Is it the Democrats' year?

So much interesting campaign news, so little time.

First things first. The NYTimes had a great article on Hillary's campaign on the front page on Monday. Among other things, it gave us these nuggets, which if true are fascinating:

• Hillary talks to a small number of people in the campaign, leading to resentments
• Hillary was going to replace Patti Solis Doyle after Iowa, but kept her around after NH before finally cutting her loose last month
• Maggie Williams' first move when taking over as campaign manager was to tell Mark Penn not to appear on TV anymore
• Hillary had no clue that her campaign was out of money right before Super Duper Tuesday, despite getting daily email updates on finances
• Hillary was also surprised at that point to learn that she was all but conceding the next 11 contests
• And, most fascinating of all, Bill Clinton has been uncontrollable, "campaigning" in South Carolina despite the decision of the campaign to write it off
  

Amazing. The ghettoization strategy I was shocked, in my naiveté, to witness in SC was not a master plan of the campaign at all, but something only in Bill "I don't take no directions from nobody" Clinton's head.

Moving on. Jay Cost has a great post today on reading the primary results. His conclusions:

• Just because Hillary won Democratic primaries in the big states doesn't mean she is more likely to win them in the general
• Just because Obama wins Republicans in the primaries doesn't mean he'll win more of them than is usual for Democrats in the general
• Just because more Democrats are going to the polls doesn't mean anything as far as predicting which party will win in the general, though an "enthusiasm gap" will translate into raising more cash

Cost explains that many more Democrats than Republicans are voting in primaries as being not that unusual historically (more Dems vote in primaries normally), and it being a function of more dramatic primary battles. "This year is no exception," writes Cost. Aha, yet it is also a year which saw the most dramatic primary battle for Republicans, with three different candidates wining the first three contests, two other major candidates to choose from, and Ron Paul. McCain just barely squeaked by with the nomination. It was not lacking in drama. Cost's point is well-taken, and the graph he has informative, but he can't spin his way out of the pretty obvious conclusion that this is Democrats' year. As Bill Kristol reminds us, only once since World War II has one party won three straight presidential contests, in 1988.

Super Duper Tuesday: The Republican Side

At this point, Huckabee is doing serious damage to Romney. Romney needs the Huckster out fast, like yesterday. Huckabee staying in keeps McCain's campaign on top. Here's Romney's top strategist:

The coalitions that John McCain assembled in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida have been strikingly similar—and are strikingly tenuous. Public polling shows McCain ahead in many states, but we are now in a two-man race and a few points’ movement among conservatives is all that’s needed to tip the scales in favor of Gov. Romney. In all three states where he was victorious, McCain’s margin of victory rested on moderates, self identified independents, and voters who disapprove of the Bush administration. None of these groups is a majority of the Republican electorate. In fact, every GOP primary this year has been at least 55% conservative, 61% Republican, and 50% supportive of the Bush administration— explaining why McCain has failed to win more than 36% of the vote in any of them.

Huckabee might be thinking of being chosen McCain's running-mate. I can't believe I haven't thought of this one before; it's so appallingly simple, and I feel incredibly stupid. Huckabee is young (53 in August), so a shot at being Veep is perfect for him. It is the natural endpoint of the Huckster--McCain lovefest/alliance. And since the Republicans are probably going down in the general anyway, Huckabee won't be the loser at the top of the ticket, but he'll have a platform to work from for the rest of the year.

National Review has this:

In the Romney pile, we’ll probably have about five to seven wins, and the delegates most of Massachusetts, all of Utah, all of Montana, most of Colorado, all of Missouri, and if that poll is correct, all of Delaware, and perhaps most of North Dakota's. And he’ll get some of California’s. I put him at about 200 to 250 delegates.

In the Huckabee pile, we’ll have Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia, and maybe he’ll get some of California’s. I put him around 200.

In the McCain pile, we’ll have all of Arizona, all of New York, all of New Jersey, all of Connecticut, probably the largest chunk of California’s, probably most of Minnesota's, probably majorities in Oklahoma and West Virginia.I put him around somewhere north of 400 delegates.

Alaska may go for Ron Paul, and he may get a majority of their 29 delegates.

That would put things at about McCain at 500+ (needing 1,191 to be the nominee), Romney at 325, Huckabee at 230 or so.

