Florida!

Okay, so basically my predictions for the Republican Presidential nominee were spot-on, the last two men standing would be Gov. Mitt Romney and a liberal. Swap Sen. John McCain for Mayor Giuliani in all my prior predictions and I have it ZACKlyRight. Nobody had it as I had it on December 14, 2007. Sure it’s easy for the pundits to call it now when there are only two left!

But, what else did Florida tell us about the Republicans? Well, here are some tid-bits from the exit polls.

Of those who self-identified as a Republican (80% of those who voted), Gov. Romney and Sen. McCain each earned the support of 33%. Of those who self-identified as Independent or something else (17%), Sen. McCain crushed Gov. Romney by 44% to 23%/ And, in the CLOSED Republican primary in Florida, 3% of those who voted claimed to be Democrats; the exit polls do not tell us who earned the most votes from this group but I’m sure it was not Gov. Romney.

Of those who self-identified as Conservative (61% of those who voted), Gov. Romney crushed Sen. McCain, 37% to 29%. Of those who self-identified as Moderate (28%), Sen. McCain crushed Gov. Romney, 43% to 21%. Finally, in the CLOSED Republican primary in Florida, 11% of those who voted and self-identified as Liberal, they voted for Sen. McCain 49% to 24% over Gov. Romney.

I still think Gov. Romney is going to win the nomination and be the next President of the United States. In tonight's debate he will hammer and hammer that he is the more Reaganesque candidate. I put the over/under on Reagan references tonight at 56 1/2.

Obviously, if Gov. Huckabee took his cue to leave and he endorsed his more ideological soul-mate, Gov. Romney, it would be a decent off-set to Mayor Giuliani endorsing Sen. McCain, if that, is in fact, what the Mayor does tonight.

Oh, Senator Thompson, where the heck is your Gov. Romney endorsement?

Racism in South Carolina and Florida?

(The poll results cited below were as of Thursday, January 24; I am aware that Zogby produces daily updates; my contentions below would not change if the poll numbers moved a percentage point or two in any direction as of this morning.)

The latest Zogby poll (see note above!) in South Carolina in advance of the Democratic primary today shows that Whites prefer Sen. Hillary Clinton by 33% to Sens. Edwards and Obama’s 32% and 18%, respectively. Summing support for Sens. Clinton and Edwards, Whites prefer the white candidate by 65% to 18%.

South Carolina Blacks prefer Sen. Obama by 65% to 16% for Sen. Clinton.

I’m pleased to see that IF race is a factor for White and Black voters in South Carolina that it appears to affect all South Carolinians at the SAME RATE.

I’m not researching all the other demographics to see if any demographic returns a value of 65% or greater for the preferred candidate.

I have written it a thousand times here, I do not know what race is more racist, Whites or Blacks. What I do know, as I’ve written a thousand times, is that there are white racists and there are black racists.

I think the Nation has a much better chance of improving race relations if whites and blacks are equally racist. For, if either race thought their race was LESS racists than the other, then there would not be an honest National conversation on race.

If South Carolina has 200 people (consisting of Republicans and Democrats), 100 whites and 100 blacks and there are 4 white racists and 3 black racists the conversation and the national headline CANNOT be that whites are 33% more racist than blacks. That’s not the problem! The problem is there are 7 racists. Let’s get that number to less than 7.

Changing the numbers to a total of 300 South Carolinians (again, consisting of Republicans and Democrats), 200 whites and 100 blacks and there are 8 white racists and 5 black racists, the conversation CANNOT be there are 60% more white racists than black racists even though “only” 4% of whites are racist and 5% of blacks are racist. Additionally, the conversation CANNOT be blacks are more racist than whites. The conversation must be there are 13 racists, 8 white and 5 black.

Unfortunately, in the examples I give above, the national headlines would be whites are 33% more racist than blacks or that there are 60% more white racists than black. First, guilty, white, liberals who control the mainstream media would ensure that was the story; it would ease their guilt. Anyone who argued against the wrong-headed claim would be accused of being . . . . yes, you guessed it . . . a racist. Second, militant black leaders would “promote” the news, exploit it if you will, to wring more concessions from guilty, white, corporate America and fostering resentment among whites who are offended or who want to be offended. The National condition is not improved; the National conversation is dishonest.

Again, that is why I am pleased to see the latest Zoby poll suggesting that IF race is a factor for South Carolinians, it appears it is equally so. The National conversation CANNOT be pointing fingers at the more racist race.

The latest American Research Group poll in Florida (again, numbers I pulled on Thursday, January 24) in advance of Tuesday’s primary shows Whites favor Sen. Clinton by 63% over Sens. Edwards and Obama’s 17% and 15%, respectively. Again, summing Sens. Clinton and Edwards, Whites chose the white candidate 80% to 15%.

Florida Blacks favor Sen. Obama by 75% to 19% for Sen. Clinton.

Again, IF race is a factor in Florida, I’m prepared to say it is affecting the White and Black voter at the same rate.

I’m doubtful that any other demographic would return values 65% or greater as in South Carolina or 75% or greater as in Florida as race did so racism is certainly alive and well in America.

. . . and we continue to wait for an honest National conversation on race . . .

Mr. Dan Payne Really is an Idiot

First, earlier this week, Rep. Duncan Hunter endorsed a moderate Republican, Gov. Mike Huckabee, for President. I don’t understand this at all; maybe it coincides with the conservative media establishment taking gratuitous shots at Gov. Romney, but I cannot imagine someone like Rep. Hunter being part of an ugly anti-Romney campaign. I don’t know anything about Rep. Hunter’s prior dealings with Gov. Huckabee so maybe there is an honest, personal reason for the candidate with the most bona fide conservative credentials not endorsing the candidate with the second most bona fide conservative credentials. Obviously, I was wrong about an earlier prediction and I’m very disappointed by the endorsement. I still believe, of the incredibly small number of Rep. Hunter supporters, more of us will now support Gov. Romney than any other candidate.

As I wrote just a few days ago, Mr. Dan Payne, another hate-monger now employed by the Boston Globe, is an idiot.

Here is how Mr. Payne began his January 24, 2008 column questioning Sen. Barack Obama, “I want to know more about Obama. And I want to know it now, not in the fall when the Republicans and their thugs in the ‘independent’ groups start slinging the sludge.”

Thugs? Wow. I can feel the national reconciliation already.

