* John McCain is 2008's co-comeback kid. His campaign, largely as the result of the immigration issue, was coming off the rails last summer. Now he's won the all-important New Hampshire primary and delivered a presidential victory speech.
* Hillary Clinton, winning all along in New Hampshire, stumbled in the aftermath of Iowa. Just as her political obituaries were being written, Clinton received an adrenaline shot in the form of a victory in New Hampshire. Obama would have been hard to stop. Now Hillary will be the one hard to stop. She stole the big mo' from Obama. Can he ever steal it back?
* Reports of the first black president were greatly exaggerated. Every four years, naive observers tell us that youth will make the difference. Barack Obama's young supporters told pollsters that they would vote for him. They did, but not in such numbers necessary to make those poll numbers stand up for the final poll.
* Even Bay Stater Paul Tsongas won in New Hampshire. Mitt Romney, despite outspending the competition, couldn't win his neighboring state. To know him isn't to love him.
* On the one hand, Ron Paul overcame some eleventh-hour, bush league politics by his media opponents to win a respectable share of the vote. On the other hand, New Hampshire was made for him and he still couldn't place. Maverick campaigns--Buchanan '92, McCarthy '68, Hart '84--have traditionally found a friendly environment in the Granite State.
* Fred Thompson garnered an anemic one percent in New Hampshire. Should he drop out before the South Carolina primary--where he still retains double-digit support in some polls--and endorse McCain, he could finally become a player in the 2008 election.
* Huckabee won Iowa. Romney won Wyoming. McCain won New Hampshire. Rudy Giuliani figures to capture a few of the most populous states. It could be a long time, perhaps as late as September 4th in St. Paul, before we know for sure who the Republican nominee will be. Political junkies can dream, can't we?
What to make of this:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
Hillary didn't win New Hampshire by a whole lot. States with more than 10 black people in them will not be kind to her.
Ralph,
The article was penned by a Giuliani supporter who has admitted on Tucker Carlson's show that he "knows Paul isn't a homophobe" but "likes to be provocative to rile up his supporters."
As for the quotes none of them are from Paul and this has been covered even in his congressional runs repeatedly, as well as covered 2 or 3 different times in the past year where he was asked about it in an interview format on tv or radio and he responded and it never grew legs and died.
They were all written by some staffer who published a newsletter in Paul's name w/ no direction or editing from Paul (he was not exactly running a tight outfit 20 years ago). Once they became noticed 20 years ago he fired the staffer and disclaimed the things written. Since he has never stated anything in that vein in any public setting in his career this is a waste of everyone's time and a vane smear attempt.
Even Drudge ran it and linked to it for only a while today before completely pulling it from his site. If even Drudge decides that there are no good reasons to promote a smear attempt then we can be pretty sure it is b.s. I mean Drudge doesn't generally shy away from yellow journalism.
What is it about Romney that so many dislike? He is certainly the most sane person in a field of strange ones and on the flaw scale he is, by far, the least in that category.
Yes, he has a bit of baggage from being Governor of the bluest state in the nation, but by degree they all have baggage and many more political and social eccentricities than Mitt.
McCain?? Huckabee?? You've got to be kidding!
If conservatism is what the 'R's want, I can't imagine voting for one of those two a-holes and not for Mitt.
Whats so conservative about him? Was it that he brought socialized health care to Massachusetts (that pays for abortions)? Or was it his support for the assault weapons ban? Maybe it was the fact that he was pro-choice until just before the election process began? The fact that he is a fan of No Child Left Behind? His opposition to prayer in schools? That he is in favor of hikes in the minimum wage? Is it his pro-amnesty stance?
He does want to incinerate Muslims though so he has that going for him.
Ralph: I very earnestly looked into these allegations of racism 8 months ago or so when the NRO types jumped on it, because I wouldn't be able to support Paul if he were a racist. I found that the articles were not written by Paul and that generally they were more adolescent than hateful, and I concluded two things (1) Paul should have been more hands-on in monitoring and controlling a newsletter with his name on it (I suspect his character is to just let other people do what they want and to go about his business); (2) The people making the accusation (hawkish, foreign policy-obsessed "conservatives" with stopping an "isolationist") are dishonest scumbags, participating in leftist-style b.s. politics. (Leftists are forever adding beliefs to the index and issuing excommunications. Holding anything remotely close to those beliefs, or even having discussions with people who hold them, then classifies a person as utterly unsuitable for civilized company. All people are forever not supposed to talk with the offenders in any way -- to do so is to contaminate oneself. Conservatives have not infrequently adopted this strategy against their intermural enemies as well. See Sobran as an example.)
Regarding this new article on TNR: It depresses me that that holding those views of secession and the War of Northern Aggression is now rated a Crime against Humanity. Also, that view of the CW is hardly "revisionist" -- and to say so is either revisionist or ignorant.
Oops, posted to wrong one.....
Ben-T,
I never said that there was anything “so conservative about him”. In particular, that is. Just that people seem confused with their need for conservatism and balancing that need with which candidate would be the best ‘R’ for President.
Even RR was not the perfect Conservative and as the country seems to be moving to the center/left anyway, I don’t know if we’ll ever see another RR Conservative who is a viable candidate. Some people think that’s Paul and they’re probably right, but unless he can bring his numbers up he’s not a viable candidate.
That leaves the big three. And out of them, the guy who was a Republican Governor and who did the best job he could do (pi$$ing against the Dem tide) to run a state full of leftists, had run successful businesses, had run a successful endeavor like the Olympics, is anti-illegal immigration is finally right on abortion and, by all accounts, is a normal and happy family man with strong values and religious convictions seems to stand out.
Bottom line is, find me the perfect person/candidate and I’ll vote for him. Or her.
I've always thought that associating Ron Paul with neo-nazis, or other sordid characters, simply because he doesn't return their campaign donations was unfair (and stupid). I'm sure all campaigns have gotten contributions from unsavory folks.
However, I'll have to disagree with the dismissal by Paul supporters of TNR's hit piece this past week. Sure, it was a hit piece. It attacked him personally. But, geez, even the most ardent Paul supporter has to admit that some of the stuff from those newsletters is deplorable. No?
If Paul wrote them himself, shouldn't that disqualify him of reasonable conservatives' support? Or, if it was ghostwritten, and Paul knew nothing of it, well, that seems almost as damning since it suggests he is spectacularly clueless and/or incompetent.
While I do wish that the GOP was more libertarian on economic issues, I haven't been a huge Paul fan during the campaign. My two preferred candidates are Romney and Thompson. And if either one had a series of newsletters with the content of the Ron Paul Political Report, I would desert them in a second (or less!). Yet Paul supporters seem to be holding strong.
I'm wondering if the piece in Reason today, with quotes from the 90's where Paul seems to take ownership of at least some newsletter content, will turn the tide among Paul's supporters. Or am I missing something?
