Remember When He was the Talk of the Town?

How quickly fame fades ...

Why Am I Not Surprised ...

... that Mitt Romney donated $10,000 to an anti-freedom, anti-family organization in support of its campaign to re-institute apartheid rule over 37 million Americans?

Or that he tried to hide it?

Suggestion: New Romney Campaign Theme Song

Image via Wikipedia

I Really Have Only One Comment ...

... on tonight's Republican presidential debate, and that's on foreign policy, which the candidates are discussing right now.

There are two possibilities:

• Santorum, Romney and Gingrich are just typical political gangsters who want to continue seizing as much of your money as possible and funneling it to their benefactors in the military-industrial complex and who would, as presidents, continue the fairly disastrous Bush-Obama policies, in which case it really makes no difference whether one of them, or Obama, wins in November; or
  
  
• They actually believe the bizarre things they're saying, in which case they all three need to be fitted for straitjackets, stuck in rubber rooms, and fed Thorazine until they hopefully eventually become mentally stable enough to make themselves useful at one of those workshops where the mentally handicapped eke out livings by making pencil cups and other handicrafts, with the proviso that the nuclear "football" never, ever, ever be allowed within, say, 500 miles of said workshops.

Jesus ... 300 million Americans to choose from, and somehow the Republicans manage to narrow their field to four people, three of whom are, to all appearances, world-class sociopaths who sniffed too much fucking glue as teenagers, and the fourth of whom is in fourth place.

Update: Heh ... I figured it out! Newt was doing the whole debate in character, a moving homage to Peter Lorre! Bravissimo!

If I was Andrew Sullivan or Charles Johnson ...

... I'd probably accuse Rick Santorum of secretly signaling to southern segregationists that he's their guy:

But I'm not. So I won't.

Remember the Maine (Caucus Results)

Another typical Mitt Romney "win."

Romney, the northeastern moderate Republican, got 39% in a northeastern moderate state.

61% of Maine Republicans voted against him.

Ron Friggin' Paul came within three points of beating him.

And this, write Rosalind S. Helderman and Felicia Sonmez of the Washington Post, is something that Romney "hopes will put his campaign back on track and help him regain momentum."

He's like the Leonard Lawrence of presidential candidates.

Chuck Moulton: Open Letter to Gary Johnson on the "Fair" Tax

I'm not going to post the whole letter here -- you can read it at Independent Political Report. And you should. As a teaser, here's the opening:

Main libertarian objections to the Fair Tax:
1. The prebate would start a new welfare entitlement.
2. The transition would redistribute from savers to borrowers.
3. There is a danger of getting BOTH an income AND a consumption tax.
4. Advocates disingenuously quote a 23% rate when it is actually 30%.
5. Advocates use protectionist rhetoric to sway populists.

Also well worth a read is Jason Gonella's open letter to Johnson, which covers some other issues.

And two pieces on the "Fair" Tax by LP presidential nomination candidate R. Lee Wrights (here and here).

And finally, while I don't by any means claim to be "the father of libertarian opposition to the 'Fair' Tax,'" I can claim to have done a bit of writing on it long before it became a football in the Libertarian Party's 2012 presidential nomination process -- see here and here.

A Clean Sweep for Santorum

Those who follow KN@PPSTER closely will recall that I didn't do a "Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado prediction" post. If I had done such a post, no, I would not have predicted that Rick Santorum would win all three states.

Frankly, this GOP primary cycle has me feeling a little bit like Blackie in my favorite clip from Where the Buffalo Roam:




Robert Stacy McCain is deservingly exultant.

And me? How do I feel? Well, my Youtube search for that video clip above brought up another one too:



Manson makes about as much sense as this ball game.

A Difference in Narrative ...

Their version:

Los Angeles Times: "Romney is on a roll after big win in Nevada" ... "commanding victory" ... "a strong marker" ... "The only question was whether Romney on Saturday would top the 51% he received four years ago" ...


Wall Street Journal: "Romney handily won" ... 


New York Times: "Romney handily won" (same opening clause, different article, different authors, different paper) ... "solidifying his status as the front-runner and increasing his momentum" ...

My version:

So far as I know, nobody (with the possible exception of an over-enthusiastic Ron Paul supporter or three) has ever predicted anything but a Mitt Romney win in Nevada.