Idiot Payne’s defense of Sen. Hillary Clinton from the same column, “We know a lot about Hillary Clinton: Whitewater, filegate, cattle futures, the Chinese dishwashers who wrote checks for $500 and $2,000 to her campaign, the money from Ponzi schemer Norman Hsu, the $100,000 to her Senate campaign from a sleazy marketing operator in Nebraska, who paid her husband $2 million for unspecified "consulting services. As a result, we know they can take a bullet. And new revelations won't shatter anyone's illusions about the Clintons.”

Idiot Payne conveniently forgets the miraculously appearing Rose Law Firm billing records that were under subpoena for two years before they appeared on the First Lady's nightstand and Travelgate.

Anyway, we’re not looking for a yard captain at San Quentin, we’re looking for a President of the United States. Someone should let Idiot Payne know.

As President Clinton forced parents to prematurely explain oral sex to their 10 and 11 year old daughters (what a legacy!), will parents now have to explain what a "shiv" is if Sen. Clinton is elected President?

I can feel the national reconciliation already.

Time to Crow a Little

On December 14, 2007 and January 14, 2008 (today is January 23) I told you that the order the Republican candidates for President would drop off would be Rep. Duncan Hunter then Sen. Fred Thompson. Yes, the Rep. Hunter prediction was not terribly difficult to make, though no one else was making it, but absolutely nobody was predicting Sen. Thompson would follow as early as I was predicting it. No, it never gets old being ZACKlyRight.

Also, on December 14, I wrote, “The reason why Gov. Romney is going to get the Republican nomination, and therefore be elected President, is because he will gain the most as we move through the primary process and the second and third tier candidates start to lose their support.”

Last night (so, on January 22) on Hannity and Colmes, Speaker Newt Gingrich said that Gov. Romney would benefit the most in Florida (there’s a primary in Florida next Tuesday) because of Sen. Thompson leaving the race. Yes, NOW all the national pundits are saying what I’ve been writing for weeks. No, it never gets old being ZACKlyRight.

On January 4, I wrote, “I did hear some commentary by conservative pundits that startled me for it's heavy anti-Romney slant. I'll keep my ears open during the New Hampshire coverage to see if there is some ugly undertone brewing. I'm not prepared to indict anyone yet.”

On January 10, I wrote, “I simply do not have time to investigate it tonight but there is definitely something malicious occurring against Gov. Romney. He leads the Republican delegate count and he’s being pronounced dead by the liberal media and even conservative pundits are still taking veiled shots at him.”

And, I pretty much devoted my entire January 19 and 21 posts to the anti-Romney under-current.

Today, January 23, Mr. Jay Severin, he the ruler of talk radio drive time here in Boston (96.9 WTKK) and yesterday morning’s guest on the Imus in the Morning show because of his political astuteness, took up the anti-Romney bias theme in full-force. Mr. Severin indicted the national media, print and television. No, it never gets old being ZACKlyRight.

If you want to know next month’s news today, read ZACKlyRight. If you can wait until the news actually happens, then let me suggest you learn about it by reading the Boston Globe or any other major newspaper, listening to the Imus in the Morning program or Mr. Jay Severin, or watching Hannity and Colmes.

More on Florida

Hey, how does Gov. Huckabee think he’s going to win Florida in the General, a state he must have to win the Oval, if he’s not contesting it in the primaries? See, how it works. Since Gov. Huckabee is not heavily contesting Florida, he can’t lose! Oh, the brilliance (see second paragraph, January 21, post)!

Twisted Liberal Logic on the November 2006 Elections

Liberal idiots are running around the country saying that the improvements in Iraq are due to their election success in November 2006. Their reasoning is: the elections were a loud and clear message to the Iraqis that the U.S. presence in Iraq was fast coming to an end so they better get their act together.

The U.S. economy started to tank at roughly the same time things started to improve in Iraq.

!!!!On July 20, 2007!!!! I wrote, “I don't know how many trillions of dollars of personal wealth has been created as the Dow, the S&P 500, the Russell 2000, the Wilshire 5000 and every other measure of stock performance has cruised past previous highs, but I'm sure every American is benefiting. Thank you, President Bush.

If you are planning to vote for any national Democrat next year, I suggest you start transitioning your portfolio into cash. If Democrats gain in Congress or take the White House, capital gains tax rates are going to rise as Democrats think your money is their money so as they raise taxes, the market will fall.”

Hmmm, do you think the American electorate is more aware of American politics than the Iraqi electorate?

Do you think the liberal idiots who think their election in 2006 is responsible for the improvements in Iraq think their election in 2006 is responsible for the tanking economy?

On December 7, 2007, I was 100% invested in cash, not an equity to be seen.

No, it never, ever gets old being ZACKlyRight.

Random Musings

No, I’m still not gloating about my predictions (February 14, 2007; December 14, 2007 or January 12, 2008) that Gov. Mitt Romney will be the next President of the United States and that Rep. Hunter would be the next Republican candidate to drop out of the Presidential race. The latter was just a matter of time and if any political novices were asked to predict such an event, all would have predicted Rep. Hunter. When Sen. Thompson drops out I might crow a little. When Sen. Thompson endorses Gov. Romney, I’ll crow a lot.

As I wrote on Saturday, the only primaries that seem to matter to the liberal media establishment in the Republican race are the ones that Gov. Romney does not win. Gov. Romney won Nevada but that race according to the media was “lightly contested” so the victory is absolutely meaningless. I can now say I never lost anything in my entire life. Everything I’ve ever lost I now contend I “lightly contested”; those losses don’t count! Wow, what a great way to always win! That great job that went to another job applicant? No, I only “lightly contested” for the position during the interview process. Ms. Jessica Alba selecting Mr. Cash Warren over me? No, I only “lightly contested” for her affection. This is great! My “winning percentage” in life is now recalculated to 100%! I’ve won all of the things I ever “heavily contested” and those are the only contests that count!

Disregarding the above paragraph, 86% of those who voted in the Republican primary in Nevada were Republicans; that is, they belonged to the Party that will nominate the Republican candidate. Gov. Romney won 58% of this group. Sen. McCain finished second with 12%. Seventy-six percent of Republican primary voters self-identified as "conservative". Gov. Romney won 57% of this group. More finely breaking-down the ideology labels to "somewhat conservative (36%)" and "very conservative (40%)", Gov. Romney won 58% of the latter group; Gov. Huckabee, Sen. Thompson and Rep. Paul all tied for second with 11% of the vote for the "very conservative" group.

