Maybe It Should Have Been Left Unsaid

Obviously, when it comes to politics, I have no idea what I'm talking about. But I'll try again. I am now leaning to the idea of a Hillary victory overall. She has successfully changed the story line from "change" to "race." Also, I know some pretty smart people who are buying what Hillary and her supporters are selling about Obama. For example, my dear mother cites Obama's lack of experience as her primary reason for supporting Hillary. And a co-worker of mine was actually persuaded by this hit-job on Obama. As Andrew Sullivan points out, Richard Cohen links Obama and Louis Farrakhan even though Obama's representative, David Axelrod, explicitly stated that Obama disagreed with his pastor's support for Farrakhan. But if intelligent people are falling for this stuff, I suspect its working nationwide.

As for the Republicans: What a glorious mess. A friend of mine believes, and I agree, that to have a real shot at the nomination, a 2008 Republican candidate needs to win one of Michigan, SC, and FL. Romney has his win. I think its between McCain and Huckabee in SC (and possibly Fred Thompson), and the loser of that battle versus Giuliani in Florida. That makes for a possible three way race on February 5, and hopefully a brokered convention.

NH (and after) Predictions

It is not hard to predict Obama and McCain victories. But what happens then? I figure if Obama wins by more than 8 or 9, he will definitely win South Carolina (where recent polls have him up by double digits already) and probably in Nevada (where the Culinary Workers Union Local 226, a very influential group in Las Vegas, is likely to endorse Obama). If Hilary had more money than Obama, I would say she still had a good chance in the big states voting on February 5. But Obama will have equal financial ability and a lead in the polls. So, unless Hilary can do something dramatic, or Obama does something dramatically stupid, I think the nomination is his.

As for the Republicans, I have no idea what happens next, but I'll take a stab at it. I think McCain's win in NH leads him to a win in Michigan, and kills any real chance Romney has. But Huckabee, with a third place finish in NH, then probably wins in South Carolina, where he has a significant lead in the polls. then it all comes down to Florida. If Romney is all but out by then, I think his votes break for McCain and Huckabee more than Giuliani. Therefore, I think Giuliani's current lead in Florida disappears. And believe it or not, I think Huckabee wins Florida. What then? I guess Huckabee, McCain, and Giuliani fight it out on February 5. I don't know who has the most money - probably Giuliani. My guess is that the three candidates start relying on different places for support. Giuliani looks to NY, CA, NJ, etc, places with moderate republican leanings. McCain probably looks West, and Huckabee looks South. that would seem to be a winning strategy for Giuliani because his states are more delegate rich. So I'll take a flier and say it is Obama vs. Giuliani in the general.

Wow!

What a set of results! First, I must admit to my failure as a political seer. I had no idea the results would be Huckabee by 9 and Obama by 8, with Hilary third. This throws both races into turmoil, with only 5 days until New Hampshire.

What effect does all this have on the races? Damned if I know. I think the Huckabee win helps McCain and Giuliani (and obviously Huckabee). It helps McCain because Romney, who was already faltering in Hew Hampshire, has lost any positive momentum, and McCain appears likely to win NH. It helps Giuliani (gulp!) because it means no Republican candidate is likely to be the front runner before the Florida primary. Therefore, Giuliani still has a good chance there, and will go to the Super Tuesday primaries on 2/5 with a win.

Obama's win is, I think, transformative. As Juan Williams noted on Fox News last night - who'd have thought a black man could win a caucus in such an extraordinarily white state as Iowa? I think this will propel Obama to wins in South Carolina, and a number of other Southern states. Why? Because, I think a large portion of the African-American vote has been going to Hilary on the assumption that a black man cannot win in November. After Iowa, that assumption is much less valid. Hilary might still win in NH, which will reenergize her campaign, but what was once a not so competitive race after SC becomes a real dog fight. A loss in NH will really hurt her, and require something big to recover.

Iowa Caucuses

Now the fun begins. And already, I have to change my predictions. I now think it is Obama and Romney. This probably kills Huckabee's chances. If Edwards beats Hillary, he still has a fighter's chance. If she comes in second, and Edwards is third, he is history.

A Partial Defense of Mike Huckabee

I'm still not going to vote for him, but I think he is taking way too much heat for his role in the Wayne DuMond case. In case you have not been paying attention to the minutiae of the Republican battle for the nomination, Wayne DuMond was a convicted rapist in Arkansas. After his arrest, but before trial, DuMond claimed that two men entered his home and castrated him. He was convicted and sentenced to life plus 20 years. Some conservatives alleged DuMond was not guilty and that then-Governor Bill Clinton had pushed for the conviction too hard becasue the victim was a distant relative of his.