And so far as I know, nobody (with the same exception) predicted what an anemic win it would be. What I don't understand is why the media is shying away from discussing what an anemic win it is.

Four years ago, Romney won Nevada with 51%, despite not being the "inevitable front-runner" (he'd won Michigan, which went earlier then than this year, but had lost Iowa, New Hampshire and Florida), and carried every county in the state except Nye (which Ron Paul took).

This year, as "inevitable front-runner," he only managed 42%, and lost three counties (Nye again, to Paul again; Esmeralda to Paul; and Mineral to Newt Gingrich).

In three primary/caucus wins of five contests so far, Romney has yet to break 50%. More than half of -- usually closer to, and sometimes more than, six out of 10 -- Republicans are still saying "no, not Mitt."

This thing isn't over by a damn sight.


Update: The final vote counts took awhile, but it looks like Romney managed 50% after all.

Well

That's a deep subject, isn't it?

Yes, I blew the Florida primary prediction, big-time -- looks like by about 23 points or so. Hey, it happens.

Mitt Romney needed to win by 10 points or more to really get back in this race. It looks like he won by 14.

BUT! Lookit:

 

I grabbed that graphic from Fox News, on the supposition that a generic state map with colored counties reflecting public information probably is probably fair game for fair use. Red is for Romney, green is for Newt Gingrich.

Yes, Romney won the state fair and square. But if you take a gander at the geography there, it doesn't look very good for Romney in future GOP primaries or for the GOP itself in the general election.

In the panhandle, where the GOP primary electorate looks a lot more like most of Republican America and especially southern Republican America, Gingrich whipped Romney's ass. If he has the money/backing to stick with this, Gingrich probably has North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Lousiana, Kentucky, Tennessee and Arkansas in pocket. And, of course, his home state of Georgia.

In southern Florida, where the GOP primary electorate is more moderate, Romney proved that he can beat candidates perceived as more conservative. But in November even Romney, if he's the nominee, will be the putative conservative. And the GOP is unlikely to win the White House if it can't win Florida.

This is Romney's fourth time out in this cycle. He's 2 for 4, and has yet to break 50% anywhere. The majority of Republican primary voters keep saying "not Mitt." By Super Tuesday, I predict that that "not Mitt" vote will have largely coalesced to "yes Newt."

Contra Epstein

Reid J. Epstein @Politico:

Gingrich needs a close race more than Romney needs a blowout victory.

I disagree. Anything but a blowout for Romney today is effectively the end of his campaign.

If Gingrich wins Florida, "prohibitive frontrunner" and biggest spender Mitt Romney will be 1 for 4, and that one an underwhelming win in the smallest contest thus far.

If Romney wins but it's close, he continues to be what he's been since Iowa -- "the walking dead." He may hold on until Super Tuesday before going down, but down he shall go.

He needs to win by at least 10 points to really get back in the race.

With the polls now open, I'm still calling Florida for Gingrich.

The Sticking Point

Image via Wikipedia

Eric Dondero over at Libertarian [sic] Republican thinks I'm crazy for still predicting a Newt Gingrich win in tomorrow's Florida primary.

Maybe he's right. I do have a bad habit of over-estimating the aggregate intelligence of the Republican Party. I'm betting that Republican primary voters have enough gray matter between them to have figured out that Gingrich is the only candidate for their nomination who stands a chance in hell of both getting that nomination and beating Barack Obama in November.

A small chance, true, but a chance nonetheless. And he's the only one who even might manage both.

Ron Paul could conceivably beat Obama, but he can't sell the GOP on foreign policy sanity and get the nomination.

Mitt Romney or even Rick Santorum (just barely plausibly) could get the nomination, but neither one  has a chance in hell of hitting 270 electoral votes for the win. In fact, either one would be over-performing at 100 electoral votes.

So the question is: Are the Republicans interested, or are they not interested, in at least a slim possibility of taking the White House for the 2013-2017 presidential term? If yes, Gingrich is the nominee. If no, he isn't. It's really just that simple.

I'm sticking with my earlier prediction: Gingrich by 9 points, plus or minus 2, tomorrow, for the simple reason that any GOP primary electorate dumb enough to return a different result is arguably also too damn dumb to work those complicated knobs on their doors and get out of their houses to the polling places to vote any other way.

