watersblogged!

The Florida polls are all over the place...

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Elart Waters...) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:35:08 PST

...and the consensus of the pundits seems to be that it's going to be close. But while the polls give varied results, the majority of them aren't all that close. After trailing earlier, Romney seems to have caught Gingrich, and to be opening up a lead of sorts.

The winners of last night's final debate seem to have been Romney and Santorum. The loser: Gingrich.

My prediction: Romney by three to five points.

HT: Real Clear Politics

Newt, not Mitt, is right about the moon base

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Elart Waters...) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:04:37 PST

Mitt Romney said in the debate last night that he would fire an employee who came to him with an idea like Newt Gingrich's proposed lunar base.

He's wrong. He should do his research.

As I've pointed out many times, from an accounting point of view the Federal government has never spent money more wisely than on the original moon program. The growth it caused in the economy (yes, in Florida, but also all over the nation) resulted in tax revenues exponentially greater than the initial outlay. We're strapped for cash right now, but by all historical precedent, if it were possible to raise the necessary money without increasing an already unacceptable deficit even more radically than Barack Obama is already raising it, a program to establish a permanent base on the Moon and- even more so- to send a manned expedition to Mars would provide more effective stimulus to our lagging economy than almost anything else- and might even shrink the deficit in the long run.

When, as I hope, President Romney takes office next January, I strongly believe that he should reconsider his position.

HT: Drudge

Biden strikes yet AGAIN!

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Elart Waters...) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:48:15 PST

You gotta love this guy (if you're a Republican!)

Joe Biden's latest exploit: imitating "Peggy the Eastern European call center man" (not an Indian, actually) while talking about outsourcing:

Can you even begin to imagine what the response would be if he weren't a Democrat?

Ann Coulter is right: Nominate Gingrich, re-elect Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Elart Waters...) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:28:50 PST

Ann Coulter is exactly right: if the Republicans nominate Newt Gingrich, Barack Obama is a cinch for a second term, economy or no economy.

Here is what Newt- who, to hear him tell it, is the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan- had to say about the Gipper when the latter was alive:

Gingrich, who won the South Carolina primary, is currently ahead in the Florida polls.

HT: Drudge

Romney gets the last laugh on taxes

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Elart Waters...) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:39:42 PST

Oops. Looks like Mitt Romney's critics stepped in it when they demanded that he release his income tax returns.

Romney paid 42% his income in taxes and donations to charity. Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post lists the Federal expenditures Mitt paid for out of his own pocket here.

It seems that when all the deductions and tax shelters are taken into account, Mitt's effective tax rate was 13%. Nobody, remember, has suggested that he has done anything illegal. The question seems rather obvious: would the American people prefer a president smart enough to take every legal tax break to which he is entitled, or one who...well, isn't?

Meanwhile, new front-runner presumptive Newt Gingrich may already have stepped in it. The Commission on Presidential Debates has ruled that the audiences at future debates must remain silent. Newt- being his typical, impulsive self- promptly threatened to boycott the rest of the debates if the audience can't cheer.

The problem is that it's the debates that have been working for Newt. If he stays away, he'll be forfeiting his only real advantage and letting the commercials carry the burden of the campaign. Which- as we saw in Iowa and New Hampshire- is not exactly to the former speaker's advantage.

I continue to think that somewhere along the path to the nomination Newt will self-destruct. It may already be happening.

A rarity: a Paul is actually right about what the Constitution says

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Elart Waters...) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:27:27 PST

Rand Paul may be as crazy as his dad, and his behavior in refusing to submit to a pat-down by the TSA after a full-body scanner failed while he was boarding a plane in Nashville may have been childish and irresponsible, but he's right:the Constitution guarantees members of Congress immunity from arrest while traveling to and from sessions.

Of course, the TSA denies that he was actually ever detained, which means that the question is academic. But still, it's good to see a member of the Paul family basing a constitutional argument on what the document actually says, rather than extrapolating some absurdity on the basis of what it doesn't say.

