Californians Find Themselves in McCain Territory

It looks like McCain struck gold all across the State - from San Diego to San Fransisco to Sacramento to Del Norte.

Take a look at these maps - only three counties went for Romney, and in over a dozen counties the margin of victory for McCain was in the thousands. Romney's biggest margin of victory was 662 in Shasta County.

Of course, the delegates are awarded by congressional district, not by counties - but it seems McCain is ahead in 51 out of 53.

So out of California's 170 delegates, McCain will win about 164.

And this in a closed primary, McCain's statewide margin over Romney is 8 percent.

The CNN exit poll indicates, surprisingly, that McCain only carried one-third of Lations, but almost two-thirds of Asian-Americans. I would have expected McCain to do better among Latinos than among the general population of Republicans, but this doesn't seem to be the case. However, McCain did still place first among Latinos, and Huckabee came in second. Among Asian-Americans, Giuliani - who dropped out of the race last week - did better than Romney.

Less than half of California Republican primary voters believe in deporting illegal immigrants. Three-fourths of the primary voters were White non-Latinos, and they didn't flock to Romney's anti-"amnesty" position. San Diego and Imperial, right on the border, went for McCain - dashing Romney's hopes of cashing in on his embrace of the Tancredo wing of the party in a place he might of expected resentment toward immigrants. Even as conservatives rightly are concerned about the rule of law, it seems that - right here on the border - most are not driven by the hate that characterizes the rhetoric of pundits who live far removed from the problem.

Rudy and the New York Times Endorsement

I probably never did anything the New York Times suggested I do in eight years as mayor of New York City. And if I did, I wouldn't be considered a conservative Republican.

I changed welfare. I changed quality of life. I took on homelessness. I did all the things that they thought make you mean, and I believe show true compassion and true love for people.

I moved people from welfare to work. When I did that, when I set up workfare, the New York Times wrote nasty editorials about how mean I was, how cruel I was. I think there's a serious ideological difference.

- Rudy Giuliani at the debate on Thursday night.

Despite the many disagreements we have had with the Mayor over the last four years, we endorse his re-election enthusiastically.

- The New York Times Editorial Board, October 26, 1997.

New poll & mini film fest: When will Rudy drop out and endorse McCain ?

New poll question.
Back when his poll numbers were in double digits, Rudy was in the habit of saying this:



Well, now's your chance Rudy.

And just imagine, a few months back we were hearing rumors of this:



Hmm, interesting metaphor there Chris. Of course we all know how that story turned out.



Oh and Fred, when you get around to it, how about getting back to this:




. . . And finally, here's something for those whose participated in our last poll question: "What has been most annoying about FOX's GOP primary coverage ?"
Your response -

When Taxpayer-Funded Insurance Turns Catastrophic

Rudy Giuliani keeps touting his plan for National Catastrophic Insurance. It's supposed to help people out in case of catastrophe, but I wish someone at the debate last night had asked this:

Could this sort of tax-payer funded insurance actually worsen the results of a hurricane by creating perverse incentives for developers to build in high-risk areas, while damaging the ecological integrity of natural barriers such as barrier islands, dunes and wetlands?

Former congressman Tom Evans of the Florida Coalition for Preservation this summer wrote:

Action is needed at the federal and state levels to better protect taxpayers from paying the tab for irresponsible coastal development that damages the environment and endangers our citizens.

When President Reagan signed the Coastal Barrier Resources Act in 1982, which I had the honor of sponsoring in the Congress, we told developers point-blank that "if you develop on these fragile barrier islands, you should do so on your own nickel and not the American taxpayer." In that spirit, Congress should consider expanding the Coastal Barrier Resources Act to eliminate all federal subsidies, including federal flood insurance or transportation funding, going to high-density developments on storm-prone barrier islands where such development explodes the population of a small area and dangerously stresses the surrounding infrastructure.

State lawmakers also have an important role. They should enact a policy similar to the Coastal Barrier Resources Act and ban state subsidies to new construction on barrier islands where such new construction greatly increases the population density of a small area.