Let me be the first to provide the outcome of a brokered Republican convention, if it comes to that. At most, the possible remaining candidates will include Govs. Romney and Huckabee, Sen. McCain and Mayor Giuliani. Next, contemplate what we know about registered Republicans. Then, think about what we know about the fervor of Republicans who vote in Presidential primaries. Now, think about the fervor of those who are actually delegates to the convention. So, putting the four names I listed in descending order of conservative to moderate, who do you think is at the top of the list? Whether by reaching the required delegate count prior to the convention or by winning the nomination in a brokered convention, Gov. Mitt Romney will be the Republican Party’s nominee.

Sens. Clinton and Obama and Mrs. Michelle Obama were all in black churches this weekend pand-----, I mean, campaigning for the black vote. Gov. Romney was in Florida this weekend touting his credentials as an economic genius; he obviously pandering for the votes of those most concerned with the economy. Get it? Only Gov. Romney panders; everybody else is campaigning.

I wonder what the “tolerant” liberal media would have to say about Gov. Romney if he were pictured coming out of a Mormon Church service as often as Sens. Clinton and Obama or President Clinton and Mrs. Michelle Obama are seen coming out of a church service. I wonder what the "tolerant" liberal media would have to say about Gov. Romney if he WERE EVER pictured coming out of a Mormon Church service.

Just a word about the Democratic Presidential primary in Nevada. According to the Boston Globe, Sen. Clinton won the white vote in Nevada over Sen. Obama by 52% to 34%. Sen. Obama won 83% of the black vote. If anyone can explain how Sen. Obama enjoys such support from the black community without race being the driving factor, I’d love to hear the explanation. As I’ve written so many times on this blog I’ve lost count, I do not know what race is more racist but voting for someone because of their skin color is as racist as voting against someone because of their skin color. Using race to decide is racism, I cannot write it any more clearly. I believe there should be no tolerance for racism no matter how attractively it’s wrapped by its practitioners.

A few more numbers as reported by my (news)paper, the Boston Globe:

In New Jersey, blacks favor Sen. Obama by 48% to 26%. Whites favor Sen. Clinton 46% to 23%. The numbers are within the margin of error so if racism is a factor, it looks like black and white New Jersey voters are equally racist. But, I wonder what demographic will be labeled as such and what demographic will get a pass . . . again.

In South Carolina, blacks favor Sen. Obama by 44 percentage points. Whites favor Sen. Clinton 44% to 20% (this is 24% difference for those scoring at home). These numbers are not comparable because they are well outside the margin of error from each other. Readers can draw their own conclusions.

I condemn racism in all its overt forms. I condemn sexism in all its overt forms. I condemn religious bigotry in all its overt forms.

But, I especially condemn racism, sexism, and religious bigotry when they're dressed up to be something noble because of their insidiousness.

(For new readers who want to read rather contemporary posts on Racism in America, please see my posts of August 3, 6, and 8, 2006. For regular readers, please treat yourselves to a re-read.)

Anti-Romney Undercurrent – Is it Bigotry?

Mr. Dan Payne, who occasionally writes commentary for the Boston Globe, attaches the following bio to the end of his columns:

“Dan Payne is a Boston-area media consultant who has worked for Democratic candidates around the country.”

The bio should read:

“Dan Payne is an idiot.”

Let me start my post on the anti-Romney undercurrent sweeping the Nation with a line from Mr. Payne’s January 10, 2008 post-mortem on the New Hampshire primaries (What N. H. taught us, Boston Globe), in explaining Sen. Clinton’s win, Mr. Payne wrote, “She won Democrats by more than 11 points.” Wow, winning your Party’s members must be important.

Later, the idiot wrote, “(Gov.) Mitt (Romney) is dislikeable and dead.” Recall, Sen. John McCain won New Hampshire.

As promised, I found the Entrance Poll results for the New Hampshire primary. Here’s what I found:

Of those who identified themselves as Republicans, Gov. Romney beat Sen. McCain by 35% to 34%. Now, I’m not going to make a huge point of the 1 point, but the facts are that New Hampshire Republicans preferred Gov. Romney over Sen. McCain. The Idiot was unimpressed.

Mr. Payne thinks Sen. Clinton rocked and rolled the Democrats but Gov. Romney is dead because he won the Republican vote?

Of course, New Hampshire has “open primaries” so anyone can vote in a Republican primary. Yes, those dopey New Hampshire Republicans allow people that don’t belong to the Party, namely Independents, to impact who their Party will nominate for President of the United States of America.

Looking way back to the Wyoming caucuses, yes, for those who are as unaware as the national media, including the conservative pundits, Wyoming had a caucus on January 5 and Gov. Romney handily won that caucus. I only mention because 62% of the STATE are Republicans so, there, members of the Republican Party decided who should receive 60% of the delegates up for grabs. Oh, did I mention the Caucus that the Establishment Forgets was for 16% MORE delegates than the Can’t-Stop-Mentioning NH primary.

I have the Exit Poll results for Michigan; the most relevant stat to mention is that 68% of those polled identified themselves as Republicans. Of this group, so of the group that actually belong to the Republican Party, Gov. Romney won 41% of the vote. Sen. McCain trailed badly at 27% and Gov. Huckabee was worse still at 17%.

Another Michigan stat worth mentioning is that 56% of Republican primary voters identified themselves as Conservative. Of this group, Gov. Romney won 41% of the vote. Sen. McCain only got 23% and Gov. Huckabee an embarrassing 20%.

My (news)paper, the Boston Globe, is now running daily editorials and columns with gratuitous attacks on Gov. Romney. I’m not going to cite each one, this post would be 2,000 words if I did. But, according to the Boston Globe, Gov. Romney is the only candidate running for President who is “pandering”. When Sen. Clinton says African-Americans in prison “should not be in prison” she’s “taking a bona fide campaign position”. When Sen. Clinton is addressing Hispanics in Nevada and says, “All of our problems are interconnected, but we treat them as if one were guacamole and one were chips," she's "connecting with voters". And I could go on. Every other day Sens. Clinton and Obama are in a Church but they clearly are not “pandering”. They’re doing something but surely it’s not pandering. Even conservative pundit Bill Kristol has accused Gov. Romney of pandering.

I completely understand the liberal extremist demonization of Gov. Romney; he’s the most formidable candidate in the General. I don’t understand the conservative establishment playing along. I plead ignorant on something political for the first time in my life; if another conservative can explain it to me, please enlighten me.

So, in summary:

Gov. Romney could not “win” in Michigan with the pundits. It was his “home” state, after all. NO credit for winning your home state.

Gov. Romeny did not win in Wyoming. If EVERYONE ignores it happened, it didn’t happen, I guess.

