Health Care

Been a while folks. I'll be back soon with a real post, but first, check out this interesting little docu-news piece about one of the many complexities around the health care debate that needs to be considered before we go and nationalize the whole system.

From the WSJ.

The Coming Financial Collapse

Economists Warn Anti-Bush Merchandise Market Close To Collapse

The Intolerance of Liberals

This article pretty much sums up what it's like to be a conservative in New York City.

In fact, just this past week, I had to endure "Obama Love" in a business meeting with five colleagues until I finally "spoke up." I was instantly ridiculed and my co-workers honestly looked at me like I had three heads for the remainder of the week.

Then today, I was in a local cheese shop on Bedford Avenue in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. My girlfriend and I were having a taste of some sharp cheddar we were planning to make grilled cheese sandwiches with tonight. When my lady mentioned that it tasted like cheese we recently had from Fresh Direct (a local food delivery company), we were subjected to an angry liberal rant from the cheese guy about how evil the company is for union busting. Can't a Republican even get some cheese in this town without being preached at by "tolerant, diversity seeking" liberals?

The World is F*ing Nuts

Next time you think you want Barack Obama to be our president because he's internationally popular, remember this poll.

Palin is spinning, but Clinton Lied

My friend with the offensively named blog posted this from the Atlantic on Google Reader.

There's a hole in the logic though. Palin may be spinning this story, but Clinton flat out lied. Like, she actually made up an entire story from scratch. At least there's some truth to the Palin claim, even if some of the context is held back. A truer analogy would be if there had never been a Bridge to Nowhere and SP concocted one from thin air only to bolster her claim that she made it vanish. Very big difference.

Gays and the GOP

Just as blacks see bill clinton as the first black president, perhaps gays will come to see john mccain as the first gay president. um, wait. what?

Sarah Palin: "She never shot anything that didn't need killing."

Barack Obama "Completes Us"

Palin and the Experience Issue

The Democrats seem thrilled to be able to pounce on the issue of experience with Sarah Palin, who has served as small town mayor, Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and 2-year governor.

A couple of thoughts:

-No matter who McCain chose, there would be open avenues of attack (e.g. Romney fired people as a consultant, Pawlenty is boring and has no national experience, Lieberman is a turncoat or a shill for Israel, Ridge is pro-choice, etc.).

-Ms. Palin, though nationally inexperienced, has more executive leadership under her belt than all the candidates combined.

-It will be interesting to see how she stands up to Biden, who is smart, experienced, and savvy and the Dems now say the experience card is no longer McCain's to play, but let me pose this question: Let's say that McCain wins and then dies two years into office. Isn't it reasonable to say that her time as gov and two full years as VP would make her more experienced than Obama would be on day one of his administration?

In the end, if Palin removes the experience question and Biden invalidates the post-partisan change message from the debate, i'm fine with that. Let's get down to the real issue at stake here: do the American people want more overall government control and decision making in their lives or do they want to preserve and perhaps advance the cause of individual liberty? This is a serious philosophical question that I hope earns some serious debate.

Sarah Palin for VP

As you know by now, McCain made a bold choice in selecting Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. McCain made the announcement at a campaign rally in Dayton, Ohio. Right before he introduced her, I could only imagine how nervous this small state, young Governor must be as she waited to be unveiled to the world. Well, she smashed my expectations. I still know very little about her, but she impressed in her dynamic speech (which must have been hastily written).

This woman has more executive experience than Barack Obama, but she will be attacked by the Democrats for being too green. We'll see how she holds up under that scrutiny.

She made a strong case:

-Strong energy experience
-Western sensibility
-Hockey mom
-Fighter of corruption and government beauracracy
-Mother of an Iraqi soldier
-Former Miss Alaska
-Married to a United Steel Workers Union member
-Member of the NRA
-Potential first female Vice President of the United States

She especially knocked it out of the park when she thanked Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton for helping pave the road for a female candidate. She said, "Hillary left 18 million cracks in that glass ceiling, but the women of America aren't finished yet and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all."

This dark horse seems poised to be a strong VP choice, but in the coming days she'll be accused of being too inexperienced and she'll be questioned about how she can care for her children (especially a newborn with Down's Syndrome) and run at the same time.

One thing is for sure, the boring factor of the McCain campaign just seemed to vanish.

Home from the Democratic National Convention

Been crazed at my real job this week, but some thoughts on my couple of days at the DNC will come soon. I wasn't actually in the convention center, but i learned a couple of things just being there and talking to delegates, Democrats, and Denverites.

In the mean time, check out this classy (and of course, politically smart) spot by McCain that will run tonight during the convention.

About to eat some Gumbo at the DNC

This is a pretty cool town. I was here about 8 or so years ago when a friend of mine got hitched. One of the early birds. I really only remembered two thoings from that trip (the wedding was, as it should be, a drunken blur): backpacking in the rockies at 10,000 feet ... and a hot gumbo joint called, well, Gumbo's.

Anyway, this town is starting to buzz pretty good. Though there are as many t-shirt vendors as there are delegates and visitors. The crowd is actually quite interesting. Saw a "rednecks for obama" contingent with proper signage as well as the to-be-expected pro-life folks with airhorn and accompanying high res late term abortion photos. The EVR is "limited" pro-choice, but seeing actual photos like that at least make me understand the pro-life perspective.

Woo hoo, the gumbo is here and I'm gonna scarf it while trying to lip read wolf blitzer in HD at the bar.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

The East Village Republican at the Democratic National Convention

What up y'all? The EVR is at the DNC for a couple of days and is going to try and live blog some of the goings on. I've got a non-political, job related reason for being here, so I'll do my best to find some time to fill you in.

Right now I'm just curious to see how all the dems are kickin it in Denver.

Re: VP, I think the Biden choice was smart ... But it opens a huge hole in Obama's change message. McCain and co. will now frame "change" as meaning "liberal change" and not post-partisan change, which I think was always a fairy tale anyway.

Another interesting point: 27 percent of Hillary supporters claim to be ready to vote for McCain. If J Mac chooses a lady for VP, it could be a game changer. Not sure he will, but it could be interesting. Anyone say Fiorina?

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

And Obama's Team Also Gets It Right

The more Obama can make the "Third Bush Term" idea stick, the better he'll do in November:

McCain's Advertising Team Gets It Right

Is the the best ad ever? Nah, but McCain and team have picked an issue to go after and are hitting it again and again. Attacking Obama's strengths and weaknesses at the same time is just smart poker.

