Wrestling with Patriotism

Patriotism - (noun) Love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it; devotion to the welfare of one's country; devotion to a community as opposed to devotion to one's individual interests.

Nationalism - (noun) Having pride in one's country; a collective state of mind or consciousness in which people believe their primary duty and loyalty is to the nation-state.

"The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality." - George Orwell.

It's been fascinating to listen to the various concepts of patriotism put forth in this election. It has helped me clarify for myself my own feelings and thoughts on the subject.

I'm a Christian. Philippians 3:20 - "Our citizenship is in heaven." (ASV). As the son of an U.S. Army officer, as someone who spent three years in high school ROTC, I've struggled with what that verse means to me. I balance it with Romans 13:1 - "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities."

I love my country. I'd sacrifice for its welfare. And when I say that I love my country, I have something to compare it to. I've lived in Germany, Australia, Malaysia, and Singapore. I've visited a few dozen countries. America, even at its worst, is a pretty nice place. I like it.

Patriotism is often confused with another -ism we don't mention much in America: nationalism. Nationalism is at least partly an ethnic concept. People submerge their identity into some larger community ideal. Patriotism doesn't require that kind of death of self.

It's been a while, but I've read The Light and the Glory. I remember thinking it was a crock. I can't tell you exactly why now. Because it's been a while. But I don't see America as God's newly chosen instrument or people. It's a nice place and I love it. I leave it there.

Not all of my friends have always been Americans. I've had friends who were Singaporeans and South Africans, Filipinos and Australians, New Zealanders and South Koreans, Samoans and Brazilians. I didn't figure it was their fault. I never thought they were somehow inferior to me. That would go beyond even my usual arrogance.

Patriotism is not a military concept. It doesn't go away when there are no wars to fight. Your credentials as a patriot are not somehow damaged by inability (or even refusal) to serve in the military. Patriotism is more basic. It is love of country - plain and simple.

I've lived and worked in places nationalism was common. I recognize it. It makes me uncomfortable. I'm a patriot. But I'm not a nationalist. And you don't have to be one to love America...

Cheese and Crackers in the Real Virginia

I'm sitting here listening to football and eating cheese and crackers in the real Virginia. I have a bumper sticker on my car that says "Obama." there are two signs in my yard: one for Obama and one for Mark Warner's Senate run. Not everyone here is for Obama, but my hope is that he'll carry our county...

The Associated Press carried a story today about McCain's hopes in Virginia.

A top aide to John McCain said Saturday the Republican presidential nominee still has a strong chance of winning the state because of his support in "Real Virginia," the downstate areas far removed in distance and political philosophy from the more liberal northern part of the state.

Daily Kos showed the new US map that the McCain camp is evidently using. (I hope they don't sue me for using it.)



They also had a YouTube video of McCain spokesperson Nancy Pfotenhauer saying stupid things on MSNBC...



We're more "Southern" out here, according to Pfotenhauer. And somehow that's good for McCain? Not sure if that's racist, or what. I don't think she has a particularly profound grasp of the state's geography.

In the meantime, LSU and South Carolina are tide, Texas is putting a whippin' on Missouri, the Hokies are trying to catch up with Boston College, and I need more crackers...

Joe the (Jackass) Plumber...

Joe the Plumber became a celebrity, a public figure of sorts, Wednesday night during the presidential debate when GOP candidate John McCain referred to him twenty times or more. NBC declared Joe the plumber to be the winner of the debate.

Some background is in order...

Barack Obama and Joe Wurzelbacher (his name is Samuel J. Wurzelbacher) talked on at an event in Ohio a few days ago. Watch the Youtube video for the conversation.



So, here's what I've seen on Joe today...

• Joe the Plumber: Unregistered Voter, and More...
  
• McCain’s “Joe the Plumber” Myth Continues to Unravel
  
• 'Joe the Plumber' Says He Has No Plumbing License
  
• Say It Isn’t So, Joe! Wurzelbacher Not A Real $250K Plumber?
  
• Joe the Plumber: Jackass or Ordinary American
  
• Is “Joe the Plumber’s” story starting to unravel?
  
• Joe the Plumber- Completely Fake
  
• Enraged Leftwing Blogosphere Hurls Attacks Against Joe the Plumber
  
• Who Is "Joe the Plumber"?
  
• The dirt on Joe The Plumber
  
• NY Times Blog 'Spotlights' Joe the Plumber with Left-Wing Attacks
  

You're welcome to wade through it yourself, but...

