Hillary Clinton has informed her advance staff that she will make an announcement in New York tomorrow, and the staffers have been told they can either come to New York with her for the announcement or they can go back home now, according to news reports and sources in the campaign.

Clinton's only chance to secure the nomination now is to convince Super Delegates to come over to her side, which would require a much harder sell and renewal of fierce confrontation with the Obama campaign. Clinton's campaign has apparently decided such a fight and public confrontation between the candidates is still unlikely to succeed, and would only hurt her political career and her standing in the party.

Tom Vilsack, co-Chair of Clinton's campaign, told the Associated Press yesterday:

"It does appear to be pretty clear that Senator Obama is going to be the nominee. After Tuesday’s contests, she needs to acknowledge that he’s going to be the nominee and quickly get behind him."

There is a chance that some kind of deal is being finalized behind the scenes with the Obama campaign, and one source suggests that people should prepare themselves for the potential of a shocking announcement from the Obama campaign soon -- that Hillary Clinton will be his running mate. It is a badly kept secret that Bill Clinton has in fact been working behind the scenes to secure the slot on the ticket for Senator Clinton, and perhaps he has called in enough favors that, mixed with the potential ugliness of a dust-up at the Democratic National Convention and the fact that Clinton did secure a popular vote majority and came so close to getting half the delegates, that Obama's campaign feels they cannot afford to pass her over.

Early reports about emails from Clinton's campaign telling advance staff their positions in the campaign are at an end have mostly suggested it is simply a sign the campaign is letting go of unnecessary staff and expenses, additional word from campaign sources indicate the expectation that Clinton's remarks after the voting is over will be more than just another post-primary speech. Clinton has asked major donors and supporters to attend her speech Tuesday night, another signal that this will be a significant speech.

In South Dakota, Bill Clinton said that today "may be the last day I'm ever involved in a campaign of this kind." Bill Clinton's comments, taken together with the messages to staffers, giving the speech in New York and asking major donors and backers to attend, and comments from staffers including the co-Chair of the campaign that the race is over, send a strong message that Hillary Clinton is about to withdraw from the race.

If Obama wants to make the "elitist" label stick, he is doing a marvelous job. Consider his remarks about McCain's and Clinton's suggestions that the gas tax be suspended during summer months. Obama says it wouldn't be worth it, because it would only save an average of $30 per family and is simply a short-term solution.

Let's try some simple math. Summer is about three months long. Divide $30 by three, and you get $10 per month.

For people who actually work for a living, unlike Senator Obama (and I don't just mean that as a slight against Democratic politicians, I mean it even more literally, in light of Obama's tendency to skip work), $10 a month can in fact make a difference.  You can buy a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread, a carton of eggs, and a five-pound bag of sugar with that $10. That's an extra week's worth of staple grocery items at a time when prices for such goods are on the increase, and if you are a parent with mouths to feed, an extra week's worth of those groceries every month is very helpful.

Or that $10 could be seen as a little government subsidy for the energy bill each month, during summer months when energy bills run higher. A ten percent subsidy on the first $100 of your electric or gas bill can be a big help for a working-class or poor family.

How about using the $10 for an extra three or four gallons of gas, to get to work or pick up the kids from school or take your family to the park? I don't know anybody who would turn down $10 per month in free gasoline, do you? Look at it that way, and it doesn't seem so worthless after all, does it?

An extra week's worth of groceries each month, a subsidy for your energy bills, or three free gallons of gas every month -- that's what the gas tax suspension equates to for working and poor families in this country, and that is why this simple proposal can be a helpful little short-term friend for a lot of households. When people are already struggling to support their families on just a little bit, every extra little bit helps.

Obama and others like him dismiss the importance of such things, precisely because of their contempt for the average family. Already displayed through things like his dismissal of gun ownership and church attendance as things embraced only by bitter rednecks, Obama's elitist attitudes and utter failure to relate to working Americans is further clarified by his new opposition to helping those same Americans buy more food, more gas, and pay their bills. Maybe someone needs to point out to him that he can use his own $10 a month in savings as a government subsidy for pricey arugula.

One of Obama's criticisms of the gas tax suspension is that it would in fact increase demand and thus not help bring down prices. Well, the first rather obvious problem with this snotty attitude is that it pretty much debunks Obama's own suggestions, like the plan to stop buying oil for the strategic reserve. If there is more oil on the market, the price would go down, right? Oops, wrong, since increased demand would drive the price higher again, remember? Anything that brings down the price inherently would raise demand, and increased demand is at the heart of Obama's claim that prices won't drop.

Obama also keeps repeating the empty rhetorical line that gas tax suspension is just a short-term solution when what we need are long-term solutions. So, it appears that Obama doesn't think that sometimes short-term relief is necessary while bratty elitists work out their long-term solutions. When did Senator McCain (or Senator Clinton) state that the gas tax suspension is the only plan? Why does Obama falsely pretend it's an "either-or" situation? Because he's disingenuous, he can't relate to the day-to-day problems working people face, and he pretty much looks down his nose at and resents any idea that isn't his own, that's why.

(And apparently, Obama must've forgot that in fact, gas tax suspension was his idea previously. Yeah, that's right -- he voted for a gas tax holiday THREE TIMES.)

People are hurting right now. They will be hurting more this summer, as gas prices and energy bills and food prices rise even more. Yes, obviously we need long-term solutions, but in the meantime something should be done to help people get by while the grand schemes for the future are debated and studied endlessly. The gas tax suspension is a simple idea that admittedly brings short-term, moderate relief, but that is something a lot of families would benefit from in the here and now. The here and now, however, is someplace that Obama doesn't seem to live in. He resides on some alternate plain of existence where he transcends the problems and shortcomings of us mere mortals, where change, the future, the inadequacies of those he seeks to rule, and the just massive size of his own great big brainy brain are the only concepts he has time to contemplate.

Me? I'll take the $10 a month, thank you. I work for a living, and I've got bills to pay.

Okay, a crazy idea has occurred to me. But just bear with me, and before you dismiss it entirely, consider the points supporting the idea. First, let's look at where the delegate count stands, and where it might hypothetically be in three weeks. And I'm not necessarily ENDORSING this idea, mind you – I'm pointing out something that perhaps nobody has considered, but which I increasingly think makes some sense and isn't at all impossible. If I've gotten any numbers wrong here (I'm working from memory and haven't had nearly enough caffeine today), I think it is only by a tiny bit and not enough to change the ultimate point, but I will try and make any corrections that are needed if I notice them/am informed of them. So this is kind of off-the-cuff, but I think the overall premise is entirely sound. Okay, enough qualifiers, here's the idea...

