Post-Obamalyptic thoughts

You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you!
God damn you all to hell!
- Planet of the Apes, 1968

One, let's start by acknowledging the voters were wrong on Tuesday. We live in a republic with regular elections. These things will happen from time to time.

Of course, if I was, say, a right-wing version of Wisconsin State Journal, I'd call for an end to elections. But silly me, I actually like elections, even when they pick the wrong people. It's the Neo-Conservative in me.

Let's start at the top. Barry O'Bama is the most Irish a President has been since freakin' JFK. With a name like that and the luck he had during the election, he's more Irish than a Leprechaun. C'mon. Who would'a thunk that entire financial markets would conspire to go into the dumpster just when Senator McCain was building momentum? And that McCain would actually take the bait, ride his White Horse to Washington, and get tagged for bailing out corporate fat cats and doing it incompetently?

It takes the Right Stuff to be so wrong.

But it's not like McCain was exactly cruising to victory when the markets crashed. As Byron York pointed out in National Review, the odds of electing any Republican as president this year were pretty poor. And of course, no mere mortal Republican has ever faced an Irish pagan deity before like Barry O'Bama. When they're sacrificing goats to the guy in far away Kenya, what chance does a guy like McCain have?

Was McCain the best choice for Republicans? Hardly. Former Senator Fred Thompson could have at least articulated a conservative message. Former Governor Romney could have made an economic case for conservativism. Former Governor Huckabee could have made an interesting populist candidate, although I think the party would just as soon evolve without him. Giuliani would have made a great Attorney General for somebody... as long as judicial selections were handled by the White House Counsel office.

But McCain won the primary campaign by default and shortly afterwards his national constituency, the press corps, joined the Kenyan goat-sacrificers in O'Bama worship.

So now we plot for 2012 and a second chance at Barry O'Bama. Fortunately the bench is starting to show some surprising strength. In addition to Governor Palin we have the return of former Governor Romney, and current Louisiana Governor Jindal. Notice something? Conservatives could back any of them. What a change four years will make.

The big Spitzer picture

As we consume every salacious detail of the Spitzer story, there is a larger point to all of this.

But as much as we would wallow in the details, can we ask ourselves if there still is a line between the private lives of politicians and their public lives?

As much as that line ever existed, it was a 20th century invention.

Thomas Jefferson’s affair with Sally Hemings was frontpage material in the opposition newspapers. Andrew Jackson was accused of bigamy. When Grover Cleveland ran for president in 1884, his opponents chanted “Ma, ma, where’s my pa?” referring to Cleveland’s possible illegitimate child. Cleveland’s supporters had the last laugh when Cleveland won, “He’s gone all the way to Washington.”

Less than 30 years later Woodrow Wilson’s personal life was mostly off limits.

So it was until the Miami Herald photographed Sen. Gary Hart onboard a yacht conveniently named the “Monkey Business” in midpresidential campaign, um, relaxing.

Of course, we had the momentary backlash during the Clinton era, with Hillary Clinton standing by her man even as he committed perjury. But we forget that at the height of the scandal, Congressman Bob Livingston was forced to resign due to his extramarital affair rather than succeed Newt Gingrich as speaker of the House.

So what’s our standard for interest in politicians’ lives? Does it matter how many divorces Sen. Russ Feingold, former Sen. Fred Thompson, former Speaker Gingrich, Sen. John McCain and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani had collectively? Probably not, any more than it mattered President Ronald Reagan was once divorced and had strained relations with his children.

As long as we’re limited to mere mortals for candidates, we know that all will carry some flaw. Perhaps a reasonable standard should be if they yield to temptation we should let it remain a private matter unless it involves breaking the law, abusing the trust of their office or somehow impedes their job performance.

But we’re in a celebrity age, and insisting on a reasonable privacy standard is like the Dutch Boy with a finger in the dike. So long as politicians use their families as props and fodder for stock campaign photos, the temptation will be to probe for hypocrisy, or at least entertainment value. Politicians should be warned if they don’t want a Jerry Springer reputation, they should avoid a Jerry Springer lifestyle.

Endorsements tomorrow

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is expected to drop out tomorrow and endorse Arizona Senator John McCain for president.

