John McCain wins New Hampshire

Both CNN and FoxNews are calling the state for the senator from Arizona. Only 12% of precincts reporting, but he has a nine point lead over Mitt Romney. This isn't much of a surprise: after Iowa, the discrepancy between McCain and Romney grew. Still, if he can push his win into double-digits, this will be a commanding victory.

--Wyndam

Mitt Romney and his staff need to grow up

Mitt Romney has run perhaps the most negative presidential campaign of my lifetime, and we're not even to New Hampshire yet. He has attacked his Republican foes, from Mike Huckabee. to John McCain. Those are just a few of many ads--he also trashes his opponents every chance he gets. He even went after Barack Obama here, here and here--taunting of candidates in other parties is usually served for the general election, unless they are an incumbent for which the primary is nearly meaningless.

This is all fine. I don't approve of it because I think negative advertising brings down the country's political debate, but to each his own. But if you insist on defaming your opponents, you can't cry and claim the victim when they throw it back to you.

Apparently, there was a confrontation between John McCain and Mitt Romney's staffs after yesterday's debate.

...members of the Romney and McCain camps said the things their bosses might have been thinking but did not dare utter onstage.

McCain delivered “cheap shots,” said one Romney adviser. Another called McCain’s criticisms of Romney “snide remarks” and “name calling.” Yet another said they were “unbecoming.”

Again: this from the staff of the guy running the most negative campaign of the year. The hypocrisy is through the roof. This isn't terrible scientific, but look at Romney's YouTube page: he prominently features his latest attack ad, and the others permeate the rest of his videos. Anyway, at least someone called him out on his double standard:

All of which caused Mark Salter, McCain’s closest aide, to go off.

“Come on, Mitt, tighten up your chin strap,” Salter, standing just a few feet away from the Romney team, told reporters. “Of all the ludicrous suggestions – Mitt Romney whining about being attacked, when he has predicated an entire campaign plan on whoever serially looks like the biggest challenger gets, whatever, $20 million dropped on his head and gets his positions distorted. Give me a break. It’s nothing more than a guy who dishes it out from 30,000 feet altitude and then gets down in the arena and somebody says, O.K. Mitt, gives him a little pop back, and he starts whining. That’s unbecoming.”

And what, you might ask, was the reason for the staffs' confrontation? Negative campaigning...by Mitt Romney!

What had McCain aides particularly heated was Romney’s exchange with McCain on the issue of McCain’s immigration proposals and the question of amnesty. “The fact is, it’s not amnesty,” McCain said during the debate. “And for you to describe it as you do in the attack ads, my friend, you can spend your whole fortune on these attack ads, but it still won’t be true.”

“I don’t describe your plan as amnesty in my ad,” Romney answered. “I don’t call it amnesty.”

With that, the issue became not whether McCain’s plan was or was not amnesty but whether Romney had or had not called it amnesty. And jaws dropped at McCain headquarters.

“What got us all going was when Governor Romney said, ‘We never called what you did amnesty,’“ said McCain confidante Sen. Lindsey Graham said. “Look on TV. Look in your mailbox in New Hampshire. John’s been pounded by Governor Romney with that charge. I was just dumbstruck.”

Indeed, after the debate, McCain aides produced a Romney mailing which said “John McCain: Supports Amnesty.” An e-mail from the Romney campaign earlier in the day referred to McCain’s “amnesty plan.” And a new Romney TV ad featured Romney supporters saying McCain “supported amnesty for illegal immigrants” and “wrote the amnesty bill.” In light of that, it is hard to see how Romney was being straight when he said he didn’t “describe [McCain’s] plan as amnesty.” After the debate, Romney’s spokesman, Kevin Madden, choosing his words carefully, said McCain favored “an amnesty-like approach.”

Add "liar" to "hypocrite." There's a reason you're dropping in the polls, Mitt.

--Wyndam

Mitt Romney wins Wyoming

Unbeknownst to many, the Wyoming Republican primary was today. The state moved up its election day up in an effort to make it more relevant in the primary process. Unfortunately for them, it backfired: the RNC cut Wyoming's number's of delegates to the Republican Convention in half from 28 to 14. By contrast, Iowa had 37 delegates. With so few positions up for grabs, the primary was largely ignored by candidates (only a few campaigned there) and the mainstream media.

Mitt Romney won the state with eight delegates. Fred Thompson received 2; Duncan Hunter got 1. Two more are still up for grabs today, and the final two will be selected at a Wyoming GOP convention in May.