HT: Drudge

Uh-oh.

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Elart Waters...) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:41:58 PST

A new Rasmussen poll has President Obama's Florida Republican Primary stand-in, Newt Gingrich, up nine points over Mitt Romney.

No word on whether Jon Huntsman might consider a third-party bid.

77% have a favorable opinion of Romney, 69% have a favorable opinion of Gingrich, 64% have a favorable opinion of Rick Santorum- and only 33% have a favorable opinion of Ron Paul, who trails badly and has chosen not to contest the Florida Primary even though he is on the ballot, but will probably claim victory anyway no matter what the result.

Who has the best personal character? 41% say Romney, 30% Santorum, 11% Gingrich and 10% Paul. Evidentally somebody is paying attention to that newsletter business.

52% expect Romney to be the eventual nominee.

I agree with the 52% despite the Florida figures; Romney is best positioned for the long haul. But a Gingrich victory in Florida raises the real possibility that the Republican party may self-destruct and nominate themselves out of any shot at what ought to be a winnable election.

HT: Drudge

Rest in peace, JoPa

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Elart Waters...) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:28:28 PST

When Joe Paterno learned about the Jerry Sandusky affair, he did what the law and school policy required: he reported it to his superiors. It was their responsibility to notify the police.

They fired JoePa for following the rules. Perhaps he should have done more than the law and school policy required. No, undoubtedly he should have done more. But on this particular planet, there is no possible justice in having fired him for not doing so.

Two weeks later, one of the two or three greatest coaches in the history of college football died, his legend tainted and his career ended in undeserved shame.

Were I a member of the Paterno family, I would make it clear that representatives of Penn State are unwelcome at the funeral. And I think the university should seriously consider Franco Harris's suggestion that JoPa be reinstated for four games next season. Posthumously.

President Obama: the killing of unborn human beings is a "family matter" and a "fundamental Constitutional right"

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Elart Waters...) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:54:09 PST

On the thirty-ninth anniversary of the Supreme Court's tragic, ill-reasoned decision in Roe v. Wade, President Obama has made it clear that he still buys into the silly notion that the killing of living human beings is a "family matter" in which the government ought not to intrude- and that, indeed, it is a "fundamental constitutional right" despite being found nowhere in the Constitution.

We must defeat this guy in November. It's a moral imperative.

My guess: South Carolina Republicans will vote for Obama today

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Elart Waters...) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:34:00 PST

The results won't be known for a few hours yet, but all indications are that the late surge by Newt Gingrich will overcome Mitt Romney's long-standing lead in South Carolina. The former speaker has apparently capitalized on a couple of strong debate performances at a time when Romney has been reeling from questions concerning his personal finances (no wrongdoing has been proven or even specifically suggested).

It should be noted that Speaker Gingrich has an approval rating nationally about twenty points lower than President Obama's. Governor Romney, on the other hand, as an approval rating about five or six points higher than the president. Gingrich- like Santorum and certainly Paul- is unelectable, and a vote for any of them is in effect a vote to re-elect Mr. Obama.

Nothing is certain. The ABC interview of Gingrich's second wife, Marianne, might still derail the former speaker in socially conservative South Carolina. But while momentum may be generated suddenly, it takes a little longer to bleed away. My guess is Gingrich tonight, by a narrow margin.

And Romney vs. Obama in November. The former Massachusetts governor is the Republican party's only option to conceding the election in advance by nominating one of the other three, none of whom would stand a chance.

The big question here is the impact South Carolina will have on Florida. Defeats in both states (coupled, of course, with the belated discovery that Rick Santorum, and not Gov. Romney, actually won the Iowa Caucuses) could well slow down the momentum with which the race has seemed to be moving toward an inevitable Romney nomination.

But I still don't think Mitt has reason to be worried.

ADDENDUM: It wasn't so narrow. And maybe now I'm just a little worried.

