Speaking of Insanity....

Ladies and gentlemen, Mike Huckabee:

He says: “I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do — is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.”

Words fail me.

UPDATE 1: When he talks about changing the Constitution, Huckabee is specifically referring to constitutional amendments to outlaw gay marriage and abortion.

UPDATE 2: The Republican establishment is petrified at the thought of Huckabee winning the nomination. Business conservatives and so-called national security hawks within the Republican party have been happy to use the religious right to win elections. But they certainly do not want them in charge. Here's a choice quote from Andy McCarthy of NRO:

Huckabee is made to order for the Left: his rhetoric embodies their heretofore lunatic indictment that we're no better that what we're fighting against. Let's "amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards"? Who needs to spin when the script speaks for itself? Where has Huck been for the last seven years? Does he not get that our enemies — the people who want to end our way of life — believe they are simply imposing God's standards?

More Evidence of Dr. Ron Paul's Insanity

I've thought for quite some time that Dr. Ron Paul is insane. For me, it only took a brief look into his archaic views of economics and the constitution (I guess Dr. Paul wants to go back in time to when the Supreme Court defended the "right" to employing children in coal mines). For many of my peers, though, Dr. Paul's views have struck a chord (I really can't figure out why).

Well, more proof has emerged that he really is, and has been for quite some time, insane. In the past, Dr. Ron has published the Ron Paul Political Report, the Ron Paul Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, and the Ron Paul Investment Letter. These newsletters have been found to contain many troubling (to say the least) passages. One refers to Dr. Martin Luther King as "a world-class adulterer," a "lying socialist satyr," and "the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."

Classy.

This one speaks praises of David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the KKK.

In 1990, Al Sharpton and some friends staged a rally in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. Now, renaming such a major city after anyone (no matter how great) seems rather foolish to me, but the Ron Paul Political Report took it a step (or twenty) farther. The article suggested that NYC be renamed "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," or "Lazyopolis" instead.

Apparently Dr. Paul doesn't just hate blacks. He hates gays, too. In the Political Report, he writes, "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities." He continues, "The largest blood bank in San Francisco succumbed to political pressure and holds blood drives in the gay Castro district, where people give at three times the usual level. Either they are public spirited, or they are trying to poison the blood supply." (emphasis added)

In the Survival Report, he writes that gays try to get AIDS because "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick.

Naturally, Dr. Paul claims no knowledge of these articles.

A Word or Two on Racial Tensions

Up until recently, the biggest "racial moment" in this election season occurred months ago when Joe Biden called Barack Obama "clean," sending Al Sharpton into something of a tizzy while Obama politely took it as a compliment. Well, that's all changed. And in such a historic election, we knew it would.

I'm sure you've heard about Hillary Clinton's remarks about Martin Luther King, Jr. and Lyndon Johnson (find a refresher here). In short, she stated that it took a well-seasoned politician (LBJ) to get the dreamer's (MLK's) ideas put into action. So, she is LBJ, and Obama is MLK? Or, she is LBJ, the Democratic Party is MLK, and Obama is... I don't know what. Either way, comparing one's self to Lyndon Baines Johnson does not seem like a wise strategy.

So, anyway, the Obama campaign is saying that Hillary (and Bill, too) are downplaying the importance of civil rights activists like Dr. King. Hillary is saying that she is simply being pragmatic, that Dr. King was a great man with great ideas, but those ideas needed someone sympathetic to the cause within the system in order to get them to become a reality.

Really, Hillary is right. Civil rights legislation wouldn't have been passed without a president fighting for it. But, there's an important caveat: a president wouldn't have been fighting for it without activists like Dr. King fighting for it. So, it's rather circular. MLK wants change, pressures LBJ. LBJ enacts change. LBJ wouldn't enact change without MLK's pressure. So, who is really responsible for civil rights legislation?

It's a stupid question, isn't it?

Sure is. The answer doesn't really matter, and Hillary was rather stupid for throwing the question out there in the first place. I mean, come on! It's basically as if she is saying "Hey, you remember that famous civil rights activist, MLK? Yeah, I don't want to be like him. I want to be like that guy who tried to take credit for his work."

