Bob Lonsberry, of Talk Radio KNRS (Salt Lake), reported this morning that Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff will be the Utah Campaign manager for Arizona Senator John McCain's presidential campaign. This is the second pick-up of a prominent Utah Republican for McCain - the first being the States Governor Jon Huntsman.

What's the deal with Mormon politicians aligning themselves with John McCain over Mitt Romney?

I think two things may be in play. The first is that Utah is a very conservative state. Many politicians here are aware of Mitt Romneys' 1994 senate race against Edward Kennedy. Then Mitt came across as a much more moderate Republican than he portrays himself now; but running against Kennedy in Massachusetts is going to do that. After his stint guiding the Salt Lake Winter Games, there was speculation that Mitt might run for Governor of Utah. Two things probably held him back, the first is Utah isn’t a prominent stage to run a national Presidential bid. The second is he might not have been conservative enough to win.

This brings us to the second aspect of McCain’s support. McCain certainly is not a conservative, the McCain-Feingold Law being exhibit number one. But there seems to be a move by some Mormon politicians to not want to be seen running as part of a ‘Mormon Bloc’. McCain may be the only palatable next choice to avoid that perception. These Mormon endorsements of McCain may actually be good for Mitt in the long run as it diminishes the perception across the nation that Mitt is the Mormon’s candidate.

The media have to talk about something, so they talk about polls in the absence of any real information.

New Hampshire polls.

I guess Iowa and New Hampshire are still part of some candidate's primary strategies, but they are looking increasingly irrelevant, particularly for Republicans were South Carolina is a far better indicator of their prospects for winning the nomination. McCain won New Hampshire, lost SC and disappeared--there is little reason to expect a win in NH for anyone to cinch the deal.

Howard Dean was supposed to have announced the site of the 2008 nominating convention, but has postponed the decision until January.

Denver would be the logical choice from a strategic perspective because the growing intermountain west is getting more cosmopolitan and less of a Republican lock. Colorado in particular has elected Democrats in droves.

Have you ever had that dream where your naked in a public place?

Rudy Guiliani is having that dream, but he's awake.

It's clearly laid out in 140 pages of printed text, handwriting and spreadsheets: The top-secret plan for Rudy Giuliani's bid for the White House.

The remarkably detailed dossier sets out the budgets, schedules and fund-raising plans that will underpin the former New York mayor's presidential campaign - as well as his aides' worries that personal and political baggage could scuttle his run.

At the center of his efforts: a massive fund-raising push to bring in at least $100 million this year, with a scramble for at least $25 million in the next three months alone.

The loss of the battle plan is a remarkable breach in the high-stakes game of presidential politics and a potentially disastrous blunder for Giuliani in the early stages of his campaign.

The document was obtained by the Daily News from a source sympathetic to one of Giuliani's rivals for the White House. The source said it was left behind in one of the cities Giuliani visited as he campaigned for dozens of Republican candidates in the weeks leading up to the November 2006 elections.

Its not a deathblow, but Rudy's brain is nonetheless rattling around in his skull.

As I am reading through the "news" this morning, I'm realizing that the media is geared up for the primaries yet have very little to report as news.

Guiliani thinks his aide's bag (in which the lost campaign strategy were stored) was intercepted during the unloading and loading of a private plane. Clearly something happened, but this is less than rumor at this point--does it really merit a story?

Drudge anticipates a New York Times report on Hillary in which she is purported to say that she thinks Obama will fade as people realize how inexperienced he is. Is that really news? What else would you expect Senator Clinton to say? Campaigning 101 states that you emphasize your perceived strengths in the criticism of your rivals.

The Washington Post writes similarly vapid copy by musing over Obama's youthful drug use even as it chants the mantra of Obama's "new voice" in politics. Obama isn't a new voice--he's simply the black John McCain with a lot less experience. Can you imagine if McCain and Obama have to run against each other? "I'm more candid---no, no, I'm more candid..."

As for his drug use--he's a Democrat. Its a given that a Democrat politician comes with a raft of vices. The real question is--is he still using? The other obvious question is if Obama were by some miracle to become President, would he be accused of being high in similar fashion to how the left has accused Bush of being drunk? Probably not--not because Conservatives are "nice", but because their criticisms tend to be more sophisticated that what you typically find on the left.

So basically its a no news round-up, but since the media has devoted a lot of staff to the 2008 elections already, we've got gossip passing for news.

