Maine GOP Caucus Results

Unbeknown to me until about five minutes ago, Maine is holding its GOP caucus this weekend.  Just after 9 pm tonight, with 68% of precincts reporting, Mitt Romney is leading John McCain and Ron Paul, 52-21-18%.  The New York Times is covering the results as they come in.

UPDATE:  The Associated Press is calling the state for Romney, who gained 53% of the vote, followed by McCain with 21% and Paul with 19%.  Sounds like turnout was unusually high, even as an ice storm cut off parts of the state.  Maine will send twenty-one delegates to the national convention.

Insty

Glenn Reynolds notes South Dakota today on his blog:

CIVIL RIGHTS PROGRESS IN SOUTH DAKOTA:

A bill passed this week by a House committee would guarantee people the right to carry or possess firearms on the campuses of South Dakota's public universities.

HB1261 would also prevent schools from expelling students or firing employees for having a gun on campus.

I hope that more states -- including mine -- follow suit.  If it saves just one life, it's worth it.

The Clintons' Southern Strategy

From differing ideological perspectives and different estimations as to the strategy's ultimate fate, John Judis of The New Republic and Noemie Emery of the Weekly Standard critique the Clintons' southern strategy.

Do Blogs Matter in Politics?

Over at the New York Times's Campaign Stops blog, Ron Klain wonders about the influence that blogs hold over politics.  Looking at the Democratic race, he sees that liberal blogger favorites like Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, and Chris Dodd all failed in their bids despite apparent widespread support within the blogosphere.  Klain doesn't talk about it, but this applies to Republicans as well.  Fred Thompson had tremendous support among conservative bloggers, but that failed to translate into meaningful votes in the primaries.  And it's hard to find another candidate this campaign cycle who has more online support than Ron Paul, although he hasn't achieved much beyond single-digit support.

Our friend Captain Ed takes issue with Klain's assertion that blogs have had "impressive electoral success," arguing that "I see no evidence that the blogosphere has had 'impressive electoral success' anywhere"  I would dissent somewhat with Ed's argument.  The investigative work over at Little Green Footballs to expose the CBS Bush Army National Guard memos as fake was a huge breakthrough for the Bush campaign.  Even locally, Daschle v. Thune, Sibby Online, and this blog (run, at that time, by Jon Lauck, Steve Sibson, and Jason Van Beek, respectively) had a tremendous influence on the Senate campaign and sometimes served as a gut-check for the Argus Leader's political reporting.  Several national media outlets recognized the contributions of the Dakota Blog Alliance, including the Wall Street Journal, U.S. News and World Report, and the Economist, and also generated support among conservative talk radio (Laura Ingram visited South Dakota in early October of 2004) and national blogs like Power Line and Instapundit.  South Dakota bloggers drove stories like Tim Giago's third-party bid, Daschle's retreat on the balanced budget amendment, Daschle's flip on abortion, inconsistency on the Iraq War, "huggergate," "mansiongate," "pillowgate," and the eleventh-hour lawsuit against Thune.  Political scientist Bill Richardson concluded that the "blogs' success in getting all the news out about Daschle's [lawsuit was] an obvious illustration" of blog influence, and proved "highly visible, effective and damaging to Daschle" (quoted in Jon's book, p. 210). 

Ed, however, does make an excellent point about blogs being better with policy issues rather than campaigns.  Pork, immigration, and other issues are great topics because blogs are about ideas, delving, as Ed put it, "into detail and utilizing rhetoric to motivate and to persuade."  I think this is correct.  Blogs are probably at their best when enlightening people about policy issues, and if a politician decides to promote policies promoted on blogs, then perhaps blogs may boost the candidate who chooses to champion them.

A Little Perspective on McCain (updates)

Some conservatives have lost perspective in the current election cycle.  Overheated rhetoric is becoming the mainstream, and accusations of disloyalty and catastrophe are the buzzwords of blogs and talk radio. 

Here are my thoughts for your consideration.  Lets keep in mind one simple thing: politics is the art of possible, not the ideal.  You don't win in politics by losing, and you don't win by sitting it out.  Each person can make that decision as they choose, of course.  But the animosity being shoveled at McCain is almost Kossack-like.  Somebody was bound to say that McCain Derangement Syndrome exists.

What I'm finding hard to swallow is the conservatives-as-purists, people who are asserting that if the Republican candidate does not line up exactly with their ideals then they must not be a conservative.   It's hard to add to Ed Morrissey and his comments about Ann Coulter.  I've stated before that I think Coulter is bad for the conservative cause, and her recent assertion that she'd campaign for Hillary Clinton if McCain becomes the nominee is completely absurd.  Where's the logic in this?  Coulter criticizes McCain for aligning himself with Democrats, so her solution . . . is to campaign for Democrats?  That's not a considered and thoughtful political position.  That is McCain Derangement Syndrome (if you watch the video over at Ed's, even Sean Hannity was embarrassed by her tirade, and Alan Colmes seemed to be loving it).  Even the Maja Rushdie has been a disappointment.  I catch Rush every once in a great while and have a lot of respect for him and find him to be very wise and successful.  But he's not my vote guide for the primaries.  Once again, it goes back to the purists: Rush seems to think it's his duty to identify who among us is a "true conservative."

