An election day lament.

It is now election day and I’m about as enthusiastic as someone facing a root canal --- no, I take that back. I recently had a root canal and I prefer it to this year’s election. I can’t see any main inspiration for wanting to vote in the presidential election. Neither of the main candidates have anything to offer. The differences between them are small and insignificant.

As for the third party choices --- you call that a choice! Bob Barr has betrayed core libertarian values. The greatest accomplishment of his campaign was to split the Libertarian Party and buy off some of the low types who have managed to get into LP leadership positions. Barr is unlikely to reach 1% of the vote. If power corrupts, the LP proves that the mere illusion of power is sufficient to corrupt.

There may be a sprinkling of candidates, here or there, worth supporting. None in my vicinity.

If you are registered to vote in California then there is one good reason to vote: to defeat the disgusting attempt of religious fanatics to impose their bigotry on the state constitution. Vote No on Proposition 8. In Arizona vote no on Prop 102 for the same reason. Both this vile propositions are being funded at the request of the Mormon Church’s leadership. In Florida vote against Amendment 2.

The one good thing is that by this time tomorrow night we should know, with some certainty that the long nightmare of George Bush is about to end. Infected with imperial tendencies the Bush administration has undermined Constitutional principles thoroughly. Unfortunately there is no reason to believe that a Democratic regime will reverse any major authoritarian measure pushed through by King George.

On the contrary, they will embrace these measures and create new measures stripping Americans of freedom. I wish I had good news. I don’t. I believe the United States is in a rapid decline and the measures being proposed by the two major parties are those which will only escalate the descent.

I have argued that George Bush has destroyed everything he was associated with -- even when that association was not legitimate. Bush destroyed the Republican Party leading to what I expect to be a Democratic landslide. Bush has undermined his own Christian beliefs and brought religion into disrepute. Bush has even destroyed free markets merely he was inaccurately associated with them. And George Bush has done more to kill Constitutional government and the American Republic than any other man who has infected the White House.

If that sounds pessimistic there is little I can do about that. I am pessimistic. One thing Mr. Bush destroyed, along with all these others, was my enthusiasm for the future.

My first election projection.

Here is my first projection as to how I think the presidential race will turn out. Obviously there is a lot of time left and anything can happen. But, if things remain pretty much as they are, I am estimating that John McCain will handily beat Barack Obama.

The red states are those that I believe will favor McCain and the blue are those that will favor Obama. I do not believe that Florida will be a close state this time. And I doubt that Ohio will be tight either.

If we compare this year’s projection to the 2004 results here are the major changes I am seeing. The Democrats will pick up Iowa and New Mexico, with 7 and 5 electoral votes respectively. But this gain of 12 electoral votes will more than be offset by their loss of Michigan with 17 electoral votes. In the electoral college the Republicans will do better in 2008 than they did in 2004.

The bad news in this election is that either McCain or Obama will win. However, given that I don’t see the Democrats losing control of the House or the Senate. Since that is the case the least bad situation overall is a Republican president. Gridlock is the best government we can expect, keep the bastards at each other’s throat and they don’t have time to grab our throats.

In regards to the (formerly) Libertarian Party my projections are dismal. Bob Barr won’t do particularly well. His actual vote totals will be well below what his campaign had been projecting. The LP sold their soul to win votes and I doubt they’ll actually succeed in doing that. I suspect that the upside for Barr would 1.5%. I think it more likely he’ll score under 1%.

His problem is manifold. Ron Paul won’t endorse him and Barr has pretty much insulted Paul and alienated him through his antics and those of his underhanded staff members. Barr has alienated large numbers of LP activists and members with his unlibertarian positions and compromises. And his ability to raise funds has been very poor.

Just because he and Richard Viguerie could manage to squeeze a majority out of the Denver LP convention doesn’t mean he can get the LP faithful to rally to his cause. If anything his shying away from the Libertarian label in his own campaign has pretty much pushed Libertarians away. If you go to Barr’s campaign web site the main page doesn’t have the word libertarian anywhere on it.

Personally I think that is good. Barr is no libertarian so he shouldn’t call himself one. But some of the really nasty types in the LP, who yearned for power and Starrdom, tried to push the bullshit that Barr would increase name recognition for the LP. He could have -- of course the problem was that the LP brand would be associated with the petty conservatism of Bob Barr and not with libertarianism. Barr partially solved that problem by abandoning the libertarian label in his own campaign. But then most of Barr’s main campaign staff are not even remotely libertarian themselves.

In the end the Libertarian Party managed to create huge divisions by promoting a smarmy little career politician, abandoned core principles, and alienated its core supporters. All the party got in return was a smirking little candidate. Barr has all the appeal of a pit viper and is as cuddly as a cactus. What he has managed to do is get a lot of Libertarians talking about whether they will vote for McCain or Obama on purely strategic grounds.

