Yep, it's yet another story on how the bitter primary left the party in disarray.  Only this time, it's Robert Novak on the Republican Party:

John McCain, who as the Republican candidate for president has spent the past two months trying to consolidate right-wing support, has a problem of disputed dimensions with a vital component of the conservative coalition: evangelicals. The biggest question is whether Mike Huckabee is part of the problem or the solution for McCain.

Some U.S. Christians are not reconciled to McCain's candidacy but instead regard the prospective presidency of Barack Obama in the nature of a biblical plague visited upon a sinful people. These militants look at former Baptist preacher Huckabee as "God's candidate" for president in 2012. Whether they can be written off as merely a troublesome fringe group depends on Huckabee's course.

. . .

One experienced, credible activist in Christian politics who would not let his name be used told me that Huckabee, in personal conversation with him, had embraced the concept that an Obama presidency might be what the American people deserve. That fits what has largely been a fringe position among evangelicals: that the pain of an Obama presidency is in keeping with the Bible's prophecy.

According to this activist, at the heart of the let-Obama-win movement is longtime Virginia conservative leader Michael Farris -- the nation's leading home-school advocate, who is now chancellor of Patrick Henry College (in Purcellville, Va.) for home-schooled students. Best known politically as the losing Republican candidate for lieutenant governor of Virginia in 1993, Farris is regarded as one of the hardest-edged Christian politicians. He is reported in evangelical circles to promote the biblical justification for an Obama plague-like presidency.

So the next time some media bigfoot tells you that the Democrats have been mortally wounded by the protracted Obama/Clinton primary, or that our party is somehow irrevocably split down Clinton/Obama lines, just remind yourself: at least we don't have a critical portion of our base, along with the runner-up for our nomination, arguing that God wants our candidate to lose in November.  

It's hard to say which perception McCain fears worst: being seen as yesterday's man -- a man of the last century -- or being seen as a shameless toady who sold his "maverick" soul for a bloated, stinking elephant carcass:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday that Republican John McCain was "losing his bearings" for repeatedly suggesting the Islamic terrorist group Hamas preferred Obama for president.

. . .

"This is offensive, and I think it's disappointing, because John McCain always says, 'Well, I'm not going to run that kind of politics,'" Obama said. "And then to engage in that kind of smear, I think, is unfortunate, particularly since my policy toward Hamas has been no different than his."

The Illinois senator added: "For him to toss out comments like that, I think, is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination. We don't need name-calling in this debate."

McCain's campaign issued an angry response that accused Obama of trying to divert attention from a legitimate question by raising McCain's age.

"He used the words 'losing his bearings' intentionally, a not-particularly-clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue," McCain adviser Mark Salter said.

Really?  Seems that the McCain campaign is stuck between a rock and a hard place here.  

See, my first reaction on reading Obama's comments was to think of how McCain had sacrificed his "maverick" image -- an entirely phony persona, but a powerful one -- to win the booby prize that is the 2008 GOP nomination.  Obama was observing that McCain has been "losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination," in the sense that he's lost his steely, maverick moral compass.  Now, Obama understands just as well as you and I that the "maverick" myth was the gossamer creation of a Michael Lewis mancrush, but he also understands that there's great value in developing a semi-tragic narrative in which the flawed hero McCain trades his virtue for a final shot at power.  You can't disabuse the majority of the public of the idea that McCain was at one point a good guy, but you can certainly show them just how irrevocably corrupted he's become in pursuit of the poisoned chalice.

And I think that McCain, and his campaign, get exactly what Obama is doing here.  They are deathly afraid of losing the aura of straight-shooting independence that differentiates their candidate from the depraved, cancerous body of lepers that passes for the Bush/DeLay/Fossella/Craig Republican Party.  They know that McCain cannot win as a "Republican nominee" -- his only hope is to run as an independent.  In short, McCain's greatest weakness is the prospect that he might be exposed as Just Another Sleazy Republican Hack.  And Obama's comments, in just a few words, did a marvelous job of setting that narrative in motion in the public eye.  So McCain and his minions pivoted, and attempted to divert the attention away from their greatest weakness.

Problem is, they diverted the attention onto their second greatest weakness -- the fact that John McCain is yesterday's man, a bedraggled lion decidedly incapable of prevailing over the course of six months of toe-to-toe combat with an acutely aware and prepared Obama.  McCain shouldn't ever remind people of his age, of his inability to keep Sunni and Shi'a straight in his mind, of his tired demeanor.  Yet when confronted with Obama's observation that McCain has abandoned his integrity in a last-ditch attempt to win the White House, McCain was so terrified that he preferred to treat the comments as an insinuation about his age.  And in so doing, he raised the age issue himself -- leaving the public to consider whether McCain's problem is that he's past his time, or that he's a chameleon who'll do anything to get elected.  That's the last question that McCain wants anyone pondering.