Naw. Bad Newt will sabotage Good Newt in the end. The former speaker is the Rex Grossman of Republican politics.

Biden strikes again!

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Elart Waters...) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:05:57 PST

Now, seriously. Can you really imagine even Dan Quayle or George W. Bush telling a crowd in San Francisco that "The Giants are on their way to the Super Bowl" three days before the Giants play the San Francisco 49ers for that privilege?

Well, Joe Biden did. To give him due credit, he quickly realized the gaffe he'd just committed (with the help of a roomful of lustily booing 49ers fans), recovered, and explained that he had been thinking of the San Francisco Giants and the World Series.

But still, Mr. President.... please keep this guy on the ticket!

HT: Drudge

And then, there were three and a half. Or maybe two.

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Elart Waters...) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:42:57 PST

Michelle Bachmann, an intelligent woman if something of a political lightweight and one who would do well to check her facts more carefully before saying anything about anything, is out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

Jon Huntsman, who in a rational world might well have been the nominee (being the best qualified candidate for president in either party, including the incumbent), is also out of the race, and has endorsed Mitt Romney.

Rick Perry, who was out of his depth from the word go and probably should never have gotten into the race in the first place, has also dropped out, and endorsed Newt Gingrich.

Ironic, that.

That leaves Romney, the presumptive nominee; Newt Gingrich, who has only hours before ABC's explosive interview with his first wife is broadcast and destroys any shred of viability his campaign still has; Rick Santorum and Crazy Ron as the only remaining Republican candidates. And here, we haven't even held the South Carolina Primary yet.

But maybe four is too high a number. Gingrich will probably be out within the week, and Paul is half a candidate at best. The latter will continue to draw protest votes, but to the extent it's still a race at all (and it's surely not much of one), it's between Romney and Santorum.

HT: Drudge

ADDENDUM: Or not. Obviously, Marianne's interview didn't accomplish much in South Carolina, and seems not to have done too much good in Florida, either. And Newt is doing a better job of playing Romney- cool, in control, not rising to the bait, acting presidential- than he did the last time he was the front runner.

But being Newt, how long can it last?

"Please, Brer GOP, don't throw us Democrats in the briar patch!"

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Elart Waters...) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:43:47 PST

It seems that Nancy Pelosi- like Donna Brazile and certain far right Republicans even more divorced from reality than usual- is saying that Mitt Romney would be easy pickings in November.

Uh-huh. Tell it to the polls; Romney is the only Republican to lead the president for more than one brief, shining moment. He's consistently run better against Obama than anybody else, in fact. And tell it to the Republican voters of Iowa and New Hampshire, who aren't buying it for a moment. They know electability when they see it, and it's important enough to them to cause them to forego the ideological self-indulgence which, at least in Iowa, generally drives the Republican field so far to the right and the Democratic field so far to the left as to cast the electability of the ultimate winner into question.

This time they picked the guy who is going to beat Obama in November. Sorry, Nancy. I'm not buying it- and I don't think anybody but those ideologically purist far right Republicans are. I don't even think Donna Brazile really wants Obama to run against Romney.

The Democrats me of a story about Brer Rabbit. "Please, Republicans. Do anything to us Democrats you want. Roast us. Hang us. Tar and feather us. Beat us. Say "nih" to us. But please don't nominate Gingrich or Santorum or Perry or (snicker) Paul!"

Surest sign yet that the emergence of Mitt- the only Republican with a snowball's chance in the nether regions of beating Barack Obama- as the likely nominee has the Democrats scared silly.

Michael Medved on why Tebowmania is kosher

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Elart Waters...) — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:58:51 PST

I'm no particular admirer of the Denver Broncos. In fact, as a Bears fan, I wish they'd come up with their own colors instead of stealing ours. Nor do I go ga-ga over Tim Tebow's late-game heroics this season, which actually fall considerably short of the hype they've gotten. The jury is still out as to whether this guy is the next coming of Johnny Unitas or of Rex Grossman; time will tell.