I doubt that any of the Third Party candidates will do particularly well. I especially hope that the theocratic thugs in the Constitution Party do as badly as possible. I emphasize that anyone who says they have much in common with the Constitution Party or their leader Rev. Chuck Baldwin, is not even remotely close to being a libertarian. And I don’t care if they do come from Lake Jackson either.

PS: If you want to enlarge the electoral map above just click on it.

Media frenzy about Palin gave McCain his boost.

It is normal for a candidate to get a bit of a bump in the polls after their official nomination. If the most recent polls are accurate McCain got far more than a bump -- he took the lead.

Last week Gallup showed Obama in the lead by 7 points. Now they say McCain is leading by 10 points.

A few percentage points were expected but a shift of 17 points in total is rather surprising.

Neither McCain nor Palin offered any concrete proposals that would stimulate this much interest. Nor did Obama do something incredibly stupid. So why the jump?

I think at lot of it has to do with the Sarah Palin controversy. I think that many people responded to the media feeding frenzy the way I did -- they were disgusted about the dirty way the media had ganged up on her and tried out every unsubstantiated rumor they could find, in order to sink her.

A lot of Americans don’t like to see someone getting picked on unfairly -- we tend to champion underdogs. And in that battle Palin was the underdog. After the media had basically fawned over Obama the beat-up they did on Palin appeared even more vicious in contrast.

Certainly various Left blogs and web sites went into overdrive pushing claims about Palin that are either clearly false, or are vastly exaggerated. And please, I’m not recommending her. I have no desire to vote for her. But she is being down dirty by the media and the Left -- who often team up to beat up anyone questioning their perspectives.

Palin got more support merely because the media was so openly and obviously biased. A lot of voters, I suggest, thought this sort of underhanded attack was unfair and they felt sympathy for Palin. It is my belief that the media, quite unintentionally, pushed a lot of voters into Palin’s corner. They looked a bit like people who like to torment kittens -- even cat-haters can get angry when they see that happening and will step in to protect the cat.

There is one other way in which the media helped push voters into Palin’s, and thus McCain’s, corner. And in this area they had a lot of help from the blogosphere, political pundits, and Democrats. What we had was a concerted effort to attack Palin for who she was.

Now, I’m a bit of an elitist myself. I happen to think there are (classical) liberal values which are superior to others. I think reason is superior to faith. I think education is important, that culture is valuable, the intellect counts for something, etc. I’m no fan of vast areas of American culture. Call me a cultural elitist if you want and I’ll admit that I am -- I do believe some values are superior to others.

But I also know that the typical voter, that species Boobus Americanus, doesn’t see things that way. And when it comes to voting it is the will of the majority that prevails even when that will is wrong, uncouth, uneducated or just plain stupid.

The Iron Triangle of the media, the Left and the political elite went into overdrive emphasizing how Palin wasn’t one of them. She didn’t have the “qualifications” that they think are important. In fact, they went much further. They also made it clear that Palin was like -- well, just like the typical voter.

Remember the voters are watching this. Palin gets beat up unfairly and then insulted for being like a typical voter. As the voters see it, that means she’s a good old gal and perhaps worthy of support. The Founding Fathers never intended for a political elite to run the country -- though neither did they believe in democratic rule in every way, I should note. They did believe that citizen politicians were better than a ruling class.

Since then we have developed a ruling class and they don’t see eye to eye with the Founders -- as might be expected. Part of the assumptions of that ruling class is that you have pay your dues to them through a specific process where you eventually get admitted to their little club. And they are adamant that you have to be one of them to obtain the highest office in the land. What you can’t be is like one of the public.

This sort of sneering view of the typical voter is usually better hidden. But the Palin nomination caught them so by surprise that they had a knee-jerk reaction to her and started fuming. They also started saying precisely what they think -- a very dangerous thing in politics. The net result was that they appeared to be elitist snobs picking on a woman because she was a “soccer mom” and not the wife of a former president. Their contempt for Palin’s status as an “average” American was obvious.

But since “average Americans” will be the people who vote this November that sort of attack only endeared Palin with the public.

Obama, was somewhat similar to Palin, in that he came in as a political outsider. This is one reason that the political elite in the Democratic Party was so heavily behind Hillary. But Obama, as the outsider, appealed to the voters. Obama, however, has one advantage with the media that Palin doesn’t have -- he’s a Leftist. Obama is pretty open that he believes in the political control of the economy, which means he believes in having the political elite run things. So while his outsider status attracted him some support at the polls from the voters, his support for political elitism garners him the support of the media.

But still Obama road his outsider status to the nomination because the voters were the ones who decided who would get the nomination. While many in the media were furious that McCain nominated a woman, saying it was a flagrant attempt to win the Hillary vote, I suggest they may have it wrong. Palin’s appeal to voters will not be because of her gender. It won’t be the Hillary voters she attracts.