Gov. Romney cannot win in Nevada, it’s full of Mormons, you know. No credit for benefiting from religious affiliation. Hey, how did Gov. Huckabee win Iowa? Who’s going to drive the vote in South Carolina? Will the explanation for the victor in South Carolina be as dismissed as the Nevada victory will be for Gov. Romney? Let’s keep our eyes and ears open and find out.

The only states that apparently count this primary season are just the states Gov. Romney does not win.

To wit, the Boston Globe headline the day after New Hampshire was, “McCain trounces Romney”. The spread was 37% - 32%. The headline after Romney won Michigan 39% - 30% over Sen. McCain was, “Romney bounces back with big win in Michigan”.

Gov. Romney has banked more than twice as many delegates to date than his closest competitor. According to CNN, Gov. Romney has 49 delegates with Gov. Huckabee trailing badly at 19 and Sen. McCain at 15. Oooh, maybe Gov. Romney should drop out of the race!

There are only 24 delegates up for grabs in South Carolina; there are 34 in Nevada, let’s see which state gets more attention.

Gov. Romney’s “losses” are being magnified; his wins ignored or dismissed. I’m still not prepared to indict the media establishment for anti-Mormon bigotry but I don’t have a second motive at this time.

Oh, and Dan Payne is still an idiot.

The Sanctity of Innocent Human Life

Despite my best intentions, I simply cannot get to the "anti-Romney undercurrent" post.

Please know, though, that Republicans love Gov. Romney despite what the media would like you to think about what people who DO NOT belong to the Party (i.e. Independents) think about him.

If the mainstream media catches up to me after the South Carolina primaries and starts writing about the anti-Romney bias then my original observation is gone forever. If it doesn't, and there is a chance because its members are idiots, then maybe a Sunday or Monday post on the subject.

A Washington Post story today announced ONLY 1.2 million babies were aborted in 2007, the lowest total in the United States since 1976 (though the population of the United States blasted through 300 million this year and was about 215 million in 1976).

On President Bush's watch, probably because judges he appointed said THE PEOPLE can make laws restricting how unborn babies are murdered, the number of abortions has declined precipitously as a percent of total population and as a percent of women ages 15 - 44 (yes, for this "stat" women can be as young as 15, but try to offer such a "woman" a beer or cigarette).

Anyway, to the many other accomplishments of President Bush, we add yet another.

That 1.2 million innocent lives were destroyed last year is an outrage.

Scared to Death of a Mushroom Cloud
(Time for Grown-Ups II)

Before I get to my biggest fear, well, other than dying, just a few words on the Republican Presidential primaries. No, I’m not gloating because Gov. Romney won the Michigan primary and is now the “front-runner” according to the idiots in the liberal media. Yes, I called it on February 14, 2007. And, yes, I repeated the prediction on December 14, 2007 that Gov. Romney would be the next President of the United States of America. Though I still think that’s going to happen there is a lot of ground to cover and it’s not going to be easy for the Governor. To wit, I’m still trying to get to the piece I promised on January 4 and hinted at on January 6 and January 10 about an ugly undercurrent against Gov. Romney not only coming from the usual suspects on the Left but also from conservative pundits. I’m making notes here and ripping (news)paper articles out there and stuffing into my notes folder but I just don’t have the time to put it all together tonight. Hopefully before the results of the South Carolina primary are announced I'll get something published.

Dr. Condoleezza Rice made a surprise visit to Baghdad this week but not the President. I am surprised as I wrote I would be surprised on January 8.

My biggest fear is somehow, someway, a nuclear device is going to be detonated in a major American city.

My last post was about North Korea’s unchecked nuclear weapons program. I give you another post on similar. Below is more commentary from the Wall Street Journal. Please note the authors. These men most definitely are grown-ups. The, bold, bumped font, and italics are mine for emphasis; my only commentary, if you will:

Toward a Nuclear-Free World
By George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger, and Sam Nunn
January 15, 2008; Page A13

The accelerating spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear know-how and nuclear material has brought us to a nuclear tipping point. We face a very real possibility that the deadliest weapons ever invented could fall into dangerous hands.

The steps we are taking now to address these threats are not adequate to the danger. With nuclear weapons more widely available, deterrence is decreasingly effective and increasingly hazardous.

One year ago, in an essay in this paper, we called for a global effort to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, to prevent their spread into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately to end them as a threat to the world. The interest, momentum and growing political space that has been created to address these issues over the past year has been extraordinary, with strong positive responses from people all over the world.

Mikhail Gorbachev wrote in January 2007 that, as someone who signed the first treaties on real reductions in nuclear weapons, he thought it his duty to support our call for urgent action: "It is becoming clearer that nuclear weapons are no longer a means of achieving security; in fact, with every passing year they make our security more precarious."

In June, the United Kingdom's foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, signaled her government's support, stating: "What we need is both a vision -- a scenario for a world free of nuclear weapons -- and action -- progressive steps to reduce warhead numbers and to limit the role of nuclear weapons in security policy. These two strands are separate but they are mutually reinforcing. Both are necessary, but at the moment too weak."

We have also been encouraged by additional indications of general support for this project from other former U.S. officials with extensive experience as secretaries of state and defense and national security advisors. These include: Madeleine Albright, Richard V. Allen, James A. Baker III, Samuel R. Berger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Frank Carlucci, Warren Christopher, William Cohen, Lawrence Eagleburger, Melvin Laird, Anthony Lake, Robert McFarlane, Robert McNamara and Colin Powell.

Inspired by this reaction, in October 2007, we convened veterans of the past six administrations, along with a number of other experts on nuclear issues, for a conference at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. There was general agreement about the importance of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons as a guide to our thinking about nuclear policies, and about the importance of a series of steps that will pull us back from the nuclear precipice.

The U.S. and Russia, which possess close to 95% of the world's nuclear warheads, have a special responsibility, obligation and experience to demonstrate leadership, but other nations must join.
Some steps are already in progress, such as the ongoing reductions in the number of nuclear warheads deployed on long-range, or strategic, bombers and missiles. Other near-term steps that the U.S. and Russia could take, beginning in 2008, can in and of themselves dramatically reduce nuclear dangers.

They include:

• Extend key provisions of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991. Much has been learned about the vital task of verification from the application of these provisions. The treaty is scheduled to expire on Dec. 5, 2009. The key provisions of this treaty, including their essential monitoring and verification requirements, should be extended, and the further reductions agreed upon in the 2002 Moscow Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions should be completed as soon as possible.

