of the Democrats to point to Bush’s low ratings. Doing so focuses attention on their own even lower ratings.

Republicans, on the other hand, are benefiting right now. Whether you are agree with them or not, they appear to be taking principled positions rather than engaging in politics as usual like the Democrats. Should Democrats continue on their current path into the ’08 elections it will present an opportunity to Republicans. Conventional wisdom says that Republicans will suffer more losses in the House and Senate in ’08. That view is further bolstered by the fact that so many Republican incumbents in Congress have announced they will not seek reelection next year. Yet the environment is ripe for Republicans, if they can unify behind a conservative message and solid candidates, to spank the Democrats. Should that happen, it will impact the Presidential election as well. We are accustomed to candidates riding a presidential candidate’s coat tails but this time around it could conceivably be the other way around. This isn’t a prediction so much as it is a possible strategy if Republicans will only do it.

McCain wasn’t left out of the party, taking on Romney’s record and accusing Romney of distorting not only his own record but McCain’s as well.  In the first round all questions were asked of Romney, McCain, Thompson and Giuliani.  No questions were asked of any of the other candidates in the first 15 minutes of the debate.

Ron Paul got his time, primarily I think, because he says such nutty things and that is good for ratings.  He drew boos from the audience on several occasions.

The clear winner of the evening, in my view, was Mike Huckabee.  Readers may object that since I’ve come out in support of Huckabee my view is biased.  While it is true that I have a bias, the fact is, Huckabee answered every question resolutely and thoroughly and never stumbled once.  That cannot be said for anyone else in the debate.  Indeed, in the unscientific FOXNews poll following the debate, Huckabee won solidly.  Yes, I know, Ron Paul won the numbers but everyone actually paying attention understands that Ron Paul’s numbers must be filtered out of any poll that isn’t scientific since the RonBots come out en mass to every poll out there, slanting the polls horribly when good polls show Paul with numbers in the low single digits.

Huckabee got his first question 20 minutes into the debate with a question leading him to attack Giuliani on the abortion issue.  Huckabee declined to take the debate, instead declaring his was more interested in fight for his beliefs rather than fighting against the other candidates.  He went on to articulate strong pro life position which stood in contrast to Giuliani’s pro choice position.

McCain didn’t look bad tonight but he is, for all intents and purposes, out of this race.  And he really has been for some time.  His voice adds an interesting dimension to the debate but he has no chance at the nomination.

Thompson certainly outperformed his last debate outing, which wasn’t too difficult to do.  Indeed, Thompson did pretty well but he has a bad habit of referring to his notes repeatedly during a single answer and that just doesn’t look very presidential.  He appears to be less than prepared.  As an early Fred head I’ve come to the conclusion that Thompson simply isn’t ready to run for President.  Considering how long he had to prepare while he waited to make his announcement, this is a real disappointment.

For his part, at least Giuliani speaks his mind.  I disagree with him on a number of issues but as he told the values voters, he’s not trying to claim he believes things he doesn’t.  Right now Giuliani appears to be the man to beat and I very much hope he is beaten in the primary.  His foreign policy ideas and fiscal ideas are wonderful but his views on social issues are so foreign to conservatives that it is hard for me to imagine him winning the nomination.  Time will tell but I still do not believe conservatives will nominate him.

Duncan Hunter also did well for himself.  I’m not sure why he’s has so much trouble catching on.  I think he’d make a fine President but he just hasn’t caught on.  Lack of name recognition has probably been his biggest problem and we’ll probably see him again in future presidential campaigns.  But he’s toast in this one.

Tom Tancredo is always interesting but he has the reputation of being a one trick pony.  Tancredo’s main issue is illegal immigration and that resonates with a lot of Americans.  But he doesn’t come across as serious on a lot of other issues.  I like Tancredo but FOXNews’ post debate poll didn’t even give him 1%.  Viewers didn’t seem to notice he was there.

What can I say about Ron Paul?  He made a very good point about the cost of healthcare.  He said healthcare was the only industry where technology results in higher prices, not lower.  Excellent point.  In truth I find much agreement with Paul on domestic issues.  But when he begins talking about the empire, I just want to reach out and slap some sense into the man.  He appears to genuinely believe that the United States in engaged in building an empire, I assume, like the old British empire.  Never mind that the US has never engaged in such activity and isn’t doing so now.  By his reasoning we should be running Germany and Japan today.  We defeated those countries and then rebuilt them.  That is precisely what we are trying to do in Iraq.  But you wouldn’t know it listening to Paul.

It will be interesting to see what the polls say over the next few days.  I believe we’ll see Huckabee tick up a few more points.  Thompson has to fear him and Romney is likely starting to worry as well.  Indeed, with Romney, Thompson and McCain fighting over the conservative moniker, Huckabee may be poised to take the lead.  Two months ago I wouldn’t have given much of a chance.  Today, I think the nomination is within his reach.

Part 1

Click here to view the embedded video.

Part 2

Click here to view the embedded video.

Part 3

Click here to view the embedded video.

Part 4

Click here to view the embedded video.

Part 5

Click here to view the embedded video.