Joe owes back taxes in Ohio - about $1,200. Joe used to live in Alaska and has relatives who know Sarah Palin's husband, Todd. Joe is also related to one of the convicted felons from the Keating five savings and loans scandal that McCain was connected to. Joe's family contributes mightily to the GOP in Ohio. Joe's last name is misspelled on Ohio's vote registration roll and that would be enough to disqualify him from voting in some states; but he is registered to vote. Joe doesn't make anywhere near $250,000 a year (his 2006 divorce settlement say he makes $40K) and can't possibly afford to come up with the million or so dollars it would take to buy the company he talked to Obama about in the video.

Joe the Plumber is making stuff up in the video. McCain is either stupid for using him in the debate or doesn't know he was planted by his own campaign at that Ohio event just to make a good YouTube video...

Abortion and The Jill Stanek Lie

I suspect that few people would disagree with me if I said that abortion was the most emotional issue in American politics...

I'm a Democrat. I disagree with my party on abortion. I don't really think there is a constitutional right to the choice of abortion. Oh, sure, I understand Roe v. Wade, and that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there is a constitutional right to an abortion. But the Supreme Court has changed its mind before. On the other hand, I disagree with the Republican position that abortion is always (each and every time) just plain wrong because, well, the Bible says so. I own a Bible. I have some training in how to read it (and interpret it). I even like it. And it just doesn't say that - at least not as clearly as the Christian Right in America would have us believe.

You'll notice I used "Christian" there as an adjective, not a noun. I know that most of the people who believe in James Dobson have stopped reading by now. (They probably stopped reading at "I'm a Democrat.") In America, a group of political conservatives have tried very hard to take over Christianity (or at least the Church) and milk it for political ends. Let's face it: Republicans generally worship money. The blend of the Republican Party and the Religious Right reminds me very much of the Pharisees in the New Testament - politically conservative, very religious, and preoccupied with money.

Jill Stanek has a video. She lies in it. It's quite a moving video - which is to say that the people using her make good videos. You can find it on YouTube (I won't post it here). It's about Barack Obama and his time in the Illinois state legislature and, well, abortion. A colleague that I respect a lot sent me a link to it in an email. The video is five and a half minutes long. The last full minute is of a baby supposedly dying. The sensationalism is incredible.

I've called Stanek a liar. I'm sure she experienced something horrific. I'm sure her emotions are being used by others. But her video talks about a proposed law in Illinois, and here's her lie: "At the end of the day, his (Obama's) opposition (to this proposed bill) was responsible for living babies being left out to die." The problem is that the proposed law duplicate one already on the books. The law Stanek is talking about would have made something illegal that was already illegal.

I watched the video. And I replied to my colleague. Here's my reply...

Dramatic. You'd almost think they really left that baby there to die in the video...

Here's the Obama response,
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/15/wildaccusations


The Republican who sponsored the bill Jill Stanek is talking about in the Illinois state legislature has said in the Chicago Tribune that Jill Stanek's statements in the video are misleading. In his own words, "None of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide." He also points out that the bill later passed with minor rewording - something Jill Stanek's (video leaves out). She also leaves out the fact that a law that covered the issue was already on the books in Illinois. Funny how people can stretch the truth to make it look like God is on their side...

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072005100K6.htm
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0905vplettersbriefs0sep05,0,3918744.story

Abortion is a horrible thing. I worked for a year as a counselor for an anti-abortion group, Birthright, in Augusta, Ga., in college. I don't mind saying in Democratic Party meetings (which I attend) that we need fewer abortions, that abortions need to be harder to get, and that there needs to be more obvious alternatives supported by state and local government. I don't know that I think abortion should ALWAYS be prohibited. But I'd be quite happy to make abortion far less convenient.

While I think that abortion is a horrible thing, I think there are a lot of horrible things out there. The James Dobsons of the world want me to think that abortion is a crystal clear Biblical issue. And yet the word isn't in the Bible. Abortion was around. Historical records document it in about Egypt in 1550 BC. Hippocrates (died 370 BC) discussed abortion and forbad general practice doctors form being involved in it (or in any other form of surgery).

Exodus 21:22-23 is an interesting passage. If two men fight and they injure a woman in the process and she loses her baby, they owe a fine. For centuries that's been the interpretation of that passage by Christian scholars and in the Jewish lit. The passages in the Bible that get used to support the idea of humanity beginning at conception are all poetic. I have enough Bible training to know that using them as the foundation of a theological position is bad exegesis. In most of the Old Testament, humanity begins with breath or blood, not conception.

I don't mind saying that abortion is a horrible thing. But the effort of the political right to put it in a religious context and make absolute statements about it is an assault on the general public's right to read God's Word for themselves. Like many issues in the Bible, there's no definitive statement. The ministers of politics who want to say that there is such a definitive statement - they're selling something...

And Jill Stanek appears to be a liar who makes good videos.

Abortion is a horrible thing. If we hadn't turned it into a religious litmus test, the church might be more interested in poverty (which is DEFINITELY a Biblical issue)...