Judge for yourself:

East Village Republican vs. Billyburg Commie Pinko Liberal

Our latest debate over my last post:

BCPL:
the mccain campaign's press release for this ad confirms that all these quotes were pre-2006, when mccain's brand as a straight-talking bi-partisan maverick was still alive and well.

EVR:
Please, the accolades stopped because everyone knew he was going to run for president. Minus some recent (and slight) political maneuvering, McCain’s bi-partisan brand of governing is alive and well. See: Feingold’s latest praise.

This is in sharp contrast to your boy Obama who is second-to-none when it comes to Clinton-esque triangulation and can’t claim a single battle scar from choosing principle over popularity. This is why he lacks any significant across-the-aisle respect.

BCPL:
it's too bad he is in the process of reversing that image with his:

1. flip-flops (now supporting regressive bush tax cuts for the super-rich, now seeking political support of the christianist "agents of intolerance"),

EVR:
1) Looking at the entire picture, McCain’s original stance against the Bush tax cuts was due to his desire to have them accompanied by spending cuts. He’s been a supply-sider his entire career and has been as tough as anyone on fiscal restraint. He took a principled stand against the Big Government Conservatism that Bush brought to the White House, knowing that it could haunt him one day. He also rightly admits that at this point, repealing the cuts would be devastating for the economy.

2) The Bush tax cuts were incredibly PROGRESSIVE. The wealthiest 1% of the pop earn 19% of the income but pay 37% of the income tax. The top 10% pay 68%. The top 25% pay 85%. The bottom 50% pay 13%.

3) Can we please put the "seeking support of evangelists" complaint to bed? He needs these votes if he has any chance to win. Would I like him to denounce these crazies? Yes. Do I blame him for looking for their support? No. There is a stark difference between looking for evangelical votes (or votes from "agents of intolerance") and actively joining and participating in a church that is lead by a total religious nut case. For the sake of intellectual honesty, let's not equivocate on this one.

BCPL:
2. double-speak (erroneously offering off-shore drilling and a gas-tax suspension as a salve for high gas prices, falsely claiming "obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign"), and

3. political chicanery (blaming barack "paris/brittney" obama for high gas prices, claiming that obama snubbed wounded troops because he couldn't bring along cameras).

EVR:
Agree that the claim that Obama snubbed wounded troops was lame. But claiming that Obama is more deserving of a front cover on Entertainment Weekly than Congressional Quarterly is a fair argument. Second, I agree that the Dems would rather lose the war than lose their power. Their treatment of this war has been one of the most disgraceful things I've ever witnessed as an American. From Harry Reid declaring, prematurely, that the war is lost, to Obama's refusal to admit that the current stability in Iraq might be due mainly to the surge, it certainly appears that these positions have more to do with Democratic Party politics than a desire to see America achieve victory.

Regarding energy, off-shore drilling and a gas tax suspension would indeed lower gasoline prices at the pump. Drilling would drive prices down immediately (see: laws of supply and demand and global speculation) and the gas tax suspension is obvious. That said, the gas tax suspension is a quick fix political ploy and no substitute for sound, long-term strategy. Besides all the political maneuvering, the truth is that we need a comprehensive plan; one which includes both short term, environmentally sound drilling, and long term investment in renewables and nuclear. P.S. hasn't Obama actually recently reversed on drilling? Gosh, what a quandary for the Democrats! A candidate is actually making sense on energy! Also, Paris Hilton may be on to something on this issue.

BCPL:
much like these video quotes, i've always maintained respect for mccain and his message even while disagreeing with many of his policy positions. however, he has allowed this campaign to bring out the worst in him, and that respect is now in incredibly short supply.

and sorry, no uber-links this time. ;)

McCain or Obama: Who's The Real Post-Partisan Leader?

From the McCain campaign:

A Response to The Pinko Commie Liberal

My well-intentioned friend, the Commie Pinko responded to my previous post. My responses are interstitial within his:

wow. okay, this will be easy:

1. obama's campaign did not approve the publication of the prayer nor did they distribute its contents beforehand. it's clear the paper is trying to find a defense against their possibly-illegal violation of privacy charges. the offending student who took the note has since apologized and the note has been returned.

EVR: And yet, Obama hasn’t denied it and the spokesman’s line, "We have neither confirmed nor denied the prayer to anyone" is pretty damn hazy.

2. while despicable to me (as both a political junkie and a secular humanist) the politicization of faith in american politics is nothing new. see such exhibits as:

A. GWB's lying about his conversion with billy graham, in order to curry political favor with evangelicals and be elected president.

EVR: Read the article and it doesn’t convince me that Bush lied. Graham didn’t outright say that he wasn’t the one to convert Bush (plus, I wouldn’t expect Graham to disregard humility and take credit for something as subjective as, “the moment I truly accepted jesus.”

This is in Stark contrast to Obama’s clearly political “come to jesus moment” when he was “interviewing" churches that could provide him with a black political face card: (click view single page, then word search for "Trinity United Church") http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all


B. lieberman's embrace of a fundamentalist christian who preaches a gospel that praises the destruction and painful death of lieberman's very people via the rapture.

EVR: This is the most complex topic of the bunch. As a Jew, I understand the cognitive dissonance that a relationship with the fundamentalists inspires. I believe that Lieberman is a good man and an honest man and while I disagree with 90% of his politics, I’ll trust him that this wasn’t a political move. You may disagree, but I think it is highly subjective. What I know for a fact, is that in a world in which it seems that you’re still everyone’s scapegoat … in a world in which the land that we belong to (and belongs to us is questioned daily, threatened daily) we are faced with choosing friends that make strange bedfellows. I’d also say that since we don’t really believe in the fundamentalist version of the apocalypse, it’s easier to take their hand in friendship. Only the future knows the philosophical (and perhaps political) cost of this odd symbiosis.

C. and most galling of all, mccain's complete and utter flip-flop regarding jerry falwell and other "agents of intolerance". i strongly support mccain's 2000 position on this issue. this reversal is most disturbing.

EVR: Blah blah blah … McCain betrayed some values here for sure. But it’s different to accept support from one of these crazies than to sit in their church every Sunday for 20 years. This is no subtle distinction.

all-in-all, this entire "god triangulation" charge smacks of typical right-wing campaign smear jobs, where issues are not debated honestly (see: mccain's current crop of dishonest TV propaganda) and personal attacks on one's character substitute for political discourse (see: mccain's "would rather lose a war" nonsense).