But I could be wrong. Perhaps the Democratic Party has an "Open Those Complicated Door Thingies for Romney Voters and Drive Them to the Polls" effort set up.

And just to be clear here, no, I'm not a Gingrich fan. I don't really care one way or another whom the Republicans nominate, or who wins in November, except from the "horse race" angle.  There's just no real betting to be done on Obama versus Romney or Santorum. That would be like an exhibition football game between the New England Patriots and your local Mighty Mite champions. Obama versus Gingrich would at least be more akin to the Patriots versus the Kansas City Chiefs' second string or something.

Another Mormon Practice, Briefly Explained

Image via Wikipedia

Gawker puts the worst possible face on it: "Yes, the Romneys Converted Mitt's Dead Atheist Father-in-Law to Mormonism." But as religious practices go, it's actually pretty cool. Here's the skinny:

Like many (not all, but many) churches, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints claims to be the One Truth Faith. That is, through apostolic succession (in LDS's case, through a "restoration" of same after the Catholics and Protestants broke it), the church claims to act as God's authority on Earth.

That entails certain responsibilities. In order to get into heaven, certain things have to have happened. For example, you need to have been baptized. And not just dunked in any random body of water by any random person, but baptized by someone duly and properly exercising the aforementioned authority.

Where most churches making such claims fall down is on the issue of "what happens to the guy who never heard the truth?" Or, in LDS's case, even someone who heard it but didn't "get" it in time.

In some sects, well, that guy just gets a one-way ticket to Ye Aulde Lake of Fire.

In Mormonism, there's a sort of post-mortality "holding pen" for such people, where they have a chance to accept the true gospel and get into heaven. But they do still have to be baptized and so forth.

The LDS church spends quite a bit of time and money on conducting baptisms by proxy -- "baptism for the dead." One reason Mormons are so well known in the area of genealogy is that they're constantly working to identify people for these proxy baptisms, so that as many people as possible can get into heaven.

What could be more humane or pious than that? Mormons believe you have to be a Mormon to get into heaven. They also know that even their extensive missionary efforts aren't going to reach everyone. But you get a second chance after death, and they make an effort to help you out even beyond the grave.

And yes, there's a biblical hook to hand the practice on:  1st Corinthians 15:29. Baptism for the dead does appear to have been a Christian practice for 300 years or so before the emerging Catholic order suppressed it.

The Gawker headline isn't, strictly speaking, correct. If Edward Davies converted to Mormonism posthumously, he did it himself. All his daughter and son-in-law's family did was make sure that if he did so, he was equipped with the requisite certifications and such to make that conversion all proper and legal in God's eyes.

There are a lot of reasons not to support Mitt Romney for President. Depending on your religious beliefs, his Mormonism may even be one of them. But this baptism stuff is surely a minor thing within that other thing, and not nearly as creepy as Gawker makes it sound.

Related articles

• Yes, the Romneys Converted Mitt's Dead Atheist Father-in-Law to Mormonism (John Cook/Gawker) (memeorandum.com)
• Concerning Mitt Romney's "Mormon Problem" (knappster.blogspot.com)
• 'Conservative Prots' vs. LDS baptisms? (getreligion.org)

Is Rick Santorum Serious About Advancing the Social Conservative Agenda?

Image via Wikipedia

On the evidence, I have to conclude "no."

That evidence is that, as of a few hours before the final pre-Florida-primary debate, he has failed to do what Rick Perry did last week in South Carolina -- end his campaign and endorse Newt Gingrich.

The math isn't that complicated:

• Santorum isn't going to be the GOP nominee, and if his IQ is larger than his shoe size he knows he's not going to be the nominee.
• After Gingrich wins Florida, he'll run the table. He won't need Santorum's endorsement or support, and he won't owe Santorum's social conservative supporters anything at all.
• However, as of today, it is just barely, possibly plausible -- if we stretch things quite a bit -- that Santorum's support could make, or his non-support break, Gingrich's Florida prospects, and that Newt as POTUS would look benevolently upon, and seek to repay the support of, Santorum's social conservative supporters if Santorum delivered said supporters into Gingrich's column. Offer good today only, of course.