Mike Huckabee currently has 234 delegates.  Mitt Romney has 286 delegates. Ron Paul has 16 delegates. There are another 123 unpledged RNC members, 26 of whom currently support John McCain and 3 of whom currently support Huckabee. McCain has 724 delegates.

Virginia will give 63 delegates (winner take all), Maryland will divide 37, and DC will divide 19.  Texas will divide 140, Ohio 88, Wisconsin 40, Mississippi 39, Rhode Island 20, Vermont 17 (winner take all). So consider this potential delegate count, with Huckabee's number first and McCain's second:

Virginia – 63, 0
Maryland – 15, 22
DC – 8, 11
Texas – 90, 50
Ohio – 30, 58
Wisconsin – 15, 25
Mississippi – 24, 15
Rhode Island – 7, 13
Vermont – 17, 0

That would be 269 delegates for Huckabee, 194 for McCain.

That brings Huckabee to 503 delegates, and McCain to 918.  Add the current support from RNC delegates, and Huckabee has 506 to McCain's 944.

Now what if Romney throws his delegates to Huckabee, and Paul likewise releases his and they went to Huckabee? Huckabee would then have 805 delegates, just 139 behind McCain, three weeks from now. If Huckabee caught up that much to McCain, then there is a chance he could persuade additional RNC delegates to openly support him, so if he could get just one-third of the remaining uncommitted RNC delegates to state their support, he would garner an additional 34 delegates, bringing his total to 839 to McCain's 944. McCain's lead would essentially have vanished, with only 105 delegates separating them. What implications would this have for the remaining states? The momentum would clearly be with Huckabee, plus Romney's support would likely further increase Huckabee's chances of overtaking McCain. He'd need to beat McCain by a margin of about 3.5 to 2.4 for the remaining delegates.

Even without any of Ron Paul's delegates, which is admittedly the more likely scenario, Huckabee would still be in very good shape to challenge McCain if he is able to pull out the primary/caucus wins as noted above for the next three weeks, and those margins are not at all impossible. The key, though, would be using these victories (and McCain's proximity to 1,191 delegates) to convince Romney to throw his delegates to Huckabee in order to stop McCain. But could he do this?

I think he can. For one thing, previous contributors to Romney are increasingly gravitating towards Huckabee. Further, there is still strong anti-McCain sentiment among many conservatives. Romney could be pressured by both groups to be the man who helped stop McCain, and would also serve as "king maker" (to use an already overused phrase, if you'll forgive me) against the presumptions of the mainstream media. Finally, there is one thing Huckabee could do to add what might be the final straw to convince Romney to give his support: name Romney as his running mate. Some will balk and say there's no way Romney would accept, even if Huckabee were to offer it. I disagree strongly, for several reasons. Put aside considerations about their personal feelings towards each other for a moment, and just consider the technical facts first. I'll get to the personality issue momentarily.

First, Huckabee's own credentials with evangelicals would mitigate the remaining doubts about Romney's own faith, something Romney may not have been able to overcome on his own. Second, adding someone strongly endorsed as a fiscal conservative would balance out opposition to Huckabee among some elements of the party, while Huckabee's own social conservative credentials would balance out concerns about Romney's social views and record. Both have records as governors from different regions, each record with it's own strengths that in fact help balance out one another's weaknesses. Regionally, Huckabee's strong support across the South and in parts of the Mid-West would perfectly blend with Romney's strong support in the West and key parts of the North East. Finally, if Romney were to go ahead and first make a final large cash donation to his own campaign for the nomination, then once he threw support to Huckabee and joined him in announcing their intended ticket together, he could turn over his remaining campaign funds to the GOP for the general election campaign, another huge bonus in light of the Democratic Party candidate's currently bulging coffers.

Now, could the two men even overcome their apparent dislike for one another, for this situation to even be thinkable? Of course they could, if they put concern for their country and their party first. Many tickets have featured men who, during the primaries, strongly disliked and attacked one another. Anyone remember two guys named Reagan and Bush? The most important thing is whether they think such a team-up would make them the likely nominees, and I dare say that it would almost assure their victory. For Huckabee, he must decide whether he would rather go it alone, hope to overtake McCain despite the long odds (even if he does remarkably well in the remaining contests, he would still need Romney's delegates to have a real chance of victory), or hope that he does well enough that McCain is "VP-grateful" that Huckabee helped stop Romney and (by remaining in the race) helped keep Romney from reentering the race later. Romney, for his part, must hope Huckabee does so amazingly well that he someone manages to keep McCain from reaching 1,191 delegates, that the convention is up in the air, and that somehow a miracle takes place where Romney emerges as the guy everyone decides to get behind.

Or perhaps Romney thinks that McCain will get the nomination, and just hopes McCain fails to win the general election. If that happens, Romney would be well positioned for a run again in four years. The problem for him there is that Huckabee will also be well positioned, and perhaps much better positioned since he is the "last man standing" against McCain. Further, much of his support was honestly at least in part from people rallying to someone they hoped could stop McCain, and that won't be the case in 2012. Finally, there's the general sense that will surround him that even with all his money and slick campaign and the support of major figures like Rush Limbaugh, he was still unable to stick it out. He needs to recognize that right now, several factors have aligned in his favor that may not exist in the future – he has that anti-McCain support, the sense of "failure" isn't dominating his persona right now, he would be seen by many as "saving" the party, he has the actual power in hand to make it happen, and he is young enough that he won't face the age issue if he were running for the presidency in 8 years as a sitting VP (itself a much better position from which to run, obviously).

The impact of such a Romney decision, the momentum it would add to Huckabee's current momentum, and the likelihood of stealing from McCain the "rallying" of the party, would almost guarantee that an announced Huckabee-Romney ticket would essentially be caught up to McCain by the end of March, and would overtake him in the remaining primaries. If Romney were to join Huckabee on an announced ticket now, there is an even stronger likelihood that Huckabee would perform even better in the coming state votes and they could in fact secure the nomination by the end of March with a little luck and a lot of hard campaigning together.

When all is said and done, perhaps this scenario isn't as likely as many other potential outcomes. However, it is possible, and is one way that would likely guarantee a Huckabee victory while putting Romney back into the battle and on the ticket as well. So when considering all of the possible ways the nomination could play out, whether you are happy with how it's playing out, whether you are a Romney supporter who is saddened by his departure from the race, what you think would be the best solution for our party and for the general election, and ultimately what you think would be the best thing for our country, just keep this scenario in mind. Huckabee and Romney together would add up to enough delegates to immediately be in shooting distance of McCain, would likely be propelled by momentum into the lead in most remaining states, likely winning most of them and garnering enough delegates to catch up to and then pass McCain. Yes, a crazy idea… but also one that would probably work.