Marc Ambinder has this:

[Romney's] strategy eschews big states and concentrates on smaller states where the delegate selection processes favor conservatives. They include Colorado, a caucus state, West Virginia, Alaska (which is why Romney mentioned McCain's support for ANWR drilling last night), and Oklahoma and Georgia, two states where delegates can be extracted from congressional districts.

The goal is to minimize the delegate gulf between McCain and Romney headed out of Feb 5 and give Romney a pretext to continue to campaign if McCain suddenly falters.

Huckabee's advertising

The Caucus has a chart showing how many times advertisements have run for the candidates all year. Romney outdoes everyone on the tube with over 17,000 TV spots, but is running about even with Paul and Giuliani on the radio. The Democratic candidates have a lot less radio ads, which makes sense given the prevalence of the right on talk radio.

It's also interesting that Huckabee doesn't even make it on the radar screen. He just started running ads November 26. Shortly thereafter his national and Iowa polls started a steep climb.

What's the content of those ads? The first one is below. Here's the explanation from Advertising Age:

This is reportedly Mike Huckabee's first TV ad of the season. It features Chuck Norris playing straight man, telling the voter why he or she should vote for Huckabee. It also features Huckabee relating some Chuck Norris "facts." For the uninitiated, facts about Chuck Norris have been an internet sensation for the past couple of years, propelling Chuck (and his beard) into a sort of ironic-mythical realm.

Huckabee's rise

Huckabee is now in a dead heat with Romney and Giuliani in Florida. He's in a dead heat with Giuliani nationally. Romney is flailing away with attacks which smack of desperation, and more than likely won't change anyone's mind. Establishment Republicans are also desperate.

New York magazine compares the Huckster to Pat Buchanan:

In 1996, after all, the economy was in the midst of a historic boom, one that was on the verge of kicking into overdrive. Today, the situation is the reverse: Recession looms, the Dow sags, the housing and credit markets buckle. The economy has elbowed aside Iraq as the central locus of voter anxiety.

Hence the reason why the rise of Huckabee is causing so much consternation, even panic, among his fellow wannabe nominees. Though nobody sober believes that, even if he emerges triumphant in Iowa, Huckabee can win New Hampshire, his prospects in the next two contests (Michigan and South Carolina) are considerably better. Both are states whose industrial bases have been ravaged by foreign competition. Both have seen their property markets hammered by the credit crunch and the recent wave of foreclosures. And at least in South Carolina, the state that is often the sine qua non for securing the GOP nomination, the Evangelical vote is nearly as significant as it is in Iowa. If Huckabee wins there—and he currently leads—his momentum could prove unstoppable.

There are, naturally, a raft of reasons to doubt this scenario. Huckabee’s lack of money might trip him up on Tsunami Tuesday, February 5.

My prediction has always been that Super-Duper Tuesday is going to be about free media, not advertising, so I don't accept that last part.

Huckabee is starting to look like Buchanan in another area: foreign policy. He has written an article for Foreign Affairs magazine that's very interesting. In it he has strong criticisms of Bush's foreign policy and leadership style. Here's the highlights:

The United States, as the world's only superpower, is less vulnerable to military defeat. But it is more vulnerable to the animosity of other countries. Much like a top high school student, if it is modest about its abilities and achievements, if it is generous in helping others, it is loved. But if it attempts to dominate others, it is despised.

American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out. The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. My administration will recognize that the United States' main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists.

The Bush administration has never adequately explained the theology and ideology behind Islamic terrorism or convinced us of its ruthless fanaticism. The first rule of war is "know your enemy," and most Americans do not know theirs. To grasp the magnitude of the threat, we first have to understand what makes Islamic terrorists tick.

Although we cannot export democracy as if it were Coca-Cola or KFC, we can nurture moderate forces in places where al Qaeda is seeking to replace modern evil with medieval evil. Such moderation may not look or function like our system -- it may be a benevolent oligarchy or more tribal than individualistic -- but both for us and for the peoples of those countries, it will be better than the dictatorships they have now or the theocracy they would have under radical Islamists.

If I ever have to undertake a large invasion, I will follow the Powell Doctrine and use overwhelming force. The notion of an occupation with a "light footprint," which was our model for Iraq, is a contradiction in terms.

[On Iran:] Many Iranians are well disposed toward us. On 9/11, there was dancing in the streets in parts of the Muslim world but candlelit vigils and mourning in Tehran. When we invaded Afghanistan, Iran helped us, especially in our dealings with the Northern Alliance. Hoping for better bilateral relations, Tehran wanted to join us against al Qaeda. The CIA and the State Department supported this partnership, but some in the White House and the Pentagon did not. After President Bush included Iran in the "axis of evil," everything went downhill fast.

