NY23: Dede's progressive credentials; Who's worried about Doug Hoffman?

Conservative TV ad depicting Dede Scozzafava as the liberal she really is? "Dirty tricks!" cries Politico.

Allahpundit links both my American Spectator report and the exclusive report from 73wire. Allah's worried but, then again, Allah's always worried. Steve Doocy? He's not worried:

Me? I'm not worried either. Why? See, there's a guy named Dan working on the Doug Hoffman campaign. Dan's from South Carolina. Compared to a South Carolina GOP primary, this situation in NY23 is s Sunday school picnic. Dan's working hard, but he's not worried. And if Dan's not worried, why worry?

You know who's really worried? MoveOn.org:

The Sarah Palin wing of the Republican Party could get a big boost if a far right, third party candidate wins a three-way House race in upstate New York. Election Day is Tuesday. Can you contribute to help Democrat Bill Owens pull out a victory?

(Hat-tip to Eric Odom at 73wire.) "The Sarah Palin wing of the Republican Party" -- I like that! Paul Begala's worried, too:

The tea party crowd hopes to use Palin's endorsement in the NY-23 special election to send one of their own to Congress on the very first anniversary of President Obama winning the White House. And we can't let that happen. The inmates have taken over the asylum, and are abandoning the Republican candidate in favor of the extreme conservative.

Dan Riehl acts like he's worried, but I don't think he really is. He's lovin' this "war raging in the GOP" stuff. He's linked by Erick Erickson. Life is good. This is a win-win situation.

Some other NY23 headlines: Mitt Romney punts, but we pretty much expected that, didn't we? Nothing to worry about. Don't worry. Just work.

UPDATE: OK, some people are buying the Scozzafava campaign's spin that Hoffman "ducked" the Plattsburgh debate Wednesday. In September, Hoffman challenged Dede to debate and she turned him down, instead arranging with her NPR friends to do this debate in Plattsburgh. (The NPR station's manager uses his blog to deny that he would be unfair to Hoffman -- and then attacks Hoffman.)

Hoffman's spokesman Rob Ryan told me the Plattsburgh NPR debate was "the perfect venue for Scozzafava and Owens to debate who's more liberal." And if Hoffman is "ducking" debates, how come he's appearing in a TV debate today in Syracuse?

Republican Dede Scozzafava, Democrat Bill Owens, and Conservative Party Candidate Doug Hoffman will all take part in a debate at the NewsChannel 9 studios Thursday night at 7pm on NewsChannel 9.

That's why I'm leaving this morning for Syracuse. It would help if some people would at least learn to make a phone call or two before jumping to the unwarranted conclusion that the liberal MSM spin is always true.

UPDATE II: Just watching that "Dede: The Best Choice for Progressives" ad at Ed Driscoll's blog, and I'm thinking: Genius!

It's a two-carom shot: Scozzafava is identified as the liberal she is, and in a positive way, so as to draw "progressive" votes away from the Democratic candidate, Owens.

Get it? The whole point of the ad is to confuse liberals (as if liberals weren't already confused). Politico is freaking out, but this is one of the most fiendishly clever ad campaigns in American political history -- using Scozzafava as the "spoiler" for the Democrat.

UPDATE III: Jonah Goldberg is not worried. Colorado Republicans are not worried.

To the Anonymous Palin-Hater

Listen, pal: The comments here are moderated.

When I see three consecutive anti-Palin comments, written in the same dumbed-down cornball style, all of them by "anonymous," and two of them praising Mitt Romney . . .

Well, why is Romney hiring brain-damaged trolls?

Is this some kind of equal-opportunity thing? "Governor Romney believes in fairness! Look, he hires the mentally impaired . . . to work in our New Media department!"

Anyway, you get an "E" for effort. Now get on the short bus and go back to whatever Republican Campaign Operative Training School sent you here to annoy me.

Romney, Health Care, Federalism

by Smitty (h/t Powerline)

Fox has a story about the Massachusetts health care plan being a political sea anchor for Mitt Romney:

Massachusetts is struggling to keep the state's groundbreaking coverage program running. Against a massive budget shortfall, lawmakers are planning to cut about 30,000 legal, taxpaying immigrants out of the system, which requires nearly everyone in the state to have health insurance coverage.

Whalen said the state health care plan did not have a sufficient revenue stream from the start, and that Romney could face sharp criticism for that from fiscal conservatives in a 2012 Republican primary.

"He's highly vulnerable on this," he said.

But Ken Blackwell, the former Ohio secretary of state and candidate to be Republican National Committee chairman, said the Democratic "regime" in Massachusetts is to blame since the Legislature changed the plan that Romney originally put on the table. Romney vetoed a number of those changes when he was governor, but the General Assembly overrode him.

Judson Berger and Molly Line, who contributed the story, need to be taken to task for missing the forest while staring at the tree: the Massachusetts plan is how it is supposed to work.

• A state taking care of her citizens is the Constitutional model.
• A state legislature making tweaks to fit the local tastes is more responsive and responsible (for better or worse).
• A socialized program forced to work within actual tax receipts Just Makes Sense.
• The Massachusetts border being a bulkhead against scatalogical management crapflooding the neighboring states with moronic policy and debt.
• Keeping the Federal government out of the picture both honors the 10th Amendment and leaves open delegating a useful oversight function to the Fed.

Let's have a debate about health care, and consider very carefully the health of the system itself. Federal entitlements are a Progressive train wreck; it is unclear how running a few more cars of money down the rails and into the heap helps anyone but those managing the rails.

The Federalist concept of delegating exactly the amount of power necessary to Washington, DC, and no more grows increasingly wise over time. Yet we're on the verge of having voted that away.

I care not fig #1 whether Mitt Romney, or Sarah Palin, or Mike Huckabee, or Tim Pawlenty, or Bobbie Jindal, or, *gasp* Ron Paul, or even a freshly-conscious Colin Powell (!) fronts the basic, simple, obvious, transparent, clean, sustainable principles of Federalism inherent in the Constitution.

If Mitt Romney segues from a state governor with some experience in health care implementation to a Federalist warrior bent on restoring state's rights, and implementing the Federalism Amendment, he's got my support.

