On the R side and with Huckabee, I'm reminded of Jimmy Carter's rise in 1976. Folksy and with little cash and surrounded by anonymous Georgia helpers, he bucked the Dem machine of the time and stunned the pundits. However, Huckabee is wading through the sludge of the ideologically exhausted Republicans whereas Carter only had to face down Nixon pardoner Ford.

I'm a lefty independent. All the fascination for me is with the astonishingly ironic slate of candidates on the R side. You have Huckabee, an affable creationist; Romney, a movie star handsome flip flopper; Giuliani, an oily Jacobin who --above all--parlayed 9-11 into millions of dollars; Thompson, of unholy Hollywood and holy Tennessee; Paul, who's experimental agenda is the most radical and un-doable of all; and McCain, who's sensible cross-aisle conservatism and religious warm milkiness compel many in his own party to loathe him.

And, there isn't a chance in creation that the Republicans will be able to raise enough money, cage enough votes, jiggle enough voting machine, to prevent a waterloo-like sea change in Congress in 08.

What ticket gives HRC or Obama or Edwards the most trouble? McCain-Powell? Romney-Petraeus? Giuliani-Haley Barber?

Yet as we slide to a hard economic landing and learn that the Iraqis can't stand up as US forces stand down, I would suggest the Republicans are headed right into the abyss they've created for themselves.

Neither Thompson nor Giuliani can win. If Huckabee takes Iowa, he'll have a shot in Michigan. If Huckabee loses Iowa and Romney loses New Hampshire, Duncan Hunter is a dark horse for Dobson/Perkins endorsements and a January surge. Boy will Romney feel betrayed if that happens.

Merry Christmas.

The Republicans, so help me God:
-1. Mitt Romney: It has to be Mitt. Who else? Rudy looks like a demon whenever he's on my tv. Mitt looks like somebody's rich Republican uncle. And right now, I think that's the best the Republicans have to offer.
-2. John McCain: Contrary to some of the earlier posts, New Hampshire is not an irrelevant contest. I think a lot of Republicans feel guilty they didn't nominate McCain in 2000. This is their chance at redemption. The only problem with this scenario is that economic conservatives do not trust McCain. And this is why: Imagine a national debate setting in which McCain is to concede to his opponent that the Bush tax cuts were not a brilliant idea, and that taxes are, in fact, a complex issue. Bob Novak & his ilk would never allow a McCain presidency. Too bad for Republicans because I think the American electorate would. No, I think John McCain's problem is with his own party.
3. Rudy Guiliani: This guy is old news. Godbless America.
4. Mike Huckabee: Bob Novak and the almighty economic conservatives will no doubt take Huck out with McCain.

Democrats, so help me God:
-1. John Edwards: He needs to win Iowa first, in order to convince the talking heads on tv. Upon which they'll all show their true stripes with their obsequious support for him. Most of the shows I see on tv are clearly leaning towards Edwards. He just has to win Iowa in order to fit the image of a winner. I hope Edwards does. He would be our strongest candidate. I know Republicans know it, I just hope the people in my own party realize as much.
-2. Barack Obama: He's as strong as he's ever been. I'm just not sure that he could win a general election. I really don't think he could win. I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. But I don't think I'm wrong. Best of luck, anyway. I think Obama would make a great running-mate for Edwards.
-3. Hillary Clinton: I think she'll lose both Iowa and New Hampshire, and then I'm not sure how she could ever rebound.
Sure, she has money and organization, but she lacks mass appeal. "She's electable," say many pundits and I tend to agree. But she is not quite desirable. It seems Chris Clizza and Co. believe America hasn't warmed up to her yet. We're knee deep. She represents my state in the U.S. Senate, and I would prefer she remain in that office. I defend Hillary Clinton, but it doesn't look like she'd be able to take on the Republicans. It would just be partisan bickering, as Obama & Edwards have both suggested. Let's just pray that a Democrat defeats any of those less fortunate Republicans.

Eugene Debs '08

It seems to me if you're putting someone up to win. You put someone up who some what kind of has some appeal to the other side and/or qualifications unmatched by the other side to sweep swing votes your way.

For Dems I only see Richardsons' resume passing muster to be CiC. If this were the case Obama could potentially VP and gain the experience so many feel he lacks. After a statement Richardson made, Biden would likely become SoS. HRC has far to many enemies and baggage. She is a liability unto herself and that is the last thing she needs to be. Edwards has big target on him aswell and the GOP already knows how to beat him. That just leave Kucinich to run independant. lol

As for the GOP i see none of the candidates appealing to swing voters save for Ron Paul. Nor do i see any of them taking on any of the others as a running mates save for Thompson maybe taking Romney. I think the question here is when someone drops out, where does their support go? If you cannot support your candidate because they just aren't in the race anymore then who do you support? If the top tier candidates tear themselves appart then whoevers left will be the nominee.

Sheridan:

I would vote for Obama in the general, but quite honestly, he isn't even in my top five in the primary election... Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Clinton. There is no heft to the man, 8 years in the IL state legislature, 4 years in the US Senate? Not enough experience, we've been down this route before, and it isn't pretty (consider Bush 43 and Carter).

Articulate Obama's message for me beyond there needs to be a change in the culture of politics? Might as well complain about the sun rising in the east... we are at the point at which we've arrived because of two generations of poisonous party politics, and no matter how appealing Barack Obama is, he can't change that culture.

Further, he presents a wide open target for the GOP in the fall. They are dying to change the subject from their utter and complete mismanagement of government, so let's nominate a (self-admitted) recreational drug user, who was a "community-activist" before he went into elective office. Think there is nothing to mine there?

Come on, let's look at this from an intellectual standpoint instead of an emotional one... does anyone really think that Barry Obama is the best candidate that the Dems can put up?

We've gone down the oratorical mastery path as Democrats before, we got Bryan three times, Stevenson twice and JFK. Of the six, we won once. I've been waiting to see if there was any steak behind the sizzle ever since he announced, and its evident that there isn't.

If you think that oratorical mastery will win the next election against a Republican attack machine that has been dying for exactly that type of race, you're welcome to work for Obama, as for me, well, I'll focus my efforts on people who have a chance of winning.

Best wishes to you Lyle, and best of luck...

'Tehran's move to rein in the militias it supports in Iraq has curbed roadside attacks, a top State Dept. adviser says'

oh look zouk, the violence in Iraq is down because Tehran is trying to help us. guess we can'at attack them now, can we? that must really depress you, the loss of a another war you wouldn't be fighting anyway. I'am a 'jackal' huh? you're hilarious. .. the one who says those who don't have any ideas fall back on calling names -- and calling names is all you ever do. I've been out celebrating the holidays with old friends -- isee you've just been on this board -- guess you have no friends or life, but that's not surprising, considerig your personality.

To the rest of you, Happy Holidays, whatever they may be...