The longer you're in politics, the more enemies you make--on your side of the aisle.

Only days after Richardson announced he would be buying a ticket for the presidential sweepstakes, an aggrieved associate has already shanked him.

The personal activities of candidates and the public ambitions ought not to collide as much as they do in our world -- but there are issues that Richardson needs to address that involve his own blurring of public responsibilities and 'what should be' private behavior.

I will frame this as a "question" for Bill Richardson.

Have you behaved inappropriately or not in public settings with female members of your government administration, jokingly or not? Have you gestured to female public servants and political appointees -- who work as colleagues with you -- and made lewd gestures, specifically pointing to them and then pointing at your crotch with a room full of media and other politicos there in the room?

I ask this not to demean or undermine Richardson.

I ask it because I was not in the room when this particular incident occurred but many others were -- and rumors have long swept around Santa Fe that Bill Richardson makes a constant festive joke out of demeaning women. These incidents don't have to do with the comments by Lt. Governor Diane Denish that Richardson is a "touchy" and "feely" Governor. They have to do with questions about a far more crude kind of gesture that demeans professional women.

These concerns I have heard may be completely contrived, but after speaking with several senior level New Mexico officials, my sense is that it needs to at a minimum be addressed by the Governor who wants to be President. Some suggest that Richardson "can't stop himself" or "doesn't even realize what he is doing" or thinks that "this sort of thing is part of New Mexico's political scene."

Given that Richardson has thrown his hat into the biggest political contest in the country -- he needs to address publicly concerns about his views towards and treatment of women. Arnold Schwarzenegger fessed up to some of his past misbehavior and moved forward successfully. Governor Richardson could do this too.

Don't let the passive-aggressive voice fool you--this was a nuclear weapon. Clemons may have killed the governor's chances before he even got started.

Clemons certainly has the bona fides to know about Richard's closet skeletons as a former aide to Senator Jeff Bingamon (D-NM), but while he points to Richardson's support, or rather lack of enthusiastic opposition to John Bolton's nomination, that seems an unlikely reason for such a devastating accusation.

I think its just plain unbridled rivalry.

If you think about it--Richardson, in spite of the anglo name, is an Hispanic. Hispanics voted convincingly Democrat in this last election cycle, but nobody serious thinks its a bought-and-paid-for vote. Bush made substantial inroads in 2004 and a Republican could do so again in 2008.

Richardson has a better-than-average shot at getting the VP nod is he does credibly well in the primaries. Whoever wins the primaries has to be thinking seriously about Richardson's impact within the Hispanic community.

For that reason, I seriously doubt any of the major candidates had anything to do with this revelation. It seems more likely that Richardson is getting nicked by his political rivals within New Mexico. In spite of the fact that Richardson served seven terms in the House as a representative from New Mexico, there is likely still some resentment of the fact that he's a carpetbagger. Richardson was born in California and only moved to Santa Fe is 1978 where his Hispanic heritage would prove political useful.

In a very polarized political climate, almost anything can come at you. All you need is one pissed off blogger...

Sen Chuck Hagel (R-NE) thinks he has a shot at becoming President.

Hagel said in a wide-ranging interview this week that he is discussing his options with his family and other confidants and will make a decision in the next six weeks.

He said one possibility is forming a presidential exploratory committee and -- despite his outcast position within his party -- seeking the Republican nomination. Or he may seek a third Senate term. Then again, he might take a more creative path.

Hagel joked during the interview about teaming up with New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a moderate Republican, and also floated the possibility of joining a bipartisan unity ticket with a Democrat -- with his name first, of course.

Hagel's bit of demagoguery in the Senate this week concerning a non-binding resolution opposed to the deployment of additional troops to Baghdad, has played well with those you'd expect it to play well with--the anti-war crowd.

The Post of course deliberately misreads the polls to state that the American public is "overwhelmingly" against the war, which of course is ridiculous. The same people who were against the war before it started, are against it now, but the dissatisfaction expressed in the polls is not about opposition to the war, but disappointment and yea verily, even anger at the lack of resolution--fed by the treasonous liberal mainstream media constant drumbeat of balcony reports on the latest bombings in Iraq.