Seriously. Comparing yourself to LBJ? What the Hell is the matter with you, Hillary? You'd be better off continuing your habit of taking credit for your husband's eight years.

On the Michigan Primaries

With the Michigan Primaries coming up, Michigan Democrats will have some interesting choices. The DNC stripped the state of all its delegates and the only Democratic candidate on the ballot is Hillary, although, she isn't actively campaigning (Michigan broke some Democratic Party rules and got bitch slapped, as it were). However, the other candidates are telling their supporters to vote "uncommitted," as these delegates (assuming the DNC gives them their power back) will not be committed to any candidate and can thus vote for Obama, Edwards, or whomever. Plus, wouldn't it be a smack in the face for Hillary to lose to "uncommitted?"

Kos, in his mischievous way, has another plan. He wants Democrats to vote for Romney.

Meanwhile, poor Mitt Romney, who’s suffered back-to-back losses in the last week, desperately needs to win Michigan in order to keep his campaign afloat. Bottom line, if Romney loses Michigan, he's out. If he wins, he stays in.

And we want Romney in, because the more Republican candidates we have fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for us. We want Mitt to stay in the race, and to do that, we need him to win in Michigan.

Not to mention that if Mitt somehow continues on to win the nomination, this will benefit Democrats. National polls have shown that Mitt is one of the weakest candidates that the Republicans have. If he gets the nod, I have complete confidence that the Democrats will win. Now, if McCain gets the nod, I would bet on the Republicans winning. But I'm not a betting man.

I'm not sure Kos' logic makes all that much sense, though. First off, there are no indications that the Democratic nomination will be settled any time soon. On This Week this morning, George Stephanopoulos said that there's a theory going around that the Democratic nomination won't be settled until April 22 -- Pennsylvania's primary (here's hoping). So, if the Democrats are still duking it out, there won't be much of a difference. Granted, I guess he would argue that both parties being in disarray is better than the Democrats being in disarray while the Republicans are settled. But, I'm not so sure of that logic, either.

For once, I think I actually agree with Newt Gingrich. On This Week, he noted how easily Americans get bored. If the Democrats are settled on a candidate after February 5 (which I doubt), people will get bored with the candidate. I don't think inter-party (or is it intra-party?) conflict is a bad thing. Having a lot of choices can be exciting. And it's good for the political process.

So, I'm not so sure I agree with Kos' strategy. Although, I have to admit, it would be rather funny to see the pundits discussing how Romney's victory came at the hands of Democrats. I wonder how Mitt would handle that hot potato...

Kerry Endorses Obama

Senator John Kerry plans to endorse Barack Obama. I'm not sure what point these Senate endorsements have except for creating possibly awkward moments in halls of the Capitol.

Hillary: "Hello, John."
John: "Oh Hillary, hi! You know, I really like you, but it's just that, Obama, you know... he's so... fresh and vibrant."
Hillary: "Oh, and I'm stale and dull?"
John: "No, no! You're... you're lovely. It's just... Uhh... I have to go make a speech."

Honestly, how many people are going to be swayed by John Kerry? I once read that there is a John Kerry Fan Club, and it only has one member: John Kerry. I mean, I guess the point is to show that presumably credible people (again, we're talking about John Kerry, so this is up for debate) support a given candidate. Indeed, they're willing to risk said credibility on such an endorsement. I mean, if it was found out that Obama was a mass-murdering illegal immigrant, endorsers could be harmed, too. I don't see this as much of a risk, though.

So, I guess it's all for show. We get to see Obama embracing and joking with this elder statesman, which I guess could be good for his campaign? Perhaps it could say "Hey, we're not just a bunch of young morons like the Ron Paul campaign!"

But, really, are old morons any better than young morons?

Even though he lost, Obama gets the same number of delegates as Hillary in NH

Despite the fact that Hillary won the New Hampshire Democratic primary, she and Barack Obama will receive the same number of delegates to the party's nominating convention:

Sen. Hillary Clinton picked up nine delegates after winning Tuesday's New Hampshire Democratic primary by almost 8,000 votes. Sen. Barack Obama, who finished in second place, also earned nine delegates. Wait a second—since Clinton won, how come she didn't get more delegates?