If Florida truly wants to pave the way for a national catastrophe fund to spread the risk of natural disasters across the country, the state should lead by example. The state undermines the credibility of its argument when it continues to use taxpayer dollars to sanction and subsidize ill-advised barrier island developments in hurricane alley. Continuing this practice will likely alienate residents of inland states who could question why taxpayers in Peoria, IL, should assume the risk of building new oceanfront condos in South Florida destroyed by seasonal hurricanes.

If Floridians want inland states to throw in their lot with them and pool their insurance catastrophe risk in a national fund, we must prove that we are responsible enough to limit new development to risk-appropriate locations.

Now in the 2007 hurricane season, we must realize that our barrier islands are not those places. We must not play Russian Roulette with people's lives and property. Unfortunately, that's exactly what we do when we put people in harm's way on vulnerable barrier islands. And that's no place for us to use limited taxpayer resources.

Beyond Michigan: McCain has a future, Romney . . . eh, not so much

Yeah, I'm disappointed. You bet. Even angry for a few minutes.
Michigan went for empty promises over truth and heroism.

Though, I should point out that at least there was a majority of voters who did *not* vote for Romney.

I really wanted to come home after a long day and celebrate a little.


But this thing is far from over, and we need to keep each of these primaries in perspective.
As "The McCain Times" noted today

Polls have put Romney slightly ahead of McCain… and Democrats (including the DailyKos) are pushing for their voters to cross party-lines and vote Romney in order to create chaos for Republicans.

But it doesn’t matter that much if he wins. It is absurd to celebrate winning your homestate, where your dad was governor, and where you’ve outspent your opposition by a 7-1 margin. A Romney win means that he can continue on until February 5th, but he won’t be the nominee.

Furthermore, McCain finished a strong second where he was polling in fourth place about a month ago. And it's looks like he'll be coming out of Michigan with a number of delegates as well (Right now CNN has him with 9 to Romney's 12).

What's next?

South Carolina, where it looks to be between McCain and Huckabee.

Nevada, also on Saturday (where it's anyone's guess at this point).

And then Florida, where it looks to be between McCain, Giuliani, and Huckabee.

Last before "Super Tuesday" on Feb 5 is the Maine Caucus. I'm guessing McCain is the best bet here, especially considering he has the endorsement of both of Maine's Senators (Collins and Snowe) as well as Fmr. Gov. McKernan.

So in the run up to Super Tuesday, John McCain is the only one who is competitive in all four contests. Romney's only chance before then is Nevada.

And as for Super Tuesday? Well, that's predicting ahead quite a bit, but at least McCain is ahead nationally by about 10 percent, and is competitive in a few places he wasn't supposed to be.

Giuliani was supposed to have California and New Jersey locked up.

But the latest two polls have McCain leading in California.

And the latest poll in New Jersey has McCain leading there too.

Of course, Romney may have a little post-Michigan bounce in the polls, draw in some new money. And well, I suppose it's nice for him and his family that he could win one of his home states anyway.

He sure ain't got no chance in Massachusetts.

Writer's Strike Affects South Carolina FOX debates

At least it seems that way - Haven't we heard these questions before?

Haven't we heard so many of these answers before.

The Big News of the Day: Bush believes Palestinian/Israeli peace is close at hand, but gets short shrift from "moderators." (Can you call them "moderators" when they keep egging-on the candidates going against each other?) Rudy and Ron Paul are asked about it, but no one else.
Some discussion of Pakistan.

On the other hand, plenty of the old standards - Iraq, economy, immigration.

On economy, candidates talk like they think they are in Michigan.

Mitt thinks we can bring old jobs back from the dead, McCain wants to retrain workers for the economy of the future.

Thompson shows some spunk, can't get in enough criticisms of Huckabee.

Huckabee says if Reagan were running today, the Club for Growth would run ads against him.

Ron Paul starts out sensible, distances himself from 9-11 deniers, but can't seem for too long to keep himself from saying something Chomsky-esque.