But I'm a big fan of Michael Medved, who has written quite perceptively about the wave of anti-Christian bigotry inspired by Tebow's frank and open "evangelical" piety.

A surprising number of Jews, it seems, are Tebow fans. In fact, Mr. M- an orthodox Jew himself- points out that Hebrew is read from right to left- and that 613 (3:16 read backwards) is the number of divine commands in the Torah, and thus a holy number to Jews.

Obama on pace to borrow $6.2 trillion

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Elart Waters...) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:51:14 PST

Remember this oldie but goodie from four years ago?

Mr. Obama is on pace to borrow $6.2 trillion in one term. That's more than all the presidents from Washington through Clinton combined.

The national debt will, at the current rate, be raised by $2 trillion more in Mr. Obama's first term than the figure he cites above, late in Dubyah's second.

HT: Drudge

Better late than never

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Elart Waters...) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:31:52 PST

A Jehovah's Witness Christmas:

Some thoughts on the New Hampshire Primary

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Elart Waters...) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:44:20 PST

Assuming that his Iowa win holds up (there is some controversy over whether his count may have been called in twenty votes higher than it should have been in one precinct), Mitt Romney is the first non-incumbent Republican in history to win in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

Ron bin Paul got 23% and finished (a distant) second in New Hampshire. He finished third and got 21% in Iowa. Could it really be that there are actually more extremist goofs on the voting rolls in the Granite State than in Iowa?

No, Emir Paul. You are most assuredly not "nipping at Mitt Romney's heels." He beat you by 17 points. Deal with it.

The New York Times projections (based on the average of the polls, and adjusted to compensate in weaknesses in the sampling and methods of each) show Romney ahead 7.6% in South Carolina (supposedly his toughest state) and 12.1% in Florida. Paul looks to finish a distant fourth in both South Carolina and in Florida. In the later, he is in single digits; in the former, he barely escapes them. The race- such as it is- may well be over by Ground Hog Day. Gingrich looked like a runaway winner in both states before Iowa- which, as we all know, has no effect on the subsequent direction of the race.

However sad it may make more delusional Republicans, PBS reported last night that its exit polls confirmed what seems to be the general consensus: that Romney was the candidate of all factions of the party, including conservatives. And the number one reason why people voted for him: he is regarded pretty much across the board as the most electable of the candidates.

Jon Huntsman, sad to say, is a dead man walking. The best-qualified candidate for president in twenty years staked everything on New Hampshire, and while he came away with a respectable third (17%), there is no place ahead where he figures to do any better. Rick Perry, of course, skipped New Hampshire. My guess is that he will finally get around to recognizing that he's toast after he bombs in South Carolina. When Newt figures out that he's the Ghost of Primary Nights Past is anybody's guess, but he needs to swallow that bitterness and stop handing President Obama ammunition for the fall campaign. It's not all about you, Mr. Speaker.

It should be said, though, that Newt showed some class in defending Romney after the latter's "I like firing people" gaffe. In context, Romney was saying that people should be able to "fire" health insurance companies that don't provide the services they need, and that having a lot of options among them is a good thing.

Obviously a foot-in-mouth moment that begged to be taken out of context, and most of Romney's opponents pounced. But Gingrich showed some class: "The language was a little bit clumsy and open to misinterpretation and that might raise some questions about whether or not he's the right person to debate Barack Obama, which I think is an essential characteristic for this fall, but nonetheless, I thought it was unfair to suggest that he actually liked firing people."

Good news and bad news

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Elart Waters...) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:44:52 PST

A new CBS poll shows Mitt Romney leading President Obama by two points.

That's the good news.

The bad news is that the same poll shows Ron "Blame America First" Paul trailing the president by only one point.