Rounding and remainders. Democratic presidential candidates gain delegates in each state as long as they capture at least 15 percent of the votes, and they're awarded delegates in proportion to the amount of votes they receive in each district and statewide. New Hampshire had 22 delegates up for grabs this week. Clinton, who received 39 percent of the vote, got 39 percent of the delegates. Obama, who won 37 percent of the vote, got 37 percent of the delegates. That rounds down to eight delegates each. John Edwards, who just made the cutoff with 17 percent of the vote, received three delegates. This leaves three extra delegates, who are then allocated to the three candidates in turn.

I'm sure that there are lots of good reasons that the parties don't do something crazy like use a simple popular vote to determine their nominees. I just can't think of any right now.

Germany goes wild for Obama

Yes, Germany. Check out this post over at the Caucus for a taste of how electing Obama president could affect the world's view of America:

Germany has developed a serious case of Obama-mania.

Barack Obama’s high standing in Germany goes beyond his opposition to the unpopular war in Iraq. The country’s sudden crush is bound up with near-constant comparisons here between the young senator from Illinois and President John F. Kennedy Jr. – still admired in Germany and particularly in Berlin.

The Berliner Morgenpost over the weekend ran with the headline, “The New Kennedy.” The tabloid Bild declared, “This Black American has become the new Kennedy!” And the headline for the editorial in the Frankfurter Rundschau read simply: “Lincoln, Kennedy, Obama.”

Electing Obama won't make anti-Americanism disappear. (I believe that a lot of anti-Americanism exists simply because of our sheer economic, military, and cultural weight, not just because of specific actions or who the president is.) But it certainly could make an impact.

.... Or Not

Huckabee's campaign just released a statement:

I do not support an amendment to the constitution that would prevent children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens from automatically becoming American citizens. I have no intention of supporting a constitutional amendment to deny birthright citizenship.

Well, well. It looks like Huckabee's "top immigration surrogate" got carried away in that interview with the Washington Times reporter.

Huckabee wants to end birthright citizenship

According to the Washington Times:

Mike Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to prevent children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens from automatically becoming American citizens, according to his top immigration surrogate — a radical step no other major presidential candidate has embraced.

Birthright citizenship may, at the margins, encourage a few more illegal immigrants to come to the United States. However, the vast majority of immigration decisions are made from a more immediate economic calculation: a comparison of wages in the source and destination countries (ie, immigrants come to America because they can earn more money here).

Most European nations do not have birthright citizenship. In the past few decades, Europe has received an unprecedented number of immigrants. Large-scale immigration to Europe has provided the continent with large economic benefits, but at the cost of significant unrest. Europe has a great deal of difficulty assimilating immigrants into its societies. America, on the other hand, has traditionally been able to reap the economic benefits of immigration while assimilating immigrants. One of the reasons that we're so good at assimilating immigrants is birthright citizenship. The sons and daughters of our immigrants (including, yes, the illegal ones) become full-fledged members of American society. Ending birthright citizenship wouldn't end illegal immigration. It would simply result in the growth of a marginalized, discontented, unassimilated underclass.

First every candidate and their grandmother was proposing a guest worker system. (Ask the Germans how well that worked out for them.) Now Mike Huckabee wants to end birthright citizenship. I have an idea for the candidates: Don't propose any immigration policy "solution" that has proven to be a disaster in multiple European countries.

The GOP Candidates as High School Stereotypes

An absolutely fascinating post from Time's Michael Scherer:

Here's one thing you need to know about John McCain. He's always been the
coolest kid in school. He was the brat who racked up demerits at the Naval
Academy. He was the hot dog pilot who went back to the skies weeks after almost
dying in a fire on the U.S.S. Forrestal. His first wife was a model. His second
wife was a rich girl, 17 years his junior. He kept himself together during years
of North Vietnamese torture and solitary confinement. When he sits in the back
of his campaign bus, we reporters gather like kids in the cafeteria huddling
around the star quarterback. We ask him tough questions, and we try to make him
slip up, but almost inevitably we come around to admiring him. He wants the
challenge. He likes the give and take. He is, to put it simply, cooler than us.