But she may have appeal with some Obama voters. She and Obama are both seen as outside the political elite. But with the media so cozy with Obama he will find it harder and harder to portray himself as the champion of the little guy. He needs to portray himself as one of the common people. He wants to appeal to the worker, the stay-at-home mom, the parents struggling with raising a family. Obama wants that image very badly.

Then his friends in the media, in their reactionary fury over Palin go and paint her with precisely the image that Obama wants. They didn’t do it to help her but to insult her. It was a big mistake on their part. By doing this they catapulted Sarah Palin into being the representative of the average American. And like, or not, it is those average Americans who will decide the election in November. All across the country the local equivalent of a "hockey mom" will be voting. Who do you think they'll identify with -- a mother who worked her way up and raised a family or a Harvard law school graduate? That is the comparison that Obama didn't want them making and that is now the contrast that the media has burned into the public's mind. Ooops.

After Jaws, who is scared of a barracuda?

The main ingredient in the political campaign of the Right today is fear. They hope to scare people into voting Republican. I can understand why. Only sheer panic could explain a Republican vote. Republicans today campaign entirely on the negative side of things.

They want to bash immigrants, bash gay couples, conjure up images of terrorist attacks, and present Barack Obama as somewhere to the Left of Stalin.

I have no love for Obama. And there is nothing as absurd as the self-absorbed dribble about Obama, coming out of the mouth of Andrew Sullivan -- one of the most comedic figures on the Right today. The so-called Obamacons are a rather silly lot. They actually have no reason to promote Obama other than he isn’t a Republican.

As far as I can see that is no reason to vote for Obama. I won’t. But I sure as hell won’t vote for any Republicans either. I’m staying home. Why should I waste a vote on the rubbish that is presented to us as a choice.

As for a protest vote for a third party, see my previous statement. This is the first time I won’t even consider a protest vote for the Libertarian Party. They sold out their principles and the sort of candidates they are running these days are just an embarrassment. You have to be in pretty bad condition to nominate a shyster like Barr and a clown like Root.

The Constitution Party is the worst of the Republicans on steroids. They are more hepped-up on Jesus and more bigoted than the typical Republican.

The response from conservatives at the idea of not voting is one of shock and horror. “But, but, but,” they stammer on, “Obama might win.”

So what!

Really, how could Obama be much worse than the imbecilic, prevaricating, power-mad authoritarian that the Republicans have put in the White House for the last eight years?

And that really is the problem the Republicans have. Exactly how do you scare people with Obama after they watched the buffoonish Bush in operation.

Obama is supposed to be for big government. And I oppose big government. Of course the major cheerleaders for big government for the last eight years have been the Republican Party. Obama doesn’t support “limited” government. Bush has promoted unlimited government and engaged in open treason against the Constitution. And Republicans have continued to support him doing just that.

Maybe Obama will make government bigger. But then the Republicans have made it much easier for that to happen. They broke the bank, they violated the Constitution, they spit in the eye of liberty for the last eight years and now they want to scare us with Obama. Obama doesn’t scare me, I’ve lived through George Bush.

Obama will be bad. He is honestly bad. He tells us how bad he is. George Bush was dishonestly bad. He told us one thing and did the opposite. He said he was promoting freedom when he was destroying it. George Bush will go down as a man who pushed America farther toward a police state than anyone in American history. And he lied repeatedly to the public.

What is absurd is that the Far Left, especially some of the media pundits, are saying the election is a vote against free enterprise. They are actually pushing the lie that George Bush had a free market policy! In all truth Bill Clinton was more a free marketer than George Bush. The media understands that Bush lied about the war, about Iraq, about weapons of mass destruction, etc., but then they assume he was suddenly honest about his love for freedom and capitalism. Bush was liar across the board. He lied about everything.

In my lifetime I’ve witnessed some sorry presidents. But none have been as destructive as Bush the Lesser. For Obama to be worse than Bush he would have to make a major effort. And he’d only get away with it if the Republicans act as accomplices. Of course, they saddled up with a criminal like Dubya so anything is possible.

It may well be that Obama is a barracuda. But hell, we’ve been swimming with Jaws for eight years now, so even a barracuda looks good.

Anyone who wants the office is unfit to have it.

The Constitution sets some conditions before an individual can be elected as president of the United States. I want to modify those conditions. I want to add one proviso. I think any president ought to have to prove that he or she was born on Krypton.

Krypton, you may remember, is the birth planet of Superman. So why Krypton? My first response would be because it disqualifies everybody who is running -- and wouldn’t that be lovely. But my real reason is that the voters seem to want someone with super human abilities.

The public seems to think that the president ought to do just above everything. If there is a disaster the president should be grief counselor in chief. He should assure us, comfort us, cajole us, uplift us, educate us, reform us, ad infinitum. Every flaw we have he is supposed to cure.

Apparently there is nothing the president isn’t supposed to do. The Democrats are keen to get the president to centrally direct the economy. They think he can somehow magically cure all problems of poverty, joblessness, or just about any other economic problem you can imagine. Republicans seems anxious to have the president centrally plan the world. They want him to be able to reform nations, by force, that have been screwed up for generations.