Meanwhile closer to home as the nomination battle comes to Wisconsin, State Senator Ted Kanavas is expected to endorse former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney tomorrow.

Time for the other Thompson to withdraw

There are only three, possibly four likely winners of the Republican nomination at this point. After losing in South Carolina, Fred Thompson is not one of them.

Of the remaining choices, Romney, Huckabee, McCain and Giuliani, only former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has a chance of carrying the conservative standard in November. None of the other three candidates are capable of pulling together all the fragile strands of the Republican Party and still present a conservative program. None of the other three would want to.

Senator John McCain is the front runner. Within the GOP there is a certain sense of "It's his turn", always a strong sentiment with Republicans. There is also a sense of gratitude for the senator's long service, his military record, and his willingness to stand firm in support of sending more troops to Iraq before even the White House had the idea.

If resume alone were the determinant of the Republican nomination, McCain would have to be the Republicans' first choice.

However, McCain has been wrong on so many issues, and has been willing to put his personal vanity ahead of that of the conservative movement and the Republican Party. Conservatives fear less that he'll be another Eisenhower than he'll be something else entirely, maybe an Andrew Jackson. McCain's stands on immigration, tax cuts, health care, global warming and even judicial nominations would make most conservatives wary to support him. But there should not be one conservative supporter for the senator given his disdain for the First Amendment, especially his continued support for suppressing free speech in the name of "campaign finance reform."

I have no doubt Senator McCain would willingly die for his country if it was asked, but who could speak up for our country if he was elected?

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is a strong voice for the unborn. Huckabee also has appeal in that he is a strong voice for returning religious values to the public arena. But Huckabee demonstrates the limits of one faction within the GOP trying to succeed without the others. Abandoning economic conservatives in the hopes of getting Democratic populist voters is not a winning coalition and undermines the very ideas of American conservativism.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has finally decided to contest a primary, only to see his national standing gone and real alternatives to his candidacy emerge. If Fred Thompson is to be criticized for a lackluster campaign, Giuliani should be disqualified for squandering every advantage he had.

Setting aside the issues for a moment, Giuliani's personal scandals are not the personal story of a president. Even Ulysses S. Grant's drinking and Grover Cleveland's child out of wedlock pale in comparison to Giuliani's story.

Giuliani's strength is his commitment to the War on Terror. Perhaps more than any other politician he understands how much the world changed on September 11th. However, if foreign policy were the only issue, why wouldn't Senator McCain be the first choice?

Giuliani's commitment to lower taxes is admirable. His record on crime unsurpassed. But when it comes to the social issues, Giuliani would be a disaster to the Reagan Coalition. While he has committed to supporting strict constructionists to the Supreme Court, that is not the only role of the President when it comes to defending life and standing for traditional values.

Which leaves us as Governor Romney. While Romney is a recent convert on the issue of being Pro-Life, his record in Massachusetts is one of a sincere conversion. Romney fought for traditional marriage. On economic issues, Romney is a fiscal conservative. And on the War on Terror, Romney also has a mature world view that sees the war as ongoing and necessary. No candidate is perfect, but Romney is one candidate capable of bringing the whole of the Republican Party together in time to win in November. Romney is also the once candidate remaining that could defeat McCain, Huckabee and Giuliani, all of whom would be counter to the interests of the conservative movement.

The next contest is Florida on January 29th. A Romney win there, with all four of the major candidates in a contest for the first time, could give him the momentum needed to win a clear majority of delegates on February 5th.

By withdrawing now and endorsing Romney, Thompson's support could be enough to provide Romney the edge needed to win. But the key is to withdraw now so the endorsement has time to affect the voters' choice, especially as early voting has already begun.

It pains me to offer that advice. As regular readers know, Sean Hackbarth of the American Mind is on staff with Thompson and my wife is a "Fred Head."

But by supporting Romney now, Thompson will have done his part to advance the conservative cause and propel a conservative to the Republican nomination.

Spare some change?

This is too funny. Ht: Illusory Tenant

I should send out a press release, part III

I think I've got it figured out.