There are some legitimate criticisms to level at McCain.  McCain-Feingold was stupid legislation, and I think McCain was wrong on immigration.  My own sympathies are leaning towards Mitt Romney now (since Giuliani and Thompson are out), but if McCain becomes the nominee, I'll support him because he'll be better for the country than Clinton or Obama.  No doubt I'll oppose some of his policies and acknowledge his disdain at times for the party, but he's a better choice for the nation than the current crop of Democrats.  He'll be more conservative than either Dem nominee, which means better court appointments, a better chance at fighting tax increases, and more success in the war.  If he loses, we're stuck in the minority for the next four, eight, or twelve years.

Feel free to blow of steam and offer criticism, but don't let it ruin your life.

UPDATE:  Vin Weber and Mark Levin both make strong cases for Mitt Romney.  Also, in major news, the Denver Post -- the largest paper in the Rocky Mountain west -- has endorsed Romney.  The battle of newspaper endorsements favors McCain, but the Post endorsement is worth a look.

UPDATE II:  Here's another reason to support Mitt.  Robert Novak writes:  "While President George W. Bush has maintained neutrality among contenders for the Republican presidential nomination, he privately expresses to friends his exasperation with Mitt Romney's hard-line stance on immigration."

UPDATE III:  Steve Forbes has endorsed McCain.  He'll need his help, as economics is not McCain's strong point.

UPDATE IV:  The Wall Street Journal reports that John McCain is making inroads with conservatives heading into Super Tuesday.  Meanwhile, Jonah Goldberg, Roger Simon, Rachel Lucas, and Donald Douglas are echoing my call for conservative unity and ending the irrational hatred of McCain.  Also, in Newsweek Karl Rove surveys the Republican field and asks, what conservative crackup?

More Idle Thune Speculation

At the end of a post on the current presidential race, John Hinderaker speculates about future Republican races:

For what it's worth, if McCain gets the nomination this year and loses, in 2012 Mitt Romney will be the presumed candidate, assuming that he keeps himself busy with party activities over the next few years. Romney is relatively young and in excellent health; 2008 could turn out to be a tune-up for him, somewhat as 1976 was for Ronald Reagan.

Personally, I'd like to see John Thune fight Romney for the nomination on 2012, and position himself for 2016 and beyond.

For what it's worth, of all the explanations of McCain's resurgence, the idea the Republican's naturally reward the "next in line," is among the weakest.  It is true that the party tends to nominate those who have paid their dues, but let me speculate that that is happenstance, not some conscious decision on the part of voters.  Can you really imagine a significant number of Republican voters are saying, "Well, I think [insert non-McCain candidate here] is our best bet, but golly, McCain's paid his dues"? 

The Earth Battles The Undead

There is evidence that any global warming might lead to an increase in zombie attacks.  In the event of a zombie epidemic, one of the safest places to go is to the Arctic where zombie flesh freezes.  Global warming might reduce the extent of this safe haven.

On the other hand, some recent evidence suggests lower output from the Sun that may lead to global cooling.  This has the dual benefit of reducing both zombie and vampire attacks. 

Perhaps it is time to review the Top 10 Lessons for Surviving a Zombie Attack:

1. Organize before they arise
2. They feel no fear; why should you?
3. Use your head; cut off theirs
4. Blades don't need reloading.
5. Ideal protection=tight clothes, short hair
6. Get up the staircase, then destroy it.
7. Get out of the car, get onto the bike.
8. Keep moving, keep low, keep quiet, keep alert.
9. No place is safe, only safer.
10. The zombie may be gone, but the threat lives on.

Keep coming to SDP for updates on all things undead, including reported Epp attacks.

Update: Upon further thought, perhaps I was too credulous in accepting the argument from the "dual benefit" link above.  It is not clear to me how lower output from the Sun and global cooling help in the fight against vampires.  If anything, the lower output from the Sun encourages vampires as perhaps they are now less harmed by the Sun's rays. 

SDP Jazz Note: Blue Serge

The baritone saxophone is a rare instrument in jazz.  Only Gerry Mulligan, among jazz superstars, favored the instrument.  There is a simple reason for this, as Steve Allen once pointed out: it is incapable of making a pretty noise.  But for that reason it can perfectly exemplify the genius of jazz: making music out of musical ideas. 

Serge Chaloff was born in Boston, the son of two noted piano teachers.  He died of cancer of the spine about two months after I was born.  Like a lot of jazzmen of that era, heroin put a heavy tax on his output.  But what he did manage to accomplish before he was laid low was just enough to fill out a tragedy. 