One side sees the president as our therapist and nanny combined while the other side sees him as pastor and disciplinarian. Of course the more exaggerated the titles the happier the president is about them. Many people imagine him “the leader of the free world.” Try finding that job description in the Constitution.

Hillbilly Huckabee was promising to revive “our national soul” in his campaign. Hillary wants to set the goals for the nation. King George said “that when somebody hurts, government has got to move.” Unfortunately he didn’t mean move out of the way.

When you consider the job descriptions that go with the presidency today it becomes apparent that no human being can fill the job. No one is smart enough or wise enough to wield all the power that the presidency now has. That is why the Founders never gave such powers to the presidency. If the presidency were limited to the functions outlined in the Constitution almost anyone could do it, provided he or she had a basic sense of decency. The presidency was a job that a relatively average man could perform.

That is no longer the case. Now the powers of the presidency are so far beyond anything imagined by the Constitution that it acts like a magnet attracting every power-hungry, second rate politician to the job. One reason it is so difficult to find decent candidates is that the office itself is now inherently indecent -- it is a major engine of destruction and suffering, both for the United States and the world as a whole.

The nature of the office today is such that it attracts people emotionally suited to the powers offered. That means individuals who are ego maniacs, thirsty for power, authoritarian and welling to stoop to the lowest levels possible in order to grab the things they want. When the presidency offers almost unlimited powers it attracts only the most immoral of candidates. The reason the candidates are so disgusting is that the office they are seeking can only attract the worst. Power attracts the lowest common denominator.

Any man or woman of basic decency wouldn’t want to have the sort of powers that George Bush relishes. Bush is like a pig in a mud bath. He loves the powers. In fact, he loves them so much that he keeps inventing new powers for himself. Lord Acton said that “power corrupts” and he is certainly right. But power does more than that. Power also attracts the corrupt. It appeals to those individuals who lack the sort of moral restraints that allow societies to work. The accumulation of power appeals to the ruthless and the more power that is accumulated the more ruthless the politicians attracted to the job.

Numerous people have complained that King George seems oblivious to any feedback. Not only does he ignore what people has to say, he goes out of his wan to insulate himself from contrary opinions. Staff members who disagree don’t remain staff members for long. This sort of self-centeredness, however, ought to be expected. After all, what other kind of person do you think would be attracted to the position?

In his masterful The Road To Serfdom, F.A. Hayek warned that in a totalitarian society “there is little that is likely to induce men who are good by our standards to aspire to leading positions “ but “much to deter them, there will be special opportunities for the ruthless and unscrupulous....” This is a sound law of politics in my opinion.

That the United States is not entirely totalitarian does not mitigate this law. There is an inverse relationship between state power and the individual character of people operating the state. As state power increases the moral character of the individuals seeking the levers of power decreases. We have reached the stage where the unconstitutional powers acquired by the presidency are so vast that I seriously doubt any moral individual would seriously seek the office. The mere desire to be president today ought to be a warning that the candidate is not fit to hold the office. The more desperate they are for the position the lower their moral character.

When it comes to this presidential election I don't have horse in the race. Actually I'm not sure anyone else does either -- more like asses than horses to me.

The virtue of supporting none of them is that I can be truthful about all of them. The downside of that is by the time I'm finished everyone is mad at me. C'est la vie.

The Clinton/Obama race is an interesting one only because we get to see just how vicious Hillary can be. My dictionary doesn't define bitch, it just runs Hillary's photo instead. The Clintons are known to be very nasty types when they don't get what they want. And Hillary is the worst of the two and she most assuredly is not getting what she wants. She expected Democrats to fall down at her feet in adoration.

One Hillary trick that is causing a stir on the blogosphere is a television commercial she ran with pictures of Obama where he looks several shades darker. You can see for yourself from this illustration. The top photo is from Hillary's ad and the bottom three were photos takes from the same debate where Hillary got her photo.

To this unbiased observer it looks as if Hillary's ad team clearly darkened Obama to make him appear much blacker. One would have to ask why they would do this? The only theory I can see any logic in is the hope that if Obama looks more African it will scare more voters with racist inclinations into supporting Hillary. Desperate times call desperate measures apparently.

Boy, I'm glad I don't have to vote.

Here's an interesting problem.

I'll be curious to see what happened here. And since I'm not a tin foil hat type, ranting about 9/11 or similary silly conspiracy theories, I suspect there will be some sort of reasonable explanation. But what we've got here is the voter turnout for precinct D0001 in Florida. As you can see they had a voter turnout exceeding the total number of voters registered. Click on the chart to enlarge it.

Hindsight on New Hampshire

Now I can look at my forecasts with the virtue of hindsight -- which is always easier.