• Take steps to increase the warning and decision times for the launch of all nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, thereby reducing risks of accidental or unauthorized attacks. Reliance on launch procedures that deny command authorities sufficient time to make careful and prudent decisions is unnecessary and dangerous in today's env ironment. Furthermore, developments in cyber-warfare pose new threats that could have disastrous consequences if the command-and-control systems of any nuclear-weapons state were compromised by mischievous or hostile hackers. Further steps could be implemented in time, as trust grows in the U.S.-Russian relationship, by introducing mutually agreed and verified physical barriers in the command-and-control sequence.

• Discard any existing operational plans for massive attacks that still remain from the Cold War days. Interpreting deterrence as requiring mutual assured destruction (MAD) is an obsolete policy in today's world, with the U.S. and Russia formally having declared that they are allied against terrorism and no longer perceive each other as enemies.

• Undertake negotiations t oward developing cooperative multilateral ballistic-missile defense and early warning systems, as proposed by Presidents Bush and Putin at their 2002 Moscow summit meeting. This should include agreement on plans for countering missile threats to Europe, Russia and the U.S. from the Middle East, along with completion of work to establish the Joint Data Exchange Center in Moscow. Reducing tensions over missile defense will enhance the possibility of progress on the broader range of nuclear issues so essential to our security. Failure to do so will make broader nuclear cooperation much more difficult.

• Dramatically accelerate work to provide the highest possible standards of security for nuclear weapons, as well as for nuclear materials everywhere in the world, to prevent terrorists from acquiring a nuclear bomb. There are nuclear weapons materials in more than 40 countries a ro und the world, and there are recent reports of alleged attempts to smuggle nuclear material in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. The U.S., Russia and other nations that have worked with the Nunn-Lugar programs, in cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), should play a key role in helping to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 relating to improving nuclear security -- by offering teams to assist jointly any nation in meeting its obligations under this resolution to provide for appropriate, effective security of these materials.

As Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger put it in his address at our October conference, "Mistakes are made in every other human endeavor. Why should nuclear weapons be exempt?" To underline the governor's point, on Aug. 29-30, 2007, six cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads were loaded on a U.S. Air Force plane, flown across the country and unloaded. For 36 hours, no one knew where the warheads were, or even that they were missing.

• Start a dialogue, including within NATO and with Russia, on consolidating the nuclear weapons designed for forward deployment to enhance their security, and as a first step toward careful accounting for them and their eventual elimination. These smaller and more portable nuclear weapons are, given their characteristics, inviting acquisition targets for terrorist groups.

• Strengthen the means of monitoring compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a counter to the global spread of advanced technologies. More progress in this direction is urgent, and could be achieved through requiring the application of monitoring provisions (Additional Protocols) designed by the IAEA to all signatories of the NPT.

• Adopt a process for bringing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) into effect, which would strengthen the NPT and aid international monitoring of nuclear activities. This calls for a bipartisan review, first, to examine improvements over the past decade of the international monitoring system to identify and locate explosive underground nuclear tests in violation of the CTBT; and, second, to assess the technical progress made over the past decade in maintaining high confidence in the reliability, safety and effectiveness of the nation's nuclear arsenal under a test ban. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization is putting in place new monitoring stations to detect nuclear tests -- an effort the U.S should urgently support even prior to ratification.

In parallel with these steps by the U.S. and Russia, the dialogue must broaden on an international scale, including non-nuclear as well as nuclear nations.

Key subjects include turning the goal of a world without nuclear weapons into a practical enterprise among nations, by applying the necessary political will to build an international consensus on priorities. The government of Norway will sponsor a conference in February that will contribute to this process.

Another subject: Developing an international system to manage the risks of the nuclear fuel cycle. With the growing global interest in developing nuclear energy and the potential proliferation of nuclear enrichment capabilities, an international program should be created by advanced nuclear countries and a strengthened IAEA. The purpose should be to provide for reliable supplies of nuclear fuel, reserves of enriched uranium, infrastructure assistance, financing, and spent fuel management -- to ensure that the means to make nuclear weapons materials isn't spread around the globe.

There should also be an agreement to undertake further substantial reductions in U.S. and Russian nuclear forces beyond those recorded in the U.S.-Russia Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty. As the reductions proceed, other nuclear nations would become involved.

President Reagan's maxim of "trust but verify" should be reaffirmed. Completing a verifiable treaty to prevent nations from producing nuclear materials for weapons would contribute to a more rigorous system of accounting and security for nuclear materials.

We should also build an international consensus on ways to deter or, when required, to respond to, secret attempts by countries to break out of agreements.

Progress must be facilitated by a clear statement of our ultimate goal. Indeed, this is the only way to build the kind of international trust and broad cooperation that will be required to effectively address today's threats. Without the vision of moving toward zero, we will not find the essential cooperation required to stop our downward spiral.

In some respects, the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons is like the top of a very tall mountain. From the vantage point of our troubled world today, we can't even see the top of the mountain, and it is tempting and easy to say we can't get there from here. But the risks from continuing to go down the mountain or standing pat are too real to ignore. We must chart a course to higher ground where the mountaintop becomes more visible.

Mr. Shultz was secretary of state from 1982 to 1989. Mr. Perry was secretary of defense from 1994 to 1997. Mr. Kissinger was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977. Mr. Nunn is former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The following participants in the Hoover-NTI conference also endorse the view in this statement: General John Abizaid, Graham Allison, Brooke Anderson, Martin Anderson, Steve Andreasen, Mike Armacost, Bruce Blair, Matt Bunn, Ashton Carter, Sidney Drell, General Vladimir Dvorkin, Bob Einhorn, Mark Fitzpatrick, James Goodby, Rose Gottemoeller, Tom Graham, David Hamburg, Siegfried Hecker, Tom Henriksen, David Holloway, Raymond Jeanloz, Ray Juzaitis, Max Kampelman, Jack Matlock, Michael McFaul, John McLaughlin, Don Oberdorfer, Pavel Podvig, William Potter, Richard Rhodes, Joan Rohlfing, Harry Rowen, Scott Sagan, Roald Sagdeev, Abe Sofaer, Richard Solomon, and Philip Zelikow. (End of commentary from Wall Street Journal.)

Time for Grown-Ups on North Korea

Regular readers of this space know that I’ve addressed the various levels of success President Bush has had in disarming Iraq, Libya, Iran and North Korea with respect to nuclear weapons (December 8, 2006 and January 10, 2007, for example).

Everyone should know that only the references to Iraq and Libya are to be taken seriously. And, with respect to Iraq, I’ll acknowledge that Saddam Hussein relieved himself of his “weapons of mass destruction” program prior to March, 2003 and concede Saddam did not have a nuclear weapons program. Libya most definitely did have a nuclear weapons program and in January of 2004 the IAEA flew the nuclear materials out of that country.