Huckabee still has not given a valid reason for the officer prosecuting his son being fired. The extra lighting on the bookshelf in his Christmas ad was deliberate and known to him. He signed death warrants and let killers and rapists go free. His VAT tax will destroy whats left of the middle class. He may win Iowa. Romney learned at his fathers liberal knee take the position that gets you elected.
He'll be a liberal for governor and lo have an epiphany when running for president and change his thinking. What garbage. Rudy being pro-choice and pro-gay and his bedding down with Bush people through his security business make the left and right be non-supportive. He will never get the nomination with all of the skeletons he has in his closet. His best hope is veep for McCain who would probably serve 1 term. McCain has hurt himself with the immigration bill, critic of the religious right in 2000, his cave in during judicial nominations, and his vote not to fund our troops in Somalia in the 90's. That said most people find McCain the strongest commander in chief. We have all seen what gutless unwilling to fight neocons have done when directing our military and we may of waked up. Personally I believe McCain is the best of a bad bunch. The country is ready for a black president, but it is not Obama. Colin Powell please, please run for president.

What about Ron Paul? And Alan Keyes?

And while you are reading th Concord Monitor, try out this one, too -

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071222/OPINION/712230301

A fine editorial in the Concord paper -

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071218/OPINION/712180316/1027/OPINION01

It doesn't matter though, who the Republican candidate is, because America has seen how dangerous an anti-government party can be when it gets in power. Busted Budgets, Phony wars, Religious pandering. America has had it with these jingoistic xenophobes. 40 years in the political wilderness for worshiping false idols.

He has set a one day record for donations, has generated a tremendous grass roots movement, and won straw poll after straw poll, and many post debate polls, and yet again Ron Paul is not even on the list. I am sick of the media attempting to funnel our votes to one of their corporate connected candidates. This is a blatant effort by the media to keep Ron Pauls message under wraps. Chris, you only subtract all credibility from your article by omitting Mr. Paul, and you lose credibility as a journalist.

Best of luck to you, Lyle, and Happy Holidays to all the posters.

Why was Ron Paul left off the list? I find that to be the most interesting thing in the column.

After what they've done to this country since 2000,the republicans shouldn't even be allowed to run for any office,let alone President.

Biden 08'

KINGOFZOUK, you mean those Democrats who joined the Republican Party after the Civil Rights Act they blocked passed, because it was sponsored by Democrats? You mean those Republicans who used to be Democrats but who left the Democratic Party and turned the South red 43 years ago?! Is this your expose, this half truth? Are you aware that a half truth is all lie? That the truth you lied to refute thus remains all true?

Best holiday wishes to all.
Lyle, hang in there - wishing you the best of luck with your health. For what it's worth, I have one friend who was misdiagnosed this year (and relieved to learn he was OK upon further tests) and another who has now been healthy for 8 months following treatment. Third time's a charm, or as Chuck Barry (i think?) used to say, "Joker... Joker... and a triple!"
Mark, count your blessings in re: your cold weather. We up here had over a foot of snow this week. And yes, the actor you are thinking of is indeed Jet Li.
rslip, your comments are tinged with racism ("Color Purple") and the bizarre ("the prettier the campaign workers, the better chance for that candidate"). First of all, in order to prove this, you would need to have done a relative comparison of all the workers for each candidate in every state... important as PA and OH are, there are 48 others who would be disappointed to be left out of the beauty contest. Second of all, as I'm sure you would agree if challenged, this is kind of a silly statement. But what the hell... hope you enjoy the holidays, too. Remember, though, you are now too old for Santa's lap.
Finally, on topic, for Iowa Democrats, it really is too close to call at this point. My hopeful prediction: Obama, Clinton, Edwards. For the other team, I have to say Huckabee. Does anyone know if Zouk's fundraising numbers are accurate and unspun? I really find it hard to believe that Huckabee, with all the ink he's getting, plus the poll numbers, plus the Chuck Norris ad, would really have raised the least of anyone in either party.
Final thought, in re: Hillary and Rudy - no one has yet cast a single vote for either, and both are trending downward in the polls. Yes, each has the most money of their respective parties' candidates, and each leads national polls, but if either or both opens with a loss or losses, it's hard for me to imagine that their support would not be dramatically diminished if not evaporate entirely. Neither has the charisma or back story to be credible as a "Comeback Kid."

I met Dr Paul in Philadelphia last month and was able to speak with him for a minute - he's smart, kind, and genuine. Just like you'd expect. Ron Paul is the only candidate on either side - Republicans or Democrats - for an immediate pullout from Iraq, returning our soldiers from around the world, and the resulting savings of $1 trillion per year that can then be used to meet our social obligations at home (Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans' benefits, Social security), to repair our infrastructure (collapsing bridges and power grid, airports and waterways) and to pay down the national debt. This will help the poor and middle class more than any other policy. The other candidates claim they will cut the budget with their veto pen. Yeah right. In contrast, Dr Paul is not a wimpy flip flopper like most of the other candidates. For example, he did not back down to Big Media about taking donations from anyone - even those of ill repute - to further the cause of liberty and freedom. He can do that, while the other candidates can't, because the others are beholden to the special interests who give them money. Dr. Paul isn't - whatever money he gets - people know that it's for freedom, not to buy access. Ron Paul just raised $6 million in one day. Why? Because he's beloved - we believe he could be another Washington or Jefferson. He is for liberty and freedom. We also gave him a blimp, whereas the other candidates are just hot air.

I think Chris Gazilla may be a homunculus (miniaturized soulless automaton). How else to explain his neglect to mention Ron Paul?

No one really cares about who wins on the Republican side.Americans would be crazy to award the republicans a third straight term in the White House after the imperial debacle and dishonesty of the last 8 years. Obama is the Color Purple candidate. Remember that movie was given 11 oscar nominations and won exactly ZERO. In the last Senate race season, only one Democrat lost in the competative races, Mr. Ford,abalck man in Tenn. America is not over it's bout with racism...they may tell pollsters one thing, but behind the curtains, they pull a different lever. Hillary is the strongest choice and as it narrows down to a choice in the general election watch women go flocking to Sen. Clinton. Out here in the hustings of Western Pa and Eastern Ohio I've talked to many young women who have never before voted who will be registering and voting for Mrs. Clinton. Many years ago a political science College professor pointed out the Pulchritude factor to assess which candidate was going to win. The prettier the campaign workers, the better chance for that candidate...Sen. Clinton is the clear winner this year look at her local campaign staffers,,,all beautiful young women. She has the look of a winner.

Jim Lehrer showed 5 Xmas ads by candidates tonight during the Brooks and Shields segment. Brooks, Shields, and I agreed that Huck and McCain had +s, Obama was a neutral, and HRC and RG had -s.

Yes, drindl, on balance I think MDH's bookshelf/cross Xmas message was a plus. It is not offensive to see a Baptist ask that the birthday of Jesus be remembered. It is not an inclusive message, but it is honest.
Better than having a politician tell us to go shopping, I think.

You should ck these 5 ads for yourselves.
Of course I thought McC's greeting was best.

Mark Shields drew a parallel between Obama and Huck that I thought was interesting. K Street does not own a piece of Huck, and the old black leadership does not own a piece of Obama.

I think Romney has the money to go the distance. However, Michigan is not a gimme for Romney as the three December polls out show mixed results with McCain, Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee all in contention and with no one really above 21%.

I will go with the conventional wisdom for the Republican nominee. Two Republicans will split Iowa (Huckabee) and New Hampshire (Romney). Michigan is unclear. Nevada is unclear but probably Romney. South Carolina determines the Republican winner. Currently, Huckabee leads in that state. Giuliani's Florida firewall, I think is crumbling a bit as he has decided to campaign there almost all out.