The conclusion:

Our history, from the snows of Valley Forge to the flames of 9/11, has been one of perseverance. I understand the threats we face today. When I am president, America will look this evil in the eye, confront it, defeat it, and emerge stronger than ever. It is easy to be a peace lover; the challenging part is being a peacemaker.

"The peacemaker" is the image the campaign would like to portray. Some strong rhetoric against Bush's policies from Huckabee, and it is earning him more denunciations from establishment Republicans. But it's precisely the establishment Republicans that messed up big-time in Iraq. Despite their declinations, that was precisely the reason for the 2006 result. After the primary race is over, whoever the Republican nominee is, he will have to start shifting on Iraq towards a better general election position. Huckabee is doing that right now. He could be playing towards Ron Paul supporters as well.

The rise of Huckabee should, in my opinion, help John Edwards. Huckabee is a dangerous commodity for Hillary to run against. The likability factor could be exploited against her. Huckabee's liberal-leaning positions would triangulate well against Hillary's liberalism. Edwards and Obama are another story. I think Huckabee might beat Hillary, would have less of a chance against Obama, but wouldn't beat Edwards. They are too much alike so that voters would just vote for the party (Democrats) that they want to control the White House. Edwards himself is now talking about his electability.

New Hampshire

Andrew Sullivan makes the point that if independents flock to Obama in NH, it's not only bad news for Hillary but bad news for McCain, since it's an open primary. But it's also bad news for Giuliani.

Rassmussen reports that Giuliani is now at his lowest level in NH, and that Thompson has disappeared behind Ron Paul in NH.

Sullivan also points to the downward trend for Hillary in New Hampshire, and Chris Bowers proclaims that for the first time Obama is leading the race. Obama is edging out Clinton in Iowa. He could translate an Iowa win into a NH win, and then lights out.

Ron Paul Sets Fundraising Record

Ron Paul set the new high water mark for fundraising in one day for the Republican candidates--he pulled in $4.2 million yesterday online. Yesterday was Guy Fawkes day, a big day for Protestants in Britain:

Fawkes was a British mercenary who failed in his attempt to kill King James I on Nov. 5, 1605. He also was the model for the protagonist in the movie V for Vendetta. Paul backers motivated donors on the Internet with mashed-up clips of the film on the online video site YouTube as well as the Guy Fawkes Day refrain: "Remember, remember the 5th of November."

Here's Steven Stark's reaction:

Paul is still terribly unlikely to do well at all in the race for the GOP nomination. But to the extent he gets any votes, he probably gets at least some of them at the expense of John McCain -- another candidate with appeal to independents. This is especially true in New Hampshire -- a state with some libertarian leanings -- and a state in which McCain must either finish near the top or end his candidacy. The long-term significance of yesterday is that Paul has now shown enough grass roots financial support that he can think about a credible third-party candidacy -- something he already tried 20 years ago as a libertarian. As we've written before, virtually any third-party candidacy in 2008 helps the Democrats. The more support Paul attracts, the better Hillary's general election chances look.

Intriguing, but I don't see Paul going third party. He's had such a great forum as a Republican, going to all these debates. If did the Libertarian Party route again, that could be an interesting scenario, with perhaps Bloomberg even being added to the mix, but Stark is right, it would seal a Democratic victory.

The Huckabee problem

Check out this brilliant post on 2008central about Mike Huckabee. I agree with everything. Here's the essential section:

At the end of the day, the majority of people vote based on a simple idea of a candidate. For example, ‘Rudy Giuliani will protect us from terrorism and clean things up the way he cleaned up NYC’ or ‘Mitt Romney will make the government function like a business’ or ‘John McCain is trustworthy and knows foreign policy best’ or ‘Fred Thompson is lazy, but capable and that means he’ll protect me from terrorists and from intrusion of the Government but he’ll also leave me alone’ or ‘Ron Paul will finally remind Americans that the constitution is real, is the law of the land and should be adhered to’. I could go on, but I think my point is clear. After following this campaign very closely, I can boil all of these candidates down to a simple statement…an idea and come election time that’s what most voters do - they boil candidates down to a simple statement and pick based on the statement that is closest to them.