My references to Iran and North Korea were always meant to mock the liberal media establishment and invite a challenge from readers here.

I take no comfort that Iran had a nuclear weapons program to cease pursuing exactly as I wrote on December 5, 2006.

All my references to North Korea were simply to extend the list to include all the countries in the axis of evil and to play up the “diplomacy” of the Bush Administration.

Below is commentary from Mr. John Bolton, former Ambassador to the United Nations by a Bush recess appointment. Mr. Bolton is someone who should be advising the President on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program from inside the Administration. Unfortunately for us, the Democratically-controlled Senate (read: whiny children) would not confirm Mr. Bolton as Ambassador to the UN so he is no longer in that role. Now Mr. Bolton is now quite possibly Mr. Bush’s biggest critic on this matter. How remarkably ironic.

North Korea's True Colors
By John Bolton
The Wall Street Journal
January 11, 2008; Page A11

There's more positive news from the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea: Its leaders have refused to make any further disclosure concerning its nuclear programs.

How is this umpteenth violation of the Feb. 13, 2006, agreement in the Six-Party Talks positive? Because at a critical moment on a gravely important issue, North Korea has again shown its true colors, thus providing the United States an opportunity to extricate itself from this unwise and dangerous deal.

Troubles in the six-party talks on Korea emerged long before this most recent public manifestation of Pyongyang's unwillingness to give up anything of consequence concerning its nuclear program. Israel's Sept. 6 raid against a likely Syrian-North Korea nuclear project was a fire bell in the night that the regime was up to its old tricks -- at least for anyone willing to listen.

The administration's continuing refusal to allow Israel to make public the true nature of this facility will only come back to haunt it, not only on North Korea, but also on its Middle East policy. If no North Koreans were involved, why not shout it out? If the facility was not nuclear, why not do the same? The significance of the Sept. 6 attack has not faded in Congress, nor will the demands for more public disclosure.

In the aftermath of the Feb. 13 agreement, North Korea had to develop a cover story for its uranium-enrichment activities, as well as a way to conceal its stock of plutonium and actual nuclear weapons. And yet -- despite the seemingly active and continuing collaboration by the U.S. State Department in coming up with a convincing line of patter -- Pyongyang still insists it never engaged in uranium enrichment, producing as evidence melted-down tubes. Melting the tubes was curious in and of itself, suggesting that in their original form they appeared much more like centrifuge equipment than artillery barrels. The regime made a fatal mistake, however, because the metal showed unmistakable traces of highly-enriched uranium (HEU).

Perhaps even the State Department's East Asia Bureau was shocked at this evidence of North Korean duplicity. In any event, the "dual use" dodge was now out of play, and Pyongyang had to be persuaded to come up with a more convincing cover story. Even this they have now refused to do.

The timing is important, because elements within the U.S. intelligence community were questioning the community's 2002 assessment that North Korea had launched a production-scope procurement effort for enrichment equipment. This effort, similar in origin and intent to the recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program, may well have been sidetracked by the findings of HEU, which at least in part reinforced the 2002 conclusions.

Moreover, whatever the North Korean declaration says about its nuclear activities -- assuming just for sport that we actually get a declaration -- it was always only a first step in a long process of verification, and not even the most important one. If North Korea and the State Department, working together, can come up with something they think will pass the public smile test once it is released, we still need to verify the accuracy and completeness of the declaration. Here is where State has failed most obviously: There has yet to be, 11 months after the Feb. 13 agreement, even a hint of what specific mechanisms will verify a declaration. Unless and until this vacuum is filled, we are going nowhere fast in denuclearizing North Korea.

So, as Kim Jong Il's hero, Lenin, used to say, "what is to be done?"

President Bush can now argue without fear of contradiction that he has done more than anyone could expect to give fantasy a chance, and therefore make a policy course correction. North Korea has dragged out its performance for nearly a year, has less and less incentive to make Mr. Bush look good, and has in sight the possibility of a resumed Clinton administration, or something even weaker. By resuming a tough line on North Korea, Mr. Bush can at least make a future administration's retreat from a tougher, more realistic course, more difficult to explain.

Given the recent South Korean presidential election results, Mr. Bush will soon have a willing ally in Lee Myung-bak, who will be inaugurated on Feb. 25. After 10 years, a realist will once again occupy Seoul's Blue House, one who will support a tougher American line rather than oppose it.

Mr. Bush should meet with Mr. Lee as soon as practicable, and urge South Korea to join the Proliferation Security Initiative, a genuinely important Bush administration legacy. This will help squeeze the North, by adding South Korea's considerable knowledge and capabilities in the waters around the Korean Peninsula.

It will also reinforce Japan's continuing tough line under Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda -- given president-elect Lee's apparent willingness to confront North Korea on its horrifying oppression of its own citizens and its international record of kidnappings. If South Korea now joins with Japan in pressing the North hard on the kidnappings, Japan is less likely to bend under State Department pressure. This should certainly provide ample reason for the U.S. not to remove North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism for the remainder of the Bush administration.

Aligning Japan and South Korea with the U.S. will allow President Bush to increase the pressure on North Korea internationally by resuming financial sanctions and other "defensive measures." It would also help put the spotlight back on China, which has the real economic leverage to force a change in North Korea's nuclear policy, if it chose to exert it.

We are long past the point of allowing China to cover for Kim Jong Il without any cost in its relations with the U.S. Getting China to take concrete steps against North Korea's nuclear capabilities through increased economic and political pressure would be a true diplomatic success for the Bush administration in its waning days.

Mr. Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of the recently published "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations," (Simon & Schuster/Threshold Editions, 2007). (End of Wall Street Journal commentary.)

Sen. Thompson and Rep. Hunter will Endorse Gov. Romney

On December 14, I explained how and why Gov. Romney was going to be the next President of the United States. The gist of the piece was that Republican primary voters would gravitate to Gov. Romney in greater numbers than to any other candidate as the Republican candidates drop out of the race.

My thesis is the Republican primary voters would make this informed decision on their own.

I'd now like to add a corollary to the above thesis.

After watching the Republican Presidential debate on Thursday, January 10, I've convinced that when Rep. Duncan Hunter and Sen. Fred Thompson drop out of the race both will endorse Gov. Mitt Romney.

Based on how poorly Rep. Hunter and Sen. Thompson are doing I'm not suggesting their actions will deliver some massive windfall of votes. I am suggesting that their endorsements will be pretty substantial proof that their supporters would naturally gravitate to Gov. Romney in greater numbers than to any other candidate as I've now suggested several times.