Conversely, and I don't think it likely, but if Sarah Palin runs a Long Haired Barack campaign, replete with personality cult and paper-thin promises that just moves the country infinitesimally closer to tyranny, then she's lost me. I think the New England, Noonan-approved, Progressive elite could be replaced with a button marked 'Yawn'. We must esteem principle over personality, or we've lost the intellectual battle before even suiting up for combat.

I'd like to thank every American attending Tea Party protests. The fact that so many brave souls are out there, spelling errors on their signs and all, returns "We the People" to hard reality from the memory hole. Posts like this one seem less historical romanticism and wishful thinking and more possible, thanks to those Just Folks.

Krauthammer thinks Governor Palin unqualified?

by Smitty (h/t HotAir)

This is a fascinating three minutes of your time.

K+ is completely correct on his point that the GOP has operated on a seniority system going back at least my four decades. Going unsaid in his remarks are the ringing non-triumphs of the Bush-41 1992, Dole 1996, and McCain 2008 campaigns.

Romney certainly sells a fine Progressive brand of snake oil, and can certainly give good speech, like BHO. Does anyone have advice on how to overlook the fact that the libertarian ideals of the Constitution are antithetical to the Progressive snake oil? The collectivist crap has only been bankrupting the country these 80-ish years or so. Mitt:

• I can stare at the First Amendment and ignore theological differences with you.
• I can admire your fine rhetoric and capacity to deliver a stirring speech: I joined in the standing ovation for you at CPAC with gusto. Great buildup, masterful delivery.
• But if you're not in touch with the basic concepts of Federalism, then why bother, sir?

You'd be offering the same non-choice between Obama and McCain: "Vote for me, I say 'tomato' with a long 'a' in the middle."

The comment that Governor Palin has to do the homework is also well-founded. You can complain that BHO didn't, but that just underscores the point: "We the People" let an arguably unprepared, unexamined candidate into the office this time around. Possibly John McCain over-estimated the critical thinking with which the voters would come at the question. This "Vote for the groundbreaker, even if there are some weaknesses, FML" is not the precedent you want to reinforce.

The fact that Governor Palin would be the first female POTUS really needs to be a tangential point, or we're continuing the DNA-based decision making that marred the 2008 election cycle. "Anyone not voting for X is Y!". X goes Obama->Palin, Y goes racist->sexist. The scourge of Affirmative Action wasn't completely stomped out with the Ricci decision. Playing to Progressivism just to win an election on gender is playing into their fell hands.

In the credit where due department, HRC is nothing if not cunning. She's suddenly not going to Russia. Of course, it's entire too early to connect the dots with other (scroll down a bit) "Unwelcome Distractions". But it doesn't take a prophet to realize that, if BHO is AFU in 2012, HRC will come back with the fury of a cancer that's been in remission for a few years. Possibly I could have chosen a more pleasant metaphor, but as long as the electorate favors Beltway hangtime over Constitutional fidelity, the egalitarian oxymoron "political class" shall continue to weaken all you hold dear, tumor-like.

This is my worry about Governor Palin: there will be a legitimate argument made that her resume is relatively thin compared to Secretary Clinton's. A Palin/Romney ticket will be "too weak on foreign policy, which is our number one national concern." Understand, a magic unicorn shall have recovered the economy in time for the election. Or so the propaganda shall instruct us to think. How about that General Petraeus, anyway? Has he quaffed the Progressive kool-aid, one wonders?

Full circle, then, I appreciate that K+ is seemingly immune to Governor Palin's charms. Uncharmed thinking is a Good Thing. However, Romney needs a come-to-Beavis meeting where he unloads the Progressive baggage. Either way, don't count HRC out. Or, rather, do: you're likely helping her game.

Update:
Goldberg, also, seems to hope that Governor Palin can come through, while deliberately muting the enthusiasm.

Romney: Obama of the Right?

by Smitty (hat tip: American Power Blog)

  He's interesting on distributing GM shares. But to claim that the GOP, which has tolerated the federal flattening of the individual through the willful ignorance of 10th Amendment since FDR, cares much for conservative values, is just a bit much.

  Mitt: we don't care about your precious party. Partys are tools for denigrating politics to the level of a sport. If the voting population is distracted from the history and policy at stake by a bunch of questions about which jersey a candidate wears, then who wins? Not the voters. We care about the 50 states, one Constitution, and the principles on which they're founded far more than any particular narcissist in a stuffed shirt with an immaculate coiffure. Though, one must admit, the cologne work was impressive:

  Why the psdeudonym? ;)

  And before decapitating me in the comments, let me clarify: the BHO comparison is not about experience. Romney certainly has plenty. The comparison is about the stylishness of the presentation, at some cost to substance. I thought Romney delivered an excellent speech at CPAC. I'd like to hear him discuss, in detail, the fallout of his healthcare initiative in the Bay State.

Compliments or Attacks?

"Apparently, giving a woman a compliment on her good looks is inherently an insult now, no matter the context, at least if politics and the media are involved in any way. . . . It's one thing to point out blatant sexism in its true form. It's completely silly on the other hand to misconstrue obvious, harmless compliments as an insult in order to spark a fake verbal spar between two GOP leaders."

Palin & Romney, Tessio & Barzini

There was a time when the worst thing one Republican could say about another was that he was aligned with "the Eastern Establishment," a "Rockefeller Republican." A few years later, accusing your GOP rival of favoring detente with the Soviets was the favorite submarine tactic.

Now? If you really want to undercut a Republican antagonist's conservative credibility, accuse him of spreading dirt about Sarah Palin, as Marc Ambinder notes:

Rumor: Aides and advisers to Mitt Romney are responsible for spreading most of the anti-Palin stories that have been going around; during the campaign, they pressured reporters to look into reports of tension between McCain and Palin factions. . . .
Palin is the most popular figure in the Republican Party right now, and if you want a future in that party, you can't be seen as spreading gossip about her.

The rumors are mostly false, Ambinder says, but this raises the question, Who's spreading this smear? My guess: The McCain aides who bashed Palin are now the ones trying to hang the blame on the Romneyites.