So, is Santorum in this thing to advance his supposed agenda, or is his campaign just a personal ego altar on which he'll happily sacrifice that agenda in return for a few more days of adoring rope lines and increased face time on the idiot tube?

I guess we'll find out one way or another within about four hours.

Related articles

• Santorum: Sticking it out, if not in Florida (tampabay.com)
• Newt to Santorum, Perry: Drop out (politico.com)
• Debate Could Be Key Moment In Fla. Primary (miami.cbslocal.com)
• Social conservatives start to coalesce around Santorum (Cameron Joseph/Ballot Box) (memeorandum.com)
• SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES UNITE FOR SANTORUM (Universal Uclick/uExpress) (memeorandum.com)

A Couple of Missing, But Pertinent, Factoids

Sez R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. in The American Spectator: Newt Gingrich is "Our [the GOP's] Bill Clinton." Followed by a recitation of Gingrich's character flaws.

Two things that Tyrrell leaves out:

1. Bill Clinton was elected POTUS.
2. Bill Clinton was elected POTUS. Twice.

Just sayin' ...

Related articles

• Gingrich on Clinton impeachment, telling the truth (Kevinliptak/CNN) (memeorandum.com)

"Dead heat in Florida ahead of debate"

Image via Wikipedia

That's not the headline you want to see if you're Mitt Romney and guy you're within the margin of error of and about to debate is Newt Gingrich.

A lot of people, especially pundits, have been giving themselves whiplash from watching the polls jump around this campaign season.

Rest that neck. Put on a cervical collar and stick with me here. I predicted Newt would be the nominee right after Iowa. I predicted his performance, and Romney's, in South Carolina to within 2 points each. And I'm sticking by my Florida prediction:

Gingrich: 42%
Romney: 33%
Santorum: 13%
Paul 12%

And frankly I think I may be over-predicting Santorum at Gingrich's expense, and under-estimating Paul a bit.

Here's why Gingrich is going to pull off a clear win in Florida:

• The debate: When Romney comes under attack, he falls to pieces. He stutters, he stammers, he looks evasive, he comes off as distinctly un-"presidential." When Gingrich comes under attack, he goes on the offensive and doesn't ease up until the floor is soaked in his opponents' blood. Romney will take a 5-10% hit from tomorrow's debate. Gingrich will get a 5-10% bump.
• Another Adelson soft money check is fueling a $6 million Newt SuperPAC media offensive between now and the primary. That's not as much money as Mitt's spending, but it's enough.
• Romney is not as belligerently pro-Israel as Gingrich (Florida has the largest Jewish community of any southern state, and it is politically organized).
• Romney is not as belligerently anti-Castro as Gingrich (Florida has the largest Cuban exile community of any state, and it is politically organized).
• Florida has a large population of immigrants and first-generation Americans. Gingrich has aggressively positioned himself as the least insanely anti-freedom Republican candidate on immigration policy.
• The top two religious demographics in Florida are Roman Catholics (Gingrich and Santorum are Catholic) and evangelical Christians (many, if not most, of whom distrust Romney's religion, Mormonism).

The worse news for Romney is that even if I'm wrong, he's still probably screwed. He doesn't just need to win Florida, he needs to break out a major ass-whipping.

He entered the GOP nomination race as the prohibitive front-runner. He's now won only one of three primaries/caucuses, and that one the smallest, and he only pulled 40% of the vote there when he should have easily cruised past 50%. He's limping. He's bleeding. Barely squeaking by is not going to be enough to get him back in this race for real.

Gingrich, on the other hand, came from double digits back to win in South Carolina, and has now pulled up by double digits to contest a state that was supposed to be a Romney cakewalk. He's got the momentum of a runaway truck. As everyone who's contested an election with him since 1976 can attest, he is not someone you want to see bearing down on you in this kind of fight.

So, I still say Gingrich by nine points, give or take two. But, as always, I could be wrong.

Related articles

• CNN/Time Poll: Dead heat in Florida ahead of debate (Kevinliptak/CNN) (memeorandum.com)
• Beware of Early Florida Polls (theothermccain.com)
• New poll suggests Gingrich surging in Florida (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
• Newt Gingrich Gets Key Endorsement Ahead of Florida Primary [Video] (inquisitr.com)
• 'Remain Calm! All Is Well!' (theothermccain.com)

Concerning Mitt Romney's "Mormon Problem"

Yes, he has one.