EVR, i'm disappointed to hear your voice in that echo chamber.

EVR: I'll see you at 8p for dinner tonight you damn Commie Pinko. We'll slug it out more then.

Obama's God Triangulation

At best, this is offensive to Jews; At worst, this is offensive to American voters; At the very worst, this is offensive to a man's relationship with god.

From Today’s Wall Street Journal:

The other day Barack Obama was visiting Israel's capital, and he stopped at the Western Wall to partake of a Jewish tradition: He deposited a written prayer into one of the wall's cracks.

This set off a bit of a kerfuffle, as the Israeli newspaper Maariv published the prayer, purportedly filched by a seminary student.

Lord--
Protect my family and me.
Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair.
Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just.
And make me an instrument of your will.
Haaretz reports that "Jerusalem lawyer Shahar Alon asked Attorney General Menachem Mazuz yesterday to order a police investigation into the removal and publication of Obama's note":

"By making the note public," Alon wrote to Mazuz, "Maariv violated the law protecting holy sites, several clauses in the penal code and also infringed upon the basic rights of a person's honor and freedom."

Maariv's response: "Obama's note was published in Maariv and other international publications following his authorization to make the content of the note public. Obama submitted a copy of the note to media outlets when he left his hotel in Jerusalem.

Thus…"what initially seemed to be a journalistic scoop of dubious moral propriety now seems to be a case of an Israeli paper being played by the Barack Obama campaign." Obama's so-called prayer was at best an open letter to God--a sentiment intended for public, not divine, consumption.

[This] tale leads one to suspect that if Obama were really praying to God, he'd have asked for something more earthly: Lord, give me a landslide!
If Obama is insincere about his religious faith, that does not speak well of his character. Then again, it is reassuring in a way, given that wacko church he belonged to for 20 years.

Democrats: "A Grande Bailout!"

News from Scrappleface:

(2008-07-02) — Democrats in Congress today plan to introduce a bill to halt the recently-announced closing of some 600 Starbucks coffee stores, noting that the displacement of 12,000 Starbucks baristas would overwhelm government aid offices not prepared to handle so many clients for whom English is a second language.

“These people can’t just walk out of Starbucks and get a job at a grocery store or a factory,” said House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-CA. “They would need ESL classes and cultural training to learn how to relate to ordinary Americans and function in society.”

Rep. Pelosi’s bill would subsidize the 600 money-losing Starbucks locations by giving away millions of taxpayer dollars in so-called ‘Venti Vouchers’ to residents of these hard-hit neighborhoods. If the effort fails to revive the flagging stores, Rep. Pelosi said Democrats would “seriously consider nationalizing the coffee industry to ensure the free flow of java at fair prices.”

“This is just another one of our Democrat efforts to protect Americans from the impact of the Bush economic policies,” said Rep. Pelosi. “Under this president, America has become a cold and desolate place where corporations cut unprofitable activities to focus on increasing the bottom line, and returning value to shareholders. When Democrats retake the White House next year, we will reverse that trend.”

The Jews and Joe Lieberman

My gloating friend, the Pinko Commie, posted this link to our shared Google Reader page today.

It talks about the fact that in a recent poll of 900 Jewish folks, Barack Obama was more poular than Joe Lieberman. This is clearly about Iraq and Joe's supposed defection (though really an ousting) from the Democratic party.

Now I love my peeps, but next to Blacks, Jews are the most monolithic block of voters out there. Two things:

1) Lieberman, though ousted from his party, still won in a landslide in a very moderate (though left leaning)state with a large Jewish presence

2) The fact that Obama only has 60 percent of Jews polling for him now is amazing. The last president to get only 60 percent or less of the Jewish vote (besides Jimmy Carter who got votes taken away by an Independent) was Adlai Stevenson in 1956. This, mind you, was against Dwight Eisenhower, liberator of Nazi Germany.

Anyway, the neo conservatives and the Hasids will change all that eventually. And if i have anything to do with it, so will I.

Was The New York Times Rejection Good for McCain?

News today that The New York Times rejected an op-ed piece submitted by John McCain on Friday made big news. This is especially offensive journalism by the NYT given the fact that they ran an Obama piece just days earlier. It was perfectly timed with a trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and Jordan and allowed him to lay out his Mid East foreign policy on a national stage.

The Grey Lady didn’t agree to give John McCain the same opportunity, issuing a rejection with strict conditions required for acceptance. In this case, the conditions that needed to be met meant a rewritten McCain piece that framed his issues as the NYT saw fit (i.e. discussion of definitive timelines for withdrawal). I’m sure the editors at the Times didn’t change a comma for Obama.

And yet, as an ad guy, I can tell you that all of this is actually good for McCain. The media impressions he’ll gain from the rejection will far outweigh the Monday circ of the NYT op-ed page. The recent campaign for Trojan Condoms is a perfect example. A brand with a small budget gained over 200 million media impressions by getting its ad rejected by CBS and FOX. A few million bucks on late night TV could never touch the attention garnered by airtime on The Colbert Report, The O'Reilly Factor, and VH1's Best Week Ever.

The rejection will only work to galvanize the Right and, if the campaign is smart, become part of the McCain campaign theme. I’m not so convinced, however, of this campaign’s political IQ.

Just Beat It ... Again: A Response to the Billyburg Commie Pinko Liberal

My well-intentioned friend, the Billyburg Commie Pinko Liberal, recently posted a piece about the evil Republican joy of torture. BCPL listed 5 reasons he’s against the use of any "enhanced" information seeking techniques:

1. Immoral and inhumane
2. Universally illegal (under the Geneva Conventions, UCMJ and US Law, among others)
3. Ineffective
4. Counter-productive, making us less safe
5. Inconsistent with American values

At the end of last year, I posted a few thoughts on the subject; inspired by the previous evening’s Democratic debate. You’ll see that while I don’t condone torture for torture’s sake, there is something to be gained from “enhanced interrogation techniques.” The ticking bomb scenario may be mostly academic, but it’s a necessary discussion none-the-less and ultimately separates those who support a reasonable security measure vs. those who are dogmatically demented by liberal ideology.

Here’s my take again:

The United States must not be in the business of torture. However, to be brutally honest, I believe there are more important things to care about than whether or not a few EVIL ANIMALS WHO SEEK TO MURDER INNOCENT PEOPLE get roughed up a bit by their American captors. The main points against it (what it may do to our moral standing in the world; it makes us less safe) seem a bit naive -- these Islamic Crazies were killing women and children way before Bush and Cheney took office and began "ruining" America's international good will.