Senators engaged in demagoguery? Media distortion? None of this is new and perhaps not even worth comment at this point, but it struck me that Hagel's delusions about his presidential prospects are perhaps the clearest indication that Congress doesn't operate from a place of superior information. No sir, these guys are just as stupid, foolish and self-aggrandizing as they appear.

Chuck Hagel is, for lack of a better description, a complete asshole.

He is not alone.

I'm not going to review his comments in the Senate the other day except to poiint out that his emotional outburst and appeal for courage was on behalf of a non-binding resolution. The asshat media loved it, but to anyone with half-a-brain who knew what was going on, this was cynical political showmanship at its worst--the manipulations of a man who esteems the public intelligence not at all.

My own rule of thumb is that any Congressman or Senator who goes before the national media to discuss anything not related to a committee assignment is lying by definition. Those discussing committee-related business are probably lying.

If you are sensing utter contempt for the members of Congress, you can be forgiven. There are however some who are genuinely working conscientiously for their constituents and in the interests of the nation. You will however rarely if ever hear about them because, well--their working. Utah's Senator Bennett is a fine example--you almost never seen him in the national media, and frankly not that often in the local media, but he is I daresay, universally respected, influential, effective and obviously quite satisfied to serve his state as a U.S. Senator rather than look at Congress as a way station on the journey to the White House.

You have to ask yourself what kind of deep emotional dysfunction finds it dissatisfying to achieve the rank of U.S. Senator. At my count, we have five Democrat members of Congress running for President and six Republicans. I can understand how a long-serving Senator might legitimately contemplate a run at the White House, but we've now got another case of a first-term Senator striving for the Presidency before the carpets in his office are worn out--Barack Obama (following the example of John Edwards).

This is just plain megalomania.

I guess I could just "curse God and die", but there is actually something useful the average American citizen can learn out of this--these guys aren't smarter than you or better informed. Just because Hagel thinks The Surge is a mistake doesn't mean it is, and conversely, just because McCain thinks The Surge is a good idea, doesn't really close the subject either. Remember, they are running for President, which means that there is a better than 80% chance that they are lying to you.

Final comment--its amazing how the actions of a long-serving Senator or House member can affect your impressions of the state they serve. I used to think well of Vermont--not lately though, and not surprisingly I haven't been there in years (even though I used to visit quite regularly...). Will I develop a bad taste in my mouth whenever Nebraska is mentioned? Its too early to tell, but I hope the good citizens of that state are paying attention to the antics of their senior Senator.

Depending on how old you are, you might remember the Roadrunner cartoons. I don't think I've seen one in more than a decade, which is a shame for the up and coming generation. My guess is that liberal Democrat censors declared the show "too violent".

The basic plot is always the same--Wiley E. Coyote, self-proclaimed genius, seeks through incredibly complex means usually involving explosives, to catch the roadrunner--a mute but speedy bird. In spite of his "genius", the bird eludes him everytime and Wiley usually ends up in free-fall over some yawning chasm (holding up a sign stating something like..."this is going to hurt...")

The coyote just popped into my mind when I heard Biden had declared for the presidential campaign--self-proclaimed genius doomed to expberience free-fall into a political chasm.

Today was the part where Wiley E. Biden was cackling over his sure-fire scheme for capturing the 2008 roadrunner. Veteran viewers of Wiley E. Biden episodes could already seen his plan was doomed, but we stay tuned because the free-fall is so entertaining.

Mr. Biden is equally skeptical—albeit in a slightly more backhanded way—about Mr. Obama. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

Democrats don't get macaca'd, because racists are welcome in the big-tent party. Nevertheless, this is like the first day of his campaign and he insults Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as what? Stupid dirty "negroes"? While Jackson and Sharpton have unequivocal ethical problems, they are clearly bright and very articulate men. Maybe he can insult the Jews next.

Biden figures "what the hell"--he's 64 years old and if he doesn't run now, he never will again. Like so many Senators, he's a legend in his own mind.

With nothing to lose, Biden utters the unutterable, pointing out that Hillary just isn't going to get more popular and Edwards is an empty suit.

We knew that.

All that is left is to watch his genius plan go predictably awry.

The Moderate Voice

You can see already about how this is already surfacing as something where some may suggest that he used the word in racial terms. This mini-flap (if it grows into one — and talk radio loves this kind of thing, as does the blogosphere) would proably end with Obama noting that he has worked with Biden and that those suggesting Biden was suggesting what they’re suggesting he was perhaps suggesting are mistaken (but at least some of those pushing that line will know that already).