I recently acquired his most celebrated recording, Blue Serge.  Sonny Clark on piano, Leroy Vinnegar on bass, and the ubiquitous Philly Joe Jones on drums.  Chaloff squeezes all of the human soul out of his baritone, leaving one to wonder if great music could come out of a fog horn if the right man was pushing the button.  It is superb jazz, and very hard to find.  But we live in an age when such treasures are no longer so deeply buried. 

What Evil Looks Like: Baghdad Bombing Edition

If you are looking for strange indicators that the surge strategy in Iraq is working, I suppose this ought to go in your file.  From Breitbart.com. 

Two women described as mentally disabled and strapped with remote- control explosives—and possibly used as unwitting suicide bombers—brought carnage Friday to two pet bazaars, killing at least 91 people in the deadliest day since Washington flooded the capital with extra troops last spring.

Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, Iraq's chief military spokesman in Baghdad, said the women had Down syndrome and may not have known they were on suicide missions, but gave no further details on how authorities pieced together the evidence. He also said the bombs were detonated by remote control.

Two things come to mind.  One is that the insurgents are obviously scrapping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to recruits.  The other is that our enemies in Iraq display a kind of purity: pure evil.  No trace of humanity, nor so much as a molecule of scruple can annoy them. To bind two Down syndrome women with remote control bombs and send them to die along with a lot of innocent people, that suggests hearts so black that they annihilate all light that reaches them.

When deciding whether or when to withdraw from Iraq, we might ought to take that into account.

Al Qaida: Ridding The World Of The Unwanted

Here is the positive spin on the news that Al Qaida used women suffering from Down's Syndrome for their latest terrorist attacks in Baghdad. This tells you that they are having a hard time recruiting suicide bombers.  They must prey on the mentally handicapped who surely had no idea what they were being put up to. 

Many moons ago I posted on the elimination of Down's Syndrome through the abortion regime.   We have used pre-natal screening to eliminate "defective" people.  But at least we don't strap bombs to them to take the "normal" people with them. 

I'm Somewhat Worse Off...

48%

Veep Choice

Reader George chimes in on the Thune for VP story:

I agree that he'd be a good choice, so far as balancing the ticket with a centrist and conservative are concerned. THe idea of Pawlenty, or someone with perhaps a greater name recognition factor, maybe a good point, however. People do vote for the top name on the ticket predominantely, but having someone more right-of-center, like Thune or a few others, may appease enough voters to come McCain's way. Another issue may be having a running mate from a state with more electoral votes than our three, and a VP which would swing his own state or go GOP in the general election which normally would not. These may indeed be important issues this election, as the GOP ticket will likely need every electoral vote it can get, especially running against a strong Clinton machine, running after a low-popularity president, running when many want the Middle East conflicts to end, etc.

   Maybe COndi Rice still is the way to go....

I suspect that given the fit some conservatives have had over McCain it is in his interest to select a strong conservative.  That rules out Condi Rice.  Whatever her virtues are, she is also not entirely trusted in conservative circles.    

A Super Prediction

Long time readers of this blog know better than to wage actual money based on my predictions, but for better or worse, here goes: Patriots 42, Giants 17.

My only hope is that the game is fairly close at halftime, justifying the array of truly awful food I plan on eating during the game. 

I Have Guns And Bats And I Know How To Use Them

63%

My Odds in the Zombie War

55%

http://www.justsayhi.com/bb/zombie

Property Taxes Debate Heating Up

The debate in Pierre over the future of South Dakota property taxes is starting to heat up. HB 1005 is getting the most attention.  Unfortunately this bill to wholly inadequate., for reasons pointed out by Al Novstrup:

Rep. Al Novstrup, R-Aberdeen, called the measure a “gross income tax” that favored owners of ag land near residential and commercial developments.

“The winners are not farmers they’re land developers. The losers are farmers out on the prairie,” he said.

My beef is not that the bill functions as a quasi-income tax (which I happen to favor), but that it ends up treating some ag land unfairly.  The valuation proposed in HB 1005 only looks at one value of land, its productive value, without looking at any other value.  That is biased, as Rep. Novstrup says, toward land that is ripe for development.  A land owner on prairie may produce the same as a piece of land near Sioux Falls, thus both pieces of land pay the same tax under HB 1005.  But that land near Sioux Falls will sell for far more than the prairie land.  Novstrup's bill, which seems to have died, would have included sale value as well.  That  arrives at a  much fairer valuation, or, as Novstrup puts it, a fair and true value. 

The Veep Speculation Begins

Kevin Wooster suggests John Thune as a Vice-Presidential candidate should John McCain secure the Republican nomination for president.  McCain could do much worse.  McCain certainly needs someone young and energetic to balance his age.  I suggest a better choice is Minnesota's governor Tim Pawlenty.  Unlike Thune, Pawlenty comes with executive experience and is from a battleground state.  Pawlenty is currently raising money as if he is running for a third term.  What say you, SDP readers? Send an email with suggestions. 

Damned If You Do...

Is the Earth warming or cooling? 

Berkeley Hate Watch

The Marines are "unwelcome intruders" according to the Berkeley City Council.