Greg

John McCain: The Health of a President

I find it hard to believe, but the GOP candidate for President won't release his own medical records. In Appalachia we call that "a pig in a poke."

John McCain and the First Debate

I heard on my way home from work today that GOP presidential candidate John McCain wanted to postpone tomorrow night's debate so he could go to Washington and work on the economic bail out package. I laughed.

"Of course McCain wants to postpone the debate. It fits in so well with his strategy of distraction!"

McCain's goal has been to tell distracting enough lies so that people will talk about the lies he tells instead of the issues. Sure, the economy is an issue. But taking a time out from campaigning just gets people taking about the time out he took, not the economy.

The cynicism is incredible. Of all Senators, John McCain has been absent from the Senate the most. There have been 643 votes taken in the current Senate session: McCain has missed 412 of them. Since March, he has missed 109 of the last 110 votes. Now, on the eve of a debate, he wants to go be a senator?

I loved Senator Obama's response: the next President will have to deal with more than this one issue.

David Letterman's response (quoted in the Drudge Report) was also entertaining:

"You don't suspend your campaign. This doesn't smell right. This isn't the way a tested hero behaves." And he joked: "I think someone's putting something in his metamucil."

"He can't run the campaign because the economy is cratering? Fine, put in your second string quarterback, Sara Palin. Where is she?"

"What are you going to do if you're elected and things get tough? Suspend being president? We've got a guy like that now!"

I know John McCain is a war hero. War hero's can be cynics, too. And he seems to think that discretion is the better part of valor at the moment...

Mitt Romney on McCain Lies: "What's the heart and the soul of the Republican Party going to be...?"

Taxes: McCain or Obama

Taxes: that seems to be among the most powerful issues in this presidential election. The two candidates have both attacked each other's position on taxes. McCain's ads tell American's that Obama will raise their taxes.

For a few Americans, McCain's telling the truth - President Obama would raise their taxes. But for most Americas, the McCain statement about how President Obama will raise their taxes... that statement is a LIE. Not an interpretation of Obama's tax plan that I just disagree with, but the kind of lie that makes kids at an elementary school yell pants on fire!.

Is McCain lying to you (or your working age child)? I know Congress has to approve changes in the tax law. I know there are cynics out there who don't think any politician ever plans to keep any promise. But let's just talk about the tax plans the candidates have put forward.

I came across a short article at the Washington Post that has a simple little chart to help you tell. And in case you're not good with charts, I'll help you a little...

If you make under $18,981 a year, President Obama would lower your income taxes by 5.5% - an average of about $567 per year for people in this category. John McCain, if he became president, would lower your taxes, too - but only by two-tenths of one percent, or an average of nineteen bucks for people in this category. ($18,981 per year is about $9 an hour, 40 hours per week, 52 weeks a year.) If you're in this category, not only is McCain lying to you, but you'd be better off personally under the Obama plan than under the McCain plan.

If you make between $18,981 and $37,595 a year, President Obama would lower your income taxes by 3.6% - an average of $892 per year for people in this category. John McCain, if he became president, would lower your taxes, too - but only by about half of one percent, or an average of $113 for people in this category. ($37,595 per year is about $18 an hour, 40 hours per week, 52 weeks a year.) If you're in this category, not only is McCain lying to you, but you'd be better off personally under the Obama plan than under the McCain plan.

If you make between $37,596 and $66,354 a year, President Obama would lower your income taxes by 2.4% - an average of about $1,042 per year for people in this category. John McCain, if he became president, would lower your taxes, too - but only by about seven-tenths of one percent, or an average of $319 per year. ($66,354 per year is a salary of about $5,529 a month, or a paycheck every two weeks of $2,552.) If you're in this category, not only is McCain lying to you, but you'd be better off personally under the Obama plan than under the McCain plan.

These first three categories include 60% of all tax payers

If you make between $66,355 and $111,645 a year, President Obama would lower your income taxes by 1.8% - an average of about $1,290 per year for people in this category. John McCain, if he became president, would lower your taxes, too - but only by about 1.4%, or an average of $1,009 per year. ($111,645 per year is a salary of about $9,304 a month, or a paycheck every two weeks of $4,294.) If you're in this category, not only is McCain lying to you, but you'd be better off personally under the Obama plan than under the McCain plan.

If you make between $111,646 and $160,972 a year, President Obama would lower your income taxes by 2.1% - an average of about $2,204 per year for people in this category. John McCain, if he became president, would lower your taxes more - by about 2.5%, or an average of $2,614 per year. ($160,972 per year is a salary of about $13,411 a month, or a paycheck every two weeks of $6,191.) If you're in this category, McCain is lying to you about whether President Obama would raise your taxes; personally, you'd do better (on income taxes, at least) under McCain, but not by much.