Wow, the GOP has no candidate! All of these men except Dr. Paul seem to be suffering an overdose of testosterone and it's just not going over well with the, um, what do you call them, oh, actual voters. By this time in 1999, Cheney&Co were already schooling GWB.

So, I predict a brokered convention with Newt "tan, rested, ready" Gingrich as the standard bearer and one of the retired generals as his second. That's my prediction and I'm sticking to it.

The only thing that makes Romney a front runner is that HE'S MADE OF MONEY.

If Romney wasn't MADE OF MONEY he'd be exactly nowhere right now. Period.

Thanks to all for the well wishes, I am still hopeful. The needle biopsy was iffy, although it did cause my lung to collapse and I spent three days in the hospital. I am upbeat and wish all a merry X-Mas and a happy NY.

Zouk, if you ditched the punditry, the condescending attitude and the derogatory tone(You Libs this, you Libs that...) you would be much better off.

Why is it that the GOP is so unwilling to make concessions in politics? They think that any admission of wrongdoing makes one weak. I'll be the first to admit any of the various problems with the Democratic candidates. However, no matter how you cut it, the GOP is in a far worse position financially and socially, though only unnamed GOP back door sources will admit it.

Interesting - I didn't look at the debt for the FEC report

McCain owes 1.7 of his 3.8M
Romney owes 17.3 of his 9.2M (are you sure he's not a D)
Rudy owes only 165K

none of the Dems owe any significant money.

Again - rudy is dominating the R field in this regard.

there is going to be enormous pressure to produce results for future fundrasing on the part of huck, McCain and romney. those campaigns don't have the luxury of early losses. Edwards, Obama, Clinton and Rudy have plenty of time.

Lyle, bummer dude...That's a heckuva thing to have to deal with right at Christmas. Well, your Fix buddies will be thinking of you Monday and wishing you the best of luck in '08 for your health, if not your candidate. :)

Lyle, Sending positive thoughts your way from Iowa.... do keep us posted.

There's heavy talk that Edwards needs to win Iowa, while I agree with this, i think the same holds for Obama. His only chance in NH is the indy vote, which might slide to McCain if Obama doesn't look like he can win. These potential two losses for Obama makes SCarolina look unwinnable as well. I think people are undecided about Obama because they are not sure that he can win. A loss in Iowa and the subsequent snowball effect of no wins going into SC will only exemplify that effect.
I agree that Mitt has the best chance at this point on the GOP side, if Giuliani honestly thinks he can wait this out until FLA, conservatives (the goldwater kind-not the snake handling Tony Perkins kind) will go with Mitt because he's more like the typical moderate republican than Huck . . .
I will say that if somehow they(GOP)nominate Huck, Bloomberg must get in. He could take Hagel or Lieberman and really make a run. I could see a lot of republicans being scared off by Huck and certainly not voting for "HER"-Bloomberg would then seem to be the choice.

Clinton/Biden '08. Wait for it folks, cause it's coming...

"the facts be damned."

you mean the facts about making predictions about the future of electoral politics?

you Libs make me laugh.

never can distinguish between fact and opinion.

Rudy had $16M cash on hand on 9/30. this is the latest available data through the FEC. the only others close are:
Huck - 651K
McCain - 3.4M
Paul - 5.4M
romney - 9.2M
Thompson - 7.2M

compare to:
biden - 1.8M
Clinton - 50.4 M
dodd - 3.8M
Edwards - 12.3M
Kerry - 3.6M
Obama - 36M
richardson - 5.8M

Based on these numbers, who do you think can last until Feb 5th for the big payday? to me it looks like only one guy is in danger. and it's not John Kerry.

Its 3:30P in Austin and the temp is dropping - from 75F at lunch, it may go down below 40F tonight. My Secretary is starting Xmas right this red hot minute. I will be [sort of] working next week so I will ck in here most days. But I wish all of you Season's Greetings.

Not having heard from AggieMike makes me think that the wedding was a big success in its initial stage. I mean, if we did hear from him, that would be a bad sign, right?

Congrats, Mike.

KOZ said he agreed with Dick Morris, and I'm disagreeing with KOZ. Dick Morris isn't here, so there's no point in arguing with him. Though there's also little point in arguing with KOZ; he believes what he wants to believe, the facts be damned.

Blarg, I know you have defended KOZ from unfair attack in the past - and I feel the need to point out that he was quoting a scenario from Dick Morris, whom he does not trust.

first of all, there are no unfair attacks.

second - who in their right mind would trust Dick Morris?

but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

"rudy and hillary will not drop out. they have the money to go all the way."

big diff; HRC has money. Weekly Standard says Rudy does not.

lyle, I hope the shadow is a big nothing, but if it's "C", I wish you well. Keep us posted.

I think Obama will win if Clinton keeps letting Mark Penn speak for her (as on Hardball last week). It was stupid from the start of her campaign to have the global corporate PR kingpin - whose company has worked for everyone from McDonald's and Microsoft to Lockheed and Blackwater - determine both her message and her platform. She is the poll-driven candidate, and would be a poll-driven President, while Obama is clearly driven by his own morals.

http://internationalaurora.blogspot.com/2007/12/fat-cat-issue-or-why-barack-should-win.html

Colin, Merry and Happy to you too.

That other guy I was thinking of is named Jet Li, I think. I am just assuming that all Orientals in public positions support HRC, which is a prejudice I will have to work to overcome, I know.

Blarg, I know you have defended KOZ from unfair attack in the past - and I feel the need to point out that he was quoting a scenario from Dick Morris, whom he does not trust.

In my scenario of personal fantasy, MDH wins IA and SC and FL, McC wins NH and MI, and WMR wins NV. MDH runs second in NV, WMR runs second in IA and NH, FT runs second in SC, and RG runs second in FL. MI and FL have only half their delegates.

Depending on "winner-take-all" rules, this leads to a logjam.

I just cannot figure any way for McC to come out of it as the nominee.

Actually, the last time civil rights measures were taken up by congress it was the Dems who blocked the legislation.

another Dem lie easily exposed.

Do you Libs really need to fall back to smears and lies to win. Oh, I keep forgetting, you all are voting for Hillary. never mind.

You know Leuchtman, when you say >>>I'd personally vote for Obama, but he wouldn't carry my state (ND) and would be at a significant disadvantage in a strongly Democratic neighboring state (MN). No matter how much the chattering class wants to make it not so, there is still racial prejudice in America, and there has to be a percentage of Democrats that love the change platform that Obama stands for that has concerns about his GE electability">>> I must say, I have heard statement too many times. By believing it, you make it so.
If all the people who said they want to vote for Obama but there is still racial prejduce in the country would just go ahead and VOTE for him, he would win in a land slide.
Be brave - vote for the best candudate. The whole world will appluad us for finally being a smart nation.
Racists would probably not be voting the D ticket anyway, would they?