McCain's Over-Determined Florida Victory

In science, a phenomenon is "over-determined" when it seems to have more than one sufficient cause.  Something of this sort seems to be going on with John McCain's victory in the Florida primary.  Thomas Edsall explains this phenomenon by pointing to "anti-Bush moderates."

As John McCain took a big step toward winning the nomination in Florida, the Republican Party looks increasingly likely to pass the torch to a candidate powered by decidedly un-Republican constituencies: anti-Bush voters, the non-religious, supporters of abortion rights, and social-cultural moderates.

Well, that would explain the delight of the New York Times and Washington Post over McCain's victory, and it does rest on considerable evidence from the exit polls.  But it is curious that so many "un-Republican constituencies" voted, and constituted a plurality, in a closed Republican primary. 

Marc Caputo, writing in the Miami Herald, has discovered the true cause of McCain's victory: Hispanic voters.

South Florida was supposed to be the sixth borough, New York south for the former Big Apple mayor. But McCain shattered that, winning Miami-Dade with a 37-32 percent margin, boosted by the support of Cuban-Americans and the surprise endorsement of Charlie Crist, the popular governor of Florida.

Of course, Hispanic voters in the U.S. are not, for the most part, Cuban-American voters.  But if McCain really has the power to attract Hispanic Americans, it may serve him well in the event that his Democratic opponent is Barack Obama. 

But no, it wasn't Hispanics or un-Republican Republicans, it was conservatives, according to Peter Schweizer at National Review Online.

The final factor, which has been overlooked so far in the news coverage, is that McCain campaigned much more as a conservative down here than he did in Iowa, New Hampshire, or even South Carolina. He emphasized the war on terror, of course, but also his fiscal conservative record...  It seemed like a throw-back to the McCain of more than ten years ago, before McCain-Feingold, global warming, opposition to the Bush tax cuts, criticism of religious conservatives — you know the litany. I was surprised when I looked up McCain’s lifetime American Conservative Union rating and discovered it was an 83, just slightly lower than Newt’s. So it’s hard to say whether conservatives have moved toward McCain, or McCain has moved toward conservatives. But one thing is certain, he needed conservatives to win in Florida. 

McCain may have "lost" the conservative vote to Romney, but he got enough of it to pad his margin of victory.

Allow me to suggest that the true cause of McCain's victory in the Florida Republican primary was Florida Republicans.  With a ridiculously diverse nation, each party, nationally and state by state, is a complex pallet of demographic colors.  The various candidates each tried to paint a convincing picture of what the nation should be.  McCain painted the winning entry.  Romney painted himself into a corner.  McCain has a lot of canvas to cover between now and September.  He will need a lot of red state paint.

Last Comment on Thompson and Republican Virtue

I agree with my colleague, Professor Schaff, that we not far apart on our view of the Thompson campaign.  When I said that Thompson was a "potential candidate," I meant that long period when he seemed reluctant to actually throw his hat in.  I think it was in that time that he lost his chance to be the nominee.  But that is of little matter.

What is of some importance is the question whether the virtue proper to a Presidential candidate requires that he somehow remain "above the fray," keeping some distance from public opinion.  Consider the case of Lincoln.  In his time, I gather, it was still considered unseemly for Presidential candidates to let other campaign for them.  So I suppose that that is what Lincoln did. But that was hardly the case in his 1858 Senate campaign!  We owe the priceless Lincoln-Douglas debates to the fact that Lincoln took his case to the people of Illinois, north and south.  Lincoln was not trying to "base his power on public opinion."  He was in fact molding public opinion.  Lincoln possessed the virtue of prudence.  He acted effectively by acting appropriately in each venue. 

Today the difference between a Senate race and the Presidential race has disappeared.  This may be an unfortunate fact, it is a fact.  If Fred Thompson had acted in 2007 as Lincoln did in 1858, well, things might have been very different.  By not taking his case to the people of Iowa and New Hampshire, he squandered his chance to bring his virtues, such as they are, to the Oval Office.

Readers may regard this as an academic discussion, as Thompson's campaign is now but a memory.  But it may be a valuable lesson for the next virtuous contender, if any such person should be available. 

Madville Falls For Fake Lincoln Quote

In a recent post, Cory at Madville Times tries to adopt Abraham Lincoln to his "the plutocrats are coming" campaign by using this quote attributed to Abe:

I see in the near future a crisis approaching. It unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes.

I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me & the financial institutions at the rear; the latter is my greatest foe. Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.

