On the day of the New Hampshire Primary, I spent a good deal of time on the radio with my friend and Townhall colleague Hugh Hewitt, debating issues and candidates both on his show and my own.

 

Hugh’s a great guy, and one of the best political commentators in the country, but he recycled an old and despicable lie in the course of our conversation. This distortion of the truth is unworthy of such a decent and fair-minded observer and Hugh owes an apology – not to me, but to Senator John McCain.

 

During the course of our conversation, I deplored the slimy negative ads aired by his candidate, Mitt Romney – in particular a TV commercial where the narrator says that John McCain “voted to allow illegals to collect Social Security.”

I condemned the ad as an outright lie, but Hugh defended it as an arguable, reasonable description of McCain’s position.

 

Let’s settle the issue, Hugh, and move ahead to that apology—because the record clearly shows that I was right and you were wrong. There’s nothing defensible about Romney’s smear.

 

FactCheck.org is a non-partisan, non-profit project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The website spanks Democrats and Republicans alike when they try to lie for political advantage. On December 28^th, they offered a devastating review of the despicable Romney ad aimed against McCain, using the headline “More Mitt Malarkey.”

 

FactCheck.org reported in part:

 

“Romney’s latest ad attacks McCain in New Hampshire with false and misleading claims.

“It claims McCain ‘voted to allow illegals to collect Social Security.’ That’s untrue. Nobody who is in the country illegally could be paid any Social Security under McCain’s immigration bill ….Nobody proposed to pay benefits to anyone who is in the U.S. illegally…The statement that McCain ‘voted to allow illegals to collect Social Security’ is false.”

 

That should settle the issue, should it not?

 

If a nonpartisan, unaffiliated resource like FactCheck.org describes the Romney smear as both “untrue” and “false,” isn’t it a strong indication that I was justified in calling it a lie?

 

Let me anticipate Hugh’s response (because I know that Mr. Hewitt is a smart and sophisticated guy) to prevent this important issue from getting confused with misleading details.

 

Hugh might argue that the Romney attack is misleading, but not false, because the immigration bill would have given millions of illegals a path to citizenship, and once they became legal residents and citizens, they would then receive credit toward future benefits for the amounts they had already paid into the system. In that sense, immigrants who legalized their status would get credit for payments they made into the system while they were illegal.

 

But here is the truth—the simple, undeniable, bracing, refreshing and necessary truth –about the comprehensive immigration reform championed by President Bush, John McCain, John Kyl, Trent Lott, Mitch McConnell and, at one point, most other Republicans in Senate. As FactCheck makes unmistakably clear: “UNDER CURRENT LAW, illegal immigrants who work and pay Social Security taxes may later receive credit toward future benefits for the amount they have paid, if they become legal residents or citizens. THE McCAIN MEASURE WOULDN’T HAVE CHANGED THAT.” (emphasis added)

 

In other words, the proposal for comprehensive immigration reform would have done nothing to alter the basis under which immigrants who qualified for legal status got credit for the payroll taxes they had already paid. Yes, the Romney ad is a loathsome lie.

 

And what about an attempt by some Republicans to alter the compromise legislation during the immigration fight by changing the system so that newly legalized immigrants would be disqualified from receiving credit for payroll taxes they had paid while illegal? Eleven Republican Senators voted to kill that proposal, including John McCain. Why? Because stripping tax credit for newly legalized immigrants would help remove the incentive for them to go through the process to earn that legal status—paying the thousands of dollars in fines, going through background checks, paying back taxes, mastering English and so forth.

 

As FactCheck suggested: “To be accurate, the ad might have said that McCain ‘voted against a measure that would have denied illegal immigrants Social Security credit for their work once they gain legal status.’ But such a truthful statement might not strike New Hampshire voters as so damaging.”

 

So what did the Romney folks do?

 

Instead of using a truthful statement that would have made no impact on voters, they used a hateful lie --- that appears to have made little impact on voters.

 

As the Wall Street Journal editorialized today, Romney’s ill-advised attempt to demagogue the immigration issue and to “impersonate Tom Tancredo” has failed miserably, in Iowa and now in New Hampshire.

 

I happen to believe that Romney has fatally damaged his once-promising $100 million campaign by the flood of negative ads shamefully distorting the record of his various opponents.

 

Romney, who’s now desperate to pull out a last chance victory in Michigan, won’t apologize. But Hugh Hewitt, a fair-minded Republican leader of impeccable integrity, should offer that apology now.

 

 

How could professional pollsters go wrong so substantially when it came to calling New Hampshire?

 

On Primary day, the four most up-to-the-minute state-wide polls showed Obama ahead of Hillary by an average of 8.5%. The same polls showed a very tight Republican race with McCain winning by an average of 3.2%.

 

As it turned out, McCain beat the expectations of the pollsters by 2%, on average; one of the respected polls on primary day (Suffolk/.WHDH) actually showed a Romney victory by 4%, so the 71-year-old Arizona Senator (“The Ancient of Change”) beat that one by 9%. Hillary bested the expectations of the four most recent polls by an average of  11% -- an embarrassing blown-call for the so-called professionals.

 

So, what went wrong?

 

I’d like to suggest a public opinion equivalent of the “Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle” – the idea in physics that suggests that the very act of observing certain phenomena can alter those phenomena. 

 

Okay, it’s stretching it a bit to compare Hillary and McCain to sub-atomic particles, but still, I believe that the polling results announced all day Tuesday and most of the day Monday helped to make those polls inaccurate.

 

The message in all media was very clear about the state of the two races: we were told repeatedly the GOP contest was very, very close (though it ultimately produced a surprisingly comfortable win for McCain) while the Democratic battle would amount to a one-sided blow-out for Obama (though Hillary won, very narrowly).

 

Here’s my theory about what happened:

 

I think pollsters and experts were right that most of the independents in New Hampshire (45% of all voters) liked two candidates: Obama and McCain. In the forty-eight hours before the polls closed, they got a consistent message about their two favorites: Obama had his victory in the bag, but McCain was potentially in trouble. Therefore, sophisticated independent voters (who could choose to participate in either the Republican or Democratic contest) reasoned that McCain needed their help but Obama didn’t. Therefore, those who wanted, above all, to make a difference, switched at the last moment to the GOP side, abandoning their previous intention to vote Democratic. That’s why the split of independent voters between those who went with the GOP and those who went with the Democrats wasn’t nearly as one-sidedly Democratic as expected.

 

This shift of some independents who had originally intended to vote for Obama to the Republican primary to vote for McCain, explains the fact that McCain did better than predicted, and Obama did vastly worse.

 

According to exit polls, McCain slaughtered Romney among the self-described independents (who were an unexpectedly high 37% of total GOP voters) by a margin of 40% to 27% (Ron Paul got 13%). Among self-described Republicans, the Mittster came much closer to the Mac (33% to 35%) but McCain still won.

 

By the way, the Romniacs can’t try to blame “anti-Mormon prejudice” among Evangelicals for their guy’s sorry showing this time: Mitt actually ran closer to McCain among self-described “white Evangelical Christians” (27% for Mac, 27% for  Mitt, 28% for Huck) than he did among the non-Evangelicals (38% for Mac, 34% for Mitt). Evangelicals represented only 23% of the New Hampshire Republican voters (as opposed to 60% of GOP caucus goers in Iowa) but Mitt scarcely improved his disappointing performance, once again investing millions while falling well behind (nine points and five points, respectively) an underfunded rival. .