Now here's the thing you need to know about Mitt Romney. He is the
overachiever, the do-gooder, the kid in class who always does everything right.
All his life he has outperformed, as a Mormon missionary in France, as a
corporate takeover consultant, as the guy who saved the Winter Olympics from
financial ruin. He works crazy hours and apologizes after he makes a joke,
because he is worried you won't understand his meaning. He is the one who takes
endless notes in every class and has a little plastic container inside his
locker for all of his mechanical pencils. He will probably be the valedictorian,
and he will surely disappoint you at graduation by giving a bland speech that
all the parents just love. "Isn't that boy so sweet," say all the moms.

In case you're wondering, Scherer manages to squeeze Huckabee in there too:

He is the class clown with the weight problem everyone likes...

The Fall of Rudy

This will be a very brief post, as I just want to share with you a poll I came across. Rasmussen Reports has been testing hypothetical match-ups for the general election. Typically, Giuliani has done the best among the Republicans (even managing to beat Hillary and Obama in some polls), while Romney has done the worst. Well, these results show something interesting.

In a hypothetical match-up of Obama v. Romney, Obama garners 45% while Romney snags 39%. A pretty hefty defeat, if I do say so. However, when we consider Obama v. Giuliani, Obama garners 47% while Giuliani only gets 37%. So what does this mean? It would seem to mean that independent voters or wary Republicans are more likely to support Romney than Giuliani. This could be because Giuliani's approval rating has dropped 30% (from 70% to 40%) in less than a year.

I'm ready to make another prediction: Rudy Giuliani will not be the Republican nominee for President.

Concerning Concessions

John Edwards and Hillary Clinton gave us two very interesting, very different concession speeches. Both have reflected the candidates' style throughout this campaign.

First, Edwards offered up a shout-fest not unlike Howard Dean's infamous post-Iowa speech/scream. At one point, Johnny started to list the states that his campaign would continue on in, and I sat waiting for a "Yeeeargh!" Alas, it did not come. But, nonetheless, the tone of the speech was as combative as Edwards has been throughout this whole thing. Indeed, one would not have even thought this was a concession speech given Edwards' discussion of success and lack of mention of that guy who actually succeeded. Yes, in a move that showed Mr. Edwards' lack of class, he did not congratulate Barack Obama on his victory. After he said "thank you" and "God bless you," he finally referenced his loss (after being reminded by Elizabeth, apparently), saying rather smugly "Thanks for second place." While this speech won't go down in history like Dean's did, I think it effectively marks the end of Edwards political future, at least as far as the presidency is concerned.

Hillary gave a much calmer, and really much better concession speech. She did not speak of her own success (or lack of) like Edwards, but spoke of the success of the Democratic party. The Democratic turnout was amazing (twice what it was in 2004), showing that Democrats are excited about this election. Republican turnout was lackluster. If "purple" states like Iowa can get high Democrat turnouts in November as well, this election will be in the bag. Anyway, Hillary spoke of "us" as Democrats while still maintaining her own personal image. This dichotomy has defined her campaign (and seems to have stumped it). She is trying to suggest that all Democrats are alike and a Democratic victory in November is all that matters. At the same time, though, she is trying to suggest that she is the best candidate. It is rather confusing. It is if she were saying "These results show a bright light at the end of the tunnel for Democrats, even if that isn't me. But, it should be me!" I think her split personalities (i.e. "We're all the same" v. "I'm better!" and "I'm the candidate of change" v. "I'm the establishment candidate") will be her undoing. She needs a unifying theme, and she needs it quick.

I'm not ready to predict an Obama victory in New Hampshire yet (indeed, if I had to make a prediction today, I'd give it to Hillary), but I think Hillary is in trouble.

