10 (Mostly Unhealthy) Lessons from Florida

10 lessons, mostly unhealthy, learned from the Florida GOP primary.

Yawner - Huntsman bows out.

Establishment conspiracy? The one not Romney candidate who could actually hurt Mitt Romney by staying in the race, Jon Huntsman has decided to drop out and endorse - Mitt Romney.  Yawn.  Now the 6 Republicans outside of New Hampshire who might have voted for him will likely vote for Romney.

Jon Huntsman will drop out of the Republican presidential race on Monday, a campaign spokesman told ABC News. A source close to the Huntsman campaign said the former ambassador to China and Utah governor was “proud of the race that he ran” but “did not want to stand in the way” of rival Mitt Romney, the current front-runner for the Republican nomination.

Huntsman plans to endorse Romney at an 11 a.m. press conference Monday in Myrtle Beach, S.C.

Does that mean anything?  It strikes me that Romney must be worried about South Carolina.  He must not be on the verge of a pre-Florida sweep.  He must need that Huntsman voter in South Carolina, in light of Gingrich's resurgence there and the religious endorsements accruing to Santorum.  And I did mean voter, not voters.

No Tebow in New Hampshire

NH - not always this serene.

Mitt Romney will win New Hampshire tomorrow, and he'll win it big.  There will be no miracle Tim Tebow story from the other candidates.  The outcome has already been discounted in the overall picture.  Everyone knows Romney will win.  But that doesn't mean all of the questions have been answered yet.

Will Romney win by 20 points?  Anything less might look like a loss of momentum since he was expected to win by at least that margin.

National Review - still on the naughty list.

In an effort to be fair, I revisited the National Review online (after promising not to do so for a while) to see if they had recanted their hit piece on Newt Gingrich and basically everyone not Romney or Huntsman.  They haven't.  In fact they've in many ways doubled down on it in some pieces.  But to be fair, there were a couple of pieces that stood in contrast to the semi-endorsement of the editors of the most liberal candidates in the race (Santorum aside as their counter-balance, they know he can't win).

In a piece by the ever-brilliant Thomas Sowell, also carried on RealClearPolitics, they have a Newt-onian dissident.

What the media call Gingrich's "baggage" concerns largely his personal life and the fact that he made a lot of money running a consulting firm after he left Congress. This kind of stuff makes lots of talking points that we will no doubt hear, again and again, over the next weeks and months.

But how much weight should we give to this stuff when we are talking about the future of a nation?

This is not just another election and Barack Obama is not just another president whose policies we may not like. With all of President Obama's broken promises, glib demagoguery and cynical political moves, one promise he has kept all too well. That was his boast on the eve of the 2008 election: "We are going to change the United States of America."

Many Americans are already saying that they can hardly recognize the country they grew up in. We have already started down the path that has led Western European nations to the brink of financial disaster.

But he's not alone.  Andrew McCarthy offers a solid defense of Newt but more-so a dressing down of his editors.  It's truly an effective piece entitled Gingrich's Virtues.

I respectfully dissent from National Review’s Wednesday-evening editorial, which derided Newt Gingrich as not merely flawed but unfit for consideration as the GOP presidential nominee. The Editors further gave the back of the hand to the bids of two other prominent conservatives, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann — a judgment that is simply inexplicable in light of the frivolousness of its reasoning and of the Editors’ embrace of Jon Huntsman, a moderate former Obama-administration official, as a serious contender. 

The editorial surprised me, as it did many readers. I am now advised that the timing was driven by the editorial’s inclusion in the last edition of the magazine to be published this year, which went to press on Wednesday. The Editors believe, unwisely in my view, that before the first caucuses and primaries begin in early January, it is important to make known their insights — not merely views about the relative merits of the candidates but conclusions that some candidates are no longer worthy of having their merits considered. Like many other voters, I haven’t settled on a candidate. What I want at this very early stage is information about the candidates so I can consider them, not a presumptuous and premature pronouncement that good conservatives do not even rate consideration.

I'm not going back for any other reason just yet, but as I said in fairness I did check to see if there was any change in the winds.  The two pieces I mentioned are still sailing into a National Review a strong headwind of anti-Newt. 

Nonetheless, just as I think Newt's past errors should be forgiven, I'm willing to forgive National Review. What I'm not prepared to do is forgive them for doubling down on the anti-Newt stuff.  I would encourage you to read McCarthy's thoughtful, well-considered piece.  The same is true for Sowell, though you can read him elsewhere.  As for the rest of National Review, I'd encourage you to avoid it at the present time.

