About Me

Name: Bill Crawford
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

This Year's Genius

To a political junkie, the events of the last few weeks are enough to leave one almost breathless.
 

I am reminded of the words of Mike Lupica, a sportswriter for the NY Daily News, who spoke of following the very interesting 1986 World Series champ NY Mets by saying, "That year, all you had to do was open your notebook, and the stories wrote themselves".

Geniuses in politics appear all the time. Presidential politics are more exclusive, and the geniuses there are rarer, but more prominent.

Hamilton Jordan helped get Jimmy Carter elected in '76 with two new ideas: the unprecedented strategy of running in every single primary, and assigning point values to the candidate, his family and prominent supporters- then making sure that each state had the proper point value assigned to it each week.

In 1992, it was James Carville and the War Room. Everything put out by the opposition would be responded to in the media before the sun went down.

In 2000, Karl Rove took advantage of a rapidly polarizing left and right, challenging the loyalty of the core right by presenting Bush as a "compassionate conservative", and then chasing after whatever Hispanics they could muster.

Two years later, he and Bush added to that a huge push into choosing, aiding and stumping for Congressional and Senate candidates, placing the Presidency on the line in a big way.

Karl Rove's record as genius went down in flames in 2006, when his predictions of holding a slim majority in the House showed his faith in his party holding together despite their war on immigration reform proved to be fantasy.

This year's big try was Rudy Giuliani, and the attempt to take advantage of the compressed primary schedule by skipping over the early states and digging a fire trench in Florida.

Part of this strategy was the accurate notion that the GOP field was divided enough to not have anybody dominate early. Huckabee and Romney were cannibalizing one part of the party vote, and McCain and Thompson were doing the same with another.

Part of why Rudy failed was the sudden surrender of Fred Thompson- clearing a better path up the center for McCain.

I think the larger problem was that the compressed schedule helped create the adrenaline-filled atmosphere of the early primaries, and the greater coverage of the early contenders built them all up at the expense of the relatively silent Rudy.

Rudy wasn't a perfect candidate- but I've seen him when his heart wasn't in it, before he pulled out of the Senate race against Hillary in 2000.

The coming story on this is a new center-right Republican coalition that is developing- one that will soon be giving Democrats fits. I see it more as an accident, rather than a conscious policy.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ode To Ron Paul

I am, and will be while this war persists, a neocon. But at my heart, I am a libertarian.

Hearing Ron Paul speak in debates reminds me of the day when a conservative was not simply a minority, but damned near an endangered species. It warms the cockles of my heart to listen to the Congressman speak of the outrageous expansion and encroachment of the federal government. But it brings to mind the great lesson that conservatism has yet to learn.

Mr. Paul runs into two large walls when he speaks. The first is that many in the Boomer generation are facing their older years with the classic notion of retirement on their minds, but not the corporate partnership of pensions and health plans to go along with it. This brave new world has many not having a major problem having the federal government act as a silent partner, or at least an insurance policy.

This is the biggest reason why the Newt Gingrich revolution stalled after balancing the budget and entitlement reform.

The other wall is the true libertarian notion that much of the world was shaved by a drunken barber, and we shouldn't be wasting our time, money and blood to clean it up.

There are those in the fringe on both ends of the political spectrum who lament our partnership in the creation and sustenance of Isreal, it being the cause of the animosity that Wahhabi Muslims have for us. That the Europeans have been especially ungrateful for the NATO umbrella we've provided for them since 1945.

Both of these are salient points, but if Pearl Harbor wasn't enough to show the two great oceans as a deficient barrier from this nonsense, then surely the World Trade Center was, no?

The great lesson that conservatism is still learning is that one gets closer to getting your agenda when you are governing. Sometimes the act of developing a working coalition demands compromise. Compromise is often anathema to many in the party who grew up wearing their ideological purity as a badge of honor.

George W. Bush tried to teach us. The most pronounced effort he made was to gather as many Hispanics as he could into the Republican fold. He and Karl Rove did a damned good job of that in 2002 and 2004, and the party pissed it all away in a great internecine war that ended in the reign of Pelosi and Reid- something every soldier in Iraq is still paying dearly for.