This bring Romney's total delegates to 20. Mike Huckabee, who won Iowa, has 17.

--Wyndam

Final Iowa results

With 100% of precincts reporting...

Democrats
Barack Obama 38%
John Edwards 30%
Hillary Clinton 29%
Bill Richardson 2%
Joe Biden 1%

Republicans
Mike Huckabee 34%
Mitt Romney 25%
Fred Thompson 13%
John McCain 13%
Ron Paul 10%
Rudy Giuliani 4%
Duncan Hunter 1%

Entrance Polls

CNN is reporting that the earliest entrance polls (tallied as people walk into their precincts to caucus) have Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama neck-and-neck in the Democratic primary, with John Edwards a bit behind. No mention of Bill Richardson's status. In the Republican field, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney are leading the pack.

--Wyndam

What is Mike Huckabee Thinking?

Lots of Mike Huckabee news, and though the former governor/minister is leading in Iowa, he continues to display his naivety, intolerance and disorganization. Thanks to the Carpertbagger Report for all the tip-offs.

First, an update on his stance on LGBT issues. Huckabee, who can't decide if homosexuality is a choice or natural, is for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the quarantining of AIDS patients, and is against civil unions and gay marriage. He is now expressing his displeasure with gay sex. On "Meet the Press," he said, "But one thing I know, that the behavior one practices is a choice. We may have certain tendencies, but how we behave and how we carry out our behavior…."

Well...why? I assume Huckabee is speaking as a moral leader--he can't possibly legislate against gay sex, as that is forbidden under Lawrence v. Texas. Does he know that? He may not enjoy the idea of sodomy, but since it's behind closed doors, it's none of his business. Since he's about as anti-gay as any candidate, it's assumed that he's against participation in the gay lifestyle. He's intolerant, and he wears it on his sleeve--another way to prove to the Republican base that he's the true conservative, "moral" candidate. He went out of his way on "Meet the Press" to explain his disgust with gay sex. It was unwarranted, and a cheap political tactic, especially because he dodged the question asked of him ("Do you believe you’re born gay or you choose to be gay?"). How does this benefit him? It doesn't. I doubt he's going to get any converts because of his stance on gay sex--those so opposed to it are probably in his camp to begin with. It doesn't hurt him though, despite it being outrageously stupid. As CBR says, "So, Huckabee doesn’t actually care if someone is gay, he cares whether or not gays are celibate. “Tendencies” don’t matter to Huckabee, whether gays act on those tendencies is what counts."

Then, Huckabee ran into disaster when he held a press conference ostensibly to denounce the negative campaigning from the Republican front runners, and to emphasize that he would no longer participate in it. You might recall that, in a move to discredit Mitt Romney's beliefs, Huckabee wondered aloud if Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers. Anyway, at this same press conference, Huckabee had five easels up and a clip prepared that all attacked Romney. I'll let the Huffington Post take it from here:

In what is likely to be remembered as one of the more bizarre moments of this campaign season, embattled GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee renounced negative campaigning today by unveiling an attack ad to a ballroom full of reporters and dozens of TV cameras.

Standing before a banner reading "Enough is Enough" and flanked by five large charts attacking the record of rival Mitt Romney, a haggard-looking Huckabee said that the fight to win Thursday's Republican caucus had gotten "out of hand" and "out of control" and that he would refrain from any more negative campaigning.

Huckabee's unorthodox media event comes as a barrage of new polls has battered his lead in Iowa and put his campaign at risk of crash-and-burn. Some of those surveys now show Romney regaining a lead he had maintained over most of the year until Huckabee began to surge ahead in recent weeks...

Huckabee explained that he, indeed, prepared and produced a TV spot attacking Romney, sent it to local TV stations but had just given the directive to pull it from airing. "This morning I ordered them to hold the ads," Huckabee said. "From now we will run only ads that say why I should be president not why Mitt Romney shouldn't be president."

Then, amid loud gasps and laughter from the more than 150 reporters on hand, Huckabee announced he would show the assembled press the same ad. As dozens of TV cameras whirred, and after two false starts, the 30-second spot assaulting Romney's record was shown in full. The tag line of the spot ended with the narrator saying of Romney: "If a man's dishonest trying to get the job, he'll be dishonest on the job"

The room then exploded into a cacophony of questioning from the press memorializing this event as a moment that might be remembered as campaign meltdown for Huckabee.