Further, only three terrorists were actually subjected to waterboarding, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind operations chief of 9/11. His interrogation was conducted not to extract a confession but in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when further attacks seemed likely and intelligence about Al Qaeda's operations was limited. The CIA Director testified that these interrogations saved lives. To put it bluntly, I'm not losing any sleep knowing that bad guys like KSM are being thoroughly questioned.

Maybe the BCPL should be concerned about more important issues, like the fact that Iran may have nukes soon and Obama only wants to sit down and have a little chat about it.

"Get off my back!"

The Highlight of the 2008 Campaign

A Re-rebuttal to the Commie Pinko's Obama Comments

Below is the list of arguments made by the Billyburg Commie Pinko Liberal in rebuttal to my previous Obama post (see below). Here's my re-re-buttal.

Look out for the EVR ripping the commie pinko liberal a new ass on his blog shortly.


EVR argument #1

Obama is not a post-partisan politician.

Commie Pinko rebuttal

You can't expect BO to be his own man because he's too new. Also, just look at his time spent as a state senator and you'll see he's bipartisan.

The truth

I actually did look at BO's record. It is the ultimate example of a man legislating as politcal operative. Check it out.

When the phone rings at 3 a.m., do we want a president whose favorite vote seems to be, "present"?

EVR argument #2

BO's premise that his good judgement overrides his lack of experience is flawed: This country needs a man who makes decisions based on what he thinks is right and not what is politically expedient.

Commie Pink rebuttal

Look how far that argument has gotten us with the devil, W. Also, both McCain and Obama combine principled leadership with politcal strategery, just look at the littany of flip-flops on each side.

The truth

McCain is an imperfect candidate and at times seems to buck the party line just to tweak the GOP's nuts, but he's a man with convictions. He's proven time and again that he's willing to do tough work that won't make him popular (i.e. Immigration reform, Campaign Finance reform, the Gang of 14 vote on judges, etc.). He pissed me off by voting against the Bush tax cuts, and even used very liberal language to rail against them ("lining the pockets of the wealthy," etc.), but his main motivation for the "nay" vote was that he felt that any tax cuts should be accompanied by spending cuts. In my mind, a bad vote that will be used against him, but a vote made in the name of principle none-the-less.

BO, on the other hand, has now pivoted from former positions on: an immediate Iraq pullout, the D.C. gun ban, the terror suveillance program, unilateral action on NAFTA, and public campaign fincancing. Obama seems to be promising a third Bush administration with all of these right wing views!

More Obama Myths to come soon ... plus rebuttals on the Billyburg Pinko Liberal's posts. Stay tuned...

A New Blog Format

Dear EVR readers,

We're trying a new format here for a while. A fellow New York resident and friend has just started a new blog across the Williamsburg Bridge in Brooklyn. He's a tried and true New York commie pinko bastard and we're going to try a little point/counter point and see if we can make things interesting leading up to the election.

I hope it proves stimulating, fun, or just downright nasty.

Here's where he can be found:

The Billyburg Commie Pinko Liberal (good lord!)

We'll do a bunch of linking to make it easy to toggle between our discussions.

Thanks for reading.

The East Village Republican

The Myths of Barack Obama

The presidential campaign is entering the hot summer months and things are about to get good. Most people think Barack Obama is sitting pretty with up to a 15% lead, depending on the poll. I live in New York City and from here, it feels like it’s a one candidate race. I saw someone in the East Village yesterday wearing a shirt that said, “McCain Who?”

Now it’s true that whether or not you like Obama, agree with Obama, or trust Obama, he’s the one with all the momentum. The whole damn media has a collective erection for the guy right now … including Arianna Huffington and Markos Moulitsas (of Daily Kos), neither of whom have a penis.

But this is all good news for John McCain and the Straight Talk Express. The main reason is that McCain is best when he’s playing the underdog. This is when his true personality shines through: a sharp, witty man – the kind who you’d follow into battle. This is a man that you want leading the troops in a nasty prison camp and this is a man who you want picking up the phone at 3 a.m. when Iran’s development of nuclear weapons comes to pass.

But more than anything, I hope he can be the type of candidate that’s able to make the argument that he can lead on the critical issues facing the country. If he can’t, it’s no one’s fault but his own – Obama has some huge holes in his glossy sheen and a candidate who can’t exploit them isn’t ready for the Oval Office.

Beginning today and running through the election, I am going to list the arguments that expose these holes. Below is a list of a couple of key myths about the inimitable Barack Obama that McCain must exploit. More will follow, including discussions about taxes, foreign policy, health care, and other relevant items presented over the next few months:

Myth 1:
Barack Obama is a post-partisan politician

Truth:
Obama has consistently toed the Democratic party line in his few short years in the Senate. From judges to medicare to immigration to the Iraq War, the Illinois Senator has been a strident party loyalist. Not one major piece of legislation has his name on it; not one tough battle has he fought in the senate; not one stand has he made against his party; not one politically unpopular decision has he made. This is in sharp contrast to Senator McCain, who has proven to be THE post-partisan candidate on judge appointments, campaign finance, immigration, taxes (though i especially hate this one), and more. This country needs a man who makes decisions based on what he thinks is right and not what is political expedient.

Myth 2:
Barack Obama may be inexperienced, but he has good judgment

Truth:

Obama’s big claim to fame is that he may not have any of the necessary experience (either political, business, executive, etc.) to run the nation, but, unlike Bush, Clinton, McCain, and everyone else in Congress at the time, he was against the war from the start. This has provided the platform from which he can state that experience is less important than good judgment. It’s the basis (besides the fact that he’s extremely well spoken) of his entire candidacy.

But here’s the thing: if, in retrospect, you want to criticize the war, the intelligence, or the execution of war/post war strategy there is room for valid dissent. But, in March of 2003, given the uncertainty of American security, given our failure to connect the dots to 9/11, and given the intelligence that the entire globe supported, how could anyone NOT have supported the Iraq War effort? Imagine if Obama was president at the time. Imagine if the world’s intelligence was correct. Imagine if a dirty bomb or any other WMDs found their way into the hands of the very same people that had the audacity to fly airplanes into buildings. Imagine if all of this happened and our president, in a post-9/11 world, did nothing about it. In this scenario, our president would deserve to be put on trial as an accessory to war crimes.