So it's like Tessio proposing a meeting with Barzini: Any McCain aide blaming Romney thereby becomes identified as an anti-Palin traitor.

Applying to this situation the logic of Sherlock Holmes and the dog who did not bark, therefore, I observe that Nicolle Wallace has reportedly denied being the anti-Palin leaker and ask: Did Nicolle Wallace ever say anything nice about Mitt? (Let the folks at Operation Leper take note.)

(Cross-posted at AmSpecBlog.)

UPDATE: Via Hot Air, this video:

The objectivity of beauty

Conservatives are indignant today over Kathleen Parker's suggestion that John McCain chose Sarah Palin as running mate primarily for her looks.

Does any conservative really wish to deny that good looks are an asset in politics? After all, which party put a bona fide Hollywood movie star in the White House?

Back during the GOP primary season, I argued that the tall, handsome millionaire Mitt Romney would be a better nominee than the old, short, bald guy. Independent voters are superficial and, other things being equal, will generally prefer the guy who "looks presidential" on TV -- a test that John McCain spectacularly fails.

Palin's beauty is not a political deficit, so why does Kathleen Parker assert that because Palin is beautiful, she is to be presumed unqualified? It's envy, motivated by the same sour-grapes psychology that caused so many Republican pundits to dismiss Romney as "superficial" and "slick."

The fact that Romney was able to talk meaningfully about economics -- another woeful shortcoming of John McCain -- was scorned as irrelevant by those who believed that the heroic biography would conquer all. Just like Bob Dole . . .

UPDATE: Linked by Daniel Larison:

As for Romney, he was considered superficial and slick because he seemed to have no core political beliefs that he would not abandon at the drop of a hat if there was some advantage in it.

The accusation that Romney was an unprincipled opportunist -- a flip-flopper -- didn't bother me very much, since at least he was flip-flopping in the right direction, whereas McCain seemed to believe that his stubborn advocacy of bad ideas (including amnesty for illegals) was a virtue in its own right.

I would further add, in response to Larison's criticisms of Palin, that there was no one on John McCain's short list of VP candidates (Tom Ridge? Joe Lieberman?) who would have met with Larison's approval.

Anti-Mitt VP ad

Several major social conservative leaders -- including Paul Weyrich, Ted Baehr, Janet Folger, Sandy Rios and Peter LaBarbera -- have signed an ad opposing Mitt Romney as the Republican vice presidential candidate.

Justin Hart says:

I could go on in an almost endless rant about why these guys have it wrong about Romney. . . .
Probably the saddest part of this was seeing Paul Weyrich’s name attached to the ad. Et tu Paul?

With McCain at the top of the ticket, it's going to be tough to get Christian conservatives excited about voting Republican, no matter who the running-mate is.

Exit question: If social conservatives say Mitt is unacceptable as VP, who will they accept? Rudy Giuliani? Ron Paul? Anybody with name recognition in a toss-up state?

UPDATE: Jeremy Lott makes the case for Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, a solid all-around conservative. Dr. Tom's STD slide shows for Capitol Hill interns were always a shocker. Having Coburn on the ticket would boost the GOP's chances with both fiscal and social conservatives. The fact that he's from a deep-Red state means he wouldn't help in the geography department, but that's the only drawback.

UPDATE 4/4: Allahpundit weighs in:

The curious part is why any of this should be troubling to Paul Weyrich, who endorsed Romney for president as recently as four months ago, long after his positions on these issues had shaken out. . . .
After 18 months of Romney running for president, suddenly these guys have a problem with his record?

My old blog-buddy, Nancy French, now blogging at at Evangelicals for Mitt, writes:

Not supporting Gov. Romney because he didn't fight gay "marriage" enough is like not supporting Elvis because he wouldn't dance.

My hunch is that Weyrich & Co. have another favorite for the VP slot and that this attack on Romney is a sort of pre-emptive attack on a rival.

Message to Mitt: Concede nothing

"Calm down," says Crazy Cousin John. Calm down:

Republican John McCain . . . told his conservative critics Wednesday to dial back the animosity and focus on issues where they agree.

"I do hope that at some point we would just calm down a little bit and see if there's areas we can agree on," McCain said at a news conference in a Phoenix airport hangar.

Yeah, you do that, Makaniak. You and your sycophantic chorus of Smithers-like propagandists, you "just calm down a little bit." Have fun at CPAC (with 6,000 conservatives whom you purposefully snubbed last year).

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney needs to make like Donald Trump, look around at some of his insanely overpaid consultants and ineffective staffers and say, "You're fired."

It's still nearly six months to the GOP convention. Six months is forever in politics, and Mitt's CPAC speech should be a bold expression that he's not quitting, he's not conceding, he's fighting all the way to Minneapolis.

"All in," as they say in Vegas. "Go Down Gambling":


(Sorry for the live version with pointless 2-minute guitar shred at the beginning. The original studio version is much better.)

UPDATE: Others begin to see the virtues of the "no quit" stance.

Georgia key for Romney

Further updates here.

UPDATE 1:25 p.m. More analysis at Protein Wisdom and Liberty Pundit.

UPDATE 1 p.m.: Just got off the phone with veteran Georgia political observer Phil Kent.

"I think it's going to be close here with Romney and McCain," Phil said, citing the final Insider Advantage poll showing a three-way neck-and-neck race. Georgia "could be the upset that's going to buck this McCain trend."
.
In case you haven't seen this (via Ace of Spades):

UPDATE 11:40 a.m.: Michael Barone analyzes Georgia:

The first state to close is Georgia, at 7 p.m. . . . Republicans have a close three-way race here. Romney needs to win the high-income Atlanta suburbs (I'll be looking at the Cobb, Fulton, Forsyth, and Cherokee County returns); McCain needs to stay even with or ahead of Mike Huckabee in south Georgia, as he did in most of South Carolina.

Barone's analysis very much tracks what I was getting from the Romney volunteers in Georgia last night: "If it was up to Metro Atlanta, Romney would win, but ...."

