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.

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.

More I Will Not Support

My reason for not supporting Romney, McCain, or Thompson is the same in each case: Why should I? It shouldn't be news to any regular reader that I don't agree with much of their policies. But, even more, could there be a less inspiring bunch? Romney wants to be President because that's what rich ex-governors do. McCain wants to be President because he lost in 2000. Thompson wants to be President because . . . well, I'm not convinced he wants to be President.

Romney's Blinders On Faith

Well, I read Mitt Romney's speech on faith in politics, and was I disturbed. It demonstrates Romney's huge blinders when it come to American culture. The speech reeks of a purely evangelical world-view, while claiming to reflect an understanding of all. It has been widely commented that Romney's speech ignores the atheists and agnostics among us, and it certainly does that. Romney said a President "will need the prayers of the people of all faiths." Notice that he doesn't mention the good will of non-believers. He said that "[w]e should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders." Why should we? What if we don't believe in a Creator? He also says "Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God." Oh really? All Americans? I think not.

Note how all his rhetoric assumes a Christian belief system for all. He talks of placing his had on a Bible when he takes the oath of office, as if it were assumed that he should. But I encourage all of you to examine Article II of the Constitution. Neither the Bible nor God is mentioned - as they are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. I wish Romney had commented on this absence. But instead he suggests those who have a real discomfort with God having any place in government are establishing a religion of secularism - and repeats that America must be considered a nation "Under God" and that in God "we do indeed trust." Who is this we? Surely not all Americans.

The most disheartening part of the speech is rightly the most quoted in the press. Romney argues that "Freedom requires religion," but offers no explanation. What does it mean? I read it as excluding non-believers from the truly American and patriotic. If someone does not have a religious faith, apparently he cannot truly believe in freedom or the American experiment.

Romney included one paragraph that I think expresses the correct way to examine a politician's. Sadly, he sets forth his standard as if it is only relevant to "a person of faith." He said:

Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of humankind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

Remove the phrase "of faith" and I think Romney is on to something. What Romney does not notice is that none of his three American values require the existence of God, or the belief therein.

To be honest, I don't think Romney meant to be exclusionary. Instead, I think he is blinded to the existence of those with a significantly different cultural understanding from his own. Romney pictures America as a a Christian postcard. He travels the country and sees the "many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven." Does he not know that many houses of worship do not have steeples? Even some Christian houses of worship are steepleless. But in an America where all believe in the same God, in Romney's America, all places to worship have steeples.

Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy

Over at the National Review, there is a lot of discussion of the push polls in NH an IA regarding Romney's Mormanism. Jim Geraghty doesn't think Romney planted the polls in order to make his opponents look bad. Instead, he has another theory:

The more I hear angry accusations from campaigns, and the more bad blood that is stirred, and the accusations that some campaigns employ bigoted arguments against a candidate, I start wondering... isn't this what some deep-pocketed Democrat would want to see in the GOP primary?

Ah yes. If there is a religious smear, it must be a Democrat. My guess is Soros. Republicans have too much class to pull a stunt like this.

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.

Spend! Please Spend!

Barack Obama has raised about $80 million for his Presidential run. But I get the feeling that someone forgot to tell him he's running. He needs, now, to engage in the Mitt Romney strategy - that is to spend a great deal of money in NH, IA, and SC. Why? Well, Obama got into the race with the Big Mo. But he has lost it, and now Hilary Clinton has the "aura of invincibility." Obama needs to spend his money and start taking a lead, if possible, in some of the early states. This might take away the aforementioned aura of Hilary's and bring back some momentum for Obama. I'm reminded of Kerry's '04 campaign in which he ended the campaign with money in the bank. Obama can't do that. He has to spend. It may be too late. He probably should have begun a large swath of TV ads in early caucus and primary statestwo or three months ago at least, but now, his only choice is to spend like there is no tomorrow - because there won't be if he doesn't.