And that makes me happy. This reminds me, I don't know if I've ever expounded why I favor Obama. So let me do that.

I have a rather unorthodox view of the presidency. While I recognize the great power that comes with the office, I also recognize that a lot of that power is symbolic, and that power isn't simply to be put to use in "getting stuff done." The president isn't simply the Chief Politico. Rather, he (or she) is (or should be) a symbol of America. A good president should be a unifier, and if that means getting less stuff done, I'm okay with that. The president is given the duty of setting the tone for our political discourse. Edwards' "I want to steal everyone else's power!" and Hillary's "I can do things... lots of things!" are not representative of a high and lofty political discourse. Sure, Obama may be naive, and he may lack experience, but I don't think that is important. I think presidents should be a bit naive. Setting our goals too high allows us to constantly try harder and not stagnate. And experience really isn't that important. As long as a president picks experienced advisers, he'll be fine. I trust that Obama won't surround himself with morons like Bush did.

Look, if Hillary gets the nod, I'll vote for her. Ditto on Edwards. Their politics really aren't different enough for me to base a primary-level decision on "issues." So, I have to base the decision on something else. So, I've based it on tone and personality. I think Obama would be the most presidential (I use this word in a higher way than when people say "Oh, Mitt Romney looks presidential.") of the candidates. He would give us hope for change, even if that change doesn't come. Hope is important in politics. When a top tier candidate like Hillary thinks that renouncing hope in politics is a good strategy, something is wrong.

A Bit of Gloating

You may remember that a couple of days ago, I announced my predictions for the Iowa Caucuses. Well, I was right. Obama and Huckabee won. I am hoping that this gives Obama the push he needs to catch up to Clinton in all those other states. If anything, it proves that Clinton doesn't have this thing clinched.

Kudos to you, Barack Obama. And you too, Mike Huckabee. Way to stick it to Mitt.

On the Quality of Candidates

The New York Times has an article about a strange phenomenon happening in Iowa. Democrats are happy with their options. Indeed, perhaps they're even too happy. While Republican Iowans seem either set on Huckabee or Romney (they've been snubbed by McCain and Giuliani), Iowa's Democrats, even those committed to a specific candidate, seem willing to consider other options. I've been experiencing much of the same, to be honest. While I consider myself part of the Obamanation, I recognize that there are other compelling candidates. This really is a strong group of candidates we've got. If the Dems can't pull a victory out of this bunch, they ought to just dissolve themselves as a party. Let's consider...

First, we have the possible History Makers, Clinton and Obama (maybe I should throw Richardson in here, but I think he belongs in a later group). Even though I am rooting against Clinton perhaps even more than I am rooting for Obama, the notion of a female President is, at the very least, interesting. It may not be "compelling," but it adds an element of excitement to the race. The same goes for Obama. The fact that we could have a black President being inaugurated in about a year is very exciting.

Next, we have the Resume (there should be an accent over that e, I know) Kings. These guys (Biden, Dodd, and Richardson) have long lists of accomplishments and probably "deserve" to be President more than the front-runners. The fact that candidates of this caliber are being snubbed should speak to the level of excitement among Democrats.

Then, we have the Wannabe RFK -- John Edwards. He's bringing back (or trying, at least) a style of populism that we haven't seen in mainstream politics since the death of RFK. I'm not too keen on Edwards these days, but I think this style of politicking is pretty compelling and makes for exciting television.

And there's the Token Kill-'em-with-Kindness, All Carrots, No Sticks, Hippie Dippie Lover of the Trees -- Dennis Kucinich. Always fun when he's around.

These folks have made for what I think is a fantastic group of candidates. Let's consider the Republicans for a moment.

First, we have Mr. 9/11. As we all know, Rudy is only in this race because he happened to be the Mayor of New York on September 11, 2001. That's his only "qualification." He claims that this "qualification" makes him the Anti-Terror Candidate. Sorry, Rudy, but having your city attacked doesn't count as military experience. You're no John McCain. Giving patriotic speeches doesn't count as valuable foreign policy experience, either. You're no Joe Biden. You're Rudy, the scumbag from New York who has grotesquely turned a national tragedy into a political windfall. For shame.