Well, time passed and eventually the governor immediately preceding Mike Huckabee, Jim Guy Tucker, commuted DuMond's sentence to around 39 years - thereby making him eligible for parole - because the jury had never heard of the castration. Apparently, after a certain amount of dithering about a possible complete commutation of DuMond's sentence, Governor Huckabee influenced the parole board to grant DuMond parole. Subsequently, DuMond raped and killed a woman in Missouri. Now, Huckabee is taking the heat for the parole.

I think blaming Huckabee is ridiculous. It is pure 20-20 hindsight. Procedures in criminal law and sentencing exist for a reason. Obviously, the people of Arkansas, speaking through their legislature, approved of parole for some prisoners. It makes sense to put the power of parole in a parole board. That board, admittedly with the support of Huckabee, concluded DuMond should be paroled. That is the board's job. If no one should be paroled, change the law. But at the time, parole was an option in Arkansas law. Should DuMond have been paroled? Apparently it was an error in judgment. But humans makes such errors. And committees make them even more frequently.

The whole debate reminds me of the debate over capital punishment. Candidates for executive positions are routinely required to state that even if they oppose the death penalty, they will allow it to occur. The argument is that if the people of the state, speaking through their state government, have decided the death penalty is sometimes appropriate, it should be used on occasion. It seems to me that parole is the same. If the citizens of a state want it to exist, it should be used in appropriate cases. And mistakes will be made.

Huckabee made a judgment. It was incorrect. But was it unreasonably so? Was he negligent? Probably not. There were some who believed that DuMond's conviction was wrong. And there was evidence that DuMond had suffered vigilante justice that might convince someone he should receive some leniency. Wrong decision? Clearly. Wrong decision at the time it was made? Not obvious.

Who I Don't Support

Annie V. has asked me who I am supporting for the Presidency. I don't think my answer will surprise anyone, but just in case its a nailbiter for anyone, I'll keep you hanging for a while. But I will tell you who I am not supporting. Today I will explain why I will not vote for Giuliani or Huckabee.

As for Giuliani, just see these. He's a megolamaniac with poor judgment and an overriding concern in Rudy Giuliani above all else.

Huckabee is a more interesting case. He has expressed a concern for the environment and poor that I believe is true and admirable. I guess he'd have a chance with me if he would actually adopt reason, science, and the Constitution as his guiding principles. Oh, and if he didn't think I was going to hell.

Huckabee Platitudes

I don't think I've ever read a more vacuous Op-Ed piece than this one from Mike Huckabee in the Des Moines Register. Some of the more meaningful lines from this great thinker:

"We need leadership that will instill hope in the future for every American family"

"America's strength is in its people"

"Strong families need better schools with higher standards that incorporate personalized learning to enable every student to master basic skills while also developing their individual talents so they can exceed those higher standards."

"Strong families need a stable economy, rich with opportunities"

"Strong families need a health-care system that makes sense."

"Above all, strong families need a free and secure society."

"I'll also protect the Second Amendment to ensure American families never lose the right to defend themselves."

And as an afterthought:

"I'm committed to winning the war on terror in Afghanistan, Iraq and wherever radical Islamists seek the means to harm our nation."

Can anyone tell me what the hell he wants to do to make this glorious Eden come about? He is for Opportunities, Standards, Sense, Freedom, Security, Self-Defense, and Winning. Didn't he forget Apple Pie and Baseball?

Does a newspaper have to accept a column from a Presidential candidate, even if it is without any substance whatsoever?

Fantastic Campaign Ad

Sadly its from Mike Huckabee and features Chuck Norris. But it is hysterical!

Faith in Politics

In his column today, E.J. Dionne writes:

Let's say it unequivocally: Mitt Romney's Mormon faith should not be an issue in this presidential campaign. Period.

Wrong. Period.

What is true is that the fact that Mitt Romney is Mormon should not be an issue, but his faith must be. With pride, Romney says things like

"What is it about America's culture and values that makes us such a successful nation and society? Part of that is we love liberty, we love our country, we're patriotic," Romney said. "I believe it's also because we are a people who love God and look for a purpose greater than ourselves in life."

Well, what purpose is Romney looking for? Is it to be found in his Mormonism? It is a relevant question to ask.

The latest rage in the Republican Party is Mike Huckabee. As I noted early in the life of this blog, Huckabee said at an early debate

But what I'm saying is, when a president is elected president, he's elected president to make decisions that are going to be basically balanced between two immovable things that ought to govern every decision he makes. One is the Constitution, that he's sworn to uphold. And the other is his own conscience and
character.

If that is so, we must examine his conscience to know what kind of President he would be.

Dionne only wants Romney (and I presume he would ask the same of Huckabee)

to explain how he can fairly ask that we not hold his faith against him, even as he insists that religious people should vote for him because of the values his faith has taught him. Mormonism should not be an issue. Consistency is another matter.

But it is clear that Romney believes that his faith is important to his decisionmaking. Therefore, I think we have every right to expect him (and every other candidate who claims a belief in God informs his or her judgment) to explain how his faith influences him.