I Did Not Have Sex With That Woman...

...while I watched my dad courageously marching shoulder to shoulder with Martin Luther King against Bull Connor, the vicious dogs, the bullwhips, the cattle prods... How well I remember, I will never forget. It is seared seared into my memory.

Or so was the impression of courage I got when the delightfully presidential looking handsome Mr. Mitt Romney gave his "religion" speech on national television to the backdrop of a dozen American flags. Pretty big guy, that dad of his. What a man!

And what a man is the good looking businessman Mitt! He's got the conservative elite saying "No big deal", "He should have chosen different words", "It's figurative for heaven's sake, it's figurative", "There should be no explanation needed, MLK said his dad would have made a good president."

The guy lied, he lied on national TV, he lied on a much ballyhooed speech on "religion", and these people, "intellectuals", the cream of the conservative leadership, excuse him: "That's old news, can't we just move on?" And, oh ya... "You're a bigot."

Bill Clinton Did for the Democrat Party what Mitt is now doing for the Republican. "Lying is no big deal, everybody does it."

I agree with Ron Rosenbaum on this:

...now Mitt affirming... he was only speaking “figuratively".... But to say you saw your father “march”…That ain’t figurative. That's prevarication followed by disingenuous rationalization. I think it’s enough of a lie to end his campaign if there were any standards in the GOP primary race.

But there are none. The Republican party is ill. So many of the fine minds, minds that have mattered to me... they now are Bill Clinton.

-------------
Politico has got this story:

Shirley Basore, 72, says she was sitting in the hairdresser’s chair in wealthy Grosse Pointe, Mich., back in 1963 when a rumpus started and she discovered that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and her governor, George Romney, were marching for civil rights — right past the window....

“They were hand in hand,” recalled Basore, a former high-school English teacher. “They led the march. We all swung our hands, and they held their hands up above everybody else’s.”

She remembered the late governor as “extremely handsome.”

And they've got one more:

Another witness, Ashby Richardson, 64, of Massachusetts gave the campaign a similar account.

“I’m just appalled that the news picks this stuff up and say it didn’t happen,” Richardson, now a data-collection consultant, said by phone. “The press is being disingenuous in terms of reporting what actually happened. I remember it vividly. I was only 15 or 20 feet from where both of them were.”

And there's this line:

Basore said she called the campaign, and the campaign supplied her contact information.

So, the now 72 year old Basore not only saw the two --MLK & George-- "hand in hand" but called the "campaign" (her account) and they gave her contact information. And this after Romney has already been video taped saying that in fact he did not "see" his dad with Martin Luther King but was speaking "figuratively". (He also in a 78 Boston Herald interview had said he, Mitt, had also marched with the doctor. But the campaign has admitted that was not so.) So whether the campaign trotted out these two old ladies to testify that what Mitt has already said was figurative was actually fact, or whether this is just a freelance testimony to the veracity of Mitt I don't know. But it doesn't matter. The simple statement "I saw..." should not lead to such confusions. At the very least it demonstrates that the mind of Mitt is very "diverse"... one might say.

If this continues to be handled so ineptly it may become Romney's Hillary Clinton illegal-immigrant-drivers-license answer. --Could be that differing elements of the Romney cover-up team are just not on the same page.

Enter the Christmas Quietus

I think the politicking is done for a week. Maybe tomorrow morning yet (Friday) people will pay some attention to the news --but not anybody who's got a life. There's are no votes to be got at this height of the season, only votes lost, so I see things as stable until the last week's assault and so will make one more attempt at expressing the dynamics of this race as I see them.

Hillary and Romney, one I dislike, the other I distrust. While there are political and philosophical differences supporting these two feelings, fundamentally it's just instinct, it's just the way I respond. I claim that my instincts are normal, and that means that the way I feel is the way most people feel. The difference is in how they respond. This does have to do with convictions and presumptions and in this way I am tremendously different from many. But still there is the instinct, and if that instinct, that natural human feeling somehow becomes dominant throughout entire groups as the determinant of their vote, then there might be a huge change in the dynamics of the race, and I claim that these are presumptions (not values) that can collapse, and if that happens and people begin to pay more attention to their own good sense, it's then that we have a new race.

With Hillary the presumptions are: inevitability, "competence and experience", and "the natural order of things."

There's a massive presumption that she will be the next nominee. This is a habit of presumption and it has existed, at least subterraneanly, since Bill left office. It's supported as "the way things are" because: She wants it, Bill wants it, and what Bill wants the party gets because Bill is the Party. That this ineffective man is the Party is a creation of media fantasy, Of Bill as the slayer of Republicans, but nevertheless it exists. So, what he wants, that his wife be the nominee, follows as an inevitability. And with the inevitability follows all else: the toughness, the intelligence, the competence, the experience. Never mind that without Bill Hill wouldn't even be bright. What is, is, and that is that Hillary is competent to be president.

Bill could change that in an instant. He could get in a squabble with her. If he ever dropped his support the gestalt would collapse, and Hillary on her own would have no support at all. --It could happen. Vanity. Does he really want his wife to be president when he's not?

The other manner of crumble of course, is the one we're all watching. Can Barrack Obama pop the bubble? Maybe. Their are Democrats not entranced. They know they want someone different. If somehow they can gain a victory, then while the bubble may not yet be burst, it sure will have a whooshing gap. The probability that she will maintain great popular support if she can once be defeated (or maybe twice, because possibly New Hampshire might be necessary as the first true primary) is I would say, nearly non existent. She'll have an apparatus yet, but no enthusiasm. And then if Bill once says: "Hillary, you blew it", the race is all over.