 

As he did last week, Romney displayed special weakness among three key groups in the electorate among which McCain-- just like Huckabee in Iowa-- beat the Mitt-man soundly. Romney performed disproportionately poorly among women (they just don’t like him, well-tailored good looks and all), voters below 30, and voters who earn below $50,000 a year.

 

Unless team Romney somehow manages to attract female, younger and working-class voters, he’ll continue to lose – just as surely as he’d get creamed in the general election.

 

 Meanwhile, he now claims an unwanted distinction – as only the second prominent Massachusetts politician in the history of the New Hampshire Primary to fail to win his contest in the Granite State. He joins Ted Kennedy in 1980 (who lost to incumbent president Jimmy Carter) as a singular Bay Stater who crashed and burned in New Hamphire—managing to avoid the near-automatic victories achieved by the likes of John Kennedy, Henry Cabot Lodge, Michael Dukakis, Paul Tsongas, and even John Kerry.

 

If Romney bases his whole campaign on business competence and management expertise, how does he justify investing an estimated $120 million so far (thirty times more than Huckabee, by the way, including at least $17 million of his own money) and earning in return only two feeble defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire?

 

That question may be impertinent, but it’s certainly appropriate.

 

And as to those who want to discount McCain’s victory because it was based on the support of independents, isn’t it blindingly obvious that no Republican can even come close to winning the White House without drawing similar support from independents in November? It’s difficult to discount the proposition that the guy who attracts independents in January will likely stand the best chance of getting their backing again some ten months later.

 

Good luck to all our candidates – and it’s on to Michigan, and new clarity, next week!

 

The year is young, but it's possible we already glimpsed the scariest horror movie of 2008. In Saturday night's Democratic debate, Barack Obama alluded to his big tax plans--- including repealing the Bush "tax cuts for the rich" and eliminating the cap on Social Security/Medicare payroll taxes. This means that he'd abandon all pretense that Social Secuirty and Medicare are pension programs -- since the elimination of the cap (taxing all income, with no limit) would remove any connection between the level of contributions a citizen makes and the benefits he takes.

In pratcial terms, the impact would be huge. Today, the top marginal tax rate is 35%, and income above $102,000 a year isn't subject to the payroll tax. That means that the money you're lucky enough to earn above $102,000 gets taxed at a rate of 35 cents on the dollar, at most. Under Obamanomics, on the other hand, we would go back to the old Clinton era top marginal rate of 39.6%, PLUS making income above the cap fully subject to the payroll tax--- usually a combined 15%, but almost sure to go up. 

In other words, unless my calculation is mistaken (please tell me if you think it is), we'd be looking at paying Uncle Sam as much as 55 cents on the dollar for income earned above that $102,000.

If anyone still thinks this election doesn't matter, just consider....a normal, middle class family (with two incomes) will today earn $200,000 and still struggle to pay a mortgage, and college expenses, and so forth, in many Metropolitan areas. And yet, under a new Democratic President, that family could be looking at additional tax burdens that confiscate THE MAJORITY of their additional income.

Talk about punishing effort and penalizing success.... welcome to the brave new world of "change."

 

CALL OFF THE “RINO” HUNT

 

 

There’s an obnoxious and destructive term that’s begun to do real damage to the Republican Party. That term is “RINO,” or “R.I.N.O.” – an acronym for “Republican In Name Only.” Angry conservatives use the term to attack purported moderates in their own party. Recently, Mike Huckabee and John McCain have been attacked as “RINO’s” –Governor Schwarzenegger of California regularly draws that denunciation. Those who make war on RINO’s, however, ought to confront an obvious question: would you really prefer that such people drop the Republican designation? How does it help if politicians or office-holders with whom you disagree leave your party and join the opposition? When alleged “RINO” Jim Jeffords of Vermont left the GOP and joined the Democrats, it gave them control of the US Senate. When another RINO, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, lost his Senate seat in 2006, it also gave the Democrats control; if Chafee had won, we’d still have a Republican majority and GOP committee chairs. The truth is that no successful political party has ever been built on ideological purity. You can construct a majority coalition by bringing people into your party, not by driving them away. It’s childish and self-destructive to wage war based on some notion of “real conservatism” with those who want to align themselves with your side. Ronald Reagan himself used to say that “if somebody agrees with me 70% of the time, rather than 100%, that doesn’t make him my enemy.” Democrats understand this principle--- they never attack “DINO’s,” Democrats In Name Only. In fact, they understand the usefulness of such figures: they put forward several conservative Democrats in key Congressional districts in 2006, and those “DINO’s” helped them win a majority in the House. If Republicans continue to express contempt and hostility for those they consider “RINO’s,” they’ve got to get ready for “DIMO’s” – Democrats In the Majority Only.” It’s time, in other words, for sane GOP partisans to call off the silly and suicidal RINO hunt.   

 

Predictably enough, most media commentators have totally misinterpreted the nature of Mike Huckabee’s big win in the Iowa GOP caucuses. Conventional wisdom says that he swept to victory based on overwhelming support from Evangelicals, but conventional wisdom is flat-out wrong. According to the exit polls used by major news networks, a majority of voters who described themselves as “evangelical” or “born again” Christians actually voted against Huckabee –with 54% splitting their support among Romney, McCain, Thompson and Ron Paul. Yes, Huckabee’s 46% of Evangelicals was a strong showing, but it was directly comparable to his commanding 40% of women, or 40% of all voters under the age of 30, or 41% of those earning less than $30,000 a year. His powerful appeal to females, the young and the poor make him a different kind of Republican, who connects with voting blocs the GOP needs to win back. He’s hardly the one-dimensional religious candidate of media caricature.

It’s also idiotic and dishonest for observers to keep harping on anti-Mormon bigotry as the basis for Mitt Romney’s disappointing showing. Yeah, it's true that 81% of Evangelicals voted against Romney--- but 75% of ALL Iowa Republicans voted against him, so where is the big evidence of "anti-Mormon bigotry"? In other words, there’s only a 6% difference between his general rejection and his Evangelical rejection. There’s no evidence, in other words, that those who described themselves as “born again” or “evangelical” faced an especially tough time voting for a Mormon. Romney, after all, finished second among this group—as he finished second among the electorate in general. Among Evangelicals, Mormon Mitt beat John McCain, Fred Thompson and Ron Paul by a ratio of nearly two-to-one…a bigger, not smaller margin of victory over these other non-Mormon candidates than he managed to achieve in the electorate in general. The message ought to be obvious: the core issue was phoniness, not faith-- and the religious and non-religious alike react badly to phoniness.

Meanwhile, 87% of non-Evangelicals voted against Huckabee.... compared to only 66% of all Iowa Republicans.... in other words a 21% gap! Think about this....  THERE'S MORE EVIDENCE IN THE EXIT POLLS OF ANTI-EVANGELICAL PREJUDICE than there is of anti-Mormon prejudice. Huckabee did well across the board with all groups in the exit polls except one: the 40% who said "no" to the question, "Are you a 'born-again' or 'evangelical' Christian?" He finished fourth among this group, behind Romney, Thompson and McCain.

The evidence is pretty clear, isn't it? The preferences of Evangelicals mirrored those of Iowans in general. But the preferences of the "non Evangelical" group were distorted by their religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) and led them (as the same prejudices leads angry members of the conservative establishment) to blast, resent and dismiss the Huck.

Massaging the numbers another way ---Huckabee got 46% of the Evangelical vote, only 14% of non-Evangelical--- a huge 32% difference based on the rejection by these people of a well-known religious identity.

