The Ladies Love That Clinton!

HILLARY Clinton, that is.

Did you know she's booked an hour of time on the Hallmark Channel on Super Duper Tuesday eve? Look for Sally Field to co-star.

And if that's not going Oprah enough for you, listen to her latest radio ad reachin' out to the sisters. (It's about 2 minutes into the clip).

When He's Right, He's Right

Can't argue with Sen. Barack Obama on this one:

"Democrats will win in November and build a majority in Congress not by nominating a candidate who will unite the other party against us, but by choosing one who can unite this country around a movement for change."

If this AP article is any indication, we should have a fun debate tonight.

The Natural Truth From Iraq

Maj. General Rick Lynch is scheduled to join us for a few minutes this morning from his base of operations in Iraq. He'll give you a live, from-the-ground report on the war that liberals no longer want to discuss.

His efforts on our behalf, and all the efforts of Task Force Marne in Iraq, are detailed at this terrific website, http://www.taskforcemarne.com/ Please add it to your browser list and show your support for our soldiers.

For example, this photo is from the website's report on (how cool is this?) Operation Iron Boston, targeting an Al Qaeda hideout.

And if you miss the interview, you can listen to it anytime using the "on demand" page of www.wtkk.com.

The Natural Truth About The GOP Nomination

From the Boston Herald today:

It will take a few more weeks for McCain to win the 1,191 delegates needed for the nomination, but he has already won the most important prize in GOP presidential politics: inevitability.

Tuesday is a mere formality.

And he never won more than one-third of the Republican vote in any state.

How did a Scoop Jackson Democrat win the GOP nomination? He didn’t.

Everyone else lost it.

UPDATE: They've picked up on our conversation at the Wall Street Journal.

Thanks, Florida.

What--Screwing up the 2000 election wasn't enough for you people?

Thanks. Thanks alot.

Assuming there is no shocking revelation or health issue, the GOP nomination is over. Conservatives need to start practicing the phrase "Nominee presumptive John McCa....."

Sorry, I can't say it. Not yet.

But it's true. When the campaign comes here to Massachusetts on February 5th, I'll proudly cast my vote for any option on the GOP ballot other than You-Know-Who, up to and including Ron Paul. But it will be a futile gesture. Mr. "1/3rd Of The GOP Primary Vote"--who lost among Republican voters again in Florida--is going to be the Republican nominee.

He's going to win the big, left-leaning states on Tuesday. Huckabee will campaign in the midwestern and southern states, denying Romney the one-on-one contest for GOP voters that Captain Amnesty would almost certainly lose. The result: More wins on February 5th for He Who Must Not Be Named, and fewer wins for Romney.

Forget delegate count. Florida has launched the one ship that Romney's money and Rush Limbaugh cannot stop: The U.S.S. Inevitable. It's gonna happen. Even if there were a realistic pathway to stop him, the media have seized control of the process now and are declaring him inevitable. Every win he gets on February 5th will be magnified by the media, every loss marginalized.

He is, after all, the favorite Republican of the New York Times.

So it is over. Finished. In November, Republicans will be sending their most liberal, least trustworthy candidate to take on Hillary Clinton--perhaps not more liberal than Barack Obama, but certainly far less trustworthy.

And the worst part for the Right is that McCain will have won the nomination while ignoring, insulting and, as of this weekend, shamelessly lying about conservatives and conservatism.

You think he supported amnesty six months ago? You think he was squishy on tax cuts and judicial nominees before? Wait until he has the power to anger every conservative in America, and feel good about it.

Every day, he dreams of a world filled with happy Democrats and insulted Republicans. And he is, thanks to Florida, the presidential nominee of the Republican Party.

And on that note, I'm off to climb into a bottle of Bushmill's.

Thanks to those geniuses in Florida, it's going to be a LONG nine months.

All Men Are Pigs, All Women Are Insane

This is one of the Natural Truths we've discussed on my radio show (and thank God women are insane, or they'd have absolutely nothing to do with us pigs).

Add to the mountain of evidence as to the insanity of women this press release from the National Organization of Women--NY Chapter:

"Psychological Gang Bang of Hillary is Proof We Need a Woman President"

A Hillary "gang bang?" What a repulsive idea at every level.

The NOW ladies are also really mad at Sen. Ted Kennedy and, believe it or not, their anger has nothing to do with the number of women the senator has actually killed without being prosecuted. No, they're mad that he endorsed a black candidate over a white female candidate. They call Ted's endorsement of Sen. Obama "the ultimate betrayal!"

As opposed to the decision of NOW to endorse Deval Patrick over Lt. Gov. Kerry Healy, which was way cool and totally awesome. Because, see, when NOW endorses a black guy over a white woman, it's different from Kennedy because, uh, you see, well, that is to say.....BUSH SUCKS!

Talk radio host in Massachusetts = Best. Gig. Ever.

The Natural Truth About The Economy

Democrats won't tell you. And for smart political reasons, Mitt Romney won't tell you. And the mainstream media is NEVER going to tell you, until a Democrat is elected president, at which time this will become front page news:

The Economy Is Fine (Really).

So says economist Brian Wesbury in the Wall Street Journal today.

Now I know some people are going to rush to the partisan ramparts, screaming and yelling that this is Bush propaganda, etc., etc. But may I ask you, before you slam another shot of Kool-Aid, to at least look for a moment at the actual math?