National Review Editors lose touch

The Editors of National Review give a well worded explanation of whom they feel is an acceptable candidate, and in doing so, lose all credibility.

Next time, think things through. If there is a next time.

What to look for in CNN's GOP debate tonight

CNN is hosting another in a series of seemingly endless GOP primary debates tonight.  The topic: foreign policy and national security.  This will be the second foreign policy debate, and it provides candidates one more opportunity to make an impression on voters for better or worse.  There's two things I'd expect to see in the debate tonight.

Dan Rather is as pointless as a headless arrow

Via the Washington Examiner a clip of Dan Rather pontificating on Newt Gingrich;

Rather is the one who ran with the phony George Bush documents because he sooooo didn't want Bush to win.  When it turned out to be a hoax, Rather equivocated, and never really admitted he or anyone had done any wrong.

And of course Rather believes Huntsman is the best candidate for the GOP - because Huntsman really isn't a Republican, he's a liberal.  Keep your pointless advice to your liberal self Dan.  And while you are at it, just go away and don't come back.

GOP foreign policy debate: No real winner

In the first hour of the South Carolina GOP candidates debate, there was no clear winner. In the bonus on-line time, there wasn't much difference. Everyone did well, and as Newt Gingrich pointed out, everyone on that stage would be an improvement over president Obama.  Everyone handled themselves as expected, and there were no real surprises.

The Michigan GOP Debate Deconstructed

How did the Michigan GOP debate go?  It went well.  It was a quality debate, on quality topics. CNBC had a good slate of questions.  Perhaps not all of the questioners were the best choices but overall they were pretty good.

The precis on Social Security during the break was an admirable attempt to bring the issue to those who may be unaware of the issues with the program, but it was probably an over-simplification and and under-representation of the severity of the problem.

What about the candidates?  They all seemed to have their specific focus and game plan that they were pretty much able to stick with.  Whose game plan worked, whose didn't?

Republicans' Least Objectionable Option

That title can apply to a lot of things but what I have in mind is the GOP candidates for president.  With a very short window until the caucuses and primaries start, it's about time conservatives start getting serious about who to suggest as the eventual nominee in the race to face Obama.  Let's face it, there is no Ronald Reagan in the race this year.  But that's not to say each candidate doesn't have something that they bring to the table.  But since there is no Reagan, a lot of conservatives are thinking they have to hold their nose and select their best available choice.

Who might that be?  The candidate has to be the most conservative, but electable according to William F. Buckley.  I'd expand on that latter category by saying that the candidate has to be charismatic, a great communicator and debate-ready.  The candidate has to go head-to-head with Obama in debates and come out on top.  That's really important.  Obama has to go - at all costs.

Rating the GOP candidates - Experience (Part 1 of 2)

In order to assess the contenders for the GOP 2012 presidential nomination a number of factors need to be consider that go well beyond, "I like the guy". Quite often that gut feel approach is right, but not always. It does no harm to look at the distinct factors and how each candidate stacks up compared to the others before making a decision. We might like the economic policies of one candidate slightly better than those of the others but find another candidate with a much higher factor in how electable they are. That construct will help inform each of our decisions.

We all get this now, right?

The decisions will vary from person to person, but at least they will be made with a little more clarity. The following few days I will be sifting through the research and information available to find some of the relevant details for each candidate to provide a side by side comparison. I will provide a personal assessment as well but I will keep it separate from the factual delivery of the pertinent details.

Two Word Opinions

More quick opinions after a busy day.

Now Anthony Weiner doesn't know if Weinergate photo was of him? Going blind?

'Unexpected' Double Dip recession looking very possible, who knew? Non-Keynesians.

Government limos almost double under Obama. Marie Antoinette.

China cyber-attacks Google.  

Palin's tour to go national. Already running.

Al Gore blasts Rupert Murdoch over Sky Italia issue. Partisan whining.

Jon Huntsman blasted GOP in 2009. Can't win.

Cain in, Daniels Out. Now what?

To catch everyone up on what's going on, Herman Cain is running in the GOP primaries.  Mitch Daniels another suspected candidate, surprisingly, is not.  Add Daniels' name to Huckabee and Trump, as a candidate who was a pretty safe bet to run and has dropped out before the race has begun.  Add to that the fact that Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul have all said some pretty foolish things that make their nominations unlikely at best, as did Daniels' record for that matter. So far it seems like the GOP primary is starting off with a fizzle.  Romney has to be considered a clear front runner at this point.  Romney won't generate much enthusiasm in the primaries but with a disjointed field of relative unknowns, he has the easiest path to primary victory.  So far.