Romney, on the other hand, got 19% of Evangelical vote, and 33% of non Evangelical voters--- a vastly less significant 14% difference...

In other words, Non-Evangelicals appear to have been much more influenced by the religious variable in their distaste for Huck, than Evangelicals were influenced by that variable in their distaste for Mitt.

Those who insist, over and over again, that the Iowa Caucuses reflected “Christian identity politics” or a “tidal wave of Evangelical support” are basing their analysis on feelings, not facts; on vapors, not voters. It’s dishonest to say that a guy who just won a crushing state-wide victory, without even winning the majority of his own religious group, displayed a one dimension appeal to Christian zealots only.

This endlessly repeated story line is not only tired, it’s a lie.  

I know it’s not polite to gloat, but….

I’ve taken so much abuse for my favorable reaction to Mike Huckabee from callers to my radio show, e-mailers, audiences at lectures, comments on my blog, letter-writers and countless others, that it’s tough not to feel some sense of vindication on the outcome of the Iowa Caucuses. Last night, some 18 hours before a single vote was counted (or even cast), I anticipated the results of the GOP contest and concluded with the following fearless prediction on yesterday’s blog….

My best guess: the Huck wins the battle by more than one or two points… possibly even a lot more.

So, who was right about that one?

In fact, who was the first national commentator --a full five months ago-- to declare that Huckabee would emerge as a top tier candidate? Governor Huckabee himself as acknowledge that I was the first guy in the media to take his campaign seriously.

With 85% of the precincts counted, it now looks like the Huck wins with a startling margin of 9% -- maybe even more, when the counting is done. Not bad for a guy who was outspent by a ratio of about 20 to 1. As I noted some time ago, even Tom Tancredo spent more than Huckabee in Iowa – by a ratio of more than three-to-one. And neither Tancredo, nor the candidate he chose to honor with his support (Mitt Romney), will find much cause for celebration in these numbers.

Neither will Fred Thompson – who managed no better than a virtual tie with John McCain, who all but ignored Iowa (where Fred campaigned extensively) and had the guts to maintain his opposition to ethanol subsidies in the top ethanol-producing state in the country.

Now the battle moves on to New Hampshire, with the triumphant Huckabee flying east almost immediately. While McCain (already leading in the Granite State in the three latest polls) got a boost with the Iowa blow to his chief rival, Romney, he might actually get hurt by Huckabee’s newly energized campaign in “Live Free or Die” country. If Huckabee picks up support (above his current 10% level) where will it come from? It’s possible it could come from McCain (who had been surging as the chief alternative to the wounded Romney) or it could come from Romney himself (with conservatives seeking a more viable alternative than the Mitt-man to the Maverick McCain). It’s also possible that Huckabee draws independent and new voters to the polls in New Hampshire, as he did with the caucuses in Iowa.

The point to remember is that all those who dismissed Huckabee as a one-dimensional candidate who appeals exclusively to Evangelicals ought to look closely at the numbers and the enthusiasm he inspired in Iowa.

I believe he won in part due to the fact that he came across as the sunniest, most likeable, least angry candidate in the bunch. Obama’s victory also indicates that voters didn’t buy anger, rage, indignation – they preferred the most positive, uplifting, cheerful of the candidates. In the Snow White Caucuses (yeah, Iowa’s covered with snow) the voters turned away from dwarves like Grumpy (Tom Tancredo), Sleepy (Fred Thompson), Doc (Ron Paul), Dopey (Sam Brownback) and Krazee (Alan Keyes ….all right, I know “Krazee” wasn’t one of the original dwarves but the Keyes-ster deserves an entirely new category). Meanwhile, Huckabee may not exactly be Prince Charming, but he’s charming and funny and cheerful enough.

The irony here is that Mitt Romney (a genuinely nice guy, with a winning, affable, good-humored demeanor) could have easily competed with Huck in the niceness department, but his ill-considered consultants pushed him to turn mean – blanketing the state with negative TV ads (he’s doing the same to McCain in New Hampshire) and viciously irresponsible hit pieces in the mail. Didn’t President Reagan, the appropriate inspiration for all present day Republicans, prove once and for all that kindness and good humor work better than anger, edge and gloom?

The one poll that should have indicated a solid Huck-a-victory more than any other was the Gallup Poll released in late December – showing that Americans reported soaring levels of satisfaction with their personal lives, and sky-high personal happiness. (Republicans remain even happier than Democrats and Independents, by the way—with 90% saying they’re satisfied by with their lives, and 96% describing themselves as “happy”). In this context, it should have been obvious that indignation and negativity wouldn’t work as campaign tactics, even in a crowded field. Romney’s survival in this race depends on his rediscovery of his inner optimist; obviously, with his gorgeous and charismatic wife, admirable sons, huge personal fortune and stunning good health, no one in America has more reason for gratitude and a genial disposition than Mitt Romney. If he had concentrated on his own vision for building our Shining City on a Hill, instead of focusing on Huck’s “pardons and commutations” or McCain’s alleged support for “amnesty,” Mitt might have gotten a better return on the reported $18 million of his own money that he’s poured into the campaign so far (with total expenditures exceeding $80 million). I am certain that Mitt’s collapse from his once commanding lead began at the televised debate in which he and Rudy engaged in that cringe-inducing, angry exchange about “sanctuary city” vs. “sanctuary mansion.”

NOW THIS IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT: Key revelations from the Entrance Poll of some 1600 respondents reported by CNN re-enforce the idea that cheerfulness and optimism were crucial to Huckabee’s success.

The Huck-meister built his impressive victory margin almost entirely among younger voters –the group most likely to respond to a positive appeal, and least likely to respond by mean-spirited fights about who can be tougher or angrier regarding illegal immigrants.

Among voters (many of them first-timers, obviously) between the ages of 17 and 29, Huckabee crushed Romney by an almost two-to-one margin (40% to 22%). In this youthful group, the Mad Doctor (Ron Paul) virtually tied Romney with 21%). In the next youngest age group (30 to 44), Huckabee won by a similarly devastating margin (39% to 23%) Only among the oldest (and, presumably grouchiest) segment of the electorate did Romney even come close to matching Huckabee: of those above the age of 65 (a full 27% of caucus goers), the two candidates almost tied (30% for Huck, 28% for Mitt).

One other group that delivered big time for Huckabee involved voters with limited income. Those who reported household incomes below $50,000 backed the former Arkansas governor by 36% to 20%. Those who eanred more than $50 K split almost evenly: 32% to 28%. In other words, Huckabee won a statewide landslide because he held a 16 point advantage from voters who earned below the national average.

Finally, there’s the gender issue: a huge factor in Iowa. I’ve been talking for weeks about Huckabee’s special appeal to women – as a neighborly, unassuming, soft-spoken and reliable sort of guy. According to the entrance polls, Iowa gals agree that they Like Mike – and how! Male voters split almost down the middle 29% for Huck, 26% for Mitt. The ladies, in the other hand, very decisively preferred the rumpled, balding, former fatty from Hope, Arkansas, to the blow-dried, athletic, dazzlingly handsome multi-millionaire from Boston. The Huckabee margin among female voters: a breathtaking 40% to 24%. Watch out, Janet Huckabee: it looks like your husband of 33 years somehow discovered Love Potion Number Nine (I’m sure he could play that song on his bass guitar).

Now, take a moment to add up the impact of these numbers.

Huckabee earned his victory by piling up big margins among women, the poor, and the young.

And where, demographically, have Republicans faced horrible problems in the recent past (particulary 2006)? We’ve lost by giving our opponents huge margins among…. women, the poor, and the young.