My predicted order of Republicans dropping out of the race remains unchanged from December 14:
6. Rep. Hunter - literally, with an announcement
5. Fred Thompson - literally, with an announcement
4. Rep Paul - figuratively, if not literally; probably will not endorse a candidate before the nominee is selected
3. Sen. McCain - literally, with an announcement; also, I'd be very surprised if he endorsed another candidate on his way out the door; Sen. McCain will not endorse Gov. Huckabee to hurt Gov. Romney because I do think Sen. McCain will put Country over campaign pettiness
2. Gov. Huckabee - figuratively, as he'll be in it almost to the end
1. Mayor Giuliani - figuratively, as he'll be in it to the end

Something Stinks and My Last 3 Letters to the Boston Globe

Below, on January 4, I wrote, “I did hear some commentary by conservative pundits that startled me for its heavy anti-Romney slant. I'll keep my ears open during the New Hampshire coverage to see if there is some ugly undertone brewing. I'm not prepared to indict anyone yet.”

I simply do not have time to investigate it tonight but there is definitely something malicious occurring against Gov. Romney. He leads the Republican delegate count and he’s being pronounced dead by the liberal media and even conservative pundits are still taking veiled shots at him.

I saw the New Hampshire primary exit poll results a few days ago and it’s going to take time for me to find them now and cobble together a post but know that of the people who voted in the New Hampshire primary who self-identified as “Republican”, Gov. Romney won the most votes.

My last three letters to the Boston Globe; none really need any set-up:

In response to the Boston Globe’s juvenile endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama in Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary, I submitted the following letter to the Boston Globe:

Editor,

In the 179 words used to specifically endorse Sen. Barack Obama in the New Hampshire primary, you only highlighted two of the Senator’s policy positions, “He has worked hard for nuclear nonproliferation and . . . he is the only candidate consistently mentioning the genocide in Darfur (Still Obama and McCain, editorial, January 8).”

It is strange then that President Bush does not enjoy more support from the Boston Globe as, without firing an single shot, he orchestrated the dismantling of Libya’s nuclear weapons program (January, 2004) and he induced Iran to discontinue it’s nuclear weapons program, according to the latest NIE on the matter, in 2003. There's still work to be done regarding North Korea but through diplomacy, and with the cooperation of our allies in Southeast Asia, there is progress being made there as well.

Additionally, President Bush, breaking with the gutless United Nations, was the first national leader to call Darfur a genocide (June, 2005). I’m sure President Bush appreciates Sen. Obama’s support on this issue. (End of first letter.)

The subject of my email was, “Sen. Barack George Bush Obama”.

Ms. Joan Vennochi and I exchanged two emails before she penned another anti-Romney piece.

Editor,

You have to love the Boston Globe for its extraordinary chutzpah.

Yesterday, columnist Ms. Joan Vennochi had published her second straight attack on Gov. Mitt Romney; wow, he really must be horrible (Looking for the GOP change agent in N.H., January 6, D9)!

Anyway, in the attack-piece she noted Gov. Romney " . . . scooped up weaker companies and flipped them for big profits after firing employees . . . . "

Flash back to January 11, 2007, not even one year ago, when Boston Globe employees were greeted with the spine-straightening news that their fearful leader, editor Mr. Martin Baron, was out of town when he announced Christmas-season job cuts at the Boston Globe.

"I’d like to apologize for being out of town and unable to speak with you personally about today’s announcement regarding the reduction in staff. I had expected to be in the newsroom when the announcement was made," he wrote employees in an icy-cold letter.

Yeah, we all get it; the liberally extreme Boston Globe can observe the absolute rules of a market economy but a Republican Presidential candidate dare not. (End of second letter.)

I kid you not, I blind copied Mr. Martin Baron on the letter and he graciously exchanged two emails with me. Don’t be surprised if a Boston Globe reporter asks Senator Clinton about her husband’s cruise-missile strikes to knock out Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction or, if elected, will she fire Gen. David Petraeus.

Finally,

Editor,

Since no Massachusetts voters ever believed Gov. Romney was pro-abortion and no such voter ever voted a particular way because of this belief, the Boston Globe's crusade to convince voters he was pro-abortion is astonishing for its relentlessness (Romney officials approved clinic loan, December 29, A1).

Or, maybe pro-abortion voters will feel perfectly comfortable voting for Gov. Romney in the 2008 Presidential election based on the Globe's outstanding work? (End of third letter.)

Surprise Visit to Baghdad

Please don't miss the prior Post on Capital Punishment nor the related Comments.

President Bush will make a surprise visit to Baghdad during his Middle East trip that begins today and ends on or about January 16.

He will not go because he's cocky or arrogant or looking for a photo-op. He'll go because he'll think it's the right thing to do, to visit and thank, again, the military personnel that are doing the heavy lifting on our behalf.

I will be surprised if President Bush does not go to Baghdad.

U.S. Supreme Court to hear Capital Punishment Case

Before I get to today’s topic, Gov. Mitt Romney won the Wyoming Caucuses yesterday gaining 8 of the 12 delegates up for grabs. By my count, Gov. Romney now LEADS the Republican field with 20 delegates to Gov. Huckabee’s 17 and Sen. Thompson’s 6 after the only two primaries or caucuses held. I’m leading with this story; the Boston Globe, because I suspect it benefits Gov. Romney, buried it on page A13 with a 5 – 10 sentence story.

Also, going to a CNN.com election site, the site claims more delegates have been awarded than I can see awarded for Iowa and Wyoming. Even though I cannot determine the source of these delegates, CNN reports even more delegates belong to Gov. Romney than Gov. Huckabee. CNN puts the running delegate total at 26 for Gov. Romney and 20 for Gov. Huckabee of the total 59 delegates awarded.

Only in a world dominated by a liberal media is the conservative leading 44% to 34% deemed to be trailing.

On Friday, January 4, 2008, the United States Supreme Court announced that it will hear the appeal of child rapist Mr. Patrick Kennedy, who lost his appeal before the Louisiana Supreme Court, to have his death sentence ruled unconstitutional.

First, there have been billions of words written about the death penalty in America and I’m writing this post without reading any of it. There simply is no need; I’m not planning to attend a dinner party on Manhattan’s Upper East Side attended by liberal constitutional law professors and students after all. I simply prefer to read the U.S. Constitution.

Second, I do not traffic in the world of triple, quadruple or quintuple negatives; I think anyone who has ever read an U.S. Supreme Court decision knows what I mean. I think voters who elected people that appoint Federal judges, especially, United States Supreme Court justices, should be able to have judicial decisions explained to them in English. That’s what I’ll attempt to do.