I've personally already said our party should rally behind a ticket with both McCain and Huckabee, that the two men should publicly discuss this and that the party needs to openly call for them to join together. I say this since it would take much less to accomplish, would immediately end the nominating process and allow the party to unite, and to be blunt these are the two candidates I personally like most and would want on our ticket. I've made no bones about my support for Huckabee's candidacy, nor my personal views about Romney. But come November, the issue is what is best for our country, for our party, and what will most likely stop the takeover of America by a leftwing Democratic ticket. I am unwilling to sit by and watch four years of all our accomplishments being undone, watching abortion-on-demand as the body count stacks up, watching terrorists follow our troops home right into our heartland. We must not, we CANNOT allow that to happen. I am willing to support a ticket with Huckabee as VP, but honestly would still prefer one with him as our Presidential nominee.

So I would like to see the question of whether there's much chance of a ticket with Huckabee and McCain, because if not then I think it will become time for Huckabee's campaign to consider contacting Romney. And I think Romney should likewise reach out to Huckabee. McCain will NOT be calling Romney – I think that is a pretty safe assumption. The most obvious answer, then, increasingly looks like the one outlined above. The most obvious question, though, is whether they can overcome personal differences and unite to pull it off, if necessary...

The recent attacks on Senator John McCain by supposedly conservative commentators have reached a new and disgusting low.

Mitt Romney's remarks disparaging Bob Dole were bad, but at least he offered a veiled "I didn't insult him but I'm sorry" apology. Now, however, we have Laura Ingraham calling Dole a "four time loser" while Ann Coulter proclaims she will campaign on behalf of Hillary Clinton. Rush Limbaugh said McCain's campaign of "dishonest spin" about what Dole said, accusing McCain of "manipulating Bob Dole", and joked about putting Dole's letter on ebay for auction. The entire story is shameful.

So it's not enough to denounce longtime, dependable conservatives like Senator McCain -- now they have to insult another longtime, dependable conservative like Bob Dole, and announce in unison their intentions to either not vote at all in the election or to actively campaign for the Democratic Party nominee.

When considering who is really responsible for stabbing our party in the back, of attempting to wreck the conservative movement, there can no longer be any room for doubt -- these commentators, with their insulting attacks on great men like McCain and Dole and their intentions to refuse to support our party or actively work against it, have announced to every listener and every conservative and every Republican across this nation that they have formally joined the enemy camp.

It was bad enough when they all decided to promote a self-proclaimed liberal like Romney for the GOP nomination. They helped him misrepresent his own record and distort the record of McCain, Huckabee, and other Republicans. They helped him dodge the facts about his serial flip-flopping. They attempted to anoint him as the heir to Ronald Reagan's legacy, when in fact he went to Massachusetts and proceeded to represent almost everything Ronald Reagan stood against (I won't recite it all again here, as I've already blogged about the details in an early blog entry you should read if you haven't already!).

After failing in their attempts to dupe conservative voters into selecting an outright, self-proclaimed social and economic liberal who would hijack our party, they now decide to smear and denounce real conservative candidates and to try and convince their listeners to work against the Republican Party. Well, while I strongly disagreed with their support for and attempts to mislead on behalf of Romney, I still respected them as fellow conservatives. Their recent actions, however, go beyond merely endorsing a candidate who declared himself on public television to be more liberal than Ted Kennedy.

There is an arrogance in the tone and methods employed by these commentators, when they not only denounce the beliefs and choices of the rest of us "unwashed masses" of conservative voters -- we have failed to listen to them and do their bidding, and now they lash out at us by threatening to actively work against us if we choose someone they did not anoint. They talk as if the "Party" is just the official leadership, when in fact we as citizens and voters and proud conservative Americans are the Republican Party. Ingraham, Limbaugh, and Coulter are not declaring their treason against party officials -- they are declaring treason against us.

What else to call their proclamations that they would rather have a President Hillary Clinton? Say that out-loud to yourself. President Hillary Clinton. Then remember, these commentators think that is a preferable option to Republican President John McCain.  Rush Limbaugh says McCain has "stabbed his own party in the back" -- a fitting accusation, but for McCain's new detractors, not McCain himself.

This is a follow-up to my last blog entry, "What You Aren't Hearing About South Carolina".

 

With just one more primary left in January, John McCain has staged a political comeback that few people expected. Likewise, Mike Huckabee was relegated to the third tier of "also-ran" candidates and almost nobody anticipated his stunning move into second place in the contest. Now, however, both of these underestimated men have shown the strength and determination to face down difficult odds and rise to the top of the Republican field.

 

I personally believe that McCain's victory in New Hampshire, and the strong showing of McCain and Huckabee in South Carolina, signal an end to the "wide-open" nature of the race and create essentially a two-man contest between John McCain and Mike Huckabee. January will end with McCain and Huckabee winning all of the most important states while Romney grabbed a few states with little or no bearing on the eventual outcome, with the single exception of  his home state of Michigan. With McCain and Huckabee surging in national polls and in key states that demonstrate electabilty and regional strength, we will likely see Thompson dropping out of the race (having remained in primarily to help McCain in South Carolina by pulling votes from Huckabee) and a further surge in McCain and Huckabee's numbers from Thompson's supporters. Romney has not gained the traction or enough support to do more than hope for a miracle on Super Tuesday, and will probably have to drop out after that big day.

 

The party can ill afford a long, inconsistent slug-fest among our best candidates, which will weaken them all and could handicap the eventual nominee by both bruising him and the potential vice presidential picks, and by widening divisions and resentments among our voting coalition. So the emergence of a two-man race at this point is a very good thing indeed, especially since I think the two top candidates will very likely share the ticket in November.

 

Such a combination brings strong advantages that should be immediately evident. It weds foreign policy conservatives and social conservatives while providing congressional experience with governing experience, not to mention the obvious advantages it brings in the South. Among conservative voters, these two candidates cover the bases on the issues most important to conservative voters while appealing to independents, plus opening doors on some other issues not traditionally considered viable territory for conservatives or at least usually available among only a narrow constituency – education and the environment, and to some extent economic disparity (Huckabee is often criticized for his concerns about this, but the truth is that a significant segment of voters, and of conservative voters, are worried about their economic situation and feel left behind, and they deserve to have their concerns represented).

 

If conservatives will overcome their lingering anger with McCain and Huckabee on the immigration issue (a topic that won't help Democrats in the general election, so this is only a problem if it dampens Republican voter turnout), the only real barrier that still exists will be removed from their road to the nomination as a ticket that would be unbeatable in the general election. McCain represents more than any other candidate the heart of Republican foreign policy and security policy. Huckabee represents more than any other candidate (for years, in fact) the heart of Republican social values. McCain has worked in Congress and knows what it takes to get an agenda accomplished, he has reached across the isle to get things done, and has passed important legislation. Huckabee has governed, he has ran an executive branch and had to work both with and against a legislature. Their shared experience is precisely what American needs.