Romney wins Michigan. Thompson wins South Carolina. Romney wins Nevada. McCain wins Florida. McCain gets skunked on Super Tuesday. Thompson wins a majority of the delegates Super Tuesday. Giuliani wins New Jersey. Huckabee wins Arkansas. Conservatives, seeing that the choice is now between Thompson and Romney, choose Thompson. Thompson seals the deal in Wisconsin.

I should send out a press release, part II

Romney wins Michigan. Huckabee or Thompson wins South Carolina, McCain comes to the end of the road. Florida goes to Romney, knocking out Giuliani. Romney cleans up Super Tuesday. Romney wins the nomination, picks Thompson as his running mate.

Giuliani better hope it doesn't come down to Wisconsin

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Former New York Mayor (and life-long NY Giants fan) Rudy Giuliani refused to autograph a Green Bay Packer hat, saying it would be bad luck for his team. You can see the Fox News video here. Of course, the Packers fan was pretty obnoxious, too.

Hey Rudy, didn't anyone tell you Wisconsin's a battleground state in November?

(Ht: Packerama)

Don't write any candidate off

The contest for president is still wide open, as I explain in this week's column.

The day of the New Hampshire primary, the news broke on Fox News that Clinton was reorganizing her staff. By the end of the evening, Clinton was giving her victory speech, a quick and inexplicable turnaround.

Funny how things change. It wasn’t long before the Iowa caucus that Sen. Barack Obama was being written off. Now he’s won Iowa decisively and finished a strong second in New Hampshire, two states with a minimal black vote.

Fox News reported Tuesday night their exit polls showed Clinton finished much better among women, while Obama did much better among men. As the two candidates head into states with larger black populations, it will be interesting to see if Obama can bring the black vote home and if that will be enough of a margin to defeat Clinton’s hold on traditional Democratic voters.

Former Sen. John Edwards (not to be confused with the television psychic Jon Edward) finished a distant third in New Hampshire after finishing second in Iowa. Most analysts are writing him off. But then again, most analysts wrote off Clinton and Obama.

The Republicans debated tonight and this time (according to the post-debate analysis focus group) it was Fred Thompson's turn to shine.

Romney wins Michigan, Thompson wins South Carolina, Giuliani wins Florida, this thing could go all the way to the convention.

Well, except for Ron Paul:

And if you’re wondering about former Libertarian candidate for president Congressman Ron Paul, currently running as a Republican, his supporters are trying to raise money to fly a blimp and staging virtual campaign rallies in the "World of Warcraft" online game. Paul will sew up the Orc vote, even as The New Republic publishes revelations about the racist screeds published in Paul’s newsletters.

The Michigan primary is Tuesday, and then place your bets, folks. Four days later is the Nevada primary, and anyone can still win on both sides.

Update!Re-watching the Republican debate with the lovely Doreen from Waukesha. Doreen's chanting, "Go Fred Go!" But what we're laughing at is the different candidates' reactions to the crazy old man on the end, Ron Paul. Romney looks concerned, like Paul might hurt himself. McCain can't decide whether to laugh or beat the snot out of Paul. Huckabee just kinda glances upward when he's not thinking, "This guy is wasting my time." Giuliani looks like he's trying hard not to laugh. Fred uses the time to think about his next one-liner. Meanwhile Paul looks at the others like they're all members of the Tri-Lateral Commission.

Marital advice from Rudy Giuliani

Taken out of context from The Campaign Spot on National Review Online:

"I've made my share of mistakes, I regret them, I learn from them, and I don't repeat them."

Every ex-wife is different.

You will coexist and you will like it

The original bumper sticker:

The Tom McMahon version:

It's not often I get asked by both sides of a controversy for comment. The Society of the Perpetually Aggrieved has weighed in and the indispensable Tom McMahon is guilty of... what?

The Interfaith Conference firmly believes that comparing Jews to Nazis, and suggesting that true Islam promotes terrorism, are irresponsible statements born out of ignorance that we find offensive and beneath the level of discourse needed in our nation. Though we support your right to say and post on websites whatever you like, even when offensive to some, we reserve the right to point out things we find offensive and to call upon our local media to act in a more responsible manner.