Next, we have The Latter Day Flip-Flopper who Saved the Olympics. Seriously, when your biggest accomplishment is putting on the Winter Olympics, should you really be President? Oh wait, apparently Mitt's running an ad about how he saved his friend's daughter! Mitt is a national hero!

Then there's the Varicose Frog Man. Reading about Thompson's sad romps through Iowa have made me pretty depressed. I mean, it's great that Thompson seems to be realizing that he has no business being in this race, but it's sad that even 1% (let alone 9%) of Iowans haven't caught on.

And we can't forget The Chuck Norris-Approved Pastor of Disaster. Huckabee shouldn't be lumped in with these other three, because he is slightly compelling. He brings a kind of economic populism that is unheard of in Republican circles and hey, he's funny. Kind of. Relatively speaking. Sure, generally speaking he is just a pawn of the evangelicals, but he's more compelling than most evangelical pawns.

Alas, a candidate worth supporting: John McCain. Now, if he somehow gets the nod, I sure as hell won't vote for him, but at least his candidacy makes sense. When we ask "why should you be President?" he can respond with something other than a blank stare and a line about the sanctity of family. His moderate politics are refreshing in a Republican party (and really a broader political scene) dominated by extremists.

And there are some others, but they're really not important.

So, congratulations Democrats. You've got a wide range of good choices. And Republicans, you have one, so go ahead and pick someone else. It just wouldn't be becoming to pick the good guy, right?

P.S. Here's a great op-ed about the ridiculousness of the Iowa caucuses. I was going to write a post about my hatred of the caucuses, but this summed it up better than I could.

To come: The promised discussion of primary reform and an update on Michael Bloomberg.

Some predictions and their unimportance.

I hope you readers and, perhaps more importantly, DC, will forgive my unexplained absence. Like my cohort, I too will make an effort to blog more often this year. On with the post.

The Des Moines Register (which made the nearly unforgivable mistake of endorsing Hillary for no other reason than that she is a Washington insider -- but I suppose that is irrelevant to this post) released their final poll before the Iowa caucuses. For the Democrats, it shows Obama in the lead with Clinton and Edwards lagging seven and eight points behind, respectively. For the GOP, it shows Huckabee in the lead with Romney six points behind. McCain is coming in third, thirteen points behind Romney. So, it looks like we've got a three-way race for the Democrats and a two-way race for the Republicans. My predictions, even before seeing this poll, were that Obama and Huckabee would win (I swear). But, I'm not sure how important these predictions are; I don't know that Iowa is worth all of this hype.

In short, I'm not convinced that the winners on Thursday night will be the eventual nominees. I think the Democratic race will turn into a two-way race between Hillary and Obama, while the Republican race will remain pretty wide open. I imagine a four-way race between Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, and McCain. It pains me to say it, but I think Hillary will eventually get the nod, but I'm not prepared to make a prediction for the Republicans. They're all (except for McCain) such terrible candidates; I can understand why the race is so wide-open.

So, really, I think the only thing that Iowa will show is that Edwards isn't a viable candidate. He is the only one of the "Big Seven" who seems to need a victory in Iowa in order to survive in this race.

Look for an upcoming post about primary reform. It's nice to be back.

Edit: I forgot to mention one of my hopes for Iowa. I hope that the caucus results reflect how much of a joke Fred Thompson is. I've made a point of saying (or at least implying) how my least favorite person in this whole race is Mitt Romney, but I think I want to amend that. At least Romney tries. Granted, his "trying" shows that he is both a cry-baby, a scumbag, and a liar, but at least he tries. Thompson hasn't tried. He has just hoped that people would think Romney, McCain, and Giuliani are all too liberal. He's presented no substance. As much as I disagree with Mike Huckabee's politics, I'm glad he has taken over the mantle of the "conservative candidate" from Old Man Thompson. I'm already pretty cynical about American politics, but I still retain some hope; a Thompson nomination would've shredded that last bit of hope.

Although, a Hillary nomination risks doing the same. Oh well.