The Democrats had this lesson pounded into them by the New Dealers, and they have not only not forgotten it, they still can't fathom the notion that they may be unpopular. Many on the left think the swing voters are somehow deluded, or just plain stupid. This is at the core of all arguments about people "voting against their better interests", as if the audience is inherently more ignorant than the speaker.

So, Congressman Paul, I love you to death. I wish I'd met you when I was in college. Now, please, go away....
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Know Your Boomers

Before I delve into the heart of today's subject matter, let us take a moment to say a quick thanks to this year's comic relief: Dennis Kucinich. Based on his power of presence over live audiences, I think it is highly possible that he deluded himself to be a serious candidate. The fact that he tried more than once adds to that chance.

He was a staple of the old National Lampoon magazine when he was a runt-idiot, 30 year old Mayor of Cleveland. In fact, when the Cayahuga River went on fire during his administration, he practically made the cover.

Now, back to the Boomer tragedy: Clinton & Clinton, Inc. If you really want to know what these people are all about, and see how predictable they are, start with the best bio out there on Bill: "First In His Class", by David Marianis.

Like most of the rest of the rapidly gerontocrizing Democratic leadership, they cut their teeth in the Presidential campaign where the Great Society wheezers gave it up to the new Boomers: George McGovern in 1972.

I think both Clintons learned the lesson well from Tricky Dick and his 49 state landslide- you may have the better ideas, but if you aren't prepared to be the ruthless one, you will spend your life in the margins and on the picket lines.

The knowledge of which gives me no doubt that these two will pull no punches in her chase for her half of their destiny. They had opposition research down cold long before 1992- all the Presidency did was give them more toys to play with in chasing it and using it.

What part of the '92 election Ross Perot didn't hand them, the Iran-Contra indictments three days before Election Day did. In '96, Bob Dole never got closer than ten points nation wide. The point being, they never had to pull out the dummy tipped bullets.

This year is different. Obama is a huge threat, and the national election is an uphill battle because of her negatives. The Clinton campaign will pull everything they have, including the implied race card, knowing full well that the Republicans are not likely to pull out anybody who can improve on the 10% or so of the black vote they've mustered for the last few elections.

They don't care if it looks cynical now. They will do what they have to, because it is her turn.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

R.I.P. Narcoleptic Conservative

And so it seems that the D.A. is returning to Law & Order, whenever the Writer's Guild gets around to realizing that, until DVD piracy is no longer a game for six year olds and up, their ship is not coming in.

Fred seemed to want to run a campaign like President Harding- never having to leave his front porch. He was chased after to fill a hole left by a series of candidates trying to fill an impossible void- a gap made not so much by the failures of the candidates as the incorrigible bickering of the factions of the GOP, especially over immigration.

He waited for it to be convenient for him, maybe thinking that the party was waiting with bated breath because of him, rather than seeing a unity candidate in the offing. While he dithered, Giuliani persevered. Then Huckabee came alive. Then McCain resurrected. All the while, Romney wrote more checks.

This primary season, the Republicans are eating their ideological young just as fast as the Democrats. So, while social conservatives split between Romney and Huckabee, the path up the middle is no longer blocked by the large, folksy Senator from Tennessee.

Which leaves- McCain? How long will he last when TV ad after TV ad shows him side by side with Ted Kennedy (immigration), Russ Feingold (campaign finance) and Joe Leiberman (global warming)? How will the party warm to a Senator who opposed both of Bush's tax cuts?

The short answer is- he won't last. He got by in the Senate for years doing what the hell he felt like because, as Majority Leader Dole put it, "When you live in a box for five years, you get to do what you want."

McCain will do well because the media loves him and he now has some more money to play with. But if Rudy does not die in Florida, and actually shows himself to be a player all of a sudden, watch the shock on the faces of the TV people.

So, all of you say a novena or two for the conservative messiah who didn't think he had to wake up. We were supposed to hand him his nomination, and THEN maybe he'd put in the work.

Hell, even Hillary knows she has to be coy about her coronation.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

...The Harder They Fall

I'm taking fifteen minutes off from the nasty world of poliics to make note of the history being made by a football team from Massachusetts.

The Patriots are the first team in the history of post- free agency NFL to maintain some sort of dynasty, because they have a core of players who have decided to forego the higher salaries they could earn under somebody else's salary cap in return for chasing a few more championship rings.