Colin: I may be needing some of Chuck's "Tears" pretty soon. Monday I have some more tests, Pulmonary, BG, and some others to determine if I can withstand surgery for a suspected big "C" nodule in my right chest. Mark: I think I can afford $5.00 on Hillary.

blarg - the media built dean up. live by the jackels, die by the jackels. Rudy has not been treated favorably by the media and is not expected to win any of the early battles. there will be no tearing down to do. If anyone, it will be Hillary who might be open to this. Followed by Huck, the current high flyer. all this daily jockeying is somewhat of a false phenomenon. Dean never REALLY was the front runner - his support was an inch deep, populated by the moonbats. Only the fawning press didn't get this. just like they don't get it now with Huck.

I am sticking to my regression to the mean approach. Take a large sample for the most accurate result.

crisis - fine, you have your methods and I have mine. as far as I know neither has been proven to be accurate. We shall see.

but if you think that having no money is a non-issue, you are not playing with all the important info. momentum is a feature of the stock market too. but one day, it ends. did you sell the day before? once that happens, underlying fundamentals return. rudy and hillary are blue chip candidates. the others are purely speculative. one only needs to consider the volatility to use a black-scholes model to analyze this. think about it.

In this case the beta (volatility - the most important variable in black-scholes)) for rudy and hillary is quite low, the others - all over the map. not a good sign for future returns and steady predictability.

The flood of stories about who won the early primaries will distract voters from who won the early primaries? Just keep telling yourself that.

This time 4 years ago, Howard Dean was the nationwide poll leader. Then he lost Iowa badly, and the media destroyed him. His nationwide campaign collapsed. Kerry and Edwards won 1st and 2nd in Iowa. They proceeded to win other early primaries and become the presidential and vice-presidential nominees. Based on Iowa performance, the frontrunner was crippled, and two lesser-known candidates won. Think about it.

since all of you long ago predicted that we (the R voters) would never go for Rudy and I am sure none of you could have imagined that he would still be viable two weeks out, you will forgive me if I don't concede that you Libs understand us better then we understand ourselves.

you love to misunderestimate us poor dumb yokels, time after time, right before the stunning loss on election day is handed to you.

Or perhaps it is wishful thinking, given the extremely poor qualities of your likely candidate.

hiccup - I haven't lost my sense of humor. I don't find drindl's pack of jackels funny. I think they are disturbed. the 1968 documentary brought the point home. you have a very dangerous and out of control aspect of your party that wishes America harm.

the animosity for clinton is based on personal foibles and dishonesty. the animosity for Bush is based on simply denying anything positive he does, regardless of national consequences.

Chris,
Can delegates to teh GOP convention vote "None of the above"? What chances does that candidate have?

Zouk, it's funny how you shred apart polls when they disagree with you but you'll use outdated and/or obscure polls to reinforce your points. Attempting to take polls from different states to try and predict who will be president is largely flawed because once the primaries and caucuses start, everything goes out the window. I base my predictions on where the candidates are now in the polls, combined with the general public attitude about their campaign, whether it's been heading up or down and how the candidate handles negative ads and criticism. So far Obama and Huckabee are both on upswings and both handle negative criticism very well.

"At the end of the day, I can't imagine any of the other candidates dropping out would endorse Romney, so if they do drop out they'll probably endorse AGAINST him (since they all hate him).

Posted by: freedom41 | December 21, 2007 07:33 AM"

--------------------

Tancredo dropped out yesterday and endorsed Romney. These are politicians, after all, and they will endorse the one who they believe is most electable.

crisis - I already explained why I don't buy the conventional wisdom of momentum. not enough time for the NYTimes to make thier objectives clear. and the flood of stories will distract everyone.

I need to consider which are the all or nothing states and which award partial delgates to be thorough. but Rudy will be around on Feb 5th and he will crush on that day and catch up to whoever may have been leading before then.
you can't run a national campaign on a shoestring from a single state in the midwest. Huck is a flash in the pan. As soon as the scrutiny kicks in, he is done for. It has already started. I know you Libs want him so he can be beaten, but we know that too.

Well, that confirms it. You're just making up any scenario you can that puts your chosen candidate as the winner. Keep counting those electoral votes and pretending that we have a single national primary. Alternately, look at how primary elections actually work, and realize that Rudy's strategy isn't going to work.

"Are you just making up a scenario that would allow Giuliani to win, whether or not it makes sense?"

Blarg, as usual, the lack of an answer provides an answer: yes.

Likewise in a head to head matchup of romney and rudy we have romney winning only the following states:
ID, IA, KS, ME, NV, NH, SC, UT
total EC votes = 4+7+6+4+5+4+8+5=43 out of 538. not looking good for romney.

Once huck lets out his "scream" and the balloon deflates, it will all be downhill for rudy and hillie.

but wasn't this obvious the entire time for any actual disinterested persons?

Zouk, you're not taking primary momentum into account. Giuliani is done for because he's going to lose all of the wind in his sails from every primary through South Carolina and by the time he gets to Florida, the momentum of other candidates will overtake him handily.

Clinton will be fine because she's going to place either first or second in nearly every primary. Even a third-placing in Iowa can be overcome by coming in first and second in the following polls, though if she loses Iowa and NH to Obama, he's going to ride the wave to the nomination.

It's going to be Obama vs. Huckabee. I hope it's Obama/Biden vs. Huckabee/McCain. And Obama/Biden wins.

Obama/Biden '08

Mark -- I suspect Seagal is for Huckabee as well. Huck has promised to help him lose some weight so he can get back into movies that don't go straight to DVD. Beyond that, I simply haven't seen enough serious reporting on who fading action stars are supporting. Personally, I'm outraged.

KOZ -- Should I take your last post to mean you've lost your sense of humor? Come now, that's always been your saving grace. If we can't laugh occassionaly at this stuff, god only knows how we'll survive the campaign to come -- which Karl Rove accurately labeled as FAR too long. See, I just agreed with Karl Rove. That ought to make you happy.

I will have limited internet access through the holidays. Hope everyone has a wonderful christmas and a happy new year -- although I suspect I will check back in before '08 is here.

clinton is ahead of Obama in every single state except id, ia and IL.

not a good spot for Barack.

"Hopefully Democratic primary voters will also give a thought to electability when they choose a candidate."

By which, you must be refering to Clinton I presume? The two-for-one candidate? Do you really believe they are electable again?? I feel sorry for you if that's the case, you must be as delusional as lylepink.

More evidence of why she shouldn't be #1 on the Line today from the waPo's own Eugene Robinson:

Her campaign can't keep Bill in check...

"The real problem comes when Bill goes off message. Campaigning in South Carolina on Monday, he said that Hillary's No. 1 priority as president would be to send a group of notables -- including himself and former president George Bush the Elder -- on an around-the-world mission to repair America's image.

As one might expect, Poppy didn't react well at all to the implication that his son, George Bush the Younger, had sullied that image. He issued a frosty statement saying that no one had ever talked to him about any such mission, and that anyway no such thing was needed, and that besides -- remember? -- he's a Republican.

Does anyone think that William Jefferson Clinton would confine himself to the bland, inoffensive pronouncements we've come to expect from presidential spouses?

I'd give him two weeks of ribbon-cuttings and ceremonial visits before he felt compelled -- and perhaps entitled -- to jump into policy. Clearly, the smart thing would be to give him a portfolio of his own rather than let him play hopscotch.