More to come...

Vice, Comedy, and 9/11

Check out this "comedic" 9/11 video from VBS.tv, the online broadcast network brought to you by the ultra hip folks at Vice Magazine. They're really pushing the edge at Vice these days with jokes about herpes right next to good ol' "if we don't do 'x,' the terrorists win" repartee. Yep, real cutting edge.

The true crime about this video isn't just that it makes light of the hellish murder of almost 3,000 innocent Americans. The true crime is worse: it's just not that funny. If you're going to joke about September 11th, you better make it funny or shut the f*ck up. A bunch of spoiled, hipster cynics made this video and I wonder if they'd feel as tickled about it if they lost loved ones when the buildings came crashing down.

This sentiment reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry's dentist friend converts to Judaism, which Jerry suspects is a ploy to tell Jewish jokes with immunity. Jerry goes to the dentist's former priest:

Jerry: I wanted to talk to you about Dr. Whatley. I have a suspicion that he's converted to Judaism just for the jokes.

Father: And this offends you as a Jewish person.

Jerry: No, it offends me as a comedian.

Technorati Claim (Readers Ignore)

Technorati Profile

Nefarious Hillary calls for assassination of Barack Obama?

A new low this week: The media is actually raising the specter that Hillary Clinton might actually “be hoping” for the assassination of Barack Obama. Every paper, site, or station that even showed this clip without immediately and truthfully considering its intent should be ashamed to think themselves journalists. What ever happened to context? Are we so wrapped up in our daily lives, so unable to hear a dissenting opinion, so angry about the state of our country that we can’t stop for a second to consider that nothing means what it means unless understood in context? The hegemony of the sound bite has rendered us subject to a lifetime of game show politics and media consumption.

Let’s take the comment for what it was: Part of a historical consideration on the appropriateness of a primary candidate to stay in the race beyond a certain point. The key idea she was trying to make is that June has been a point at which past candidates have still been in the race. The reference to her husband and then to Bobby Kennedy was part of a study in the month of June, NOT, as some may believe, in sticking around in a race “cause you just never know who might get whacked…wink…wink.”

Look, I ply my trade in the cut-throat world of big New York advertising, and understand the power of words. It was dumb to reference an assassination in an environment that has been unnecessarily charged with racial tones (many spun from the Hillary camp itself), but let’s not believe that Mrs. Clinton is dumb enough to think:

1) She could convince people to support her to stay in the race because the black guy could get whacked.
2) She wouldn’t get called back to the nomination anyway were something terrible to happen to Obama after a Hillary concession.

Sure, her best bet at this point is a cataclysmic event (e.g. the revelation of an Obama love affair with Ayman al-Zawahiri), but please save your brain cells for thoughts larger than the idea that she is hoping for the death of a United States Senator.

What it sounds like to walk down the street in the East Village these days

McCain can't out-Obama Obama

John McCain lately seems to be making a concerted effort to distance himself from President Bush. In light of Bush's record low approval ratings, he’s right to do so. But he's talking like a liberal and angling the wrong way if he wants the upper hand in a tough battle with Barack Obama. McCain cannot out-Obama Obama. If he's going to go maverick, he needs to propose big, bold, inherently conservative ideas for the country. Calling for a timetable on the war and a cap and trade approach to carbon emissions are sickle and hammer politics.

McCain’s only chance this fall, going up against the charm, smarts, and eloquence of Obama, is to continue his no BS approach to foreign policy and conjure the brightest of our American ideals with stark domestic ideas. Veering left, besides being wrong-headed, will lose center/center-right voters and gain nothing in return.

Here’s what McCain needs to propose on these two specific issues:

The War on Islamic Terror
Don’t listen to the wikimedia narrative that wants us to believe there’s no hope and that the U.S. is weaker than ever. Petraeus has whipped the insurgency like Teddy Roosevelt did the Dakota Badlands. Violence has spiked downward and the Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish factions have all bought into democracy and power sharing. I’m not naïve enough to say it’s not messy, but our boys are spanking Al Qaeda and the Maliki government is taking on fellow Shia in Basra and Sadr City.

For the first time, we can look to the future and glimpse the face of victory. The surge has worked, and it was McCain who’d been advocating it the entire time. This gives Johnny Mac an incredible point of leverage. He can both distance himself from Bush AND take credit for crucial military foresight.

As for Iran, McCain must lay out a plan that threatens force first and diplomacy second. The carrot only works when the stick is big and scary. Obama’s proposition to sit down first is insane. In fact, there’s a narrative thread throughout Obama’s life that shows his willingness to befriend radical, anti-American (not to be mistaken for those who are constructively critical) individuals and this is quite unsettling.

Reagan didn’t sit down with Gorbachev until Gorby was scared. The next president must put the fear of god into our enemies before considering any public conversation. We need to lay out a foreign policy that claims loudly that Iran cannot obtain nuclear weapons. The military option shouldn’t just be “on the table,” it should be the table. If the left thinks we’re weak now, wait until we’re cow towing to a nuclear Iran.

Environment
U.S. carbon emissions grew by only 6.6 percent between 1997 and 2004, compared with 18 percent for the world and 21 percent for the nations that signed the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gasses.

I’m not suggesting that we needn’t focus on climate change, but I am suggesting that we focus on it intelligently. A huge government command-and-control operation like cap and trade is more sickle and hammer politics. McCain needs to get off this pony immediately. We’re all foolish if we think big businesses won’t make a fortune gaming this rigged-up market scenario. It’s an opaque system that will create an entire industry (both government and private) around regulating and exploiting the rules.

Instead, let’s combine smart government policy with the true power of free markets. Simply, McCain should advance a program that swaps a carbon tax for either an income, corporate, or social security/medicare tax cut (or some amalgamation of them all). If we really want to encourage non-carbon based energy via government policy, at least the implementation of a tax is both transparent and obvious.

Also, the cost of cutting CO2 is too pricey right now. More research and greater incentives for renewables are the only honest solution. An interesting idea comes from Bjorn Lomborg, former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen, and suggests we can achieve our green energy goals by:

spending dramatically more researching and developing low-carbon energy. Ideally, every nation should commit to spending 0.05 percent of its gross domestic production exploring non-carbon-emitting energy technologies — be they wind, wave, or solar power — or capturing CO2 emissions from power plants. This spending could add up to about $25 billion a year, but it would still be seven times cheaper than the Kyoto protocol, yet increase global research and development tenfold. All nations would be involved, but the richer ones would pay the larger share.