 

Those who say these two men are not fiscally conservative enough are mistaken. McCain's record speaks for itself, and he has over these many years been a consistently reliable conservative. The fact that he has on a few occasions allowed his concern for the best interests of our nation to intrude into his consideration of a couple of massive tax breaks, because he was unsure if it would actually help or might not be prudent or responsible at the time, doesn't mean he's not fiscally conservative. It means he honestly assesses whether there are times here and there when a huge tax cut might need to wait just a bit, for the interest of our nation, or whether the way it is being done might not be the best way at that time. But this is an exception, not a rule, to McCain's voting, and his real record is fiscally conservative, whatever his detractors might dishonestly claim about him right now in their attempts to force Mitt Romney upon our party.

 

Mike Huckabee's record has also been attacked as fiscally liberal, and again this is disingenuous at best. The same people claiming a Huckabee nomination would destroy our party would've apparently said the same thing about Ronald Reagan back in 1980, I guess. See, the entire point of conservatism is small government that cuts spending and sends as many decisions and as much funding of programs as possible back to the states. States should, as often as possible, be the ones making those determinations and then creating the sources of funding if it's needed (rather than coming to Washington with their hands held out). As a governor, you must make decisions and enact programs and legislation in ways that are different from how you might decide and what you'd be willing to enact from the White House. This is an entirely consistent viewpoint about the role of states and federal government, and anyone who understands these processes or the actual philosophy of our party knows this. So again, if the people distorting the truth about Huckabee's record now had been around in 1979 and 1980, they'd have done their best to keep Ronald Reagan out of the White House.

 

John McCain and Mike Huckabee deserve to share the Republican ticket in November, and it will be one of the strongest tickets our party has put forward in many decades in terms of experience, strength, representing our base, and having a clear and compelling vision for our nation in the future.

 

Both men also bring a special voice to the things they represent, too, something that has been missing even among some of the best conservatives in government: when McCain and Huckabee speak about foreign policy or social values, their voices sound like our party's conscience. Many Republicans will talk about abortion, or about how to conduct war -- but Mike Huckabee reminds us that life doesn't begin at conception and end at the birth-canal, and that being pro-life sometimes has to mean providing prenatal care for an illegal immigrant to save her baby; and John McCain reminds us that when we consider whether or not to torture terrorism suspects in the course of a war we simply cannot afford to loose, it's not about who "they are", it's about who WE are and who we want to be as a nation. Huckabee speaks about morals and faith as a former preacher, McCain speaks about moral certainty in how we conduct war as a veteran and former POW victim of torture. I don't think we should forget or underestimate this role as voices of conscience for conservative principles, because it is something that many of us now realize has been perhaps missing or forgotten for a while, and we welcome it's return.

 

Our candidates, our GOP ticket for the general election, and our next President and Vice President of the United States, are in front of us now. I hope and pray that we realize it, and that as a party we move forward as one.

John McCain's win in South Carolina was no doubt huge for his campaign, and will help secure his position as the front-runner in our party.

Several prominent conservative celebrities and pundits have been singing the praises of Mitt Romney, saying he is the true conservative in the race for the nomination and that he more than anyone else embodies the Reagan legacy. This chorus of pro-Romney voices is growing larger by the week, and was given a bump by Romney's win in Michigan. Well, with all due respect to these usually dependable conservative pundits and voices, they are absolutely 100% wrong. Mitt Romney's real record tells us many things, but being a conservative and the heir to Ronald Reagan's legacy are not among them.

Let's start by looking at Romney's much-trumpeted record as a businessman.

Mitt Romney's time in private industry was mostly spent in leveraged buyouts -- including using junk bonds to finance buyouts and hanging out with indicted junk bonds guru Michael Milken -- some of which put large numbers of people out of jobs and caused bankruptcies that left stock owners broke but made huge profits for Romney and his firm. Romney also sat on the board of one company that swindled the government out of millions of dollars (the company plead guilty to defrauding in the amount of $25 million), due to Romney's lax oversight. He later openly lied about the situation, trying to claim personal credit for starting an investigation into the situation and saying the problem was solved under his watch. The truth is that court documents show the defrauding continued under Romney's watch (and his firm tripled their investment in the company), and that someone else eventually halted the swindling. Romney personally made nearly half a million dollars out of the deal.

When the firm was in danger of going under, Romney was put in charge of saving it -- and this started his reputation as a turn-around man. Well, what exactly did he do? He made the founding partners give back $30 million they took from the employee-stock ownership plan and another $100 million in notes. Then he stopped paying bills, renegotiated debts, and got rid of a couple hundred employees. So, he took back money, stopped paying the bills, refinanced debt, and fired people. Well, that's not exactly some "out of left field" decision-making, folks.

How about the Olympics? Well, Romney pledged publicly not to take any "severance pay" for his work with the Olympics (and he himself notes this promise in his book Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership, and the Olympic Games), and then went ahead and took a nearly half a million dollars severance payment anyway (in addition to his salary for the job). Then, apparently deciding he may as well see how much more he could squeeze out of the Salt Lake City Organizing Committee, he then lobbied the committee for 25 MORE such payments to his senior managers as well.

Oh, and the whole "scandal-plagued" Olympics situation Romney came in to clean up and turn around? Well, turns out Romney is close friends with -- and later took political donations from -- David E. Simmons, one of the two people blamed for the entire scandal in the first place.

Mitt Romney's track record as manager of a state holds even worse signs of how he would govern as president.

According to researchers at the Center for Market Studies at Northeastern University, Massachusetts was behind the rest of the country as a whole on "all key labor market measures", frequently at or near the bottom in fact.  Manufacturing payroll employment in Massachusetts was the third worst in the nation during Romney's term as Governor. The researches also stated, "Massachusetts was the only state to have failed to post any gain in its pool of employed residents," and was one of the two states that had no rise in resident labor force. Median real weekly  earnings fell by about 2 percent for full-time and salaried workers during Romney's term, and in 2005 median household income fell about 3 percent from its 2000 level. By 2005, Massachusetts had the fourth-highest median home prices in the nation. This combination of poor economic conditions resulted in (and then was further enhanced by) a large outmigration of people of working age, the second-highest rate in the nation when Hurricane Katrina's depopulation effect is excluded.

The Cato Institute noted that Romney "balanced the budget with some spending cuts, but a $500 million increase in various fees was the largest component of the budget fix."

Click here to see a chart comparing Massachusetts' economic stats under Romney, with the statistics for the rest of the nation.  It's not a pretty picture, and it does much to dispel some of the myths Romney and his new band of cheerleaders are trying to promote.

Now let's look at Romney's position on abortion, since he seems to be running away from his previous positions as fast as he can.

It was just three years ago that Mitt Romney endorsed former Planned Parenthood attorney Rocky Anderson, the Democratic mayor of Salt Lake City . But that's just in keeping with his long record of supporting abortion.

When he ran for the Senate against Ted Kennedy in 1994, Romney said, "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it."  And he argued on camera during a debate in that election that he was more liberal than Kennedy!  Romney further explained during the debate, "[M]y mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter, and you will not see my wavering on that."

During his campaign for governor of Massachusetts, Romney was endorsed by the pro-abortion group Pro-Choice Coalition, and during a debate he got into an argument with his Democratic rival about which of them was the most pro-abortion.  His campaign Web site included the assertion: "The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's."

Romney answered YES to all of these questions during the campaign, on a questionnaire from Planned Parenthood: "Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade?"; "Do you support state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women?"; and "In 1998 the FDA approved the first packaging of emergency contraception, also known as the "morning after pill." Emergency contraception is a high dose combination of oral contraceptives that if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can safely prevent a pregnancy from occurring. Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception?"

Click here to see Romney defending abortion and stating his support for its legality.  And click here to see him explaining his pro-abortion position on camera yet again.  Then click here to see him saying he has no links to the pro-life movement.

And once governor, Romney signed into law a health care plan that did in fact provide tax-funded abortion (click here to see the actual document on the Web site for the state health care program, and look at the first list of benefits under "What benefits will I get?").  Incredibly, if you click here you will see that the law funding the plan states that Planned Parenthood is on the payment policy advisory board, but Romney never did anything to change this part of the law either (but you'll notice he did object to and change other parts of the law).

The truth is plain for anyone to see -- Mitt Romney has been a longtime supporter of abortion, and is now simply being dishonest about his past positions. There is little reason to believe that for the first 50+ years of his life he was outspokenly pro-abortion, and enacted policies as governor that advanced this pro-abortion position, but suddenly when he decided to run for president he at long last changed his views. And it is disingenuous at best for prominent conservatives to make excuses for Romney and his shameless dishonesty about his views on abortion.

Mitt Romney is not a true fiscal conservative, nor is he an honest businessman or someone who we should trust to handle our economy. He is also not conservative on social issues either, as his long and strong support for abortion should clearly demonstrate. That he attempts to cover up this embarrassing past is yet one more piece of evidence that he cannot be trusted, and does not deserve the support of conservative commentators or voters.

The tendency of Barrack Obama to vote "present" on controversial matters during his time in the Illinois State Senate is getting some media attention lately, and his campaign has sought to dismiss the criticism by claiming there were good, sound political strategies involved in Obama's decision to avoid voting.

The most absurd aspect of the whole story is not his votes -- which are already pretty absurd -- but rather his attempted defense of those votes.  Obama's defense of not doing the job he was elected to do? He couldn't vote on those bills, because his votes would've been used against him when he ran for reelection.

HUH? Since when is it a legitimate argument to say, "I didn't vote on that bill, because it would hurt my political future." Even worse is that much of the liberal press has actually accepted this ridiculous, indefensible opportunistic point of view.  So, pretty absurd and inexcusable, right?

Oh, but wait -- it gets better!  Not only does he admit his votes (or lack thereof) were based on purely political calculations, and not only does the mainstream media accept and defend his argument.  Deciding to just take the ball and run with it, Obama and his supporters say that not voting out of personal political opportunism is in fact an example of true leadership on these issues he wouldn't vote on!

What is interesting is that during all this examination of Obama's record in the Illinois Senate, nobody is raising the issue of Obama's serial non-voting in Congress.  Let's take a look at how he voted during his long one-year career in the U.S. Senate:

He skipped voting on 26 of 59 budget, spending, and tax measures – that means he didn't bother to vote on 44% of these measures during his entire career in the Senate. He skipped NINE out of fifteen votes on health related measures. He skipped voting on FIVE of six transportation measures in 2007.  He skipped voting on FOUR of five welfare-related measures. He skipped voting on about half of environmental-related measures. He skipped voting on half of education measures. He constantly skipped out on votes relating to farm subsidies and agriculture expenditures.

He voted AGAINST a bill that would deny legal status to undocumented immigrants convicted of aggravated felonies, domestic violence, stalking, violation of protection orders, crimes against children, or crimes relating to the illegal purchase or sale of firearms. But then he voted FOR a bill reducing the number of guest workers. Now, regardless of one's view on immigration in general, if you had to choose between allowing in MORE criminals or MORE legal workers, which would you choose? That's all I'm saying!

He skipped voting on future military funding for Iraq, as well as multiple other Iraq funding measures, skipped voting on the Iraq Withdrawal Amendment, after first voting AGAINST it a few months earlier; and he also skipped voting on the measure designation Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. But he's been running around the country for months saying he opposes the war and that he'll end the war, while being unwilling to go on record about any of it.  I'm not saying he should have voted for a withdrawal, I'm just saying he's like a lot of cowardly liberals who say something but are unwilling to actually risk backing it up with action.

Finally, in an apparent attempt to continue his strong record of leading by non-example from his grand days in the Illinois Senate, Obama skipped voting on two of three abortion-related bills in Congress. At least on this issue, his vote -- or rather, non-vote -- has remained consistent, I guess.

Well, that's one way to ensure the Republican candidate won't be able to attack him for his record in the Senate -- just avoid having one!

If you are standing up, you may want to sit down before hearing this.

Andrew Malcolm, a blogger for the Los Angeles Times Web site, wrote yesterday that Huckabee's endorsement by the Bass Anglers Sportsman Society (BASS) founder Ray Scott doesn't matter, basically because "it's fishing and who cares", to paraphrase his stuck-up "I'm from California and we're too cool for anything that doesn't happen in California" attitude (I guess nobody fishes in that coastal state).

I know some of you will be skeptical that a West coast liberal would act elitist, or would mock something like fishing that average normal people do, but I have a theory that might explain what's going on. Ready? The Los Angeles Times are a bunch of snobs.

Shocking, I know. But this is the conclusion I've reached, and I promise you it is not merely based on this single blog entry by precious Mr. "ew, warm beer and bugs!" Malcolm.  No, I now believe that there is probably a consistent, stuck-up overall 'tude at the Times.

I can see Andy and his pals sitting around reading about the endorsement, saying things like, "Fishing? Who the heck fishes? Even as the largest fishermen's group in the world, BASS is still low-brow entertainment for hicks, isn't it?"  Maybe someone choked on some brie while laughing at the strange inclinations of the unwashed, beer-swilling masses. Apparently, it hasn't occurred to the Times that Michigan, being right beside a great big LAKE, might have some citizens who are interested in fishing. Or that the difficulties facing the Michigan fishing industry might make people inclined to listen if one candidate is endorsed by the largest fishermen's organization in the world. Funny that a paper based in California, which in case you didn't know is right beside a big body of water (which is where fish live, in case anyone from the Times is reading this), would be so condescending about the kinds of folks who like fishing.

Hey Andy? That sushi you and your chique liberal friends love so much? It's fish, Andy. FISH. Someone somewhere probably had to go fishing for it -- maybe in a great big boat, with nets, but it's still a type of fishing, Andy. And the folks working on those great big boats that catch fish so snobs like you can suck down your dainty sushi? Those folks aren't very clean when they work, and they smell kinda bad. They also probably like beer. And they probably hate stuck-up elitist liberal intellectuals like you, Andy.

Ron Paul claims that he is not the author of racist comments published under his own name in his newsletter in Texas, back in the 1990's.  This issue has reared it's ugly head again in the last couple of days, and Ron Paul and his supporters are in overdrive trying to deny the allegations that Ron Paul is a closet racist, and that the columns in question were written by someone else and Paul wasn't aware of their bigoted content.

Well, they are right about one thing -- Ron Paul is not a "closet" racist, he is in fact a rather open one, or at least WAS until he started trying to remake himself as a good little libertarian for this election.

Here's a sample list of excerpts from news stories during the 1996 campaign, where Ron Paul and his staff DEFENDED and accepted credit for racist commentaries -- not just against blacks, but against Jews as well -- in his newsletters.

Dallas Morning News, 5-22-96:

Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot." [...]

Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas' 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.

"It's typical political demagoguery," he said. "If people are interested in my character ... come and talk to my neighbors." [...]

According to a Dallas Morning News review of documents circulating among Texas Democrats, Dr. Paul wrote in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report:  "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be."

Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter's toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff. [...]

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]

"If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" Dr. Paul asked.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.

Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"These aren't my figures," Dr. Paul said Tuesday. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report.

Houston Chronicle, 5-23-96:

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." [...]

Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.

Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.

Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosed number of subscribers, the spokesman said.

Writing in the same 1992 edition, Paul expressed the popular idea that government should lower the age at which accused juvenile criminals can be prosecuted as adults.

He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.

"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote.

Austin American-Statesman, 5-23-96:

"Dr. Paul is being quoted out of context," [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said.  "It's like picking up War and Peace and reading the fourth paragraph on Page 481 and thinking you can understand what's going on." [...]

Also in 1992, Paul wrote, "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions."

Sullivan said Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible.  And most blacks, Sullivan said, do not share Paul's views.  The issue is political philosophy, not race, Sullivan said.

"Polls show that only about 5 percent of people with dark-colored skin support the free market, a laissez faire economy, an end to welfare and to affirmative action," Sullivan said. [...]

"You have to understand what he is writing.  Democrats in Texas are trying to stir things up by using half-quotes to impugn his character," Sullivan said.  "His writings are intellectual.  He assumes people will do their own research, get their own statistics, think for themselves and make informed judgments."

Washington Post, 5-26-96:

Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context.

"Instead of talking about the issues, our opponent has chosen to lie and try to deceive the people of the 14th District," said Paul spokesman Michael Sullivan, who added that the excerpts were written during the Los Angeles riots when "Jesse Jackson was making the same comments."

"Ron knows our society and our nation has done some horrible things to the black community, which has pushed a majority of young black men in some areas, in Washington, D.C., for example, into criminal activities," Sullivan said.

Dallas Morning News, 7-25-96:

Dr. Paul, who faces Mr. Morris in the 14th District race for the U.S. House, dismissed the criticism as "name-calling and race-baiting." [...]

In a written statement, Dr. Paul said, "Repeated attempts by my liberal opponent to reduce the campaign to name-calling and race-baiting is just more of the same old garbage we expect from his camp and will not deter me from continuing to address the real issues."

Dr. Paul said his opinions about Ms. Jordan, who died earlier this year, "represented our clear philosophical difference."

Roll Call, 7-29-96:

In a statement, Paul said he had "labored to conduct a campaign based upon the issues that are vital to our nation" and charged Morris with "repeated attempts...to reduce the campaign to name calling and race-baiting."

He called Morris's request that he release all back issues of the newsletter "not only impractical, but...equivalent to asking him to provide documents for every lawsuit he has been involved in during his lengthy legal career."

Of his statements about Jordan, Paul said that "such opinions represented our clear philosophical difference. The causes she so strongly advocated were for more government, more and more regulations, and more and more taxes. My cause has been almost exactly the opposite, and I believe her positions to have been fundamentally wrong: I've fought for less and less intrusive government, fewer regulations, and lower taxes."

San Antonio Express-News, 9-30-96:

Paul's spokesman Michael Quinn Sullivan said the candidate does not want to "rehash" old issues. [...]

Paul has said he opposes racism and accused Morris of reducing the campaign to "name-calling and race-baiting." 

Houston Chronicle, 10-11-96:

Paul, who earlier this week said he still wrote the newsletter for subscribers, was unavailable for comment Thursday. But his spokesman, Michael Quinn Sullivan, accused Morris of "gutter-level politics."

Sullivan said it was "silly" to try to make a political issue of something written in an "abstract" sense. [...]

Ron Paul took responsibility for authoring those columns, back in 1996, and he defended their content and even attempted to explain some of the remarks to show how and why he was correct to have written what he did. His current attempts to distance himself from the newsletter columns, and to deny authorship, totally contradict his position and claims from 1996.

BUSTED, Ron. Drop out of this race now, and spare yourself more embarrassment... and spare us the spamming from your crazed fans.  (Want an example of just how crazy they are? Ask Sean Hannity...)

You can't even make it through the first paragraph of the recent Max Blumenthal column without tripping over two outright lies and one example of extreme hypocrisy.

His article, accusing Mike Huckabee of being a "radical cleric" (attempting to insult Huckabee with comparisons to terrorism), begins by claiming Huckabee "called for quarantining homosexuals".  That's a complete lie. The truth is that about 16 years ago, Mike Huckabee was speaking during the height of public fears about AIDS at a time when little was still known about the disease, and he said that in such a public health crisis it was surprising that infected persons were not being isolated from the general public the way any other serious public health risk would be isolated. His point was that standard medical and social safety procedures were not being used because of political implications. Remember the recent stories about TB infected airline passengers? They were grabbed and forcibly isolated fast. Considering the speed with which AIDS was spreading, how deadly and miserable the disease was, and how we now face a global public health crisis because so little was done for so many years to address the problem, it's hard to imagine how anyone can totally hold Huckabee's remarks against him since in fact his idea would have probably saved a lot of lives -- a lot of lives of homosexuals, too.

At any rate, Max Blumenthal's assertion is false, and he owes Huckabee an apology. Come to think of it, he owes homosexuals an apology too, since he is implying that Huckabee's desire to isolate people with AIDS automatically translates into quarantining gays. Isn't that presumptuous of Blumenthal?

Blumenthal also grossly exaggerates Huckabee's overall view towards homosexuality by expanding the "isolation" suggestion from just AIDS patients to all gay people, giving the impression Huckabee was not just concerned about a major health threat to our nation and the globe, but rather was concerned with denying all civil liberty to all gay people everywhere. Well, Huckabee's actual position has been one of opposing homosexuality as behavior, and indeed seeking to prevent granting special privileges and extending traditional benefits to people choosing such behavior. However, he has NOT tried to deny basic rights to gay people, and as he noted publicly on CNN's "Larry King Live" last month, he would allow homosexuals to work in his administration:


Being against a behavior, and being unwilling to grant special rights and privileges for that behavior, is not the same as willingness to openly discriminate against a person in all aspects of their lives. Mike Huckabee never suggested a broad intent to separate gays from all of society, the way Max Blumenthal dishonestly tries to imply.

This hack also goes on to claim Huckabee compared homosexuality to necrophilia. That's another lie. Huckabee didn't "compare" anything. He wrote a book in 1998 called "Kids Who Kill", in which he referred to "publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations" that he was speaking out against, and he listed them as "homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia." If you said that you you are against abortion and high taxes, are you comparing high tax rates to the murder of unborn children? Or a closer parallel might be to say "I oppose publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations such as homosexuality, abortion, profane music entertainment, and atheism." Well, I can tell you now that I do not consider profanity anywhere near comparable to abortion, or atheism, or homosexuality. And I don't think homosexuality approaches the aberrant nature of killing unborn children in their mothers' wombs. But are they all legitimate examples of aberrant aspects of our society that are endorsed and supported openly and institutionally? Yes. Huckabee was listing several things that are specifically related to sexual behavior, but that does not mean he is attempting to equate one with another in a literal sense. Sex with a dead body is vile in ways entirely different than raping children, folks -- and both are horrible in ways very different than someone engaging in sadomasochism with another sadomasochist.

But of course, Max Blumenthal wants to give the false impression that Huckabee actually said that homosexuality was comparable in and of itself to necrophilia, as if there was a direct equation of the two. Mike Huckabee did indeed denounce homosexual behavior, and has many times said he thinks it is sinful. However, Blumenthal is using alarmist language and lies to give the impression that Huckabee's words and intent are more radical and fringe than is really the case. Do most Americans think that consensual gay sex is literally the same as someone digging up a corpse and molesting it? Probably not. Do most Americans oppose gay marriage? Yes, they do. Being opposed to gay lifestyles is not some fringe attitude, and Blumenthal is dishonest for trying to misrepresent Huckabee's position.

Blumenthal then goes on to sling mud at Mike Huckabee because of Kenneth Copeland, one of the members of the board of regents at Oral Roberts University being investigated regarding misuse of funds. Well, first of all let's keep in mind that Mr. Copeland has not been convicted of ANYTHING, much less indicted. But hey, Blumenthal apparently has the special power of knowing someone is guilty or not without need for due process, evidence, or things like that.

More to the point, this whole "guilt-by-association" attempt he's making to attack Huckabee seems a bit surprising, in light of things like Obama's links to indicted crooks in Illinois and shady political characters in Hawaii. Might Hillary Clinton also have some potentially questionable links to a bad fundraiser that you can think of? Oh, but they are liberals, so they won't get any mud tossed on them for their "guilt-by-association", will they Mr. Blumenthal? Especially not a Clinton, eh? My suspicion is that Blumenthal's contempt for Copeland stems not from the potential fundraising scandal, but instead from the mere fact that Mr. Copeland is a televangelist. The overall tone of Blumenthal's article, attacking Huckabee primarily because of the candidate's openness about his faith and Christian views. Watch the little video that Max Blumenthal and Thomas Shomaker created to mock Huckabee's own "Christian Leader" ad, too see their disrespectful use of images of Christ's crucifixion to attack Huckabee's faith and positions. That's the real thrust of Blumenthal's and other people's disdain and repeated attacks on Huckabee -- his faith, his willingness to discuss his faith, and that Huckabee represents people in this nation who elitists like Blumenthal (and some within our own party, sadly) look down upon.

Well, luckily, Blumenthal and his ilk make our job easy. Their shamelessness leads them time and again to lie so openly and quickly, that refuting them requires little more than just pointing out exactly what they said. But it is important to do so, to point and denounce their lies, to let them know they will NOT get away with it. I hope others will spread the word, and call out liars like Max Blumenthal and any others who think they can get away with such dishonesty.

Well, Mitt Romney is at it again. He repeatedly asserted that McCain supported "amnesty". Then he airs ads saying McCain supported "amnesty". Then he claims his ads DON'T use the word "amnesty".  Then he says he didn't know the ads used the word "amnesty". Then he says the ad shouldn't have used the word "amnesty". Then he says that there's a legal and a "colloquial" definition of "amnesty", and that McCain's views are in fact a form of amnesty after all.

Wow. How many different positions and contradicting and untrue claims is that, all in the course of just a couple of days? But more importantly, how many of those claims are even true anyway? The answer is, not many.

First of all, the ad did in fact use the word "amnesty" (watch the ad here), and Romney has tried many times to frame McCain's view as supporting "amnesty". So the ad was in line with Romney's own assertions. And the ad includes the tag "I approve this message" with the image of Romney on screen, per the legal requirement under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which requires candidates to take responsibility for ads aired on their behalf.

So, Mr. Management Guru allows ads for his campaign to go on the air, with him personally saying he approves of the message, all within the framework of federal laws requiring him to take personal responsibility for the ads, and he claims he didn't bother to watch an ad airing in one of the most important (especially for his campaign) primary states? No SOP to ensure review and accuracy for his ads, by the guy who uses his managing experience as his primary qualification for office?

And which has worse implications -- that he is being dishonest about having seen his own ad in such an important state, an ad that mimics verbatim his accusations against McCain; or that he indeed did not review or see and was unaware of the content of an ad attacking another candidate, an ad that used a term (amnesty) that Romney now claims should not have been in the ad, but he still was willing to attach his own face and voice saying he approves of the ad? Which would be better for him as a candidate running for office who repeatedly points to his great managing experience as his best qualification for office?

Also keep in mind, if he is telling the truth and he really did not see his own ad, why on Earth did he insist that the ad didn't use the word "amnesty"? What was the basis for his denial, since he claims he didn't see the ad before he approved it and let it air? And if, as he later said, the ad should not have used the term "amnesty", then what does that mean about Romney's own use of that term to attack McCain? Even worse, why does he say the ad should not have used a term he'd already been using, if he later was going to say that even though the ad shouldn't have used the term he in fact DOES think it applies after all (apparently under the "colloquial" definition of the word, I guess)?