But, keeping Romney competitive in the more rural parts of the state depends on (a) overcoming anti-Mormon bias, and (b) getting evangelicals who support Huckabee to understand that a vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain (whom the evangelicals hate).

* * * * *

UPDATE: Super Tuesday roundups at Michelle Malkin and Hot Air, and Jim Geraghty handicaps Super Tuesday at NRO. Linked at Riehl World View -- thanks, Dan.

MORE UPDATES: The Dole-to-Rush letter is panned by Malkin. Notice what Rush says:

On his radio show Monday Limbaugh said that if McCain is elected president, he would destroy the Republican party by working with Democrats to pass liberal legislation.
"This is how he's going to get even with Republicans for defeating him in South Carolina in 2000," Limbaugh said. "The Republican Congress will effectively be neutered." ...
Limbaugh also suggested conservatives should be wary of media endorsements of McCain. McCain has won the endorsement of the New York Times.
"It was just six months ago that if a candidate was endorsed by the liberal media we were instantly suspicious of them," Limbaugh said.
Now he said, "we've got drive-by media organizations having orgasms about McCain."

The sounds very much like what I've said:

John McCain wants to lead something other than the Republican Party that elected Ronald Reagan to the White House 1981. He is in defiant opposition to the Republican Party that captured Congress in 1994. His campaign is one of unlimited personal vengeance against the Republican Party that rejected him in 2000.
John McCain is out to destroy the Republican Party as we have known it, and he certainly needs no advice on how to do that, given how much he's already done.

* * * * *

Georgia looks like the state to watch in the Super Tuesday battle for the Republican presidential nomination.

While Romney is surging in California, and McCain is comfortably ahead in winner-take-all New York, polls in Georgia show it too close to call, reports from my friends at Team Romney indicate a tough fight in a competitive three-way race for 72 delegates in Georgia -- the third-largest Super Tuesday state and the largest of the states with a proportional distribution of delegates.

The problem for Romney in Georgia is simple: Some voters are too stupid to understand that, at this point, a vote for Huckabee is effectively a vote for John McCain.

"They don't get it," a very tired Romney volunteer told me of her encounters with Huckabee voters. "They hate McCain, but they're voting for Huckabee, and it's the same thing."

Key endorsements may swing some undecided voters and "soft" Huckabee supporters toward Romney. Sadie Fields of the Georgia Christian Alliance came out for Romney on Monday, an important endorsement in a state where Romney's volunteers say they're encountering a lot of anti-Mormon bias.

Georgians for Romney lists the Romney endorsers in Georgia's House delegation: Rep. Jack Kingston, Rep. Phil Gingrey, Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, and Rep. Tom Price. As one of my Georgia sources told me with scarcely concealed disgust, the state's two Republican senators (Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isaakson) both endorsed McCain. "They both ran as conservatives, but as soon as they got up there, they both supported McCain on amnesty -- until they found out the voters were against it, then they changed their minds."

Romney held a huge rally at Georgia Tech on Monday:

Romney is running neck-and-neck with John McCain for the Georgia presidential primary, with Mike Huckabee trailing in third.
Romney said he expects to do well here Tuesday and in California and in many of the other 20-plus states where ballots will be cast.
"Georgia is going to have a big role in this," Romney said. "I keep hearing from my friends here that Georgia is going to come my way."

Here's CNN video from the Georgia Tech rally:

(Hat-tip: Jews for Mitt.) According to Peach Pundit, popular Atlanta radio host Herman Cain introduced Romney at the rally.

In the end, the story in Georgia comes down to those stiff-necked, thick-headed Hucktards, with polls continuing to show the Huckster at around 25%, despite his having zero chance of winning the nomination.

"I haven't had a full night's sleep since Thursday," a weary Romney volunteer told me Monday night, explaining she'd just had a 30-minute nap. "It's unbelieveable."

The Romney volunteer had joined a group of Evangelicals For Mitt supporters who went Sunday to Woodstock First Baptist -- one of the state's largest megachurches in a Cherokee County suburb north of Atlanta -- where the Huckster preached a "Jesus wants you to vote for me" sermon:

“I'm not here today to campaign,” said Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor during his visit to Sunday service.
But as Huckabee gave his testimonial at the First Baptist Church of Woodstock, there was little doubt about the conservative voters, who support him.

Attempts at "outreach" to the Baptists of Woodstock by the Evangelicals For Mitt crew were ... not exactly received with blessings and thanksgiving, let's put it that way.

The Romney campaign unleashed a last-minute round of robo-calls in Georgia on Monday. At Peach Pundit, former Fredhead Chris Farris endorsed Romney. (Remember, more than 200,000 Georgians have already cast their ballots in early voting.)

We'll keep an eye out on Georgia and update ...

Pam, the Lost Ramone!

From Atlas Shrugs, Pamela Geller rocks out to the tune of the Ramones' "Rockaway Beach":



What will Hugh Hewitt say?

Tag-teaming Mitt?

Until he emerged as the sole alternative to Crazy Cousin John, I can't say I was enthusiastic about Mitt Romney, but I wonder why he'd be a bete noir of Republican campaign operatives?

Mitt Romney [is] the candidate who seems to be uniting his Republican rivals almost as much as Hillary Clinton. "The degree to which campaigns' personal dislike for Mitt Romney has played a part in this campaign cannot be underestimated," says an adviser to one of those rival campaigns. ...
The campaigns have denied there's any political collusion going on; they insist all of them simply feel the same way about Romney.
To be sure, the candidates' staffs do seem to have bonded in their dislike of Romney. "It was very common for e-mails to be flying around between the Thompson, McCain and Giuliani campaigns," says the former Thompson staffer, "Saying, 'No matter what happens with us, we all need to make sure it's not him.'" The staffer says that
campaigns would share opposition research on Romney and offer each other tips on how best to undermine him: "Like, 'Hey, I saw you hit Mitt on immigration - have you thought about going after him on this issue?" In some cases, the attitude even extends to the top of the campaigns. The night of the Iowa caucuses, after getting a congratulatory call from McCain, Huckabee told the candidate, according to aides: "Now it's your turn to kick his butt."