The GOP is suffering a cataclysmic loss of direction right now and is bereft of big ideas that will bring about real change. A tax swap and big incentives for renewable energy ventures are sound policy. Borrowing bad liberal notions and repackaging them as “maverick” is a recipe for a November Democratic sweep.

Big Money Will Be Spent on Advertising in Lead-Up to Pennsylvania Vote

Breaking Records
Eight weeks ago, the presidential primaries were in Iowa. Six weeks from now, the next big state, Pennsylvania, will vote. In the longest primary season ever, it’s not surprising that we’re also seeing record amounts of money being spent on advertising. The Democratic race, especially, is making local media markets very happy. Thus far, the campaign has exceeded $210 million in broadcast, not including cable.

Not to be outdone, Pennsylvania will welcome the more than $40 million that is estimated for the weeks leading up to the vote. This dynamic level of media spending is driven by two key points:

1)Hillary Clinton is leading by double digits in most polls and needs to protect her #1 spot.
2)Senator Obama raised $55 million in February alone (vs. $35 million for Senator Clinton), giving him the ammunition to chip away at her lead.

For Clinton, the Keystone state is crucial. She needs to maintain momentum, especially after her minor setback in Mississippi. With PA Governor Rendell in her corner, the campaign believes that it can carry the state and move on to the next big day (North Carolina and Indiana) with the wind at her back (sorry Guam). It’s the boxer’s strategy: you can get knocked down a few times in the early rounds, but a strong finish will sway the judges’ final tally.

For Obama, he needs to take the next big piece of real estate on the map and show that he can carry a big general-election swing state. The Obama crew knows that the more time people spend with him on the campaign trail, the more people like him. So he’ll be traveling around the state kissing babies and spending his shekels on a record-breaking ad blitz. If Senator Obama can take PA and then North Carolina, he should have the delegates and the velocity to send Clinton home.

So what type of ads will we see?
For Hillary, I hope she continues the ad hominem attacks. The more beat up the winning Democrat, the better for John McCain. But if I were her campaign adviser, I’d still urge her to hit him hard on the issues, but tactfully. She should applaud him for bringing a level of energy to the political process that is sorely needed, but vociferously challenge him on his record. I'd attack his very foundation as an aisle crosser and a political transcendent. In his short time as senator, the Illinois senator has exclusively voted the party line and has never stood up and put his neck out when it mattered. Are these the qualities we want in our next president? She needs to show Democrats that the answer is “no.”

Barack's people will urge him to stay above the fray and act presidential in his advertising. In other words, vanilla. But it’s a long time between now and Pennsylvania and Hillary will use as much of her war chest as possible to undermine him. I can only hope that he is lured into a ticky-tack mud wrestling match while John McCain is refueling and raising money. If I were advising Obama, however, I'd tell him that he needs to articulate his vision into a tangible platform that moves beyond the soaring rhetoric. The doublespeak of his message is that while he speaks the word, "hope," he paints a desperate and victimized picture of the American people. Real change doesn't come from the government, it comes from the people. He hasn't yet shown how "change" means anything more than government bureaucracy. If he cannot give substance to his message and depth to his vision he will become an easy target as people tire of his empty oratory.

Benefits of Free Trade

Report: Many U.S. Parents Outsourcing Child Care Overseas

Palestinians Are The Ones Whose Aggression Is Not Proportionate

The New York Times covers the "Israeli aggression" in Gaza last week.

I'm amazed at how this story is being framed. At it's core, the Euro-left-wing-anti-semitic argument is that Israel has no right to defend itself against the oppressed Palestinian "militants" (which is a nice word like "rebels," that says "underdog" in a way that "terrorists" does not). Well, perhaps they can defend themselves; just not too well. And most importantly, the tiny Jewish nation must "defend itself proportionally." Check out this critical quote from the Prime Minister of Turkey:

“It is not possible for us to approve of the recent inhumane practice in Gaza...civilians are being killed with a disproportionate use of force.”

You'd think this was a criticism of the Palestinians. After all, they're the ones firing rockets from sovereign Gaza into the civilian town of Sderot. They're the ones breaking a cease-fire agreement with Israel. And they're the ones intentionally launching Qassam missiles at civilian populations.

If Israel were to respond proportionally, they would intentionally target women and children during peak hours of the day. But we know this is not what the Euro-left is arguing. When they say proportional, they mean, "little-to-no" response. But this is not how the real world works. A weak response to terrorism only invites more terrorism. It emboldens the militant Arabs. For instance, one might think that pulling out of Gaza would create a certain feeling of good will. But it didn't; it created a vacuum. Into this vacuum stepped Islamic Jihad with ever larger caches of weapons who were ever more determined to take ALL of Israel.

In the East Village (land of the skinny jean), weakness might be chic, but in the Middle East it's only bad policy.

How to Respond to Terrorism

A good piece from the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed Page:

No Government Mandated CFLs

Beginning in 2014, The United States Congress will enact new energy efficiency standards that will mandate the use of CFLs -- those spirally fluorescent bulbs. This will make the incandescent light bulb (i.e. the type of bulbs you use now) obsolete.

The government has made this decision because the CFLs use about 25 percent of the energy and last 10 times longer than the bulb Edison first invented over a hundred years ago. Sounds like a good idea, right? Wrong. Besides the fact that they emit a harsh glow that makes everyone look like that ugly girl you’ve been talking to until last call when the lights come on, they are actually bad for the environment.

They all contain a small amount of mercury that, unless recycled properly, will leak into landfills and leach into our water supply. Proponents will claim that when you consider the extra production of energy needed because of the inefficiency of regular bulbs, the total toxic mercury footprint is negligible. This is a dumb argument. Why are we allowing our government to dictate what kind of light we can use when it doesn’t ultimately solve the problem – and in fact, may make it worse?

Similar dumb logic comes to mind in a story dating back to Hawaii in 1883. Rats from merchant ships had infested the islands and had no natural predators to keep them in check. A decision was made to import 72 mongooses from Jamaica, believing that they would restore a natural balance to the food chain.

Guess what happened next. Hawaii hosts no natural predators for mongooses either and they began to take over the island. Ironically, rats are nocturnal and mainly active at night, while mongooses prefer to hunt during the day. The rat population continues to thrive and their supposed predators infest the island and carry just as many communicable diseases.