True, retail sales fell 0.4% in December and fourth-quarter real GDP probably grew at only a 1.5% annual rate. It is also true that in the past six months manufacturing production has been flat, new orders for durable goods have fallen at a 0.8% annual rate, and unemployment blipped up to 5%. Soft data for sure, but nowhere near the end of the world.

It is most likely that this recent weakness is a payback for previous strength. Real GDP surged at a 4.9% annual rate in the third quarter, while retail sales jumped 1.1% in November. A one-month drop in retail sales is not unusual. In each of the past five years, retail sales have reported at least three negative months. These declines are part of the normal volatility of the data, caused by wild swings in
oil prices, seasonal adjustments, or weather. Over-reacting is a mistake.

A year ago, most economic data looked much worse than they do today. Industrial production fell 1.1% during the six months ending February 2007, while new orders for durable goods fell 3.9% at an annual rate during the six months ending in November 2006. Real GDP grew just 0.6% in the first quarter of 2007 and retail sales fell in January and again in April. But the economy came back and roared in the middle of the year -- real GDP expanded 4.4% at an annual rate between April and September.

With housing so weak, the recent softness in production and durable goods orders is understandable. But housing is now a small share of GDP (4.5%). And it has fallen so much already that it is highly unlikely to drive the economy into recession all by itself. Exports are 12% of the economy, and are growing at a 13.6%
rate. The boom in exports is overwhelming the loss from housing.

Personal income is up 6.1% during the year ending in November, while small-business income accelerated in October and November, during the height of the credit crisis. In fact, after subtracting income taxes, rent, mortgages, car leases and loans, debt service on credit cards and property taxes, incomes rose 3.9% faster than inflation in the year through September.

These facts aren't politically expedient. They aren't of inter est to the so-called "business reporters" at the Boston Globe-Democrat. But they are the facts. And, though you can't tell it amid the panic, they are good news.

Boston: Center Of The Universe

Want to know why it's called "The Hub?" Just read my Boston Herald column today.

One highlight for your consideration:

[Obama] knows he’s in trouble after his “win” over the Clinton Tag-Team in South Carolina, where Bill hit on the race issue like a Hooters girl at a NASCAR party. Bill pointedly (and shamelessly) remarked that “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in ‘84 and‘88.”

Obama is just lucky Al Sharpton never won any delegates there, or Bubba would have thrown them in, too.

The Clinton strategy to turn Obama from “the inspiring candidate who happens to be black” into “the black candidate” was cynical and reprehensible. But it was also smart. Obama won big in South Carolina, but his support from white voters was down 10 percent from Nevada.

The Clintons’ Southern Strategy is to turn Barack Obama into Jesse Jackson. The Kennedy response is to restore Obama’s original role as the next JFK.

Does This Headline Sound Familiar?

Obama runs away with SC primary

Obama Routs Clinton in Racially Charged SC Primary

It should. It's exactly the one I've been predicting all week.

Barack Obama defeated Mrs. Clinton by a whopping 20% [update: it's closer to 30%] in an election season where nobody's gotten even a 10% win. And everyone knows how Sen. Obama did it. Even Bill Clinton knows, according to the AP:

"They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender. That's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here," the former president said at one stop as he campaigned for his wife, strongly suggesting that blacks would not support a white alternative to Obama.

Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as "the black candidate," a tag that could hurt him outside the South.

Really? Yuh think?

And just to make sure everyone got the point, Bill Clinton also brought up Jesse Jackson earlier today:

Another reporter asked what it said about Obama that it “took two people to beat him.” [Bill] Clinton again passed. “That’s’ just bait, too. Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in '84 and '88. And he ran a good campaign. Senator Obama's run a good campaign here, he’s run a good campaign everywhere.”

Ronald Reagan won SC twice. So did George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton himself, for that matter. Why not name them? Of all the presidential candidates who've won South Carolina, why choose to compare Barack Obama to Jesse Jackson?

The tragedy, as I said in my column Saturday, is that liberals will follow quietly along, no matter how racists or repulsive the Clinton behavior. It's Clinton Uber Alles for the Left--and they're just being good Democrats about it.

UPDATE: And just in case you didn't get the memo, White America, here's the lead from ABC's coverage of the SC primary results:

"Sen. Barack Obama, vying to become the nation's first black president, has won the South Carolina primary today, boosted by a record turnout of African-American voters."

Hint, hint.

Saturday in South Carolina

Remember how the national media flocked to South Carolina looking for campaign fliers accusing John McCain of having a drug-addicted illegitimate daughter with ties to al-Qaeda?

Who knew she would turn out to be Michelle Obama?

So begins my Boston Herald column today on the South Carolina Democratic Primary. The primary that Barack Obama will lose...by winning.

According to The State newspaper in Columbia, trends indicate a record turnout for the SC Democratic primary, which is misleading since this is only the third presidential primary the state party's ever had.

And as predicted, the primary has turned into a race-based trap for the Obama campaign, set with cynical brilliance by Bill and Hillary Clinton. Barack will win, and will seal his identity as the "black candidate." According to Fox News, some polls how Sen. Obama getting as little as 10% of the white vote. 10%!

Game, set and match.