(Via Hot Air.) Is it envy? I mean, McCain, Giuliani and Thompson are all old and very bald, while Mitt's a good-looking younger guy with that thick mane of gorgeous hair. So if you're trying to convince Americans to vote for old and bald, you've got to hate the campaign with the young and hirsute candidate.

Also, Romney's a multimillionaire who's willing to self-finance, while the other campaigns -- especially McCain's last fall -- were scrapping for every penny.

So after conspiring against Romney for months, now these professional Republicans have joined Team McCain and are demanding unity. Sweet.

.

UPDATE: Linked at Memeorandum and The Sundries Shack, where Jimmie says:

It’s a bit disappointing to see that at least some of the folks who worked for the Thompson campaign also played along with the high-school nonsense and, though Thompson himself wasn’t mentioned, it might explain why he didn’t stick McCain when he could have before the South Carolina primary.
If it’s true that Romney hate overrode Thompson’s conservative principles, I’d be terribly disappointed in him. And I’d be glad that he got out of the race.

Class-warfare resentment of the rich guy -- in a Republican primary? Envy is the most unworthy emotion.

Don Surber proves himself wrong

UPDATE 2:10 p.m.: "John and I will have a respectful debate," Hillary says.

UPDATE 2 p.m.: Because Mitt Romney isn't running attack ads, some people see this as a signal he doesn't really want to win. Allah sees it otherwise, and reinforces my point (citing Karl at Protein Wisdom):

Karl reminds us that 45% of the delegates will still be in play after Tuesday, so McCain ain’t clinching anything this week.

* * *

I greatly appreciate the effort Don Surber has devoted to crunching the numbers on the Super Tuesday primaries, in an attempt to depict John McCain's nomination as a lead-pipe cinch: "The numbers crunch McCain’s way for a final decision on Tuesday." (Via Memeorandum.)

But while the title of his post is "It's over," what Surber has actually shown is that it's not over. Even according to his own math, Don has demonstrated, with 1,192 delegates needed to win, the current polls indicate an outcome Tuesday that will leave the delegate count at McCain 652, Romney 311.

This has been what I've been trying to say all along: Despite his post-Florida momentum, McCain is nowhere near locking up the nomination.

The MSM (and McCain's Republican supporters) are trying to paint McCain's nomination as a fait accompli in order to (a) hurt Romney's fundraising; (b) discourage his supporters; (c) cause a "bandwagon effect" in McCain's favor; and (d) prevent Romney from getting anything but more discouraging press coverage.

It won't work, because a lie cannot defeat the facts, and a free people cannot be permanently deceived. When Wednesday morning comes, and Romney is still a viable candidate, a lot of Republicans will recognize that they've been the target of a dishonest propaganda campaign, and there will be a monster backlash against McCain.

Don, I love you, man, but this fight may very well go all the way to Minnesota.

P.S.: Don't miss Daily Pundit's analysis of the GOP race.

John McCain: Dishonest or Stupid?

Those are the possibilities as Bryan Preston sees it, and it's kind of hard to argue:



This is why it's so easy to dismiss the assertions of Michael Medved, et al., that McCain's problem with conservatives is entirely the fault of conservatives.

In this instance, McCain's insinuations are false, as any direct examination of Romney's statements clearly reveals. Yet this does not stop McCain from going back and repeating the insinuation.

McCain is trying to cast Romney as John Kerry, a characterization with no basis in fact. He attempts to create the appearance of an important policy difference where no such difference exists. Romney is completely committed to victory in Iraq. Romney has never proposed a time-certain pullout, which is what McCain is trying to suggest.

People who have watched McCain closely over the years recognize this as the man's habitual method of attacking fellow Republicans.

He routinely accuses conservative adversaries of arguing in bad faith. If you oppose McCain-Feingold, then you are pro-corruption, a greedy minion of Big Money. If you oppose McCain-Kennedy, then you are a racist who hates the Latino community. Et cetera. Ad infinitum.

It scarcely matters what the issue is, or what the merits on either side of the argument might be. Any Republican who disagrees with John McCain can expect to have his motives impugned and his character maligned. Bryan says:

[T]he entire exchange underlines the problem that he has with the base. We don’t trust him because of episodes like this. ... It’s disgraceful. Every time I start to get used to the idea of McCain as the nominee, he pulls a stunt like this and proves that he can’t be trusted.

I think, in fact, what this exchange actually underlines is John McCain's massive sense of unlimited personal entitlement.

Mortals do not have the right to argue with John McCain. To disagree with him is to insult him, as he sees it. He is omniscient and cannot possibly have his facts wrong.

So when McCain repeats the fact-deficient accusation, and Romney tries to defend himself, McCain can barely resist shouting: "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ME, YOU GUTLESS PUNK!"

The temperament issue, you see.

And OMG, class warfare?

"I think that there's some greedy people on Wall Street that perhaps need to be punished."

-- Sen. John McCain, Jan. 30, 2008

This, coming from a man whose own political career was originally funded through his marriage to the heiress to an Anheuser-Busch fortune. Jaw-dropping hubris!

If McCain ever hoped to get any libertarian votes, he can kiss those good-bye. (Are you listening, young Paulistas?)

The Mediocre Communicators

After reading Michelle Malkin's blow-by-blow of Wednesday's debate, it seems blindingly obvious Mitt Romney should fire whoever he's paying to write his talking points or coach him in his communications -- or whatever he's paying them to do -- because the governor's getting royally ripped off.

Governor, stop telling people you were an executive in the "real economy."

We got that already, OK? We're not small children to whom you must repeat things.

Governor, you would serve your cause better if you would try discussing the economy (and government's burdensome meddling in the economy) in a factual, concrete way. Rattle off some numbers and statistics, talk about the value of capital investment in job creation, talk in specific, anecdotal ways about how regulation and taxation drive out investment, thereby leading to job losses, to wit:

"When I was governor, Major International Corporation X was considering a new plant in the United States. But I couldn't get the tax-and-spend liberals in the Massachusetts legislature to reduce Burdensome Tax A, and we have a real problem with State Regulatory Policy B, because of the powerful environmentalist lobby in our state.
"We tried our best to get that plant for Massachusetts, to create jobs for our workers, but eventually, the company built their plant in Alabama, where they don't have those kinds of taxes and regulations. So I know first-hand how Big Government causes us to lose jobs."