The really interesting part is the head coach. Bellichick finished his tutelage working for Bill Parcells, master emeritus of the mind game.

However, the protege has his own way. Patrolling the sidelines in his "just cleaned the garage" line of sweats, Bellichick is not part of the NFL old boy network.

Videotaping opposing coaches signals is considered gauche in that world. So is leaving the starters in until the end to run up the score. Add to that his calling an extra timeout last week, in order to prevent the Charger's place kicker from staying loose before he attempted a field goal.

They were good before the year started, and added the last cog in Randy Moss- who routinely gets double teamed and, even when the play isn't to him, drags the secondary another fifteen yards downfield and opens up the middle for devastatingly accurate short screen passes that most teams have no solution for.

The Giants will make a valiant try in Arizona, but will run into the same wall that everybody else did. That is, unless they probe for a weakness and go for broke taking advantage of it, like Philadelphia and Baltimore did.

All I'm saying is that when this team goes down, many will line up to stomp on their professional graves. There are some unwritten mercy rules in the NFL, and New England has run afoul of too many of them. What goes around, comes around. When it happens, it will not be pretty.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Ubiquitous Race Card

So it seems the Clinton people and the Obama people are having troubles dealing with race in the modern world.

Barack seems to want to pick up a voting block of Gen X and Gen Y people by painting Hillary as an antediluvian Boomer. Hillary wants to find some way of attaching a negative yoke around Obama's neck without raising all the politically correct hackles that follow a personable man who happens to be Black.

Obama's problem is that he will have to respond, and in doing so, he starts to abrogate his starry-eyed message about being the grand uniter. The one who ends all the sturm und drang political diatribe.

Notwithstanding how naive that view is- the great Culture War is here to stay, it still gets in the way of chasing after all the swing voters (especially the younger ones) who tire of all the bickering on their television sets.

Hillary's problem is that her opposition research and the hit teams she follows up on it with are the best this generation has seen. She lives off of it, and will use it. Not because she is a pragmatist and thinks it to be the most expedient path to power. It's because she is a Sixties Child- one of the many here who grew up thinking they had the future in their hands. These people have not just thought our problems through and have the answers, they don't think after all their mental efforts, that any different answers are possible!

This is the heart of Sixties arrogance, and their intolerance. It is at the heart of why four out of ten voters would rather hang out naked in a drafty garage all winter than vote for her.

That is a deeper issue that is better raised outside of a political forum- the Culture War going on here has some strange bedfellows at times, especially when you start dealing with Libertarians (like Ron Paul). But more than anything else, it is everybody against the Hippies.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Supply Side D.O.A.?

David Brooks runs an excellent piece in the NY Times this week, essentially declaring supply side economics and the politics of tax cuts as dead on arrival.

His analysis of the aging population is right on target- the entrepreneurial class that has been the backbone of the GOP since the Reagan era is facing retirement with an amazing amount of people without classic pensions and retirement health plans. I think the party faithful's foreknowledge of this is the reason why the politics of Newt never took hold after the mission of overturning the Democrats was accomplished.

It is true that the Laffer Curve was developed with income taxes in mind. It is also a fact that the Curve zeroes on both ends, and the present state of affairs has the top half of income earners paying virtually all our income taxes.

This is a cynical government that learned the FDR lesson well- an unseen tax is a reliable tax. That is why withholding has morphed over the years into add on fees on your phone bill, your cable bill, gasoline, food and just about anything that passes through the market place. There are so many of them that there are still plenty of targets for cuts that would still apply supply side theory adequately. The biggest opportunity is still capital gains- but that leaves the sticky problem of passing the multi-step lesson of why it will benefit John Q. Citizen, while your political opponents beat you silly with class warfare.

 Aside from that, the aging of both party bases practically ensure that markedly lower total taxation is not in the offing, a faustian bargain that goes along with a federal partnership in retirement and health care.

The revolution that is coming will not be about tax reduction, it will be about simplification. It will be about making tax day a single day process without accountants. It will be about getting the government out of the business of carrot & sticking human behavior through the tax code.

That revolution is coming- if not in the next four years, then certainly it will start in earnest with the century anniversary of the addition of the income tax to the U.S. Constitution- in 2013.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Barack's Problems

Gosh, we're having trouble with polling again, are we? But wait, everybody was on target- except the woman and the black guy.