But how would anyone keep him on the reservation? How would anyone tone down his charisma? And what would happen if a new Clinton administration gutted one of the accomplishments of the old Clinton administration?

One potential case in point is the North American Free Trade Agreement, which Hillary says has to be modified. If she were to keep that campaign promise, would Bill just smile sweetly on his way to the next East Room reception?

Since the Constitution provides for one president, not two, could he find a way to live in a White House that wasn't all about him?"

Lart, what you say is accurate for the Democrats as well.

In mock general elections, the top three candidates usually fair the best in an inverse relationship to their standing. Edwards beats McCain, Huck and Giuliani by the most, then Obama, then Clinton.

But that's just because they're pandering to their bases right now. A quick analysis provides us with one guarantee - those who pander to their base the most also hurt their standing in a general election. But that's why the general election polling just flat out doesn't matter right now - the candidates we're seeing today are going to be different beasts come May, June or July.

Check out my latest blog on the "almighty post-primary partisan shift":

http://think.mtv.com/profile/BrianTRich/User/Blog/BlogView.aspx

Zouk: http://www.pollster.com/08-MI-Rep-Pres-Primary.php

There have been two polls in Michigan since the Rasmussen one you cite. Giuliani is in 3rd place in one, and 4th in the other. He's trailing significantly behind Huckabee and Romney in both.

The best December poll for Giuliani has him tied with Huckabee and Romney. You say that you expect them to get 1st and 2nd in Iowa (in some order), and do well in NH also. How does that translate to a win for Giuliani? Depending on the poll, he's either in a 3-way tie or solidly in 3rd place, and his opponents just won the early primaries. Seems like the best he could hope for was 2nd in Michigan, and even that's not a sure thing.

Why would Huckabee and McCain end their campaigns after winning Iowa and New Hampshire? Are you just making up a scenario that would allow Giuliani to win, whether or not it makes sense?

I urge you all to take a look at the polls across the country. the war of attrition is going to matter. If you consider all the states, you will find that hillary and rudy are overwhelmingly the favorites in the long run.

rudy and hillary will not drop out. they have the money to go all the way.

the good news is that rudy now has a 4 point edge over slick hillie. so the numbers still support my predictions.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

state by state analysis showing a clear edge for rudy and hillary.

Republican candidates seemed to be lined up in primary support in inverse proportion to their electability. McCain's the only one who might bring in any votes outside the "base". Fortunately the Republicans don't seem to be figuring that out.

Hopefully Democratic primary voters will also give a thought to electability when they choose a candidate.

hiccup_colin - Are you auditioning for a spot in drindl's pack of jackels?

for a normally fairly serious poster, you seem to have spiraled into the stooges and moonbats positions today.

there must be some vaccum that needs filling with the absence of drindl, loud and dumb and rufas. simple simon, can't you hold up your end of the moonbat-cave? there are others clamoring for a position in the pack of jackels.

thecrisis writes
"unfortunately [the GOP] has been mostly taken over by psychotic big government little privacy Evangelicals who spit in the face of fiscal conservatism and Constitutional rights. This is a bad, bad thing for Republicans."

crisis, its not so bad; its a temporary thing. The 2008 election will tear the GOP apart, after which someone untarnished by the 2008 race - say a Newt Gingrich - will rise to the occasion & rebuild the party based on a sound ideology. Working in their favor would be suffering not only a loss of the WH, but further losses in the House & Senate. The Dems will then overplay their hand, leaving a wide opening for the GOP to come in again as the party of reform, a la 1994. Then the Dems go through the same process the Repubs are. Its all just a cycle.

ok Willard, let's see if I have this straight:

Dad was "marching" while you were "hunting" and your dog had the runs? Is that it?

psdingo hit the nail on the head.

We have a phenomenal "cast" in the Democratic field. I would be perfectly content with Obama, Edwards, Clinton or Biden as president. Even Richardson would be a good choice, as he's got plenty of White House experience to go along with his phenomenal record as Governor. I have complete faith that none of these candidates would do anything that could seriously mess up this country; to the contrary, I think all of them, in different ways, would make our country great again.

On the other hand, I feel like the GOP is terribly misguided.

Giuliani was on the right path but he's taken up red herring wedge issues as his platform instead of embracing the core ideals that make him such an appealing candidate - his centrism.

McCain is the same, except he's chasing the hawkish dream of a global war on terror about five years too late and it cost him severely. Only now is he coming out of his pro-Bush mentality and surprise, his numbers are up again. If he can let the war mentality go and get back to domestic priorities, he'd be a great leader.

Huckabee is a great choice because I feel like he's rational and would embrace bipartisanship. I don't think he would make insane decisions (Bush) and then tell the entire population to **** themselves when they call him out on it. Huck is also running a brilliant campaign - lay low, shed off negative attacks and most importantly, force Romney, his main Iowa competition, to come running to Bush's side two weeks before the primary. Bush sucks and the voters will unleash their anger on anyone who comes running to defend him. Huck made Romney that man and Romney is going to bite the bullet on this one.

Romney would be a good leader but he is so screwed up in how he wants the public to view him that it's destroying his campaign. If he had stuck to the centrist ideals that got him elected in Mass., he would have been fine. But now the moderates don't know if he's going to turn into a Bible-thumping, card-carrying Evangelical or if he's going to go back to being rational and moderate any time soon. Conversely, the right wing doesn't know if he's for real with all of his bigotry and homophobia (they hope so!) or if he's going to go back to being moderate once the primaries are done.

Thompson is dead and is not surging, period.

Paul will do a great job at motivating the libertarian pockets within the Republican Party but unfortunately said party has been mostly taken over by psychotic big government little privacy Evangelicals who spit in the face of fiscal conservatism and Constitutional rights. This is a bad, bad thing for Republicans.

Colin, now that we are in silly season, who does Steven Seagal support?
Can we assume Jackie Chan and that really scary guy who whipped Mel Gibson and Danny Glover are for HRC?

Interesting bit of reporting by the Weekly Standard. In the midst of a piece speculation on how McCain might win the nomination, there's an aside on the Giuliani campaign's finances...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/CampaignStandard/default.asp#3635

"But there is another way for McCain to win. McCain finishes fourth in Iowa, but still ahead of the rapidly fading Rudy Giuliani. McCain will still get a small bounce out of that, and he's been climbing steadily over the last four weeks in New Hampshire. Rudy's decline - rumors abound that the Giuliani machine has run out of money - is a godsend to McCain in New Hampshire. Perhaps McCain can upset Romney and Huckabee there and start surging into Michigan and South Carolina."

We haven't talked finances much at all since learning about Giuliani's habit of staying in $1500/night hotel rooms on the campaign trail. If finances are tight, as the Standard speculates, can he run an effective campaign in FL & the Feb 5?

KOZ -- so, Rudy should get credit for reducing crime b/c...well...because you hate Bill Clinton? That's what I got out of your post. You seem to have a very time isolating causal variables. Troubling for a self-described scientist. Then again, hard to see how your manage to get your scientificating in since you post here all day at the exact same time every day.