The situation with Romney is not nearly so "magical". He is a "candidate". Fundamentally, that's all he is, because he's accomplished nothing nationally that anybody knows anything about. For this reason if he's beaten he's whipped, he just has no sustaining reputation and accomplishment to draw on (as opposed to Rudy or McCain). So, not liking him, I want him defeated in Iowa and New Hampshire. I would be stunned if he were able to withstand those two losses, because he would have been defeated in the only qualification that he has, that of a "candidate".

His weakness is his veracity, or lack thereof: Who trusts him? If he wins in Iowa, that's something of an endorsement: A man not defeated is possibly a man not untrustworthy. This will hardly create enthusiasm, but it will pull the tooth of his greatest negative. If he wins Iowa he probably wins New Hampshire, if he loses Iowa he probably loses New Hampshire, and everything else, because then the great negative of distrust would have kicked in, and in NH at least, he would be going against a man who's image, whatever other negatives he might have, is that of trust.

So by what dynamism does Romney lose Iowa?

He could lose to both McCain and Huckabee. To Huckabee because he has his constituency, excites emotion, and is "genuine"; to McCain, again, simply because McCain is Trustworthy. A vote for Huckabee is a vote for Huckabee, a vote for McCain is a vote against Romney.

It could happen.

The dynamic of this race is Romney's negatives. Or, more simply, that he's fake.

--I might note that Fred, as disappointing as he's been, is definitely not fake. Neither for that matter is Rudy. Romney's negative's are going up against an extraordinarily strong field.

-------------
This is funny

A New York Times piece favorably reporting on Huckabee's positve reception on the campaign trail. He's respected as a man of conviction, a man who says what he believes. But sometimes he slips, and becomes a mere politician...

His appeal is mainly to people who like the idea of “a man of convictions,” not one who behaves like a conventional, pandering politician. But there are times when even the purest of truth-speakers must bow before the demands of a campaign for the highest office.

“Who is your favorite author?” Aleya Deatsch, 7, of West Des Moines asked Mr. Huckabee in one of those posing-like-a-shopping-mall-Santa moments.

Mr. Huckabee paused, then said his favorite author was Dr. Seuss.

In an interview afterward with the news media, Aleya said she was somewhat surprised. She thought the candidate would be reading at a higher level.

“My favorite author is C. S. Lewis,” she said.

----------------
Some fun numbers I just emailed to a friend...
11:15 PM

K,

These are some fun numbers. I don't take any of them very seriously, in that they bop up and down so much. But to summarize:

--Romney comes in third in Iowa,
--Is tied with McCain in New Hampshire,
--Nationally McCain beats Hillary,
--Hillary beats all other Republicans.

American Research Group
Iowa
12/16 - 12/19

Huckabee 28, McCain 20, Romney 17, Guiliani 13, Thompson 5


Same group,
New Hampshire
12/16 - 12/19

McCain 26, Romney 26, Guiliani 16, Huckabee 11, Thompson 4


Fox News
Nationally
12/18 - 12/19

McCain 47%, Hillary 42%


The numbers will be different next week. (On the Dem side things aren't so volitile, just some tightening.)


See you, --Mouse

------------------
Depends On What the Meaning of Is, Is

From The Corner on National Review Online


To See Or Not To See [Mark Hemingway]

There's a bit of controversy brewing today over Mitt Romney — apparently the Boston Phoenix and the Detroit Free Press are reporting that Romney's father George, the former Governor of Michigan never actually marched with Martin Luther King Jr. as had been previously claimed. (Though by all accounts George Romney was supportive of King's efforts.) In his now famous speech in College Station, Romney said “I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.” The New York Times asked him about his statement today and this was his response:

Mr. Romney said today that he had been using the word “saw” in a “figurative sense.” “If you look at the literature, if you look at the dictionary, the term ‘saw’ includes being aware of in the sense I’ve described,” he said. “It’s a figure of speech and very familiar and it’s very common and I saw my dad march with Martin Luther King. I did not see it with my own eyes but I saw him in the sense of being aware of his participation in that great effort.”

Geraghty has a lot more on this here.

Ha!

American Research Group:
Iowa
12/16 - 12/19

Huckabee McCain Romney Giuliani Thompson Paul

28 --------20 -------17 --------13 ----------5 ---------4

Huckabee +8.0, McCain in 2nd, Romney in 3d!


This is pleasing to me. I have no idea if the poll is right, they do seem to be all over the place, but it's fun at least for today. My arguments are almost totally a mere extention of my feelings to most of the people in Iowa, that Romney can't be trusted, and that there's nothing about him that can excite, in that his great ambition the last year seems to have been to buy two states. Of course that's in a context of the very great ambition to become president, but the focus, the means, the strategy is so tiny in vision that he simply puts people to sleep. Men who have evident passion, like McCain and Huckabee, at least excite a debate.

-------------
2:55 PM
Note:
I just heard on the Medved show that McCain has just come out with a 15 second Merry Christmas ad in which he recounts a story from his POW days when one of his guards, on Christmas, humanly sympathetic to his suffering, loosens the ropes binding him, and silently, in empathetic understanding of McCain's faith, draws a cross in the sand, and that's shown happening in memory behind McCain as he speaks. How is McCain going to deny that? That aint no bookcase, it darn near looks like McCain meant to show a cross being drawn on the sand. Has he no Decency! Does he not realize it is immoral and unconstitutional for a politician to speak and at the same time have a cross in the background? This can not stand. Americans will realize how vicious it is to actually be a Christian on Christmas. His poll numbers will plummet.