So the eternal demons of institutional racism are brought out of the shoebox on Al Sharpton's night table. There is a five point error because those nasty crackers lie to the pollsters, never intending to vote for Obama.

All this takes place in what is probably the most libertarian state in the country. That's the first smell test this fails. Then there's the fact that the Boomer generation (who run both parties now) was raised color blind. In fact, they've made a big fuss over the years about how color blind they are- starting with the more liberal, politically correct, urban types. The ones that run which of the two major parties here?

Just as the pollsters pick up economic pessimism secondhand ("I'm doing fine, but I'm worried about my neighbors"), polled views on racism are never, ever personal- it's always the other guy who has the attitude. The pessimist takes this as evidence of structural racism.

I'm not a pessimist, though. I think there are simple, more topical reasons for the poll break down. If the failure were across the board, as in the exit polling pulling ten points Kerry's way on Election Day, 2004, I'd lean toward poor questioning techniques or (my guess) biased manipulation. But In New Hampshire, every candidate was on target, save Obama and Hillary. There are a few possibilities for this, the biggest ones being a drift of crossover voters from Obama to McCain and a swath of newly registered recruits driving up from Massachusetts to vote for Hillary.

The grand new story of this campaign will be that we all prove to each other that our neighbors are just as capable of handling a black or a female in the White House as we are. Not being a pessimist, I knew this already.

So, Barack's problems do not start with his skin color. They start with him being an inexperienced candidate, still prone to skittishness in the hot lights of campaign pressure. There is a difference between his stump speech and his debate behavior.

And from there one wonders, with all the sunny optimism, hope and soaring rhetoric, why is his message not on the front of everybody's mind? If it was, more people might have noticed that he is in search of a tag line, too. Reagan was optimistic and rhetorically gifted, too. But there was never any doubt about the major subject headings for the day. Barack is a speaker in search of a cogent message.

Then again, it was said that William Jennings Bryan would blow down the walls when he spoke of being crucified on a "cross of gold" in 1896. Where did that get him on Election Day?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hillary's Problem

So Hillary "found her voice" this week. What she also found was that many voters seem to be questioning Barack's electability as well.

She will need her organization and money now, in order to swim in a dozen or so television markets at once in the next two weeks.

And her message will continue to change. Hell, it's changed markedly already. It's why it had to change that is her problem.

Before we get specifically into that, let's step back into the recent past. In 2000, a Governor from Texas was running for President as somebody who could work with the other party. And the record showed he did exactly that. He didn't mention that in Texas, many Democrats are GOP lite by the standards of many other parts of the country.

He caught a lot of heat from his supporters for toadying up to Ted Kennedy on No Child Left Behind. But more revealing was an incident that happened when a Justice Department building was named for RFK. Bobby's daughter was invited and when she spoke, she spoke to her child and said "This is not your Grandfather's building"- a slap in the face to both Bush and John Ashcroft as thanks for being asked to speak.

It came to pass that, in the political world of Bush and Karl Rove, they responded to the hostility by essentially developing a coalition government of their core supporters and whatever swing voters they could muster, and ignore the rest. No consultation, no token gestures, no communication. We don't need you to govern, was the message.

In 2002, this calculation paid off, and we had a political atmosphere where Republicans ran everything and they weren't listening to or cooperating with the minority. The entrance into Iraq in 2003 only made this worse.

Then in 2006, the Democrats had an exhilarating election year made possible by the combination of Emmanuel Rahm's brilliant strategy of finding middle road candidates in swing districts and the great GOP civil war over immigration.

The day after Election Day, Nancy Pelosi said, "This election was a referendum on the Iraq War" Over a year later, we are still there, only with more troops and nobody is pulling either soldiers or funding.

So, we have a Democratic base that was out of power and ignored, and they were pissed. Then they were in power and felt ignored again. Now they are frustrated and seething. They are furious.

THAT is Hillary's problem. She spent a good deal of time in the Senate building a track record as a Defense moderate, in part because her experience with her husband taught her that having access to the nuclear trigger was something that gave the voters pause when deciding if you were fit for the job.

Then she starts running for President and finds that the primary voters that are her first obstacle won't even ponder anything but ending the war. The nomination contest becomes a competition between who would pull out the fastest and who never voted for the war in the first place.