Now, a big issue might come out of this whole situation:  namely, Romney's disclaiming of responsibility for the content of the ad, and his public statement that he hadn't seen the ad.  Remember that there is federal regulation mandating standing by your political advertising? Well, take a look at this, from 2 USC 441 d:


The FCC gives two examples of acceptable statements to comply with the law [Sec. 110.11(c) (3) (iv)]:


Is Romney in compliance with the law, if he in fact did not review and approve the actual ad before he added a disclaimer saying he DID approve the ad? At the very least, if he didn't see the ad and approve it before adding his approval message and letting it air, he would seem to not be in compliance with the spirit of the law, even if there is enough wiggle room for a slippery snake to skirt actual compliance by relying on a loose interpretation of the law. So could Romney be in any trouble for this, having admitted on camera that he did not even see the ad before it aired? Or what about his attempt to deny responsibility for the ad? That is pretty obviously against the spirit of the law as well -- can any candidate just ad the legally required "I approve" message but never actually approve any ads, then just publicly deny any responsibility for the ads? I would be interested in seeing what a lawyer has to say about it -- or more to the point, what the Federal Election Commission has to say about it, and what the FCC thinks about it!

This creates two points that should be explored and that Romney should be forced to publicly answer to: first, is it his standard practice as a manager to look people in the eye and claim he approved a message that in fact he never saw; and second, does he realize he seems to have violated at least the spirit of the law covering political campaign advertising?

What makes it especially notable (and hilarious) is that the same Romney ad that uses the word "amnesty" also attacks McCain over the campaign finance law that Romney says "limits free speech". Which law is that? Why, it's the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act), one of the most important aspects of which is the "stand by your ad" provision that Romney seems to have fudged on!  Gee, I guess he dislikes McCain's campaign reform law so much that maybe he decided not to bother following it...

If the media won't pursue these questions, then I hope McCain's campaign does. Romney should be confronted with these questions constantly between now and Tuesday in New Hampshire, and in fact every day beyond as well. This is just another example of Romney flip-flopping like a fish on dry land, making assertions that are dubious (he claims McCain's immigration plan would allow every single illegal immigrant to get a visa to stay in this nation, which is a totally false assertion, for example), then making even more dubious assertions about his assertions (like insisting his ad didn't say what it actually said, then saying he hadn't seen the ad when he was insisting it didn't say what it actually said). He needs to be held accountable for running what can only be described as a less-than-honest campaign.

I think that there are already enough variables to start making predictions about how things are going to fall in the nomination process. The narrative is already being written now, and it will be a tale of the come-from-behind long-shot candidate going head to head with the miraculous comeback of the beloved maverick hero. I think that the following caucus and primary victories are very likely, and tell us what we need to know about what the future holds:

Iowa 1/03 -- HUCKABEE (already done)
 
Wyoming 1/05 –- THOMPSON OR ROMNEY (with the other in second place)
 
New Hampshire 1/08 -- MCCAIN (pretty certain, with HUCKABEE coming up from behind to take second or be a very close third to Romney's second)
 
Michigan 1/15 –- MCCAIN OR HUCKABEE, (potentially
ROMNEY, if he could somehow win New Hampshire maybe,
but if he looses New Hampshire then I don't think he
can win here)
 
South Carolina 1/19 -- HUCKABEE (pretty certain)
 
Nevada 1/19 -- GIULIANI (probable at this point, especially the worse
Romney does in New Hampshire and Michigan; but if not
Giuliani then McCain because by this point Romney's
support will have mostly evaporated and McCain will
probably have picked up an endorsement from Fred
Thompson, who will drop out very soon and give McCain
his endorsement)
 
Florida  1/29 -- HUCKABEE (very likely, certain if
Huckabee wins Michigan or shows a strong second, mixed
with victory in South Carolina and Iowa)

These are my predictions for how the month of January will play out. I think that New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Michigan are the most certain (aside from Iowa, which has now happened already), with Florida increasingly likely if those three do shape up as I think they will.  If these assessments are pretty accurate, then by the start of February it will essentially be a two-man race between McCain and Huckabee. Romney can't get the head of steam he needs to build momentum, without a miraculous victory in New Hampshire that seems unlikely. Without New Hampshire, he almost surely will loose Michigan, and that puts him out of the race. Thompson will probably drop out by the end of the month, probably after South Carolina if not sooner, and he will endorse McCain. That will give McCain a boost, as will a victory in New Hampshire and a strong showing (first or second) in Michigan.

Romney will likely concede defeat by February, although he might hold out just to see how he does on the first big primary day in February (he won't do well, and will have to quit after that day if he hasn't already). Hunter will drop out by the end of January if not sooner, and will probably endorse Giuliani or McCain, but it won't make any difference. The national numbers show Giuliani dropping more and more, while McCain and Huckabee rise. Giuliani has seen his lead nationally and in many big states shrink or disappear, and after an entire month of primaries and caucuses without a victory (or with just the one in Nevada) he will begin February with poll numbers that are plummeting. He won't make it passed the first big primary day in February, unless he holds on strictly to play spoiler in a few later states. He is already irrelevant.

So McCain and Huckabee will be the big winners in January, Thompson and Hunter will be gone for sure, and it will be down to the two rising stars of McCain and Huckabee versus the two plummeting stars of Romney and Giuliani. (Ron Paul will either remain in the race just out of craziness or might try an independent run, but regardless he'll be irrelevant to the eventual outcome of the race.)

Romney will be obviously out of the running by the start of February, and Giuliani will be too week to compete anymore.  Thus we will have the match-up between McCain and Huckabee, two men who will probably end up on the ticket together anyway and who by the second week of February will merely be working to see who gets top billing on the ticket. There is a chance that if Huckabee comes out the winner, McCain might turn down the VP slot and instead Huckabee would pick someone who did not run for the nomination -- my first guess would be Chuck Hagel, to bring foreign policy experience and "war hero" status to the ticket, plus as a shrewd and perhaps bold attempt to make room on the ticket for conservatives who are tired of the war in Iraq. But the best ticket will be Huckabee and McCain or McCain and Huckabee. But which one should get top billing?

Well, here's some historical stats that might tell us who is most likely to get the top spot:

IOWA HISTORY SINCE 1976:

76 – Carter and Ford won; Both were the eventual party nominees that year and Carter won election;

80 – Carter and Bush won (Bush beat eventual nominee Reagan by 2%); Carter and Reagan were the eventual party nominees that year and Reagan won election;

84 – Mondale and Reagan won; Mondale and Reagan were the eventual party nominees that year and Reagan won elect