But not to worry. Once again, once the American people generally become aware of just how radical Paul's positions on foreign policy and national defense really are, and the details of the affair of the newsletter, his strident calls for huge budget cuts and his admitted consistency in maintaining those loony positions will return him to his previous obscurity.

Ron Paul is a protest candidates. Protest candidates to well in tough times. But seldom, when the chips are down, are they seriously considered as presidents- especially when voting for them would be voting to endanger the safety of both one's country and one's children.

Meanwhile a new Gallup poll shows a greater percentage of candidates regarding Romney as an acceptable nominee than any other candidate.

And that includes a majority of conservatives.

Only 25% of conservatives and 35% of moderates and liberals- both surprisingly high figures- consider Paul an acceptable candidate. Only Jon Huntsman is considered less acceptable than Paul by conservatives. The percentage of moderates and liberals who consider Paul acceptable is ten points higher than the percentage of conservatives who do.

HT: Drudge

Sean Hannity tells it like it is

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Elart Waters...) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 11:22:06 PST

An epic moment in New Hampshire!

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Elart Waters...) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:28:26 PST

Ron Paul meets his only rival for his base in an epic confrontation.

The libertarian from Utopia Planita is confronted by Vermin Supreme, who- like Paul himself- ran previously, in 2008. Supreme's platform: No flying monkeys in the streets of New York! Do something about the weather! Computer chip implants for all Americans! The legalization of human meat! Bigger family values! Make crime against the law!

"Vermin Supreme," his campaign staff promises,"will protect you and your children from the voices in his head, thru (sic) whatever means necessary." Contrast this with Paul, who would probably say that any hypothetical voices in his head were, in fact, your children's fault.

Some of Paul's positions, meanwhile, are explicated here. The question: which candidate's positions are the more bizarre?

HT: Drudge

And this is a problem because......?

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Elart Waters...) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:36:05 PST

Rick Santorum compares same-sex marriage with polygamy.

Granted, Santorum's logic isn't syllogistically sound in the comparison he makes here between the two. It doesn't follow that if you can marry anybody you want, you therefore can necessarily marry any number of people you want. But that's a far cry from saying that the basic proposition for which he makes an admittedly flawed argument isn't sound.

Both polygamy and same-sex "marriage" are abandonments of the understanding of the very nature of marriage maintained by Western civilization for millenia: a legally-sanctioned and binding relationship between one man and one woman. No state in the nation- or nation in the Western world, with the exception of the essentially antinomian society of Holland- has ever before treated marriage as merely a contract between individuals, whose nature was subject to negotiation between the parties. On the contrary, it has always (again, with the exception of Holland in recent years) been treated as an institution in which by its very nature no more than two people could participate, and only then if they were of opposite genders.

Because same-sex "marriage" in the United States has always been imposed by radical judges rather than adopted through the democratic process (The sole exception beingts adoption by the narrowest of legislative margins by the State of New York),- the rational discussion of the actual merits of altering the age-old nature of foundational institution of society has scarcely even been joined. The wholly false assumption- shared by such diverse people as the Iowa Supreme Court and Ron Paul- that marriage is merely a contract between individuals whose terms are variable, rather than an institution whose structure and nature have consequences for all of society and thus are a fair subject of legislation by the government, is simply assumed by those advocating same-sex "marriage," and is absolutely as valid an argument for polygamy as for "marriage" between people of the same gender. In neither case is it historically valid

That being the case, it seems to me that those who say that there is a problem with comparing multi-party marriage with single-gender marriage- both of which are modifications of what Western culture has seen from time immemorial as the very nature of marriage- need to explain exactly what that problem with Santorum's point is, besides registering a very valid dissent from his precise argument.. Same-sex "marriage" and polygamy seem to me to be quite comparable when it comes to the essential issue at stake here: the fact that they both represent abandonment of Western society's understanding, not of the mere details of marriage, but of its very legal and social nature.