What is going on in the Huckabee camp? And if these two issues aren't bad enough, Huckabee still has yet to recover from showing his blatant ignorance in regard to foreign policy when asked about the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. I was in the midst of finals and papers that week (early December), and wasn't paying much attention to the national media, but damn, all I had to do was go to any news service's main page and I could view dozens of articles about it. This naivety from a presidential candidate is inexcusable.

I've said it many times in private, and I'll say it publicly: Although Bill Richardson is my main guy, by far, if it came down to it, I'd be fine if one of the front runners from either party became president. Some I like more than others; few are great. But I don't think most would make any monumental mistakes. Huckabee is the exception--these are three of a multitude of examples why (others include FairTax, the most ridiculous modern tax plan I've heard). That man absolutely can not become our president.

--Wyndam

Thompson "not particularly interested in running for president"

A few days ago, I watched an old episode of "Law & Order" that starred senator-turned-actor-turned-presidential candidate Fred Thompson as District Attorney Arthur Branch. In it, he was smart, lively and darkly sarcastic--even though he was only on screen for about five minutes of the hour-long episode, he stole the show.

As the 2008 presidential race began, there was no front runner in the Republican primary that had reasonable policy goals while maintaining a deep, Christian moral conviction. Mitt Romney was stigmatized because he's a Mormon, and because he seemed to flip-flop on abortion and gay marriage; Rudy Giuliani was pro-choice and pro-gay marriage; Mike Huckabee, a former minister, had the necessary Christian credentials, but ridiculous initiatives (ahem, FairTax). Duncan Hunter was popular amongst the leading conservative Christians, but as a congressman practically unknown outside of California, he was at the bottom of the Republican pool.

And so the GOP turned to Thompson, who had recently issued a clever rebuttal to comments made by filmmaker Michael Moore. His overt personality and stage presence was appealing, as was his semi-celebrity status by way of "Law & Order." Plus, as Carpetbagger Report writes, "He’s plenty conservative; he’s never flip-flopped on key issues; and he’s not a member of a religious minority that the GOP base finds offensive. Simply as a matter of process of elimination, this guy should be huge."

Thompson soon left "Law & Order" and entered the presidential race, considered by many to be a viable choice for conservative Christians. But what happened? Contrary to his television persona, Thompson has been remarkably boring at the debates and campaign stops, and never seemed into the race. His poll numbers dropped into the teens as Romney and Huckabee's rose. It was an unexpected turn of events...but now, apparently, they are telling of a larger trend: Thompson has no interest in the race. He said, "I’m not particularly interested in running for president" at a recent campaign stop.

It seemed from the beginning that the GOP was begging Thompson to get involved to satisfy their religious base. And Thompson, being a good soldier, complied. But it's a tough road to the presidency, and for someone not completely into it, the wear and tear can show.

Everything seems to be taking its toll on Thompson. In the polls, he continues to fall in the early states as John McCain gains ground. His campaign is not over, but his stunning admission will go nowhere toward invigorating his base.

--Wyndam

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: Thompson gave a 17-minute long closing speech in Iowa today in which he explained why the people of the Hawkeye State should vote for him. It is being praised by conservatives as appealing to both the conservative base of the Republican party, and to moderate Democrats as well. Thompson may have some life in him yet...

What can be gained by a third place finish in Iowa?

David Yepsen wrote a piece yesterday for the Des Moines Register in which he examines the benefits and disadvantages of a third place finish in Iowa.

Yepsen opines that in the Democratic race, a third place finish would be bad. The top three candidates (Barack Obama, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton) are all within a point or two of each other, based off recent polls. Eventually, the primary race with narrow itself down, and no one wants to be left behind. A third place finish for Clinton or Obama, who are perceived as the two front runners in a more general sense, would weaken their chances in the later primaries against each other, and such a result would be particularly disasturous for Edwards because, as Yepsen writes, "He's already seen as a bit of a one-trick pony who has a great campaign in Iowa and little elsewhere."

But Yepsen says that for the Republicans, finishing in third place could be a good thing. Instead of a "Big 3," there is currently only a "Big 2," Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. Since both have double digit leads over the second-tier candidates, it's unlikely that either will finish third. That means that for Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani (who leads in general election polls), Ron Paul and John McCain, a third place finish solidifies them as the top candidate of the second-tier, and is a potential spring board to greater things in New Hampshire and further.

