Unfortunately, I did not get to ask John McCain my question during today's blogger conference call. It concerns word choice and may sound insignificant to some, but I think says something important about McCain's strategic outlook.

During a question about last night's Democratic debate, McCain described Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's answers on Iraq to be "almost Orwellian." However, during the same answer, he referred to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party." It's a two-letter subtraction that Democrats have described as a "smear" by Republicans who have previously used it, including President Bush, Tom DeLay and several other prominent Republicans. The obvious intended effect is to disassociate the neutral semantic use of "Democratic," which one assumes conjures positive feelings, from alignment with the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, the questionable word choice occurred midway through the conference call, far too late for my trigger finger *1 request to reach the front of the pack before the call ended. McCain even shut-down his handlers, taking an additional question after they tried to cut things off. But again, unfortunately, I wasn't the guy picked to ask.

Still, I'm very curious if this word choice was intentional, and if so, what does McCain believe is its desired effect?

Just got off another John McCain conference call for bloggers. There weren't too many items that jump out, but a few interesting questions and answers. McCain has said he has nothing left to say about the New York Times story, but nonetheless was asked about whether it had rallied conservatives to his cause. "I don't know the answer to that," McCain said, adding, "I really have to move on in all aspects of this issue."

On Barack Obama's debate answer last night in which he offered to meet with incoming Cuba leader Raoul Castro without conditions: McCain said such a meeting, "has the effect of legitimizing him." But this did allow McCain the chance to work in a decent joke, saying of Fidel Castro, "We eagerly await his chance to meet Karl Marx."

On whether indicted Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ), who currently serves as McCain's honorary Arizona campaign co-chair, should step down: "I'm sure congressman Renzi will probably move to step down and that we would accept that."

Conservative bloggers are beginning to digest the breaking news that Mitt Romney will endorse John McCain during a 3:30pm EST event today:

They said Romney wants the 286 delegates he won to go to McCain, who now has 827 delegates, and is the Republican front-runner. To clinch the Republican nomination 1,191 are needed.

That would leave McCain just 78 delegates short of the nomination. Probably not enough to give Romney a real shot at VP since it doesn't push McCain across the finish line. Romney supporters can point to the unexpected Reagan/Bush alliance in 1980, but it will depend on whether Romney's endorsement carries weight. The initial reaction doesn't look so good.

Michelle Malkin, asking if Romney would need "nose plugs" sharing the stage with McCain today:

Now, that’s a Valentine’s Day gift.

And NRO has only mentioned the endorsement without commentary, but Kathryn Jean Lopez has a Valentine's Day campaign fairwell piece on Romney today.

Just finished a blogger conference call with John McCain. Most of the questions centered on who he would select as his vice presidential candidate. McCain punted on that one, saying he'll wait until he first secures the nomination before looking into possible running mates, "Because we haven't started the process, it's hard for me to say who's in the mix."

In a bit of news, McCain announced he had just returned from a meeting with the House Republican Conference, where he had a "great discussion," and received an endorsement from the House Republican leadership. McCain called the meeting, "another step in the process ... of uniting the party." "I understand I have a lot of work to do," he added.

McCain also dodged a question as to whether he would resign his Senate seat, allowing outgoing Rep. John Shadegg to make a run for it. McCain said he'd wait until after he was officially the nominee, adding, "Right now, I have no inclination to leave the Senate early." Which, in Washington vernacular, means he's definitely thinking about it.

As I noted in my wrap-up of McCain's Potomac primary rally last night, the campaign and the candidate are both clearly transitioning into an attack stance against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the general election.

On Obama, McCain said: "It's not an accident that [according to National Journal rankings] he's the most liberal senator in the United States Senate." McCain also promised to run on his "principles and specfiics ... rather than platitudes."

He also took a hard shot at Iraq war critics, noting he had recently received a phone call from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who is in Iraq, and reported political progress to go along with the recent military success of the surge. On war critics, McCain said: "They've been wrong on both counts [political and military] and I hope they'll own up to their absolutely wrong assessment."

Finally, discussing what kind of principles he'd look for in cabinet choices, McCain was vague, except when hinting at his environmental policies, saying he'd take the Republican Party on a "return to the kind of Teddy Roosevelt outlook on things."

John McCain's victory rally in Alexandria, VA last night was a celebration of what he called a "clean sweep" in the region's Potomac/Chesapeake primary. I was at the rally last night and with CQ Politics' video producer Andrew Satter, brought back some highlights from the evening's festivities:

 

It's won't have quite the feel of a Peach Pit After Dark celebration, but we'll be heading over to John McCain's post-Potomac primary party in Virginia tonight with CQ Politics' video guru Andrew Satter. Video antics to ensue... 

Time's Ana Marie Cox looks at Karl Rove's positive "Face the Nation," assessment of John McCain from this past Sunday, and finds a very different Rove take on the same man from eight years ago. As Cox says of the striking differences in the two takes:

I know, I know: he hasn't really changed his mind. Before, he was just lying.

Earlier in the presidential primary season I used to say that Fred Thompson was "the 48 percent solution," for the Republican base. In other words, core conservatives had already given up on their hopes of retaining the White House in 2008 and were instead looking for a candidate who could lose respectably and minimize the damage done in congressional races across the country.

Well, Thompson is long gone and his good friend John McCain is set to take the reins as his party's presumptive nominee. Balloon Juice's John Cole floats an unusual theory of his own: The base wants to "sabotage" McCain as the nominee because they know they're going to lose already and can blame the loss on the "outsider" McCain, instead of on themselves:

So here is why they are sabotaging McCain- they want him to lose, or at the very least are hedging their bets. They want and need to paint him as not conservative, not pure enough to really represent the wildly successful (in their minds) conservatism that makes up the Bush dead-enders. That way, when they are blown out of the water in 2008, they don’t have to do any reflection, they don’t have to assess, re-prioritize, or re-think their policies. They can simply pin it all on McCain, claim he lost because he didn’t offer the voters a “real” conservative alternative, and get back to championing the end of the “death tax” and other important issues without skipping a beat.

In other words, McCain is the fall guy, and they are just distancing themselves from him.

Interesting theory, but I just don't see the Lee Majors resemblance.

A John McCain versus Barack Obama 2008 match-up would present all kinds of problems for opposition research types trying to frame the two candidates most-popular with independents. The opposition to McCain from within Republican circles has been well documented. But as he moves closer to securing his party’s nomination, McCain is increasingly becoming the target of Democrats, eager to chip away at his appeal to moderates and non-party affiliated types.

MoveOn.org has put out a memo on McCain, also posted at votevets.org, tying him to President Bush and even Donald Rumsfeld. This is one association that may actually benefit McCain. His campaign should be happy to go against MoveOn, which often infuriates and energizes the Republican base. In particular, McCain has already spoken out against the group after their “General Betray Us” ad campaign targeting Gen. David Petraeus.

McCain is also taking heat from “The Real McCain,” website over at bravenewfilms.org. Cliff Schecter has been compiling and distributing anti-McCain videos on the site, such as this “John McCain is Dr. Strangelove,” video produced by Robert Greenwald.

UPDATE: Fifty minutes after this post went up, Andrew Sullivan puts up his own post about a pair of McCain attack videos. It must be a trend.

John McCain, Mitt Romney and even Ron Paul all received some form of promotion from CPAC in advance of their respective speeches yesterday. While McCain didn't appear on the initial agenda because his appearance was only confirmed in the past week, CPAC posted a separate note on their website announcing that all four remaining Republican presidential candidates would be appearing and speaking.

But some Huckabee supporters believe CPAC is snubbing their candidate by taking down any mention of the former Arkansas governor's appearance. From a commenter at Huckabee's campaign site:

I just wanted to point out to you that cpac.org does not mention Mike Huckabee on their list of 2008 speakers on the front page or the agenda page of their web site. Huckabee supporters are very angry about this and have emailed CPAC, but we have received no response. Mike Huckabee is scheduled to speak at 9:00 A.M. on Saturday. This is just another example of the unfair treatment Mike Huckabee is getting from the news media and his own party!

A few Huckabee supporters say they have written in to CPAC but haven't received a response. In fact, I was just browsing the CPAC site going over tomorrow's agenda and trying in vain to double-check the time for Huckabee's speech, which is scheduled for 9am.

My take on McCain's CPAC speech.

CQ Politics's Greg Giroux and Jonathan Allen on Romney, with an assist from yours truly.

Despite a mixture of boos and applause when McCain took the stage at today's Conservative Political Action Conference today in Washington, the speech appeared to "go about as well as it could have," according to many in attendance. I'll have a full write up on the main CQ Politics site in just a little bit. In the meantime, some excerpts and highlights:

Although McCain appears to have his party’s nomination all-but-secured, he has acknowledged the pressing need to unify the competing sectors of the conservative base before heading into a general election contest against either Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) or Barack Obama (D-IL).

Speaking about two hours after former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney told the same CPAC crowd that he is suspending his own presidential campaign, McCain had kind words for his one-time bitter rival, calling Romney a “great governor.” “We agreed to get together and agreed on the importance of unifying our party,” McCain said.

Americans for Tax Reform President Pat Toomey offered mixed praise for McCain’s CPAC address. “Senator McCain deserves some credit for making a conscious effort to reach out to conservatives at CPAC today, but over the next couple of months, he will need to go beyond talking about those issues on which he agrees with conservatives and address those areas in which we’ve had strong disagreements,” the former Pennsylvania House Republican said in a statement.

McCain offered an olive branch to conservatives, saying, “Even in disagreement, I will seek the counsel of conservatives.” McCain also promised to change his stance on some issues if he was shown to be “wrong,” by conservative colleagues. In another attempt at reconciliation, McCain told the audience he could not win the election, “without the support of dedicated conservatives.”

The most receptive applause lines for McCain came when he addressed the war in Iraq and national security, his signature issues in the campaign. Saying that both Clinton and Obama would withdraw American forces from Iraq and invite terrorist attacks in the United States, McCain said, “I will not allow that to happen,” and promised to “win the war.”

I'll be at CPAC tomorrow, along with about 6,000 conservative activists, eagerly awaiting John McCain's afternoon address. We'll have all the details on the blog here tomorrow, as well as a wrap-up on the main CQ Politics site.

So, what to expect from McCain's highly-anticipated speech tomorrow? First, boos. Then, another marginal step in the reconciliation between the Republican outsider and the activists/elites who so very much fear the idea of him taking control of their party. Remember, it's not really about ideology. McCain has been a life-long conservative, as my CQ Politics colleague Richard Whalen forcefully notes. It's about control - McCain wants it and the elites don't want to give it up. But winning is just about everything in politics and McCain looks like the closest his party has to a winner these days.

McCain's like Sigourney Weaver's Ripley character in Aliens. The troops she accompanies on their mission don't consider her one of their own and think she might be more than a little crazy. But she's got that fighting spirit and they like that. Plus, much like the futuristic U.S. Colonial Marines of the film, right-wingers just hate (illegal) aliens.  The only thing missing is an exoskeleton suit wearing Mike Huckabee coming to McCain's rescue while facing off against Alien Queen Romney, "Get away from her, you b*tch!"

Over at NRO, Ramesh Ponnuru weighs the up and downsides of having Mike Huckabee on the ticket as John McCain's VP: He could help deliver evangelical voters and the South, but may further alienate the anti-McCain conservatives. After all, Huck often conjures the ire of the far-right in ways only Ron Paul seemed capable of:

The upsides are obvious. They're the first- and third- best vote-getters in the Republican field. Huckabee helps to make up for McCain's weakness with evangelical Protestants and, to a lesser extent, his weakness on domestic policy. The most frequently mentioned downside—the further alienation of

And over at New York Magazine, John Heilemann adds:

So long as Huckabee maintains his sanity and doesn’t go mad-dog on the front-runner, every vote he gets from here on out only enhances his profile, builds his stature, and advances his ultimate cause — which, as everyone with half a brain comprehends, is to land himself the VP slot. Will McCain give it to him? Seems plausible to me. In the primaries, Huckabee has been the answer to McCain’s prayers. In the general, he might, just might, be the solution to McCain’s most nagging problem.

Human Events editor Jed Babbin outlines the three things he believes John McCain must address at tomorrow's Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington: His views on judicial nominees, the war, and other signature issues where McCain has drifted from much of the conservative base, such as immigration:

One source told me last night that McCain is planning an all-out push at CPAC.  At 3 pm tomorrow, McCain is scheduled to address the crowd expected to number over 6,000 activists.  And McCain plans a very special introduction. 

According to my source, McCain has prepared a video featuring President Ronald Reagan to make the introduction. If McCain uses this video, it is very likely to backfire badly.  This is the group before which Ronald Reagan said in 1975 that, “A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers.” 

Babbin's advice is sound in the context of CPAC, but flawed when viewed entirely on its own merits. Conservatives may still be feeling burned by McCain's role in the formulation of the Gang of 14, but that coalition helped usher through John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and many other very conservative justices. And with Democrats now in control of the Senate, how many conservative judges do folks like Babbin think Bush would be getting approved if Republicans had eliminated the judicial filibuster back in '05?

And does John McCain really need to explain himself on the war to conservatives? It's the one issue they strongly agree with him on. Little doubt he'll discuss it, and it would be nice to see him break out of Donald Rumseld/surge talking points, but McCain believes national security is his singular strong point, so why would he avoid it?

Powerline's John Hinderaker praises John McCain's victory speech tonight and lays down what may become a regular criticism of Obama from the right:

John McCain did very well, I thought. He struck the right notes of confidence and conciliation, pledged allegiance to the party, saluted the party's conservative principles, and offered an olive branch to the Romney campaign.

Barack Obama is his usual self. It's hard to tell sometimes whether he actually thinks he is saying something coherent, or whether he is delivering a parody of a gasbag politician. Time will tell, I guess; at some point, he's going to have to come through with more substance.

Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist talks to Jon Allen about how he sees the general election shaping up:

"I want to run against Hillary because she’s the candidate of the past. People vaguely remember that there was something icky that they didn’t like," he said. "You bring back Bill Clinton, which peole in Hollywood think is cute, but people with kids don’t want to talk about."

He said he could support McCain in a general. McCain "has been moving to the center" of the Reagan coalition, he said.

Mary Katherine Ham echoes the sentiment of many self-described conservatives, particularly those in the Beltway. To paraphrase, "We KNOW McCain and Huckabee are just awful, but for some reason, the voters appear to disagree." And with Huckabee's strong showing tonight, Ham and several other pundit-types on the right are trying to figure out exactly where that support belongs. Should Huckabee be a vice presidential candidate for McCain or Romney? And if not, will evangelical voters protest by not voting?

Ham ponders:

That makes some more sense for Romney, I think, although the two of them don't care much for each other. For McCain, doesn't the Huckabee vice-presidency knock the legs out from under all his independent support? Although it would seem to be a decent choice on paper since he's Southern and evangelical, every moderate/libertarian Republican or Independent I know would seriously consider sitting out instead of voting for a ticket with Huckabee on it.

The thing about McCain, though, is he has this self-destructive political tick, which would not surprise me if it kicked in and compelled him to pick Huckabee as his veep.

Mitt Romney was cruising to a Super Tuesday caucus victory in West Virginia. Then, supporters of Ron Paul and John McCain threw their support behind Mike Huckabee, giving him a close victory over Romney, 52 percent to 47 percent. Reason's David Weigel has the details:

Paul has been knocked out of the race, and I honestly don't know where his votes go. Whoever wins the convention gets 18 delegates: Paul and presumably McCain will get nothing. The Ron Paul Forums people want the conventioneers to vote Huck—how do you like that monkey wrench, gears?—or split.

UPDATE 2:20: I'm hearing the gambit by McCain and Paul backers to go for Huckabee worked. Huckabee's going to win.

UPDATE 2:24: Yes, most of the McCain and Paul voters went for Huckabee on the second ballot. Huckabee wins, 52-47 percent.

Rush Limbaugh says he won’t compromise his conservative principles to support John McCain, even if McCain is the Republican nominee for president. So, Limbaugh is steadfast and resolute – except when he’s not. Reading about the radio commentator’s neophytic approach to absolutism reminded me of something remarkably different Limbaugh confessed after the 2006 midterm elections.

First, Limbaugh on McCain:

If a candidate who is asking me and the American people for his vote isn't particularly conservative on a wide array of issues, I'm going to talk about it. It's not my job to get him elected. . . . I'm in the free speech business. I am not a campaign spokesman. I believe it would be a setback for the Republican Party to attract liberals and independents by being like them in order to attract them."

Compare that to Limbaugh in November, 2006, asked about the Republican collapse:

But the way I feel is this: I feel liberated, and I'm just going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried. Now, you might say, "Well, why have you been doing it?" Because the stakes are high. Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country's than the Democrat [sic] Party does and liberalism.

That’s Limbaugh. Always consistent – except when he’s not.

I'm sure this doesn't represent Red State as a whole, but diarist Mark Kilmer has a detailed endorsement/analysis here.

John McCain will be our nominee, and there are certain indicators which lead me to believe that Ronald Reagan would want Republicans to back the Republican. Let's do it, okay? If it's going to be Hillary Clinton, it is personal.

As John McCain inches closer to the Republican nomination, a growing number of conservative bloggers are making measured defenses of the candidate almost none of them have previously supported. The overwhelming blog response to McCain is still negative, but a few, influential voices are rising to the surface.

NRO's Jonah Goldberg:

McCain wouldn't be my first pick. Then again, none of the candidates were really my first pick. But I think the notion that, variously, conservatism, the country or the party are doomed if he's the nominee or the president is pretty absurd. And I find such claims odd coming from some people who've insisted for a couple years now that the war on terror is the #1 overriding issue of this campaign."

And Right Wing News' John Hawkins:

For all of his flaws, and there are many of them, John McCain is far to the right of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Those of us on the Right tend to downplay that, because a betrayal by someone on our own side stings much more sharply than one from a Democrat, but it is something conservatives should be willing to admit. It's also worth noting that these claims that McCain will destroy the conservative movement are unlikely to be true or alternately, if they are, then the conservative movement is probably too fragile to last any way.

Perhaps most significantly, Hugh Hewitt, a vocal Romney supporter, announced he will support McCain if the Arizona senator wins the nomination:

If Ann Coulter declares again that she'd campaign for Hillary at CPAC, she will be booed and rightly so. Not only did her grandstanding on Hannity & Colmes divert attention from the real issue before conservatives -- the need to abandon the idea of voting for Huckabee or Paul and rally to Romney -- she further fractures an already deeply divided GOP. I have no doubt that most of the anti-McCain voices and voters will throw in with him if he is the nominee, but he doesn't have to be the nominee...I'll sign up for McCain if he is the nominee, but it will be with the same sort of sense of gloom that pervaded the Dole campaign in 1996."

The Politico's coverage of the Republican debate they co-sponsored last night leads with this Jonathan Martin headline, "Romney falls into McCain trap on Iraq," and Martin declaring of McCain's showing:

It was a dull, boredom-inspring performance. But for the undisputed frontrunner, boring isn’t a bad thing.

Matthew Yglesias, who has taken to "supporting" Mitt Romney because of his belief that Romney presents a weaker GOP general election candidate responds by saying that the voters and media have given McCain a pass on his shaky accusation that Romney previously favored a timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq:

One interesting thing about politics is that you might think that when a politician develops a reputation for honesty, the way Saint John of Arizona has, that from that day forward he needs to be super-scrupulous about telling the truth. Otherwise, voters who might dismiss a small fib from a "regular" politician will suddenly be outraged. In truth, the reverse is the case.

But in fact McCain has been piled on with criticism for his attacks. This NRO piece notes McCain’s attack was “being dissected unfavorably on Fox News and CNN,” and that McCain had to clarify himself during his recent “Meet the Press,” appearance. A number of mainstream newspapers and pundit-types, normally friendly to McCain, have also called him out on the issue. And during last night's debate, Romney won applause on more than one occasion while refuting McCain's Iraq claims.

UPDATE: I also meant to note that I'm pretty sure Martin's headline is pointing out that McCain's Iraq focus in the deate pulled Romney off-message and was therefore successful regardless of the actual merits of McCain's attack.

My recap and analysis here. 

Looking at the dejected conservative reaction to John McCain's Florida reaction, Andrew Sullivan says:

Something has gone seriously wrong with the right when John McCain is not regarded as a conservative.

Reading the conservative blogs tonight, you’d think a Democrat had just won Florida’s Republican primary. They say he’s not a real Republican. But remember, these are many of the same people who advocated policies and political stances that led their party racing back into the minority and searching for an identity. It’s now more likely than not that McCain will be the nominee to forge that new identity. It may not be one that righty bloggers and professional Republicans like, but it appears to be the one actual voters are backing.

Unlike most of his NRO colleagues, Rich Lowry makes a gracious gesture towards McCain’s victory:

Meanwhile, Kevin Drum says that while most Republicans will get on board with a McCain nominee, it won’t be enough for victory in 2008:

Sure, they'll mostly come around in November, but mostly isn't enough. He needs 105% of the conservative base, not 95%. Remember that Karl Rove famously had to turn out four million extra conservative evangelicals just to eke out a bare win against John Kerry in 2004.

More conservative blogger reaction here, here and here.

Sam Stein at the Huffington Post discusses a new John McCain "robo-call" phone campaign attacking Mitt Romney for his alleged flip-flopping record on gay rights. From the ad:

"Mitt Romney thinks he can fool us. He supported abortion on demand, even allowed a law mandating taxpayer-funding for abortion. He says he changed his mind, but he still hasn't changed the law. He told gay organizers in Massachusetts he would be a stronger advocate for special rights than even Ted Kennedy. Now, it's something different."

The McCain campaign announced they pulled the attack ad yesterday.

But James Joyner doesn't think the ad rises to the level of slandering gays:

Does this amount to “gay baiting”? That seems a bit much, since the target of the attack is Romney, an open heterosexual. The main thrust of the message is that Romney is a dishonest flip-flopper who’ll tell you what you want to hear. But, certainly, the choice of abortion and gay rights among the dozens of issues on which Romney has changed positions to highlight would appear to be aimed at social conservatives.

Bloggers on the left and the right are dissecting the polls, including today's new Zogby tracking survey, showing John McCain inching into a slight lead in Florida, 35 percent to 31 percent.

As MyDD’s Todd Beeton asks:

Going into the Republican vote in Florida on Tuesday, the polls couldn't be tighter but you can't deny, John McCain has had a heck of a couple days, seeming to shut off Romney's momentum and gaining some of his own. From what I'm hearing, prognosticators would have given it to Romney a couple of days ago without question; now, they're not so certain -- it's a matter of whether the McCain surge is real or just a temporary bump.

But the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder says Romney's overwhelming advertising advantage in the state could make all the difference:

Mitt Romney's had an 8 to 1 television ad advantage in Florida... part of the reason why he's made the competitive. Heck, most of the reason he's made the race competitive has been his ads. According to Neilsen, he's run 4,475 ads compared to John McCain's 470 through 1/22. McCain did not run a single ad until January; Romney ran more ads in September than McCain has run to date.

Does John McCain’s difficult relationship with some Republicans include differences over judicial nominations? That briefly looked to be the case, when John Fund wrote that McCain opposed the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito:

More recently, Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because "he wore his conservatism on his sleeve."

Such a sentiment could derail McCain’s already fragmented and often unreliable relationship with the Republican base. However, Powerline sits in on a blogger conference call with the McCain campaign in which the Arizona senator’s support for Alilto is emphasized.

Also, Stephen Bainbridge digs up McCain’s pre-confirmation Alito comments and finds multiple examples of praise.

Former Fred Thompson spokesman Darrel Ng has launched a website asking people to boycott actor Chuck Norris for his support of Mike Huckabee. Ng posts his personal phone number and email on the site and a list of companies who have advertised on syndicated reruns of Norris' show, Walker, Texas Ranger.




















It would appear that some Huckabee fans discovered the site, since all of the comments are pro-Huckabee. As for me, I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for Silent Rage.

During last night's debate, Mitt Romney was asked if he would emulate Ronald Reagan's 1983 Social Security reforms. As the question was being asked, viewers could hear an unidentified voice whispering, "raise taxes." Was it a MSNBC producer accidentally speaking over the air? A Romney surrogate tipping the candidate toward his answer? Seems a bit paranoid, but that hasn't stopped bloggers from discussing. Maybe it was the box on President Bush's back from the 2004 debate? Listen and watch for yourself:

You can read my take from last night's GOP Florida debate here. 

With Fred Thompson out of the race, Mitt Romney has segued into the favored candidate of conservative bloggers. So, why do so many of Romney’s fellow Republicans running for president personally dislike him? Is it because of the large personal fortune he’s used to help make himself a viable contender? Is it opposition to his Mormon faith? Or, is it his willingness to make major pivots on issues for electoral convenience?

The Moderate Voice suggests it’s the latter:

The difficulty of dealing with a candidate like Mitt Romney, who reminds me less of his laudable father, the late Michigan governor George Romney and more of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, is that he can baldly misrepresent the facts about himself and others, something he’s done repeatedly in this election cycle, and affect wounded rectitude when he gets called to the carpet for it.

While conservative Hot Air suggests that Romney let his establishment Republican friends boost his candidacy rather than going on the attack.

Meanwhile, some liberal bloggers like Matthew Yglesias have given Romney something of a pass, while others, like Daily Kos, asked Democrats to vote for him in the Michigan primary because they think he’s the least electable Republican, as many polls have indicated.

The liberal AMERICAblog ponders:

It's easy for us to dislike Mitt Romney. He's loathsome. But, what's interesting is how those who know him best -- his fellow Republican -- really can't stand the guy

Over at National Review Online, they're saying John McCain won, beating out Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. However, another NRO bloggers points to dramatically different results showing an uncommitted "pro-life/pro-family" slate featuring a photo of Ronald Reagan and asking voters to "Win One for the Gipper," winning handily.



















Did the GOP field lose to a deceased, former president?

More explaining here and here.

I spoke with Ron Paul’s campaign spokesman Jesse Benton earlier today about the Paul/MLK video. Benton said he had not seen the video or heard of it before being contacted by CQ Politics. “It’s a powerful video put together by an independent supporter,” he said.

When asked about the specifics of the video, Benton said, “We would never make those kind of comparisons ourselves. We’ll leave that to the American people to sort out.”

However, Benton went ahead and compared his boss to Dr. King, saying:

“Dr. Paul and Dr. King do share some things in common, including a belief that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. And both were supporters of civil disobedience through non-violence.”

“He is someone that Dr. Paul considers a great personal hero,” Benton said, adding the campaign does not plan to return any of the cash raised through the effort. In fact, the daily fundraising total is being touted on Paul's website.

When asked about New Republic reporter Jamie Kirchick’s story revealing a Ron Paul newsletter from 1990 that made disparaging comments about Dr. King, Benton said, “That’s old news. Everyone knows what Dr. Paul believes in.”

I put in several calls to the King Center in Atlanta and to the Washington, DC office of the NAACP. Oddly enough, the websites for both groups were down today. The King Center’s phone system was a mess and I haven’t heard back from them today.

But I did get through to the NAACP. Waiting on a call from their DC Executive Director, Hillary Shelton.

In the meantime, I touched base with Jamie Kirchick, who says of the fundraising video:

"It's ironic -- though perhaps expected -- that Ron Paul's supporters would now try to compare him to Martin Luther King, considering that newsletters published under his name repeatedly slandered King and showed an obsession with the late civil rights leader's sex life. He also seems to think that the wrong side won in the War of Southern Aggression, a view which I doubt King shared. Ron Paul constantly talks about restoring the Republican Party back to its roots. He forgets that the GOP is the party of Abraham Lincoln."

Fred Thompson has officially dropped out of the presidential race. We'll have a round-up of blogger reaction as soon as it starts trickling in. My first reaction is this would seem to hurt McCain and possibly help Romney in that it narrows the field, removing what many saw as a McCain surrogate. The best thing McCain could have hoped for was Thompson staying in the race and continuing to draw votes from litmus test conservatives. From the campaign:

"Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States.  I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort.  Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people."

So, who becomes the candidate of choice for online conservatives? Romney?

Patrick Ruffini is running a poll over at Hugh Hewitt’s website attempting to measure which candidate Fred Thompson’s supporters (FredHeads) would back assuming Thompson drops out of the race.

With about 4,000 votes, the overwhelming choice so far is Mitt Romney, with 74 percent. And in a second poll, 88 percent of respondents say a Thompson endorsement of John McCain would make “no impact” in their decision of whether or not to support McCain.

There are so many problems with this poll it would be a greater challenge to find something right about it than to outline the number of things wrong with it. First, the poll is being hosted on a website operated by Hugh Hewitt, an ardent Romney supporter. Second, McCain’s web presence has always been quite weak, so it’s unlikely a surge of online Thompson supporters would migrate to someone they’ve never been fond of. Third, not only is it a pro-Romney website, but many people forget that before Ron Paul’s “Ronulans,” or “Paultards,” began their great spamming adventure, it was Romney’s “Rombots” who were infamous for stacking online polls and surveys.

Then there’s the question of how much a Thompson endorsement would actually matter outside of the blogosphere. If he can’t get actual voters to support his campaign, what are the odds he could sway a significant portion of the electorate to vote for someone else?

If Fred Thompson drops out of the presidential race, he may do so with the conviction many say his actual campaign lacked. Jim Geraghty talks to a "Thompson source," and offers the following interesting tidbits:

He has not spoken to any other campaign or any other candidates, nor does he intend to at this time.

He will not endorse, I am told by this source close to Thompson.

I am also told, "he has no interest in a vice presidency or a cabinet position." At an "appropriate time" he will outline his plans for the near future.

As the remaining field of Republican candidates hit the ground in Florida for their party’s first closed primary, bloggers try to decipher the polls and decide if John McCain has become the frontrunner. Still, with the results more than a week away, it’s a great understatement to note that “anything can happen.” And to that end, the blogger predictions are all over the map.

Captain’s Quarters is predicting a Giuliani victory in Florida:

It's tailor-made for him, with plenty of Northeastern retirees and an active Cuban-American base that wants to see hard-nosed policy rather than moderation. If that happens, we can forget clarification, and Super Tuesday becomes a delegate hunt, pure and simple, with everyone viable and a brokered convention more and more likely.

How should the field target their message? David Knowles writes at AOL’s Political Machine:

By and large, if you're hoping to win Florida, keep talking about how you plan to save the economy. In specific, tell us what you plan to do to improve the outlook for housing. That's the big issue.

While NRO’s Jim Geraghty sees a slight McCain edge in the polls and wonders about this morning’s Drudge Report flash item about a new Rasmussen poll showing Mitt Romney in the lead:

It's not that I don't believe it, so much as I'm not sure what's happened that would trigger a mini-Mitt surge.

The conservative blogger reaction to John McCain's South Carolina victory has been decidedly mixed.

Powerline:

I have mixed feelings about that, but it's definitely better than going for Huckabee.

American Spectator’s Jennifer Rubin:

McCain did well enough with conservatives and evangelicals to add to his base of veterans, moderates and Independents. Romney will try to make believe that this is not a loss for him but clearly it is.

And NRO’s Mark R. Levin:

It is hard to see how some of these candidates can draw the movement together, especially McCain, has spent a decade undermining major parts of it.

I am also convinced that Huckabee is now running for the second spot on the ticket. And he is likely to hold out to the bitter end, hoping his delegates will make him a player in the end.

Don't be surprised to see this becoming a big story with conservative bloggers over the next day or two. During tonight's coverage, MSNBC anchors Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann have continued their pattern of mocking the speeches and appearance of several of the Republican primary candidates.

It began after John McCain's New Hampshire victory speech and continues tonight, where the two hosts and their crews openly laughed after Fred Thompson's concession speech. The pair then went on to mock Mitt Romney's clothing choices, with Matthews asking Romney if he had removed his tie and loosened his shirt to appear more "normal" to voters.

Fishbowl DC has the video here.

Michelle Malkin vents:

I switched to MSNBC when Fox cut away from Fred’s pep talk in Columbia, SC. They all cackled after Thompson finished speaking.

I should have switched it off right there, but I decided to stay with the left-wing channel for Mitt Romney’s appearance.

The dorks at MSNBC grilled him over his hair, his unbuttoned collar, and his rolled-up sleeves.

Fred Thompson’s South Carolina concession speech has left both online observers and the traditional media confused as to exactly what his intentions are. Most expected Thompson to dropout, but his speech was more a rehash of conservative platform points with no indication of whether a possible withdrawal was imminent.

Nonetheless, Powerline Blog’s Paul Mirengoff writes the Thompson obit:

Word is that Thompson will return to Tennessee to visit his mother in the hospital. While he's there, presumably, he'll consider his options. Frankly, and I say this with regret, it's difficult to see the case for him remaining in the race.

Classic conservatives, and bloggers in particular, have largely supported Thompson’s campaign, but lamented his lack of enthusiasm and late-game effort. Or, as Hot Air puts it:

When push came to shove, he just … didn’t have enough cowbell.

Red State says Thompson goes out, “Not With a Bang, but a Whimper.”

Meanwhile, NRO’s Jim Geraghty continues to make a case for why Thompson should stay in the race:

[If] he really finds some of his other rivals as not-conservatives who are unacceptable to carry the Republican mantle, why not stay in this thing until the end, collect as many delegates as he can, and at the very least, throw them to the one he finds most acceptable at the GOP convention?

Fred Thompson himself has said he needs to do “very well” in South Carolina for his presidential campaign to go on. Most analysts have said that means winning, or at least placing a very strong second.

But NRO’s Jim Geraghty now says a strong third should be enough for the Thompson campaign to continue. Geraghty points to this new ARG poll which shows Fred Thompson trailing Mike Huckabee and John McCain, but leading Mitt Romney and writes:

A finish like that - behind McCain with 26 percent and Huckabee with 36 percent, but beating Romney by 9, would be plenty reason to stay in the race.

Is this 2008 Republican primary season becoming the Special Olympics of political contests, where all the participants get at least one "very special" primary or caucus victory?

A handful of conservative bloggers, lead most prominently by Quin Hillyer, are calling on South Carolina Republicans to vote for Fred Thompson in Saturday’s primary. Thompson has held a strong standing in the right roots community throughout his campaign, but Hillyer tries reaching beyond those confines to the broader GOP community with a big tent approach:

If I were a South Carolina Republican voter on Saturday, then for parochial, tactical, and philosophical reasons, I would vote for Fred Thompson.

This doesn't mean that I would not have voted for Mitt Romney in Michigan on Tuesday, if I were a Michigander, or that I would not vote for Rudy Giuliani in Florida later this month. Voting in each state, especially in a drawn-out nomination battle, involves particularly local considerations as well as national ones.

In other words, Duncan Hunter fans don’t give up hope on a special caucus exclusive to California’s 52nd district, where your guy just might have a shot!

Hillyer also tries to argue that by choosing a different winner than IA or NH voters, SC could boost its prominence in future primary elections. That logic is a little sketchy, but the points about Thompson’s conservative platform and cultural ties to the region are solid, winning praise over at The Corner.

Meanwhile, Red State’s Erik Erickson follows Thompson on the SC trail where it is snowing and Thompson is apparently winning over audiences.

And Matt Continetti looks into Romney’s lowered SC expectations despite his Mighigan win.

A new Atlanta Journal Constitution poll shows Barack Obama leading Hillary Clinton in Georgia, 36 percent to 33 percent, respectively.

Mike Huckabee is far-ahead of John McCain, 31 percent to 18 percent.

The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett offers a different take on last night's Republican debate, suggesting that Mike Huckabee was in fact the winner, both for sounding presidential and because he "deftly parried" Fred Thompson's zingers:

For the first time, it was not only possible but easy to imagine Huckabee as the leader of 300 million people. He combined this newfound authority with his old standbys of off-the-charts likability and a deft way of tapping into aspirational politics.

10: 38 No doubt Fred Thompson won tonight's debate. It was the first time he's appeared fully animated since first hinting at his candidacy last March. "We've been waiting a long time to see Fred do very well," GOP pollster Frank Luntz just said on Fox News. And sure enough, the crowed agrees. When Luntz asked them how many thought Thompson won the debate, nearly every hand went up.

10:34 When immigration comes up, Romney takes a shot at Ron Paul suggesting the Texas congressman does not support border enforcement. However, people often overlook that Paul is actually pretty much on point with the most conservative Republicans when it comes to border policy. “I do think we should enforce the law,” he says, “and the law says that we shouldn’t have illegals here and we shouldn’t have amnesty. Paul gets even harsher, blaming the government, “We encourage it by promising free education and amnesty,” he says, then taking a shot at society at large, “Some of our people won’t work because of the welfare state.”

10:22 Huckabee jokes that he is the candidate who gets asked about religion. After a question from co-moderator Carl Cameron, Huckabee defends his religious faith and gets applause. “I certainly am going to practice it, unashamedly, whether I am president or I’m not president,” he said.

10:16 Giuliani has another zinger on the constant use of the word "change" over the past week. On the Dems, "The kind of change they want is the change in your pocket." He then repeats his line from the last debate, noting there is both "good" and "bad" change.

10:13 That was strange. McCain was asked if he was "part of the problem, or part of the solution," because of his long tenure in Washington. He then launched into an answer that detailed his role in promoting the Iraq surge strategy, his role in the Senate as a fiscal conservative, "they called me the sheriff," and finally, an anecdote on how he saved the taxpayers billions by blocking funding for an unnecessary U.S. tanker. What is strange is that his answer oddly mirrored another answer he had given earlier. McCain seemed to realize this midway through and stumbled over his words a bit before finishing on a note about his opposition to congressional earmarks.

10:04 Romney again stresses bringing “modernity” to the Middle East to improve our international relations there. But more striking are his comments on Islam. Romney has rejected inquires into the specifics of his own faith, but nonetheless says, “We’re going to have to move the world of Islam. They’re going to have to reject the extreme.”

Paul says that by re-arming former Saddam loyalists in Iraq's Sunni community, the U.S. is setting itself up for future war with Iraq.

9:55 Across the cable networks in as many debates, one of the favorite camera shots has to be a split-screen of McCain watching Ron Paul answer foreign policy questions.

9:40 Their have been four applause lines so far, two by Fred Thompson. Asked about the recent Gulf diplomatic dustup between Iranian and U.S. naval forces, he says to long applause, “I think one more step and they would have been introduced to those virgins they are looking for.” Smartly, he followed it with a more substantive line, “Iran was clearly testing us. They took British soldiers under similar circumstances.”


9:34 Rudy Giuliani's answer on the Reagan coalition won't earn him any points with Republican voters or conservative critics, but he hits an interesting point. While all the other responses have focused on base conservative principles. Rudy notes, “It was a broad outreach, an inclusive one. Not one that kept people away.” Obviously he's saying it to buffer himself on his weaker issues, but it's at least accurate, which is more than you can say about some of his past deflections.

9:29 That was by far the most animated moment of Fred Thompson’s entire campaign, attacking Mike Huckabee’s economic record, he says, “That doesn’t sound like the model of the Reagan coalition, that sounds like the model of the Democratic Party.”

9:24 Mike Huckabee was asked about the Reagan coalition and if he thinks it's gone. Huckabee, who has been accused by critics, of not being able to hold that coalition together, responded, "Some people think one part of that coalition is more important than others. I think they're all important."

9:15 Very little differences from the candidates on tax cuts, with the exception of Huckabee, who is blending his economic populism with discussion of his "fair tax" proposal.

Exit polls out of Iowa and New Hampshire show the economy being the top issue for Republican primary voters. Not coincidentally, how the candidates would steer the economy is tonight's first question.

Mitt Romney uses his first answer to attack John McCain on the economy. McCain earlier told MI voters that "some jobs have left and they're not coming back." "I disagree," Romney said in response.

McCain zings right back saying, "One of the reasons I won in New Hampshire is because I was telling the truth."

A new Fox New South Carolina poll puts John McCain in first place with 25 percent of the vote. Mike Huckabee is second, with 18 percent, followed by Mitt Romney at 17 percent and Fred Thompson, who hails from neighboring Tennessee, at 9 percent.

While there is clearly no love lost between McCain and Romney, it might be in McCain's best interests to have Romney stick in the last through Super Tuesday. It appears that Huckabee and Romney are fighting over the social conservative vote, with Thompson pulling some of that away as well. That leaves McCain to reap the more secular and moderate vote. Take Romney out of the equation and the path to victory looks brighter for Huckabee, especially if he finishes a strong second or even third in Michigan.

Fred Thompson hosted a conference call with conservative bloggers today.

Ed Morrissey posts some highlights:

On his competition, he agreed with one blogger who called most of his opponents liberals. Fred doesn't think that the media picks candidates as much as rolls with whatever story arises and tries to build themes with them. He will try to draw distinctions between the other candidates and true conservatism in the debate tonight. Keep an eye out for that tonight.

Thompson also said his "individualism" and "authenticity" are his greatest strengths.

The Weekly Standard recaps the questions, while Powerline adds:

South Carolina is the ideal state for Thompson to make his stand in. It's a traditionally conservative southern state in which he has friends and contacts. Thompson insists, moreover, that he has enough money to engage the voters, and not just at a purely "retail" level. He promised to be "competitive" on the state's airwave. In Thompson's view, a vast portion of the state's Republican electorate is undecided (polls tend to confirm this) and likely to be receptive to his message.

John McCain began the 2008 presidential campaign in first place, and that's where most national polls have him after his strong win in New Hampshire on Tuesday. McCain seems to have everything in place for a Michigan victory next week, but that could all change on a dime if he does not perform well in tonight's Myrtle Beach, South Carolina debate, where immigration is listed as a top issue for voters. And remember, McCain is largely considered to have under-performed during the last two debates before NH. But he did still win...

Going into tonight's Fox News sponsored debate, two new polls show him with traction in Michigan (1/15), a state he won in 2000, and where Mitt Romney will make his "last stand."

A Rossman Group/MIRS/Denno-Noor survey shows Huckabee leading with 23 percent, followed by Romney at 22 and McCain at 18. No other candidate shows in double digits. However, this poll was conducted before McCain's win, so I suspect Romney and Giuliani, who is pulling in 8 percent of the vote here, could both experience drops.

Meanwhile, a Strategic Vision Poll, also taken before NH, shows McCain leading with 29 percent of the vote, to 20 percent for Romney. Huckabee receives 18 percent and Giuliani gets 13 percent.

The national media have anointed John McCain the new GOP frontrunner, but I just find it hard to picture him as the nominee. He has a great personal story and the perfect blend of conservative to moderate positions for a surprising Republican victory next November. It’s just really difficult to picture primary voters being so reasonable or pragmatic.

Mike Huckabee is also hated by many of those same so-called conservative elites. However, unlike McCain, he is a fresh face whose mixed partisan background as governor of Arkansas is still likely largely unknown to most voters. What those likely voters do know about Huck – his consistent background as a social conservative and his empathetic touch – are inherent advantages over any other Republican candidate.

Real Clear Politics’ John Ellis outlines the case for how Huckabee wins the Republican nomination:

A strong Huckabee showing in Michigan and a convincing win in South Carolina would set up a showdown with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in Florida, one that Huckabee could afford to lose. Indeed, he might even want to lose it, if only to fatten Giuliani up for his eventual slaughter on the altar of social conservatism. Again, the longer Huckabee faces two "not Huckabee" candidates, all of whom are alien or anathema to the GOP's core Sunbelt/Christian constituencies, the more likely it is he will eventually emerge victorious in the final showdown, wherever that might occur.

“Crunchy Con” Rod Dreher agrees, adding:

I'm thinking that if Huck can pound his Main Street populist message, and get lots of free media in Michigan, he could win over enough independents and Democrats to make a difference in a close three-way race.

Romney supporter Hugh Hewitt and McCain supporter Andrew Sullivan with more.

To say I’ve been a skeptic of Giuliani’s late-calendar strategy is putting it nicely. At this point, it’s hard to see what motivation the former New York City mayor has for going forward. Other than losing New York, a Florida loss is basically the worst thing that can happen to Giuliani. This campaign has already transformed him from transcendental American icon to regular politician. And if these trends keep up, America’s memory of him as a political figure will be mediocre at best.

Taegan Goddard’s political wire has a new poll out of Florida today showing Rudy Giuliani dropping down to fourth place:

A new Datamar poll in Florida finds Mike Huckabee leading the Republican presidential primary race with 24% support, followed by Mitt Romney at 20%, Sen. John McCain at 18% and Rudy Giuliani now back in fourth place at 16%.

Two months ago, Giuliani led the GOP race. With little chance of winning the other early states, he has been campaigning nearly non-stop in Florida for several weeks.

The Democratic race is confused since the state was stripped of its delegates to the party convention for moving up the primary date and none of the major candidates is campaigning there. Nonetheless, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads the Democratic race with 40%, followed by Sen. Barack Obama at 28% and John Edwards at 19%.

The Florida primary is on January 29.

The always must-read Andrew Sullivan on McCain's victory:

After everything, this is McCain's night. After the awful news about Ron Paul's ugly, repellent past newsletters, I find myself rooting again for the man who was my second choice. He did this from scratch, after his campaign bottomed out last summer. He faced a much-better financed establishment candidate in Romney, he stuck with his immigration position, he kept up a schedule that would have drained a man half his age, and he stuck with the surge, a tactic that worked far better in damping down violence than I expected, even if it has not achieved its critical political objectives.

Sullivan certainly is not reflective of the Republican Party's views, but he may be tapping into a sentiment from right-leaning independents.

As John McCain's supporters continue to shout "Mac is Back!" I came up with an idea for a presidential campaign theme song not composed by U2.

British R&B crooner Mark Morrison's 1996 hit, "Return of the Mack." Ok, so the style isn't exactly McCain, but the lyrics could have been cut and pasted from his victory speech:

So I'm back up in the game

Running things to keep my swing

Letting all the people know

That I'm back to run the show

'Cos what you did, you know, was wrong

And all the nasty things you've done

So, baby, listen carefully

While I sing my come-back song

Rasmussen Reports has an early poll out of South Carolina showing Mike Huckabee with a solid lead at 28 percent, to John McCain's 21 percent.

Mitt Romney places third with 15 percent and Fred Thompson gets 11 percent. Rudy Giuliani is also in double-figures, with 10 percent of the vote.

Of course, these numbers are bound to change after tonight's results from New Hampshire. How much of a boost will John McCain get? How far will Mitt Romney's numbers fall? And will Mike Huckabee's numbers be affected at all?

The conservative Powerline blog is no fan of John McCain. But Paul Mirengoff gives some credit to McCain for his victory tonight:

New Hampshire, of course, is the perfect state for McCain, but it's also good state for Romney. For McCain to have defeated Romney there, after being so far being in the polls, is a terrific accomplishment for the Senator. UPDATE: It looks like Mike Huckabee will finish third with about 12 percent of the vote. That result won't hurt him one bit.

Worth asking again: Is this the start of a trend amongst conservative bloggers?

Now that the cable news networks are calling New Hampshire for John McCain, the driving question is how does his victory affect the McCain and Romney campaigns?

Romney has many built-in advantages in the upcoming Michigan primary, but so does McCain. Is this the end of the Romney campaign, or the second stage in a tortoise vs. hare(s) contest?

And even with the apparent resounding victory, McCain will soon face some of the very same questions the Huckabee campaign is facing, most prominently: How does your campaign continue beyond one friendly contest?

Follow all the real-time results with CQ's New Hampshire Primary page here.

The New Hampshire primary is the biggest story in politics today, but the biggest story in the blogosphere is regarding newsletters from the past three decades attributed to Ron Paul that contain homophobic and racist sentiments.

The New Republic’s Jamie Kirchick, who wrote today's story, has been investigating Paul for months now, earlier unearthing a campaign contribution from a Nazi sympathizer that Paul’s campaign refused to return. Kirchick traveled to Kansas where he was able to track down the newsletters in question and has even posted some of them on TNR's website.

Paul granted a quick interview to Reason’s David Weigel today that was evasive at best. When Paul can't give definitive answers to Weigel and Reason, who have basically been supporters of his campaign, that's not a good sign.

The Texas Congressman described the newsletters to Weigel as “old news,” and his campaign spokesperson has said that Paul did not author many of the offensive pieces himself. But as several bloggers have already pointed out, the offensive statements are not an isolated incident. There isn’t absolute evidence that Paul himself is racist and/or homophobic, but there is now a growing trail of evidence that he has, at least, turned a blind eye to those elements in his circles.

Conservative Ann Althouse says she knew all along:

The things Ron Paul has been saying made me suspect that his libertarianism was a cover for racism.

The Weekly Standard’s Michael Goldfarb mentions the racist campaign contributor:

Kirchick and others attacked Paul a few months back over his failure to return a $500 check from a prominent white supremacist. At the time, Paul had explained that he couldn't possibly screen ever donor. Of course he couldn't, but the media had screened this one for him, and he refused to give back the money anyway. Now we know why. He's been speaking in code to the dregs of American society this whole time. And he had no intention of alienating his base of support.

And Roger L. Simon says you can only excuse so many individual incidents before a pattern is formed:

Whoa. The only name on those newsletters is Ron Paul, no matter who wrote the actual articles. We all know that most politicians do not write their own speeches, but we certainly hold them to the contents. Why not Paul? And this creepy stuff went on for over ten years. It's not like one week slipped by.

A number of conservative and liberal blogs are responding to breaking news news that New Hampshire’s secretary of state is reporting “huge” turnout in early voting returns today.

On the right, Captain’s Quarters Ed Morrissey says the large turnout is bad news for Hillary Clinton and that “Conventional wisdom has McCain benefiting from a big turnout.”

Liberal Values’ Ron Chusid writes that he would expect independents to vote in the GOP primary if it’s clear Obama is headed for victory:

Whether the high Democratic turnout is an indication primarily of Obama’s lure or the excitement of finally having a truly competitive race won’t be known until we see the exit polls. I would have expected independents to swing towards the Republican contest, given that the polls show Obama winning comfortably while McCain and Romney are neck-and-neck.

The Carpetbagger Report says turnout may go even higher:

In previous cycles, there’s been a large after-work rush, so the “absolutely huge” description may be even more impressive by the time the polls closed.

Outside the Beltway and Open Left offer their observations as well.

John McCain began the 2008 presidential campaign in first place, and that's where most national polls have him after his strong win in New Hampshire on Tuesday. McCain seems to have everything in place for a Michigan victory next week, but that could all change on a dime if he does not perform well in tonight's Myrtle Beach, South Carolina debate, where immigration is listed as a top issue for voters. And remember, McCain is largely considered to have under-performed during the last two debates before NH. But he did still win...

Going into tonight's Fox News sponsored debate, two new polls show him with traction in Michigan (1/15), a state he won in 2000, and where Mitt Romney will make his "last stand."

A Rossman Group/MIRS/Denno-Noor survey shows Huckabee leading with 23 percent, followed by Romney at 22 and McCain at 18. No other candidate shows in double digits. However, this poll was conducted before McCain's win, so I suspect Romney and Giuliani, who is pulling in 8 percent of the vote here, could both experience drops.

Meanwhile, a Strategic Vision Poll, also taken before NH, shows McCain leading with 29 percent of the vote, to 20 percent for Romney. Huckabee receives 18 percent and Giuliani gets 13 percent.

My take on last night's Fox News Channel/GOP forum:

• Most Unusual Use of the Name of Former President Ronald Reagan: Two of the six references to the revered Reagan came when McCain and Giuliani both pointed out that Reagan supported amnesty for illegal immigrants in the 1980s. Meanwhile, Huckabee responded: “We all love Ronald Reagan, we want to be like him. But even Ronald Reagan made mistakes.”

Read the rest here.

In less than an hour, the Republican field could become a little bit smaller. Duncan Hunter’s campaign issued a press release this morning announcing that at 2pm, the California congressmen will make a statement, “regarding the future of his Presidential bid.”

Michelle Malkin chimes in:

Rep. Hunter has been a stalwart advocate for strict immigration enforcement, border security, and a strong national defense. If he withdraws, which seems likely, his presence will be greatly missed by grass-roots conservatives. I’ve never been able to answer questions from readers about why his campaign never caught fire given his excellent credentials and expertise (compared to, say, Mike Huckabee’s). Politics is weird and inexplicable like that.

What’s more “weird and inexplicable,” is the apparent refusal of Republicans in general, and conservative bloggers in particular, to recognize what the remaining field of candidates and respective frontrunners says about what primary voters are looking for.

The top five contenders for the nomination (McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani and Fred Thompson) are all unorthodox in their own ways. The toughest anti-immigration candidates are out of the race and/or out of contention, two of the three top contenders oppose torture, and four of the five have less-than-perfect track records on the life issue.

As many seasoned reporters are noting, this year’s voting class is looking for character, not litmus tests. Duncan Hunter is a great litmus test candidate. He’s just not a very inspiring political leader for most, or even many, Americans.

UPDATE: Way to go all Chuck Hagel on us. Duncan Hunter apparently just likes to waste our time. His "big" announcement was a non-announcement that he is, in fact, staying in the race.

Can’t wait for next week’s New Hampshire primary? National Review’s Jim Geraghty reminds us that Wyoming’s GOP caucus is tomorrow and could provide at least a small boost for Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson or Ron Paul. That’s because while most candidates have ignored the state, the Romney and Thompson campaigns have spent organization time and/or money there, while the Paul campaign has been taking out newspaper ads:

Who wins is anybody's guess, as no polls have been conducted or released. The Billings Gazette notes, "some Republican committee members say a couple of candidates - Romney and Thompson - may be rising to the top." Ron Paul has been buying newspaper ads in the state.

The first entrance polls are coming out from Iowa. CNN is reporting that Huckabee and Romney are leading, 33 percent to 24 percent respectively. In the battle for third place, Fred Thompson is getting 17 percent of the entrance poll numbers, while John McCain is pulling 11 percent.

On the Democratic side, CNN says entrance polls are showing a “tight race” between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

These numbers are incredibly early and prone to change, but very interesting nonetheless.

UPDATE:

MSNBC is also posting some post-entrance poll numbers

Edwards: 39%

Clinton: 38%

Obama: 36%

Huckabee and Romney are leading MSNBC's polling as well, with Fred Thompson is a solid third-place at 18 percent.

I recently had the chance to interview Georgetown University Professor and author Christopher C. Hull about his new book, “Grassroots Rules: How the Iowa Caucus Helps Elect American Presidents.”

Mr. Hull has been studying the Iowa caucuses for years and offered some insights on tonight’s voting, along with how the political blogs have helped reshape the process.

Although there have been a number of developments in the days since we spoke, Hull’s breakdown of the three leading Democratic candidates sounds about right.

Hull says Obama “has the right idea,” in his approach to campaigning in Iowa and is “well-positioned to win,” the caucuses which are about to begin in just over an hour.

Even with the recent Obama surge, Hull still thinks Hillary Clinton is“likely to do very well” in Iowa. “I still see her ultimately winning the nomination,” Hull said, despite the favorable trends for Obama in Iowa and New Hampshire, where most polls have him now leading Clinton.

However, Hull was less enthusiastic about John Edwards, saying his trends have been “almost a mirror image of Clinton’s,” with poll numbers “slowly trending downward,” despite his large turnout at recent campaign rallies.

Hull’s observations have added weight because he correctly predicted the final results in Iowa back in 2004. He said his statistical model allowed him to make the ’04 prediction in advance of caucus night, but that this year’s field is too competitive for him to make a similar public prediction.

Nonetheless, he did predict that if current trends continue, Obama is “positioned to win New Hampshire if he wins Iowa.”

On the Republican side, he said the “thing to watch,” is how Mitt Romney’s traditional organizational support fares against Mike Huckabee’s largely grassroots effort. Hull says his research shows that part of Huckabee’s support has come from voter fatigue with Romney’s massive spending and advertising blitz in the state.

“What you really need in Iowa is narrow-casting,” Hull said, adding that retail politicking almost always trumps media saturation in Iowa. “Spending is inversely proportional relative to what you see elsewhere.”

Fred Thompson's campaign has been denying last night's story from the Politico, which cites sources "close" to the former senator claiming he will drop out of the presidential race and endorse John McCain if he doesn't finish at least second tonight in Iowa.

Thompson adviser Mary Matalin just told MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell that Thompson “unequivocally” denies the rumor and will not drop out no matter what happens in Iowa tonight.

If the Thompson story falls apart, it would be a tough mark for the paper which last March incorrectly reported that John Edwards was dropping out of the race.

However, the story has already likely damaged Thompson, whether it was accurately reported or not. Conservative blog Red State jumps to Thompson's defense, refuting the Politico piece in two separate posts. Red State's Erik Erickson outlines the path to a successful Thompson nomination run:

Clinton lost Iowa and New Hampshire before winning South Carolina and coming back. Fred has the online support. He's going to do better than people expect in Iowa (he actually is). Huckabee is going to beat Romney today so those two are going to fight like drag queens wearing the same dress to a party. Fred needs to leverage these three things and go to South Carolina.

Meanwhile, Red State diarist Pejman Yousefzadeh bucks the polls and predicts a Thompson victory in Iowa:

Thompson: 22

Romney: 21

Huckabee: 20

McCain: 17

Paul: 11

Giuliani: 9

It took but a few moments after news broke yesterday of the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto for the cable news networks to begin debating which presidential candidate would benefit most from the news.

Almost as quickly, several liberal bloggers began criticizing the discussion. For instance, Talking Points Memo’s Greg Sargent singles out a discussion by MSNBC Joe Scarborough over the potential political fallout.

But over at MyDD, Todd Beeton defends looking at the politics of murder:

I'm sorry but Bhutto's assassination was a political event whether people like it or not; it's much larger than the tragic death of Bhutto and the throngs of supporters who were killed as well, this is earth-shaking, both abroad and at home. There is a parliamentary election in Pakistan on January 8th, which Bhutto's death clearly throws into chaos; is it distasteful to speak of that election as well? And what arbitrary date does it suddenly become OK to discuss the political ramifications of this event? As much as people like to belittle talk of who is going to win the primaries over the next few weeks as trivial "horserace" coverage, there are few issues more crucial to the future of our world than who the next president of the United States is. The extent to which this event informs that decision, I see it as absolutely relevant to the discussion.

In the conservative blogosphere, Captains Quarters' Ed Morrissey went after Bill Richardson for calling on Musharraf to resign in light of the assassination.

Over at Time’s Swampland blog, Jay Carney brings a different perspective to the conventional wisdom reaction that national security candidates like John McCain and Rudy Giuliani benefit from such news:

[T]he impact of international events on domestic elections can be hard to predict. Take McCain's resurgence among the Republicans. McCain brandished his hawkish stand on Iraq earlier this year. Together with immigration, it nearly killed his campaign. Now that Iraq has receded as an issue and turned into a positive of sorts, at least for him, McCain has risen from the ashes. But that may be mere coincidence. McCain is benefitting far less from his steadfast stance on Iraq or his national security experience than he is from the unprecedented fluidity of the GOP race, the general unhappiness of Republican voters with their choices and the surprise surge of Mike Huckabee as a potential Romney-killer in Iowa.

It’s no secret that John McCain is the favorite Republican presidential candidate of most beltway reporters, Democrats and unorthodox conservatives. This past week's storyline has been about a slowly growing McCain surge. For weeks, the evidence was purely anecdotal. But the positive McCain trends are becoming measurable. Even Bill Clinton thinks he’s the most electable Republican in the field.

McCain’s barrier to entry has been the opposition of conservatives, for whom immigration and the “original sin” of campaign finance reform are litmus test issues. However, McCain’s campaign advisers have held on to a belief that if he could simply stay afloat long enough, both the establishment and many of his detractors would come around and accept him as the most viable conservative in the race.

You can’t get much more establishment than Robert Novak, who writes:

Sen. John McCain, given up for dead a few weeks ago as he ran a cash-starved, disorganized campaign, today is viewed by canny Republican professionals as the best bet to win the party's presidential nomination. What's more, they consider him their most realistic prospect to buck the overall Democratic tide and win the general election. Indeed, if Mike Huckabee holds on to actually win the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, the road forward could be clear for McCain.

And much like Ronald Reagan’s trickle-down economic theory, conservative bloggers are slowly but surely showing signs of accepting, if not embracing, the notion of McCain as GOP standard-bearer. Leading conservative blog Red State has posted no less than three positive McCain posts in the past 24 hours:

Praising a new McCain campaign ad

Chiming in on the Novak column:

Bob Novak himself did not support the position that McCain is the potential nominee with the best chance in November; rather, he reported it. My question is: Is Bob Novak telling us something we do not already know? Absent a last minute Fred Thompson explosion, isn't McCain the only candidate well positioned to defeat Hillary or Barry?

And even asking, “Does America Need John McCain?"

Already whispers have begun that if Fred Thompson can't pull off Iowa, conservatives will need to rally around a candidate and that candidate is most likely John McCain. Is John McCain the man to lead America? The Union Leader said yes. And they just might be right.

Even Powerline, which has been far less hospitable to all-thing-McCain, takes a look at the Romney/McCain brawl and concludes:

None of this means necessarily means that conservatives shouldn't vote for McCain. In my view, he is easily the most electable Republican and, if the environment is hostile enough next November, quite possible the only electable one. He's also sound on more issues than he's unsound on, including most of the biggest ones. But conservatives should not doubt that a President McCain will infuriate them on more than a few occasions.

That argument comports with an encounter I had last night while waiting for a delayed flight out of O’Hare Airport. I ran into a Republican friend who was still steaming at the prospect of a Huckabee nomination and threatening to vote for a Democrat, something he’d never previously done, if his other choice was the former Baptist minister. This friend has been staunchly opposed to a McCain presidency over the years, but conceded, “I’d rather vote for someone I’m going to occasionally disagree with but at least has conservative principles.”

Bloggers from both sides of the aisle are today attempting to measure what impact Lieberman’s McCain endorsement will have on the presidential primaries.

McCain has previously joked that the media is “my base.” But McCain’s Kool-Aid Club went from decidedly “Ohhh yeah!” to “Ohhh No!” after they realized he was in fact a conservative Republican who continues to support the Iraq war and was actively cultivating evangelical voters.

At the same time, the conservative establishment has continued to largely shun McCain, despite his record as one of the few remaining credible proponents of the war with a conservative record on taxes and spending. Moderate/pro-change conservatives are certainly warming to the McCain notion, and there’s a trickle of evidence that the online opposition to McCain’s candidacy may be softening as the search for a nominee nears its end point.

The Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes says:

Things large and small in the campaign have been moving McCain's way. The war in Iraq has turned sharply toward victory now that President Bush has adopted the strategy McCain had been recommending for several years. This is McCain's best issue and now a distinct plus for his campaign. And the immigration issue, a poisonous one for McCain, has become less intense since his immigrant-friendly approach lost in the Senate last summer.

Over at Townhall.com, Mary Katherine Ham writes:

I've been noticing among conservative acquaintances, a reconsideration of McCain going on that none of them would have considered this summer.

With the rest of the non-Huckabee GOP field seemingly floundering, Ham continues:

Who's left? An experienced senator who's potent in a general election if he can get past the primary, and who's great on the war and good on spending. Oh yeah, and whom they've all actively disliked for several years for preening to the press, bringing Campaign Finance Reform upon us, and being wrong on immigration and sometimes snide about it.

Nonetheless, they're considering it. Quite a statement about the immense discontent with the Republican candidates. And, it tells me that if he's being reconsidered among some of my staunchly conservative friends predisposed to actively dislike him, he's got a damn sight more voters reconsidering him in Maverick-friendly New Hampshire in these crucial couple of weeks.

CBN’s David Brody says endorsements are all find and good:

But what may be even more important is the narrative that is beginning to form. That narrative is that while Romney, Giuliani, Thompson and Huckabee duke it out, McCain continues to stay above the fray… that he’s become the elder statesman and the voice of reason on the war. Combine that with this idea out there that McCain may be the one to bring both political parties together and maybe it will be John McCain who becomes the 2008 version of “The Comeback Kid”.

The conservative blogosphere today continues to deliver a big “Huck Off” to Mike Huckabee’s surging campaign. However, it’s liberal bloggers who have some excellent counter-intelligence today, as opposed to the right's rampant mudslinging.

Huckabee has been getting lots of attention in the press today for hiring Ed Rollins, who helped run Ronald Reagan’s re-election campaign, as his national campaign chair. But Daily Kos diarist DHinMI links to an archived Time Magazine article reporting that when Rollins managed the successful campaign 1993 New Jersey gubernatorial candidacy of Christine Todd Whitman, part of that strategy included suppressing the African-American vote.

That reminded me of a question from the CNN/YouTube debate a few weeks back, where Huckabee touted his African-American support while running for governor in Arkansas:

Huckabee: Well, according to your network's exit polls, some 48 percent of the African-Americans in my state did, in fact, vote for me, which is unusually high for African-Americans voting for a Republican. Here's the reason why: because I asked for their vote, and I didn't wait until October of the election year to do it. And, while I was governor, I tried to make sure that we included people not only in appointments and employment, but also in the programs that would truly make a difference, like putting disproportionate amounts of help for health problems specifically targeted to African-Americans like hypertension and AIDS and diabetes. So there's a reason. And I just want to express that our party had better reach out not just to African-Americans, but to Hispanics and to all people of this country.

I don't want to be a part of a Republican party that is a tiny, minute and ever decreasing party, but one that touches every American from top to bottom, regardless of race.

That wraps things up for today's Des Moines Register Republican debate. The Democrats' debate is tomorrow.

But first, a few more nuggets...

Paul, on how he would “adjust his plan in light of political reality in Washington,”: “In a way, it is revolutionary to go back to the Constitution.”

McCain, asked to give an example of a time he wished he would have compromised rather than sticking to a “maverick” position: “I cannot think of a time and I hope I never think of a time.” Also said he will “reach across the aisle” to Democrats if elected.

The final question asked candidates to suggest a New Years resolution for another candidate. Most dodged the question, or gave their own, personal resolutions. But a few actually answered the question:

McCain: “Let’s not accuse each other of a lack of patriotism.”

Huckabee: “I’m going to be a lot more careful about anything I say.” When it was pointed out that he was answering about himself, “Well, I’m going to make it about them too.”

Romney: “That we’ll fight to make sure one of those people on this stage is the next president.”

Paul: “My advice would be to re-read the Bill of Rights and to take it seriously.”

Hunter: ‘One thing we could do just a couple weeks before Christmas is to buy American goods.”

Giuliani: “All of us should take a better look at America and realize how lucky we are.”

Quick analysis: Romney takes another veiled shot at Huckabee by stating that Republicans can only win in 2008 if they nominate a candidate who will hold the base together on not just social, but fiscal issues as well. Huckabee didn't do anything to damage his lead, but did appear a little more scripted than before his jump to front-runner status. And finally, how obvious was it that Carolyn Washburn is regretting her paper's decision to include Keyes in the debate?

Some of the candidates were asked questions about "leadership."

Giuliani, on ensuring his administration would be open to information that might not be flattering: “I would be extremely open. I’m used to it – I’m used to being analyzed.” “I’ve had both an open, transparent government and an open, transparent life.”

Romney, on whether he wants to respond to Alan Keyes’ previous answer on abortion: “I’m not sure.” (crowd laughter). Then explains his transformation from pro-choice to pro-life.

Thompson, on how he would make use of national intelligence: “”That’s probably the most important question asked today.” “You’ve got to rebuild from the bottom up.” “In the meantime, we’ve got to rely on other people,” (cites the British).

Quick analysis: Pretty shocking answer by Thompson, who not only said that American intelligence is unreliable but that we should rely on foreign intelligence until American reforms are enacted. Did he really mean that?

The candidates were asked about education and what role the federal government should play.

Tancredo: Noted his tenure working to reduce staff sized in Ronald Reagan’s Education Department. “We took the staff down to 60 … I asked anyone if they could notice a difference … no one said they could.”

Huckabee was chided for advocating expanded arts and science programs for children. On whether POTUS should be an advocate for education, Huckabee noted 30% high school drop out rates: “For a president to say that’s none of my business is unacceptable.”

Romney: Initially downplayed Huckabee’s education record as Arkansas governor, but then said there is a role for POTUS in educating, “Not just poking and saying it’s someone else’s job.”

Quick Analysis: Romney is performing well so far and taking on Huckabee without coming across as bitter or angry.

The candidates were asked to raise their hands if they believe global climate change is a serious threat caused by human activity.

Thompson: I’m not raising hands (applause from the audience)

The question then shifted to what the candidates would do instead.

McCain: “I know it’s real.” On if global warming isn't real, “All we’ve done is give our kids a cleaner world.”

Giuliani: Agreed with McCain, then, “I believe the best way to deal with climate change through energy independence.”

The question then changed to one about how much the government and economy should be used to combat climate change.

Romney: “It’s going to help our economy because we’re going to invest in new technologies to get off our dependence on foreign oil … We can do these things in a way that help both our economy and the environment.” “We call it global warming not America warming … let’s not put all the burden on us.”

Keyes: Makes his own contribution to climate change with a passionate, eloquent answer about nothing and then chides “politicians who create hot air.” He should know.

Huckabee: “The reason this issue ought to be important is that we are not owners of this world, we are stewards.”

Hunter: “Instead of mandates, I’d say incentives.” “We can produce a great new industry.”

I’m live blogging today’s Republican presidential debate from Iowa. One of the first questions asked was who is paying too much in taxes: the wealthy, the middle class or the poor?

The responses:

Alan Keys: non-answer

John McCain: “I don’t know exactly who’s paying the most of the burden.”

Mike Huckabee: non-answer, followed by fair tax posturing

Mitt Romney: “I don’t stay awake at night worrying about the taxes rich people are paying, to be honest.” “We need to reduce the burden on middle income Americans.”

Fred Thompson: non-answer, followed by snipes at Romney, “My goal is to get into Mitt Romney’s situation where you don’t have to worry about paying taxes anymore.” He then seemed to answer that the wealthy are carrying too much of the tax burden by noting the wealthiest five percent of Americans pay more than 50% of overall taxes.

Tom Tancredo: non-answer

Ron Paul: the poor “It’s the middle-class that is being wiped out.”

Hunter: non-answer, followed by attack on the IRS

Giuliani: non-answer, flat tax, tax rates

Quick analysis: Romney, in a rare move, shows the most political courage by answering in favor of the poor, but keeping it in a Republican, fiscally conservative context. Huckabee gives a surprisingly weak answer.

Republicans yesterday managed to successfully hold two seats after special elections yesterday in VA-01 and OH-05. The fact that Ohio’s Bob Latta and Virginia’s Robert J. "Rob" Wittman held their party's seats isn’t the most stunning news.

However, liberal bloggers made a big push for the Ohio seat and are once again left discussing moral victories, rather than actual electoral ones. The bottom line: Republicans will spin this as a victory, but in reality, they essentially held par on 2006 numbers and had to spend valuable campaign cash to do so. Liberal bloggers will note a normally unnecessary cash influx from the GOP, but they were hoping for a true victory, rather than rationalizing defeat.

Daily Kos has perhaps the best progressive blogger analysis today:

Republicans beat us in the expectations game, got enough of their people out, and basically kept things even from 2006. They spent a shitload of money for an "expectations" game victory in what might have otherwise been a routine and uneventful hold. So well played to them. But the bottom line is that they held an R+10 seat. Funny that this is the sort of thing they're left "celebrating" these days.

Red State diarist Adam C also has a reasonable take from the right:

This combo of big wins seems to suggest that partisan R districts are holding up in a difficult environment where both parties and all parts of government are seen in a negative light. Note however that the NRCC and RNC had to get involved in OH-05 where they should not be needed. This takes money and time away from other tighter districts to spend on an R +10 area.

Meanwhile, Jonathan Singer tries spinning things a bit over at MyDD:

Simply put, regardless of the results of this election, the DCCC thoroughly outmaneuvered the NRCC.

But he quickly comes back with an update that puts things in a more rational context:

Update [2007-12-11 22:33:35 by Jonathan Singer]: To be clear, would I have liked to see a win? Yes. But the Republicans' victory was definitely a pyrrhic one, hurting them more in the long term than it helped them in the short run.

Mitt Romney’s new ad attacking Mike Huckabee’s record on immigration is being called the first attack ad of the Republican primary, if not the entire election.

Jonathan Martin says the ad is a sign of “ Mitt desperation” from Romney, which I think is pretty accurate analysis.

However, most bloggers across the spectrum are using the opportunity to attack Huckabee, not Romney. That too may be a sign of desperation: fear from conservative bloggers that Huckabee’s momentum is too strong to stop at this point, and from liberal bloggers who are having to deal with “Republican” and “momentum” being used in the same context for the first time in awhile.

Simon Rosenberg writes in his Daily Kos diary that Huckabee has put up a response ad, “consistent with his new nutty immigration 'plan,' showing how tough he is.”

Leading conservative blog Red State says Huckabee is a nice guy but would be a terrible president because of his policies on immigration, taxes and foreign policy:

Mike Huckabee is a great guy trying to the right thing but becoming President of the United States isn’t where he’s headed. We may not have the greatest choices this election but the more there are, the less of a chance we have of actually achieving a Republican victory.

While Powerline says: "Mike Huckabee’s wrong-headed foreign prescriptions threaten to outstrip our ability to report them."

Meanwhile, Firedoglake notes Huckabee has received the endorsement of “extremist xenophobic vigilante” Jim Gilchrist.

And the Street Prophets blog speculates that Huckabee’s meteoric rise in the polls may be largely thanks to support from GOPer Randy Brinson and his 71 million strong email list.

All this on a day when Matt Drudge is leading with an item claiming that Democrats are "holding fire" in their criticism of Huckabee. Just more evidence that while the blogs and traditional media often focus on the same subjects, they are rarely on the same page.

Finally, Soren Dayton’s round-up on Huckabee backlash can be found here:

CQ’s Jonathan Allen and Kathleen Hunter have the details on the resignation yesterday of two Republicans from the bipartisan House Page board, after it was revealed that four pages had been dismissed recently for “serious criminal acts,” and “inappropriate sexual indiscretions,” according to Ginny Brown-Waite’s , R-Fla., resignation letter.

Shelley Moore Capito , R-W.Va., also announced her planned resignation from the board.

The two Republicans blamed the Democratically controlled board for lack of proper oversight and for not keeping them properly informed of the misconduct: “We were intentionally kept in the dark about dismissals for more than a week,” Brown-Waite wrote in a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Read the rest of the story here.

The blogger reaction to Mitt Romney’s faith speech this morning has been decidedly mixed so far.

Swampland’s Joe Kline says: “Well, I suppose it wasn't a bad speech in political terms, although I doubt it will change the minds of those who believe Mormonism is a cult.”

Andrew Sullivan has been very critical of Romney, but has softened his tone in recent weeks. His current tone is disappointment that Romney has traded in his moderate, business sector Republicanism in favor of a campaign largely focused on religious themes:

“I think it's a tragedy that a man of Romney's obvious gifts should be reduced to this. But he asked for it; and the petard he has been hoist on is his own. If you want a religious politics, you’ll end up with one. That's why Huckabee is the natural heir to the Rove project. And why Romney is falling behind.”

Mary Katherine Ham again shows independence from many of her conservative colleagues by pointing out what Romney didn’t mention: “I liked it, but wondered that there was no mention whatsoever of those with no faith at all. They're not a huge voting block, but many of them are patriotic Americans who respect their religious neighbors (not you, Michael Newdow). It would have been nice to hear that they make up part of the symphony as well,"

Daily Kos diarist Kagro X notes: “He didn't say the word ‘Mormon’ once, I don't think. So to the extent that you bought the hype and tuned in because you had genuine questions about the LDS church, you came away empty-handed. And possibly with the nagging feeling that Romney's hiding something after all.”

And finally, Reason’s Dave Weigel describes the speech as “bland” and predicts:

“Is Romney's slow-motion three card monte going to convince religious voters that they can trust him over Huckabee? I don't think so. I know some of those people. They're not stupid.”

UPDATE: Romney did in fact mention Mormonism ... once. JFK mentioned Catholicism 20 times in his speech. From First Read: "In fact, Romney invoked other faiths by name in the speech more than his own. He said “Catholic” three times, “Jews” and “Muslims” both twice each. Romney, instead, substituted “my church,” "my religion," and "my faith," which he used three times each."

As Mike Huckabee continues to ascend in both Iowa and national polls, so rises the level of distrust and criticism from the conservative blogosphere.

The oft-cited narrative of the Republican primary is that voters are just waiting for someone to latch onto. Rudy reflects their views on crime and foreign policy, but little else. Romney says all the right things, but hasn’t held those views long enough publicly to earn their trust. Fred Thompson seemed like a perfect fit, until he didn’t. And Huckabee, he's great, just not electable.

There are a number of significant differences between the conservative and liberal blogosphere aside from the obvious ideological gaps. The netroots are more reflective of what the Democrats’ progressive base believes in the same way that conservative talk-radio speaks to the Republican base. The overall membership of the Democratic Party is certainly more moderate, but philosophical alignment between liberal bloggers and the Democratic base is a powerful, and mostly united, front.

Meanwhile, the conservative blogosphere tends to more accurately reflect the largely diminished sentiment of fiscal conservatives. It’s a very respectable branch of political thought, and one that many disaffected voters call for a return to, but not one that dominates the party nowadays.

So, how do we evaluate the contrast between Huckabee’s rise in national polls versus his lackluster reception in the righty blogosphere?

Real Clear Politics’ John McIntyre says Huckabee has benefited because: “I suspect the voters have been very much turned off by the recent nastiness between Giuliani and Romney.”

Sounds a lot like this morning’s post on how John Edwards is potentially benefiting from the Obama-Clinton cage match.

Most conservative bloggers don’t like Huckabee’s record on fiscal issues or his opposition to torture. And they are crying foul at this Politico story today revealing that he, as of yesterday, had not yet been briefed on the latest NIE report about Iran.

All that outrage aside, I doubt any of these issues really hurt Huckabee in his quest for the nomination. Fiscal conservatives are no longer reflective of a base that has largely continued to support George Bush and congressional Republicans despite their very liberal record on spending issues over the past several years.

And Mary Katherine Ham’s cry that Huckabee needs to carry around a Blackberry to avoid missing breaking news may sound practical to Beltway pundits, but I find it hard to believe that Iowa voters will punish Huckabee for being slightly behind the curve on an evolving news story that many conservatives have rejected. If you actually read through the transcript of that Politico interview, you’ll find the substance of Huckabee’s answer was quite measured and tailored to a conservative audience, even if it didn’t come directly off a Fox News Channel email alert.