I’ll start with the big error. I really thought Obama was going to win New Hampshire. What went wrong? He was so far in the lead there in the days before that it seemed a sure thing. I suspect that was part of the problem. A lot of Obama’s support came from independent voters but the same group was attracted to McCain.

I suspect some of them looked at the polls and saw Obama with a 10 point lead and figured it was safe to vote in the Republican primary for McCain. The funny thing is that his lead may have been his undoing. In addition there is another factor. Some individuals who planned to vote against Obama didn’t want to say they were going to vote against because they didn’t want anyone to perceive them as racist. That is still a touchy issue. That might have a slight effect however. In addition I suspect the big win in Iowa scared the hell out of the establishment Democrats who were behind Hillary and they doubled their efforts while the Obama supporters felt they had it in the bag.

However, there is something else to consider. Technically Obama is in the lead when it comes to delegates from New Hampshire. According to CNN the number of delegates elected for Hillary were 11 but Obama picked up 12. Where one gets votes also counts. So Obama trailed slightly in the popular vote but won in the delegate vote. For the time being the Democratic race remains open but I’m still inclined to think Obama will lead the ticket.

The Republican race went pretty much the way I predicted it would. McCain had an easy victory and Romney came in second. I still contend a ticket with both those men is the best chance the Republicans have of winning the White House -- they can write off the Senate and the House now.

Huckabee was in a close race with Giuliani for third but Hillbilly Huck pulled it off as I thought he would. Giuliani’s campaign is dead as they come though not as dead as Fred Thompson’s who has proven to be unable to handle himself without a script.

New Hampshire ought to have been better for Paul. It was worse. He dropped from 9.9% in Iowa to just over 8% with two percent of the vote outstanding. He picked up no delegates in New Hampshire. He only got two in Iowa and the Wyoming caucus went by with hardly anyone noticing and he got zero there.

And the New Republic article detailing the articles in the Ron Paul newsletters from the past was far more devastating than I expected. James Kirchick did his homework and the magazine reprinted the full newsletter articles in pdf format so people could see what they said in full. The Paulists will pick on a couple of times when Kirchick did overstate his case. But there was more than enough meat there to mean big problems for Ron Paul.

This story is just starting. Paul’s publication printed comments that were viciously bigoted or disgusting. For instance consider this about Martin Luther King: “He was a comsymp, if not an actual party member... he also seduced underage girls and boys.” Paul says he didn’t write it. Yet this newsletter ends with: “My wife Carol, and our children and grandchildren, join me in wishing you and your family a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. May we start to confound the plans of the Trilateralists....” (A nice touch of conspiracy paranoia to follow those vicious remarks about King.) Please note Paul’s wife is named Carol. He says he didn’t write it but the end of the piece is directly from Paul. That’s hard to explain away.

Some of the worst comments were reserved for gay men. Get this comment:

First, these men don’t really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners. These conditions do not make one’s older years the happiest. Second, because sex is the center of their lives, they want it to be as pleasurable as possible, which means unprotected sex. Third, they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick.

When some gay advocacy groups meet with in the White House during the reign of the first Bush Paul’s newsletter wrote, “the organized forces of perversion were feted in the White House.” His newsletter then said: “I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any coincidence that the AIDS epidemic developed after they came ‘out of the closet,’ and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy? I don’t believe so, medically or morally.”

That “medically” reference would imply that Paul wrote it.

Another article wrote about the gay news magazine The Advocate doing a story on anti-gay remarks made by commentator Andy Rooney (who also made anti-black remarks on other occasions). The Paul newsletter basically defends Rooney and says: “The reporter--who certainly had an axe to grind, and that’s not easy with a limp wrist--claimed that...” Now that’s real cute. No doubt Ann Coulter found it hilarious. One subscription letter signed by Paul said: “I’ve been told not to talk, but these stooges don’t scare me. Threats or no threats, I’ve laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through that one.) The Bohemian-Grove--perverted pagan playground of the powerful.... “ This is tin hate material.

One of the worst, in my opinion, was that he reprinted advice on how to care for an AIDS patient. He called it “excellent advice” and “commonsense precaution” that would be illegal due to hate crime legislation. But he said these suggestions “give us an idea on how we should actually proceed.”

1) Wear rubber gloves when handling the clothes, dishes, etc. of the patient. 2) Use paper plates and cups and burn them afterwards. 3) Boil all his laundry for at least 15 minutes. 4) Pour a half cup of Clorox in his bath water before draining it. 5) Always wipe the toilet seat with a soapy paper towel. Do not put the towel in the toilet, but in a paper bag to be burned. 6) No kissing, since AIDS can be transmitted by saliva. 8) Do not allow the patient to eat in a restaurant. 9) Do not allow the patient to drive or operate machinery due to mental impairment.

That has to be the most ignorant piece of advice I have read ever on this topic. And that was in 1990, long after we knew better about the disease.