If you make between $160,973 and $226,981 a year, President Obama would lower your income taxes by 1.9% - an average of about $2,789 per year for people in this category. John McCain, if he became president, would lower your taxes more - by about 3%, or an average of $4,380 per year. ($226,981 per year is a salary of about $18,915 a month.) If you're in this category, McCain is lying to you about whether President Obama would raise your taxes; personally, you'd do better (on income taxes, at least) under McCain.

If you make between $226,982 and $603,402 a year, President Obama would lower your income taxes, but not by much - an average of about $12 per year for people in this category. John McCain, if he became president, would lower your taxes much more - by about 3.1%, or an average of $7,871 per year. ($603,402 per year is a salary of about $50,203 a month - which is more than I make as an elementary school teacher in a year.) If you're in this category, your taxes could possibly go up under President Obama, but not by much.

If you are in the top one percent of wage earners in America and make between $603,403 and $2.87 million a year, President Obama would raise your income taxes by about 8.7% - an average of about $115,974 per year for people in this category. John McCain, if he became president, would lower your taxes a bunch - by about 3.4%, or an average of $45,361 per year. ($2.87 million per year is a salary of about $239,166 a month.)

If you are in the top one-tenth of one percent of wage earners in America and make over $2.87 million a year, President Obama would raise your income taxes by about 11.5% - an average of about $701,885 per year for people in this category. John McCain, if he became president, would lower your taxes considerably - by about 4.4%, or an average of $269,364 per year.

---

So...

Is McCain lying to you? The simple answer is yes. McCain wants you to believe that as president, Barack Obama would raise everyone's taxes. The truth is that he would attempt to lower taxes for 98% or more of the population. When McCain's ads tell you that Obama wants to raise your taxes, it's not just a lie, it's a damn lie. That makes McCain a damn liar.

If you're bringing home more than $240,000 a month McCain's your guy. Otherwise, he just wants you to help out his guys by voting for tax cuts for the obscenely rich...

Read my article on what the Wall Street Journal thinks of McCain's and Obama's tax plans.

While Rome Burned...

This is what they want to talk about. Them - the news media. Left or right, it doesn't matter. They want to talk about lipstick and pigs, about sex ed law in Illinois...

I enjoy telling people that I worked as a reporter for a while before I found honest work. I say it at school board and county government meetings. People laugh, I smile.

GOP presidential candidate John McCain has used the "lipstick on a pig" phase before. So has Vice-President Dick Cheney. In the past day or so, Senator Obama used the phrase. He was pretty explicit about the fact that he was talking about John McCain's economic plan. But the McCain camp came out almost immediately with the accusation that Obama was referring to Governor Palin. And they called the remark sexist...

And now the stuffed shirts at FOX and the liberal hacks at the NY Times and the left-leaning suits at CBS & NBC all want to talk about lipstick on a pig and McCain's outrage - instead of the economy.

What could we talk about...?

The Huffington Post came up with a short list:

• We could talk about the shrinking role of the US in world affairs.
• We could talk about whether the Wall Street bank Lehman Brother is going to collapse.
• We could talk about having to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
• We could talk about Iraq.
• We could talk about tomorrow's anniversary of 9/11.
• We could talk about rising unemployment.
• We could talk about the US relationship with Russia.
• We could talk about the OPEC meeting today where they cut production to help keep prices from going down.

There are probably a few other things. And instead we're going to talk about lipstick on a pig for a day or two.

I used to think that John McCain was an honorable man. Now I think his strategy is to tell more and more outrageous lies to keep from losing an election...

Compare and Contrast: Obama & McCain on Taxes

I generally forego the pleasure of reading the Wall Street Journal because, frankly, it's not in my budget. But this week I've obtained it for free a couple of times while staying at Embassy Suites in Charleston, WV during a workshop my wife is attending.

Today's WSJ has an editorial on the Obama tax plan on A13. It was interesting.

I have two quotes:

The McCain plan would lead to deficits the like of which we have never seen in this country. It would take money from the middle class and from future generations so that the wealthy can live better today

And then there's this...

The Obama plan would dramatically simplify taxes by consolidating existing credits, eliminating the need for millions of senior citizens to file tax forms, and enabling as many as 40 million middle-class filers to do their own taxes in less than five minutes and not have to hire an accountant.

The paper goes on to say that Obama's tax plan would be good for small business, and that while it would raise taxes on the top 1% of household, those richest tax filers would still pay less than they did in the 1990's.