The Interfaith Conference's statement came in response to Charlie Sykes' reprinting of Tom McMahon's version of the "Coexist" bumper sticker and some of the remarks from Atomic Trousers, and it asked Sykes (and WTMJ-AM) to remove the post. Sykes declined.

Jim Rowen claims the design of the McMahon bumper sticker was to "redirect it against Muslims." Rowen misses the obvious point that the Muslims weren't the only religion left on the sticker, and either the other religions should find some reason to be offended or none of them. If we're not willing to accept that, then surely the ones who are most condescending and demeaning to the Muslim faith are those who claim to defend it, as they do not see the need to extend such special protection to the other religions on the sticker. Sorry Jim, but I'm going to have ask you to stop treating Islam like a bunch of babies. They deserve better.

Mike Mathias along with Charlie Sykes asked me to weigh in on this issue, and Anne Quimby Mathias* was the first to complain of swapping of the Star of David with a Swastika.

And yes, I’m assuming (and really, really, hoping) the substitution was unintentional, although how that escaped notice is beyond me. Really, the Star of David replaced with a swastika? Next time, run that one past just about anyone on the planet, ‘kay?

AQM* also complains about the comments, including one from Peter DiGuadio. Looking for offense in what DiGuadio writes is like looking for change for a five at Heartbreakers, and his comment was nothing new or even clever, “The Religion of Piece (of Arm, of Leg, of Torso)?” (I only mention Peter's remarks because I predicted them in my e-mail back to Mike Mathias*.)

After that the complaints go downhill. So there's really two separate issues, the remarks from Atomic Trousers regarding the original bumper sticker and the McMahon parody version of the bumper sticker.

Let's look at the remarks first.
If some of the followers of the religion represented by the crescent moon “c” on your cute little bumper sticker would stop hijacking planes and blowing up buildings, coexisting would be a little easier.

I fail to see how this could be controversial. The Atomic Trousers remarks are expressly mitigated with the phrase, "...some of the followers of the religion...," and does not impugn the entire faith or all (or even most) of its adherents. A better response than to ask the remarks be withdrawn would be to ask the Muslim community why so many of them are willing to become homicidal, even suicidal-homicidal, to expand their faith. It's an odd form of evangelism, but one consistent with the faith's origins. We need not wonder what Mohammed's reaction would be to a COEXIST bumper sticker, we have the historical record.

If I could suggest an alternative response for the Interfaith Conference et al, it would be the Christopher Hitchens response: a plague upon all the religious houses, and a listing of the transgressions of each. As a Catholic, I'm still deeply offended at Luther's act of Church door vandalism, and the Catholic church is still awaiting appropriate recompense plus interest. Just thought I would offer the start of the list.

We're about to enter a very interesting time in American politics. One religion, indigenous to the United States, is about to undergo an examination as if it were as alien to our experience as ritual cannibalism. If former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney wins the Iowa Republican Caucus as expected, Americans will get an intense refresher course in the history and practices of the Church of Latter-Day Saints. Meanwhile Catholic voters are being challenged by the leadership of their faith to remember the Church's teachings regarding the intrinsic value of life when they enter the voting booth, a direct challenge to New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Nobody would suggest discussion of those religions and their role in the public sphere are off limits, even immune to attack. Nor should they. The Interfaith Conference and company would do well to keep those examples in mind before they push Muslims into some condescending special political preserve.

Which brings us to the second part, the McMahon bumper sticker. The offense at the substitution of the swastika for the Star of David misses the point entirely. The point of adding the Communist Hammer & Sickle and the National Socialist Swastika was, in Tom McMahon's words, to "raise the bar," i.e. add elements to the sticker impossible for coexistence.

It should be impossible to argue that the religion removed from the sticker, Judaism, and a religion left on the sticker, Islam, should be simultaneously offended, yet that is the unusual position of the Interfaith Conference. Such intellectual contortions should be offensive to our sense of aesthetics, if nothing else, and left to circus sideshows. We might ask the Interfaith conference if they were offended by the substitution (and in their formulation, equation) of Communism for homosexuality, or if the remaining religions on the bumper sticker should also be offended by McMahon's work, and if that can be simultaneously justified.