These revelations, and no doubt more will be coming since the publication was printed for years, are very damaging. Paul has tried to claim it was done when he wasn’t looking. Sorry, but that doesn’t wash. The articles like this appeared over a period of years and were printed from his office in Texas. He has also claimed it was ghost written by an aide. As we understand it much of it was but that “former aide” is still closely connected to Paul. But some of the comments, like the letter appear over Paul’s signature. It is hard to keep excusing this. Paul’s campaign, in my opinion, is official over. The questions is how long he will wait to announce it. I suspect early February.

One clear sign of this will be if we see how his spending goes over the next couple of weeks. If he is planning on dropping out his spending will decline as he save his war chest for other ventures. He has a tidy sum of money at his disposal to use in other ways if he drops his campaign.

The big looser in this election are easier to pick out than the winners. On the Democratic side Richardson, Kucinich, Biden, Gravel and Dodd are totally out of the race, no matter what they say officially. Edwards is holding on still but still in third in what will be a couple’s game come November. He can hang on with the hope of being someone’s running mate.

On the Republican side Fred Thompson is history. His was the most anticipated candidacy that went no where. And Rudy is history as well. He didn’t do well at all. Ron Paul is now dead in the water. He polled worse than expected and he can’t blame the publicity on his hateful newsletters for that -- the news only broke after the voting started and didn’t get wide enough play to materially impact the total. Paul was failing without help from his own newsletter. But add that to his poor showings and he’s out of there. Maybe now his fans will understand that flooding on-line polls isn’t the real world.

And I think Huckabee is a goner. He’ll do well in some other states. But that man can’t win the presidency. The fundies may have enough influence in the Theopublican Party to put Huck in as a kamikaze candidate -- the last last hurrah of the dying theocratic vision -- but I suspect that more sane Republicans will want to save the party from total oblivion and that is why McCain and Romney will share a ticket in November. If the Democrats were smart they go with with Obama and Clinton in second position. A lot of people who don’t trust Hillary as president might be willing to have her as vice president. At least under the Democrats the president actually runs the White House not the Vice President -- something not true today.

If you want to hear an interview with Mr. Kirchick click below.

Pulling out the crystal ball.

With the New Hampshire primary beginning in a few hours I thought I give my thoughts on what I am expecting to happen.

The big winners will be Obama and McCain. New Hampshire is a more educated state with more affluent individuals who tend not to be attracted to the Loony Left or the Religious Right. McCain will bounce here precisely because Huckabee is a fundamentalist fruitcake and Romney is a wannabe Christianist.

I say wannabe because Mr. Romney was not so infected with lunacy in the past. He remade himself to win over the Know Nothing born-againers in the GOP. Poor Mitt he’s been out-Jesused by Rev. Huckabee, who as a former televangelist, preacher knows precisely how to sucker amens out the congregation.

And Mitt is going to have a hard time convincing the faithful in the GOP (God’s Own Party) that he’s even a Christian. Giuliani can’t do it and he’s a Catholic so it will be tough for a follower of a charlatan who’s fraudulent claims are easily documented as bogus. Whatever Old Joe Smith said his book of Abraham wasn’t written by “Father Abraham himself” but is just a typical death certificate that accompanied a mummy to the hereafter. Unfortunately for Joe something called the Rosette Stone eventually allowed others to decipher the parchment he bought from a traveling circus.

At least Huckabee makes sure he follows a faith old enough that such inconvenient documentation isn’t quite the same problem. Alas none of that helps Huckabee in New Hampshire where fundamentalists are as rare as black folk at a League of the South klavern. Huck is more like a smiling, corn cracking Mussolini than anything else. Of course if you take out the hoakey cornball, the TV evangelist grin and the Jesus-mongering you get Rudy Giuliani. Our two battling El Duces will be competing with each other for third. I would normally guess that Rudy will beat out Huck but he's been crashing so badly that Huck may find it easy to top him. In fact Giuliani has done so badly he could be beaten by Paul and that means Rudy will be in the low single digits.

Lucky for Mitt a lot of Republicans in New Hampshire remember him before he tried to play the Jesus card in the election and shifted all his decent positions on civil liberties to the indecent views of the rabid religionist. Without those memories he’d be doing much worse. I think he can pull off a second place here. Hillbilly Huck has a chance of pulling third partly because of his boost after the hicks in Iowa shouted hallelujah for him last Tuesday. If Rudy can’t win pull into third in New Hampshire I think he’s finished and not a moment too soon.

The Paulists are in for another disappointment. Paul just missed 10% in Iowa (he got 9.9% actually but most press round up the numbers). In New Hampshire those positions he takes that are libertarian will have some appeal and that ought to serve him well. Unfortunately for Paul he also cobbled onto his campaign some very unlibertarian positions as well and those don’t set as well with the “leave us alone” types.

Paul has added some populist measures to his political mosaic and here he is having some problems. Hillbilly Huck is also something of a populist and some Paul support may be seeping into the Huck camp as the populist crowd look for a candidate who might win the nomination instead.