Conservatives have cried and whined about one aspect of the Obama tax plan in particular. Obama's plan would not raise taxes on single individuals making up to $200,000 a year or on couples making up to $250,000. Conservatives see this as a marriage penalty for single individuals making more than $250,000 in joint income. Those individuals would be better off under the Obama plan, from a tax standpoint, to avoid marriage. Some among the Religious Right argue that the Obama plan would aggravate the break down of marriage as an institution in America.

I laughed when I read that. Anybody man that can look at a woman and say, "Honey, you know we'd be better off if we just lived together... we'd save on our taxes!" can't view marriage as being particularly important to his religion - especially when together they'd be making a quarter of a million a year as a household. Give me a break...

McCain Has Succeeded in Making Health Care an Issue for Almost Everyone

It hasn't gotten much press yet, but I predict that it will. Candidate McCain has probably succeeded in making health care an issue for all Americans, even if they already have pretty good health insurance. Especially if they already have pretty good health insurance...

John McCain wants to turn your medical bills into taxable income if you get your health insurance through work.

I first heard about this aspect of the McCain health care proposal from Robert L. Borosage, courtesy of the Huffington Post. According to Borosage, the McCain solution on health care is to move America away from employer-provided health insurance and have each of us, individually, go to a private insurance company and negotiation our own health insurance package. To McCain, the results would be obvious:

• The heavy burden of financing employee health care would be lifted from business - which would be good for "the economy" (by which McCain means big business).
• Deductibles would be higher in the new privately insured America, and as a result people would be more cautious and selective in their health care demadns. No longer would we run to the doctor for every little cough or sniffle...

Sticks and Carrots

McCain's plan would offer you a tax credit if you had private health insurance - $2,500 per person or $5,000 per family. That's a credit, not a deduction. Reducing your federal taxes by $5,000 a year could be a powerful incentive - if you make enough to pay that in income tax. That's the carrot.

The stick is bigger. McCain want to take the dollar value of what your employer-based health insurance pays out for you in a year and count that as income. If you're one of those stubborn souls who kept your health insurance at work, consider this. If you make $35,000 as a teacher and on the way to work you're in a car wreck that results in a couple of weeks in the hospital, a surgery or two, and your employer-based health insurance footing a $40,000 bill for your medical expenses, your income just more than doubled because that $40,000 payout on your behalf would be taxable income under the McCain plan.

Oh, and since it shows up on your 1040 form, you'll likely end up paying state income tax on it, too.

Skeptical? I'm not horribly familiar with Robert L. Borosage myself, either. But then I figures out that the UMWA was telling its members much the same thing.

Health care used to be an issue for those didn't have it, or if you had loved ones who couldn't afford it. McCain has succeeded in making it an issue for everyone. If you didn't care before, you probably do now. And for what it's worth, as the son of a Navy admiral, a member of the armed forces himself, and the a member of Congress, McCain has had government sponsored health insurance almost every minute of his life...

On John McCain and the Disappointing Dr. Dobson

It's all over the Blogosphere. Focus on the Family Founder Dr. James Dobson is reconsidering his position on GOP Presidential hopeful Senator John McCain.

Dobson founded Focus on the Family in 1977. The radio show and publishing house has become one of the leading voices for Evangelical Christianity and its political wing, the Religious Right. Back in primary season, Dr. Dobson wasn't very supportive of McCain. Politico sums it up like this:

Earlier, Dobson had said he could not in good conscience vote for McCain, citing the candidate's support for embryonic stem cell research and opposition to a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, as well as concerns about McCain's temper and foul language.

In a pre-recorded radio show that airs today, Dobson has opened the door for a flip-flop: "I never thought I would hear myself saying this... While I am not endorsing Senator John McCain, the possibility is there that I might."

It doesn't really surprise me (or even disappoint me, I suppose) that Dr. Dobson may endorse McCain. McCain is the GOP nominee. The Religious Right has hitched its wagon to the Republican star. What choices are there?

What does disappointment me is the shifting rationale for the two positions. Dr. Dobson couldn't vote for McCain a few months ago. It was a matter of conscience; he'd just stay home on election day. How could a true believer vote to make someone president with McCain's views on family issues? It was a matter of principal. But as the political waters have gotten deeper, the principals have floated away. Now it's just a practical issue. McCain is the lesser of two evils, and Dr. Dobson is likely to endorse one of the evils in hopes of avoiding the other.

It doesn't bother that Dr Dobson may endorse McCain. It bothers me that he took the original position and framed the discussion as a moral and religious choice to start with. It bothers me because it seemed sincere at the time, and now it just seems hypocritical...

Elsewhere:

• Dobson Leans Toward Endorsing McCain, from The Caucus (at the NY Times)
  
• Dobson Flips, Says He Might Endorse McCain. from the Huffington Post
  

Arianna Huffington on John McCain...