Yepsen describes Governor Richardson as such: "Polls also show there is so much distance between the top three and the bottom tier of Bill Richardson, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd that their hopes for a third-place showing would seem to be dimming."

This is a perfectly valid statement: in the recent polls, Richardson is at 5% in Iowa, over 20% behind the three front runners. And he has dipped off in recent weeks, so much so that he is no longer the clear top-of-the-second tier candidate: Joe Biden has begun to catch up to him.

To hear Richardson describe it though, 40% of Iowa voters are undecided with many make up their minds in the last week before the caucus. He also has a history of defying huge poll deficits.

So, although we may think we know the governor's rank, the truth is, we have no idea. And while Richardson will of course aim for victory, it is not likely--even second place would take a small miracle. A third place finish, though, is not entirely out of the question. It's a (very) long shot--even I can admit that. But it's not as hopeless as Yepsen and the rest of his ilk make it out to be. And let's just say it does happen. What then?

Obviously, it can not be a negative for the governor, who has stated several times that third place (or higher) finishes in the early caucuses are necessary for a successful campaign over the long term. If Richardson could pull a third place finish, then Yepsen's scenario for the Democrats gets rewritten, and it would almost resemble that of the Republicans.

But I think such a finish for Richardson would have a greater effect than that. Whereas one of the second tier Republicans (Thompson, Giuliani, etc.) is expected to finish third, Richardson is not. The momentum gained by the Republican third-place finisher would likely come at the expense of other second tier candidates (read: not that much) and Romney and Huckabee, who are the front runners in New Hampshire and Michigan as well, would continue to reign supreme over the Republican primary.

But if Richardson finished third, he could potentially pull support from one of the three current Democratic front runners, since one would have to finish fourth in order for Richardson to do so--such a result would throw their campaign in shambles, and all but end it. The voters he could siphon from them would be of much greater quantity than the Republican third-place finisher could pull. Even Edwards, whose numbers drop off significantly after Iowa, would give Richardson a large contingency of voters. A Clinton or Obama debacle in Iowa would be the best possible result of the governor.

Of course, no matter who falls to let Richardson in, it is all but guaranteed that some of their supporters will go to the two remaining front runners. But by establishing himself as a legitimate alternative in Iowa, Bill Richardson has an excellent chance to win over more voters and gain the momentum he needs going into New Hampshire and beyond.

--Wyndam

An Unnecessary Endorsement

Michael Lipkin chimes in on Governor Richardson's "celebrity" supporters.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, so it’s pretty much a given that the contributors and editors of the Richardson Campus are supportive of Bill Richardson, and I count myself up there with the most devoted of them. But I have a bone to pick with the good governor.

If you haven’t heard, the latest in the long line of celebrity endorsements came out and the good news is that someone besides Martin Sheen has stepped forward to support Richardson. The bad news? It’s Judge Reinhold.

Judge Reinhold, you ask, who’s that? Well, without his picture I wouldn’t be able to tell you either. He’s a bit actor from the ‘80s who’s pretty much faded from the public eye. He’s relocated to New Mexico, which is where I’m guessing he came into contact with Richardson.

Now I’m not trying to say that Rienhold should go back home and leave us all alone, but what does he think he is accomplishing? Someone like Sheen is well known to America—and in his case, many young people—and his support of Richardson puts a favorable news story into the cycle, which gives credence to what Richardson is fighting for.

But Reinhold? All his support does is associate Richardson with a fuddy-duddy has-been. Sure it draws attention to Richardson, like any celebrity endorsement would, but in a negative light. When celebrities like Chuck Norris, Oprah, Kevin Bacon and Curt Schilling lend their name to a candidate, they give credence to a candidate because people associate these celebrities with desirable traits or judgments. People think Chuck Norris is bad-ass, so Mike Huckabee becomes a little more cool too. People who idolize Curt Schilling may just give John McCain another look. And Oprah's support can go a long way toward securing the female vote for Barack Obama. But what do people associate Judge Rienhold with? Fast Times at Ridgemont High? In lending his name to the campaign, I fear it does Richardson little to no good.

Richardson is of course compelled to accept Reinhold’s support. (The alternative would be to publicly reject it, which would be terrible PR.) But there are tons of these second-rate endorsements in the ’08 campaign: Chuck Yeager for Duncan Hunter, Bay Buchanan for Tom Tancredo and dare I say it, Robert Bork for Mitt Romney. I’m sure these celebrities think they’re doing well, but it just might be hindrance as election day nears.