Paul also has a new problem. His past associations through newsletters he published under his own name are coming back to haunt him. Old Ron Paul Reports will be subjected to scrutiny by the New Republic and the word is already out that they contain some outrageous material that many people will find offensive. Lucky for Paul the announcement only came today and the material won’t be out till tomorrow so most voters are likely to miss the story until after they have voted.

But for Republicans in New Hampshire the kind of inflammatory statements that are being discussed won’t be appealing. Those who do hear about the story will be much less inclined toward supporting Paul. The most the Paul campaign is saying now is that while the articles were penned in a publication carrying Paul’s name he didn’t write them. From what I know this is true. Much of the material that Paulists drool over as coming from their White Knight was, in fact, not written by him. The Paul campaign has a small problem here. If they reveal that much of what comes out in Paul’s name is not authored by him there is a risk that supporters will loose some of the awe they have for the material he produces since he didn’t produce it.

However, some of that same material is clearly a liability today. So they can’t quite embrace it either. They merely say that he didn’t see everything that was published and that material was written by others. How much they don’t specify and, to my knowledge, they don’t reveal the actual identity of the real author. Again the behind-the-scenes talk is that the actual author is a top Ron Paul supporter and a close associate to this day. So they might not wish to name him now because they want people to believe that association is an old one and not a current one. And the alleged author, who is a big Ron Paul cheerleader, isn’t going to fall on his sword by admitting he penned those pieces -- at least he hasn’t so far.

All this will be bad for Paul in New Hampshire. However, South Carolina is up next and racism isn’t quite so unacceptable there -- at least not in Republican circles. In a general election it would hurt him there, because of the black vote, but he won’t be on the ballot in any general election there and blacks don’t vote in the Republican primary. Some of the League of the South types won’t be offended but they already consider Paul a supporter of their plans to resurrect the Confederacy. But none of this really matters for Paul since his support in South Carolina is significantly below what he’s polled so far. Most polls show him running with about half the support he can expect in New Hampshire. What this means effectively is that once South Carolina votes the Paul campaign will effectively be over.

On the Democratic side Hillary is in trouble and knows it. She is too obviously manipulative and insincere for her own good. Obama will easily defeat her in New Hampshire. He trounced her in Iowa and he will do it again. South Carolina polls currently show in the lead there by a small margin. But I expect that margin to grow substantially. Obama will get three wins in a row and that will set the tone for the rest of primaries. As I see the real question is who will the V.P. candidate for Obama. I think the Democratic nomination is not going to be messy and it will be Obama by a landslide.

The Republican race is going to a major mess for sometime to come. The Republican Party has contradictory strands. You’ve got neo-cons, Christianists, neo-libertarians, conservative traditionalists and such all hobbled together into one incoherent whole. None of the groups particularly like each other and are held together mainly by a stronger dislike for the Democrats. But this coalition is unraveling fast. And certain a Huckabee nomination ought to chase out the libertarians who have been hanging on with visions of Barry Goldwater dancing in their heads.

This is the problem the Republicans have in November. George Bush has energized the Democrats because he has been such a piss-poor president: not just inept and incompetent but wholly destructive. Worse yet these traits helped push independent voters, who have been securing Republican victories in recent years, over the Democrats. The Democrats didn’t attract these voters, the Republicans merely disgusted them. So all that the G.O.P knows it can count on is the coalition. But a Huckabee nomination will chase out many of the small government types. And that leaves the Republicans counting on just the neo-cons and the theo-cons -- a coalition that first wants to save your soul and then declare war on you. (Oops, I forgot they don’t declare war they just do it.)

But with the GOP so splintered now and Republicans knowing they are in for a major whooping come November they might just coalesce around more electable candidates. That ain’t Huck. A Romney/McCain or McCain/Romney ticket might just win them the White House. But Obama will be a formidable candidate. He speaks well -- he may say absolutely nothing of substance -- but he sounds good when he’s saying it. And in today’s America that counts for something.

The political beauty contest.

Iowa has caucused. And here is what we know.

Obama won. I thought he would but will admit he won by more than I expected. The big loser was Hillary who trailed in third place to the vapid John Edwards. Listening to two minutes of Edwards was more than I could stomach. Anyone who thinks that Hillary is worse than Edwards isn’t paying attention. She lacks personality. She lacks warmth. She lacks principles. But Edwards was downright hateful. Of course the press won’t see it that way.

They won’t see it that way because he attacked the one minority which the press thinks is fine to scapegoat for any and all problems: people of wealth. Edwards gave the most envy driven tirade I’ve heard in a long time and he is clearly making a play for the for the most extreme Left vote within the Democratic Party.

I also hope that the Obama win in a state that is about as lily white as they come will put to rest the constant cry from the Left that Americans are inherently racist. Even the immigration debate is heavily shrouded in nationalism and xenophobia more than race. This does not mean that the hard core anti-immigration crowd isn’t racist. I think they are -- no one is trying to stop Canadians from coming in. But most Americans are not racists. I’m not sure that even most Republicans are racists though a very hefty percentage off them are.