Jim Geraghty at the Campaign Spot expresses some confusion over the Clinton strategy:

I can't quite figure out the Hillary strategy in South Carolina. To me, you either conclude that you're not going to make up the gap in the polls, skip the state, and argue that South Carolina doesn't matter against the backdrop of all of the high-delegate states on Super Duper Tuesday. Or you put all your resources in and you try to deal Obama a terrible blow in a state he ought to win...To me, this hybrid approach is the worst of both worlds - just enough effort to demonstrate that Hillary wanted to win, not enough effort to really make a dent in Obama's lead.

So why is she (sort of) campaigning? Because if she abandons the state and loses, she's just playing the Giuliani card ("I'll get 'em in Florida!) and the loss doesn't count. But if she and her husband storm across the state begging for votes and still get crushed--by losing 90% of the black vote--then she lost because "it was a black thing."

In fact, the bigger she loses today, the better she does tomorrow.

"Stay Out Da Bushes!"

I was a Bush-basher when Bush-bashing wasn't cool (see 1992 and 2000), and I agree completely with Peggy Noonan today:

On the pundit civil wars, Rush Limbaugh declared on the radio this week,
"I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Mr. McCain or Mike Huckabee]
get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to
change it forever, be the end of it!"

This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I
mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against
each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to
prosecute war, immigration and other issues.

Were there other causes? Yes, of course. But there was an immediate and
essential cause.

What Hath Deval Wrought?

Let me be clear: I'm not holding Deval Patrick personally responsible for the obsession with race and skin color by the American Left. I wrote an entire book about it long before Patrick became governor.

However, both on politics and policy, Patrick is a proud proponent of the "Race must matter!" philosophy. A philosophy that has feed the cynical, racist campaign strategy of the Clintons (Gov. Patrick's old boss), and has brought us this:

This battle over quotas for public-sector jobs is a glaring example of how immigration is turning the race-based policies of the last 40 years, originally designed to help blacks, against them. For African-American leaders like Claud Anderson, head of the Harvest Institute, the turnabout represents a betrayal of the civil rights movement: only blacks deserve quotas. “When did our government ever exclude immigrants or deny them their constitutional rights, as they did African-Americans?” he asks. But for other blacks, the demands of Latinos and Asians that government set-aside programs include them are further evidence that racial preferences were misguided in the first place. “Blacks who support skin color privileges now will be singing a different tune later once government starts discriminating against them once again, this time in favor of Hispanics,” writes columnist and blogger La Shawn Barber.

This excerpt is from a fascinating (and despressing) article in City Journal about how black and Hispanic Americans are fighting over who benefits most from the racial spoils system put in place by Deval Patrick and others. Read the entire article and what jumps out at you (well, at me, anyway) is what's missing: Any reference to "merit," or "achievement" or "equal treatment under the law."

The Left abandoned those ideas long ago.

Subprime Loan Victim, or Real Estate Agent?

Meet Melonie Griffiths-Evans. She's BOTH!

That's right. When this mother of three isn't defaulting on a $470,000/no-down-payment loan on a house in Dorchester, she's working as a real estate agent. So why is she facing eviction?

“I relied on my mortgage broker, I relied on my Realtor. They left me no options.”

Apparently they don't teach the "when someone hands you a lousy loan you can't afford--DON'T SIGN IT!" option in real estate class anymore.

Read the entire story in my Boston Herald column today.

Meanwhile, whackjob liberals activists t who believe the government should prevent all foreclosures threatened a physical confrontation with constables in order to keep Ms. Griffiths-Evans from being evicted. Unfortunately for responsible people everywhere, it worked.

Somewhere there's a young couple, or hungry entrepreneur who'd like to buy this house at its real market price. Somewhere there's somebody who would turn this house into a profitable, community-building investment.

Unfortunately, that person will have to fight their way through loony activists, liberal politicians and at least one real estate agent for that chance.

Hillary: Strength Through Defeat

Last night on Jim Braude's NECN TV show, I stunned the host by saying that winning South Carolina was going to kill Barack Obama's presidential bid.

"Maybe he should lose instead, that would really fool 'em!" Braude quipped--a pretty good line. But it misses the point.

Dick Morris (full disclosure: I've done TV shows with him, and I think he's one of the most vile human beings in American politics) gets it. He should. This is, after all, gutter politics right out of his playbook.

Morris's latest column sums up the brilliant-if-repulsive campaign strategy of the Clintons, and how they have turned South Carolina into their Venus Fly Trap. The Obama campaign will fly in, breathe deep the sweet smell of electoral success, and then never escape.

In fact, it is possible Sen. Obama won't win a single state after South Carolina. He could even lose his home state of Illinois. Why?

Morris makes my argument this way:

If Hillary loses South Carolina and the defeat serves to demonstrate Obama’s ability to attract a bloc vote among black Democrats, the message will go out loud and clear to white voters that this is a racial fight. It’s one thing for polls to show, as they now do, that Obama beats Hillary among African-Americans by better than 4-to-1 and Hillary carries whites by almost 2-to-1. But most people don’t read the fine print on the polls. But if blacks deliver South Carolina to Obama, everybody will know that they are bloc-voting. That will trigger a massive white backlash against Obama and will drive white voters to Hillary Clinton.

No matter what happens in South Carolina--even if Sen. Obama wins a plurality among white voters there--the Clintons and their media stooges have turned South Carolina into "the black primary." In fact, the bigger his win, the more it reinforces the campaign-killing message that Barack Obama is "their" candidate--you know, "them black folks?"