So how about it? If marriage is merely a contract between individuals, why does that not argue as much in favor of polygamy being legal as same-sex "marriage?" Why should people not be as free to conclude a contract among several people as between only two? Why is Santorum's basic point (as opposed to the admittedly flawed logic he uses to support it) wrong? If marriage is merely a contract whose terms are extrinsic to its essential nature, then any number of people of any number of genders ought to be able to conclude such a contract on any terms they choose!

And on the merits- not on the basis of a logically dubious argument about "discrimination" (gays and lesbians are just as able under traditional law to marry people of the opposite sex as anyone else- and the nature of marriage has been understood for millenia to be such that people of the opposite sex are the only people it is possible to marry), why is same-sex "marriage" even a good idea? It's not that the statistics from the states which allow it, after the first year or two, show it to be all that much in demand. Nor are gay men in or out of "relationships" exactly notorious for their fanatical committment to monogamy. The institution of marriage seems to me to be under quite enough pressure already without altering it to include a population among which, for the most part, monogamy is passe'.

Ad from pro-Paul PAC attacks Huntsman as "Manchurian Candidate" because he adopted a Chinese orphan

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Elart Waters...) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 12:45:00 PST

A New Hampshire PAC supporting Rep. Ron Paul (R-Utopia Planitia) is running a web ad showing Jon Huntsman's adopted daughters Gracie (who was born in China) and Asha (who was born in India), asking "American values- or Chinese?" It concludes with a picture of Huntsman dressed as the late Chinese dictator and mass murderer Mao Zedong.

Labeling the former special assistant to President Reagan, U.S. trade representative, three-time U.S. ambassador (most recently to China) and governor of Utah "the Manchurian candidate," the ad implies that there is something suspicious about the fact that Huntsman, who speaks fluent Manderin, has a daughter who was born in China. And this from a PAC supporting a candidate who makes excuses for al Queda and insists that 9/11 was somehow America's fault.

"If someone wants to poke fun at me, that's OK," Huntsman responded. "What I object to is bringing forward pictures and videos of my adopted daughters and suggesting there's something sinister there."

Abby Huntsman Livingston, the second oldest of Huntsman's seven children, said, "It is unfortunate that the political conversation has become this vile. In our family, we put ourselves on the national stage and we expect to get everything and anything. Unfortunately, I think this video goes a bit far. My two little sisters are the love of my dad's life."

Gracie was found abandoned in a Chinese vegetable market when she was six months old and is jokingly referred to by Huntsman as "our senior foreign policy advisor." She is now twelve. Asha, now six, was abandoned in a field the day she was born.

Paul himself disavows the ad, just as he disavowed the extreme and blatantly racist newsletter he paid for, profited from, and listed himself as editor of for ten years. Paul claimed to be unaware of the contents of that newsletter, and says that he also hasn't seen the ad.

This is especially disturbing because this is just the sort of thing the most deeply twisted and bigotted of Paul's supporters go in for. There is a pattern here, and it's reasonable to ask why such people are attracted in such numbers to the Paul campaign. This isn't "guilt by association," as some Paul supporters charge; it's simply the noting of an empirically obvious phenomenon which calls for an explanation.

A video of Gov. Huntsman and Gracie Mei at her 12th birthday celebration can be found here.

Mars Attacks!

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Elart Waters...) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 12:44:17 PST

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Utopia Planitia) is really, really asking for it in New Hampshire. And with two debates scheduled back-to-back this weekend (both including a ticked-off Newt Gingrich), I have a strong feeling that he's going to get it.

Being a cat's paw whose presence in the race is useful to one candidate or another but who poses no real threat will only protect him for so long.

Once Paul himself is exposed to the kind of scrutiny he wants to turn on the others, he's toast. Major ad campaigns highlighting the details of the Paul foreign policy, the newsletter business, and the kind of people who form a large part of his following will probably be required to fully inform the electorate about just how far out of the American mainstream Paul is, but a flaying or two at the hands of Gingrich in this weekend's debates couldn't hurt.