Hillary is riding on Bill’s coattails but her own aloof, cold personality makes her an unappetizing candidate. It was one thing when she was the bitch pulling the strings behind the scenes for Bill and he was the front man. But the same sort of manipulative, driven, cold, vindictive attitude just doesn’t win much ground with voters. And the more people see her, and the less they see Bill, the less they like her. It is entirely possible that she will be alone come November and an Obama/Edwards ticket wouldn’t surprise me.

Over in the Theopublican Party Rev. Hillbilly Huckabee coasted to an easy win in a very divided election. The fundamentalist nutters evacuated their pews for the caucus room and prayed down the wrath of God on any Republican who wasn’t sufficiently religiously demented. Huck is the current main mullah leading the American Taliban. Never mind that he’s stupid as shit and doesn’t have the slightest idea what he’s talking about. He’s got General Jesus leading him and if he really needs to understand anything about foreign policy he can read the Book of Revelations.

Mitt Romney sold out all his principles to appeal to the religious fanatics and couldn’t quite pull it off. He will never live down the fact that he’s a Mormon and the fundamentalists hate Mormons even more than they hate Catholics. The only thing that would make Mitt even lower in their eyes is if one of his sons turned out to be a gay, illegal immigrant.

Rev. Huck has a problem with New Hampshire. People there tend to be more rational than religious. The very fanaticism that helped Huck with his flock in Iowa will work against him in New Hampshire. The win tonight will give him a bit a boost but 80% of his support in Iowa came from the God-botherers and he won’t have that numerical advantage in New Hampshire. This former televangelist isn’t going to be president. You can sell him in the Bible belt to the yokels but you can’t sell him to the rest of the country. If I were the Democratic nominee I’d be thrilled to run against Huckabee. He’d win the South but then a dead dog running as a Republican would win the South. But he would lose the toss up states and much of the mountain states which are more libertarian than theocratic. But then again, any electorate stupid enough to elect George Bush, twice, can't be trusted

Giuliani stayed out of Iowa right from the state. He knew that the state was hopeless for him and has chosen to fight his battles elsewhere. Unfortunately for him elsewhere isn’t that much better. The sooner the Giuliani threat is gone the better.

Surely the Paulists have to be disappointed. With far more zeal than understanding many of them seemed to expect some sort of massive turnout for Paul. For some time they confused unscientific polls that can be spammed with the real world. That they could all call up Fox news and vote for Paul is some instant survey seemed to be the only evidence they needed to conclude that a real election would bring forth similar results. It didn’t. Telling them it wouldn’t only brought out the anger in them. I spent very little time telling this because I figured they’d learn it very quickly. I now await some of them to start theorizing about how the international bankers stole the votes.

Paul might do a bit better in New Hampshire but considering that he got only 9.9% in Iowa he has a long ways to go before he’s formidable. The Paulists were convinced that their White Knight would trounce McCain and Thompson. He didn’t even come close. Some are latching on to his beating Giuliani as significant forgetting that Giuliani wrote Iowa off his list long ago and didn’t campaign. But Paul did beat the guys who dropped out and Alan Keyes. If you don’t know who Alan Keyes is don’t worry -- you aren’t missing a thing.

In any area that measures depth of support Paul will do well. His clan are true believers in his mixed message of populist nativism, libertarianism and social conservatism. He can get his people to turn out. He can get them to empty their bank accounts or vote twenty times in an on-line poll. What he’s having problems doing is getting other people to vote for him. At the polls the measure is how wide is one’s support, not how deep. I do suspect Paul will see his vote increase in New Hampshire but not enough to have the break through he needs. From there it will be all down hill.

I still think that Romney will ultimately be able to pull it off and win the nomination. I don’t think Giuliani can. He’s got the religion albatross around his neck, because he’s a Catholic in a fundamentalist party. That only puts him even with Romney. But Giuliani is clearly immoral as well, according to fundamentalist theology, and Romney comes out looking relatively squeaky clean in comparison. I don’t think Giuliani can even get the vice presidential nomination.

I would think that the best move the Republicans could make would be a Romney/McCain ticket. They would walk away with the South but we already knew that. And for the most part they would do well in the Midwest. But in addition both candidates have some appeal in the mountain states. The Mormon vote there will be overwhelmingly in favor of Romney if only because they believe it will give the Mormon cult more legitimacy in mainstream America and open the door to their annoying missionaries. And McCain’s base of operations is Arizona. This would be the ticket that would have the best chance of undoing some of the electoral damage inflicted on the Republicans due to their bumbling bozo of a leader in the White House.

I’ve already stated my preference regarding voting this year. I’ll be staying home doing something constructive like napping. As I see it the typical election race is like picking between gonorrhea and syphilis.