I'm a little confused by Joe's perception of the racial insult--it wasn't directed at Obama, but at Obama's black precedessors. Why would Biden feel he had to "clarify" his remarks for Obama?

The Flap intones.

Kevin Drum

I've never really had the animus toward Biden that a lot of people do, but jeebus. He's just a gaffe machine waiting for someone to flip the power switch on. Back to the Senate, Joe.

Tom Vilsack, the former centrist Democrat governor of Iowa and first declared presidential candidate for 2008, has bowed out of the race largely because he can't come up with the cash.

"It is money and only money that is the reason we are leaving today," Vilsack told reporters at a news conference, later adding, "We have a debt we're going to have to work our way through."

Vilsack has only about $400K in the bank and would need 20 million by June to be competitive--an impossible mountain to climb.

Among Democrats this cycle, the moderates just aren't competitive, which explains why the entire party has lurched far left. It also explains why all the viable Republican candidates are moderates. The Democrats may have tacked left, but the American public hasn't--ideological demographics have remained constant for decades. There is all this room in the center, and it reflects the shift in Republican electoral politics--its no accident that McCain, Giuliani and Romney are all moderates.

I fully expect that we'll elect a moderate Republican in 2008.

Newt Gingrich has his coincidental affair outed by none other than James Dobson of Focus on the Family fame, or notoriety, depending on your point of view.

"The honest answer is yes," Gingrich, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said in an interview with Focus on the Family founder James C. Dobson, according to a transcript provided to the Associated Press. The interview is to air today. "There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards."

Gingrich said in the interview that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton.

"The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge," he said of Clinton's 1998 House impeachment. "I drew a line in my mind that said, 'Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed … I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept … perjury in your highest officials.' "

I think this confession was timed and stages to Gingrich could have enough time to deal with the major obstacle to his nomination--a private life lead in contradiction to the values of social conservatives. Its also about as clear a sign that Gingrich is running short of an announcement on Leno.

With the reality that some presidential wannabes are real hound dogs, the question becomes does one's "private" behavior really matter in electing a president?

The Israelis seem to think so:

Two weeks ago, El Salvador police found Raphael naked outside his residence, tied up, gagged and drunk, Israeli media reported. He was wearing several sex toys at the time, the media said. After he was untied, Raphael told police he was the ambassador of Israel, the reports said.

Ben-Hillel said the reports were accurate and that Raphael has been recalled, although he did not break any laws.

"We're talking about behavior that is unbecoming of a diplomat," she said.

I'm sure someone will want to argue that this kind of "private" behavior doesn't matter, but its not going to be me.

Our current electoral reality is that there is very little to say about the 2008 elections, which presents a problem to the hordes of media types assigned to "cover" the candidates and "non-candidate candidates".

Pew reports that most people have heard of Hillary Clinton, a growing number of Barack Obama and few know what is going on with the Republican candidates. A lack of interest in the Republicans?

More likely an MSM obsession with the "chick" and "black guy"--an oasis in a story desert.

Now everyone has heard of Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York seeking the Republican nomination, right? Not lately, the Pew poll found: Only 3 percent of those surveyed said they had heard about Giuliani in the news lately. Same goes for Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona – just 4 percent said they’d heard of him making news. Read more here and see the results of the Pew report: 'The GOP's Invisible Men: Democratic candidates dominate the news.'

It may be tough to make much news on the crowded stage of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library on a hilltop in Simi Valley, Calif., where 10 – count them, 10 – GOP candidates will assemble for a 90-minute debate carried live by MSNBC starting at 7 pm CDT. Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC’s Hardball, will moderate the encounter.

Do you get it? The job of the presidential candidates is to "make news"--presumably to make life easier for the press corps.

Of course every presidential candidate knows that his (or her) job, is not to make any news, but to stay on message. What they really want to do is convince you that they are on your side, that they are "good guys".

Mitt Romney was on the Tonight Show last night, yucking it up with Jay Leno, showing the American public that he was funny and "normal" in spite of being 1. A Mormon 2. Filthy rich 3. Smarter than you 4. Handsomer than you 5. Happier than you.

Its what he has to do at this point in the "game".

What remarkable in all of this is how often the media, poised as they are to jump on any "news" so often miss the boat on the real news.