A candidate who won't man up and accept responsibility for the contents of an entire decade of a newsletter he paid for, profited from, and listed himself as editor of is on very shaky ground attacking other candidates on the grounds of character, as he's recently been doing.

You should talk, Ron.

HT: Drudge

One more point about Iowa: Apples, oranges, and Romney's percentages in 2008 and 2012

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Elart Waters...) — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:59:09 PST

Before bidding adieu to the subject of the Iowa Caucuses, I have one more rather significant (and rather obvious) point which the pro-Obama media seem somehow to have missed.

The liberal journalists who are harping on the point that Mitt Romney didn't improve on his 25% showing in the 2008 caucuses seem to have forgotten that in 2008 Romney had the best ground game of any of the candidates, due in no small measure to committing to a maximum effort in Iowa early and flooding the state with resources for months before the caucuses. Four years ago, he bet the farm on Iowa. He had more than fifty paid staffers in this state. He poured resources into Iowa as if it was the only caucus or primary he had to worry about.

This year, he had five paid staffers here, and waged a campaign so half-hearted until the very end that those very journalists who diss his results kept harping before caucus night on his failure to even visit Iowa very often. In fact, the chattering classes kept remarking up until the last week or so that it was unclear that Romney was actually going to make a major effort here.

While I'm not sure exactly how many elderly Iowa Romney supporters (the elderly were a demographic that Romney carried handily) were prevented from participating in the caucuses precisely by the Romney campaign's failure to provide cars to drive them to the caucus sites, it seems reasonable to conclude that nobody would be talking about the closeness of the Romney victory if he had invested an effort on the scale of 2008. This year, Romney obtained the same statistical result with almost literally no ground game that he obtained four years ago with the most extensive ground game of anybody. And as somebody who worked the phones for Romney in the hours leading up to the caucuses, I know this: the most common response I got from the people I talked to was from old folks who said, "I'm for Romney, but I'm not going to the caucus tonight. I have no way to get there."

Actually, to achieve the same result despite such a disparity of effort and resources expended is a pretty impressive accomplishment, it seems to me- and not a particularly valid test of how big Romney's margin might have been if he'd tried as hard in 2012 as he tried in 2008.

In 2008, Romney got 25% through the strength of his organization; in 2012, he got it through the strength of his candidacy.

Some final thoughts about the Iowa Caucuses

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Elart Waters...) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:45:25 PST

(FUN FACT: In Iowa, there are six times as many pigs as people.)

Rick Perry ought to get a grip. His sour grapes about the "distorted" caucus process and how he is looking forward to participating in an "actual primary" miss the point. The reason for his lack of success wasn't the shortcomings of the process. It was the shortcomings of the candidate.

I caught Letterman's extended snark about Iowa and the caucuses last night. He has got to be the most snottily elitist Indiana boy in the world, and he's not even funny anymore. Regrettably, he continued his rude and not particularly clever crusade against "Michele Obachman" even after she withdrew from the race- a withdrawal from which he derived a "Top Ten List" that even the studio audience didn't find funny. The media should be ashamed of the way they treated Ms. Bachmann this year; for her part, she handled their childish snideness with style and grace.

By the way, somebody ought to tell Letterman, Jon Huntsman, and all the others who have been suggesting that Iowa's record in picking presidents has been less than stellar that since Jimmy Carter's 1976 first brought the Iowa Caucuses to national attention, only in 1988 and 1992 has anyone of either party been elected president without finishing first in the Iowa Caucuses (though Carter technically finished second to Uncommitted, he finished first among the actuall candidates). New Hampshire, on the other hand, failed to pick the eventual president in 1988, 2000 and 2008.

New Hampshire picks its nose. Iowa picks presidents.