Importing bad solutions to fix other bad problems is not the business that government should be in. A more reasonable solution might include large government prizes to the company that invents a new, clean, and energy efficient light source. Another fix could include tax breaks to private firms that supply renewable energy. Some conservative economists, including The Prometheus Institute (a Libertarian think tank) even believe that a carbon tax, if offset by comprehensive across-the-board tax reductions, would be the ideal way to attack the problem at the root. This proposal essentially builds the externalized (or social) cost of fossil fuels into the equation through a revenue neutral tax. This would be much preferred over an inflexible and bureaucratic cap-and-trade program or things like government mandated light bulbs.

Health Care: Response to a Liberal's Comment

A liberal friend posted a comment about my Goldman Sachs health plan piece ... here's my response:

The comment:

a few points:

1. a real market conservative would argue:
a) you can't provide your employees healthcare without generating profits
b) you can't generate the most profits without the best talent
c) you can't attract the best talent without the best benefit package (heh)
d) ergo, the $40k secretary better thank her $750k estrogen-hopped-up boss -- not only for her job to begin with -- but for her healthcare in the first place. most companies only partially subsidize these costs for their employees, paying for the remainder using a progressive scale that ties contribution rates to salary (similar to payroll taxes). therefore, she's getting a better deal than he is.

2. nice anti hilary/obama-care straw man. very similar logic to the santorum-school of political rhetoric: no same-sex marriages or the bestiality people will want to marry their dogs next...

3. finally, "mandated benefits increase the cost of basic health coverage"? duh. that's the basic definition of health coverage: mandated benefits. i get sick, the insurer must pay for my meds. i break an arm, they must pay for my cast. but since universal healthcare is a political idea who's time has come, you're right that the next battle will most definitely be over mandatory vs. elective benefit definition.

...and keep on blogging, yo. given any more thought those "imaginary" obama republicans?

The response:

Thanks for the comments c-dub. Here are my thoughts back:

1. How would you know what a real market conservative would do? Have you met another one besides me in the East Village or Brooklyn?

a) Um, I’m not quite sure what you mean here, but the whole employer based system is bunk. Don’t get me wrong, I like it better than the idea of gov’t run health care, but we need to de-couple it from the workplace, it makes no more sense than employer sponsored home garbage pickup.

If businesses get out of the health care business, we can then: 1) create major incentives for health savings accounts; 2) allow consumers to shop across state lines for their care, essentially busting the trusts that government has created; 3) make health care portable, so that if you lose your job, you don’t lose your insurance. Also, since gov’t has to pay taxes on health care provisions, wages would likely rise … certainly liberals wouldn’t want that to happen. We should let able-bodied people take care of themselves. You don’t need mommy and daddy to pay your rent, why should Uncle Sam pay for your herpes medicine.

b-d) Leave it to a liberal elitist to have no sympathy for a middle class, secretary making 40k. If you’re not speaking Spanish and sucking the gov’t teet, you’re out of luck, eh? I can only assume you’d also argue that since Dennis Koslowski (jailed Tyco CEO) “subsidized” lower tiered employees with booming profits, it’s also ok that he bought his wife a $9K shower curtain on the company’s dime?

2-3) My argument is more “slippery slope” than “straw man.” Rick Santorum gave an intellectually dishonest argument about why we shouldn’t allow gay marriage. He’d be better off just saying he thinks gays are going to hell and taking society with them. At least we could give him credit for speaking his mind. In my case, I am actually concerned about the fiscal responsibility of universal health care. I’m not diametrically opposed to people getting health insurance, I’m diametrically opposed to working 50 hours a week and paying your bills.

Here’s the juice: as you agreed, mandates always raise the cost of coverage. And although most of these individual mandates have a relatively small impact on their own, the aggregate cost of thousands of mandates is frightening. And when people can’t afford health care, they choose to go uninsured.

The time for socialized health care has not come. While imperfect, the U.S. health care system is the best in the world. Not only do we have the best doctors, medicine, and technology, but we also have the highest life expectancy when you average-out accidental deaths. Who wants a doctors visit to feel like a trip to the DMV? You're crazy if you think it won't be like that. Further, of the 47 million uninsured that Clinton and Obama cite, only a small percentage of them can’t get insurance. If you combine illegal aliens, those eligible for Medicaid (but who haven’t applied), and those with household incomes of 50k or more (top half of the income distribution), but uninsured by choice, you’ve got a relatively small number.

We should be very wary of nationalizing an industry because a few percent of 300 million people are struggling; we wouldn’t nationalize any other industry because some of its workers were unemployed (well, maybe you would). Any plan should be specifically focused on helping the group of people who truly need it.

And as far as your wet dream of Obama Republicans … only if Huckabee wins the primary. Sorry, friend.

Sex Change free at Goldman Sachs

Due to some very unique perks, Goldman Sachs was recently ranked 9th in Fortune Magazine’s annual list of 100 Best Companies to Work For. The financial giant added sex reassignment surgery to its health insurance coverage, reasoning that it would help “attract top talent and retain a more diverse workforce.”

While I personally believe the desire to chop your dick off is a personal choice, if not a bit unusual, it’s hard to challenge a private company for doing something that it believes will ultimately help it’s bottom line. Goldman had the foresight to avoid the current mortgage crisis and we should at least give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to navigating a little foreskin. But there are a couple of things about this that bother me.

First, while most employees at Goldman can afford expensive coverage that includes less-than-mainstream health options, the $40K-a-year secretary who’s a divorced mother of three still has to pay into the plan. This means that she is subsidizing Richie Rich’s deep-seated need to have breasts. Why should the janitor, or the kid in the data-entry department have to pay more for his asthma inhaler because someone else needs the company to pay for her testosterone? Let those who are deeply confused get some therapy and pay for a shiny new vagina with their seven-figure bonus.

More importantly, this sets a horrible health care precedent. In a 2009 world in which the Democrats may hold the White House and Congress, a Clinton or Obama universal health care will be at the top of the agenda. If it ever passes, you can bet that it will be loaded with non-medical mandated coverage that hikes up the price. Check out this quote from an article on Heritage.org (a conservative think tank):

According to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, mandated benefits increase the cost of basic health coverage by as much as 60 percent or more in mandate-crazy jurisdictions such as in Minnesota, Maryland and Virginia. Even in states with relatively few mandates, the nanny-state premium adds 20 percent to the cost of coverage.