In every election some conventional wisdom is swept aside. Be it that third party candidates can't influence the race (Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote in 1992), that sitting presidents have to wait for their opposing party to pick a candidate (Bill Clinton ran negative ads more than a year before the 1996 election and went on to be the first Democrat to win re-election since FDR in 1944) or that an Internet-based campaign can't threaten an establishment candidate (Howard Dean surged, if briefly, past everyone in 2004), conventional wisdom is only right until it turns out to be wrong.

Ironically, that quote comes from a John Fund article that spins-up the non-candidate candidates and their dark horse prospects to win the nomination. Fund seems to have forgotten that the dark horse is and always has been "conventional wisdom" since Abraham Lincoln, the original dark horse made it so. He and others also seem to confusing media boredom with voter boredom:

In 2000, blogger Mickey Kaus refined the Feiler Faster Thesis, which holds that though news cycles are constantly getting faster, "people are comfortable processing that information with what seems like breathtaking speed." This rapid pace may be transforming presidential politics. Voters aren't waiting for pundits to tell them who is running for president, and shadow candidates can run low-cost guerilla campaigns using the Internet, talk shows and word-of-mouth. "Candidates have been running so long already it opens up opportunities for late entries," says Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit.com. "We may not like it, but voter boredom may now be a driver of politics."

Voters are hardly bored. They routinely poll as quite concerned over a number of national issues. The real problem is that candidates run not on vision but on coalitions of voter constituencies. A candidate risks a lot by exercising real leadership. In the early stages in particular, its money that drives the process and that means a lot of toe-sucking.

Newt Gingrich promises to change all this, by running a candidacy on ideas so profound, so brilliant that he will single-handedly realign the politics of the country. I wish him well, truly I do--we could use this kind of leadership, but that simply isn't are reality.

I don't know why we refer to presidential dog and pony shows as debates--there is little if any debate involved.

Nevertheless, last night's performance was instructive on a number of levels. Communication skills are among the most important a president possesses, and this was a minor demonstration of the candidates' qualifications on that score.

We are still quoting Abraham Lincoln's speeches one hundred and fifty years after the fact, and it appears that great presidencies are always accompanied by memorable utterances.

Various minor surveys have been carried out and produced varying results--a California poll had Giuliani "winning" the debate. The Drudge poll has Romney winning handily. Redstate has declared McCain the winner.

Clearly a bias is involved, either directly for the candidate, or indirectly for a particular style embodied by certain candidates. That's all part of the process, but I strongly suspect that after six and a half years of George W. Bush's wrestling with the English language, a lot of people would welcome a more natural fluency in their president.

From that perspective, Romney did himself a lot of good. This was no picnic--each candidate had to respond spontaneously and in short order. Some, like Tom Tancredo, simply couldn't do it. Giuliani also seemed comfortable in the format, but less effective in his responses. McCain took a different tack.

Unable to compete with Romney and Giuliani on their "turf", he wisely decided to "be himself"--direct, succinct and animated. It was a notable change from the monotone delivery of his press conference in Baghdad several weeks ago. Obviously some people at Redstate liked his style very much.

If anyone could be said to have "won", it would have to be Romney, if for no other reason than the fact that the debate allowed him to highlight one of his strengths, introduce himself to a larger audience and address some of the criticisms made of him.

Giuliani on the other hand, could be said to have "lost" in the sense that he didn't appear to have properly prepared for the debate. He lost an opportunity to advance his campaign and gave up ground to his rivals.

Addendum: I thought it odd that a Republican candidates debate would be broadcast on MSNBC. I suspect that this was a little bit of a nose-tweak to the Democrats who couldn't abide a debate hosted by Fox. Chris Matthews actually did a creditable job. He was in good humor and his rapid-fire delivery moved the debate along very well. The fact that the questions were carefully considered beforehand produced an even-handed event.

MSNBC post-debate analysis was bad. MSNBC is about as left-wing as it gets and the various participants couldn't help but perceive and discuss the debate through the lens of their own bias. There simply was no relevance in their analysis for the debate's audience, which was naturally conservative and Republican. From that perspective, the Democrat candidate may have ultimately been right for the wrong reasons. Brit Hume's analysis of a Democrat debate would have been no more enlightening to actual Democrat primary voters than the MSNBC crew's perceptions were to Republicans.

I don't know who won, but Tommy Thompson lost. He should hang it up.