--President Abraham Lincoln, Nov 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins)

The only problem with this quote is that Lincoln never wrote this letter.  I thought this sounded suspicious, as this is not Lincoln's form of language and the idea that Lincoln thought that corporations were a bigger threat to the Union than the Confederacy/slavery is, to say the least, inconsistent with the evidence.  I looked in both the online version of Lincoln's collected works and in my paper edition.  No quote.  This, however, is not necessarily definitive as recent Lincoln findings are not in the Collected Works.  I then found this piece from the Washington Post by Andrew Ferguson, author of Land of Lincoln.  He confirms my suspicions that this quote is made up.  To sum up:

Writing in 1999 in the Abraham Lincoln Association's newsletter, the great Lincoln historian Thomas F. Schwartz traced the bogus passage to the 1880s, about 20 years after Lincoln's death. One theory is that it first appeared in a pamphlet advertising patent medicines. Opponents of Gilded Age capitalism -- Gore's forerunners -- found the quote so useful that Lincoln's former White House secretaries felt compelled to launch a campaign "denouncing the forgery," Schwartz said. Robert Todd Lincoln, who was the president's only surviving son and himself a wealthy railroad lawyer, called it "an impudent invention" that ascribed to his father views that the former president would never have held.

Apparently this quote is gaining in currency as it is being disseminated by Al Gore. 

We all make mistakes as writers.  I am sure this is an honest mistake that Cory will correct at first opportunity.   

Update: And presto! Cory corrects. 

Last Fred Blog

When you get down to it, Prof. Blanchard and I are not that far apart when it comes to the "how virtuous was the Fred Thompson candidacy" debate.  We both agree that Thompson waged a campaign unlikely to garner votes.  Prof. Blanchard thinks that this is largely the end of the story.  I think that campaigns are about more than gaining votes; how one goes about gaining votes is important.  Prof. Blanchard writes, "Thompson wasn't president.  He was a potential candidate for President." Prof. Blanchard surely means that Thompson was a potential president (as he was an actual candidate).  I tend to think that how we select candidates has something to do with how those candidates actually govern.  Restraint in campaigning helps lead to restraint in governing.  Let us leave it at that. 

Absolutely Aberdeen!

The Argus has a story on the economic progress being made in Aberdeen:

While much of the rest of the country is bracing for economic downturn and a possible recession, this city on the northern South Dakota plains is experiencing an employment boom.

After several years of spending millions on municipal and community projects, Aberdeen is starting to see its investments pay off in the form of businesses pledging to add about 2,000 jobs during the next five years to the city of about 25,000. The past two years, in particular, have brought huge changes with the addition of a beef processing plant and a wind turbine blade factory

"We haven't been this optimistic in 25 years," said Mike Levsen, Aberdeen's mayor and city manager.

Read the whole thing.  Life is good in Aberdeen. 

How Stimulating

Badlands Blue keeps us updated on the press releases coming from Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin bragging about how the "stimulus package" will help South Dakotans. 

HERSETH SANDLIN SUPPORTS ECONOMIC STIMULUS PACKAGE

300,000 WORKING HOUSEHOLDS IN SOUTH DAKOTA WOULD RECEIVE REBATES -   PACKAGE PUTS MONEY BACK IN THE HANDS OF THE MIDDLE CLASS; PROVIDES TAX BREAKS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES

January 29, 2008, Washington, D.C. - Today, U.S. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin joined with an overwhelming bipartisan majority to pass an economic stimulus package designed to help prevent an economic downturn.  The package includes an average tax rebate of $1,000 for approximately 300,000 working households in South Dakota. Nationwide, this broad-based stimulus package will provide tax relief of up to $600 per individual and $1,200 per married couple, plus an additional $300 per child. Tax rebate checks could be sent as early as mid-May, pending Senate consideration and the President's signature.

Surely Rep. Herseth-Sandlin merely forgot to mention that this bill will also put future generations another $150 billion in debt while producing limited economic benefit.  Just a minor omission. 

Update: I see the Fed has dropped its interest rate by another half point.  I hope this has positive economic effect, but I am afraid the inflationary tendency will outweigh any pro-growth effect. 

Somewhat Less Worse Off Than Jason

68%How Addicted to Blogging Are You?

Lethargy without Virtue

My colleague, Professor Schaff, continues to see the collapse of the Thompson campaign as a sign that the ancient virtues of the Republic have all leaked out.  I continue to see that event as a sign that Thompson ran a poor campaign.  Professor Schaff says this:

The president must have some distance from public opinion while not being immune to it, and a president (or candidate) who power is based solely in public opinion is playing with fire.

Well, that might be true, but let's take a look at the larger picture.  Thompson wasn't president.  He was a potential candidate for President.  No doubt there are many times when a president must take "some distance from public opinion," but during an election is not one of them.   

Professor Schaff points out that, until recently, presidential candidates did not personally campaign for office.  This is true, but misleading.  It was once considered unseemly for a candidate to publicly campaign on his own behalf.  But I doubt very much if most candidates spent the time between nomination and election reading Federalist 71.  Many (Andrew Jackson comes to mind) worked very hard behind the scenes to organize their coalitions.

If Fred Thompson exemplifies Professor Schaff's ideal candidate, virtuous and occupied with preparing for the job, but largely indifferent to pursuing it, what are we to make of that Hamlet on the Hudson, Rudy Giuliani? It is hard to think of Rudy as possessing some sort of senatorial indifference to public opinion.  Rather, he persuaded himself that he could avoid the trenches of the early campaign, and come riding in to seize the day later.  Much the same thing was on Thompson's mind.  Maybe if you want to run for office you have to run for office.