The obvious conclusion is that party leaders need to give special respect and attention to a Republican with special appeal to three key groups that normally reject the GOP --- taking a second look at Huckabee for his ability to win women, the poor and the young.

In any event, the process is underway. The Huckabee victory (again, mirrored by Obama’s impressive success) shows that political establishments don’t always win, that message can beat money, that performance (in televised debates) can defeat packaging (in endlessly repeated attack ads).

Even those who despise Huckabee ought to admit that in the wake of Iowa’s boffo opening act, the whole process feels more open, less locked down and mechanical, than ever before.  

And remember: I told you so. 

In the midst of New Year’s celebrations, Americans looked ahead to 2008 with a sense of unease, even foreboding. Considering the progress in Iraq and a new Gallup Poll showing nearly all of us feel satisfied with our personal lives, this gloomy public mood makes little sense.

In part, the negativity reflects the unique circumstances of this election year: for the first time in 56 years, there’s no sitting president and no sitting vice president running for the White House. That means there’s no one to champion the status quo, or remind voters we’ve been doing well.

All presidential contenders, Republican as well as Democrat, bid for support by demanding “change” and denouncing things as they are. In prior campaigns, there’s been an administration candidate to argue for staying the course, but not this time. It’s not that the status quo is indefensible, but just that there’s no presidential contender who’d gain by defending it.

It’s undeniably foolhardy, even downright foolish, to try to predict the outcome of an electoral exercise as notably quirky and unpredictable as the Iowa Caucuses—especially undertaking this effort after midnight, less than eighteen hours before decision time. Nevertheless, everything about this year’s contest seems so compelling – with a fascinating cast of characters, breathlessly dramatic timing, startling twists and turns and deeply significant underlying issues –that I can’t resist a few anticipatory observations. 

The polling remains desperately close – the average of the four most recent surveys (all of them concluding on December 30^th or later) shows Huckabee with 29.0% and Romney with 28.3%, an altogether insignificant difference. Many savvy observers look at this absurdly close polling (mirrored by a similar dead heat on the Democratic side) and conclude that the caucuses themselves will end in a virtual tie. 

Polling, however, reflects preferences, not passion. I suspect there is a passion gap between the Romniacs and the Huckaboomers. The Huckabee forces, far less organized and well-funded than their adversaries, nonetheless feel a zealous fervor for their guy that the Mitt-men can’t match. Callers to my show, or Republicans who approach me at public events, express real affection and energy and excitement over Mike Huckabee because he’s demonstrably different from the all the other leading candidates in both parties with their Ivy League pedigrees and blow-dried presentations and familiar, standardized conservative tropes. This doesn’t mean they’re bad guys in any way: as I’ve said repeatedly on the air, Romney, Rudy, Fred and McCain would all make excellent presidents. 

It’s just that Huckabee appeals to a different constituency than the others, as the polling clearly indicates. Mitt kills Huck among voters earning more than $75,000 a year. Huck easily out polls Mitt among those who earn less than $50,000. There is an undeniably populist wing to the Republican Party, much (but not all) of which intersects with its Christian conservative wing. These often dismissed and derided voters brought unexpectedly strong Iowa showings to candidates who connected with them—allowing televangelist Pat Robertson to best sitting VP George H.W. Bush in 1988 (25% to 19%, while Bob Dole won with 37%); enabling Pat Buchanan to come within a whisker (26% to 23%) of besting Bob Dole in 1996, while Allen Keyes (a startling 14%) and Steve (“The Establishment Has Met Its Match in Me”) Forbes (a strong 31%) combined to out-poll anointed heir apparent George W. Bush (41%) in 2000. 

With this background in mind, which candidate is more likely to outperform his poll numbers tomorrow --- Romney, with his lavishly-funded, smoothly running, campaign machine and saturation TV ads (many of them negative), or Huckabee, with his loosey-goosey, mostly informal network of housewives and home-schoolers and neighborhood activists? 

The outcome could be as close as the polls indicate, and certainly Romney’s professionalism and discipline could prevail over Huckabee’s fumbling, aw-shucks, neighborly appeal. Nevertheless, given the history of the Iowa Caucuses I suspect it’s more likely that the former Arkansas governor will surprise the world with the strength of his showing. 

On the Republican side, Iowa caucus goers have shown a powerful partiality to the anti-establishment candidate. Given all the increasingly nasty attacks against Huckabee from every imaginable direction, there’s no doubt who’s the establishment candidate. In this sense, the angry, unfair, often snide assaults on Huckabee from nearly all my colleagues in Talk Radio (led by the bitterly and inexplicably hostile Rush Limbaugh) may only serve to burnish his anti-establishment credentials. In any event, Huck has scant money to parry these attacks with defenses or counter-assaults of his own, so the David and Goliath paradigm (an image that the one-time pastor would embrace) may only intensify the zeal of his fans and followers. 

After the pummeling of the last week, even Huckabee’s most implacable critics ought to admit that you sort of feel sorry for the guy. Okay, pity isn’t exactly a formula for long term victory, but it might be a factor in a backlash in Iowa. 

My best guess: the Huck wins the battle by more than one or two points… possibly even a lot more. 

Of course, I could be totally wrong, and Romney’s smooth-running operation easily could prevail, giving him the aura of an unstoppable frontrunner. If so, Huckabee’s star will quickly fade as a serious contender, but he’ll still deserve more fair and respectful treatment (from his colleagues on the campaign and my colleagues on the radio) than he’s received in recent days. 

Meanwhile, there’s a battle royal for third place between McCain and Thompson. Neither of these guys gets hurt too seriously if he finishes fourth, but the one who prevails in this second tier struggle (especially if it’s McCain, who’s run no advertising and campaigned hardly at all in Iowa) will get a huge boost for his campaign. 

In any event, within hours we'll all be readily to conclude the opening act of a riveting and profoundly important political drama. Let's hope that it plays out as neither tragedy nor farce.   

BEST OF YEAR:
1. ATONEMENT - Keira Knightly, James McAvoy
2. AMAZING GRACE - Ioan Gruffudd, Albert Finney (The story of William Wilberforce)
3. THE KITE RUNNER - Based on the best-selling novel, and from the director of "Monster's Ball" and "Finding Neverland"
4. RATATOUILLE - Animated film with voices of Peter O'Toole, Brad Garrett, and Patton Oswalt
5. THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD - Brad Pitt, Casey Affleck
6. GONE BABY GONE - Casey Affleck, Morgan Freeman, Ed Harris (Directed by Ben Affleck)
7. 3.10 TO YUMA - Russell Crowe, Christian Bale
8. BREACH - Chris Cooper, Ryan Philippe, Laura Linney (True story of FBI turncoat Robert Hansen)
9. AMERICAN GANGSTER - Denzel Washington, Russell Crowe
10. HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX - Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint (Installment five of the series)

HONORABLE MENTION:
SPIDERMAN 3 - Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst
THERE WILL BE BLOOD - Daniel Day-Lewis, Paul Dano (There Will Be Oscars)
BEOWULF - Animated with voices of Ray Winstone, Angelina Jolie, Anthony Hopkins
THE JANE AUSTEN BOOK CLUB - Maria Bello, Emily Blunt, Kathy Baker, Amy Brenneman, Maggie Grace
ENCHANTED - Amy Adams, Patrick Dempsey, Susan Sarandon

WORST OF THE YEAR:
BUG (Ashley Judd becomes Ashley Bug) - Ashley Judd, Harry Connick, Jr<