In other words, don't tell the people "This is who I am." That sounds like you're just bragging.

Instead, talk in a way that demonstrates superior knowledge: "This is what I know."

Reagan was a master of this -- listen to the part of his 1964 "Time for Choosing" speech where he's talking about LBJ's policies and about budgets and spending and taxes in very specific ways.
Facts, facts, facts. Don't talk about yourself, talk about the issues.

It's the damnedest irony in the world: The party made great by the Great Communicator is in decline because nowadays Republicans can't seem to master the basics of being even a Fairly Decent Communicator, and the GOP's speechwriting teams seem to be composed entirely of Michael Gerson clones ...

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ...

Oops. Sorry. Nodded off at the mere mention of Gerson. Bad habit.

Hey, now that I'm awake again, how about some truly bold suggestions:

Would some Republican please, for the love of God, try to sneak in an informed reference to Mises or Hayek or Friedman? I mean, Bastiat might be asking a bit much, but couldn't you at least give a coded signal to the economically literate that you understand how markets work?

How I yearn to hear some Republican candidate at least mention the name of an author and a book (the Bible doesn't count, Pastor Huckabee), thus to signify to the world at large that not all conservatives are anti-intellectual troglodytes.

Just imagine the thrill if, while discussing terrorism, a Republican presidential candidate adroitly referenced Nonie Darwish or Robert Spencer or Ibn Warraq. Wouldn't that be totally awesome? "A Republican! Who reads books!"

It's probably too much to hope for, I know.

For some reason, the political system now seems to favor candidates who are anti-book. The last Republican I ever heard name an author in public was Newt Gingrich. And while the conservative movement has some of the greatest communicators on the planet -- e.g, Rush Limbaugh -- it's as if nobody anywhere near a campaign headquarters ever thinks of making a call:

"Hey, you think maybe our guy could come down to Florida some Saturday evening, have a brewski or two with El Rushbo, smoke some good cigars, and try to figure out how to get our message across better?"

Limbaugh is a brilliant phrasemaker, a master of rhetorical combat, a "highly-trained broadcast professional," as he often reminds his listeners, and yet it doesn't seem his advice is sought out by GOP operatives.

For want of a nail ...

Anti-McCain coalition building

"McCain Derangement Syndrome." Yeah, Roger, McCain is definitely deranged. It's hereditary, y'know.

"Some people on the right are starting to sound almost Kossack-like." Heh.

Had to drive to Bethesda today to get vaccinated for yellow fever and typhoid, preparing for the journey to The Very Dangerous Foreign Country, where if the mosquitos don't kill you, the water will. (Nurse: "The parasites have a cycle, so even after you come back, if you start getting a fever, go straight to the hospital." Oh, sweet.)

Listened to talk radio there and back. Rush Limbaugh wasn't really going all-out on "Juan McAmnesty," but he didn't have to -- his callers did the job. A Republican activist from Michigan named Laurie called up and ranted against Crazy Cousin John in no uncertain terms. She will not vote for him, period.

Limbaugh then took another call, and ended the segment by telling the second caller, "The people in the Republican establishment do not understand, Laurie's sentiment is widespread out there." Widespread, indeed.

After getting my vaccinations, I spoke briefly to a buddy at a public-relations agency (he's planning a send-off party in my honor). He was likewise bummed by the Florida result, but mentioned the Citizens United anti-McCain ad.



My friend said Citizens United is putting some serious money into the ad buy, which will naturally generate lots of "earned media."

Driving back, I heard Sean Hannity lead his opening hour with a mock "McCain was right, conservatives were wrong" routine, very deadpan.

Then switched over to Glenn Beck, who appears to share my "fight while there's still hope" sentiment, saying of McCain:

This guy is the biggest two-faced son of bitch you can ever imagine. ... A Republican president who's not a Republican. ... (If McCain is elected) we are dead ... taking us to a progressive Hell.

(Yes, I can drive and take notes at the same time)

Beck also had Michelle on his show today. From the Beck transcript:

GLENN: Have you ever seen such an audacious slap in the face to the American people as this?
MALKIN: I haven't felt one like this in a long time, Glenn. I'm still reeling from it. But I do hope that as more people find out about McCain's open border roots that they won't buy the dye job that he's given himself and the instant immigration makeover that he's trying to sell to conservatives and Republicans.
GLENN: Okay, I want you to lay it -- two pieces of audio, one from John McCain being asked about it and then another piece of audio from the gentleman that is now working with him. So you tell me the best time to play it while you explain what he's doing right now behind everybody's back.
MALKIN: Sure. Well, last month I received a tip from a concerned reader and she had listened to John McCain speak to the Hispanic Republicans in Nevada at a conference and apparently at this conference McCain was trying to tout his connection to a man named Dr. Juan Hernandez who has been named the national director of Hispanic outreach for the McCain 2008 campaign. This reader of mine was appalled when she learned of this hire and it had exactly the opposite effect that apparently McCain wanted it to have. This was supposed to be reassuring to Hispanic Republicans that this guy had been hired as outreach. My colleague at hotair.com, Bryan Preston, confirmed this staff hire and, in fact, on John McCain's daughter's campaign website, there's a lovely, cozy picture of Juan Hernandez pivoting with Meghan McCain and Mark MacKinnon who is the campaign guru for John McCain. Well, who is this guy? I'm quite familiar with him. I've debated him several years on the cable TV circuit because he's one of the most ubiquitous ethnocentric open borders zealots on the scene.

Go read the rest.

Nearing home, I dialed up a young volunteer for the Romney campaign. She said she had been discouraged last night by all the defeatist rhetoric at The Corner and elsewhere, and that my "Despair is not an option" post was the first hopeful thing she'd read. She told me about an upcoming Romney event, the date and location of which suggests a bold strategy. She also mentioned that Laura Ingraham was "brutal" on McCain this morning. I told her to spread the word: Hold the fort, the cavalry's coming.