It's cynicism at its lowest, it is utterly shameful, and virtually every "Bush is Hitler!" liberal will go along. Bill and Hillary will pay no political price among liberals and Democrats for what they have done. She will still get 90%+ of the black vote in November, and Bill Clinton will be greeted like a rock star in Harlem.

Who to blame? Obviously the cretinous Clintons--but nobody ever blames them for anything. After that, the blame must go to black voters as a whole. As long as the overwhelming majority of black Americans allow their votes to be taken for granted by the Democrats--as long as they commit 90% of their votes to one party, no questions asked--then why shouldn't the Clinton's play the race card? What's the downside for them?

There is no reason at all why black Americans couldn't vote for John McCain or Mitt Romney. Their politics are not in any way shaped by antagonism towards black Americans. There's not even the stain of the so-called "Southern Strategy."

But the Clintons know that the vast majority of black voters in 2008 simply won't consider voting for the Republican nominee, no matter who it is. So they shamelessly slap around Sen. Obama, turn South Carolina into a race-based political trap, and then start counting the black votes they know they're still going to get in November.

This Is A WINNER?

As I predicted at National Review Online, John McCain came out on top in South Carolina by getting the same 1/3rd of the vote in the Palmetto State that he got in New Hampshire and Michigan. But did he "win?"

In 2000, running against George W. Bush and the entire Carroll Campbell machine in South Carolina, John McCain got 42% of the vote, and 240,000 votes out of 573,000 or so cast.

Tonight, he got 33% of the vote in a field where his top challengers--Romney and Giuliani--aren't even running, and 135,000 actual votes. If just the same people who voted for McCain in 2000 had voted for him today, he would have won 50+% of the South Carolina vote. That would have been truly impressive.

Instead, John McCain LOST the support of 100,000 people--and he's the winner?

McCain had the same "success" in New Hampshire (McCain, 2000: 48%, 116,000 votes; McCain 2008: 37%, 89,000 votes) and Michigan (2000: 50%, 600,000 votes; 2008: 30%, 257,000 votes).

Yes, overall participation in the GOP primaries is down this year--a fact that should concern Republicans regardless of who they choose as their nominee. But that doesn't mitigate McCain's overall weakness. In fact, as the one person who's run for president before and who is touted as a crossover candidate with broad appeal, his slice of the electoral pie should have MORE impact as the number of challengers rises and the number of voters declines.

McCain is a weak candidate by any measure. Only once in his two presidential races has John McCain ever won a majority of the vote, and that was Michigan in 2000. He has yet to crack 40% of the vote this year, and he's done even worse among self-identified Republicans (as opposed to independents and crossover Democrats).

If you really want to see McCain's weakness, however, try this thought experiment:

It's October, 2008. America's economy is in a recession. People are demanding change and new ideas, someone to give them optimism and hope on domestic issues. On stage, facing off in their final presidential debate to discuss jobs, economic policy and hope for the future are John McCain and Barack Obama.

And be sure to imagine how it will look on television, and to people who don't really follow politics (they are, after all, the swing voters who will pick the next president).

Now, tell me again how the Republican Party won something tonight...?

"The Big Story From South Carolina Will Be Fred Thompson"

So say the latest tracking polls from a very smart SC consultant this morning. McCain will still win, but Thompson is surging past the rest of the field. He also says that Thompson's voters in his surveys are the most committed.

And no, he's not part of the Thompson campaign.

But my reaction was "So what?" "Second place" still means "First loser." Does a silver medal in South Carolina give Thompson a serious shot at winning Florida--particularly with Romney competing seriously there and pulling anti-McCain votes of his own?

It's possible that Fred Thompson now has the fire in his belly, but he doesn't have the money in the bank account. He might help take out Huckabee (which would be a tremendous gift to the GOP, by the way), but win? Where?

And if he doesn't win in Florida, where does he get the money to compete on Super Tuesday?

However, if my source is right and Thompson takes second, it's likely that Romney will come in 4th--which makes his decision to focus on Nevada even smarter.

"Three golds and three silvers, baby!"

(VERY) Early Returns from Lexington County, SC

Four votes for Fred Thompson from a family of evangelicals, which is interesting because, when I spoke to these same folks two weeks ago, none of them were Thompson supporters. In fact, they were barely aware of his candidacy. One was a Giuliani supporter and the others were looking fondly upon Huckabee, but hadn't made a decision.

Proving...? Nothing, of course. But this is a storyline I've been hearing from South Carolina all week: "Values voters" drifting away from Huckabee. This might explain why he decided to play the Robert E. Lee card in the final days of the campaign. Can't get the religion vote? Go for the rednecks.

Also, these voters all commented on the weather (rain, but predictions of SNOW!). The mere mention of snow in the Midlands of South Carolina is enough to cause panic--an ice truck turning over on I-26 can shut down school in an entire county--and if even an inch of snow were on the ground, it would definitely keep some older voters away. But it looks like rain and upper 40s in Columbia today.

One last observation: The State (the most cumbersome newspaper name in America) is reporting expectations of modest turnout, lower than 2000. Absentee balloting is average or below, they report, in every county except Charleston (Charleston is McCain Country, FYI...)
The State quotes some "experts" attributing this to relative comity of the campaign this year. Others suggest it's a lackluster field of candidates and a significant number of voters are waiting for the real show, when Clinton and Obama come to town.