The debate was somewhat more entertaining that I expected. Mike Huckabee got big laughs for comparing Congress's spending habits to John Edwards at the beauty parlor. Ron Paul rushed in where even anti-war Democrats fear to tread--he blamed 9/11 on America's evil actions in the middle east. Giuliani probably rescued another lackluster performance with his strong objection to Paul's remark and his request that it be retracted. Giuliani isn't going to take a back seat to anyone on the terror issue.

Unfortunately, the debate was largely about Iraq and immigration, uncomfortable issues for all the top tier candidates because the base wants a black and white answer and what will inevitably be a shade of gray.

My impression is that McCain just doesn't have any good answers to give. He made a ridiculous assertion about torture--trying to characterize anyone who disagreed with him as a chickenhawk. I can't help but like and respect the man, but he is out-of-touch. I've gone from believing he was an acceptable choice for president to rejecting him outright as unsuitable. The man is simply out of touch. Al Qaeda strap bombs to themselves and blow up children--the entire discussion about torture is a moot point with them.

Giuliani was more animated than last time around, and he had a good response on the abortion issue--taking a libertarian line and stating that we should keep government out of our lives. Its not going to fly, but its a game try.

Romney didn't dominate the debate like he did last time, probably because he dominated the debate last time. He was on the receiving end of lots of pointed questions and attacks by the other candidates. Nevertheless, he kept his poise and performed well.

Its precisely the kind of performance we'll need from the next Republican president.

Final Thoughts: Fox News did a way better job with the debates than did MSNBC.

Morning After UPDATE: Mark Levin at NRO notes that Romney is looking stronger and stronger.

He's in his zone, he's nailed down his positions, he's confident and articulate

The American Idol Fox News text poll has Romney on top. Its a pretty blunt instrument as a survey tool (Ron Paul was second). How many people over the age of thirty even know how to text from a cell phone?

The much ballyhooed CNN-YouTube debates were of course stage managed into stupor except for one moment in which Barry answered a question about whether he would meet with the leaders of various dictatorships.

Unqualified yes--within a year of assuming office.

Hillary was more circumspect. She'd pursue vigorous diplomacy (whatever that means) but would be cautious about being used for propaganda purposes. She later commented in an interview that she thought Barry's response was naive and irresponsible.

OK--but so what? These two are vying for the Democrat primary nomination and this naive and irresponsible stuff is extremely popular with the moonbats. Eschaton, one of the less nutty blogs, had this to say.

This is just bringing us back into the stupid parameters of debate established by the Bush administration. I don't want the country to stay in that very stupid place. We need leaders who are willing to get us out of that spider hole of stupidity.

I'm not claiming there's a direct contradiction here. In the latest round Clinton's talking about presidential meetings, instead of just standard diplomacy. But these distinctions are rather unimportant. Either in general terms it's important to reach out to the leaders of countries we have disagreements with or it isn't.

Black and white, cut and dried--this is the "reality-based" community. Nuance is foreign concept to these children.

As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago after the announcement that North Korea was taking some initial actions to dismantle their nuclear program--even the hyper-partisan Juan Williams (PR) had to admit that the six party talks were the right strategy for dealing with North Korea. The Bush administration--wisely--didn't even want to talk to these guys one-on-one, much less meet with Kim Jong-il.

The left have this idea that if we can just explain it to them, they'll be reasonable and compromise with us. In the real world, negotiations are about leverage. No leverage, no negotiation--its just that simple. Don't believe me? Go ask for a raise. If you have no leverage with your boss, you aren't getting a raise. If on the other hand, you're a major earner for the company, your chances of getting what you want are excellent.

Being seen as an equal with the president of the U.S.A. on the world stage is a major bargaining chip. You've got to have some pretty serious bargaining power to merit it and the economically clueless left just wants to give it away.

Except of course Hillary Clinton.

The DNC has gone nuclear on the Florida delegation, threatening to ignore their delegates is they don't move their primary date after February 5th.

State Party Chair Karen Thurman isn't buying the "rules are rules" argument being made by Donna Brazile, and we have a raw political fight to see who will blink first.

The DNC is in a desperate situation--on the brink of chaos. Lots of big states are bucking and hooking for more relevancy in the process. Pick the president and you pick the agenda. The DNC is like a few cops trying to hold back an angry mob--they're shooting their guns in the air, but in the end, there is nothing they'll be able to do if the intimidation doesn't work.