Her plan was always to have so much money, endorsements, staff and momentum that she could swim past these people and wade into being enough of a centrist to compete in some red states.

It isn't bad enough that nearly 40% of the likely voters wouldn't vote for her under any circumstances. She has a core base that drives around with bumper stickers like, "If you aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention", which is a clever ploy to win over the swing voters who still disagree with them by announcing that they are either stupid or asleep at the switch.

I feel her pain. This race will become competitive, because the wagons will circle around her and bring her well within ten points of the Republican candidate, no matter what she does. She will raise her quarter billion $, and will enter November convinced that the White House is one Republican gaffe out of her reach.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Indecisive Nation

Watching the focus groups before the vote in New Hampshire is the same as Iowa- different roots, same behavior.

These people are not "undecided". They are indecisive. There is a distinct difference.

I'll grant that this is truly an unusual election, in both parties. The Democrats are seeking somebody, ANYBODY who can win a national election, and they know Hillary too well to settle on her as an answer. The conventional wisdom on both sides is that almost 40% of likely voters would never vote for her, and that is one hell of a tough nut to digest.

The Republicans are desperately seeking a dream candidate who can morph their three big issues: the war, immigration and taxes. The big five all have a relatively good handle on one or two, but are deemed lacking.

The party whose elders grew up on Reagan suffer the same disappointments the New Dealers did when trying to put Adlai Stevenson on the pedestal: as with FDR, political giants like Reagan come along only once a generation. That was the impetus behind the yearning for Fred Thompson. Unfortunately, Fred held off to finish taping the last episodes of "Law & Order" and has looked like he is struggling to stay awake ever since.

But, I digress. The Granite State focus groups are very clear that not visiting the state enough is a solid reason to find another white knight. Weren't the primaries the place where ideologues ruled and personality voters waited until November?

These people aren't focusing on ideas, or candidates as much as they focus on themselves. That guy is no good- I had the carpets done in my living room, and nobody has called me for tea! What a bunch of spoiled brats.....

This behavior is not new- it's been a Granite State idiosyncracy as long as I've been aware. But the circumstances this year have made all of this more visible, and more annoying.

There will be a reaction in February, from all the states where Mitt Romney doesn't get a chance to spend sixteen weeks with his entire family. They will gather their ideologies, thumb their nose at these early voters, and make their own choice.

This will not avert the coming blood bath between the Hillary and Obama people. But it will open up the Republican race a bit.

The media will be shocked- shocked! to find their prognostications of momentum, new gravitas and positioning will be neutered by voters who somehow figured out how to think for themselves without guidance from David Broder and Maureen Dowd.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bright Shiny Objects

The disparity between the old mass media and the internet/ newspaper world is wider every time I look.
Television is the worst. These poor people shuffle back and forth between listening to stump speeches over and over, and attending rallies.

The rallies can get to you. There are bad ones that are an advance man's nightmare. Sparse, lethargic or hostile audiences, candidates stumbling or sweating- enough to give you nightmares.

The good ones are what destroy TV journalists. When the timing and the candidate are good, the crowds supply themselves. The room becomes electric, and it is hard not to get carried away with it. Watching a TV journalist work the hall after Obama wins Iowa is like watching a two year old trying to concentrate on the alphabet while a bright, shiny object is swinging in their face.

You can get good analysis out there if you ask people like John Zogby or Frank Luntz. The problem is, they give their stuff out for free only in teaser packets. Consultants charge, and good ones charge confiscatory rates.

I would charge you if I thought I could get away with it, but I know I have nothing to stand on there, so let's give the big picture a whirl:

Democrats: Hillary and Obama are the only ones with a ghost's chance. In such a compressed calendar of primaries, your money and your organization must be there ALREADY. Obama's is not as well organized, but if you have the money (and he does), you can make up the difference with enthusiasm.

Hillary will win because her people are more experienced and meaner, and Obama can't always smile his way past the meaner part. In person, negative politics is a voter turnoff, but in media, mailings and staff competition, it works and often works well.

Republicans: Huckabee and Romney are cannibalizing the social conservative vote, splitting it and leaving a path for the eventual nominee. Thompson missed his shot, and is not emanating the intensity the primary voters (and the media) demand. Primary voters want you to grovel, and Fred won't.