Also, you never answered my question from the other day. Will you in fact cry if Rudy doesn't win? With a man-crush as big as yours, I have to think that would hurt pretty bad. Luckily your not a Huckabee supporter. As I noted before, any follower of the Huckabee/Chuck Norris campaign would not consider tears an option -- even though Chuck's can cure cancer.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

this is a very colorful site wih maps and poll results.

it seems all depends on when the huck-a-bubble bursts.

HAVE YOU SEEN THIS POLL???

Released Dec. 20th, it shows Hillary losing to ALL but 2 of the republicans! Eeeek! Dems pay attention, don't nominate a loser!

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1404&loc=interstitialskip

Blarg - we are talking about a two week period with a lot going on, including handicapping of the Dem race.

In Michigan, Rasmussen is the only pollster with current data. In a Dec. 4 survey, he had a three-way tie: Huckabee at 21 percent; Romney, 20, and Giuliani, 19. (McCain's at 8 percent.)

the Huck bubble will be burst before then leaving romney and rudy.

Iowa and NH will produce winners that end their campaigns the next day - Huck and McCain. there is not enough time between events to create a sense of momemtum with so much going on. and that doesn't even count the negative stories hillary will begin releasing after she starts losing; edwards love child and Obama's drug dealing will dominate several cycles of news.

My take on the primaries based on data not surmise (remember "leftists bloggers revealed for poltroons," KOZ?):

IA (3rd) - Huckabee with Romney a distant second
NH - Romney with McCain a close second
MI (15th) - Huckabee with Romney a distant second
NV (19th)- no data
SC (1/19) - Huckabee with Romney second
FL (29th) - too close to call; Rudy and Huckabee, neck and neck by that point in the calendar
NY (2/5) - Fuggedabout it! Rudy with Huckabee a distant second
CA (2/5) - too close to call; Rudy and Huckabee, neck and neck by that point in the calendar

Romney drops out; Rudy sends mafioso over to break Huckabee's kneecaps. Huckabee repels them with shotgun blasts of birdshot and rocksalt. Hilarity ensues!

OK, don't hold me to that last bit.

This is going to be an interesting next few days-I am going to try to see to it!

The Republicans are moving towards consensus, and I feel that what I have been trying to promote is about to occur.

It is the Dims who are facing a Crisis!

Billary is Centrist. The Party is about to run off the Loony Left Cliff though! This is what Slick is already addressing. It is unfortunate for what was JFK's Democratic Party, that there are TWO Socialist Camps, that are destined to combine. THEY will carry enough support to ussurp the level of Moderate support Billary has, and send JFK's Party to a Historical place!
When "Roadside" Obama, and Pretty Boy Hook-Up, they will be the choice of what will then be the Dimocrat Socialist Party. The Class War they will wage, will leave Moderates behind! Do they have the Numbers to defeat a Conservative Challenger?

Yes, and NO!

As Tancredo has already done, the trend should follow. Mitt Romney is by far the best Statesman. Huck, however, is no slouch. Dr. NO, McCain, Giuliani, Tancredo, and Thompson all have strengths that could be BEST utilized in Cabinet Posts!
Enter the TEAM!

Now, as Billary and Company get shafted, will they lean towards a TEAM, or towards a Movement?

Hey BILL! Not only do WE have a BIG TENT, it is tall enough for you to even stand under!

Come on IN!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD8vSST-bs8

Vote Ron Paul

Some posters never read the polls.
Ron Paul has almost no support except moneybags. Romney has the money and advertising sells. Rudy has a lot of baggage so is sinking like the Titanic. Huckabee has a base to build on. Thompson is a joke and has no chance. So Romney who has to buy votes, Giuliani has to shed votes and Huck is gaining votes as people get to know him. Huck is favorite but lacks money for big states. Giuliani has the issue and money but is fading, Romney is repugnant but has the money and Bushes to win big states as advertising pays off. Plus, Americans usually vote in the best looking candidate which gives Romney a plus. Huckabee is the most loved candidate which will overcome Romneys money and looks.

You're right, Judge, McCain is doing badly in South Carolina. It's almost as if SC voters knew something bad about him...

Zouk, I don't think your scenario is realistic. Giuliani doesn't lead the Michigan polls. There's no clear leader, but Huckabee and Romney are tied for first, with McCain beating Rudy in some recent polls. The winners of Iowa and New Hampshire (neither of whom will be Rudy) will get a boost in Michigan, probably at Rudy's expense. I don't see how Rudy can get 3rd or worse in the first 3 states and then make a comeback to win.

mom_in_metro writes
"Don't even pay any attention to the Register's endorsements. When was the last time they picked a winner ?"

Given their pick, I hope they live down to your expectation.

Mitt Romney:

1) His dad marched with Martin Luther King (depending how you define "with")

2) He is a life long hunter (depending on how you define "hunter")

3) is favored by CC to win GOP nomination (if by favored you mean "Somebody's got to win this thing in order to be fodder in the general election in November 2008")

In the daily Rasmussen poll, the top 5 are within 8 points of each other with no one hitting 20% support. Even Paul is only 13% behind at 6%. Maybe you need to go back to listing the republicans alphabetically, Chris.

I think the repulicans should change their convention rules to select VP first, then let the VP select the presidential candidate. This will allow the VP to save face and blame it on his running mate when they get whupped.

While I would love the spectacle of a modern-day convention actually picking a nominee, I have to agree with zouk on his general point that the GOP nominee will be decided beforehand, as usual.

Don't even pay any attention to the Register's endorsements. When was the last time they picked a winner ? They endorsed John Edwards, John Kerry won the caucus. They endorsed Bill Bradley, Al Gore won the caucus. They Backed Paul Simon in 1988, Gephardt won...such history of picking winners.

Thinking about Ds, I am still betting the field against HRC. But now the "field" does start to look like BHO. I suppose my fave D, JB, stays on life support with a 4th in IA.
I send him and McC money, just not enough for either of them, I suppose.
----------------------------------------
Some of you may recall the offhand 2006 remark attributed to Bloomberg's closest aide: Mayor MB is only interested if its HRC against not McC.

Chris your analysis is as usual very much on the mark.

And very entertaining.

However I believe you may be underestimating McCain - McCain is surging and it's hard to see how he will be slowed down by another candidate.

Romney appears to have a "glass ceiling" - he can get only so much of the Republican primary voters' electorate - then he just stops. The fact that he is from Massachusetts hurts him, as well as his flip-flopping and wishwashy abortion stand. If he was able to close the deal, it would have happened already.

That leaves McCain - there is a thought process going on right over in the mind of the electorate - slowly and steadily people are drifting over to McCain. I think he will have a stunning victory on February 5th.

Would somebody be donating a $1500 glass of not dry Bordeaux to you just to keep you happy at the keyboard? Nah.

My take on the primaries - stolen from Dick Morris, who may prove to be correct for the first time ever.

IA (3rd) - Huck
NH - romney or Mc cain close
thompson and 2nd tiers drop out

MI (15th) - Rudy with romney close
Huck drops out

NV (19th)- Guiliani and romney close

SC - romney and rudy

FL (29th) - Guiliani

At this point it will be romney vs rudy to be settled on Feb 5th in favor of Rudy.

the relative finshses will not be important, just that romney and rudy have not been eliminated and the others have.

Hey, NP2. Sorry for the dig about the double post. In truth, I knew the moment I didn't see Paul in the top 5 (I'd put him in front of Thompson), that there'd be a slew of comments.