Giuliani has dropped out and endorsed McCain.  I don't think that his endorsement itself makes much difference. I do think that most of the Giuliani vote will in fact go to McCain.  A lot of the post-Florida news has left that out.  Here is Mickey Kaus

According to the exit poll, even while winning Florida, McCain still lost among Republicans. (Update: Now it shows him tied with Romney.**) I didn't know that was possible in a "closed" primary. Yet it took the 17% percent of voters who identified themselves as "independent" put McCain over the top. ...

We knew that a lot of persons who are registered as independents are really Republicans.  Apparently a lot of people who are registered Republican still think they are independents.  But I am guessing that almost all of McCain's vote so far has from people who regularly vote for Republicans.  McCain's 36/31 win over Romney is plenty good enough, if most of the Giuliani vote now goes his way. 

Uh Oh

71%How Addicted to Blogging Are You?

Rudy Out?

Anybody else notice that in Rudy's speech tonight he spoke about running an "uplifting" campaign in the past tense?

UPDATE:  Time picked up on it also, and claims he'll endorse McCain tomorrow.

Presidential Aspirations and Good Government

Last night as I typed this piece on Fred Thompson and presidential politics I actually thought to myself, "I bet Ken Blanchard writes one of his 'well, that might be true, but let's take a look at the bigger picture' responses."  And here it is! 

Prof. Blanchard accuses Thompson of lethargy.  But as Andrew Ferguson points out in the piece that stimulated this discussion, Thompson was lethargic only in the sense that he didn't seem to constantly seek the approval of others.  He spent his time working on policy and developing ideas.  To be sure, this is not the best way to get votes, for which Thompson is responsible, but this is precisely the point.  The personalized presidency, to use Theodore Lowi's phrase, is one which demands the candidate be all things to all people (to "feel their pain") which inflates the importance of the presidency and leads to inevitable disappointment when presidents cannot fulfill the promises or meet the expectations that took them into office. 

Ferguson notes that it was not always this way.  Until the mid-20th Century it was considered unseemly for presidents to even campaign for office.  This leads Ferguson to this conclusion:

The traditional restraint of old-time presidential candidates wasn't arrogance or sanctimoniousness, the twin accusations that wised-up politicos made against Thompson during the campaign. There was a philosophical component to it too: By not seeming overeager--no matter how eager they were--candidates paid tribute to the democratic idea that political power is best sought, taken on, and used reluctantly. It was also a matter of seemliness, and Thompson, alone among recent candidates, felt its pull. In his stump speech he often mentioned George Washington, once a staple of political rhetoric for his willingness to walk away from the power that was thrust upon him. Today Washington's restraint seems nothing more than an archaism. And by extolling it Thompson sounded merely odd.

This idea of rhetorical and political restraint is the theme of fine works such as Jeffrey Tulis's The Rhetorical Presidency and James Ceaser's Presidential Selection.  One also finds this theme in Hamilton's writings on the presidency, especially Federalist #71.  The president must have some distance from public opinion while not being immune to it, and a president (or candidate) who power is based solely in public opinion is playing with fire. 

Thompson's Failure

My colleague, Professor Schaff, posts an epitaph on the candidacy of Fred Thompson.  I have a lot of sympathy with this argument: that Thompson failed because he was too decent and honorable for the job. 

Our system instead rewards constant posturing and pandering.  While incessantly demanding politicians who are not driven by polls, we damn to oblivion any politician who does not slavishly follow the demands of the moment, not to mention looking to the polls to help us decide for whom we should vote.

Thompson failed because he refused to give into this.  But to leave it at that strikes me as very unfortunate.  It leaves nothing but the view that, if you want to be President, you have to play the sort of game that the Clintons are adept at.   Perhaps that is true.  But we certainly cannot conclude that it is true from Thompson's campaign, and the fact that he left us with that impression is not our fault; it is Fred's fault.

Thompson played the game of coyness all too well.  He waited very long to publicly decide if he was in or out, and even once he was in he seemed a bit half hearted about it. This reticence, amounting almost to lethargy, was in no way required by decency or honor.  Perhaps we the people are too corrupt to elect someone "is just too normal to be elected president."

He didn't like asking people he didn't know for thousands of dollars.   He was more interested in policy than being clever.  He didn't make promises he couldn't keep and didn't see every moment as yet another opportunity for self-aggrandizement.  He spoke at length about the long term problems of the nation rather than in sound bites about petty issues brought forth only because the focus group said they'd help gain votes.

On the other hand, the Oval Office is, arguably, the most prestigious prize offered anywhere on the globe, and perhaps anywhere yet.  It is not too much to ask of a candidate that he or she really wants it and is willing to work very hard (if not necessarily like a devil) to get it.  That is so with most any public honor. 