Florida doesn't lose much by holding firm. The candidates will still have to campaign in what is a swing state. They hold the cards and they know it. More importantly, the symbolic effect of "disenfranchising" Florida delegates is political dynamite--enough perhaps sink Democrat chances of winning in 2008.

I can't see this any other way except as a huge miscalculation.

It is clear that the ultimate solution is a single day primary--it makes little sense to hand disproportionate political power to just a few states.

A Blog for All

I haven't watched a debate in a while, and since they are beginning to matter, I thought I would tune in.

There are still too many candidates in the debate, but apparently they could have used one more. Brit Hume opened the floor to candidates willing to criticize Fred Thompson for not appearing. Many obliged. Thompson's decision not to appear may have been, in retrospect--wise. This was a much more competitive debate and the leading candidates got no cover. If Thompson had been there, he likely would have had to weather a pretty intense storm.

Notably, John McCain did very well in tonights debate--if there can be said to be a winner, he could be reasonably declared as such. Having said that, I think McCain caught a break because he's perceived as a lame duck candidate and didn't get the hard questions. He was able to shoot at the leading candidates from cover and its clear he's had time to reconsider some of his positions and rhetoric. Tonight, John McCain was in fine form. He looked and sounded presidential. I have said he would be out this month--on the strength of this performance, I expect he'll stay in for a while longer.

Brownback and Huckabee also seem to be more in tune with the format. I don't know whether they made new converts, but they didn't lose any ground. Huckabee strikes me as a dark horse candidate--he's extremely personable and I can't help but think he's well-suited for the retail politics of Iowa and New Hampshire.

The top two candidates--Romney and Giuliani, where clearly in the crosshairs and its difficult to perform well under those circumstances. They get the toughest questions and I think both men did well in addressing them, or as well as can be expected.

Giuliani looked tense and sounded over-scripted. His constant references to his achievements as mayor of New York reminded me of a former presidential candidate who incidentally had served in Vietnam. One of Giuliani's greatest strengths is his ability to come off as a mensch, a straight shooter, a guy just telling you like it is. That was missing tonight.

Romney did yeoman's work tonight, but failed to stand out in any way. His facility with the facts and uncanny ability to state any proposition in the time allotted to him, was a big advantage in the early debates, but as the other candidates have gotten better, its clear that he is missing the ability to communicate passion the way Huckabee and McCain did this evening.

Ron Paul is an idiot.

Senator Sam Brownback is expected to announce his withdrawal from the race for the Republican nomination tomorrow.

Brownback has raised 4 million and has less than $100,000.00 in cash on hand.

Like Huckabee, Brownback has allegedly been a favorite of religious conservatives, yet his fundraising doesn't bear that out.

Perhaps its the fact that Brownback, like so many other candidates, are simply too dull to attract any attention. No matter which party you're talking about, you have to have a national reputation to begin with or you simply have no chance.

The name recognition factor is the single largest advantage any candidate has coming into the race. You will immediately be in respectable double-digits in national polls without anyone knowing a thing about your positions or policies.

To see what the candidates are up against, watch the "Jaywalking" feature on the Tonight Show and marvel at the abysmal ignorance of the general public. Lest you think its just Leno cherry-picking dummies, Sean Hannity does the same thing quite frequently with similarly stunning results.

People don't know who the Vice-President is. Don't know who Nancy Pelosi is. Don't know who Harry Reid is. Poor Joe Biden--all that grandstanding at committee hearings and nobody knows who he is.

Is Brownback substantially inferior as a conservative candidate to Fred Thompson? Probably not, but Fred was on Law and Order and in Red October.

Mitt Romney is also not quite famous enough, and his national polls show it. Fortunately he has extremely deep pockets and abundant personal charisma, but he really, really should have had a syndicated TV show if he really wanted it in the bag.

What makes a real Republican?

That seems to be an open question these days as the candidates each claim that they're the real Republican in the race.

I guess I always thought a Republican was essentially an economic liberal--someone with a passionate belief in free enterprise and small government. I've been less and less comfortable with Republicans since the Bush election as its becoming increasingly clear that Republican means a mirror image of the far-left--conservative crusading moralists opposed to left-wing crusading moralists.