America's come a long way since JFK's uphill slog to prove that a Catholic could get elected president, but not so far that Mitt Romney's affiliation with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints isn't a problem for him, with respect to both the Republican Party's presidential nomination and the general election.

Evangelical Christians -- who constitute a big bloc within the GOP's primary electorate -- don't like Mormonism. They don't consider it a real version of Christianity, and some of them consider it a cult. They're not on board with Romney.

And, as this article from the Palm Beach Post explains, African-American voters aren't likely to be very positive about Romney when they learn about his church's historical treatment of blacks.

Now, it's true that a Republican presidential candidate has a hard time getting black votes anyway, and that it's even harder when he's running against a black sitting president. But the Mormon angle certainly doesn't help with those voters, and it's not likely to sit that well with non-Mormon white voters who have moved past identity politics, either.

I might as well trot out my fairly basic knowledge of Mormon doctrine (I joined the LDS church at 18, and left it a few years later) on this issue, as it bears explanation.

Per Mormon doctrine, we are all literally children of God, with the potential to "grow up" to be gods ourselves. Jesus is our eldest brother. That war between in heaven, in which Satan and the rebellious angels were expelled? They were our errant brothers and sisters, too. We were all angels in the "pre-existence," and took part in that war before coming to Earth to "gain a body" and learn some important lessons on our paths to godhood.

In that war, some angels fought bravely on the side of God. When they came to Earth, they got light skin.

And there were the bad guys, Satan's legions, who were "cast into the Outer Darkness."

A third group was the angels who were on the right side but cowered, hid, or cut and ran ... and, well, they got dark skin. Oh, and they were banned by God from the priesthood (which includes all adult males, btw) of the one true church.

Until 1978, that is, when the church got sued and its president (whose titles include "prophet, seer and revelator") got a memo from God -- I'm sure the timing was coincidental, just as it was with the church's abandonment of polygamy, in 1890, under federal government pressure -- that he'd changed his mind about the whole "black people as priests" thing.

So you can see why African-Americans, and those who think that African-Americans probably weren't angelic cowards in the pre-existence, might not be thrilled with the idea of a Mormon president. Especially one who was serious enough about his religion to serve as a missionary for two years and then as a local bishop and a stake president (stakes are area-based groups of Mormon congregations).

In actuality, American voters generally don't seem to like the idea of a president who takes his religion extra-seriously regardless of what that religion is. That's why we haven't seen a President Pat Robertson, President Gary Bauer, etc. yet.

Sure, a presidential candidate is expected to attend church. "I sleep in on Sundays" doesn't work when that question gets asked. It's less about religion per se than it is about energetic "community involvement." It's probably a plus if he's a deacon, or heads up a local ministry to the poor, or whatever.

But if he's been in the pulpit on a regular basis as a preacher, chances are he's said some things that will come back to haunt him. And if his religion is even a bit out of the mainstream (voters seem to prefer Baptists and Methodists), he starts looking a little too weird to trust with Ye Aulde Nuclear Footeball.

Romney's Mormonism is not the only killer of his presidential ambitions. But it isn't helping him, that's for sure.

Related articles

• Fla pastor courted by Rick Santorum derides Mormons (tampabay.com)
• Are Americans Ready to Elect a Mormon President? (newsy.com)
• Solid facts about Mitt Romney and Mormons (blogs.vancouversun.com)
• A third of Mormons say Mitt Romney's religion will count against him (guardian.co.uk)
• Does Romney Have A Mormon Problem With Evangelicals? (andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com)
• Nearly Half of Evangelicals Say Mormons Aren't Christians (maboulette.wordpress.com)

Post-South Carolina Primary Thoughts

Fortified by a few Old Crow and RC nightcaps, my take on what's happened and what's next in the GOP nomination race:

Mitt Romney's chief strength going into this race was his putative front-runner status and the attendant "inevitability" of that status. So, three contests in ... he's won one of the three. The smallest of the three. The one in a state where he maintains a home. The one in the state next to the state he used to govern. The one where he should have easily exceeded 50%, but instead barely managed to notch up 40%.