If Republicans can't get South Carolina voters pumped up, 2008 could be a very, very bad year.

Florida: It's The New South Carolina

That's my take on the SC GOP Primary at National Review today.

Why?

Because South Carolina is SO Year 2000:

Even the media coverage feels retro. Reporters hunting down anyone with a Confederate Flag and putting them on TV — despite the fact that the flag came off the SC state house dome just months after the 2000 primary. Anchors back in the studios insisting that South Carolina is the Detroit of Dirty Politics, all but begging their reporters to produce a flier headlined “McCain's Illegitimate Black Daughter Is A Tax-Raising, Pro-Choice Lesbian!”

The best the press has managed as of this writing is a ham-fisted push poll from Mike Huckabee supporters targeting Fred Thompson.

Yawn.

My prediction, by the way, is that John McCain will win SC, but it won't matter. Sorry, John!

"Has Bill Clinton Snatched Victory from the Jaws of Monica?"

That's just one of the many hilarious questions Mark Steyn began asking 10 years ago this week, when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. He has re-posted some of his favorite works on the subject at his website.

My thoughts on the subject were compiled in CLINTON AND ME: How Eight Years Of A Pants-Free President Changed My Nation, My Family and My Life.

Why I Love Christopher Hitchens

Because when he's done with an argument, there's simply nothing left to say:

Madeleine Albright has said that there is "a special place in hell for women who don't help each other." What are the implications of this statement? Would it be an argument in favor of the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton? Would this mean that Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama don't deserve the help of fellow females? If the Republicans nominated a woman would Ms. Albright instantly switch parties out of sheer sisterhood? Of course not. (And this wearisome tripe from someone who was once our secretary of state . . .)

Be sure to read the entire article in today's Wall Street Journal.

The Last Time Boston and Charleston Had Words...

...the result was the Civil War.

Oooops--Sorry, South Carolina: "The War Of Northern Aggression."

Anyway, we're going to try again Friday morning from 9-10 am (without any ensuing violence, we hope) when the Natural Truth will be simulcast on 96.9 FM TALK here in Boston and WTMA-AM 1250 in my old stomping grounds of Charleston, SC.

My former co-worker and good friend Richard Todd will be hosting the show from Charleston, while I'll be in the 96.9 FM TALK studios. We'll be taking calls from both South Carolina and New England, so if you've got advice for the voters in the Palmetto State, or just want to mock the voters of Massachusetts for re-re-re-re-electing Ted Kennedy--you'll have your chance!

There are also a couple of special guests on tap to give New Englander some real insights into what to expect in South Carolina's vital GOP primary on Saturday.

That's Friday, January 18th, from 9-10am. Be there!

Kathleen Parker and the Perils of Pandering

You heard her on the Natural Truth. You can read her latest column here.

"How Much Longer Can The Media Afford To Cover 8 Campaigns?"

One of the many smart observations in this insightful article by John Ellis at RealClearPolitics.com.

He also notes something about media darling John McCain that you'll never read in the Boston Globe Democrat:

McCain is much weaker in 2008 than he was in 2000. In 2000, McCain received over 600,000 votes in the Michigan primary. In 2008, he received just over 250,000 votes in the Michigan primary. That is substantial attrition no matter how you look at it. Republican primary voters who like President George W. Bush didn't vote for McCain in Michigan. There are a lot of Republican primary voters in the South who like George W. Bush. This is bad news for McCain going into South Carolina.

He's right about McCain overall, but wrong about McCain in South Carolina. South Carolina Republicans tend to be deferential towards establishment candidates, particularly ones who the voters perceive deserve "their turn." Vice President Bush, Sen. Dole and, in 2008, Sen. McCain. McCain's support from many establishment SC Republicans like Attorney General McMaster will help him among the obedient sheep of the Republican flock.

McCain will also be helped in South Carolina by the fact that three social conservatives--Huckabee, Thompson and Romney--are competitive there. His 30% should all-but-guarantee a win in South Carolina.

What Happened In Michigan?

MSNBC's super-genius pollsters had McCain up 35%-29% over Romney Tuesday morning. Tuesday night, Mitt Romney stomped McCain by 9%--a 15% swing.

Another election, another lousy performance by media pollsters.

How did Romney do it? More Republicans showed up, for one thing. Plus, the Michigan election was about the economy (Romney's issue), not the war (McCain's).

Jay Cost breaks it all down for you at RealClearPolitics, and he's also one of our guests this morning on 96.9 WTKK.

A Smart Guy Talks About Michigan

A solid numbers cruncher I know gave me this analysis of Michigan and beyond for the GOP:

Just between us, my intuition is that Mitt guts out a win [in Michigan]– which is probably what every Republican candidate wants.

If McCain loses? The race stays as scrambled as it has been. McCain should stay competitive in SC. So does Romney. If MI and SC are split between two candidates – Rudy stays competitive in FL. And, of course, Thompson is on the rise in SC (at least according to Rasmussen). So, things could get MORE scrambled in advance of 2/5. We could have had six contests and five winners. Either somebody breaks away in the polls, and cleans up on February 5th (which McCain is in the process of doing, but which could be disrupted with a loss today), or things remain as they are – and we stay up all night on 2/5/08 trying to figure out which candidates won which delegates.