I'm reminded of the controversy over the Seinfeld series episode, "The Puerto Rican Day," when Puerto Rican activists threatened to protest and boycott Jerry Seinfeld and NBC if the episode aired. When asked how they could find something offensive when they haven't seen the episode, the activists replied, "We assume that it's offensive."

The Interfaith Conference knows something is there in that bumper sticker, even if they can't describe it, so they'll grasp at anything possible no matter how contradictory. (After all, it's Charlie Sykes.)

But let's deal with the problematic substitution of the Star of David for the Swastika. Anne Quimby Mathias* wrote,

"And if the comments accompanying the posts are removed, we would be denied our opportunity to witness Sykes’ minions tell us how 'everybody else is doing it,' instead of conceding that maybe, just maybe, swapping the Star of David with a Swastika is deeply disturbing under any circumstances."

It's not, and definitely not in this circumstance. As both Charlie Sykes and Rick Esenberg pointed out, McMahon simply needed an "x". But in order to make the point that there are some things with which we cannot simply "coexist" McMahon needed to replace the relatively benign (the Star of David) with Evil (the Swastika). (If anything, McMahon's liberal critics should give him credit for substituting Communism for the symbol for homosexuality.) Instead of equating the two, having to substitute one for the other emphasized the difference between the two.

On a side note:
Both Dad29 and Tim Rock tackle the issue of the original bumper sticker and whether the sticker merited the attention in the first place.

Dad29: The syncretism expressed by the original "coexist" sticker is offensive to anyone who values that which is true.

It was also smug and condescending--as though those who speak out about the deficiencies of Islam are somehow bellicose, or impolite.

Tim Rock: I've seen the bumper sticker, too. I spent less time looking at the symbols (I had other things on my mind, like minding the road) and more thinking the thought expressed was kind of cool. I mean, who wants to be perpetually offended anyway?

Now truly, I could not infer any impolite references to dad's or other conservatives' thoughts regarding Islam. The message of the bumper sticker was simply one of hope that we (all of us) might find a better way to live together, and used a few symbols as examples because they matched the letters needed to spell out Coexist.

When I've seen the bumper sticker my thought was to roll my eyes and wonder at the dullard who thought the bumper sticker clever enough to put on the car. Bloggers Capper and Jim Rowen attempt to plumb the depths of the bumper sticker sentiment, but like Gertrude Stein describing Oakland, I would argue there's "no there, there." Willful ignorance of history and culture is not virtuous. Pretending the competing religions, philosophies and lifestyles are not in competition is the sign of a prolonged adolescence rather than a trained mind. Rather than have any impolite thoughts regarding any of the symbols or what they represent, or for that matter be offended by the sentimental commandment expressed, I would instead have pity for the driver for the poor education they received. They're owed a refund.

At least it's not as bad as that horrible "Imagine" song by John Lennon.

I also don't think the letter from the Interfaith Conference was that big of a deal. I expect WTMJ-AM gets letters daily demanding this or that personality gets pulled off the air, and that similar requests accompany any content posted on the internet by Journal Communications. Unless the letter was going to be acted upon by WTMJ-AM management, the letter could've gone into the circular file unnoticed. When is Charlie getting fired?

What would've been interesting is a poll of the members of the Interfaith Conference to see if they each supported the letter. By going public with the letter as WTMJ-AM did they probably missed that opportunity. The opportunity is still there for Tim Cuprisin.

*D'oh! Correction, it was Anne Quimby Mathias who wrote the blog posts at Pundit Nation, not Mike. The above post was corrected accordingly. -JW

Find classic movies at Amazon.com

Thompson gets important pro-life endorsement

Former Senator Fred Thompson received an important endorsement today from the National Right to Life committee.

Fred Thompson, the candidate billing himself as the most consistent conservative in the crowded Republican field, has won the presidential endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee, GOP officials said Monday.

The nod by the prominent anti-abortion group could boost the lackluster campaign of the former Tennessee senator. He has seen his poll numbers drop in recent weeks in Iowa and elsewhere as he has failed to become the consensus candidate of restive social conservatives still searching for someone to embrace.