RUNNERS UP (no particular odor):
GEORGIA RULE (Jane Fonda attacks Mormons) - Jane Fonda, Lindsay Lohan, Felicity Huffman
THE NUMBER 23 (Jim Carrey deep in The Number 2) - Jim Carrey, Virginia Madsen
HANNIBAL RISING (sinking-without Anthony Hopkins) - Gaspard Ulliel
EPIC MOVIE (Epic Bomb) - Jennifer Coolidge, Fred Willard
EL CANTANTE (New Low for J-Lo) - Jennifer Lopez with hubbie Marc Anthony
REDACTED (Brian Does Baghdad) - Anti-military extravaganza from director Brian De Palma
HOT ROD (Andy Samberg's Less Lively than Evil Knievel) - Andy Samberg, Isla Fisher
LICENSE TO WED (another Robin Williams triumph) -Mandy Moore, Robin Williams, John Krasinski
THE HEARTBREAK KID (Ben Stiller's Honeymoon From Hell) - Ben Stiller, Malin Akerman, Michelle Monaghan

DISHONORABLE MENTION:
RENDITION - Reese Witherspoon, Jake Gyllenhaal
LIONS FOR LAMBS (Lambs for the Slaughter) - Robert Redford, Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep
IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH ("Elah" is an anagram for "Heal"?) - Tommy Lee Jones, Charlize Theron, James Franco
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WIT'S END - Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightly, Geoffrey Rush
SHOOT 'EM UP (And Flush 'Em Down) - Clive Owen, Paul Giamatti
CATCH AND RELEASE (throw it back-- despite Jennifer Garner) - Jennifer Garner, Timothy Olyphant

One of the common exercises New Year’s exercises involves selecting the biggest story of 2007 – the piece of news that constitutes the most significant historical turning point. In those terms, no story last year was more important than the utte, abjectr failure of the new Democratic Congress. In 2006, Democrats seized control of both House and Senate for the first time in 12 years. They promised dramatic changes – an end to the war, a crusade against “earmarks” and Congressional corruption, fresh initiatives to punish corporations and help the middle class. Even partisan Democrats now concede that this ambitious agenda crashed and burned. President Bush ended the first year of Nancy Pelosi’s reign with a series of victories in budgetary and military policy, as his much-reviled surge continues to bring encouraging results in Iraq. In a breathtakingly rapid and complete turnaround, Pelosi and Reid went from conquering heroes to bumbling embarrassments—with approval ratings far lower than the resurgent president’s.  

On MEET THE PRESS on NBC on Sunday, Mike Huckabee received an appropriately aggressive grilling from Tim Russert --- and showed, once again, why those who write him off as a country-bumpkin/religious zealot/political-flash-in-the-pan utterly underestimate the guy and his appeal.

Yes, he couldn't defend his own stupid "plan" on immigration-- no one could -- but he was no more embarrassing on that issue than is Romney or Thompson (they're all pathetic -- and Rudy isn't much better. Only McCain speaks with anything like credibility on immigration).

Meanwhile, I've attached some of the excerpts of the transcript where Huckabee is hit hard-- and hits right back, effectively it seems to me. The selections begin with his response to Romney criticism about his foreign policy...

-----------------------------------------------------

 

And it's interesting to me that while a few weeks ago on this program Mitt Romney was very critical of me for making that statement, a few months earlier on MEET THE--rather, on "60 Minutes," he himself had talked about the major mistakes that had been made by the administration.  He demanded of me an apology, but he did not demand of himself an apology for also being critical, as have most Republicans.  Now, I think Republicans are big enough and maybe wise enough that we can be in disagreement with certain policies and still be behind our president and behind this administration in many of the things which they have done right.  And I've been very complimentary of the president on the issues where I think he's been right.  I stood by him in the war, I stood by him in the surge.  I wasn't a latecomer like Mitt Romney was to believing that the surge was effective.  And we've seen 76 percent decline in civilian deaths, 62 percent decline in military casualties since the surge began.  It is working.  We are finally beginning to see those signs of victory in Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT:  You're suggesting that Mitt Romney's not running an honorable campaign.

GOV. HUCKABEE:  I've been very clear about it.  Mitt Romney is running a very desperate and, frankly, a dishonest campaign.  He's attacked me, and, and yesterday--or Friday, I guess it was, he launched then just a broadside attack against Senator McCain.  Now, Senator McCain and I are rivals for the presidency, but I've said on many occasions, I'll say it again here today, Senator McCain is an honorable man, and I believe he's an honest man.  I believe he's a man of conviction.  And I felt like that, when Mitt Romney went after the integrity of John McCain, he stepped across a line.  John McCain's a hero in this country.  He's a hero to me.

And I just felt like that when Mitt Romney gets on your show and says that he had the NRA endorsement when he didn't; when he comes on and says he's pro-life and yet he signed a bill that gives a $50 co-pay for an elective abortion in his state's health care plan; when he claims that he's really for the Second Amendment, but he--on this show he talked about how he supported limitations and restrictions on lawful, law-abiding citizens having gun ownership rights, those are not the marks of a person who's pro-life and pro-Second Amendment.  And then the things where he's made up these visions that he's had of marching with Martin Luther King and his dad marching with him.  You know, Tim, what I've said, and I've been pretty blunt about it, if you aren't being honest in obtaining a job, can we trust you to be honest if you get the job?.....

------------------

MR. RUSSERT:  Do you think some of the commercials that have been on the air talking about your record have hurt?

GOV. HUCKABEE:  Well, they may have.  I mean, people in Iowa have been bombarded.  I mean, bombarded.  Not only on commercials, but in the mail, at a time when most people were kind of looking forward to going out to the mailbox and picking up some nice Christmas cards, instead they were finding out what a bum Mike Huckabee is.  And I don't know what kind of effect it has.  People of Iowa, I think, like a positive campaign.  But the relentless attacks--and they have been relentless.  And when you're outspent 20-to-1, as I have been here in Iowa, you know, I think it's pretty amazing that I'm where I am.

MR. RUSSERT:  But has Mitt Romney said anything that's untrue about you?

GOV. HUCKABEE:  How long do we have on the program today?  He's said many things that are untrue.  He said that I reduced methamphetamine sentences in Arkansas.  Truth is I signed a bill in 1999 that doubled those sentences.  We did not reduce them.  Our sentences were four times harsher than they were in Massachusetts.  He said that I supported special breaks for illegal aliens. That's not true, Tim.  We supported simply giving children who had earned a scholarship the same--it never happened, it didn't make the legislature.  He made allegations that our increased spending by ridiculous amounts, and The New York Times came back and defended that, and said that's just simply not true.  And they took him apart and showed that the increases in spending were, frankly, the same if not a little better than his if you took into consideration the accounting methods we changed in Arkansas, very modest gains in spending.

He made claims about things like tax increases, but he failed to mention that some of those were either court ordered or they were voted on by the people and approved by the people for things as roads.  And I left my roads in great shape, took them from the worst in the country to what Truckers magazine said were the most improved.  He left his roads in a mess in Massachusetts, with huge problems in the infrastructure.  He claimed that he didn't raise taxes, but, in fact, he did raise taxes by half a billion dollars.

MR. RUSSERT:  Fees.

GOV. HUCKABEE:  Fees.  It's a tax.  If you're a small business person and you pay more money than you paid last year to the government, you can call it a fee, call it a tax, it's a three letter word that means the same.

..



--------------------------

On faith as central to America...