I can’t do this for Mike Huckabee…I mean, I could come up with a few…but not a single statement and that’s the problem. As he has in the beginning, Huckabee is left without a motto and without a solid constituency.

Thompson on the economy

Fred Thompson gave a very unsurprising sub-par performance at the Republican debate. He blundered during his first response on the economy. He had a long pause during his answer, which is not atypical for him, and his rainbows-and-lollipops picture of the economy was such a weak answer to the question of why two out of three Americans don't think the economy is going well, especially compared to the answers given by Romney right afterwards and Ron Paul and the Huckster later on.

Giuliani gave a pro-free-market answer in between Romney and Paul, and he spoke with conviction and credibility, while Thompson just seemed like he answered because he had to. Politicians have to speak in generalities. The whole art is to do this while at the same time seeming to speak one's mind with passionate conviction. It's a difficult thing to do: inspire people to agree with you who might not if they really knew your concrete positions, motivate the people who agree with you already while not alienating too many on the fence, speak dispassionately and with gravitas on issues that divide people without giving the impression that you'll say and do anything that will get you elected.

Thompson flounders while Huckabee's underfunded

Thompson's campaign in Iowa received a harsh assessment by the New York Times yesterday. It's well deserved. I was starting to be skeptical of Thompson in early July, after his poll numbers started moving up a few weeks earlier. But it was the Midwestern Republican Leadership Conference in late August really crystallized it for me. Thompson was so shaky, and Huckabee so charming, that I understood why Huckabee had placed second in the Iowa straw poll.

This shakiness has continued. Thompson can't connect with people. If he had come out of the box and declared his candidacy in July or August and sparkled in debate, he would have raised a ton of money and been the front-runner. But running for president is hard! You can't do it in a laid-back fashion. You have to know your stuff. You have to show people that you want the job and that you can handle it.

This is Huckabee's problem--is he up for the job? He hasn't convinced the donors that he is. Here's the report on third quarter fundraising from the WSJ:

[Ron Paul's] $5 million is half the approximate $10 million that Messrs. Giuliani and Romney each are expected to report, although neither candidate has officially released numbers. Former Sen. Fred Thompson is expected to report around $8 million in third-quarter fund raising.

[John McCain] has struggled financially and is expected to report numbers on par with Dr. Paul. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee also leads Dr. Paul in the polls, but raised an estimated $1 million in the third quarter.

Republican debate reflections

The PBS Republican debate moderated by Tavis Smiley at Morgan State University failed to include four of the top five candidates, namely Giuliani, Thompson, Romney and McCain. A "slap in the face" to the black community, to be sure, but there's not an incentive to talk about the issues of that community when they are not a powerful constituency in Republican primary elections.

There's a great account of the debate here, and I agree with the comments offered, notably the assessment Huckabee was given a good grade but "lacks the gravitas to be president."

It was interesting that Ron Paul got loud ovations, when he didn't pander like the other candidates (Huckabee, Brownback).

Mark Shields and David Brooks on PBS tonight agreed that it is a stain on the Republican party. That's true in particular because four of the top candidates weren't there. But would it have been true if only one hadn't? Or two? The decisions by candidates of both parties to skip other debates (such as the values debate or the health care debate) was not considered a slap in the face of anyone. What we have here is a case of the tragedy of the commons. The stain is on the Republican image, not any single candidate, as Brooks and Shields agreed. What incentive does an individual candidate have to bolster the brand image of the party? They're running hard for themselves, their individual campaigns. They are all going to be judged by the money they raise, and that is their consuming obsession. The media is obsessed with getting a story and the tarnished image of the party was the story, but the candidates have other priorities.

Romney on Iran

Mitt Romney has a new radio ad out that's very anti-Iran. This is an interesting move considering that we seem to be coming closer and closer to war with Iran, according to a number of sources, even though the head of US central command says its not going to happen, and French President Sarkozy has backed off talk of war.

I've talked before about the effect air strikes on Iran would have on the general election. On the Republican primary field, it would be interesting. All the candidates save Ron Paul would have to support it. The rally-around-the-flag effect would be too strong, and there's too many Republican primary voters who would not support a candidate seen as supporting the Democrats on such a major issue. To get a sense of Republican sentiment, watch the first few minutes of Newt Gingrich talking about Iran. He's so inflammatory against Iran it would almost make one forget that there were thousands of people in Iran lighting candles in support of the US after 9/11, the only such show of support in the Middle East.