John McCain gives incredible answer on whether Democrats can win on their Iraq position - how long can they campaign against the reality on the ground?

Rudy says Democrats idea of "change" is "change out of your pocket."

Romney references "Three Dimensional Chess," appearantly trying to steal the Trekkie vote from Ron Paul.

Immigration, amnesty, yada yada yada.
McCain ain't gonna deport a wife of an MIA soldier.
Thompson, on the other hand, ain't gonna look at folks individually.
Giuliani ain't gonna send kids out on the street, but he will end illegal immigration.

New Hampshire GOP Debate - the Principle Question

One question asked by Charles Gibson - which he freely admitted he stole from President Bush - at tonight's debate gave some insight into the core of the candidates.

What is the key principle(s) that will guide you as president?

The answer for Ron Paul and Fred Thompson: The Constitution (tradition, principles specific to Americans)

For John McCain and Mike Huckabee: The Declaration of Independence ("endowed by Creator" - principles universal to humanity)

For Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney: Here is what I plan get done . . .

Someone needs to remind Rudy and Mitt of the definition of the word "principle." It's not the same as an "agenda." If your only principle is your agenda - well that's a serious problem of having it backwards, at best.

some last minute predictions

For tonight's Iowa caucuses:

1) Huckabee: 30
2) Romney: 24
3) McCain: 15
4) Thompson: 13
5) Paul: 11
6) Giuliani: 4
7) Hunter: 3

For Wyoming
(yes, it's coming up soon - Jan 5. just a wild guess here, no polls that I could find)
1) McCain
2) Romney
3) Thompson
4) Huckabee
5) Paul
6) Giuliani
7) Hunter

For New Hampshire, as of now I'd say -
1) McCain
2) Romney
3) Paul
4) Giuliani
5) Huckabee
6) Thompson
7) Hunter

I'm thinking that Paul will consistently come in ahead of Giuliani. Rudy's losing steam, and a lot of his supporters may drift to McCain in time for South Carolina. Ron - well he's got a lot of enthusiastic testosterone on his side.

gratitude, not just apologies

Fred Thompson's recent "apology" to Mike Huckabee really brings up the whole issue of candidates being courteous to one another. It's about time the other candidates consider thanking Huckabee for what he's done for their campaigns so far. Here are some suggestions:

Mike, thanks for letting everyone know you think I'm awesome. Plus, thanks for being the punching bag of the supply-side fundies this time instead of me. - John

Huckster, thanks for being such an easy target for my attack ads. -Fred

Mike, you have succeeded in getting the media to focus on the debate about my religion instead of the debate about my record. I am forever grateful. - Mitt

Folks are no longer talking so much about me being anti-gun. Instead they're talking about you being anti-tobacco. Thanks, Mike. But one thing I don't get - I get Pat Robertson's endorsement, then all of a sudden all the evangelicals start flocking to you. What gives? - Rudy

Webtangle: memo to candidate - don't go negative, stick to substance

In this day of the blogospher, in the pluripotent snarl of contemporary spliced-soundbyte ludicrous-speed digital telegram news, even a scent of smoking adverseriality can soon become explosive if things get too personal. It can become near impossible to recover original nuance from under the decontextualized debris of hyped hostility.
In such an environment, a candidate would be well advised, for exmple, concerning another candidate whose former business associate is coming under heat, to stand clear and let the news cycle ferret out the details until they are sufficientl exposed to the primary voters consciousness. Cable news is perfectly capable in this regard, being able to harp and nag upon the same question again and again completely unselfconsciously, even if it isn't leading anywhere.
And as far as that candidate who turned down an oppurtunity to serve on a panel concerned with crafting a policy bearing upon our military and security of nations, it should not be in any way suggested that such refusal demonstrates a lack of sympathy for the people and issues which that policy would effect. Let it rather be admitted plainly that such candidate had little expertise on the subject to begin with, and so was ill-prepared to engage in such study group, his withdrawal from it thus being perfectly understandable.