The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

It cannot be any clearer. The Founding Fathers most definitely believed in capital punishment; there can be no misunderstanding of the phrases bolded and italicized above.

So, having easily cleared the hurdle that the death penalty is Constitutional, we are now only left to determine what the capital offenses are. And, in 50 states in the Union, we have a mechanism for determining these offenses; the voters, the state legislatures and governors. State representatives and governors may or may not campaign on death penalty policy positions. And, voters in each individual state may or may not vote based on their personal belief about the death penalty or a politician’s policy position on same, but in the end, the state legislatures pass bills to the Governor that define capital crimes. Yes, folks, it is that simple. If you don’t like the law in your state, make the death penalty a campaign issue and elect people to effect the change.

In 1995, the People (the voters, the state representatives and the Governor) of Louisiana passed a law that said aggravated rape of a child under the age of 12 is a capital offense (the barbarians!; have the People no compassion for child rapists?!).

In 1998, the Constitutional law hero of the liberals, Mr. Patrick Kennedy, a Louisiana resident, brutally raped his 8 year-old stepdaughter. My (news)paper reported that immediately after the crime, the child was taken away in an ambulance “having suffered severe injury and heavy bleeding”. No kidding?!

When I wrote just a few days ago about the importance of Presidents of the United States appointing judges, this appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is exactly what I’m writing about.

In 1977, in Georgia v. Coker, the activist U.S. Supreme Court knocked down the constitutionality of capital punishment in non-capital crimes writing that the death penalty “is an excessive penalty for a rapist.” This is simply not for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide. It was for the People of Georgia to decide. They did. Their Will was usurped by activist judges.

I believe Mr. Kennedy should be “drawn and quartered” for his crime. That is, each arm and leg is roped to the saddle of a horse and his torso is cut with a (dull) knife as the horses are pulling off to four quadrants until the body is torn is fourths, or however it comes apart. Well, this penalty surely would not ever have to survive an 8th Amendment challenge of “cruel and unusual punishment” because no State would ever legislate such a penalty. No politician would ever get elected or re-elected for championing such a penalty. The Will of the People would prevail. I’d accept my disappointment because the People decided and not some activist judges. My argument would be made by me or someone more eloquent and my argument would fail. The system would work.

But “excessive” for aggravated rape? Folks, not even close. “Excessive” does not even come close to the “cruel and unusual punishment” standard (“drawing and quartering” might) of the 8th Amendment. The Court has no jurisdiction to consider “excessiveness”; it is simply not in their Charter as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution.

The Roberts Court now has the opportunity to correct what I consider to be a gross example of “legislating from the bench”. The importance of the President’s power to appoint U.S. Supreme Court justices, subject to the confirmation of the U.S. Senate, cannot be ignored.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear Kennedy v. Louisiana and is expected to issue a ruling mid-summer 2008. Mr. Kennedy will continue to cost the taxpayers and voters of Louisiana money until that time and beyond; he was scheduled to meet his justice, as decided by the People of Louisiana, in 2003.

I could go on but I’ve asked you to read enough; maybe I can express the rest of my thoughts as a reply to a Comment if anyone has one. And, please, no comments about my favoring “drawing and quartering” for the aggravated rape of an eight-year old child (recall, severe injury and heavy bleeding; I wonder if she cried out in pain at all); maybe it was hyperbole, maybe it was not, but what I think should or should not happen to a monster is not the point of this post.

Quick Iowa Analysis

I picked Sen. Hillary Clinton to finish third and she did! ZACKlyRight again! Okay, I’m just kidding. Like I wrote last night, there would be no bragging if my explanation didn’t also carry the day. Based on all the entrance polling that took place, it looks like Gov. Huckabee had his votes in the bag when voters walked into the caucuses.

But let’s skip past the predictions. Let’s examine one thing that Iowa definitely told us: that Gov. Mike Huckabee will not be the Republican Presidential nominee.

To the entrance poll question, courtesy of FoxNews.com, Would you describe yourself as a born-again or evangelical Christian, a full 60% answered, “yes”. Of these folks, 46% voted for Gov. Huckabee. Gov. Romney was second at 19% with Sen. Thompson trailing in third at 11%. Of the 40% who answered the question, “no”, 33% voted for Gov. Romney while Sen. McCain garnered 18% and Gov. Huckabee 14%. In no other state primary will Gov. Huckabee be judged by so many evangelical Christians. He has had his best day. He will not leave the race. And, not too long ago I predicted he’d make the final three and I stand by that, but he will not win the nomination.

To the entrance poll question, “How much does it matter to you that a candidate shares your religious beliefs, 36% answered, “A Great Deal”. Of these (religious bigots), Gov. Huckabee grabbed 56% support. Gov. Romney and Sens. McCain and Thompson all tied at 11%. Moving down the other three answers, “Somewhat”, “Not Much”, and “Not at All”, Gov. Huckabee’s support fell to 30%, 15% and 5%, respectively. Meanwhile, Gov. Romney’s support grew to 26%, 38% and 40%, respectively. Again, Gov. Huckabee has had his best day.

I did not see anything last night to make me reconsider my prediction that Gov. Romney will be the Republican nominee and the next President of the United States.

I did hear some commentary by conservative pundits that startled me for it's heavy anti-Romney slant. I'll keep my ears open during the New Hampshire coverage to see if there is some ugly undertone brewing. I'm not prepared to indict anyone yet.

On the Democratic side, great showing by a man who has been a United States Senator for three years. Yup, those Iowans can sure identify the qualified.

Quick Iowa Predictions

There will be nothing to brag about unless my underlying explanation is also correct.

I think the order of finish for the Democrats in Iowa this evening will be:

1. John Edwards
2. Barack Obama
3. Hillary Clinton

No other Democrat carries 15%.

As the four lesser candidates (Biden, Dodd, Kucinich and Richardson) get less than 15% at each caucus site and the candidate's supporters are asked to join a surviving candidate's group, I think these supporters will join John Edwards' group in greater numbers than they will join Sens. Clinton and Obama's groups.

I think the order of finish for the Republicans will be:

1. Mitt Romney
2. Mike Huckabee
3. John McCain

No other Republican carries 15%.

For the exact same reason as the Democrats: As the three (Giuliani, Hunter and Thompson) other (note I didn't write lesser) Republican candidates are dropped at each caucus site because they didn't muster 15% and their supporters are forced to join another candidate's group, I think Gov. Romney picks up more of these voters than the other guys. I think Gov. Romney may exceed 40%.

Let's go watch and find out.