Bryan Preston summed things up pretty well:

First, we conservatives are the bedrock of the GOP and ... our values are the party’s engine. They’re the party’s future. They’re worth fighting for, even if we’re outnumbered by the influx of independents in what was supposed to be a closed primary, and even if we end up with an imperfect party nominee because of that.
So we fight on.

Here's what I see: Conservatives have been distracted for weeks now. First, there was the Iowa-related panic about Huckabee. Then there was all that stuff with the Ron Paul newsletters. Then, there was a detour into watching the Hillary-Obama-Bill race-baiting trainwreck. And, of course, the MSM's spin machine was chaffing the air with the notion that The Big Story in Florida would be Rudy's Last Stand.

Time was wasted, energy, emotion and resources dissipated. Then came Tuesday night. Conservatives who'd spent the past couple of weeks doing a schadenfreude dance over Hillary's meltdown suddenly turned on the TV, saw Crazy Cousin John with 36% in winner-take-all Florida and said, "Holy crap. How did this happen?"

That madman may be less than a week from locking up the GOP nomination and today, Wednesday, a lot of conservatives are bumfuzzled, bewildered and confused. They log onto someplace like The Corner and get a relentless drumbeat of defeatism, "reconciliation," and so forth.

Just wait. People will shake this Florida hangover. There is a debate tonight. In all likelihood, McCain will be overconfident, and Mitt knows the game is on the line. A gaffe by McCain and/or a few really solid punches from Mitt -- hey, by Thursday morning, Mitt might be sailing high again.

Something important: Stop quoting polls. Polls are not votes. With this short six-day run from Florida to Super Duper Tuesday, with Rudy dropping out and so many other dynamics in play, there is no way in the world that pollsters will be able to tell us in advance what will happen on Feb. 5. The reporting of polls can, however, have the effect of a self-fulfilling prophecy, tending to drive a bandwagon effect.

There is an anti-McCain coalition building, but it may take a day or two to show its strength. Be patient.

Finally, let El Rushbo demonstrate the proper attitude:

(HT: Hot Air)

UPDATE: Linked at Memeorandum. (Click that link, or a puppy will die.)

Sexy vs. Grumpy

Look, if you're one of those people who fetishizes over "electability" (greetings, Mr. Podhoretz; howdy, Mr. Kristol), the now two-man race between Romney and Crazy Cousin John is a no-brainer.

MITT ROMNEY

• Tall, handsome millionaire with a gorgeous head of hair.
• Operates on the "one life, one wife" principle.
• Has never co-authored an amnesty bill with Ted Kennedy.
• Known to inspire devoted man-crushes in otherwise sensible (and inarguably hetero) Republicans.

CRAZY COUSIN JOHN

Eh ... not so much.

I report. You deride.

Never, ever will I forget the profound sense of betrayal that I felt on May 25, 2006 -- a date that will live in infamy -- when Crazy Cousin John somehow persuaded 22 other "Republican" senators to join him in supporting the McCain-Kennedy Destroy America Act of 2006 (MKDAA06), the most heinous sellout since the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty of 1939. By comparison, Quisling, Iago, Catiline and Judas were men of honor.

At that time, I was blogging in support of "Donkey Cons" (buy TWO!) and dubbed "The 'Y' Party" those so-called "Republicans" who voted for MKDAA06. I wrote at the time:

The "Y" Party is a criminal conspiracy to defraud American voters of their country. And it is a vast conspiracy indeed, involving the president, the vice president, and 23 members of the United States Senate who -- it was revealed on Thursday, May 25, 2006 -- committed perjury the day they were sworn into office.

It was true then, it's true now, and the "Republican" author of MKDAA06 doubled down by pushing a gussied-up retread of the same duplicitous scam in 2007. He is a monomaniac, determined to "elect a new people," as Brecht said. Rejected by conservatives in 2000, he has returned the rejection with compound interest.

To make an analogy, Crazy Cousin John is to the conservative cause as a dog is to a fire hydrant.

I'm told that Mark Levin has resolved to quit talk radio if Crazy Cousin John wins the GOP nomination. Levin is a brilliant legal scholar, and surely recognizes these basic principles:

• There can be no liberty without law.
• There can be no law without sovereignty.
• There can be no sovereignty without citizenship.
• There can be no citizenship without borders.

Amnesty is the negation of fundamental legal principles. It is an insult and an injury to the rule of law.

Ronald Reagan signed an amnesty in 1986, but mercifully did not live to see the consequences. Surely, were he here today, Reagan would say of Simpson-Mazzoli that it was a mistake, just as was his 1967 signing of California's "therapeutic abortion" law.

While Crazy Cousin John has admitted that his 2005-07 "shamnesty" crusade was a political mistake, he has never admitted that it was a moral mistake. It was a solemn oath foresworn, a trust betrayed, an act of sadistic cruelty and treachery.

The GOP Establishment, attempting its patented "Harriet Miers Move," is trying to tell conservatives that we have no choice in the matter.

To which I proudly answer, "F--- You, GOP Establishment."

Look, my last day on the job was Monday. For good or ill, I am my own man now, and a week from now, I'll be on my way to a Very Dangerous Foreign Country. So if I never work another day as a neutral, objective journalist in Washington, so be it. But the neutral, objective fact is that, by sponsoring MKDAA06, Crazy Cousin John sold out his party, broke his oath of office, and conspired with the Chappaquiddick Swim Champ to destroy our nation.

The Neidermeiers of the GOP Establishment tell us that McCain's narrow victory amongst his fellow geezers in Florida means that it's over.

"Over?"

OK, we've got Rush, Levin, Ingraham, Malkin, surely we've got Michael Savage. Who else?

UPDATE: Long, long ago, when I was a newbie blogger, someone gave me some sage advice which can be boiled down to four words: Trackback like a mofo.

Nothing gets your name out there like trackbacking at those major blogs (including Malkin, Hot Air and OTB) that allow trackbacks.