 

MR. RUSSERT:  But where does this leave non-Christians?

GOV. HUCKABEE:  Oh, it leaves them right in the middle of America.  I think the Judeo-Christian background of this country is one that respects people not only of faith, but it respects people who don't have faith.  The, the key issue of real faith is that it never can be forced on someone.  And never would I want to use the government institutions to impose mine or anybody else's faith or to restrict.  I think the First Amendment, Tim, is explicitly clear.  Government should be restricted, not faith, government.  And government's restriction is on two fronts:  one, it's not to prefer one faith over another; and the second, it's not to prohibit the practice of somebody's religion, period.

MR. RUSSERT:  So you'd have no problem appointing atheists to your Cabinet?

GOV. HUCKABEE:  No, I wouldn't have any problem at all appointing atheists. I probably had some working for me as governor.  You know, I think you got to realize if people want--say, "Well, you were a pastor," but I was a governor 10 1/2 years.  I have more executive experience running a government.  I was actually in a government position longer than I was a pastor.  And if people want to know how I would blend these issues, the best way to look at it is how I served as a governor.  I didn't ever propose a bill that we would remove the capitol dome of Arkansas and replace it with a steeple.  You know, we didn't do tent revivals on the grounds of the capitol.  But my faith is important to me.  I try to be more descriptive of it.  I just don't want to run from it and act like it's not important.  It drives my views on everything from the environment to poverty to disease to hunger.  Issues, frankly, I think the Republicans need to take a greater leadership role in.  And as a Republican, but as a Christian, I would want to make sure that we're speaking out on some of these issues that I think we've been lacking in as a party and as, as a nation.

-----------------------------------------------

on homosexuality....

 

MR. RUSSERT:  But this is what concerns people.  This, this is what you did say about homosexuality:  "I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle." That's millions of Americans.

GOV. HUCKABEE:  Tim, understand, when a Christian speaks of sin, a Christian says all of us are sinners.  I'm a sinner, everybody's a sinner.  What one's sin is, means it's missing the mark.  It's missing the bull's eye, the perfect point.  I miss it every day; we all do.  The perfection of God is seen in a marriage in which one man, one woman live together as a couple committed to each other as life partners.  Now, even married couples don't do that perfectly, so sin is not some act of equating people with being murderers or rapists...

MR. RUSSERT:  But when you say aberrant or unnatural, do you believe you're born gay or you choose to be gay?

GOV. HUCKABEE:  I don't know whether people are born that way.  People who are gay say that they're born that way.  But one thing I know, that the behavior one practices is a choice.  We may have certain tendencies, but how we behave and how we carry out our behavior--but the important issue that I want to address, because I think when you bring up the faith question, Tim, I've been asked more about my faith than any person running for president. I'm OK with that.  I hope I've answered these questions very candidly and very honestly.  I think it's important for us to talk about it.  But the most important thing is to find out, does our faith influence our public policy and how?  I've never tried to rewrite science textbooks.  I've never tried to come out with some way of imposing a doctrinaire Christian perspective in a way that is really against the Constitution.  I've never done that.

MR. RUSSERT:  But you said you would ban all abortions.

GOV. HUCKABEE:  Well, that's not just because I'm a Christian, that's because I'm an American.  Our founding fathers said that we're all created equal.  I think every person has intrinsic worth and value...

MR. RUSSERT:  But many Americans believe that that would be, that would be you imposing your faith belief...

GOV. HUCKABEE:  But, no.  It's not a faith belief.  It's deeper than that. It's a human belief.  It goes to the heart of who we are as a civilization. If I believe that your intrinsic worth is not changed by your ancestry, your last name, by your IQ, by your abilities or disabilities, if I value your life and respect it with dignity and worth because it is human, then that's what draws me to the inescapable conclusion that I should be for the sanctity of every and each human life.  That's why we go after that 12-year-old boy in the woods of North Carolina when he's lost, not because he has greater worth than someone else, but because we believe he has equal worth as everyone else.  I like it that in this country we treat each other--at least we should--with that sense of equality.  Our founding fathers penned that in the Declaration of Independence when they declared...

 

MR. RUSSERT:  Some Americans believe that life does not begin at conception, and that it's...

GOV. HUCKABEE:  Well, scientifically I think that's almost...

MR. RUSSERT:  But...

GOV. HUCKABEE:  ...a point that you couldn't argue.  How, how could you say that life doesn't begin at conception...

MR. RUSSERT:  Right.  Do you respect that view?

GOV. HUCKABEE:  ...biologically?

MR. RUSSERT:  Do you respect that view?

GOV. HUCKABEE:  I respect it as a view, but I don't think it has biological credibility.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I hope that Huckabee does well on Thursday. A strong showing in Iowa for the former Arkansas governor would constitute an appropriate rebuke to the negativity and saturation advertising by the Romney campaign. Even if Romney goes on to win the nomination (still a very real possibility) he will help himself, the party and the country if he turns away from the idea of spending millions of dollars to distort the records of his opponents. Surely, the Mittster has a more positive message to offer the nation about his own vision and leadership abilities (both of which command respect) than concentrating all his resources on sliming Huckabee and McCain. 

Meanwhile, good luck to all our candidates and heaven protect us from the Democrats.....

 

In the last week before the fateful Iowa caucuses, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto will influence the national debate at a crucial moment in the presidential campaign. The horrifying events in Pakistan carry five powerful messages for American voters – and candidates.

 