I saw Huffington on Jay Leno last week and enjoyed what she had to say so much that I decided to look around for more stuff by her.

Huffingtn was promoting her new book: Right Is Wrong: How the Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America, Shredded the Constitution, and Made Us All Less Safe. She offered a money back guarantee on the book on Leno: if you're a McCain supporter, and you read the book and you're still a McCain supporter, she says she'll give you your money back.

Here are two YouTube videos of her talking about McCain and about politics.

Arianna Huffington on John McCain - "Hijacked" by the Right?


Arianna Huffington - The Problem with Polling

Primaries & Caucuses: SuperTuesday and the Saturday Stumble

For a variety of personal reason, I never really got around to commenting on SuperTuesday. But now that the dust has settled a little, there are some things worth saying about each party's race for the presidential nomination.

I haven't heard much comment on voter turnout.

• In Colorado, about 120,000 people turned out for the Democratic Caucuses; the GOP drew only about 55,000 people. Colorado went for Clinton in 1992 (but not in 1996), for Jimmy Carter in 1976, and for Johnson in 1964. In the last 12 elections that state has gone to the Democrats just three times.
  
• In Georgia, 1,046,000 people voted in the Democratic Primary. Only 958,000 people voted in Georgia's GOP Primary. Georgia went for Kennedy in 1960, Carter in 1976 and 1980, and Clinton in 1992 (but not in 1996).
  
• In Missouri only about 585,000 people voted in the GOP Primary compared to around 820,000 in the Democratic contest. Missouri has gone to the GOP in seven of the last 12 presidential Elections.
  
• In North Dakota the Democrats drew almost 18,000 caucus goers, compared to only about 9,000 for the GOP. North Dakota hasn't voted for a Democrat in November since 1964.
  
• In Oklahoma the Democrats drew over 400,000 voters to their primary while the GOP only saw about 330,000 come out. Like North Dakota, Oklahoma hasn't voted for a Democrat in November since 1964.
  
• Democrats in Tennessee drew 614,000 voters to their primary, while the GOP managed to get out only about 547,000 (even with favorite son Fred Thompson running). Tennessee went for Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Carter in 1976, and Johnson in 1964, but they've gone to the GOP in eight of the last 12 elections.

The question: Will this translate to the November election? Maybe...

The trend continued in Louisiana, where over 350,000 people voted in the Democratic primary yesterday and only and only about 155,000 voted in the GOP race. The state went for Kennedy in 1960, Carter in 1976, and Clinton twice, but has gone to the GOP two-thirds of the time since 1960.

---

Did SuperTuesday have winners? Well, it certainly had losers on the GOP side. Fred Thompson placed fifth in his home state. I'll go back to the actor metaphor I heard somewhere a while back and say that Mike Huckabee seems to have gotten the part that Fred Thompson tried out for.

Romney fell victim to a combination of factors. There was the fact that the Conservative vote was divided three ways. That made it easy from McCain to pull out a win in states like Missouri and Oklahoma. In a head-to-head race with just the two of them, Romney might well have beaten McCain out of those 90 or so delegates. Romney fell victim to high expectations; he was expected to do better than he did, and that made it difficult to justify staying in the race. I think Romney also fell victim to his own ambitions in as much as he's more committed to being president someday than he is to being president now. He could be perceived as having hurt the party by staying in, so he suspended his campaign.

While McCain carried the day, the biggest GOP winner may well turn out to be Huckabee. The former Arkansas governor is now the only choice for many Conservatives and logic choice for the anti-McCain block. Huckabee picked up the endorsement of Dr. James Dobson, champion of the Religious Right. And Huckabee's two wins yesterday testify to his new status as Last Conservative Standing. Mathematically, it's still possible for Huckabee to win the nomination (especially is Romney releases his delegates to vote however they want). It's not very likely, but it's possible at the moment.

On the Democratic side, SuperTuesday proved that the Clinton-Obama race really is a tie. That translates to a win for Obama. And that momentum carried him to three new wins yesterday. More and more, the focus of the Democratic race is on SuperDelegates since it doesn't look like either candidate will get enough delegates from the primary and caucus process to win outright.

---

The Saturday Stumble is the name pundits giving to the performance of McCain and Clinton yesterday. If McCain is not careful, he could end up being offered a position as Huckabee's VP. If Hillary is not careful, she could just plain lose.

No one seems to stay a front runner for very long...

---

In case you hadn't noticed:

• Fred Thompson endorsed John McCain.
  
• Ron Paul made some statements to the effect that he probably really would support the GOP candidate (he refused to rule out running as an independent during a Washington Post interview a few weeks ago).
  
• NYC Mayor Michael Bloomburg seems to have shut up about running for President as an independent now that it looks like the GOP will nominate a moderate candidate.
  