I don't want to suggest that I'm some sort of libertarian--far from it. I have strong opinions about values like commitment, responsibility and self-sufficiency, but similarly clean-edged views on one's personal responsibility towards the community and its responsibility towards the individual.

Pull you weight, but pull together.

Nevertheless, I find it disturbing to hear reports that the Evangelical darling may in fact be a closet socialist.

....he [Huckabee] is not the "consistent conservative" he now claims to be.

Nor am I alone. Betsy Hagan, Arkansas director of the conservative Eagle Forum and a key backer of his early runs for office, was once "his No. 1 fan." She was bitterly disappointed with his record. "He was pro-life and pro-gun, but otherwise a liberal," she says. "Just like Bill Clinton he will charm you, but don't be surprised if he takes a completely different turn in office."

Phyllis Schlafly, president of the national Eagle Forum, is even more blunt. "He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles," she says. "Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a 'compassionate conservative' are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee."

The business community in Arkansas is split. Some praise Mr. Huckabee's efforts to raise taxes to repair roads and work with an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature. Free-market advocates are skeptical. "He has zero intellectual underpinnings in the conservative movement," says Blant Hurt, a former part owner of, and columnist for, Arkansas Business magazine. "He's hostile to free trade, hiked sales and grocery taxes, backed sales taxes on Internet purchases, and presided over state spending going up more than twice the inflation rate."

Mr. Huckabee told me yesterday he also cut some taxes, and has taken the Americans for Tax Reform no-tax pledge. Former GOP state Rep. Randy Minton is not impressed. In 1999, he was urged by the governor to back a gas-tax increase. "I'd taken a pledge against higher taxes, but he sniffed that my constituents didn't understand what we have to do in state government to make it work," Mr. Minton says. "His support for taxes split the Republican Party, and damaged our name brand." The Club for Growth notes that only a handful of the 33 current GOP state legislators back their former governor.

Governors who served with him praise Mr. Huckabee for his ability to work with others, but say he was clearly a moderate. "He fought my efforts to reform the National Governors Association and always took fiscal positions to my left," former Colorado Gov. Bill Owens, a supporter of Mitt Romney, told me.

Rick Scarborough, a pastor who heads Vision America, attended seminary with Mr. Huckabee and is a strong backer. But, he acknowledges, "Mike has always sought the validation of elites." When conservatives took over the Southern Baptist Convention after a bitter fight in the 1980s, Mr. Huckabee sided with the ruling moderates. Paul Pressler, a former Texas judge who led the conservative Southern Baptist revolt, told me, "I know of no conservative he appointed while he headed the Arkansas Baptist Convention."

Mr. Huckabee's reluctance to surround himself with conservatives was evident as governor, when he kept many agency heads appointed by Bill Clinton. Zac Wright, a spokesman for incoming Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe, was asked this year why 15 Huckabee agency heads had been retained. Most of them were "Clinton people," he replied, not "Huckabee people." Mr. Huckabee told me many of his agency heads had "apolitical" responsibilities.

Hmmm. The Anthony Kennedy of presidential politics?

Part of this is undoubtedly the fact that Huckabee is on the verge of a first tier candidacy, but that not necessarily unfair--the better your prospects, the closer the scrutiny.

Charming fellow or not, I'm from the Republican wing of the Republican party, and I don't want any economic RINOs in the presidency.

I don't watch debates anymore, I just read Stephen Green's drunk-blogging of the events. Priceless phasing like this abounds...

7:44pm Three out of four undecided voters on CNN are pear-shaped middle-agd women with a tendency to ramble, and who want things from the government. Don't blame me if you think that's cruel--I'm just reporting what I see.

Lots of complaining about the CNN/YouTube debates.

Why?

They don't call it the Clinton News Network for nothing.

I think it was a smart move by the Republican candidates to accept the debates at the Democrat's cable news organ, particularly in light of the fear expressed by the Democrats shrinking violets of having to face honest questions. The plants got to ask their questions, but more importantly, the candidates answered them--advantage Republicans.

The loser in all of this is CNN, which couldn't look more pathetic and has been roasted all day by their "colleagues". It was an embarrassing performance that even partisan Democrats have to be worried about--CNN is only useful to the party if it has some credibility as a news organization--it doesn't. I don't know who is running the joint these days, but there needs to be a serious house cleaning.

Finally--what's with Lou Dobbs? Does he strut around in a bicorn hat with his hand in his vest? That guy looks like he is going to pop.