Values debate reflections

Some reflections on the Republican values voter debate on Constitution Day...

It was announced that no Democrats agreed to come and debate the following week; after hearing the provocative opening hymn the reason why is crystal clear. The opening prayer is even more revelatory of the chasm of religious style between the parties. Whichever candidate can to some degree bridge this abyss from either party has a huge advantage in the general election.

Ron Paul got his usual huge welcome from the crowd. He stopped in mid-sentence with his opening statement when the bell rang. The rest of the night the applause came during his comments before he finished. Tom Tancredo stumbled over his very first sentence of his opening statement, and totally botched his personal faith answer. The Huckster turned on the charm from the get-go in his--he's so much smoother than anyone else on stage. In his opening statement and his answers he would made his summation just two seconds before the bell rang. His answer on abortion was a little mangled at the end but the beginning was very strong, he hit the personal faith question out of the park, and effectively buttered up Phyllis Schlafly. However, he was completely confused over a question on the Mexico City policy and had to be corrected by the other candidates.

Alan Keyes went after Mitt Romney in his first answer. It'll be interesting to see if he's allowed into the other debates. His impassioned answers got little applause, until he corrected the Huckster. John Cox also came off well. He's not allowed into the other debates because his polling is too low. Ron Paul talked about the exceptions clause of the Constitution as way to deal with "activist judges" instead a constitutional amendment; a much easier proposal than the impossible route of amendment. Duncan Hunter gets in the same act that Giuliani started and the Huckster continued of getting applause by shooting Paul down on foreign policy. This happened during the debate--interestingly, the same thing happened during closing statements and Hunter did not get any response from his upbraiding of Paul. Hunter also got a laugh with "I don't belong to any organized denomination; I'm a Baptist."

The microphones needed work. There was constant whispering during answers and mics not being turned on quickly enough.

"Change" and the GOP

A new ad from Mitt Romney is out, and is posted below. The message is change--one that could be very effective for Republican primary voters. The war, the recent scandals (Vitter, Craig), and now Greenspan's tongue-lashing of Bush on spending make this a timely ad. Congressman John Murtha predicted earlier this week that staying-the-course on the war in Iraq was the order of the day in Congress, until the presidential primaries end. At that point, he predicted, Republicans would jump ship and there will be policy-changes. We'll see what happens. For now, the change issue only goes so far with Romney, who basically mouths anodyne Republican talking points on foreign policy. But so do the rest of the candidates; only Ron Paul of course really embraces change on this issue. Huckabee, however, might be the "one to watch" on this issue, according to EJ Dionne: "If Republicans want a conservative nominee who has never attacked Bush on Iraq but can still signal a change in direction, Huckabee could be their man."

Republican debate third-segment reflections

A hypothetical question about Iran become bellicose. Giuliani has a solid answer--this is his strong suit, a muscular foreign posture. Romney looks too smooth here perhaps. The Huckster's answer is revealing. As with any candidate, his strength is also his weakness. His appeal to character and heart pushes patented Huckabee positive-think generalities. This becomes a weakness, however, if the question is asked by Republican primary voters, "Do you know enough to be president?" Or put another way, "Can you stand up to Hillary in a debate." Is Huckabee a general-election winner, does he have the substance and knowledge of the nitty-gritty to at least seem presidential? This is the strong point of Giuliani and McCain, but the Huckster's weakness. It was also Candidate W. Bush's weakness. But Bush could project a toughness that Huckabee lacks.

Bob Cusack of The Hill said Romney was on the defensive all night, and that's clear. Both he and David Drucker picked Giuliani to win this debate and that's probably right too.

Republican debate second-segment reflections

McCain has a strong answer on foreign policy leadership, but gets somewhat tepid applause. Giuliani praises McCain--the surest sign that McCain's so dead he poses no threat to the very candidate whose support he would take away if he started to rise in the polls. During the Iraq debate, the Huckster also praises McCain--says he "understands honor." More praise showing how little anybody feels McCain is a threat.

The colloquy of the debate so far is Ron Paul and the Huckster. both get huge, boisterous responses from the crowd. The Huckster is able to face down Paul purely with rhetoric ("We have to be one America." "Honor is more important than the Republican party.") It's all general with the Huckster. Not a bad strategy at all--once you go to specifics his trademark optimism has to go down the drain.