I remember listening to Charlton Heston as he told about spending the eve of the 1984 election flying around with Ronald Reagan.  On pins and needles, Heston was shocked when Reagan coolly rolled out the election map and showed him the two electoral units (Minnesota and D.C.) that Mondale was going to carry.  Heston told the story to explain why he himself never ran for office.  Reagan loved it.  He loved the whole business of campaigning, organizing, giving wonderful speeches designed to knit together diverse coalitions of voters.  It was, of course, an easier thing to love for so successful a politician as Reagan.  Heston had wisdom enough to know that he did not have that same longing for office. 

Thompson apparently had neither the one actor's passion nor the other's prudence.  He presented himself, genuinely, as the kind of candidate Professor Schaff admires, and I share that admiration.  But by doing so in the lackluster way he did, he reinforced the impression that such admirable qualities are doomed to failure in elections.  I find nothing admirable about that. 

Failure Of Normality

Andrew Ferguson analyzes the late great presidential run of Fred Thompson.  That run failed, of course, and in the process Ferguson detects a failure of normality, meaning the Fred Thompson is just too normal to be elected president.  He didn't like asking people he didn't know for thousands of dollars.    He was more interested in policy than being clever.  He didn't make promises he couldn't keep and didn't see every moment as yet another opportunity for self-aggrandizement.  He spoke at length about the long term problems of the nation rather than in sound bites about petty issues brought forth only because the focus group said they'd help gain votes.  Ferguson writes:

The man or woman who seeks out such a life [of presidential campaigning] and enjoys its discomforts is not normal. Not crazy necessarily, but not normal, and probably, when the chips are down, not to be trusted, especially when the purpose of it all is to acquire power over other people (also called, in the delicate language of contemporary politics, "public service" or "getting things done on behalf of the American people"). The case is made, in defense of the contemporary campaign, that this is an efficient if unlovely way to choose leaders: It winnows out those who lack the stamina and discipline necessary to lead a rich, large, powerful, and complicated country. By this argument, Thompson failed because he deserved to.

But the opposite case is easier to make--that the modern campaign excludes anyone who lacks the narcissism, cold-bloodedness, and unreflective nature that the process requires and rewards. In his memoir -Greenspan remarks that of the seven presidents he has known well, the only one who was "close to normal" was Jerry Ford. And, as Greenspan points out, Ford was never elected.

Fred Thompson probably feels terrible at the moment, but he should be honored to be in Ford's company.

In a sound election system the ability to gain votes is tied to the ability to govern.  The kind of skills the electoral mechanism rewards are the kind of skills needed for sound governing.  It channels ambition of office seekers in a way the promotes the public good.  It moderates candidate behavior, dissuading them from making promises they cannot keep. 

Our system instead rewards constant posturing and pandering.  While incessantly demanding politicians who are not driven by polls, we damn to oblivion any politician who does not slavishly follow the demands of the moment, not to mention looking to the polls to help us decide for whom we should vote. Rudy Giuliani seems to be the latest victim of this death spiral with Florida voters abandoning him simply because he has slipped slightly in the polls, guaranteeing he will slip further in the polls causing more voters to abandon him.  The the polls become not just the snap shot of the moment but a predictor of the future. Our process rewards the politician who can promise the most, package himself the best, drive up his opponents negatives the most, and avoids controversy at all costs.  And then we will complain about how we just can't seem to get any decent candidates for president. 

South Carolina Fall Out

ABC News is reporting that Ted Kennedy is going to endorse Barack Obama.  That puts Kennedy in the same camp as the likes of John Kerry, Pat Leahy, and Tom Daschle, people who served with Hillary Clinton in the Senate and are now backing Obama. 

Apparently Bill Clinton has compared Obama's victory in South Carolina yesterday to Jesse Jackson's victories in the same state in 1984 and 1988.  ABC's Jake Tapper smells a rat:

Said Bill Clinton today in Columbia, SC: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign.  And Obama ran a good campaign here."

This was in response to a question from ABC News' David Wright about it taking "two Clintons to beat" Obama. Jackson had not been mentioned.

Boy, I can't understand why anyone would think the Clintons are running a race-baiting campaign to paint Obama as "the black candidate."

NRO's Shannon Coffin is even less kind to the Clintons:

Bill and Hillary Clinton successfully manipulated minorities to their benefit for a decade, and now that they (yes, they) are running against a minority candidate, they are playing a sickening game of racial innuendo against him.  One would hope that the black community and the rest of the American public would take note.  The Jesse Jackson observation is part of a programmatic effort at racebaiting, all while maintaining plausible deniability.  But as the evidence mounts, it cannot be denied.

South Carolina adds to the evidence that the nation is heading toward a Democratic sweep this fall.  The Washington Post notes that more people voted in the Democratic primary than in the Republican primary in South Carolina.  While there are explanations for this, it does show that all the energy is on the Democratic side.  If the Republicans have to fight to hold South Carolina then they have no hope of winning in November.  But that is a long time from now. 