1. The terrorist threat remains the most important issue confronting the next president. In the campaign so far, candidates have spent most of their time debating domestic issues -- health care, immigration, the weak dollar, abortion, Congressional earmarks, tax reform, US attorney firings, energy independence, sub-prime mortgages, environmental warming and so forth. The Pakistani crisis reminds us that none of this matters as much as very real terrorist threats—especially with a nuclear-armed nation confronting the danger of “creeping talibanization.” Pakistan currently controls an estimated 90 nuclear weapons. If these devices came into the hands of Islamist fanatics (like those who finally succeeded in killing Madame Bhutto, their long-time target) the potential for world war becomes fearsome and immediate. Aside from the risk of thousands of casualties, intensifying terrorist threats bring the acute possibility of economic collapse – on a worldwide scale and, certainly, domestically. As we endure the pain of gasoline costing more than $3.00 per gallon, we ought to consider how we would cope with gas that set us back $6.00 or even $10.00 per gallon. Mike Huckabee eloquently emphasizes his Christian faith, Mitt Romney focuses on his business experience, and Barack Obama appeals to the public on the basis or sheer charisma and charm. The assassination proves, however, that the most important question for the next president involves his (or her) ability to lead the country in military, foreign policy and counter-terror efforts. The only candidates with impressive credentials and demonstrated competence in terms of national security are three Republicans: John McCain, Duncan Hunter (both combat veterans) and, to a lesser extent, Rudy Giuliani. Since Congressman Hunter (an admirable chair of the House Armed Services Committee for many years) maintains only a shadow campaign with minimal public support, this means that undecided or shaken voters may well take a fresh look at McCain or Rudy.
2. With all our complaints about the quirks our electoral system, the Bhutto assassination should renew our gratitude for our stable, honorable, and functioning democracy. The assassin gunned down Madame Bhutto as she left a campaign rally for parliamentary elections scheduled for January eighth (three days after our New Hampshire primary). Her father, a prior Pakistani President, had been imprisoned and executed by political rivals; her two brothers had been previously murdered. President Musharaf  (Bhutto’s rival) has survived five different assassination attempts so far. No matter how fatuous our campaign ads or disappointing our candidates, despite fears about voter fraud and inaccurate recounts, we’re privileged to live in a Republic that’s handled its disputes peacefully and effectively for more than 200 years (with the bloody and glaring exception of the War Between the States). Seeing democracy so clearly imperiled in Pakistan should encourage us to protect and cherish our own precious electoral system, and to put its embarrassing or corrupt aspects in proper context.
3. The isolationist arguments of Ron Paul and leftist Democrats look ridiculous in the face of Pakistan’s agony.  The “Blame America” school of international relations loves to ascribe any danger or setback to the failed policies of the Bush administration, the machinations of the CIA or the “neo-cons,” U.S. support of Israel, or the devious intentions of the CFR, the Bilderbergers and the North American Union. The bloody chaos in Pakistan, however, goes back several generations – reflecting blood feuds, ethnic rivalries, and Islamic extremism that have polarized the country since its founding sixty years ago. With revenge riots already unleashed against hapless targets around the nation, it’s hard to see how a cutoff of American aid, or a new U.S. determination to “go home” and leave other nations to their own devices, would bring peace to Pakistan, or reconciliation between that country and its nuclear armed neighbor and rival, India. Rational analysis suggests that abrupt American disengagement would make the situation more dangerous, not less explosive. The current crisis serves as a reminder that America can’t control events in every corner of the globe, and we therefore can’t be blamed for those brutal happenings that we don’t control and can’t avoid.
4. Politicians always look better after death, but ought to be appreciated while they’re alive.  The instant canonization of Benazir Bhutto ought to embarrass the pundits and journalists who now talk only of her saintly aspects—featuring glamorous photos or video from twenty years ago showing the lady at the peak of her stunning beauty. As a matter of fact, her two previous terms as Prime Minister both ended in failure, embarrassment and rejection, along with widespread and credible charges of corruption. It’s natural to remember her best characteristics after her sudden death, and compared to General Musharaf or her Islamist rival Nawaz Sharif she may indeed look enlightened, even heroic, but the posthumous praise on cable news networks sounds embarrassingly overwrought. By the same token, the tributes to all dead politicians tend to go too far – as if to make up for the lack of respect we accorded them while they lived and served. Gerald Ford represents a striking recent example. Americans derided him during his presidency, and replaced him with the utterly feckless and feeble Jimmy Carter, but at the time of his funeral the belated tributes treated Ford like a candidate for Rushmore. The sudden death of Bhutto, a vital, 54-year-old Pakistani politico, ought to encourage more appreciation for our own candidates for top office. Like her, they boast plenty of faults, and often display puffed-up egos, but they still deserve credit for the sacrifices and dangers they accept for the sake of an impassioned desire to serve their country.
5. Leaders are fragile and mortal, and so they should choose Vice Presidents instantly capable of assuming command.   In this complicated and unpredictable political season, we tend to consider potential running mates on the basis of the electoral advantages they might bring to the ticket. That’s a mistake, of course: on nine occasions, a Vice President has taken over the White House due to the death or resignation of the President. In the 133 years between the death of William Henry Harrison in 1841 and the resignation of Richard Nixon in 1974, the Veep assumed the top job once every fifteen years. It’s now been more than 33 years since a President failed to finish his term, so we’re long overdue for another Vice Presidential succession. The death of Bhutto demonstrates how quickly a commanding figure can disappear from the scene, and how much we need a potential replacement who is prepared in every way. In choosing Vice President Cheney, President Bush showed the right idea: largely ignoring fleeting political advantage by selecting a grey, charisma-free candidate from an inconsequential state, but with peerless preparation for the presidency. Cheney had served five terms in the House of Representatives, helped run the White House as Chief of Staff to President Ford, and led America’s military as Secretary of Defense for the previous President Bush. Whoever wins the Republican and Democratic nominations ought to look for a running mate with comparable preparation.

 

The Bhutto assassination and the world-wide reaction will continue to dominate the news cycle for another day or two, after which attention will return to the looming Iowa Caucuses next Thursday. When we do get back to politics, however, we ought to recall the recent killing as a basis for sharpening and refocusing our choice for the next holder of the world’s most powerful job.

 

With Iowa Caucuses only one week away, the latest poll from ARG (American Research Group) delivered huge surprises for both Republicans and Democrats. 

On the Democratic side, a tight-as-a-tick three way race (between Hillary, Obama and Edwards) has turned into a Clinton blow-out: the survey of 600 likely Democratic caucus goers (completed on December 23^rd) showed Hillary with a commanding 34%, to Edwards’ 20% and Obama’s disappointing 19%. If she wins Iowa with that sort of margin (after the relentless focus on the state by her two rivals) she will wrap up the nomination for all intents and purposes, and become unstoppable in other early primaries. 

Meanwhile, as the Democrats watch the New York senator reasserting her status as clear front-runner, the Republican field looks more muddled than ever before. In the previous survey, Mike Huckabee held a substantial 11% lead over his chief opponent Mitt Romney in a two-man race that left their rivals far behind. The new ARG poll (surveying 600 likely Republican caucus goers) shows erosion in Huckabee’s support along with sudden and unexpected strength from John McCain --a candidate who had written off Iowa several months ago and devoted no visible time or money to the Hawkeye state. For the first time, the GOP contest in Iowa looks like a startlingly close three-way battle, with 23% for Huckabee, 21% for Romney, and 17% for McCain. When combined with all the recent polls from New Hampshire – which show the Arizona senator either tied for the lead with Romney or running a close second  – the new Iowa numbers reflect undeniable momentum for a candidate whose campaign a few weeks ago looked disorganized, moribund, under-funded and irrelevant. 

What’s behind McCain’s Big Mo?  

Two factors figure most prominently:  

1)      Negative advertising and nasty attacks have damaged his principal competitors. Three weeks ago, Mitt Romney began unleashing a series of slashing attacks against Iowa front-runner Mike Huckabee, focusing on the former Arkansas governor’s “record” on illegal immigrants (Huckabee once supported an unsuccessful drive to allow children brought to Arkansas illegally to compete with their classmates for university scholarships), and clemency for criminals (he generated intense controversy with his pardons and commutations for serious lawbreakers). Romney’s negativity produced predictable results--: driving down Huckabee’s numbers without winning new fans for Mitt. In multi-candidate contests, attacks often damage both the target of the assaults and their initiator, benefiting other contenders. In Iowa, some potential caucus goers may feel weary and wary of the nasty tone of the campaign, feeling disgusted with both Romney and Huckabee (despite the fact that the former Arkansas governor has tried for the most part to maintain a positive approach). McCain, by contrast, not only looks like he’s above the battle, but absent from it – stirring up little or no controversy in the state because he’s not competing. In the same way, prior sniping between Mitt and Rudy (remember the cringe-inducing exchange about “sanctuary city” vs. “sanctuary mansion”?) helped fuel Huckabee’s rise several weeks ago. A candidate who roughs up his opponent may indeed damage his rival (as Romney apparently has damaged Huckabee) but in the process he makes himself look desperate and un-Presidential – especially when he’s delivering the attacks in person, rather than using surrogates. 