"It speaks for itself," an upbeat Thompson told reporters while campaigning here — even as he spoke in hypothetical terms and declined to confirm the endorsement. "These are people who supported me in times past. I think it would be a perfectly natural thing to happen. I've had a 100 percent pro-life voting record in the United States Senate. And I think they know that, and that's the way I would govern if I was president."

Here's the video presentation Thompson made to the National Right to Life Committee:


Locally, Sue Armacost of Wisconsin Right to Life had this to say,

“We truly value Fred Thompson’s strong commitment to the protection of human life. We are the Wisconsin affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee. In light of our parent organization’s endorsement of Fred Thompson, the Wisconsin Right to Life Political Action Committee (PAC)is now discussing the presidential race and will announce its endorsement decision in the near future.”

The endorsement by the National Right to Life Committee has to be seen as a huge blow to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's efforts to reach out to social conservatives, and it follows another blow from Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani. National Right to Life's endorsement of Thompson despite Thompson's support for campaign finance reform can only be interpreted as their continued mistrust of Romney's conversions.

Find classic movies at Amazon.com

A cranky endorsement for Fred Thompson

Anger Central, the self-described "Angriest place on the web", has endorsed Fred Thompson for president.

Anger Central normally stays out of the political debates, with the exception of our Notes from Anger Central responses to some posted stupidity. This time we are announcing that Anger Central is backing Fred Thompson.

"Fred Thompson?!?" You scream in utter outrage. Yep, We're with Fred! Our reasoning is simple. Rudy Guiliani is another Bush in drag. His antipathy to the Second Amendment as well as his past statements and actions on illegal immigration preclude him from our support.

We've watched Mitt Romney for 4 years as Governor of Massachusetts. We weren't impressed. John McCain hasn't made a good choice since he banked left instead of right and ran into that missile over Vietnam. Most people don't remember, but he was part of the Keating 5, a group that helped a number of Savings & Loan companies basically steal their depositors blind. McCain wasn't indicted, but because of that his judgment has always been suspect. His hostility to the First Amendment is well known. (See McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform law)

Tancredo and Hunter are two others we could support, but neither one has any chance at all.

What about the Democrats?

On the traitor...err...Democrat side, Osama Obama is a flat out empty suit. He would like to surrender to Al Qeda and invade Pakistan. Hillary Clinton? Please! She is a greedy self-centered little tyrant wannabe who thinks the rules do not apply to her. By rights she should be cooling her heels in a federal penitentiary. John Edwards? In our opinion he is a flat out crook. The others are even worse.

If any of these bozo's became president, we really doubt that the U.S. would survive. A full scale civil war is not beyond the realm of possibility if these twerps get in.

Now, where does Anger Central stand politically? Over here more or less. :)

Actually, we tend to believe in a far smaller government at all levels, low taxes and a good strong military that blows away islamofascist scumbag terrorists. We also believe that if you are in this country illegally, you have no rights at all except to leave quickly. If you commit a crime here, a quick hanging will do nicely. Deploying the military along with civilian volunteers at the borders with orders to shoot on sight anyone crossing illegally would also be a good idea in our view.

Well, when you're angry, sometimes you're really angry.


Find classic movies at Amazon.com

Ames Straw Poll Winners and Losers

Winners: Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul
Losers: Mitt Romney, Iowa Republican Party, Diebold, Tommy Thompson

Disappointing turnout (only 14,301 votes according to the Des Moines Register) means the spin tomorrow can only be dissatisfaction by the party regulars with those competing. Romney gets no bounce, only doing what was expected and showing he couldn't excite the party base. Iowa is now open for Rudy Giuliani to compete, and the case is made for Fred Thompson the party is just waiting for someone else - him. Huckabee get's to stay in the race as the candidate that's again almost good enough to make the top tier. Ron Paul gets boost from faulty machines; conspiracy theorists will go wild.

This will be the last year for the straw poll to be significant after tonight's low turnout and voting machine debacle. The cash cow didn't raise as much money this year and the party may have to spend some money this year if Paul decides to make a fuss. Diebold's voting machines flopped a relatively easy test. Look for paper ballots to make a comeback in the long term.