Note two:
Huckabee was viciously attacked for pulling just such a stunt. While giving a short Christmas message there appeared to be a lit cross behind him, and in addition to that clearly visible cross-like light, he spoke of the "birth of Christ", and he did that on Christmas! Can you believe that. "He has gone to far" it is said of him, he has defiled our sacred Constitutional right to be free of Christ on Christmas.

And I note that Romney, when giving his "religion" speech, in which he told me it would be unconstitutional for me to consider his religion when casting my vote, spoke in front of a backdrop of many, many American flags, and for this he was considered a patriot, and "okay" religious.

It would be my assertion that if the day ever comes when the American flag does not necessarily imply the cross then on that day to speak before flags is merely to extol the state over man. The American flag, without the cross, might as well be just the Hammer and Sickle, or a Swastika.

Romney's Muskie Moment(s)

Romney Gets Tearful Recalling War Toll

Second time in two days. The guy is having a breakdown. Too much disappointment, too much stress. He can't take it, he's not a leader. And he doesn't look "presidential" and the National Review, intellectually, stinks.

The Pope No More

Read Wretchard and it stimulated some thought. He's writing about Hill & Bill. I didn't know he did US domestic presidential politics. But he suggests the concept: "Hillary has already been vetted" carries a threat of disclosures to come regarding Obama.

Not going to happen. The limbs twitch even after the brain is dead; in Bill's case it's the tongue that twitters. It's true that in the way we were years ago the lie was not an attempt to deceive but a position statement. This recognition was Bill's genius, to see that when the Pope spoke the believers rushed to say amen. And this is how he governed. But he is no longer Pope and too many now recognize Hill can't be Bill. Camelot is over --the odd Camelot of Clinton-- and mere pronouncement is no longer reality.

The skeptic reigns: "You have something on Obama? Show your cards." Can't be done. There is no such card, there is no ace, and the media is no longer going to make a two and a three a Full House. History has passed Bill by. There's nothing more dead than an old flame.

Note: Bill didn't inhale. Obama's "That's the point" misses the point. Bill did have genius. It was that of manipulation. Do you think he ever would have stoned his mind and even for a moment lost that gift? You can't maintain a vastness of aspiration if you even for a moment meld to the disordered consciousness of a group. Once no more than the group, then always possibly, "No more than them." To be vast is to be separate. To inhale would have been to be the same. The very concept is offensive, the possibility a spiking fear to the gut. It wouldn't happen to a man who would be great. Bill didn't inhale.

The great gift of being so purely separate is that leadership then becomes not simply capacity but pronouncement. The separate is superior, and unsullied knows truth. State it, it is true. And this Bill did, and the media knew it was true because stated by their Pope. But he is Pope no more. Fickle and faithless the press follows no more. And this is a new truth that Bill just don't get.

Hill's Dead, What About the Duck?

So, Hillary's dead, it's The Changing of the Gestalt. It's okay now to not vote for Hill. You can do that and still be a good person, Oprah says so. But what about Mitt, my other Most Unfavorite Guy? There's no gestalt here. This is just an ambitious man with deep pockets and a very long term plan to gain the White House. It would be pleasing to see this man defeated in the very first contest.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, but if he is defeated it's something with accident written all over it. Who would ever have thought that out of nowhere would arise a man --Eight Buck Huck-- who with little more than charm would stand poised to defeat --a guy in business. A Christian defeating a rich guy! Now if that don't take the cake. Like, Christians got something to do with America or something. America, let me state, lest anyone get the wrong idea, is all hotshot PowerPoint and the Golden Parachute. It is Consultants who make America great.

The whole race is very strange. Here you have a man with a heart defeating someone with a head... so they say, though I don't believe I've ever yet heard the duck say anything he hadn't memorized. But he has to be smart. He's bought National Review. That's easy of course, but it's smart. And he's bought a lot of votes. For fifty-million he's got maybe two-thirds as many votes as Huck's got, which cost him eight bucks and a few adds. That's cost/benefit. Sure would be nice to have a brilliant man like that in the White House to do the same for America.

But he did buy National Review. That's smart. It's like buying a swamp for timber, but it's smart. I don't know what he paid. Probably just a few pictures of his stunningly handsome presidential face. K. Lo gets gooey over stuff like that.

So we have Huck, a man, supported by people; and Mitt, plastic, supported by NR. Who's going to win?

That's hard to know. All I know is that the more the public gets to know the better. On the one hand you have a man, on the other you have plastic. A man you can get to know, warts and all, because he is a man. Plastic, though, you can't come to know, because though perfectly formed without warts, there's no blood, and no heart (and probably, my opinion, no brain).

Note:
Fred? Fred is good. Fred is the real deal. Fred now is supposedly going to campaign hard in Iowa. Good, I guess, but from where is he going to take his votes?

There's some fear they'll come from Huckabee, which could have the effect of giving Romney a low numbers win. That would be very annoying, though as I've said, I don't believe Mitt will get the "standard" bounce because his two year campaign to buy one state has been so visible. He'll have paid a lot for that one state but I just don't think Florida is going to be particularly impressed that he could buy Iowa.

Still, I would prefer that his millions bought defeat and I just hope Fred doesn't give him victory. A positive note as I see it is that it seems to me that Fred is the natural second choice to those who support Rudy or McCain. Anybody at this late date supporting either of those two is simply withholding commitment and waiting. They can't support Mitt because they don't trust him, they can't support Huck because he's Christian.