Duncan Hunter has a strong answer on Guantanamo, gets a little applause. Brownback uses the word "complementarity" to describe the Pres-Veep relationship.

Americans for Tax Reform's pledge not to raise taxes was not signed by McCain and Giuliani. A nifty tactic to make them look presidential--they're above puny pledges; they have records that "speak for themselves." A harsh question on this topic to Romney again by Chris Wallace. He handles it well and gets some applause-lines in, including a dig at Edward's haircut. Fair tax question to the Huckster. It sounds great in 30 seconds. That's the advantage of only having 30 seconds--there should have been a follow-up on that one.

Amazing non sequitur from Giuliani answering a question about his private life, but he connects the dots at the end: "My private life does not affect my public life." Good answer in the sense of turning the issue to his record. But this is such a liability with Republican voters, and Giuliani's query, "I assume this question is for me," shows how little he wanted to answer it.

Republican debate's first segment reflections

Huckabee had a good joke about Thompson. McCain's joke gets a laugh as well, as does Giuliani's. McCain then ruined it by telling a "joke" that no one laughed at and that he had to tell the crowd was funny. Huckabee had the advantage of going first, but he also has great delivery about "no-show Thompson." Giuliani's joke is perhaps more memorable--Thompson did a good job of playing my job on TV. That's a more memorable line than the Huckster's, though less well-delivered.

Immigration is the first substantive topic. Romney gives a very smooth answer to a very tough question. Hunter gives a smooth response as well. The Huckster continues the strategy of his whole campaign of a kind of David Cameron conservatism--conservative policies combined with sunny, relentlessly positive rhetoric. Tancredo's impassioned response hurts Giuliani and McCain, but the contrast with Huckabee plays into the hands of the Huckster.

Hunter has an applause-line on scandals and the Democrats. He looks comfortable and presidential. Giuliani has a solid response to a gun-control question. It's right down his alley. Ron Paul gets applause for his first substantive answer, a libertarian proposal to get the government out of airport security. Brownback gets to answer two questions on family values, right down his alley.

Huckabee the real winner of the Iowa straw poll

Here's the roundup:

Attendance: 30,000-33,000
Total Voters: 14,302

Romney 4,516 votes (31.5%)
Huckabee 2,587 votes (18.1%)
Brownback 2,192 votes (15.3%)
Tancredo 1,961 votes (13.7%)
Paul 1,305 (9.1%)
T. Thompson 1,039 (7.3%)
F. Thompson 203 (1.4%)
Giuliani 183 (1.2%)
Hunter 174 votes (1.2%)
McCain 101 votes (0.7%)
Cox 41 votes (0.2%)

The poor showing by Tommy Thompson resulted in him dropping out of the race.

CNS News reports on Huckabee's "likeableness." Newt Gingrich had this quote: "Mike Huckabee is not a second tier candidate. He deserves, by anyone’s qualifications, to be considered a first tier." He spent less than $200,000 on the event. Romney by contrast spent over $1 million.

Ron Paul beat expectations. Apparently he had a very visible presence, even beyond his voting numbers, as a lot of his supporters came in from out of state and could not vote.

In 1999, there were 23,685 voters. The drop-off shows the waning of enthusiasm in the Republican ranks that has been prevalent in fund-raising numbers (with Republicans behind Democrats by $100 Million so far). It is also due to McCain and Giuliani passing on the event, and Fred Thompson as having yet to enter the race, as the Des Moines Register points out.

Historically, the straw poll is not so far off in predicting the winner. Bush 43 won it in 1999, Dole tied with Phil Gramm in 1995, and Bush 41 came in third in 1987 to Dole and Pat Robertson.

Romney to skip the Republican YouTube debate

This from the Washington Post's the Trail blog:

Asked about the format, which featured video questions submitted by the public, Romney said "There is a degree of respectfulness that ought to be associated with the process fo selecting a nominee. From what I've heard, that level of respectfulness was breached."

Romney took special exception to a question about global warming, posed by a snowman in one of the video questions. "I don't know that it makes sense to have people running for president answering questions posed from snowmen."

I agree with Decision '08 that this is a good move. I had the same reaction to the snowman question, and inside I cheered when Joe Biden called the last question asked in the debate "A ridiculous exercise."

So far only McCain, Tommy Thompson, and Ron Paul are scheduled to take part in the debate.

Here's a video put out by Ron Paul's campaign.