In My Mind I'm Goin' to Carolina

As expected Barack Obama won the South Carolina primary.  What was not so sure is that he flatten Senator Clinton like a slab of dough under a rolling pin.  Obama won an outright majority of 55%, something rare at this stage of the game.  Ms. Clinton got 29% and Mr. Edwards, 16%.  Isn't Edwards, like, from just North of that state?  Call it a victory for unspecified change over explicit phoniness. 

"After four great contests, in every corner of this country, we have the most votes, the most delegates and the most diverse coalition of Americans that we've seen in a long, long time," Obama told an enthusiastic crowd of supporters in Columbia who interrupted his victory speech with chants of "Yes, we can!" and "Race doesn't matter!"

Well, maybe race does matter. 

The exit polls showed Obama winning a majority of both men and women in South Carolina and winning most categories of voters. But there were clear racial splits, with African Americans solidly behind Obama and white voters divided among the three candidates.

About half the voters in SC were Black.  Obama won an astounding 81% of that demographic, according to exit polls. 

Two things.  First: the Clintons have succeeded in splitting the Black and White portions of the Democratic party.  If Ms. Clinton can hang on to the latter, she will be the nominee.  Second,  however, is that the Clintons have managed to make themselves look dirtier even than they were before.  Mr. Bill explained away the South Carolina results by explicitly linking the Obama victory to those of Jesse Jackson.  Everyone now assumes that everything a Clinton says is part of a well considered strategy. White voters may well be hesitant to back a Jackson-like candidate of Black America, but won't they be equally offended to know that they are being played?  The Clintons are counting on winning the White vote n a lot of states on Feb. 5th. But by being so transparent, they are running a terrible risk.   

Pharmacy & Conscience 2: Anna Persuades Me

Yes, you read that right.  Anna forced me to rethink my position, and I think that she was on firmer ground.  Recap: Anna posted on the question whether pharmacists should be able to refuse to dispense legal medical products (birth control) to which they have conscientious objections.  I replied, arguing that pharmacists should indeed have the right to so refuse, and I thought that Anna's position was that pharmacists should be legally compelled to fill all legal prescriptions, or leave the profession.  It turns out I was wrong, and that Anna and I were much closer to one another than at first appeared.  Funny how that usually happens.  My post drew my pal out of her self-imposed retirement, as I suspected it would.

Oh, how I have missed Ken Blanchard, who responded to my last post about the conscience clause in South Dakota for pharmacists.

I miss you too, Anna.  Our encounters always force me to think, and I flatter the two of us, perhaps, in believing that they may inform or at least entertain our readers. I said this in my recent post, in reference to a story about Muslim cashiers at Target who refused to handle pork. 

Target's willingness to find other work for conscientiously objecting Muslims, rather than simply let them go, is gracious precisely because it is not obligatory.  Target would be equally with its rights if it insisted that the pharmacists it employs be willing to dispense any legal product carried by its pharmacy.

Anna bloodied my nose with this reply:

Incorrect, Ken. South Dakota law states that pharmacists have the right to refuse to fill prescriptions to which they have a moral objection. Target in South Dakota has no right to insist that its employees "dispense any legal product carried by its pharmacy."

Now here is the point on which Anna has the better argument.  I had heretofore approved of "moral objection clauses" that give pharmacists the right to refuse to fill certain prescriptions, even if it's company policy.  I thought that this was a reasonable way to accommodate the religious views of employees, in much the same way as Target accommodated its Muslim employees.  But it's one thing when a private corporation reassigns workers.  It's another when government tells the employer what he may or may not require of his employees. 

I argue that pharmacists who refuse to dispense certain prescriptions out of conscience, religious or otherwise, should be free to do business with customers who wish to patronize pharmacists who share their scruples. Laws that require pharmacists to prescribe against their conscience abridge the liberty both of such sellers and such buyers.  But it works both ways, doesn't it?  Shouldn't Target or Walgreens be free to do business with customers who want the full range of legal prescriptions?  And if that means requiring their pharmacists to dispense birth control products, should they not be allowed to do so?  The answer has to be yes.  "Conscience clause" protection for pharmacists is wrong for the same reason that laws requiring pharmacists to dispense birth control are wrong.  Each interferes with the freedom of contract in a way that abridges more fundamental liberties. 

If I now read Anna right, she is opposed to both kinds of law.  I am persuaded to join her.  But I do have something else to offer in my defense. Anna tells an appalling story of how a pharmacist refused to fill her prescription and refused to refer her to someone who would do so.  As it happens, I wrote a column for the American News that focused on a very similar case.  Here is what I wrote:

Neil Noesen, Roman Catholic and Wisconsin Pharmacist, in that order, did two things to run afoul of the law. He refused to fill a prescription for contraceptives, and he refused to give the prescription back to his would-be customer. For one or both he was ordered to take a six hour course in pharmacy ethics, which Draconian penalty may yet make him the Rosa Parks of the freedom of conscience movement.

About the second action there is little controversy. He refused to return his client’s property, an inexcusable violation of her liberty under the law. I hope every hour of that ethics course was as mind-numbingly boring as I expect it was.

I do miss you, Anna.  For two people on the opposite sides of so many questions, we think so much alike.