Maybe he should have just left this one alone.  Because by responding as he did, McCain showed that Obama had hit home.  And Obama is way too good not to sense blood in the water.

Dan Inouye is one of the greatest living Americans.  That ought to be stated at the outset of any post which is critical of the man.  Inouye is a bona fide war hero -- a Congressional Medal of Honor recipient -- who lost his arm fighting for a nation which was simultaneously interning thousands of his fellow Japanese-Americans.  He's a son of immigrants, who after the war joined with a number of other Nisei veterans to found Central Pacific Bank -- a venture which helped provide capital to scores of Japanese-Americans in Hawai'i unable to obtain loans from other sources.  And he was the first Japanese-American elected to the US House of Representatives, and subsequently the first Japanese-American elected to the Senate.  I was lucky enough to live in Hawai'i for a few years, and one of the first things I learned upon moving to Honolulu was how justifiably revered Dan Inouye is in the islands.  He's a truly remarkable American.

That's why it breaks my heart to see that Inouye is hosting a fundraiser for Republican Senator Ted Stevens (currently R-AK; possibly R-FederalPen in the not too distant future):

Putting their friendship above party, Democratic Sen. Daniel Inouye (Hawaii) will headline a fundraiser today for one of the Democrats’ top targets this cycle, Republican Sen. Ted Stevens (Alaska).

Dan Inouye is a Democratic institution.  He's been part of the Democratic Congressional caucus since Hawai'i became a state.  And coming from Hawai'i -- a state where party discipline is taken seriously -- he knows better than many just why it is so important to maintain party solidarity.  It's deeply disappointing to see a man like Inouye break party ranks to support a conservative Republican with a massive ethics cloud hanging over his head.  And it's even more tragic that he's doing so in a cycle when Democrats have a great candidate in Mark Begich -- a candidate who is tied with Stevens in polling, despite the fact that Stevens is an Alaska institution.  (Hell, the Anchorage airport is named after Stevens.)  

There's no question that there's a natural affinity between Hawai'i and Alaska.  Both states are often forgotten by the "lower 48," and both fight like hell for their interests in Washington.  And it's understandable and even commendable that the Hawai'i and Alaska delegations occasionally cross party lines to work on subjects of mutual interest.  But supporting a Republican in a race against a competitive and attractive Democrat is a line that no Democratic member of Congress can ever justifiably cross.  

I'm willing to cut Dan Inouye a lot of slack in light of his service to his country and his party.  But he needs to undertand that his support of Ted Stevens is completely inexcusable and unacceptable.

Hawai'i residents might wish to contact his office at (202) 224-3934 to let him know what they think.

Race tracker wiki: AK-Sen HI-Sen

In news that highlights the big-tent appeal of the Obama campaign, serial third-party footsie-playing semi-Democratic ex-Senator David Boren of Oklahoma endorsed Barack this morning. This is notable largely because Boren is the Broderite Master of Democratic self-loathing -- an alleged Dem who seriously considered running with Ross Perot as an independent in '96, after Perot had already demonstrated his, er, "flightiness"; and who was at the forefront of the Sycophantic Plutocratophiles for Bloomberg faction that fizzled out once it became apparent that Obama had firmly dominated Bloomy's ecological niche. Consequently, it's something of a novelty to see Boren actually endorsing a Democrat.

Of course, Boren's endorsement primarily serves to highlight how irredeemably polluted Joe Lieberman has become. When even David "Third Party" Boren is lining up behind Obama, it's time to realize that there's a true consensus Democrat on the scene. Yet "Independent Democrat" Joe is alone in his own little world, backing an archconservative.

Do you think he understands what a sad, lonely joke he's become?

Today's Washington Post has an interesting graphic in its dead-tree edition that, among other things, lists the top five ZIP Codes in terms of total Q4 donations to each of the presidential candidates. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, washingtonpost.com and the WaPo itself don't seem to coordinate on content, and the graphic doesn't appear to be accessible electronically.  The raw data on Q4 donations is available on the Post site, but without the top five ZIP Code listings.

In any event, the graphic tells us that most of the candidates' top two ZIP Codes are in very big or very rich cities -- Dallas for Huckabee, Greenwich for McCain, Beverly Hills for Rudy -- but Ron Paul's number 2 ZIP was 52556 -- tiny Fairfield, IA.   Paul also won the caucus in Fairfield.  There's just one notable thing about Fairfield, a town of around 9,000 souls -- it's the home of the American operations of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, best known as the one-time spiritual guru of the Beatles. Rural Fairfield has become a New Age company town over the past couple decades, and now boasts the Maharishi University of Management, a suburb called Maharishi Vedic City, and was the former HQ of His Holiness's now-defunct Natural Law Party.  Although it never attracted the vote totals of the Libertarians or Greens, Natural Law's Presidential candidate did appear on most state ballots in 1996 and 2000.