Rick Santorum earned his Iowa victory with hard, dedicated, on-the-ground campaigning. But in addition to earning it, he had the advantage of being a pro-life Catholic running in a state with a large (23%) Catholic population and a large evangelical pro-life population. If that evangelical support had stuck with him, he might have a shot at the nomination ... but it didn't stick with him in South Carolina. Apparently Tarheel voters are more interested in actually winning the White House than they are in making a strong statement.

Ron Paul's supporters are more enthusiastic and dedicated than any, bar none. That makes a huge difference in states with small populations. But the populations of the primary states are growing as we go, and the bulk of the GOP base just isn't ready to give up on the Bushevik foreign policy line. He's not going to be the nominee.

Perry's out. Huntsman's out. Bachmann's out. Cain's out.

That leaves Gingrich.

Two weeks ago, I had people telling me I was crazy for saying he'd win South Carolina. Even as little as a day ago, I had people saying I was way high on my 9-point win prediction for him. As it turns out, I was low -- he won by 12%.

Ten days until Florida. That means eight or nine days of people telling me I'm crazy when I say Gingrich will win there, and one or two days of people telling me I'm over-predicting the margin of his win. Here's my initial prediction:

Gingrich: 42%
Romney: 33%
Santorum: 13%
Paul 12%

And frankly I think I may be over-predicting Santorum at Gingrich's expense, and under-estimating Paul a bit.

Paul, of course, will hold out to the end and use what support he garners to advance his agenda rather than his personal ambition. Good on him for that.

My guess is that Santorum exits the race after Florida. As much as I disagree with him on pretty much everything, he strikes me as a reasonably honest and honorable man who wants his party to succeed. He took his best shot. He did well in Iowa. He tried to parlay that into further successes. Once he's sure that didn't work, he'll cut bait and get behind the party's choice.

Romney will probably hold on until Super Tuesday. After Gingrich humiliates him, winning at least eight of the ten primaries that day, the GOP will move forward into the general election cycle with a clear nominee apparent.

That's how I'm seeing it, anyway. But you know, I'm a little tipsy at the moment.

Related articles

• Final South Carolina Predictions (knappster.blogspot.com)
• Why I Keep Telling You to Expect Newt (knappster.blogspot.com)
• South Carolina Primary Results (theothermccain.com)
• Coming Soon: The Second Ascent of Newt Gingrich (knappster.blogspot.com)
• It's Way Too Early to Say I Told You So ... (knappster.blogspot.com)

Final South Carolina Predictions

The recent polls have Gingrich up on Romney by anywhere from 2% (in other words, tied within the margin of error) to 9%.

I'm leaning toward the higher number, not because of where it comes from (PPP -- not the most reliable polling service), but because Gingrich and Paul's supporters are energized and Romney's aren't.

Prediction as South Carolinians head to the real polls, +/- 2% on each candidate:

Gingrich: 38%
Romney: 29%
Paul: 18%
Santorum: 15%

Actual Outcome:

Gingrich: 40%
Romney: 28%
Santorum: 17%
Paul: 13%

Hey, I predicted three of the four candidates to within 2% of their actual performance! I'm surprised Paul didn't make third place.

Liveblog, GOP Debate

Image via Wikipedia

The usual -- comment when I feel like it, quit when I get bored.

Sticking the wrap-up here, for those who don't want the blow-by-blow. I'm pretty sure Gingrich won. I'm absolutely sure Romney lost. But the whole thing was pretty ugly and boring.

[7:05 CST] Candidates introduced. All of them stand and smile except for Santorum, who waves and grins like he's on "Hee Haw." Someone probably fed him amphetamines this afternoon.

[7:06] National anthem, debate rules, opening "if you don't know who I am yet" statements.

[7:09] Gingrich is appalled at being asked if he's a swingin' dude as the opener to a presidential debate.

[7:12] This is why Gingrich will be the nominee. He's got his blood up and is ready to fight any sumbitch what gets in his way.

[7:13] Santorum calms it down with a pretty positive statement about forgiveness, etc. Romney: Let's get on to the real issues. Paul: Too often we're all on the receiving ends of personal attacks, etc.