Romney still has a looming problem: his position in the national polls stinks. 13%, or 4th place, in the RCP average. Romney has money to compete on Super Tuesday, but one of the major premises of his strategy was big wins in IA and NH to shoot him into first place nationally. This hasn’t happened.

Will a squeaker of a in in Michigan do that for him? I doubt it. It didn’t do a thing for McCain in 2000.

Pass The Popcorn

Another great job by Holbert at the Boston Herald.

My thoughts on Mother Hillary vs. Brother Barack are in the Herald today, too.

The GOP Racing Form

A brokered convention? A McCain domination? Who knows?

David Freddoso works all the angles at National Review Online.

Why Does The Left Hate America's Vets?

Watch CNN or read the New York Times for a week, and you'll conclude that America's military veterans are the most screwed up, dangerous and demoralized members of American society. This fits the post-Vietnam "Rambo" storyline of the Left, who believe service in combat turns our soldiers into drug-addled psychopaths--a conclusion, by the way, that the vast majority of combat veterans of WWII, Korea and every other war utterly reject.

So it was no surprise when this Sunday's New York Times featured a front-page story "reporting" that service in Iraq has turned our soldiers to murderers. The story, "Across America, Deadly Echoes of Foreigh Battles, claims they found "121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war."

Quoting advocates for more government spending and opponents of America's Iraq policy, the writers imply that they've uncovered a killing spree caused by the US military and inflicted upon us by our veterans.

Really?

Here's the Natural Truth, as reported by John J. DiIulio Jr. :

Assuming 121 homicide cases in relation to 749,932 total discharges through 2007, 99.98 percent of all discharged Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have not committed or been charged with homicide.

And assuming 121 cases and 749,932 total discharges, the homicide offending rate for the discharged veterans would be 16.1 per 100,000. The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has demographic data aplenty on homicide offending rates. For instance, in 2005, for white males aged 18-24, the rate was about 20 per 100,000.

In other words, given the available data, it's just as likely that combat veterans are LESS violent than their civilian counterparts as it is they are more violent. The entire premise of the story is essentially false.

So why run it? Because the New York Times, like every other self-loathing, lefty, Baby-Boomer dominated media outlet, never met an American soldier they didn't dislike.

"They Go Together Like Fried Chicken And Watermelon!"

Your "must-read" blog post of the day is Boston's own Jules Crittenden on Hillary's shameless pandering to Hispanics and illegal immigrants while campaigning in Nevada.

You already know about her idiotic claim that "No woman is illegal!" But Jules points out this nugget:

Clinton said unscrupulous lending leads to bad mortgages, which lead to foreclosures, which lead to people with nowhere to go and vacant neighborhoods that can go rapidly downhill.

“We treat these problems as if one is guacamole and one is chips, when … they both go together,” she said.

Did she really just use a "guacamole and chips" analogy at an event for Hispanic people? Boy, I can't wait to hear what she says to the black voters of South Carolina. "Why, poverty and race go together like fried chicken and watermelon!"

Campaigning in New York's Little Italy? "Pisans, have you heard Obama's health care plan? There's no meat in that calzone!"

No women are illegal, but at least one is an idiot.

Barak Obama "Likes To Watch."

Charles Krauthammer is one of the smartest political observers today, and he makes this insightful observation about Sen. Barack Obama in his latest column:

One does not have to be sympathetic to the Clintons to understand their bewilderment at Obama's pre-New Hampshire canonization. The man comes from nowhere with a track record as thin as Chauncey Gardiner's. Yet, as Bill Clinton correctly, if clumsily, complained, Obama gets a free pass from the press.

As soon as I read "Chauncey Gardiner," I thought "That's it!" Like the main character in one of the greatest political movies of all time, Obama's complete lack of experience or leadership record allows us to project onto his blank slate all of our own dreams, desires and assumptions.

No experience, no clue? No problem! That's the Barack Obama mantra.

Nobody argues that Sen. Obama is dumb. He's clearly a smart guy. But if I had to choose between a President Gardiner and Obama's economic socialism and foreign policy naivete, it would be a coin toss.

Mayor Menino, The Dumbest Politician EVER?

In an industry that includes Ted Kennedy, Larry Craig and Maxine Waters, I hesitate to hand out the title "Dumbest Ever." But Boston Mayor Tom Menino is making a serious run at the #1 spot. He opposes allowing CVS stores to offer basic medical care at in-store clinics. Why?

[drum roll, please]

"Allowing retailers to make money off of sick people is wrong," Menino says.

Uh, mayor--what is it you think CVS (and Rite-Aid, Walgreens, etc) do for a living? EVERY private medical business "makes money off of sick people." Who the hell else is buying Tylenol and Nyquil--high-school stoners looking for a buzz?

What Mayor Menino--who sent 150 city hacks to New Hampshire to campaign for Mrs. Bill Clinton, by the way--has done is unintentionally reveal the Left's attitude toward both the free markets and the health care system.

Consider what Mayor Menino opposes: more access to health care at a price people are willing to pay. How is "more people seeing more nurses for professional medical care" a bad thing?

Menino's problem is that we're going to doctors who aren't government employees. Sick people are becoming healthy without taxpayer involvement. Even worse, CVS is going to make a profit and create jobs. Menino specifically complains that CVS will lure some of the best nurse practitioners away from city-run clinics and put them in the "dreaded private sector."