Tommy!, it's time to come home.

The Des Moines Register is reporting:

About 1,500 ballots needed to be recounted, said Mary Tiffany, a spokeswoman for Republican Party of Iowa.

Two machines caused the problem, said State Auditor David Vaudt. “What likely happened is someone submitted their ballot too quickly after the other,” he said. The ballots from those machines were hand counted, then re-fed into the system to recalculate the vote. A campaign poll-watcher said in one instance, a black box contained 500 paper ballots but the machine’s memory said it had scanned in 498.

Find classic movies at Amazon.com

I'll have a triple Bush to go

Kevin Binversie has some inside info on the Wisconsin connections in the expectations game in the Ames Iowa straw poll.

For the 2006 cycle, Rick Wiley was Executive Director of RPW. Jill Latham was his right-hand gal as the State Party's Political Director.

Now Wiley's "National Deputy Political Director" for Giuliani; Latham is Romney's Iowa Political Director; meaning she's one of the Four-Star Generals who have to run the Romney operation to ensure victory in the Ames Straw Poll.

Meaning in short: It's her ass on the line tomorrow.

Giuliani is sitting out the straw poll, but it doesn't prevent his campaign from trying to influence perceptions. Johnathan Martin reports:

Rudy Giuliani's camp is circulating a data-heavy memo seeking to heighten expectations for Romney at Ames on Saturday.

"Assuming Governor Romney’s Iowa operation is as good as it is said to be and based on expected turnout, internal data, and polling trends, it is likely that Gov. Romney will have at least 24,000 supporters at the Ames Straw Poll," they write, adding that Romney ought to win by an 8-1 margin over their nearest opponent.

A Romney adviser scoffs at the gambit, calling it "hysterical."

"This is the funniest thing I've ever seen," observes the Romney source, pointing out that 24,000 votes would be "nearly four times more voters than" then-Gov. Bush won at Ames in 1999.

Bush got 7,418 votes.

Crazy Uncle

If you're the Republican Party, what do you do about Congressman Ron Paul? One of the long shot candidates for the Republican nomination for president, Paul's behavior at the Tuesday night debate in the South Carolina debate in implying the United States brought the 9-11 attacks upon itself.

Question: Are you suggesting we invited the 911 attacks sir?
Ron Paul: I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it.

The remark was not allowed to go unchallenged, and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani was the challenger,

Can I make a comment on that? That’s really an extraordinary statement. As someone who lived through the attack on September 11th that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. And I would ask the Congressman to withdraw that comment and tells us he didn’t really mean that.

Paul did not retract the remark, reminding us again why the Libertarian Party's standard bearer received 0.5% of the popular vote in 1988. So what can the Republicans do about a candidate who cannot win and whose beliefs tend towards blaming America first?

Saul Anuzes, Michigan Republican Party chairman, has a suggestion about Paul (ht: Sean Hackbarth),

I don’t have a problem with his libertarian views, but blaming 9-11 on us (U.S.) was over the top. I’m starting a petition to be signed by RNC members, publicly stating that his positions are NOT the positions of the Republican party and that he should be excluded from any future debates. On foreign policy, he would actually feel more at home on stage with the Democrats. He lost a lot of respect from everyone I talked to last night.

I'm not sure that one issue where a candidate would feel more at home in the other party is enough to exclude a candidate from future debates. But if you've seen one Giuliani abortion contortion act, you've seen them all. Perhaps we could have a rule against candidates participating if they have in the past expressly advocated the defeat of Republican candidates to advance a candidate of a different party.

Of course, that would mean excluding Governor Mitt Romney (who supported Democrat Paul Tsongas for president) from future debates - but is that a small price to pay? After all, his favorite book is L Ron Hubbard's Battlefield Earth. Turns out the religion issue is not Romney's Mormon faith, but Scientology. Will Romney's first act as president be freeing Katie Holmes?

The Ames Iowa straw poll is August 11th. Perhaps we'll be rid of the Party's crazy uncle then.

My column this week in the Waukesha Freeman looks at Tuesday night's debate and it's defining moment.

Find classic movies at Amazon.com