• President Bush said yesterday that McCain wasn't a moderate and endorsed McCain's credentials as a true Conservative.
  
• Conservatives from Ann Coulter to Dr. Dobson are suggesting that their people should just stay home in November and left the Democrats have the White House if McCain is the nominee.
  
• And Mike Gravel is still technically a candidate for the Democratic nomination.

But who cares about trivia...

Super Tuesday First Blood: Huckabee Wins WV Caucus

West Virginia's GOP Caucus today was a draw in the first round of voting. Mitt Romney spoke to the convention and pulled 44% of the votes. Huckabee drew 33% of the vte int eh first round. John McCain drew only 15% of the vote on the first round and Ron Paul was eliminated from the voting under WV party rules because he drew less than 10% of the caucus vote.

On the second round of voting Huckabee passed Romney and drew 52% of the ballots - the majority needed to collect WV's delegates to the GOP National Convention later this year.

The win gives Huckabee all 18 of the state's delegates in this winner take all contest.

Also Ran: Rudy Giuliani

With 95% of the vote counted in the GOP Florida Primary, Rudy Giuliani managed to squeek by Mike Huckabee for third place. And that's not good enough.

Most news sources are now reporting that Giuliani will drop out now. The former NYC mayor had adopted a strategy of ignoring early races in New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina where he was unlikely to win and betting everything on Florida. When he came up with that strategy he was leading in the polls in Florida. But time passed, the spotlight moved, and Giuliani's strategy came back to bite him.

Giuliani will endorse John McCain tomorrow in California, according to the Associated Press.

As I sit at my keyboard listening to the pundits on television, McCain seems to have already won the nomination. They talk abotu his electibilty and the winner-take-all states that he's going to take on February 5th. We'll see if they're right...

Hope for Conservatives? Bad News for McCain? Fred Thompson Drops Out...

One for Fred Thompson's most important backer, Georgia State Senator Eric Johnson, jumped ship this morning and moved to the Romney camp. "Clearly Fred Thompson is not going to be the nominee," the State Senator told a Savannah, Ga., paper. He said that Romney had always been his second choice.

Thompson announced that he was pulling out of the race shortly after Johnson's announcement. Johnson wasn't the only supporter Thompson lost this morning. Former New York Senator Alfonse D'Amato threw his support to John McCain this morning, according tot he New York Post.

Pledged Delegates to the GOP Convention as of SC
Candidates	Delegates pledged
Romney	66
McCain	38
Huckabee	26
Thompson	8
Ron Paul	6
Giuliani	1

Thompson drew 16% of the vote in South Carolina's January 19th GOP Primary. If he had dropped out before that state's primary, Romney would still have finished third, at best. But Thompson votes might well have made Huckabee the winner in SC if Thompson had dropped out earlier.

In the six caucuses and primaries so far, Thompson's best finish was 2nd in little-noticed and barely contested Wyoming. He finished 5th or 6th in Michigan, New Hampshire and Nevada and managed 3rd place finishes in Iowa and South Carolina. Thompson has accumulated eight pledged delegates for the GOP convention, compared to Huckabee's 26, McCain's 38 and 66 at the moment for Romney.

In the statement, Thompson did not say whether he would endorse any of his former rivals, according to the Associated Press. Thompson supported McCain in 2000.

---

Speaking of Huckabee, USA Today is reporting that his campaign is on "a shoestring budget" and is considering a pull out from Florida in favor of the February 5th SuperTuesday states. Huckabee isn't buying TV time for ads in Florida and some Huckabee aids are foregoing paychecks to keep money in the campaign coffers.

McCain Wins South Carolina (And Conservatives Still Don't Have a Candidate)

The voters in today's GOP Primary in South Carolina could be divided up into four many demographic groups: there were Moderates, there were Conservatives, there were Evangelical Christians, and there were Retirees. About a quarter of the voters were moderates, according to exit poll data, and John McCain garnered two-thirds of their votes.

That means that of the 33% of primary voters who went for McCain, about half called themselves moderates. Older voters, according to the Associated Press, also tended to cast their ballots for McCain.

But the majority of South Carolina's GOP voters described themselves today as either Conservatives or Evangelical Christians (most of whom qualify as Conservatives, as well).

So why did the most moderate of the GOP's candidates win South Carolina? Simple: Conservatives still don't have a favorite son. They split their vote four (or maybe five) ways and diluted their power as a voting block.

You might say that Conservatives are more concerned today about their differences these days than about their similarities. Evangelical Christians are looking for a candidate with a faith based message and they think they've found on in Mike Huckabee. He carried the Evangelical vote for the most part. But the Fiscal Conservatives who are more concerned with financial policy than religion don't much like Huckabee because they question his record on taxation and spending during his tenure as governor of Arkansas. Those voters split their ballots between Romney and Thompson. And while Evangelical voters might be willing to accept Thompson as a candidate, they have a problem with Romney's Mormon religion. Romney has failed in his bid to attract the support of Evangelical voters.