But Fred's perfect. He doesn't even go to church! So no embarrassment there, and he is very very smart, so there would be some sophisticated status in supporting somebody bright just like yourself. The downside is that Fred is a true conservative, in every respect... But hey, when you're a Republican sometimes you just have to put up with that.

Hillary Care, Ha!

Still trying to respond to the primary season. I have no insights, just a kind of wonderment. Hillary might be knocked out in the primaries! That's delightful, but it's stunning. And it's certainly not because Obama is an especially strong candidate. He's new, he's young, he's appealing, he seems smart enough, sort of, if you don't press the point. But, if he were not so easy to like, there really wouldn't be much there.

But he may upset the queen? That has to be because people don't like the queen.

That's easy for me to understand. I'm a Republican. I've never liked her. But for a Democrat not to like her? Hill? The next in line? The Hill of Bill&Hill of two-for-one? Pretty extraordinary. It seems quite possible to me that a great many Democrats don't like her anymore than I do, because she's not likable. But they support her, because she's a Democrat, and everyone knows, she's next.

I think this may be the whole explanation. We've had eight years of story line, this is what has been written and said and thought: Bill is out, Bill was great, Hill is running, Hill is next. The inevitability of Hillary might have been no deeper than that, with judgments as to her capacities and suitability no deeper than that, and since no one in the last eight years emerged as a new and powerful face, it would be Hill 'cause it couldn't be Bill. This was true as everybody knew, and the sheep and the goats were together. Possibly not many really wanted her but they all sorta had to want her because they knew everybody else did. That was that, the truth, a fact.

But then a new face appears. New, and it didn't leave. It takes a while, but specific groups support him, support grows --why not? he's a pleasant guy, and these are only the primaries, protest, Hill is a pain-- and then something snaps...

That snap apparently was the stumble over the immigration question. Not a biggy. But it didn't go away. I think the reason it didn't go away is because so few cared if it did. A true supporter can cover any fault: "Old news, let's move on." But how many said that? Not so many as to make it disappear, and it was in seeing this embarrassment linger that the ordinary Democrat got a slap: Not everybody out there loved Hillary! It's like waking from a sleepwalking daze. All of a sudden the eyes open and there's the cognition that maybe the world isn't only more Hill&Bill. There is sunshine on the mountain, and there's a perfectly pleasant fellow standing right next to her.

I think this is what happened, a simple change in gestalt. For years and years there was only the vision of Bill, and that meant Hill. What once had been success, would be success again. It was belief, it was habit. But suddenly, surprisingly, seeing so many not thinking that thought, then why not someone else? There was that pleasant fellow there, standing, the big ears, the wide grin.

To change a gestalt is to shatter presumption is to begin a cascade. That may be happening. If you don't have to have Hillary, why have her at all? To flee Hillary is to have a new life, and that's really what the Obama supporters mean when they say they want change.

If it Bleeds it Leads...

If She's Cute She's Covered.

Concealed carry advocates have again and again complained that when a gun is used to prevent the commission of a crime, the media never covers it, their prejudice against guns being so strong. How to deal with that prejudice, how to deal with it...

No News...

There is no story in the world now other than the next poll showing Romney going into the tank, and since there is no such poll post last Thursday's brilliance who cares if the sun still shines? --There is a 3 - 6th Mason/Dixon poll confirming the same dynamic as in the Newsweek 5th & 6th poll -- 32 - 20 -- but no comment from my normal blogs, all of whom await a new poll showing the anticipated post brilliance bounce --confirming their own.

I note too, Hillary is going in the tank. Must be them damn Christian bigots. They're not only taking down Godly Mitt but Heavenly Hill.

I'm wondering if something isn't happening. America has the dumbest intellectual class in the history of the world, at least in terms of all those associated with Washington. Is it possible that ordinary folks are just not paying any attention at all anymore? Sure would be nice.

The fundamental "fact" relative to the two above mentioned personages is that they are both clear, obvious fakes. That matters to a man who votes, it probably doesn't matter to an intellectual, not one involved in Washington politics anyway, because a fake isn't something they would recognize, it's not identifiably separate from themselves.

But we'll see. A couple of days.

----------------
Box of Bricks Brigade

Hugh Hewitt, Sean Hannity, Peggy Noonan...

--------------------------
12:54 AM

I've been waiting for this. Comparing apples to apples, these are two national Rasmussen 4 day tracking polls, one completed Sunday before the Thursday speech, one completed Monday, four days after the speech. So the second is the first pure clear measure of the effect Romney's speech had on his national fortunes. I had predicted a one percent rise, however, you can see he shot up an astounding 2 percent! And examining the data even more closely one must grudgingly admit the man can really move the numbers. He bumped up Huck and Guiliani both 2 % as well! Certainly a brilliant speech.


Rasmussen -- 4 Day Tracking
Sunday, December 2

(G)22 (Huckabee) 17 (Romney) 11 (M)14 (T)14 (P)6

Monday, December 10

(G)24 (Huckabee) 19 (Romney) 13 (M)11 (T)11 (P)4

Further Maunderings

Written while putting my Canary to bed.

I sure look forward to the next poll. I expect a very slight uptick for Romney nationally, a percentage point, but possibly a continuing decline in Iowa, decline as defined against his previous numbers of about 25%, not decline in reference to the Newsweek poll.

The very slight uptick would be because the conversation has been positive, but it would be very slight because it was just one guy giving a campaign add. There was no issue he addressed, there was no issue Vs a Vs the other candidates, so there was no triumph. In as much as nationally there would have been any sense of issue it would have been in reference to his Mormon faith, and in that respect all he did is say "stick it". I just don't think that is going to raise his poll numbers. There's no virtue in declaring yourself "a man of faith" if the issue is your faith and you don't explain it.