Brian Williams pointed out that you could fit all the people who participated in the caucuses into the Dallas Cowboys stadium. He and the other Eastern elitists continue to miss the point, just as Aaron Sorkin did in devoting an entire West Wing episode to dissing the Iowa Caucuses. We may no longer have the highest literacy rate in the nation, or the best schools, or the highest percentage of our population who are college graduates. But we're still close to the top in all those categories. But more than that, we're a remarkably well-informed state, as states go, where national issues are concerned. The caucuses have made us this way, and it enables us to serve a unique and valuable function in the nominating process.

Iowa may well be the largest state in which retail politics is still the norm. This year the degree to which the campaign was an "air war," depending on TV ads and sound-bites, was unprecedented. But the success of Rick Santorum, who fought the battle with little money and only a few ads at the end, proves that the traditional Iowa way of campaigning still works. And you just can't do it in New York or California or Illinois or Pennsylvania. They're just too big. Yes, it's the fact that you can fit the caucus participants into the Dallas Cowboys stadium that makes it possible.

Here in Iowa, on behalf of all the other folks in the nation, we are able to look the candidates in the eye, to engage them in conversations about the concerns of ordinary, every day Americans, to ask them questions, to hold them personally accountable, and to take their measure, one-on-one. We've become quite good at that. It's made us inform ourselves. It's made us prepare. That, together with our relatively small size, makes it possible for us to do this, and to do it better than it could be done elsewhere.

No, we aren't the biggest state- though we are, as Mary Matlin commented on caucus night, "the swingingest of the swing states." Iowa's six electoral votes could go either way in November, and that gives us a certain importance, especially given how close this election will probably be. But it's only six electoral votes. Nor are we the most demographically diverse state. We're not quite as white as the media coverage has implied, but our minority population is small compared to those of, say, New York or California or Illinois or Florida or Virginia or New Mexico or a whole bunch of other states.

But those things aren't the point. The point is that this is the place where ordinary Americans can hold the candidates personally accountable and share our conclusions with our fellow citizens. Take them for what they're worth. But we find ourselves in a unique position to do it, and to do it well- and I think the process is better off for it, the jealousy of less well-positioned states who envy our opportunity to offer it aside.

True, all the attention (as well as our collective level of education and the responsibility our first in the naion status has placed on us to inform ourselves) have made us one of the most ideologically polarized states in the country. To be honest, I myself tend to be concerned, as I've said before in this blog, about the degree to which Republicans have to appeal to the crazy Right in order to win in Iowa, and Democrats have to reach out to the equally crazy Left. But the one candidate in the race this year who can fairly be called an extremist- Ron Paul- finished third in a six candidate race (well, OK. Maybe Michelle Bachmann and sometimes Rick Perry. But they finished fifth and sixth). And the winner was not only the most moderate candidate, but the strongest potential nominee. Despite the fact that Iowa Republicans would generally rather be Right than elect a president, this year the result was driven by electability. That speaks well of the ability of the Hawkeye State to moderate even its penchant for ideological crusades.

Newt Gingrich served his country well as speaker. He won't be its president, but one side-effect of the strangely thin-skinned though aggressive Ron Paul's attacks on Newt will apparently be a determination on the former speaker's part to subject Paul for the very first time ever to the kind of scrutiny the more serious candidates had to face in Iowa. To the extent that people pay attention to the New Hampshire debates, whatever little credibility Paul has will not survive them.

Somebody should have told PBS that this was the Republican caucuses. I briefly turned to Gwen Ifill and crew as the returns were coming in, and was regaled by an extended discussion of the race from the Democratic point of view, including an interview with the chair of the DNC spinning like mad to make a case that somehow the results were bad for Mitt Romney. You can tell who she's afraid of, anyway. Hopefully, the snippet of the coverage I saw wasn't representative- though it did seem to go on for quite a while.

Finally, I hope Iowans learn from Rick Santorum. Retail politics does work in Iowa- and it's the fact that it works so uniquely well here that provides the whole justification for paying attention to the Iowa Caucuses in the first place.