Do you think that Gay and Lesbian special interest groups will not eventually push to add sex change operations to the list of mandated coverage? By the way, this isn’t an anti-gay rant: my libertarian side believes that government shouldn’t legislate who can and cannot get married, but it shouldn’t make tax payers cough up money for Jack to become Jill any more than it should pay for every guy in the country to get penis enlargement surgery. People in this country are free to do what they choose, but citizens shouldn’t be forced to subsidize whacked-out desires.

Red Sox Flip Flop Dooms Giuliani in Republican Race

“I will be rooting for the Red Sox…you won the division and we lost. Somehow it makes me feel better if the team that was ahead of the Yankees wins the World Series, because then I feel like, well, we’re not that bad.”

-Former New York Mayor and Die-Hard Yankee Fan Rudy Giuliani on campaign trail in New Hampshire (Red Sox country)


When the New York Post reported Rudy’s BoSox claim, it was October 23rd and he was leading the national polls and well ahead in big pre-Super Tuesday states like Florida. A Quinnipiac University Poll had Giuliani at 30 percent and John McCain at 14 percent. It also showed him beating Hillary 46-43 and Obama 47-40. In the final outcome on January 29th, Florida was the guillotine for the former New York Mayor’s dumb all-or-nothing campaign strategy which bet it all on a victory in the Sunshine State.

As you know, it didn’t work, and he placed a very distant third (14.6%) to winner John McCain (36%) and runner-up Mitt Romney (31.1%). What happened? There were no big blow-ups, no Dean-like screams, no floosies. Some pundits will complain that the New York Times pulled a front page hit job on him every other day and he got clobbered by Tim Russert on Meet the Press. He also looked stupid taking a phone call from his wife in the middle of an NRA speech – an attempt to look like a family man (or something), though it came across as staged and rude.

But let’s face it, most readers of the Times and most members of the NRA weren’t going to give Rudy their vote anyway. So what really happened? The Red Sox flip-flop is what happened. Rudy’s whole thing was that he was a foreign policy hawk, a national security strongman, a man who may be unlikable, but whose backbone was strong. The Red Sox flip-flop brought his entire character into question. For sports fans (and especially Boston and Yankees fans) this infidelity was tantamount to saying, “If America loses in Iraq, I hope Al-Qaeda takes over the world so at least we lost to the best.”

Suddenly Republicans started to question Rudy's meddle in the face of evil. And once they began to do that, McCain looked like a much more attractive candidate. These guys were fighting for the same national security votes, but McCain didn’t switch alliances because it was politically convenient. McCain also didn’t have questions about shady business dealings or questions about public money paying for his mistress’s limo rides. McCain was willing to say the hard things that needed to be said (though it cost him in Michigan) and primary voters trusted him even if they disagreed with him.

It seems like a small thing, but sometimes these little details completely affect the brand image that voters conjure when pulling the lever in the voting booth. I’m curious to see what happens next time Rudy shows up at a Yankees game. He might fare worse than he did in the Republican Primary.

Democrats Reference the Wrong Presidents and Show Their Colors

The past week has seen a lot of hoo-ha from those in the Democratic Party about references to ex-presidents made by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately for those on the left, and those REALLY on the left, the candidates referenced the wrong historical figures.

Hillary seemed to give more credit to LBJ than to MLK for the success of the civil rights movement (see clip above) and Obama waxed admiring about the transcendent presidency of Ronald Reagan (also see above clip). Woah. A week away from MLK Day and the South Carolina Primary and you talk down the importance of the most significant civil rights leader the U.S. has seen? Why? To pander to the LBJ wing of the Democratic Party? The truth is, actually, yes. But I don't think this wing of the party, nor Hillary, thinks that MLK was unimportant and I don't think they're racist. I do think, however, that this shows a political candidate who believes that it takes government to make things happen. In her world view, leadership comes from the top down, not the other way around. Yet this betrays the true essence of the civil rights movement which was a people-first, grassroots revolution. In a Hillary administration, we can expect more of this thinking: solutions come only when government "allows" them; change only occurs when it is handed down to the people like the commandments from Moses. What America needs most at this moment is not more government interference, it needs government to recuse itself from the case and allow the people to decide what's best for themselves just as it was the people whom LBJ couldn't ignore when he signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

The other political faux pas this week came from Barack Obama. He said that he believed that Reagan had, "Changed the trajectory of America...because the country was ready for it." Obama has been attacked on all sides of the liberal spectrum, from John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, to the New York Times and the entire lefty blogosphere. But this too is an example of a political candidate showing his colors with a statement destined to be unpopular during primary season. No, I don't think that Obama is the next Reagan, he's an unashamed liberal, but he's smart to run as a "change" candidate. He may take some heat now, but it makes him more electable in a general election. It shows that he's above the irrational, partisan fray of election year politics. And it shows that he's a candidate that is interested in creating a movement similar to the Reagan Democrats. Obama Republicans has a nice ring to it, but it won't happen. His claim to transcendence is based more on audacious oratory than on any real record of change. But while he may not be able to deliver on the rhetoric, it can give him a great chance starting in January 2009 to prove it.

Diabeetus

For Jen:

Perhaps Oprah and Chuck Norris Don't Play in New Hampshire

At 10:15 p.m. est, we've got the results of the New Hampshire Republican and Democratic primaries. Right now, it looks like Hillary and her Trail of Tears is going to take the Democratic delegates in a very tight race over Obama, but John McCain has kicked some major ass on the Republican side. Huckabee, Chuck Norris, and creationism simply don't have the same appeal in the Granite State as they do among evangelical Iowans.

McCain won on the backs of the same independent voters that gave him New Hampshire in 2000 vs. George W. Bush. In fact, Johnny Mac likely took many votes from ... yes, Barack Obama. The open NH primary proved key. I like John McCain, but I think his chances are still low. The GOP is shaping into a WWF Cage Match. It is WIDE open. Look at the following possibilities heading into Super Tuesday on February 5th:

Iowa: Huckabee
New Hampshire: McCain
Michigan 1/15: Likely Mitt Romney
South Carolina 1/19: Likely Huckabee
Nevada 1/19: Giuliani has lead
Florida 1/29: Giuliani has lead

So leading into "Tsunami Tuesday," it will likely be neck-and-neck with NO clear leader. I don't think anyone knows who will be the last man standing. It's hard to imagine Giuliani, who may not post his first victory for another 2 weeks, and Fred Thompson is doing the dead man's float, but everyone else has a very legitimate chance.