For big-government advocates like Menino, this is a disaster. He wants to make every health care professional a government employee, guaranteeing us lousy government health care provided by taxpayer-funded hacks. The private sector is now offering more healthy people, higher profits and more taxpaying, private sector workers.

No wonder Menino is so mad.

Chris Matthews To New England: "Hello, Bigots!"

Hey, New Hampshire--why did you make the mainstream media look so bad blowing the Clinton/Obama race? Why didn't you give Sen. Obama the big victory you were supposed to?

Chris Matthews knows:

You're bigots, that's why.

If you haven't heard Matthew's insulting comments about New England Democrats in general--and Bostonians in particular--you can click here to listen to the podcast of today's show , or on the "on demand" page of www.wtkk.com.

Here is a transcript of his comments on MSNBC we played on my show this morning:

JOE SCARBOROUGH: What the hell happened in New Hampshire?

MATTHEWS:“You remember the Lone Ranger and Tonto? I think paleface speak with forked tongue. You hear me? Forked tongue....

I thought this was over. I thought it ended with “macaca."...

I thought white voters stopped being what they didn’t want to be. You know what it tells me? People aren’t proud of who they are. They aren't proud of who they are. If they want to vote for Hillary Clinton, fine. Why don’t they say so?

SCARBOROUGH: I’m used to people saying that we in the South have problems.

MATTHEWS: Tell me about it,

SCARBOROUGH: But talk about New England.

MATTHEWS: Boston? BOSTON? [with a tone of incredulity]

MATTHEWS: There’s different kind of prejudice in the North than in the South. But it exists. It may not be “I think I’m better than you,” but it might be "I don’t want to live next door to you.”

UPDATE: My Boston Herald column on this story is here.

Thank You, New Hampshire!

Yes, it's true that John "Open Borders" McCain beat Romney by 5 points, but all is forgiven.

Why?

Because New Hampshire, you made my wish come true! You kept Hillary Clinton's campaign alive, so she could be mocked another day!

Will New Hampshire Republicans Remember The REAL John McCain?

That's the question we're asking over at My Dear John Letter.com . It's a website some friends and I started last year when America was in danger of having the McCain-Kennedy-Bush amnesty plan foist upon us.

Fortunately, we were able to stop the McCain amnesty plan. But will the Republicans of New Hampshire stop McCain?

If you're like me--a former McCain supporter who was betrayed one time too many--please join me in posting your "Dear John" letter at http://www.mydearjohnletter.com/ today!

Before it's too late.

Forget Today's Debates

The MUST-SEE event in New Hampshire today is the Goldberg-Steyn-Long show at the Radisson in Manchester.

It starts at 4:30pm and continues until the liquor runs out. All the details are here.

Don't miss it!

Come Be Part Of The Show!

We're live from the Expo Center at the Manchester Radisson on Elm Street today, Monday and Tuesday. If you're out and about in New Hampshire, stop by, speak out and be part of the show!

Think I'm Kidding About The "Sandwich Cameras?"

You can read the news story for yourself.

Digital speed cameras which capture drivers smoking or eating at the wheel are being ntroduced nationwide in a new move to hammer motorists. Drivers will also face fines, bans and even jail for infringements such as driving without a seatbelt, using a hand-held mobile phone or overtaking across double white lines.

The hi-tech DVD cameras, which have instant playback, will also be used to provide photographic evidence against those eating sandwiches or rolling-up cigarettes at the wheel.

Keep this in mind as you demand the government protect you from cell phone users, text messengers and unauthorized baked goods. There is no reason to believe that the actions of your government goose steppers will be limited by common sense.

Are Americans Really Miserable?

John Edwards is basing his entire political career on the idea that the typical voter is as angry, greedy and envious as a plaintiff-friendly jury in a malpractice case. Democrats in general are campaigning on the "America sucks and we're not gonna take it anymore" platform.

Are they right? Are we really in such a foul mood? Maybe not.

The latest Gallup poll shows that 84% of Americans are satisfied with their personal lives, and a clear majority are "very satisfied."

Meanwhile, the American economy continues to show an amazing resilience during a brutal period of rising oil prices and a declining housing market. As economist Kevin Hassett notes:

If someone told me last December that construction of single-family homes would drop in 2007 by 27 percent, about the current estimate from Economy.com, then I would have expected the economy to be in recession. But a collapse of that scale did occur, and annual GDP growth, according to the latest Economy.com estimate, was about 2.5 percent. There are plenty of developed countries that would take that type of growth every year.

Me, too. Instead, households are wealthier, more jobs are being created and the world economy is still booming, even without America's economic engine overperforming to pull it along.

Oh, and the vast majority of happy Americans think our nation is on the wrong track.

Could things be better? Absolutely. But things could be a whole lot worse. That's what the "wrong track" folks have forgotten.

Why Rudy?

Why am I still considering supporting Giuliani, when he's nowhere in the early state polls and "has lost his mojo?"

One reason is because Fred Thompson is no longer an option.

Another reason is Mitt Romney's inability to finish the sentence "The reason I want to be president is..."

But sometimes I forget that there are people who've already joined the Rudy team for the most obscure reason of all: He's a good candidate.