2)      In the last week before the caucuses, voters are finally taking a serious look at which candidate represents the most plausible commander-in-chief. McCain’s biggest advantage in Iowa, New Hampshire and across the country involves his military background, personal heroism in Vietnam, and courageous consistency concerning the Iraq War. The unmistakable success of the surge (even Harry Reid now admits that the new policy has delivered big time military progress) validates McCain’s leadership and underlines his expertise on defense and foreign policy. A month before making up their minds, citizens may cast about for a “fresh face” or an “agent of change,” but when they face a fateful decision on caucus night or primary day they generally prefer a president who’s ready to lead the ongoing war on Islamo-Nazi terror from day one. This factor undoubtedly helps to explain Hillary’s sudden rise in Iowa – as pathetic as her national security credentials may seem to her critics, she’s clearly more prepared to take command in the Oval Office than Obama or Edwards. By the same token, it’s vastly easier to imagine McCain leading our military than Huckabee or Romney. Even though Mitt earns points as a successful business executive, his slick leadership of the Winter Olympics can’t compare with McCain’s history as a combat veteran and long-time Congressional leader on military issues and strategy. If his rivals ever wanted to undermine Romney’s defense policy credibility, they need only fashion a TV ad replaying one of Mitt’s major gaffes from the debates: asked about the President’s authority to unleash a strike against Iran, the former governor suggested that his first priority would be to meet with his lawyers. McCain is unlikely to turn negative at this stage in the campaign and to recall that disquieting interchange (since the Arizona solon has gained so much from his dignified, grown-up, above-the-skirmish posture). But an increasingly desperate Giuliani might well challenge Romney’s preparation for confronting our enemies (Rudy’s new slogan – “Tested. Ready. Now.”—seeks to re-focus voter attention on his own admirable record of fighting crime and confronting terrorism). 

Despite the powerful factors behind John McCain’s new found strength, it’s still unlikely that he could actually win the Iowa Caucuses. He boasts only a flimsy, rudimentary organization in the Hawkeye State, while Huckabee and (especially) Romney should fare much better in the “ground game” that may determine victory. Both former governors boast the manpower strength to overcome the challenge of dragging their people out of the comfort of home on a cold Thursday night (next Thursday, as a matter of fact) to spend significant time in a neighbor’s living room. 

Nevertheless, one more joker in the deck might yet assist McCain at the last minute. Under caucus rules, if a candidate draws less than 15% of the participants in any local neighborhood, the votes won’t register for him and his supporters get the chance to support their second choice. In the latest poll, Rudy Giuliani runs fourth and pulls 14% in Iowa-- meaning that in many precincts he’ll win support, but not enough to allow the votes to go to him. If Giuliani regularly finishes out of the running in local caucuses with, say 6% to 14%, then his voters can easily decide the outcome. For several reasons, Rudy backers should prove far more willing to throw their support to McCain than to Huckabee or Romney. For one thing, Giuliani voters will likely view terrorism and military strength as their chief concerns—focusing on issues that constitute the very heart of McCain’s appeal. Moreover, people who are drawn to Rudy won’t likely be swayed by the social issues that animate Huckabee’s legions, or the bombastic hard-line on immigration that’s been a big focus of the Romney campaign in Iowa. Even if McCain makes no further progress in statewide polls – remaining just behind the frontrunners (with 17% to their 23% and 21%, respectively) he could plausibly win the Iowa caucuses, or at least finish a strong second, by winning second-choice votes from Rudy’s backers. Either way, he’d get a powerful boost for New Hampshire (just five days after the caucuses) and beyond. 

With just seven days to go, the race remains shockingly fluid and unpredictable. If Romney wins his twin wars (Iowa and New Hampshire) against his two challengers (Huckabee and McCain) he’ll be tough to beat for the nomination—and could cruise to victory as a lavishly well-funded, magnetically mediagenic golden boy candidate. If, on the other hand, he loses both early states (despite his prodigious investment of time and money) he looks instead like a golden turkey and he’s probably through. On the other hand, if Huckabee prevails in two of the early contests (where he could win both Iowa and South Carolina very plausibly) he may well win the nomination. McCain must win in New Hampshire and Rudy must win in Florida – otherwise they’re each out of the running. Thompson (who’s rapidly fading in polls despite his much improved performance as a candidate) needs a miracle win in South Carolina to stay in the race – otherwise, insider gossip suggests he’ll drop out and endorse one of his best friends from the Senate, John McCain (provided that the Arizona senator is still a factor).  

Meanwhile, McCain needs to succeed in his must-win New Hampshire struggle, and then knock off one other early state before “Tsunami Tuesday” on February 5^th; South Carolina (with an abundance of military veterans) and Michigan (where he beat George W. Bush handily eight years ago with the aid of independents) represent his best bets.

If the white-thatched Arizonan somehow beats the odds and scores an upset win in Iowa, it’s entirely possible that he sweeps to early victory and unites the party. Romney might well drop out if he lost both Iowa and New Hampshire (or else fight on to Michigan, Nevada and Florida, badly weakened). Thompson (as mentioned above) would almost certainly leave the race if he posted a weak showing in South Carolina. Huckabee might continue to compete (as a regional candidate with a primarily Southern and rural base) as would Rudy (who must somehow maintain the nation’s attention until the February 5^th primaries in California, New York, New Jersey and other big states provide him with sympathetic settings for his urban appeal).  

Anyone who tries to predict the final outcome with any reasonable degree of certainty deserves dismissal for arrogance and irresponsibility. Nevertheless, McCain’s apparently energized Iowa campaign makes it clear that he’s re-emerged as one of the viable contenders for the nomination.       

With Christmas approaching in a matter of days, and countless shoppers seeking a novel, beautiful, thoughtful, unexpected gift, I’ve stumbled across a perfect recommendation --- tender, tuneful, fresh, folksy and eminently affordable. 

There’s a newly released album of enchanting music by the English composer Gustav Holst (1874-1934), and for the ridiculous price of $5.99 you can provide someone you love with an hour of delight that’s worth more than the cost each and every time you listen. 

Holst is best known for his astrological blockbuster “The Planets,” but the small pieces on this album (“Gustav Holst: Orchestral Music”, from Arte Nova recordings) are less dazzling and bombastic --  more intimate, more gentle, more connected to the English folk tunes that inspired Holst throughout his life. In his student years, he tramped through the British countryside with primitive recording equipment (and occasionally with his great friend Ralph Vaughan Williams) to capture the sounds of the authentic (and fading) English folk-song tradition. This new album provides some rarely heard arrangements of such earthy, ancient material “Six Morris Dance Tunes,” “Seven Scottish Airs” and, most unforgettably, the haunting and spiritual “In the Bleak Midwinter” (appropriate for late December, indeed). There’s also the spirited romp for strings “St. Paul’s Suite” (written for the girls school at which Holst taught), the “Brook Green Suite,” and the precious, jewel-like, deeply affecting “Lyric Movement for Viola and Small Orchestra” – 11 minutes of ethereal, yearning meditation I had never heard before. 

The performances by the London Festival Orchestra conducted by Ross Pople are consistently lively and affectionate, even if this energetic band can’t quite match major orchestral ensembles in terms of precision or virtuosity. The sound quality is appropriately intimate, with surprising attention to detail. 

This sort of music can induce a dreamlike state, or provide a background soundtrack as appropriate as a crackling fire for holiday get-togethers. Familiar melodies like “Greensleeves” and “Auld Lang Syne” and “Country Gardens” pop up from time to time and deserve welcome like old friends. 

The serial number for this exceptional Compact Disc is Arte Nova/ANO 340220, and it’s available at most Borders, Barnes & Noble, and other prominent book and music stores for $5.99 (click here for purchasing information) – even less if you use one of the coupons these merchants often provide on demand at this time of year. 

It’s a bargain-hunters dream for enhancing your gift-giving or your own musical enjoyment of the holiday season.