Perhaps the most important factor in the South Carolina GOP Primary was McCain's ability to draw some voters from every camp. He gained a degree of acceptance among both Evangelicals and Fiscal Conservatives.

It is worth noting that Mike Huckabee is the darling of the misnamed "Fair Tax" crowd at the moment. The only other candidate that supports that proposal in Ron Paul. And if Ron Paul's people had voted for Huckabee, their four percent of the vote would have made Huckabee the winner. That's assuming a lot, I know. If bullfrogs had wings...

Ron Paul finished fifth in the race. And Giuliani came in a distant seventh.

After South Carolina: Fred Thompson Stays In

Fred Thompson said he needed to finish at least second in today's South Carolina GOP Primary to say viable. He finished third, with only about half the votes of second place Mike Huckabee. In the Nevada Caucus today Thompson finished fifth, about 100 votes behind Huckabee.

Just the same, Thompson say, well gosh, he reckons he'll say around a while longer... The question is, why? And how long will that while be?

Thompson entered the race late with high expectations that he would be met by adoring crowds who would sweep him to victory. The crowds never showed up, proving that politics is at least as much about work as it is about personality. He lags nationally behind Romney, McCain, Huckabee, and Giuliani - all of whom were out shaking hands and asking for votes long before Thompson tossed his hat into the ring.

In South Carolina Thompson was something of a spoiler, dividing Conservatives and Evangelical Christians today who might otherwise have mostly voted for Huckabee or Romney. John McCain, who won in South Carolina, would be glad to see Thompson keep doing that at least through the February 5th Super Tuesday ballots.

If Thompson hopes to eventually play the role of either spoiler or kingmaker, it is unclear who would get his support at the Republican National Convention. A tone of bitterness is developing between the Thompson and Huckabee camps as the two groups compete for the title of "Most Strongly Against Abortion." And Thompson disagrees with McCain on important issues like immigration.

For now he's making speeches that could be taken to mean he's staying in, or that he's putting his house in order before he drops out.

Perhaps Thompson would make Romney a good vice presidential candidate to increase the Boston Mormon's appeal in the south during the general election. But there are a lot of delegates left to county before it comes to that.

In the mean time, Thompson is beginning to smell like a Thanksgiving turkey that's been left in the oven too long...

Giant Sucking Sound Heard Across Midwest as Romney Campaign Is Resuscitated

Residents of surrounding states heard a loud sucking sound at a little after 8pm local time tonight coming out of Michigan. That was about the time that major news sources predicted the winners in the Michigan Presidential Primaries - and the sound was Mitt Romney's campaign breathing life back into its almost dead body. The sound was actually heard (faintly) as far away as South Carolina and even created gentle breezes in places like California and Florida.

Okay, I'm being a tad sarcastic I suppose. But Michigan was a "must win" for Romney. And his win does little more than further muddy the question of just who the GOP frontrunner is. For the next 24 hours, I guess the frontrunner is Mitt Romney. But the question on everyone's lips since the race started seems to be, Where'd the "mo" go?

Momentum, the big MO, seems to disappear quickly in this GOP race. Mike Huckabee seems to have more of it than any other candidate. He went from "Mike who?" at Thanksgiving to the Iowa Caucus winner in January. The momentum of that win has placed him a respectable third in New Hampshire and now Michigan - states he wasn't expected to do well in. Next up is South Carolina, a state where Huckabee and Romney will compete for the Conservative Christian vote the way they did in Iowa. When we woke up this morning, Rasmussen Reports had McCain leading in South Carolina; that lead was built in part on momentum from the New Hampshire win and McCain's numbers will now go down. Huckabee, Romney, and Fred Thompson were all competing for second spot - separated by 3 percentage points in the survey. If Fred Thompson pulls out a win (or even a second place), the GOP race will go from a three man to a four man field of frontrunners - five if you count Giuliani, which I don't at the moment...

So let's talk about Giuliani. But what's to say? He finished sixth in Iowa and Michigan, fourth in Wyoming and New Hampshire. A poll yesterday said that McCain was leading in Florida (they like old people there), but that statistically it was a four way tie between McCain, Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee. If Thompson were to win South Carolina, Florida would become a five way tie...

NPR had a cute story about a sand sculpture in Myrtle Beach, SC. Six GOP candidates were sculpted in beach sand there. Duncan hunter must be irritated that his face was not included. With 83% of the Michigan vote counted, hunter got less than one percent of the vote in the GOP Primary there...