In Iowa, where people were paying more attention, I expect he will have lost support simply because of his "stick it" stance. He certainly gained no Evangelicals, and possibly people who were supporting him because they were indifferent to his faith were indifferent either because they presumed that he didn't take it seriously, or that it was something that could be easily boringly explained if he cared to go into the details. But he said "stick it", which is going to offend those who thought he was as indifferent as they; and to those who thought "It can easily be explained" there may now be doubt: "Is he hiding something?" So he will have lost support. I have no idea what the numbers would be but I see that as the dynamic.

Anyway, I'm expecting a separation between the pundacracy who loved the speech and the people who will use it to judge their vote. That's because I think the pundits are incestuously deformed, they have no idea what thought exists outside of their own agreement. They've got a job no matter what. Normal people care how their country is governed, their thought has less information but more force. It will be fun to see. I certainly have been wrong in the past in presuming a lot of people were like me, but this time it's Republicans, and the issue is faith and trustworthiness. I'll betcha I'm an awfully lot like those people in Iowa who are going to caucus.

Now a brief lecture to the neophyte. Romney has won one election in his life, one term as Massachusetts Governor. That's not a lot of political experience. I would say this: Nationally, he has no stature except in competition with others. No others, no stature. He has nothing to define himself other than in his success in competition. Only Guiliani and McCain have reputation nationally apart from competition. Romney, without that give-and-take of battle, is just a guy in a suit. This is another reason his speech would have meant little. Even if he did splendidly, it would still just be one guy blowing air.

Politically (my opinion) he's a box of bricks.

Bottom line: I don't want to see him slingshot to the nomination just because he gamed the first two states. I want him to lose at least one, and then have to fight for the rest.

But I don't think even two victories would give him much momentum. That's because he has spent a year defining himself nationally as a guy who wanted to win two states. If he wins two states that will be his achievment, he won two states. It will mean nothing for the rest, because he didn't come out of the blue, as somebody suddenly exciting, and he didn't win because it was assumed he would win nationally. He won because that's what he wanted and worked at and with two states under his belt that would be the bounce, flat, the bottom. Bust. He would have to start over. A fortune and a year to win two states. That's as exciting as selling pots.

I see the possibility he could come in third.

Now I will post and finally read the days news. I will see if my speculations have already been disproved.

Romney Retrospect: How Did He Lose?

Okay, it's Dec 8th, two days only since "the speech". Some people might say: "We've got to wait and see." Okay, you wait. I been done seen, and I'm going to give a postmortem

The basic problem was that he was a rotten candidate. Republican primary voters want a conservative candidate, not a liberal who says conservative things. Liberal is bad enough. Liberal plus liar is defeat.

It is done. Sob Sob Sob.

And yet a lot of conservative pundits supported him? It's hard to understand. Is there some particular stupidity virus that infects the set within the set that talks to itself to itself?

One would suppose so... It's just not clear what it is.

I've heard so often: "My, he is just so handsome and presidential..." Do you realize those are adult conservatives who are saying this?

And I've heard: "But he has such a splendid family" & "Every Mormon I've ever met is just a totally kind, moral, caring, wonderful human being." --Anytime you hear anybody say "every" you know they're lying through their teeth; and if they're not lying then six million Mormons are fit to be President of the United States.

"But he's made so much money!" Good for him, and he's spending it.

So there you have it. He's swoony good looking, he feeds his cat, and he's rich, the pundits entire argument as to why he should be my president.

Sorry girls and guys, I want a president who's a conservative, or at least not a liar.

And this was the whole challenge of the speech, to convince people like me that he's not Teddy Kennedy selling me a used car with the odometer rolled back. Instead he spent a whole speech declaring that, yes, by golly, American has religious liberty, and that yes, by golly that was a good sort of thing and that yes, he was all in favor... as long as no one used any of that "religious" stuff when he cast his vote, because, by golly, would be against the law! and against the Constitution! and a religious test! and just generally was not what good people would do.

My.

And those who would have him be President gave him a pass and said it was a great speech.

Conservatives do not need such "intellectual" leaders.

But how is it possible that so many such "leaders" came to drink this guy's cool aide? Actually, I doubt it's that many. This is called "elitism", "manipulation" and "control of the masses". Liberals do it all the time. And now we have some few Republicans doing the same. They've picked your candidate and if you disagree you're a bigot. --I say, beat them with a stick.

But first beat Romney.

Stuff your Tolerance

Huckabee 39, Romney 17 --Newsweek

I understand this poll now. Will write it up later. But everybody knows that if you're going to explain your faith you've got to talk about your faith. When people at the beginning of the week learned that Romney was going to talk about "religious liberty" they knew he was going to scam them. That's the immense problem with him in the first place, that he's not genuine, that he's always pulling a fast one, that he can't be trusted. They had a week of that being advertised: "I'm going to scam you." So they thought about it and the numbers changed; 8% moved from Romney, because they couldn't support him any longer, and possibly others supporting Thompson moved to Huckabee because they wanted to be certain to beat Mitt. --Sounds reasonable to me.


Nice Newsweek Iowa poll.
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/12/ia_poll_huckabee_dominating.html

It was conducted the 5th and 6th. Romney gave his speech the morning of the 6th. Some of those polled would have heard the speech, all would have been hearing all week that he was going to be making it. Nice results. Huckabee 39, Romney 17. That sure fits nicely with my own prejudice. Two months ago Huck had 6%...The day before the speech Zogby had Huck 24, Romney 25. Different polls of course, but I like the sweep of the numbers.

Jay Cost has done the best comment on the speech (my opinion).
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/on_romneys_speech.html

I quote:

The speech I would like to have seen would connect his religion to his particular political beliefs in a way that his rhetoric has been implying for a year. For instance, Mormons believe in the preexistence of the soul. They believe that families are divinely and infinitely connected. It seems to me that this forms a very sound basis for his pro-life and pro-family views. The voters he is courting are responding with questions about his beliefs. Why not answer them? He just finished saying that they are good, tolerant folk. He wants their votes. What's to fear? It seems to me to that the best antiseptic for the religious intolerance Romney fears is fresh air. He should bring his beliefs into the open -- proudly and forthrightly. Explain how they connect to his politics. Tell anybody who won't vote for him because of it that he doesn't want their votes, anyway!

The contrast to Romney is George W. Bush -- whose 2000 campaign is pretty clearly the model for Romney's. In 2000, Bush ran as the electable social conservative: he felt as passionately about these issues as Christian conservative voters did, and -- unlike Keyes or Bauer -- he could actually be elected. Romney is trying to do exactly the same. But Bush did something that Romney has so far refused to do. He explained himself to the voters. He gave them some of the particulars of the faith that informed those beliefs. He did not say much -- but he communicated to voters why he took the positions he did. They were convictions, rooted in his personal conversion to Christ after years of indulgence. Romney, on the other hand, adopts all of the positions that Bush adopted, has the same vim, uses the same language -- but won't explain why.

I am not arguing that government should be able to thwart the people's will and bar a duly elected person from taking office based upon his religious beliefs. I am arguing, however, that voters can vote for a person for whatever reason they choose. Furthermore, I am arguing that a candidate who has intentionally wooed a group of religious voters based upon a set of issue positions whose origin usually comes from a particular set of religious beliefs should not be surprised that the courtship breaks down because he refuses to detail his beliefs. Nor, for that matter, can he make implicit or explicit reference to bigotry as the explanation for the failed courtship.

And Lee Harris for TCS Daily has a nice article.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=120707A

I like the title: "How and Why Romney Bombed", and I like this line: "The question of who we prefer to lead us has nothing to do with the question of who we are willing to tolerate", the best single line from all the analysis I've read. From this paragraph:

The Christian evangelicals who are troubled by Romney's candidacy do not pose a threat to the American principle of religious tolerance. On the contrary, they are prepared to tolerate Mormons in their society, just as they are prepared to tolerate atheists and Jews, Muslims and Hindus. No evangelical has said, "Romney should not be permitted to run for the Presidency because he is a Mormon." None has moved to have a constitutional amendment forbidding the election of a Mormon to the Presidency. That obviously would constitute religious intolerance, and Romney would have every right to wax indignant about it. But he has absolutely no grounds for raising the cry of religious intolerance simply because some evangelicals don't want to see a Mormon as President and are unwilling to support him. I have no trouble myself tolerating Satan-worshippers in America, but I would not be inclined to vote for one as President: Does that make me bigot? The question of who we prefer to lead us has nothing to do with the question of who we are willing to tolerate, and it did Romney no credit to conflate these two quite distinct questions. There is nothing wrong with evangelicals wishing to see one of their own in the White House, or with atheists wishing to see one of theirs in the same position.

The Weasel Strikes

Read the drivel. At great length the man propounds the thesis that in America we have religious liberty --who would have thunk it--except, of course, for those who don't like Mormons, and they can't vote because that would violate the constitution. Wow, the man is not only a great historian of Chamber of Commerce boilerplate but an innovative Constitutional scholar as well.

I suppose I could quote:

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the constitution.

And earlier:

A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

And so endeth the Constitutional catechism of Sir Mitt.

May I say, Sir Mitt, that the Constitution you read is not the one our founders wrote. In the American Constitution there is no prohibition on the matters a citizen might consider in determining how he might cast his vote. To suggest that if he consider religion as a factor it is to "enable" some sort of religious test prohibited by the Constitution is Sir, to deny me my religious liberty, my freedom of expression and the freedom of my conscience before God. It is true, Sir, that you don't do this with storm troopers, or through the force of law, but you do attempt to do it through the force of moral opprobrium.

I doubt if ever before, in the history of this American Republic, has there ever been a presidential candidate who has suggested that I do not have the religious liberty to cast my vote for the President of the United States in consideration of both his faith and mine. Religion, Sir, is not to be forced on a citizen of this nation as a hidden private matter that can not enter the arena of public expression and public contest. Religion, Sir, is important. It is important to me and it's not an expression I'll allow you to strip from me as a right.

Pretty disgusting stuff, pretty disgusting man. --Of course, there is the boilerplate. Very nice stuff, very patriotic. I imagine it's this stuff that has gotten everybody so a goo goo. Really, it's good. Print it up. Somebody can use it for a speech sometime.

At one point the Mister Sir Mitt says:

I believe in my Mormon faith....Some believe such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy, so be it.

So be it. We've entered now into a time of challenge to religious liberty. Will a Christian in America be allowed to examine and criticize a faith he finds false, or will he be silenced by the thugs of "tolerance", and be shamed at expressing his faith?

I suggest there is such a thing as a true and wholesome liberty. I suggest, in the words of Mitt Romney: let "the vibrancy of our religious dialogue" begin.

Hootenanny Hoot

"Love one another. Your religion is great, my religion is great. Can't we all get along?"

Unfortunately, I missed the speech. I thought it was going to be on in the evening --perhaps I assumed that because it would have been more "presidential".

Anyway, I missed it, and will have to read it later. I did quickly read through excerpts at The Corner. I presume that's the meat of it, and I just listened to Rush's ecstatic response. I believe his judgment is that Romney came across as a man of courage and faith, a leader.

It wasn't about his Mormon faith, it was about religious liberty. Boy, is he a leader, a guy that can tackle the hard issues! I never would have believed such courage. In America, of all places, a man who can have the stunning courage to be able to defend religious liberty! Wow! That Rush can really see the stitches on a fast-ball.

But I know nothing more about his faith, and as I've said from the beginning, I can't trust a man who can't discuss his faith. I necessarily presume he has something to hide, or to coin a phrase: "How can we fool them today?"

Apparently it's easy.

But, this is going to be fun. The question has been opened. Religion is now a fair subject because religious liberty --the weasel words of this speech--has never been the subject at all. The subject is the Mormon faith, and if that in all it's assumptions and baggage is suitable for a man who would be president.

This is my insistence, and this makes me a bigot. I know the routine. I'm Christian. In America a Christian is a bigot, they have this annoying characteristic of taking their faith seriously. Everybody fairly hates a Christian. Boy, I can't blame them, they tend to be critical.

Okay, it's part of the stick. Take the crap but argue. It should be fun.

Later I'll actually read the speech as it was delivered and make a more carefully reasoned response.

The Gathering Fall

It just occurred to me that the people who said Romney's announcement at the end of last week --that he would give "the speech" at the end of this week-- was politically brilliant because he would then "own the news" for a full week, are as out of touch with the American public as I believe Romney is.

Nobody cares.

What's the deal with "the speech" anyway? What's the issue? What's he going to address? What conflict is he going to resolve? "Nobody cares" in the sense that nobody has any idea why he's giving the speech now anyway. What's to speculate about? People don't like him, and they don't like his religion. So what's he going to do in his speech? Is he going to be likable, is he going to make his religion make sense?

I don't think there's any publicly framed issue to which he can respond. "Like me or I'll whip you." "Like my religion or you're a bigot."

This is not a way to win my vote. And I don't think there's anyone who fears he's going to be taking orders from some elder in the church, like his church has a pope. I think the queasiness about him is the thought that he might actually be a Mormon, Mormon to the core of his bones, and since he says that he is I don't see what he has to say. --These are the primaries. This isn't him or Hillary, Mormon or Socialist. There are other good guys, alternatives, right up beside him.

I've thought about it a bit and it seems to me that the only effective thing he could do is say: My religion is great, your religion is great, everybody's religion is great, why don't we just all get along? He could give a whole speech of ecumenical joy, --and what he would have achieved is one very long campaign spot. Everybody likes a feel good "love one another" message. It would be a hootenanny, positive, it might enable him to pull out Iowa, and with Iowa the slingshot. Maybe. But he would have taken his shot. There would be no future "the speech", and it's doubtful it would do much good long term. He would have opened up his beliefs as fair game for analysis --he's the one who brought it up-- and that isn't a religion that can withstand much sunlight.

The big problem anyway is just that he's a rotten candidate. He's unpleasant. He doesn't connect. It's my presumption that he doesn't connect because he doesn't trust me, and it shows. Every statement, every gesture, is an act. He distrusts me, an alien Christian; is wary of me, is constantly trying to fool me: "I like you, I'm just like you", which he knows every conscious moment is something he doesn't believe at all, and so his every act and sound and gesture is fake.

That's the sense I have. If it's a sense a lot of others have he's dead meat. I think the flies are gathering.

Note:
There's speculation it will be on "religious liberty" etc. That's a loser. He can have all the liberty he wants, and it's been granted him. Nobody now days persecutes a Mormon. He just can't have my vote. And if he calls me a bigot I'm going to send Mike Huckabee money.

Retrospective, the Beginning

What I'm going to try to do is examine how it is that Romney so totally blew his candidacy. Yes, I know, it's two days yet before he gives his speech, but he has decided to give "the speech", and so it's all over, and I just want to figure out why.

I start by trying to understand my personal dislike for the man. Almost entirely my emotions are instinctual, so to put them in an order of force requires some introspection.

The first thing is he just seems fake. It's a powerful queasy, greasy feeling. No other candidate raises that feeling, not Hillary, not Edwards. Hillary I see as a socialist who wants power who will lie. Edwards I see as a simple man who will lie who wants the lime light; he would be stunned to paralysis if he actually became president. I don't like either one. Hillary I fear, neither makes me queasy.

The next thing I see in Romney are the flip-flops. This is a judgment that has some intellectual aspect, but not really, because I don't see those flops as simply political calculation, I see them as evidence of a man who is comfortable where ever he might stand, because no stance on any position deeply either supports or violates any basic value he has. I see his soul as that of a committee. Whatever consensus can be achieved though discussion is fine with him, that becomes his position. If it can work, it's okay, not because it's the best he can get, but just because it "works". It's not hard to see how this could be a disaster, both in foreign policy and within the liberal culture of Washington.

I think that's it for my purely instinctual --or mostly instinctual-- responses to him. What's left is analysis. I don't need analysis to know he makes me feel creepy, but I would like to know what it is that's in fact so creepy.

I start from the premise that all men have basic values. Even the purely cynical manipulation of the political can bespeak a basic value, that of attaining power and advantage. But advantage isn't in all people basic. Jimmy Carter, for example, seems motivated simply by the desire to believe himself righteous. Harry Reid seems merely to hate Bush, whether effectively or not. Nancy Pelosi is a half-step above him, in that her motivation seems to be to defeat Bush, something that at least demands some rational calculation and some sense of the of the political calculus surrounding her. These are not good people, I don't like them, but at least I have some sense of what makes them tick. They don't make me feel queasy. Mitt makes me feel queasy.

