New Hampshire | MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

“The President of New Hampshire”

Sez Monica Crowley in her New Hampshire wrap-up and post-NH predictions:

The President of New Hampshire: John McCain, Part Deux. He won here in 1992, only to get creamed by Governor George W. Bush in South Carolina and beyond. This year is different for him, but it’s more than a nostalgia vote. I’ve been writing in this space and saying on the radio program that McCain was coming back. There was an opening for him, which he was wise enough to exploit. He got lucky, too. His principled stand on Iraq has redounded to his benefit as the situation there has greatly improved. There is also a recognition among Republicans that there is no perfect candidate in this race, no Ronald Reagan (not one with a realistic chance of winning, anyway.) So McCain looks better, especially with the two themes running through the national campaign: experience and reform. McCain has long records of both. So he may be imperfect to conservatives, but he’s beginning to look, well, not so darn bad.

Emphasis mine, as I’ve been saying just that for quite some time now.

Byron York:

“However this campaign turns out — and I am more confident tonight that it will turn out much better than once expected — I am grateful beyond expression for the prospect that I might serve her a little while longer.”

With that, the crowd began chanting, as it had many times during the night, MAC IS BACK! MAC IS BACK! MAC IS BACK!

Jim Geraghty:

One of the Great Speeches of McCain’s Career

I couldn’t transcribe fast enough. Go find the video of McCain’s victory speech tonight. It’s a different style from Barack Obama’s wow-inducing speech from last Thursday, but he knows how to bring out the stirring rhetoric.

“The history of the world will not be determined by this unpardonable foe, but by the courage of free peoples. In this historic task, we will never surrender. They will.”

Churchillian.

Here’s his victory speech from last night, in two parts.

It’s funny–maybe eight or so months ago, I still had the “Bloggers for McCain’s Opponent” blogroll up. No more. I’m still with Fred, but if he doesn’t make it? Mac is back.

Don’t want me to support John McCain? Then donate to Fred. ;)

/knowing her readers, Beth ducks rotten tomatoes

It’s official: The punditocracy is on crack (LIVE BLOG)

Okay, so we all knew that.

The Obamessiah of Change got spanked and sent back to campaign pre-school by ~~Tammy Wynette~~ ~~Martha Logan~~ Hillary. Presumably, New Hampshire is also sick and tired of the word “change,” and doesn’t care for symphonies of vacuous platitudes, either.

LOL.

Screw this, I’m live blogging. Gimme a minute to set this up. I’m gonna fisk the pundits as they speak.

Okay, y’all, it’s do or die time for Fred! now in South Carolina. McCain, Romney, and Huckabee each have won a state, and they all have vulnerabilities (and so does Giuliani) in South Carolina. Fred Thompson is the natural choice for South Carolina and Tsunami Tuesday/Super Tuesday primaries–all it’s going to take is for the voters to learn about him. Fred has been in South Carolina, but this takes money to get ads on the air, and a lot of them. Fredheads came through with donations for ads in Iowa at the last minute, and it definitely helped; he made a good showing there despite (as with NH) it not being a focus of his campaign.

We CAN do this. I know how it works–you don’t want to send your money to a losing campaign. THIS is the time to make it a winning campaign. You can’t really complain about Fred not being in the top two or whatever if we don’t make it happen. We can make it happen.

Do something. DONATE. Get some money into the campaign.

Fox News Republican “Forum” (Debate)

I hate live-blogging with a passion, but I’m gonna sorta wing it.

Loved that pissing contest between Mitt & Huck, especially “You make up facts faster than you talk.” It’s the truth, isn’t it? Heh.

I’m glad to see Fred talking about Social Security; it needs fixing, and his remark that “nobody makes the case” (cough W cough) for what needs to be done is exactly why it unfortunately wasn’t fixed earlier in Bush’s Presidency.

Oh, brother…Huckabee and his populism. Excuse me while I throw up with the class wars. I’m not sure if Millionaire Mitt should be the one to slap that populist crap down, though–although it’s hard to argue with the knowledge of someone who’s made $200+ million on his own.

God, please, someone, destroy that FairTax nonsense since Chris Wallace mentioned it. Yes, we need IRS reform (or abolition), but not not not with the unFair Tax, “pre-bates” be damned. Giuliani is avoiding the subject altogether, instead talking about how he reduced poverty and welfare in New York City.

OMG, yay–Fred’s talking about a “flatter” tax. Yay! Flat Tax is the way to go! Like he said, what’s good about the Fair Tax is 1) reform, and 2) simplicity, but that’s it. I’m sorry, why the hell isn’t every conservative supporting Fred when he talks about taxes? Hello?

Oh no. They’re going to talk about “change.” I had enough of that last night during the Dems’ debate, thanks. Blech.

McCain mentions the change in Iraq, and that’s the most significant “change” we’ve seen in a very long time. No arguing with him on that–and it really, really matters. Mitt says someone from Washington can’t change Washington; I don’t really agree. I do think John McCain knows how to implement reform–he’s made it a focus of his political career, including with McCain-Feingold (regardless of how much we don’t like it, it was “change”). Of course, I think Mitt could have a reforming effect as well; he’s done it in the real world.

And…once again, Fred says the right thing. It’s not about “change,” it’s about leadership.

Yeah, Rudy! Hillobama wants “change” in the form of tax increases and retreat and defeat in the war. Damn right.

Break time, time to celebrate RON PAUL NOT BEING THERE! Yay!!! This round’s on me!
stein hoist
Read the rest of this entry »

The Regional Lottery Plan for primary elections

Jumping off from this post where I (and many of you) complained about the Iowa caucus process, I found that Larry Sabato of UVA’s Center for Politics has also been critical for some time about the process.

I have nothing against the Hawkeye State. To the contrary, my visits there have invariably been pleasant, and my dealings with colleagues and journalists based in Iowa have been delightful.

It’s just that (1) the caucuses this year are way too early; (2) the caucuses and the state are unrepresentative of the broader electorate; and (3) the rules of the caucuses raise real questions about fairness.

EXACTLY.

Here’s what he proposes (you’ll have to scroll down to get to this):

The Congress should be constitutionally required to designate four regions of contiguous states (with contiguity waved for Alaska and Hawaii, and any other stray territories that may one day become states), with the boundaries of each region determined by the present state boundaries. All of the states in each region would hold their nominating events in successive months, beginning in April and ending in July. The two major-party conventions would follow in August. This schedule, all by itself, would cut three months off the too-long process currently prevailing in presidential years.

But how would the order of the regions be determined? In many cases, there would still be a bonus in going first. The establishment of a U.S. Election Lottery, to be held on New Year’s Day of the presidential election year, would yield fairness and also add an element of drama to the beginning of a presidential year. Four color-coded balls, each representing one of the regions, would be loaded into a typical lottery machine, and in short order–the length of a ten-second lottery TV drawing–the regional primary order would be set. Since none of the candidates would know in advance where the political season would begin, part of the permanent presidential campaign would be dismantled.

There’s more at the links, obviously.

Sabato also advocates a new Constitutional Convention and does have some good ideas–like the Regional Lottery plan–but I don’t agree with all of it and I’m naturally resistant to tinkering with the original Constitution anyway. Check it out if you’re interested. That said, I do agree something ought to change in our electoral process–it’s gotten too expensive, too unrepresentative and fundamentally “unfair,” and like he said, way too long.

By the way, if you’re not reading Sabato’s Crystal Ball, you’re missing out on some of the best political analysis out there.