As for gonville, it's Fairlington for where I live (I think Failington wouldn't sell many condos) and Blade for the team I support (Sheffield United--Go Blades!) I think you're a bit confused regarding write-ins. Not possible in caucauses and rarely a significant factor in primaries. I don't think Paul will ever crack the top 3 in the GOP. But like I said, I'm happy to chow down on those tasty bits and bytes I've been posting. Preferably with a 1947 Cheval Blanc.

BB

I'll give Rudy credit for every single good thing that happened in NYC while he was mayor and still say BFD. He's trying to make too big a leap to the White House.

One final comment about CC's hyperfocus on money comes from Huckabee himself: "If it was all about the money,then we might as well put the presidency up on eBay."

Oh, and McCain's numbers in SC stink and are only getting worse.
pollster.com/08-SC-Rep-Pres-Primary.php

(testing your theory bsimon)

spectator2 writes
"colin: have you heard about another, freakonomics-style, reason from the drop in crime?"

Speaking of freakonomics, the authors point out that the NYC crime data shows that the crime rate started going down before Giuliani took office. Dinkins had already hired extra cops, which had an impact on the crime rate - but the population didn't notice until after Rudy & his police commish took credit for focusing on the small crimes.

But, don't expect the Giuliani team to let facts get in the way of a campaign slogan.

Good analysis, Chris, but I think that you're wrong about when the Republicans will have a nominee--I think NONE of their candidates will have enough delegates to nail it down on their own, and they'll go into Minneapolis for a brokered convention (which is ironic, since the GOP prefers to have all decisions made by a small cadre of elite, out of public view, without taking into account the interests of the masses). Basically, it's the Republican politicking and methodology over the past 30 years finally coming back to bite them in the butt.

They've gained or maintained power by "divide and conquer", pounding in wedges for their short-term benefit without looking at the damage it does...it's finally dividing THEMSELVES, as you see in their business clique vs. their xenophobe clique on immigration, and the divisions between their candidates on the subject. They've spent YEARS accusing Democrats of being "soft on crime", and one of their leading candidates had a field day (so to speak) of pardoning convicted criminals who went on to do much worse. They've spent YEARS harping on their moral rectitude, and now they have at least three candidates who have had multiple marriages and at least one who had no problem spending taxpayer money to spend weekends with his girlfriend while he was still married. They've spent YEARS thumping their chests on how "wrong" deficit spending was...until they single-handedly decided it was fine (as long as it was THEM doing the spending), and ran up hundreds of billions in deficits...and incidentally, they want to max-out their credit card while they live and hand the credit card bill to their kids for payment after they die. And after skewering John Kerry for flipflopping during the last cycle, every single Republican candidate has changed positions so often since they decided to run that they flop around more than a Chinese snakehead fish pulled out of the Potomac.

In short, the GOP has demanded adherence to their party orthodoxy for so long, and has attacked Democratic opposition to GOP selfishness and self-centeredness for so long that they have painted themselves into a corner--NONE of their candidates can live up to the hero-worship that Republicans want to enable for their candidates. And the infighting, backbiting implosion that is in-process is the logical conclusion to politics that puts means above ends, blocks participation by more than a few well-informed elites, and operates more like a personality cult than a party with interests in seeing the ENTIRE nation succeed instead of a handful of well-connected or well-conforming lemmings.

The GOP has no ability to be pragmatic problem-solvers--which is what the vast majority of Americans want to see after the past 8 years of gross mismanagement and pettiness. It has finally come to the point where the Republican Party has no vision that appeals to the better nature of Americans, where all they have to offer is one adultering man with no ideas and poor morals, one mannequin from the despised Massachusetts who flipflops in hope that his party won't notice his religion, a preacher whose ignorance better suits him for a rural Southern pulpit than in an office requiring him to serve millions he doesn't understand--and chooses not to understand, a man whose service to his country is undisputed but has demonstrated that he's inconsistent and unstable, a man who is too lazy to get off his backside to show why he'd be good at the job he wants, and another man whose philosophy of destroying what he wants to lead attracts nothing but kooks and radicals who should rightfully be living in a third-world country to understand what they'd like to create within our borders.

But then again, hardcore Republicans ARE a bunch of kooks and radicals who'd rather complain about what they DON'T like and spout off about what they DON'T want other people doing, while they live behind their razorwire fences and worry about how they can keep being greedy S.O.B.s and shoot their neighbor's dog without being shot themselves. Oh. And don't forget that they'd prefer to turn the White House into a Christian fellowship hall with armed guards to keep out non-Christians (including those "devil-worshipping Mormons").

Is it any wonder that Hillary and Barack are doing so well? They're SANE *and* competent, and will remember that they are elected to serve ALL the people, not just a selected few. A brokered convention for the GOP, Chris...and they'll shortly be joining the Whig party after that.

Matlock, thank you for the Michigan perspective. There seem to be scenarios in which McC remains viable until the RN Convention, which seems from our posters to be where that nomination will be decided.

I do now think that for a brokered nomination, Thompson has appeal that crosses more boundaries among likely R delegates than do the others, including my fave R, Sen. McCain. I do not think FT is a "winner" in November, I merely think he pushes fewer hot buttons than any of the others, for the likely R delegates.

I am interested in R responses to this conjecture, of course.

hiccup_colin - taking credit from those who deserve it and rewarding it to hillary, who actually has very little experience is really not flying.

the Internet has made debunking Lib lies easy enough even for Dan Rather.

If you insist on awarding slick willie the prize for balanced budgets, you likewise have to give rudy credit - deserved or not.

Maybe you should stick to the "family values" thing after all. but there is that clinton thing still. too bad.

It's hard to count McCain out with his solid numbers in NH and SC. Huckabee might not be a favorite in those locales.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

What is wanted from the MSM is more reality checking of perceptions to help us voters check candidates. Figurative language like flip-flopping, hardline stance, and "up to the job" are excellent descriptors of perceptions that blur real distinctions accessible only through painstakingly literal reports. This may well be outside the Fix's defined scope, but is absolutely the job of general op-ed columnists. For example, Romney like Kerry is derided as a flip-flopper, but is the equation illuminating of anything other than what ails the punditry?

colin: have you heard about another, freakonomics-style, reason from the drop in crime? the start of legalized nationwide abortions in 1973. Many underclass criminals simply were never born.

I'm still waiting for Rudy to explain why his policies regarding taxicab medallions, hot dog vendors, and squeegee men make him the best choice for president.

It's a profound commentary on the state of our political culture that Huckabee's ad is the controversial one. Huckabee promises nothing, Hillary everything.

The contrast between the Candidate of God and the Candidate of Goodies should remind everyone of P. J. O'Rourke's timeless book Parliament of Wh*res.

"I have only one firm belief about the American political system, and that is this: God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat," wrote the indispensable O'Rourke.

"God" he explained, is "a stern fellow, patriarchal rather than paternal and a great believer in rules and regulations. He holds men strictly accountable for their actions. He has little apparent concern for the material well being of the disadvantaged. ... God is unsentimental. It is very hard to get into God's heavenly country club."