Rudy has some work to do. His organization and funding are way better than McCain, but he needs to stay on free TV to tide things over when his money takes over the airwaves in twenty-plus states a month from now.

McCain's organization has been thrown out and replaced two or three times over in the last year, but if he can show the cajones of a professional candidate, he may make Rudy sweat a bit. John got his head handed to him in South Carolina in 2000 by George W., and he had no answer for it.

The end of it all is, things are not as crazy as they seem. Iowa and New Hampshire are just crazy states, and the compressed schedule adds to it. So does the fact that there is no incumbent on either side- the reason why this campaign is already a year old.

Who won today's debate? Holy Schneikes! Stop picking at the grains of sand and look at the whole sand box. 


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Reality Check

As they used to say when Judge Ito was presiding over the O.J. courtroom, once you let the dancing midgets out, the circus is open.

Well, the caucus zoo has folded tent. The dancing midgets and their entourages have hopped up, grabbed the Jet Blue redeyes (stopping only to get a road package from Starbucks) and taken root in the Granite State.

The mass media is agog with the new reality of Mikey and Obama on top of the world, and nobody is asking the questions that should be asked.

The new national polls that roll out Monday will have the weekend in them: do the updated numbers reflect the newfound Iowan wisdom, or does it seem the other states have their own agenda?

How on earth can the fundraising and television dynamics change markedly between candidates in the two weeks before the next battery of primaries, much less the five days they have to work in NH?

Has any polling been done to ponder the unusually large number of young independents who Obama mustered to win Iowa? Even the irresponsible pollsters are good at sorting out between "registered" voters and "likely" voters when developing a sample base- has anybody learned the lesson yet of the McGovern people predicting a close race in 1972 because of the voting age being lowered to 18 the previous year, before none of them showed up on Election Day?

Too much static analysis. Very few people out there are taking the long view and noicing that the two new front runners have a frightful amount of baggage. There are over two dozen primaries coming in less than two months, and TV spots have to be produced and paid for. Organizations can't be built in that time, they had damn well better be in place already.

There is no time for start ups by newly minted front runners. Somebody call Tim Russert and tell him he is analysing 2008 with 2004 sunglasses.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iowa, Schmiowa

I want to get it on the record before Iowa goes down, that the caucuses there are decidedly less relevant than they have been in the past.

Thing one: in the great stampede to be as relevant as Iowa and New Hampshire were to the Democrats in 2004, many states wrangled an earlier date. Iowa and NH then did the same, creating the holiday bum rush you are witnessing now.

This insistence on being first, along with the residents of those two states seeming to need the candidate to traipse through their living rooms before they will consider voting for them, has created a bit of a resentment in the other states- why in blazes should I vote for Obama simply because he got 2800 Iowans to vote for him and six national columnists are proposing now that he has momentum?

Thing two: even if we had a Howard Dean situation, where everybody was wondering about why the hell he was the front runner and then finding a replacement, the mass of primaries in early February would mean that the kingmaker's new choice would have less than a month to raise enough money to get on TV in twenty states at once, produce ads and have enough time to do something with them.  The ones who end up the 4th quarter ahead in fund raising are the ones in the catbird seat to do something with super-duper Tuesday, no matter whose butt they forgot to kiss in Concord.

That means Rudy, or McCain (if Rudy's genius strategy fails). And Hillary and Obama. Who wins with the Dems is the one who has the stronger organization- meaning Hillary. It helps that all the pit bulls work for her, too. Look for Obama to give it up in four months, looking like a deer in the headlights. And Bill Richardson as VP- the only one in the Dem debates not talking to Hillary with gritted teeth.

As long as Hillary is alive, the GOP will continue to swallow it's caveats about Rudy, knowing that he is the best candidate to face her in a national election.

While I'm at it, the general election has less of an error margin to it than the primaries. If the Republican/ conservative base shelves it's immigration squabbles for the moment (it will), the sizes of the two camps of circled wagons is about the same size as 2004. Rudy, 51% and 290 electoral, Hillary 49% and 250.

If the war gets worse (and it will), things could open up in November for Rudy, but his cap is less than 55%- no landslide in the offing in an electorate more polarized than any time since 1860.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive