Newt Gingrich- Weakening Romney, or Helping?

Wow. Two years, almost, since I made a post here.

Well, I can log in here again, easily now, so I'm going to move my political posts back here from LiveJournal and Twitter... beginning with this one, about Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich recently did a radio show interview in which he compared his part in the current 2012 Republican primaries as part of a tag-team against Mitt Romney.

"There's a certain advantage, I think right now, in having both of us tag-team Romney because neither one of us by ourselves can raise the money to match Romney," he said. "With Rick [Santorum] and me together, we're really slowing him down with some help frankly from Ron Paul."

Now, the flat fact of the matter is this: Gingrich's position presumes that, if he were not in the race, those donating to him would sit on their hands rather than donate to Rick Santorum's campaign. More to the point, it presumes that Gingrich's continued presence in the race does NOT split the ultra-conservative vote enough to help Romney win delegates he otherwise wouldn't have. This despite polling that shows about two-thirds of Gingrich supporters would switch to Santorum if he wasn't on the ballot, plus election returns showing that Gingrich simply is not a viable candidate anywhere outside the deep South.

So (because I wanted to postpone an urgent but extremely tedious job) I spent a couple hours going through the Republican primaries and caucuses thus far, estimating what would change in races had Gingrich dropped out before Iowa and thrown his support to Santorum. For purposes of this exercise, I was VERY generous and gave Romney the one-third of Gingrich votes that Santorum didn't get, i. e. I presumed that no Gingrich voter would support Ron Paul or stay home.

Beginning with the current (not including Samoa, Hawaii, Alabama or Mississippi, today's contests) total delegate count as estimated by The Green Papers:

ROMNEY: 451
SANTORUM: 199
GINGRICH: 133
PAUL: 75

Now, only covering those contests where Gingrich's departure, and the above presumed 2-1 split in his support between Santorum and Romney, change the outcomes of states:

NON-BINDING CAUCUSES
It's very difficult to do more than guess at how many actual delegates each candidate will have from non-binding caucus states until the state conventions later in the year. Presuming a direct proportionate split with no minimum support, we can look at five states where Gingrich might have some delegates coming to him and split his support- Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Colorado and Washington. Splitting his support gives Romney about one-third of his voters, and maybe six additional delegates. Santorum, getting 2/3 of Gingrich's supporters, would pick up eleven. In a Romney v. All-Not-Romneys contest, that's a net gain of 6 for Romney.

BINDING CAUCUSES- NEVADA and NORTH DAKOTA

In Nevada, where the vote count is binding on delegate selection, Gingrich's six delegates would split four-two Santorum to Romney- or, again, a net gain of two for Romney v. Not-Romney. In North Dakota, the sliver of Gingrich supporters going to Romney isn't enough to score an extra delegate, so Santorum basically gets both of Gingrich's delegates there.

FLORIDA
Gingrich getting out on the terms I just mentioned doesn't quite put Santorum over Romney's vote total. Since Florida was winner-take-all, Romney still gets all 50 of Florida's delegates, and nothing changes.

GEORGIA
This is Gingrich's home, so taking him off the ballot actually helps ROMNEY in delegate count. With Gingrich's support split Romney actually wins a couple of congressional districts outright, sweeping their delegates. On the other hand, he loses odd delegates in some other districts by Santorum taking a clear majority of the vote absent Gingrich By my estimate, Romney gets a net gain of four delegates in Georgia, absent Gingrich.

TENNESSEE

Distributing Gingrich's support in Tennessee splits his statewide proportional delegates six to Santorum, four to Romney- another gain against Not-Romney voters.

ALASKA

With Gingrich out, thanks to the effects of 20% threshhold, his three delegates end up splitting evenly between Romney, Santorum, and Ron Paul- a one-vote gain for Romney over Not-Romney.

And this, friends, is where the good news for Romney ends.

OHIO

Santorum shot himself in the foot by coming up eighteen delegates short on his roster in Ohio- which meant, in the districts where he didn't fill the roster, he couldn't earn those delegates. Ironically, the district in which Santorum did best with the voters- the 6th Congressional District- he had NO DELEGATES AT ALL. He could have won all three there with Gingrich out of the race. Still, even with this handicap, the shift of Gingrich support would have won Santorum the overall statewide vote, with a net gain of three delegates from Romney to Santorum. (Exact math is nearly impossible, since vote totals by congressional district don't seem to be available.)

MICHIGAN

Likewise, with Gingrich out, Santorum picks up one more Congressional district in that state, for another two-delegate swing.

MASSACHUSETTS

With Gingrich in, Santorum fell just barely below the 20% threshhold to get delegates in that state. With Gingrich out, Santorum crosses the line and qualifies- and takes six delegates away from Romney.

OKLAHOMA

And here's the REAL big shift. Oklahoma was almost a three-way tie. With Gingrich out, Santorum gets a clear majority both statewide and in each Congressional district- meaning, without Gingrich, Santorum would have SWEPT all delegates in that state, taking THIRTEEN delegates out of the Romney column.

All told, with Gingrich out and his support split 2-1 between Santorum and Romney, Romney loses a net eleven delegates, while Santorum picks up 135- two more than Gingrich's absolute total.

In this hypothetical, the delegate estimate would be:

ROMNEY: 440
SANTORUM: 334
PAUL: 76

Put another way:

ROMNEY v. NOT-ROMNEY
451-407 with Gingrich running, 440-410 without

All in all, not a huge difference... but one that favors Romney.

And with Georgia now in the past, it's more and more likely, as time goes on, to favor Romney.

One other note, though: when the race is taken as Romney v. Not-Romney, Romney's lead is NOT all that insurmountable. A "brokered convention" looks more and more likely if Romney can't produce some blowout wins...

Tsunami Tuesday Delegate Estimate- Republicans

With the dust settling on the Democrat side enough that I don't need to do massive adjustments, I'm going to focus today on guesstimating the Republican results for Tsunami Tuesday in the same fashion.

Unlike the Democratic side, where all races award delegates proportionately by one means or another (mostly by a mix of statewide results and Congressional district results), a number of Republican primaries on February 5th are winner-take all. A candidate who grabs these states (which include New York) will be nearly unstoppable for the Republican nomination. The pundits are inclined to pick John McCain as that person, especially since Mitt Romney, the only Republican with money left for ads, isn't running a single television ad in any of the Tsunami Tuesday states.

I'll include polling for all four remaining Republican candidates in this listing. It's still possible that Mike Huckabee might pick up a couple of states in the South. Ron Paul, however, is done to a turn. He might pick up delegates in proportional states, but even then it's a longshot.

Anyway, here we go:

UNLINKED CAUCUS/PRIMARY STATES- NO DIRECT LINK BETWEEN VOTES AND DELEGATES

These states may or may not have any delegates determined on February 5th; I'll calculate them separately.

* ALASKA (caucus, 26 delegates): (unpolled, WAG) McC 20, R 5, H 0, P 1
* COLORADO (caucus, 43 delegates): (MD, 1-21-3) McC (24%) 0, R (43%) 43, H (17%) 0, P (5%) 0
* ILLINOIS (primary, 57 delegates directly elected): (Rass, 1-30) McC (34%) 47, R (26%) 10, H (16%) 0, P (0%) 0
* MINNESOTA (caucus, 38 delegates): (Princeton, 9-21-07) McC (22%) 38, R (5%) 0, H (2%) 0, P (2%) 0

The other states:

UNPOLLED:

* MONTANA (caucus, 25 delegates, WTA): (unpolled, WAG) McC 25, R 0, H 0, P 0
* NORTH DAKOTA (primary, 26 delegates, prop. 15%): (poll, date) McC 18, R 8, H , P
* NORTHERN MARIANAS (caucus, 6 delegates, assignment unknown): (unpolled, WAG) McC 6, R 0, H 0, P 0
* WEST VIRGINIA (state convention, 18 delegates; a primary with 9 other delegates is in May): (unpolled, WAG) McC 3, R 3, H 12, P 0

OLD POLLS:

* ARKANSAS (primary, 34 delegates, prop. 10%): (poll, date) McC (9%) 7, R (7%) 0, H (59%) 27, P (3%) 0
* DELAWARE (primary, 18 delegates, WTA): (PublicMind, 10-6-2007) McC (14%) 18, R (10%), H 0, P 0
* UTAH (primary, 36 delegates, WTA): (Dan Jones, 10-2-2007) McC (6%) 0, R (65%) 36, H (2%) 0, P (1%) 0

JANUARY POLLS:

*ALABAMA (primary, 45 delegates, 21 district prop. 24 statewide prop. 15%): (Rass, 1-23) McC (27%) 20, R (15%) 6, H (27%) 18, P (3%) 0
*ARIZONA (primary, 50 delegates, WTA): (BRC, 1-20-4) McC (40%) 50, R (23%) 0, H (9%) 0, P (3%) 0
*CALIFORNIA (primary, 170 delegates, 159 WTA by Dist. + 11 WTA statwide): (USA, 1-27) McC (37%) 170, R (25%), H (14%) 0, P (4%) 0
* CONNECTICUT (primary, 27 delegates, WTA): (Rass, 1-27) McC (42%) 27, R (26%) 0, H (8%) 0, P (4%) 0
* GEORGIA (primary, 72 delegates, 39 WTA by Dist, 33 WTA statewide): (PPP, 1-30) McC (31%) 18, R (32%) 51, H (24%) 3, P (3%) 0
* MASSACHUSETTS (primary, 40 delegates, prop. 15%): (USA, 1-21-3) McC (29%) 15, R (50%) 25, H (7%) 0, P (6%) 0
* MISSOURI (primary, 58 delegates, WTA): (Ras, 1-26) McC (26%) 0, R (18%) 0, H (27%) 58, P (5%) 0
* NEW JERSEY (primary, 52 delegates, WTA): (Quinnipiac, 1-15-22) McC (29%) 52, R (14%) 0, H (9%) 0, P (7%) 0
* NEW YORK (primary, 87 delegates, WTA): (Gallup, 1-23-6) McC (42%) 87, R (14%) 0, H (8%) 0, P (5%) 0
* OKLAHOMA (primary, 38 delegates, 15 WTA district, 23 WTA statewide): (USA, 1-27) McC (37%) 29, R (19%), H (28%) 9, P (6%)
* TENNESSEE (primary, 39 delegates: see below): (Insider Advantage, 1-30) McC (33%) 23, R (18%) 3, H (25%) 13, P (9%)


(Rass- Rasmussen, USA- Survey USA, MD- Mason-Dixon, PPP- Public Policy Polling, BRC- Behavior Research Center, WAG- Wild Ass Guess)

In Tennessee, if one contender gets two-thirds of the vote, he gets all delegates. If a statewide contender gets 50% or more of the vote, he gets seven statewide delegates, with the remaining five statewide delegates split up among other candidates polling 20% or more. Otherwise the 12 state delegates are split proportionally.

Tennessee's other 27 delegates, along with many in other states, delegates are sometimes selected by district. There proportionality is limited to the top two placers: leader gets two delegates, second-place gets one.

I'm currently calling the unpolled, unconfirmable states to go McCain 105, Romney 58, Huckabee 0, and... I'll give Ron Paul one Alaska delegate, more out of kindness than any confidence.

In the states we can and will know something by the morning of February 6, the margin's even broader: McCain 568, Romney 132, Huckabee 140, Paul 0.

And if you'll look at the numbers, there are very few places indeed where anything is close. Huckabee currently wins Missouri's winner-take-all contest by the slimmest of margins (and Rasmussen shows him losing by eight points to McCain in a marginally older poll). Georgia is a toss-up, as is Alabama... but Alabama's a proportionate-delegate state.

With momentum and popularity on his side, despite the hue and cry from right-wing radio, McCain now has this nomination in his back pocket. He'll leave February 8th nearly three-quarters of the way to the nomination, with all his rivals combined not able to show half his delegate total. At this point it will take a miracle for Romney or Huckabee to overtake him.

I'm not holding my breath.

Nevada and SC-GOP Aftermath

The headline today is, "Hillary Wins Nevada."

It should be, as it should have been in Iowa and New Hampshire, "Another Democratic Tie." Hillary won a 51%-46% majority of the delegates to the state convention, but barring unfaithful delegates the actual national delegates picked in April will split 13-12 in favor of Barack Obama.

More notable is that, in this contest, Hillary barely broke the 50% mark. I hadn't expected her to do that well. Reports of a 2-1 or better Hispanic vote in her favor over Obama indicate at the very least a strong backlash against the unions' political action. If it's more than that- if it's an actual racial support for Mrs. Clinton over all other candidates- then Obama is cooked in California and probably overall. He needs to do some fence-mending with the Latinos fast... or else Tsunami Tuesday is going to go very, very badly for him indeed.

As for Obama's chances overall, the facts on the ground show him running even with Clinton, but facts almost never determine political outcomes. The popular view is now that Hillary is on a roll, and that Obama is just a little bit short. He absolutely, positively has got to win South Carolina now, and that state is no longer a "gimme" with his losing both the Hispanic and white vote in Nevada. Part of his problem- and this is becoming more apparent over the past week- is that Obama is the more conservative of the two as a matter of philosophy. Unlike Hillary, who advocates rapid, untested intervention into the economy and micromanagement of the lives of all individuals, Obama is willing to watch, wait, and let people run their own lives... or, at least, he's willing to do so more often than Hillary. With the Iraq war fading fast as a political issue in the light of economic troubles, he's losing his advantage there- an advantage which, quite frankly, was his strongest suit in Iowa after being "the change candidate."

Obama has to do two things. First, he has to start a talking campaign- not from his own mouth, nor directly from his campaign staff, but among his grass-roots supporters- reminding people of the old Clinton "trustworthiness." People need to be reminded of the Rose Law Firm records, of the Clinton White House records secrecy, of every single vote Clinton has made to give more power to the Bush White House. He absolutely MUST do this... because both Bill and Hillary have, in the past week, attacked Obama on his war record, on his effort to rig Nevada, on his race-baiting, and even on his religion- without any grounds, but people are buying it all anyway. If Obama doesn't attack the Clintons, and attack them with solid facts rather than allegations, he loses.

Second, Obama needs to jump into the economic issue with both feet. He needs a solid, simple-to-understand proposal for helping people swamped in debt, losing their homes, losing their jobs, etc. Clinton has done this with a band-aid moratorium on foreclosures that can only function if lenders are coerced by government fiat into complying- which would lead to their collapse just as inaction will. Her proposal is factually bankrupt but SOUNDS good- just as all her proposals. Right now Obama's acting as if he's content to see what comes through the Senate... and he absolutely cannot afford to do that.

If Obama spends this week starting whispers about Clinton and countering her economic proposals with his own, he'll take South Carolina and make a good showing on Tsunami Tuesday. If Obama reaches out to Hispanics, his odds will be further improved. If he fails to do any of this, Clinton will take a strong and definite delegate lead out of Tsunami Tuesday... one which Obama probably won't be able to overcome.

As for John Edwards... he's done. He has nowhere else to go. South Carolina won't turn for him, no matter what happens. He leads nowhere- he's not even in second place in his home state of North Carolina at the moment. His campaign is running on empty. The longer he stays in the race, and the more his support bleeds away to nothing, the less power he'll have to negotiate with either Clinton or Obama. Right now Edwards should be shopping his endorsement to Obama for whatever he can get. Clinton might like Edwards' support, but she doesn't need it, not with the backing of the Democratic machines and establishment. If Edwards stays in, based on Nevada's results, his followers split evenly between Hillary and Obama... which is good for Hillary, possibly disaster for Obama.

Now over to the Republican side. Romney has proved, for the third time, that he can buy elections provided he has a long period without substantial opposition. His money, and his current lead with delegates, makes him one of the two frontrunners. The other frontrunner is John McCain, whose marginal win in South Carolina proves that he can succeed in a badly divided race. Ron Paul's second place effective tie with McCain in Nevada sounds good until you recall that Romney got a clear majority there, and Paul and McCain split half of what was left over. The fact that Paul only got 4% in South Carolina only emphasizes the lack of importance to his Nevada finish.

Huckabee is done. Finis. So is Fred Thompson. Both are Southerners, both are hard-line religious conservatives, and both lost to McCain. If they didn't win in South Carolina (and they didn't), then they can at best hope to win their home state. Giuliani, despite finishing behind Ron Paul again in both Nevada and South Carolina, is still a question mark awaiting the votes in Florida, California and New York- the places he's focused his campaigning. At this point McCain, Romney and maybe Giuliani can be considered viable nominees. Unfortunately for Republicans, of the four other candidates only Duncan Hunter has read the writing on the wall and formally bowed out.

What do the three GOP frontrunners need to do? McCain needs to get Thompson firm on his promise to back McCain if and when he bows out; without Thompson's active support, virtually none of his people will come to McCain based on their own thoughts. Romney needs to win in a tightly contested state that doesn't have some of its delegates docked- that means neither Florida nor Maine qualify. Giuliani absolutely, positively cannot afford to lose Florida, after all the effort and time he's invested there. McCain and Romney can go on without any more wins before Tsunami Tuesday: Giuliani cannot.

Romneycare/Hillarycare Advocates Suppress Dissent in California Capitol

Just before he left office, Mitt Romney drove through a universal healthcare plan for the state of Massachussetts. The foundation of the system was the individual mandate: in short, solve the problem of the uninsured by making it illegal to be uninsured. If you don't buy health insurance, you pay a fine to the government with your income tax... and the government isn't obliged to pay you a penny for your healthcare. Also, there are no caps on how high insurance premiums can go and little or no guarantee that the insurance corporations will actually pay claims on policies.

The results, according to the consumer advocate group(1) Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights:

Proponents of the Massachusetts mandatory purchase of private insurance sold it on a promise of comprehensive health insurance for about $200 a month.

• In fact, premiums for health plans for a 55-year-old through the Massachusetts state pool reach up to $531 per month for the most basic required coverage. . . . The same 55-year-old wishing to purchase more comprehensive coverage will pay up to $906 monthly.
  
  
• Massachusetts at least offers automatic exemptions based on income and premium costs. A Wall Street Journal editorial on January 7 noted that Massachusetts has already exempted almost 20% of uninsured adults who don't qualify for subsidies because the mandated insurance is too expensive. Many others who fail to qualify for exemptions are simply refusing to buy.
  
  . . .
  
  
• Massachusetts estimates that the cost of subsidized plans {paid for by the state government for those living on or below the poverty line} by the end of the first year, July 2008, will be $147 million, or 30%, over budget. (2) . . .
  
  
• There are a higher-than-expected number of enrollees in subsidized care. Massachusetts' budget projected 136,000 participants; 178,000 new enrollees are expected by July 2008. . . .
  
  
• Massachusetts' costs are projected to increase up to an additional 14% next year.
  
  
• Massachusetts' budget for that state's health care program was based on a low-ball number of the insured. The Massachusetts Department of Finance and Policy reported the number of uninsured Massachusetts residents to be 355,000 while the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation found that number to be 571,000. Other estimates put the number of uninsured between 500,000 and 650,000. . . .

Source for above: FTCR Letter to California State Senate. The letter also includes testimonials from two Massachusetts residents who are unable to buy insurance or get on the subsidy list (only about 3% of Massachusetts residents are eligible for hardship subsidies). One of those was Ron Norton, more about whom in a bit.

Why to California? Because Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican governor, and Fabian Nunez, Democratic Speaker of the California House of Representatives, support a law to give California a nearly identical system to Massachusetts.

Before we go into that, back to Massachusetts for a bit. The bureaucracy that runs the program is well aware that the system is failing. Their solution? Increase the fines on those who refuse to participate, according to the Boston Globe.

Hint: if you're trying to do something to help people, punishing people who can't or won't accept the help is counterproductive. Unfortunately this is the standard bureaucratic (and, often, the standard liberal) response: if a system doesn't work, the fault isn't in the system or in the idea behind it, but in the people it's meant to help. Don't change the system, don't rethink the idea, change the people.

Hint #2: I've just spent eight years in an organization (the Libertarian Party) whose primary strategy for elective success was to change the people into Libertarians. It's not a good strategy for any group, be it a third party or a government.

Now remember: this is the core of both Hillary Clinton's and John Edwards' proposals for universal health care. Note, on the stump, that they avoid like the plague answering anyone who asks what the punishment will be for those who won't participate. Note that they also avoid explaining how costs will be kept from soaring through the roof- as they did when automobile insurance became mandatory across the nation.

And it really doesn't say much good about the advocates for this insurance-corporation welfare scheme when they use their power to prevent opponents from having their say.

Don Norton was flown out to Sacramento to testify before the state legislature against their individual-mandate healthcare plan. In response, Speaker Nunez not only cancelled the hearing, but used California police to have Norton and the FTCR spokesperson removed from the Capitol. Furthermore, when Norton and the FTCR spoke to press on the Capitol grounds- outside, in the rain- Nunez announced his intent to prosecute them for the misdemeanor of speaking to the media in the Capitol rotunda. Never mind that they weren't in the rotunda when they spoke: never mind that insurance corporation lobbyists have been speaking in the rotunda all this time without any prosecution.

So, we have a proposed system which won't cover most of those who are currently uninsured, which won't guarantee that what coverage it does provide will actually pay off, that won't prevent insurance companies from price gouging, that won't do a thing to reduce the costs of healthcare, and that requires strong-arm tactics to suppress dissent...

... anyone want to explain to me why this is a good thing?

And remember: a vote for either Hillary or Edwards is a vote for this to go nationwide...

(1) I did a bit of checking on the organization. They appear to be on the up-and-up: the only negative reference I could find was an attack blog that accuses them of being a front for trial lawyers. Granted, trial lawyers make a bundle of money off of consumer advocacy suits (which, often, provide no actual relief to the consumers, fifty-cent coupons notwithstanding). The accusations were empty and scattershot enough for me to ignore the blog, and absent stronger information I'm going to treat the organization's statements as being made in good faith, but still from a position of advocacy, i. e. don't take it as the very last word.

(2) That means the original budget for Massachusetts alone, for the indigent alone, was originally projected at nearly $450 million, and it blew past that in the first year alone... that's to provide emergency-only "Mack truck" insurance for, as the article says, 178,000 people in a state of 6.4 million people. Scale that up to a nationwide system, as Clinton, Edwards, and Romney would have it, and that's over $25 BILLION going into the back pockets of insurance corporations to only cover two percent of Americans with the most bare-bones, last-resort, cover-nothing-but-the-worst coverage... with no actual requirement that the corporations pay off when the time comes. And all of that money comes out of YOUR taxes, folks...

Looking for My Candidate: Mitt Romney

Since I did the last of these, another Democrat, Governor Bill Richardson, has dropped out of the Presidential race. That means I've only got four, maybe only three candidates left to examine, depending on whether or not Mike Gravel got on the ballot in Texas.

But for now, here's the final Republican on my list, Mitt Romney. Romney is reported as needing to win Michigan, a state which has had half its delegates removed by the Republican leadership for trying to leapfrog New Hampshire, in order to remain in the contest. Personally I don't see it that way. Romney currently holds the lead in delegates. He doesn't have to place first so long as he keeps placing second and no other candidate places first on a routine basis. If John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee split up first-place finishes, and if Romney can score one or two wins in winner-take-all states, he could well go into an undecided Republican convention with the greatest number of delegates... a position of strength from which he can negotiate, possibly even a strong enough foundation to swing himself the nomination.

So Mitt Romney still has a chance... but how does he stack up to my ideal candidate?

WAR: Supports permanent and expanded occupation of Iraq. Favors war with pretty much every Islamic-majority nation. Supports War on Terror. Would expand military. 20%.

SEPARATION OF POWERS: Approves of expanded Presidential power. Supports line-item veto, right of President to refuse to spend Congressional budget allocations. Supports USA-PATRIOT, FISA. 0%.

HEALTHCARE: Created individual mandate system in Massachussetts which is in state of near-total dysfunction. Would abolish must-care laws forcing hospitals to treat the indigent. Tort reform. Would devolve healthcare issues to the states, taking it entirely out of federal hands, while encouraging states to reduce regulations on insurance corporations. 15%.

TAXATION AND BUDGET: Silent on borrowing. Lower taxes for all, especially lower corporate taxes. Would require supermajority before raising taxes. Calls for cuts only in "pork barrel projects," calls for cap of inflation-1% on all discretionary spending (effectively cutting everything), but calls also for vastly expanded education, job retraining, foreign aid and military aid spending. Abolish death tax, retain Bush tax cuts. 20%.

CIVIL LIBERTIES: "Double Guantanamo." Supports torture enthusiastically. "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom." Supports faith-based initiatives, screening government employees and elected officials on basis of religion. Would overturn McCain-Feingold, but favors sexual censorship of the Internet and all publications, including book, magazine, and film. 0%.

IMPEACHMENT: No position. 0%.

IMMIGRATION: Supports border fences. Opposes amnesty, path-to-citizenship. Supports restricting immigration to skilled or wealthy immigrants. Opposes mass round-ups of illegal immigrants in favor of employer crackdowns. 20%.

TRADE: Supports GATT, WTO, NAFTA. Supports unrestricted free trade. 0%.

ENERGY: Supports nuclear. Supports oil and petroleum based energy over and above alternative sources. No stance on making conservation economical for the non-wealthy. 15%.

ENVIRONMENT: Supports carbon sequestration. Opposes eminent domain. Supports economic development of federal reserves such as ANWR. 33%.

TORT REFORM: Calls for caps on punitive damages. Would increase punishment for frivolous lawsuits. 40%.

AVERAGE SCORE: 14.8%

VOTE KILLERS:

THEOCRACY: "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."

IRAQ: Supports indefinite, permanent and expanded occupation of Iraq.

TORTURE: Supports right of President to order "enhanced questioning techniques" and denies right of Congress to outlaw them.

RANKINGS TO DATE

Candidates in italics are not in consideration due to vote-killer positions.

Dennis Kucinich - 40.9%
John McCain - 33.6%
Ron Paul - 28.2%
Rudy Giuliani - 22.3%
Mike Huckabee - 16.9%
Mitt Romney - 14.8%
Duncan Hunter - 11.8%
Fred Thompson - 11.1%

Next time: The one Democrat who could get me to stay home on Election Day: Hillary Clinton.

New Hampshire: Now It's a Race.

Well, no surprises on the Republican side. McCain won, Romney second, Huckabee third; and those, I think, are the only remaining viable candidates for the GOP nomination. Giuliani needs a miracle, an absolute miracle, in Florida and New York on Tsunami Tuesday to get back in the race. Ron Paul is done; his big push, the place he has been expected to do best of all, was New Hampshire, and he finished fifth out of seven.

On the other side: Clinton wins. BIG surprise, after the last couple days.

What annoys me about this outcome is the reason the pundits are giving for Hillary's come-from-behind win: the sympathy vote. If New Hampshire voted for Clinton because of a her crying about not being handed the Democrat nomination on a silver platter, then my disgust with elective politics in general knows no bounds. If New Hampshire women turned out for Clinton because they didn't like the fact that her opponents attacked her positions and character, then gender equality is a lie: Clinton won because people still believe women are the weaker sex, to be coddled and protected, if the talking heads are guessing right.

Nauseating. Do we really want to elect someone on the basis of his or her ability to present himself/herself as a victim? I really hope the pundits are full of it on this one.

That said, the vote is close- 39% to 37% over Obama with 83% of the vote in. This is less than a victory for Obama, but it's not defeat- not by a long shot.

Ignore all the post-Iowa polls that showed Obama up by ten points over Clinton. Instead let's look at the polls in New Hampshire for the week leading up to and including January 3, the day of the Iowa caucuses, according to usaelectionpolls.com...

Jan. 2 - Suffolk University - Clinton 39%, Obama 23%
Jan. 2 - Zogby - Clinton 32%, Obama 26%
Jan. 2 - American Research Group - Clinton 35%, Obama 31%
Jan. 1 - Suffolk - Clinton 37%, Obama 20%
Dec. 30 - RKM Research - Clinton 32%, Obama 28%
Dec. 29 - Suffolk - Clinton 36%, Obama 22%
Dec. 29 - U. New Hampshire - Clinton 34%, Obama 30%
Dec. 28 - ARG - Clinton 31%, Obama 27%

Averaging the lot, we get 34.5% for Clinton, 25.9% for Obama- a nine-point spread for Clinton.

It appears, as I type this, that the spread will only be two points in the final. Clinton only gained four points on the pre-Iowa polls in the final vote; Obama gained ten points.

New Hampshire shows that Clinton and Obama are equals in the eyes of the electorate. Obama has shown strength by winning Iowa and coming close in New Hampshire.

Now the campaign moves on to South Carolina and Nevada- Michigan not counting for much on either side, and with Obama and Edwards not on the ballot there. On the Republican side, I predict Obama and Huckabee win in South Carolina; Clinton and McCain win in Nevada; and Romney finishes second in both and tries to point to an empty win in Michigan as a sign of his viability.

I'm solid with my pick of Clinton in Nevada, but I favor Obama in South Carolina only marginally. He needs one of the two, and Nevada as an in-party caucus will be the longer shot. If Clinton wins both, Obama's essentially out; Clinton will have both momentum and home-field advantage in Florida and in New York and California come Tsunami Tuesday. Even if Clinton loses both, her win in New Hampshire and her prohibitive advantage in those huge states keeps her in the race pretty much for the duration.

On the Republican side there's no favorite. You have three candidates who each represent one faction in the modern Republican party: the national defense activists (McCain), the economic conservatives (Romney), and the social conservatives (Huckabee). Giuliani has little or nothing beyond name recognition and electability to recommend him to Republicans; and Ron Paul, let's be honest, has demonstrated that small-government Republicans are all but extinct. Romney could well win by just continuing to finish a strong second again and again and again, thereby building up enough delegates to finish first in the delegate count without a majority... which leads, again, to a contested Republican convention.

And finally, let's look at the delegate count to date, according to CNN:

DEMOCRATS: Clinton 185 (24 state delegates plus 159 superdelegates), Obama 78 (25 state delegates plus 53 superdelegates), Edwards 52 (18 state delegates plus 34 superdelegates), Richardson 19 (all superdelegates), Kucinich 1 (superdelegate), 2025 needed for majority.

REPUBLICANS: Romney 30 (24 state delegates, 6 RNC delegates), Huckabee 21 (18 state delegates, 3 RNC delegates), McCain 10 (all state delegates), Thompson 6 (all state delegates), Paul 2 (state delegates), Giuliani 1 (RNC delegate), Hunter 1 (state delegate), 1,191 needed for majority.

Looking for My Candidate: John McCain

As I write this, voting is going on in New Hampshire, where McCain is predicted to win narrowly over Romney, with Huckabee, Giuliani and Paul back in the pack and Thompson nowhere to be seen. Dixville Notch, NH has come in with landslide votes for McCain on the Republican side, Obama on the Democrat side... and the two parties perfectly evenly split.

If McCain does -not- win, though, it's all over for him. If Romney finishes worse than second (highly unlikely, but in Dixville Notch he finished behind both Huckabee and Paul, so it's possible), his campaign is essentially over.

On the Democrat side, there are essentially only two tickets out of New Hampshire. If Clinton finishes third (highly unlikely), she's effectively done; if she finishes more than ten points behind, she's fatally wounded. Polls from South Carolina and Nevada show leads for Obama by as much as twenty percentage points- which means even with a second place finish, Clinton will have all she can handle to hold together a self-destructing campaign to Tsunami Tuesday and the New York primaries.

(One final note, re: recent issues about Ron Paul: I'm waiting to see what the New Republic actually posts before I make any firm statements, but I remind my former Libertarian colleagues: this is the man you want to hitch your star to.)

Anyway, with all this happening, now seems as good a time as any to look at John McCain, who might be the only Republican candidate capable of blocking Huckabee tomorrow morning... after coming back from as low as 5% support in national polls after his positions on immigration came to light.

Again, going by these standards:

WAR: Supports permanent and expanded occupation of Iraq. Favors war with Iran. Supports War on Terror. Would expand military. 20%.

SEPARATION OF POWERS: Approves of expanded Presidential power. Supports USA-PATRIOT, FISA. 0%.

HEALTHCARE: No individual mandates. Tort reform. Economize healthcare by new information technology, targeted tax exemptions and credits, etc. Supports de-regulating insurance corporations, buying insurance across state lines. Medicare and Medicaid cuts in favor of private insurance. 30%.

TAXATION AND BUDGET: More tax cuts. Silent on borrowing. Opposes new taxes on Internet, cel phones. Opposes flat tax. Calls for simpler income tax, but also proposes various income tax credits, deductions, etc. Proposes sunset requirements for all Federal programs. Calls for cuts only in "pork barrel projects," expand pretty much everything else. 20%.

CIVIL LIBERTIES: His campaign finance reform act outlawed political speech that mentioned any incumbent's name within sixty days of an election, among many other flaws. Favors censorship of the Internet. Opposes torture, would close Guantanamo, end rendition and black sites. Supports military tribunals over civilian criminal courts. 25%.

IMPEACHMENT: Opposes. 0%.

IMMIGRATION: Supports English as sole official language in USA. Favors amnesty after fines, expanded legal immigration. Supports border fences. Opposes mass round-ups of illegal immigrants. 75%.

TRADE: Supports GATT, WTO, NAFTA. 0%.

ENERGY: Supports nuclear. Supports alt-fuel vehicles. Opposes subsidies for corn-based ethanol and biodiesel. Supports general shift away from oil. 70%.

ENVIRONMENT: Supports active filtering of athmosphere to clean away greenhouse gases. Supports economically affordable solutions to conservation and efficiency. Calls for full compensation for any taking of property for environmental purposes. 100%.

TORT REFORM: Calls for caps on punitive damages. Would increase punishment for frivolous lawsuits. Would provide immunity to doctors who follow all rules and act correctly according to regulations. 30%.

AVERAGE SCORE: 33.6%

VOTE KILLERS:

GUNS: Supports requirement that privately owned guns be locked up when not in use. Supports background-check requirement for private gun sales, effectively outlawing the transfer of guns from one private individual to another.

IRAQ: Supports indefinite, permanent and expanded occupation of Iraq.

TORTURE: Although decries torture, voted for Military Commissions Act of 2006 giving Bush full power to order torture and to prevent torturers from being prosecuted.

IRAN: Voted to declare Iranian Republican Guard a terrorist group, thereby giving Bush an excuse to attack Iran whenever he wants.

RANKINGS TO DATE

Candidates in italics are not in consideration due to vote-killer positions.

Dennis Kucinich - 40.9%
John McCain - 33.6%
Ron Paul - 28.2%
Rudy Giuliani - 22.3%
Mike Huckabee - 16.9%
Duncan Hunter - 11.8%
Fred Thompson - 11.1%

Next time: Mitt Romney, the last of the Republican field, provided he's still in the race when I sit down to do this next...

Saturday Debate Notable Quotes

Reading the transcripts from Saturday's ABC debates (findable here and here until the New York Times makes them subscriber-only), the following quotes stood out to me:

We have been responding. The president set a whole different mind- set. It was let's anticipate, let's see if we can prevent another attack. That led to Afghanistan. It led to Iraq. It's led to the Patriot Act. It's led to electronic surveillance. It's led to changing our intelligence services. All that is very, very good.

--- Rudy Giuliani, endorsing USA-PATRIOT, domestic spying, and torture

CHARLES GIBSON, MODERATOR: . . . in 2002 the president said we have a right to a preemptive attack, that we can attack if this country feels threatened. And on that basis -- WMD -- we went into Iraq. We have cited the threat of a nuclear Iran to leave the military option on the table. Do you agree with the doctrine, Senator McCain, if you were president, or would you change it?

JOHN MCCAIN: I agree with the doctrine . . .

RON PAUL: Of course, the excuse is that 9/11 changed everything, but the Bush doctrine of preemptive war is not a minor change. This is huge. This is the first time we as a nation accept as our policy that we start the wars. I don't understand this. And that all options are on the table to go after Iran? This -- this is not -- this is not necessary. These are third-world nations. They're not capable.

So John McCain endorses aggressive war, and Ron Paul again demonstrates his incoherence. In fact, I'm now officially waiting for Paul to say, "Who am I? Why am I here?" in the next debate he's in.

But we're going to have to move our strategy from simply being a respond to military threat with military action to an effort that says we're going to use our military and non-military resources -- non-military resources, combined with other nations who are our friends, to help move the world of Islam towards modernity and moderation. It's something that former Prime Minister Aznar of Spain spoke about.

The new mission for NATO and for other nations is to help provide the rule of law, education that is not through madrassas, agricultural and economic policies that can be instilled in various Islamic countries so the Muslims are able to reject the extreme and the -- and the terrorists.

We can help them. Our military is going to be needed. We do need -- I agree with what the mayor said; we need to add to our military by at least 100,000 troops, but the answer is to move now to a second phase, a phase of helping Muslims become so strong they can reject the extreme.

--- Mitt Romney, advocating the invasion of more Islamic nations to bring them democracy at gunpoint

I served on the Intelligence Committee in the Senate. I was the floor manager for the Republicans on the homeland security bill. So I have a bit of a different vantage point than some of my colleagues on this.

The question had to do with preemption. Preemption didn't just appear one day as a good idea. After the Cold War, we had one big enemy and one big weapon against us. When we kind of took a holiday from history in the '90s and let our military slide and our intelligence capabilities slide, the world was changing. We now have multiple enemies. We now have terrorists and various groups, al Qaeda, rogue nations in different stages of developing nuclear weapons. We must be prepared for the different kind of weaponry that we're facing. We could be attacked with a biological weapon and not even know it for a long period of time. This is a different world.

So instead of mutually assured destruction, which we lived under for a long time, it's now a world where preemption has got to be an option under the right circumstances.

--- Fred Thompson, also supporting aggressive war... but "only go in where we should and where we're able to." (In other words, only beat up the LITTLE kids.)

You made a statement about European nations; they all get health care. Well, somebody -- some people here in New Hampshire have been to Canada. I don't think they want that system.

--- John McCain, demonstrating his ignorance of very basic geography

And then -- we should operate that for two, three, four years, change behavior, and then we should take that system, with a tamper- proof ID card which would be used for people coming into this country. And what we should do with the people that are here -- first of all, right now our priority should be, since you can't throw out all 12 million people, whether Governor Romney would like to do that or not, or anybody else would, you just can't do it. It's not physically possible to do. I would focus on the illegal immigrants that are here who have committed crimes. They should be given priority. That's a number we can deal with. That's a number we can throw out.

Then what I would do with the people that are here, when you had a good system place -- and I believe my plan is the best plan for doing that, and these are the kinds of things I achieved in the other jobs that I've had in my life, as mayor and associate attorney general -- I think what you would do then is you would say to the 12 million people that are here, come forward, get a tamper-proof ID card, get fingerprinted, get photographed. If they don't come forward, then you throw them out of the country.

The ones who do come forward would have to pay taxes. They'd have to pay fines. If you pay fines, it is not amnesty. They would not get ahead of anybody else.

They'd be at the back of the line. But then they could eventually become citizens so long as they could read English, write English and speak English.

--- Giuliani, demonstrating a little bit of common sense on immigration- absent from all other Republican candidates

But there -- so we could talk about issues, but the biggest difference I think -- and it's going to be true for me and others who talk about it -- is that this is a time when America wants change. Washington is broken. That was the message coming out of Iowa. I've heard it across the country. Washington is broken. Not just the White House, not just Congress -- Washington can't get the job done on immigration, on lowering taxes, on fixing schools, on getting health care, on overcoming radical jihad. They want change.

--- Romney, asked why people should not vote for Obama, gives the answer why they SHOULD...

Senator Obama does not have the national security experience and background to lead this nation. We are facing the transcendent challenge of the 21st century, and that is radical Islamic extremism. In his recent statements on various foreign national security issues I've strongly disagreed, but I am -- can make it perfectly clear that it requires a lot of knowledge and a lot of experience and a lot of background to have the judgment to address the challenges that our nation faces in the 21st century.

--- ... and John McCain points out again how being a POW for seven years gives him expertise on foreign policy and diplomacy. Tell us, John, when you were in the Hanoi Hilton, did Mao Tse-Tung, Charles de Gaulle, Anwar Sadat or anyone like that drop in to discuss the state of world affairs?

I think we ought to have the strongest possible military that nobody else on Earth wants to ever even think about engaging in battle.

--- Mike Huckabee has apparently forgotten we HAD the strongest military on Earth in 2001, and it didn't stop the terrorists then.

And now over to the Democrats...

OBAMA: What I said was that we should do everything in our power to push and cooperate with the Pakistani government in taking on al Qaeda, which is now based in northwest Pakistan. And what we know from our National Intelligence Estimates is that al Qaeda is stronger now than at any time since 2001, and so back in August I said we should work with the Pakistani government. First of all, they encourage democracy in Pakistan, so you've got a legitimate government that we're working with, and secondly, that we have to press them to do more to take on al Qaeda in their territory.

What I said was if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike. And I should add that Lee Hamilton and Tom Kean, the heads of the 9/11 commission, a few months later wrote an editorial saying the exact same thing. I think it's indisputable that that should be our course. . . .

EDWARDS: If I know what -- if I as president of the United States, know where Osama bin Laden is, I would go get him. Period. This man is the mastermind of a mass murder in the United States of America. He is public enemy number one, as al Qaeda is. . . .

RICHARDSON: If we have actionable intelligence that is real, and if Musharraf is incapable -- which he is, because here's a man who has not stood up for his democracy, he is virtually in a situation where he's losing control -- then you do take that action. . . .

CLINTON: Secondly, I think it's imperative that any actionable intelligence that would lead to a strike inside Pakistan's territory be given the most careful consideration, and at some point probably when the missiles have been launched -- the Pakistani government has to know they're on the way because one of the problems is the inherent paranoia about India in the region in Pakistan, so that we've got to have a plan to try to make sure we don't ignite some kind of reaction before we even know whether the action we took with the missiles has worked.

Four candidates, essentially the same position.

CLINTON:You know, Senator Obama has been -- as the Associated Press described it, he could have a pretty good debate with himself, because four years ago he was for single-payer health care. Then he moved toward a rejection of that, a more incremental approach. Then he was for universal health care; then he proposed a health care plan that doesn't cover everybody.

I think that's relevant. I mean, I think that what we are looking for is a president we can count on, that you know where that president is yesterday, today, and tomorrow. And I think that, you know, there questions that, you know, should be asked and answered from each of us. And I'd certainly have no problem with whatever scrutiny comes my way.

OBAMA: Well, I think the Associated Press was quoting some of your folks, Hillary, so let's talk specifically about health care, since you mentioned that.

--- Clinton takes the low road, oblivious to the irony involved in a Clinton accusing anyone else of flip-flopping... but Obama counters well.

We do have a philosophical difference. John and yourself [Hillary] believe that if we do not mandate care -- if we don't force the government to get -- to -- if the government does not force taxpayers to buy health care, that we will penalize them in some fashion. I disagree with that because as I go around town hall meetings, I don't meet people who are trying to avoid getting health care; the problem is they can't afford it. The costs are too high. And so, as a consequence, we focus on reducing costs.

Now, this is a legitimate argument for us to have, but it's not true that I leave them out. Your premise is they won't buy it even if it's affordable. I disagree with that.

--- Obama hits the nail right on the head.

But you know, what ever happened to experience? Is experience kind of a leper? (Laughter.) What is wrong with -- you know, what is wrong with having -- (scattered applause) -- what is wrong with having been like myself -- 14 years in the Congress, two Cabinet positions? I mean, I've gone head to head with the North Koreans. We got the remains of soldiers back. We persuaded them to reduce their nuclear weapons. What is wrong with being a governor and going to a state and giving health care to kids under 12 and creating jobs and balancing budgets? What is wrong with being a secretary of Energy who has made America or tried to make America a land of clean energy or as a governor -- my point is this: We want to change this country, but you have to have -- you have to know how to do it, and there's nothing wrong with having experience.

--- Bill Richardson, wondering why nobody loves him

So it's time to bring our troops home and to bring them home as quickly and responsibly as possible and unfortunately, I don't see any reason why they should remain beyond, you know, today. I think George Bush doesn't intend to bring them home, but certainly I have said when I'm president I will. Within 60 days, I'll start that withdrawal.

--- Wait, Hillary, what happened to your statement that you wouldn't commit to withdrawing ANY troops during your Presidency?

I bring the troops back within a year. I don't want in five years because I did, in another debate -- some of you said you would keep troops -- you wouldn't say -- you wouldn't get them out by 2013. I don't want in five years to have to look at an eight-year-old today -- an eighth-grader -- an American eighth-grader today who is serving five years from now in Iraq. I don't want to hear about a death of an American.

--- Richardson calls the other three candidates on the statement I just mentioned.

You know, what we need is an energy revolution in this country. Not some of the bills that the congress has passed. We need to go to 50 miles per gallon fuel efficiency. We need to have 30 percent of all our electricity renewable. We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by the year 2040. And we need the American people to sacrifice a little bit.

--- Richardson, proposing the impossible for energy policy

That's why I have proposed specific tax relief now, immediately, so that we would offset some of the payroll tax, that we would immediately put some additional dollars in the pockets of American families, working families typically making $75,000 a year or less, to not only stimulate the economy, but also to balance out a tax code. And I would pay for it very specifically by closing tax loopholes and tax havens. You've got a building in the Cayman Islands that supposedly houses 12,000 corporations. That's either the biggest building or the biggest tax scam on record.

--- Is this Obama advocating tax -cuts-? I'm liking him more and more... especially since the other three all focused on raising taxes...

Iowa aftermath...

Fred Thompson did better than I expected. I still think his campaign is DOA, though.

Mitt Romney surpised me by failing by as much as he did. His campaign must now be considered as in Real Trouble. If he fails to win in New Hampshire, after dumping so much money both there and in Iowa, color him done.

Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and Mike Gravel have dropped out of the race.

Clinton, as I predicted, finished third. Now they absolutely have to win New Hampshire, where Clinton has invested a great deal of time and money, if Hillary's going to regain frontrunner status. She's not reacting well, but she is reacting according to type, if this quote from an NBC newswoman is accurate:

"This room was, until about five or six minutes ago, completely empty. This is a manufactured 'celebration.' It really felt more like a funeral as people started strolling in from upstairs where they had obviously been gathered. This is unlike anything that I've ever seen, a completely empty, dirge-like event. ".

Edwards is done; he just doesn't know it yet.

Ron Paul still doesn't have a chance; he only beat a man even more looney than he is and a man who hadn't spent a dime in Iowa for six weeks. He might- MIGHT, but I doubt it- place third in New Hampshire, but that is as good as he'll do until and unless the Republican field thins out a LOT.

But for now, the Democratic field is down to Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Richardson and Kucinich. That makes my decision on which one to support for President quite a bit simpler, I think...

Romney: No Freedom Without Religion

Well, I've made my decision, and everything I've seen since my last post confirms it. However, I'm not going to announce what that decision is until the 18th at least, and maybe longer, depending on local circumstances. There are a few people I need to speak with first.

I wouldn't even have mentioned this now, but I couldn't post anything else after that last post without at least referring to it, and Mitt Romney's speech yesterday deserves reaction.

Here's selected quotes from a transcript of his speech...

"... There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

"Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today.

"Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

. . .

"Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.

"There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

. . .

"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.

"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders - in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'

. . .

"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America's sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century's terrible wars - no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America's resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom.

. . .

"Today's generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation's forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left.

"It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.

"We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.

"I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired . so grand . so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.

"Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom... killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.

The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.

In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: We do not insist on a single strain of religion — rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith.

Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. They were too divided in religious sentiments, what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.

Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot. And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God, they founded this great nation.

In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine author of liberty. And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed with freedom's holy light.

God bless this great land, the United States of America."

Well, the good news is that Mitt Romney regards government power, in and of itself, as a danger to religion- and makes no bones about it. As a Mormon, he has been taught from birth the importance that freedom of religion has played in the very survival of his faith- and how the lack of enforcement of that freedom nearly destroyed it.

The bad news is perfectly clear, though: Romney believes that those without faith- atheists, agnostics, Christians who want religion kept private, and probably even pagans, Hindus, Buddhists and others- should not be allowed into positions of power.

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom." Well, quite frankly, no. Religion tends to get on quite well without freedom, so long as it's the religion taking freedom away from others. Militant Islam is going strong in dictatorships- indeed in secular dictatorships it grows stronger by the day, as the only avenue for protest and organized opposition the dictators dare not move against. Christianity suffered for its religion in the early days of the Roman Empire, and then entered upon its own enthusiastic killings and repression when Constantine I became the first Christian emperor of Rome.

Romney's statement is a bald-faced lie: religion does not require freedom, and freedom does not require religion any more than morality requires religion. Quite frankly, if you need a big man in the clouds to tell you what is right and what is wrong, there's something wrong with you.

Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. ... Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. ... Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong."

So, Romney believes that a candidate's religion is, indeed, fair game for discussion, debate, and as a factor in determining one's vote. He compares himself, without naming names, to John F. Kennedy- indeed, just as Kennedy went to Texas to give a speech about religion (Houston, Sept. 12, 1960), Mitt Romney went to Texas to do the same (College Station, Dec. 6, 2007). However, Romney believes it is wrong to keep religion out of government or government out of religion. He believes that those who don't want religion to be a factor in who gets elected and who serves in office are wrong. Despite his claim that he opposes a religious test, his own words show clearly that he supports a religious test- so long as it's one he can pass.

Let's look at what Kennedy, the man Romney sought to imitate yesterday, actually said:

"... But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

"I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

. . .

"That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of presidency in which I believe — a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

"I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test — even by indirection — for it. If they disagree with that safeguard, they should be out openly working to repeal it.

. . .

"This is the kind of America I believe in, and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a 'divided loyalty,' that we did 'not believe in liberty,' or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the 'freedoms for which our forefathers died.'"

. . .

"But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same."

Romney's speech wasn't "Kennedy-esque," as Southern Baptist Convention leader Richard Land termed it. It was the anti-Kennedy speech. True, both men claimed they would serve all the people... but Kennedy clearly denounced the role of religion as anything other than a personal, private belief system. Kennedy stated plainly that if his office ever forced him to choose between his duty and his religion, he would resign. Romney believes that his duty as President is determined by his religion- and the national interest be damned.

And finally (this is Romney again):

""We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders - in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'"

This is pretty much a declaration of war against secularism- and a declaration of Christianity (with a nod to Judaeism) as the supreme religion of the United States. (Romney, of course, believes that Mormonism is a form of Christianity. Others, including the afore-mentioned Mr. Richard Land, do not.)

One commenter (sorry, link lost) mentioned how fitting it is that Romney went to the George H. W. Bush library to speak. After all, the elder President Bush has been accused of saying, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

As of today the Romney campaign has deliberately remained silent on whether or not atheists, agnostics, et. al. should be citizens. Ryan Sager, a conservative atheist, has run into the same stone wall.

And the true cutting fact here... considering how many positions Mitt Romney has taken and abandoned for political expediency alone, his apparent opposition to non-Christian candidates for office probably isn't a mark of his views...

... so much as a mark of the views of Republicans as a whole.