Ron Paul, a profile

Personal:
Birth date: 08/20/1935
Birthplace: Pittsburgh, PA
Home City: Lake Jackson, TX
Religion: Protestant
Education: MD, Duke University, 1967, BS, Gettysburg College, 1957

Professional Experience:
Medical Practice, Obstetrician-Gynecologist, 1968-1996
Air National Guard, 1965-1968, United States Air Force, Captain, 1963-1965

Political Experience:
Representative, United States House of Representatives, Texas District 14 1996-present
Candidate, United State's President, Libertarian, 1988
United State's House of Representatives, Texas District 22, 1976-1977, 1979-1985
United State's Senate, Republican Candidate, 1984

The New York Times Magazine has a profile on Paul this weekend. Here's some quotes:

There is something homespun about Paul, reminiscent of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” He communicates with his constituents through birthday cards, August barbecues and the cookbooks his wife puts together every election season, which mix photos of grandchildren, Gospel passages and neighbors’ recipes for Velveeta cheese fudge and Cherry Coke salad. He is listed in the phone book, and his constituents call him at home.

He is particularly popular among the young and the wired. Except for Barack Obama, he is the most-viewed candidate on YouTube. He is the most “friended” Republican on MySpace.com.

[Growing up,] Paul was a terrific athlete, winning a state track meet in the 220 and excelling at football and baseball. But knee injuries had ended his sports career by the time he went off to Gettysburg College in 1953. After medical school at Duke, Paul joined the Air Force, where he served as a flight surgeon, tending to the ear, nose and throat ailments of pilots, and traveling to Iran, Ethiopia and elsewhere.

Under the banner of “Freedom, Honesty and Sound Money,” Paul ran for Congress in 1974. He lost — but took the seat in a special election in April 1976. He lost again in November of that year, then won in 1978. On two big issues, he stood on principle and was vindicated: He was one of very few Republicans in Congress to back Ronald Reagan against Gerald Ford for the 1976 Republican nomination. He was also one of the representatives who warned against the rewriting of banking rules that laid the groundwork for the savings-and-loan collapse of the 1980s. Paul served three terms before losing to Phil Gramm in the Republican primary for Senate in 1984. Tom DeLay took over his seat.

Paul got the Libertarian Party nomination for president in 1988, defeating the Indian activist Russell Means in a tough race. He finished third behind Bush and Dukakis, winning nearly half a million votes.

In the first days of 1995, just weeks after the Republican landslide, Paul traveled to Washington and, through DeLay, made contact with the Texas Republican delegation. He told them he could beat the Democratic incumbent Greg Laughlin in the reconfigured Gulf Coast district that now included his home. Republicans had their own ideas. In June 1995, Laughlin announced he would run in the next election as a Republican. Laughlin says he had discussed switching parties with Newt Gingrich, the next speaker, before the Republicans even took power. Paul suspects to this day that the Republicans wooed Laughlin to head off his candidacy. Whatever happened, it didn’t work. Paul challenged Laughlin in the primary.

His candidacy was a problem not just for Laughlin. It also threatened to halt the stream of prominent Democrats then switching parties — for what sane incumbent would switch if he couldn’t be assured the Republican nomination? The result was a heavily funded effort by the National Republican Congressional Committee to defeat Paul in the primary. The National Rifle Association made an independent expenditure against him. Former President George H.W. Bush, Gov. George W. Bush and both Republican senators endorsed Laughlin.

In 1999, he was the only naysayer in a 424-1 vote in favor of casting a medal to honor Rosa Parks. Nothing against Rosa Parks: Paul voted against similar medals for Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II. He routinely opposes resolutions that presume to advise foreign governments how to run their affairs: He has refused to condemn Robert Mugabe’s violence against Zimbabwean citizens (421-1), to call on Vietnam to release political prisoners (425-1) or to ask the League of Arab States to help stop the killing in Darfur (425-1).

He was the only Texas Republican to vote against last year’s Federal Marriage Amendment, meant to stymie gay marriage. He detests the federal war on drugs; the LSD guru Timothy Leary held a fundraiser for him in 1988. While he backs free trade in theory, he opposes many of the institutions and arrangements — from the World Trade Organization to Nafta — that promote it in practice.

Paul also opposes abortion, which he believes should be addressed at the state level, not the national one.

But what is “Ron’s message”? Whatever the campaign purports to be about, the main thing it has done thus far is to serve as a clearinghouse for voters who feel unrepresented by mainstream Republicans and Democrats.