P. J. continues: "Santa Claus is another matter. ... He's nonthreatening. He's always cheerful. And he loves animals. He may know who's been naughty and who's been nice, but he never does anything about it. He gives everyone everything they want without the thought of a quid pro quo."

"Santa Claus is preferable to God in every way but one," O'Rourke concluded. "There is no such thing as Santa Claus."

P.J.'s right. But you won't be hearing that from Hillary this holiday season.

Of course, the crime rate went down nationally at the same time it went down in NY -- and continued to decline for more than a decade. You know, b/c the economy boomed -- and that's the single biggest factor in crime reduction. But nah, must have been all Rudy.

Also, fighting crime as a mayor is EXACTLY like directing our country's foreign policy. Which must be why Rudy is winning in all of the early states and his national poll numbers keep improving...wait...

Sunday, December 20, 1998, was a good day for headlines

Who would have thought that the wooden Al Gore, staring out from this picture in sullen apprehension, would re-make himself as the demiurge of an international hysteria? Stiff-necked, slow of speech, but steadfast in his conceits and seething with smothered resentments, he was long a kernel.

Will environmentalist-cult status and a Nobel Prize release him from the agony of this photograph? No, there he is, and will be forever, tethered to the smarter, sexier, ruthless immoralist-in-chief, like an ornament on his keychain.

The photo in this sense is a prophecy of The Daily Kos, the hate blogs, the Dean Scream, and the Moveon.org politics of personal derangement. But the mood now seems to be shifting again. The sun of Barack is shining over Iowa and the grimacing clouds of the Angry Left appear to be losing strength. But before we decide that deep down we all like and respect each other, let's raise our annual toast to the brave House Republicans of 1998 who, in a moment of inspiration, said, "Enough is enough," and impeached America's most lubricious president.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTM1ZjEzOTBkYjA3OTQxMzRmYjZjMjBhMWY2NmUwNjI=&w=MA==

I don't understand it. If Hilary Clinton makes a comment that she saw her father march with Dr. King, and when it turns out that didn't happen she says she saw it "figuratively" her campaign would be over. If Williard says it, it all but gets ignored?

I don't understand it. If Hilary Clinton makes a comment that she saw her father march with Dr. King, and when it turns out that didn't happen she says she saw it "figuratively" her campaign would be over. If Williard says it, it all but gets ignored?

Sid F.

I don't understand it. If Hilary Clinton makes a comment that she saw her father march with Dr. King, and when it turns out that didn't happen she says she saw it "figuratively" her campaign would be over. If Williard says it, it all but gets ignored?

Reader Michael Ladenson writes:

Here's why I support Giuliani, and it has nothing to do with his response to September 11:

Rudy Giuliani eliminated street crime in New York City. The conventional wisdom said it couldn't be done, and the reasons are suspiciously similar to what the same bloviators say about the war against Islamofascism today:

1. There actually isn't a problem; if you think it's a problem, you're a racist.

2. Okay, there is a problem, but it's because of white racism; to try to eradicate the problem using barbaric force without solving the root causes is useless.

3. Okay, force can in some sense solve the problem, but unless you bend over backwards to accommodate the rights and liberties of your assailants, you're creating a climate of fear - essentially a dictatorship.

Giuliani may be a rank egotist. He may have treated his own family like a monster (instead of treating them with respect, like President - well, you know who). I don't particularly care. Where it counted, he showed the toughness and wisdom to ignore the conventional wisdom; to disregard the epithets hurled at such failed law-and-order mayors as Ed Koch and Frank Rizzo; and to do exactly what he said he would do. It is the most breathtaking political achievement of anyone in the race.

For the objections outlined above are essentially a form of western self-hatred, and they have come tumbling out to cede the fight to our enemies. Giuliani's triumph over such nonsense in New York is enough qualification for me.

http://frum.nationalreview.com/

WOLFEBORO, N.H. -- Former President Clinton says his wife is a "world-class genius" when it comes to improving the lives of others.

Clinton stuck mostly to familiar themes in two hour-long appearances Thursday, describing at length what he views as the nation's biggest challenges. Nearly 15 minutes into his first speech, he added almost as an afterthought that "everything I'm saying here is my wife's position, not just mine."

Bill Clinton, his ego knows no bounds.

gee, zouk -- rudy's christmas tree ad talks about all the presents he's going to give to the americn people too -- he even has Santa Claus with him -- the ultimate liberal!

In Arkansas, Mr. Huckabee was investigated by the state ethics committee at least 14 times. Most of the complaints centered on what appears to be a serial disregard for government rules about gifts and outside financial compensation. He reported $112,000 worth of gifts in one year alone, nearly double his $67,000 salary.

Five of the 14 investigations resulted in admonishments: Two for failing to report gifts (one was later overturned), the other three for some $80,000 that Mr. Huckabee and his wife received but failed to initially report. One of these admonishments involved a $23,500 payment to Mr. Huckabee from an opaque organization called Action America that he helped found in 1994 while lieutenant governor, and that was designed to coordinate his speeches and supplement his income.

Mr. Huckabee caused an uproar when he used a $60,000 account intended to maintain the governor's mansion for personal expenses, including restaurant meals, dry cleaning and boat supplies. He also faced a lawsuit over his assertion that $70,000 worth of furniture donated to the mansion was his to keep. Sprinkled among all this are complaints about the misuse of state planes and campaign funds, mistakes on financial disclosure forms, and fights over documents related to ethics investigations.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/kstrasselpw/?id=110011021

Must be an Arkansas thing.

" Romney has came out strong now on immigration."

I just had to comment on this. This puts Romney's biggest problem in a nutshell.

Romney actually endorsed McCain's immigration proposals back in 2005. Now he's "strong" on immigration? A lot of people think he's "strong" on focus groups and polling and is more concerned about positioning than policy. A lot of Romney's supporters fully back Romney's positions on the issues -- but they're not entirely convinced that Romney does!

But if you take Hillary's ad remotely as seriously as many are taking Huckabee's, you're left with a disturbing glimpse of not just Hillary's politics but her vision of government. Her programs, which would cost billions and billions of dollars by even the most generous accounting, are simply "gifts" for the American people. No sacrifice, no cost, no strings attached at all - save the price of your vote.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=hillarys_holiday_hogwash&ns=JonahGoldberg&dt=12/21/2007&page=2

dijetlo writes
"Guliani is more likely to end up as an inmate of a federal penitentiary than the head of the federal government, not that that would disqualify him for the leadership of the free world as far as the Rs' are concerned."

That would be funny if it weren't true.

Romney is Mr. Clean? You couldn't say the same for the family chariot after one fateful trip.

sometimes they do drown...

With McCain fighting whispered rumors, as he had to in 2000, the Republican race seems to be turning into an attrition contest that leaves Huckabee and Romney as the Mr. Cleans of the party. The question is: Do they want a President without human frailty? They tried that with George Bush.

http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2007/12/republican-perfection_21.html

-"Making detainees think they are about to drown is unacceptable".

-"Then we should keep them out of your car, Senator Kennedy".

Can't go a day without peanut gallery insults can you zouk. Kim and i will keep you in mind for christmas you fascist sell-out traitor you.

I will not inflict zouk treatment on this site. Do your thing fascist. Lie spin and discredit