I just can't see what motivates Mitt. Clearly he's motivated, he's accomplished a lot, but I just can't see what value it is that pulls the strings. That I can't see it at all indicates that he hides it very well. What I do see is the lifetime skill of a kind of dissemble. It express's every statement and gesture. That's why he comes across as so fake. Because he is. It's an achievement.

Now, if you must dissemble so completely it must mean that you're never relaxed, not in public. You know that the public would never be comfortable with you as yourself. So...? Here is the leap. I suggest it's because not only is he a Mormon but he actually believes that stuff. In so believing he is separate from the Judeo/Christian culture of this nation, and of the West. Believer or nonbeliever, we have all been formed by this same culture. With a nonbeliever I'm in conflict, but I know the man. He's basically the same man as myself, only I accept and he rejects. With a man of a different culture though, I'm at a loss, I simply never understand him.

And I emphasize this is analysis. I don't know if it's correct. But if a man consciously of a different culture struggled mightily to at least seem of this culture it would explain why he came across as seeming a little different. Fake.

I do know I want a man in the White House who is of the same psychological and philosophical structure as myself, at least in terms of two-thousand years of Western history. I can somewhat understand that man. I don't want somebody outside of that history. I think the only man who could be outside of that history would be a man deeply committed to an alien theology.

But then this is only analysis.

Righteous Night

I'm speaking of Mitt, of course, Thursday night, when he will speak to the nation and insure his political fortunes forever.

But I ask, what kind of political brain does he have? So far he's spent 50 million over many months and has solidly established himself as steering the pack from the rear. He seems unassailable, I don't think there's anything anybody can do to take that away from him.

How has Mitt done it? Well, he's spent 50 million over many months... and over many months has spent 50 million... I guess that's all it takes. If you really have business brain savvy and spend 50 million people will get to know you. Sort of. At least they'll get to know that if they don't support you they're a bigot. That's to know something. And Mitt sure has solidified that support. Nobody who supports him now is ever going to not support him in the future. That support just doesn't change. Over months and months it just hasn't changed a bit.

So what's with Thursday night...? Well, so what's with two years in France? It's the same thing. It establishes that one is righteous. This seems to be the point. And form youth to now to the White House this would be the point, to be righteous. It's a Mormon thing. Dedicate years, work hard, say anything, gain power... be righteous.

Jimmy could understand. Am I wrong about that? Perhaps I should ask Harry?

--------------------
Note:
Gallup: Rudy 25, Huck 16, Fred 15, McCain 15, Mitt 12
http://corner.nationalreview.com/ Rich Lowry

To Begin...

Sure good reading last night. Chavez lost his referendum, Obama and Huckabee lead in Iowa, and Mitt is going to give a speech calling me a bigot for taking my own religion seriously.

What a night for news, and Oh, according to the RCP averages, $50 million Mitt has dropped a little nationally to 12.2% at 4th place, and not-a-dime Huck is nationally at 10%. And so the Two Man Race is now between 12.2 Mitt and 29% Giuliani... It takes a political pro to explain just how that works.

I'm going to make a predication now, one that's been in my mind for months: The national race will become a two man race, it will be between Giuliani and Not-Giuliani, and Not-Giuliani will not be Mitt. And my reasoning is this: Mitt is a very disagreeable fellow.

In this case I assert my own instinctual response to him, and assert further that most people respond just as I do. Now of course I don't know that, but the guy makes my skin crawl, and I expect that's the same for most people and that's why his numbers don't rise, despite the 50 million spent, and the immense amount of publicity.

I have been wrong. I called 2006 for the Republicans. My oh my, was I wrong. I'm not going to mention my reasoning at the moment except to note it was very much based on the thought: Other people must think like me. Wow. But I'm reasoning the same way now.

And I note, again and again, I've heard: Mitt is really a nice guy. Sorry, I just don't see it. I actually think his Mormon faith protects him from this simple observation, that he's about as pleasant as Hillary. Because if you said that, since it's only an impression, not an argument, it would clearly indicate you're a bigot, it's got to be because you hate his religion, not because you find him unpleasant and a lying fake.

And so now we're going to have "the speech". This is excellent. It's he who is bringning up his faith, and once brought up it's fair game... and so is his personality! Of course there will still be PC discretions, but there will be discussion.

My own feeling is that Mitt is totally out of touch with me. He doesn't have the same deep, inexpressible assumptions I have, simply because his faith (which I'm told he does hold sincerely) is so different from mine that he just doesn't see the world in the same way as I.

We'll see. I suspect his candidacy is dead this weekend, because I suspect if he does speak from the heart, he will be seen as "different"; and if, as is most probable, he instead tries to finesse and manipulate, well then he'll be seen as a man who has something to hide, and that is not a good impression for a man to leave who wants to be the leader of the free world and the man who determines when the bombs drop where.

But we'll see. I know next to zilch about Mormonism. I do know, that if I were quizzed about my faith, I would discuss it easily. It's a man who has to hide his faith who makes me worry. --It's my feeling --my analysis, I should say-- that the reason he comes across to me as so unpleasant is because his whole life has been a practice of never being open, of consciously being aware that he is different from me, and so has to be a fraud to be accepted, and so is "fake" to some degree in every statement he makes.

This is only my impression. By the end of this week I should have an opinion based on information, not one that is just instinct.