Here's a reminder from one of his most thoughtful supporters

Giuliani has only been a mayor, but the city he was mayor of had more people in it than Tennessee, Arizona or Massachusetts. It was also one of the most afflicted places in the country. Giuliani found the handful of cops and academics who had some new ideas, he put what they knew into practice, and he maintained it athwart the furioius opposition of the local political culture, led by the New York Times. Thousands of New Yorkers who would otherwise have been murdered are alive as a result.

Giuiliani’s second accomplishment was his performance after 9/11. It would be tedious to elaborate what is universally known, except to point out that we do have a counterexample of failure: the local, state and national response to Hurricane Katrina. Some people took more flak than they deserved, for politically opportunistic reasons, and other people — Mississippi governor Haley Barbour, the Coast Guard — performed superbly. But imagine a 9/11 response team consisting of Michael Brown, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, and Ray Nagin, and you have some notion of what we missed, even on our day of disaster.


Rudy's got many problems, not the least of which is his treatment of Donna Hanover. But he also did what he did. Results aren't spin, and they shouldn't be spun away.

Why Conservatives Should Love Mrs. Clinton

At a time when the GOP could have been decimated, Bill Clinton united the GOP, helped them take and hold the Congress for more than a decade and defined the Democratic Party as the party of people who aren't sure what the definition of "is" is.

Now comes Mrs. Bill Clinton, who is doing more to wipe out the gains of (so-called) feminism than any other woman in America. Just listen to this audio from her appearance on the Today Show.

"I'm going to lose Iowa because girls can't caucus. Girls don't like telling people how they're voting. Caucuses are icky, and math class is hard!"

Seriously--how can any real woman not be ashamed to vote Mrs. Bill?

Mrs. Bill Clinton's Foreign Policy "Record"

Since Mrs. Clinton is so desperate to take credit for the foreign policy of her husband, she should certainly be confortable taking credit for this:

"Meanwhile, we are daily reminded that Pakistan’s 1998 detonation of a nuclear weapon remains the greatest foreign policy lapse of the last quarter-century..."

Read more on the real world our next president must govern in, as well as the foreign policy brilliance of Mrs. Bill Clinton.

Salem, MA Make Santa Toss His Cookies

Don't plan on picking up your Christmas cookies at the annual church bake sale in Salem, MA this year. Why not?

The Salem government has banned them. That's right: Banned all bake sales. Too dangerous.

The local board of health has voted to ban all bakes sales by churches, schools and senior centers unless they purchase city-issued food permit. And all the food must be prepared in a city-licensed kitchen.

A town in Massachusetts--the land of government-authorized gay marriage, sanctuary cities and voting rights for non-citizens--has criminalized your grandmother's oatmeal cookies.

The ban began with one overzealous and arrogantly self-important town bureaucrat, Salem Health Agent Joanne Scott. She told the local paper that "it’s her job to interpret the food code for the city and she exempts only places serving baked goods within their own closed community, not to the general public."

In fact, Agent "007" Scott is such a zealot that, when she heard about a bake sale at a local senior center, she ordered them to either comply with the proper government authorization--or shut down. Because the Salem Senior Center doesn't even HAVE a kitchen (supporters donated cakes and cookies baked at home) the bake sale was cancelled. Many schools and churches cancelled traditional holiday bake sales, too.

So why don't the people who actually run Salem stop this extremist looney? The state has already noted that her interpretation of the law is unnecessarily strict--Salem is the only Massachusetts town to ban bake sales. Why don't they tell her to get a life and leave the cookies alone?

Because the big-government goons who run Salem, MA agree with her.

Superintendent Bill Cameron received the notice three weeks before Election Day bake sales were scheduled to occur in schools used as polling centers. Though Cameron admitted the code might “cause some problems,” he encourages people to give consideration to the motivations behind it. “Joanne is acting in the best interest of the health of the public,” he said...

City Councilor Matt Veno, whose two daughters attend the Saltonstall School, said that in general he trusts Scott’s judgment on health matters.

“I’m sure she’s got reason to be concerned,” he said, “but I think you’ve got to balance public health perspective with common sense … I would be reluctant to snuff out bake sales at churches, schools, senior centers. It goes a little too far.”

But here's the comment that summarizes why Massachusetts has become the no-funny, Nanny-State compound it is today:

“They didn’t understand why it was done,” said Lynn Barrett, programming director at the Senior Center. “Many of them had children during the ‘60s and ‘70s, so they used to bake for their schools. Bake sales are a part of the ‘wonder years,’ a part of America.”

“It’s sad,” Barrett says of the bake sales being cancelled. “But I’m not one to question. Times are a-changing, we have to become more vigilant these days.”

Some goose-stepping government stooge declares all bake sales verboten, and the reaction from the put-upon citizens is "I'm not one to question." Please, Ms. Barrett--QUESTION. Instead of considering her motivation ("if you're trying to do something good, it doesn't matter if you're stupid!"), or assuming that she must be right ("after all, she's with the government!"), how about asking the common-sense question: "What the hell's wrong with a bake sale?"

Were people dropping dead from faulty fudge? Were kids overdosing on rice crispy treats? For a century, people have been happily holding bake sales and raising money for community causes, and one government goon brings it to a stop--and nobody asks why?

Massachusetts citizens who elect a government that treats them this way--and then re-elects them--are getting exactly the government they deserve.