On those slow days when you get Site Meter Fever with overtones of bloggernoia (defined as the irrational fear that your failure to get linked by Instapundit is the product of a vicious conspiracy) the traffic produced by trackbacks will comfort you.

Look, kids, I remember when Jammie Wearing Fool first started blogging, when that blog was just Marty, and he got maybe 500 hits a day. But he stuck with it, blogged regularly, and trackbacked diligently. JWF was always showing up in the Hot Air trackbacks. Pretty soon, he became a familiar presence in the blogosphere, part of the conversation.

It took JWF six months to get his first Instalanche, but now look at him: 80,000+ visits per month (projected 27K/wk.)* and growing. Heck, if he keeps it up at this rate, pretty soon Insty will be trackbacking at JWF -- and it's just a simple Blogspot operation!

Blogging is not rocket science, but it requires persistence and trackbacking like a mofo.

UPDATE II: Apparently, great minds think alike. (Rusty, you ought to give Vinnie a raise!) And that's another trackback.

UPDATE III: I originally goofed that figure (*) by misreading the Site Meter and failing to do the basic math. You don't want to know how stupid my original number was. The point is, now it's right.

UPDATE IV: Also linked at Memeorandum. (Click that link. All red-blooded patriotic Americans click Memeorandum links. If you don't click that link, you are un-American.)

UPDATE V: Linked at LGF. Thanks! Also linked by Jeremy Lott at AmSpecBlog.

Despair is not an option

A winner never quits, and a quitter never wins.

-- Vince Lombardi

Tuesday night, I took a break from cleaning out my desk to attend an event with some young conservatives. About 9 p.m., one guy checked his Blackberry to see the Florida results, and the reaction -- I said they were conservatives, didn't I? -- was disappointment at the news that Crazy Cousin John had narrowly edged Mitt Romney in the winner-take-all primary.

The next reaction was equally predictable: "Oh, McCain's got momentum ... going to be hard for Romney to recover by Super Tuesday" etc., etc.

In other words, despair and defeatism, an acceptance of what The Experts have said would be the inevitable consequences of this event.

Don't quit, boys. For God's sake, don't ever quit. So long as there is room for hope, so long as victory is a possibility, so long as you have strength for the fight, you owe it to yourself to keep hoping and keep fighting.

Hope and courage must always go hand-in-hand. If you will spread hope and encouragement in this dark hour of disappointment, you will do more for your candidate than you know.

"Look," I said to my young friends, "starting Wednesday at noon, Rush Limbaugh is going to pull out all the stops. He's going to hammer McCain with everything he's got. He's going to come at him from every angle, for three solid hours, and then he's going to do it for another three hours on Thursday, then Friday, then Monday, then Tuesday. You can count on 15 hours of Rush doing all he can to persuade conservatives not to vote for McCain, and that's got to have some effect. Romney made it close in Florida, and a week is forever in politics. ...."

Et cetera. There is room for hope, and therefore there is no room for despair.

Listen up, Romneyites: You've got Rush Limbaugh on your side, and that's the kind of message-power that no other candidate can match. Rush spent a couple weeks on a Stop Huckabee jag, and then he spent a couple of weeks messing around with the whole Obama-Hillary matchup. But that's over now.

John McCain may be only 6 days away from locking up the Republican nomination, and Rush Limbaugh is 100% dedicated to preventing that. Do not underestimate that, and therefore do not despair.

Huckabee got 14% in Florida. He's your biggest obstacle to defeating Crazy Cousin John.

I'm not trying to pull a Hugh Hewitt here. This year's crop of Republican candidates was never ideal. My favorite candidate (Duncan Hunter) never had a chance, and my next favorite (Fred Thompson) never gained momentum. So if Romney is my favorite of the remaining candidates, neither am I a starry-eyed true believer.

Still, many of my personal friends have been Romney supporters since 2006 (or even earlier) and even Romney's harshest critics must admit, he's got presidential hair.

Great hair + El Rushbo = ??

You've got a good candidate and a good chance. Commit yourself to victory, spread hope and good cheer among your comrades, and give it your best shot.

Besides which, Crazy Cousin John is crazy. He's got six days to bite his tongue and try not to say what he really thinks, and he might actually slip up and say something so crazy that he effectively defeats himself.

And then there's "Amnesty Mel" Martinez ...
.
UPDATE: Thanks for the Hot Air headline link. Malkin, of course, is all over it. And if you liked this post, here's something new that I promise you're going to love.

UPDATE II: Sorry if this was a dead link for a few minutes this morning. Meant to add an update and republish, and instead did "save as draft," a too-easy error on the new Blogger software. Bryan links, and Hot Air commenter BobH laments:

Seems like Bob Dole all over again….

Exactly, and brought to you by the same GOP Establishment who brought you that previous grumpy old loser. For some reason, the GOP Establishment has a predisposition to sourpusses who are disdainful of the party's conservative grassroots. It's almost like they want to lose.

Olympic flip-flop finals

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin really doesn't like Crazy Cousin John:

I spy with my little eye something that rhymes with schmypocrite.

* * * PREVIOUSLY * * *

Considering the Olympic-caliber double-reverse backflip that Crazy Cousin John performed on the issue of "shamnesty" -- a coalition-killing scam he twice attempted to ram through the Senate -- it ill-behooves him to call Mitt Romney a flip-flopper.

At risk of being accused of "objective opinion," I will praise Romney for this swift response:



(Hat-tip: Bryan at Hot Air.) Speaking of Hugh Hewitt, I remind you that he's executive producer of a new documentary, "Article VI," which explains why anyone who votes against Romney is (objectively) un-American and un-Christian.

Meanwhile, it looks like Mittens is gaining in Florida (objective good news) and let me complete this shameless sellout by reminding everyone that CPAC is Feb. 7-9. (Only $125 for a three-day pass.)

Crazy Cousin John skipped CPAC last year, a profound diss to the conservative movement when even arch-liberal Rudy Giuliani was not ashamed to plead his case to the GOP base. Of course, St. Mitt of Romney was there. (Sorry about the jokes, Mitt, but if I don't throw in a good shot now and then, someone might accuse me of being "objective.")