Given that Fairfield only has 9,000 or so residents, and that it's Paul's number 2 ZIP Code, it stands to reason that the fabulously wealthy Maharishi -- who has exhibited interest in politics in the past, having sponsored Natural Law Parties in a number of Western nations -- is more likely than not involved in directing contributions to the good Doctor.  If this is the case, does it mean that Paul is more likely to run as a third party candidate?   After all, the Maharishi disbanded the US Natural Law Party in 2004, and the Paul campaign might serve as a re-entry vehicle into gadfly third party politics. On the other hand, the Paul-Maharishi connection might just be a weird affection between two fringe characters.  If nothing else, it's amusing.

UPDATE/CORRECTION:  The good folks at MoveOn wrote me to assure me that someone had in fact re-voted using my link at around the time that the second receipt email was sent.  They also pointed out that if I had forwarded the original email from MoveOn, and a recipient of that forwarded email voted using the link, then I would receive the second receipt email.

D'oh.

I did in fact forward the email.  I can only assume that one of the recipients voted using the link.  I can't believe that I was stupid enough not to figure this out before I made an ass out of myself.

I offer my most sincere apologies to MoveOn, and wish them nothing but the best in their endorsement process.  Now, I'm going to go hide under a rock for a few days.

Also, MoveOn notes:

For anyone who was a MoveOn member as of noon Eastern yesterday who didn't receive a ballot: A) Please check your email again -- a few of the ballots finished going out in the early afternoon; B) Please check your spam folder, the ballot has as a subject line "URGENT: Presidential Endorsement: Vote Today!"; C) if you're still unable to find your ballot, please email us at ballothelp@moveon.org.

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

I assure you that I only voted once in the MoveOn primary . . . yet here's what my email receipt(s) from MoveOn tell me I did (Click pic for larger image):


This sort of raises questions about the integrity of an endorsement process which could be worth a couple million dollars.

I love primary season.  Last month, I kept finding myself singing "It’s The Most Wonderful Time of the Year" while driving from mall to mall on Christmas errands, and I wasn’t prompted so much by the impending holidays as by the wall-to-wall news from Iowa percolating in through the car radio.  Once every four years, America’s generally distractible attention briefly alights on my horse-race obsession, and for a few months, I don’t feel quite as much like a trainspotter as I do when obsessing over off-year gubernatorial races.

I love primary season, and I love it in spite of the haters.   Hating on the long campaign and the intraparty vitriol is chic – nothing seems to elicit sympathetic nods from thoughtful citizens, even those who generally like politics – as a disdainful essay about the pettiness and superficiality of the process. But that’s part of the game, and if you step back and look at the campaign as a whole, it’s pretty inescapable.  The simple fact is that only a slender minority of the electorate – even the "likely voters" so omnipresent in our thoughts these days – really have the time and inclination to discern the serious policy differences between the candidates.  Consequently, most Americans vote for the candidate that they like, meaning that they vote for the candidate who was best able to use the pettiness and superficiality of the process to his or her advantage.  I’m not saying that this is a good thing – I’m just saying that it’s a big part of politics, that it’s not going anywhere, and that we’re wise to learn to live with it.  And if you can learn to love it, so much the better.

I love primary season because I learned a long time ago to love politics as theater, as sport.  Now, let me make clear right away that I also love politics because of the tremendous effect that progressive government can have on the lives of working Americans.  I believe in the power of government to change our lives for the better, and to create a nation where every citizen knows that if she works hard and plays by the rules, she’ll be able to rest easy at night knowing that she and her family have a roof over their heads, food on the table, and the ability to go to the doctor without going broke.  I’m a committed movement progressive, not a cynic.  But I do know how to enjoy the game within the game.  That’s why I had as much fun writing the Republican Cattle Calls this past year as anything else I’ve ever written for Daily Kos.  Handicapping the Republican primaries is pure spectator sport.  None of the contestants have any serious redeeming qualities; I really can’t get worked up over which one of them is best on the merits, as they’re all awful.  But it’s a lot of fun trying to peel the onion of the Republican psyche and predict which of a motley crew can secure the affections of his party.  And even though I do care about the Democrats and where they stand on various issues, I can also appreciate the relative skill with which they run their campaigns. That doesn’t make me cynical – it keeps me sane.

I love primary season more than most Kossacks, yet I hate the primary system.  I love the theater.  I love the chess match.  I love Road to the White House.  But I do believe that, as a matter of party policy, the idea of having a couple hundred thousand people who aren’t even necessarily Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire – and, to a lesser extent, Nevada and South Carolina – select my party’s nominee is completely insane, not to mention undemocratic.  I mean, the notion that one of the vaunted independents of New Hampshire – one of the dipshits who can’t decide between Obama and McCain – has more of a voting say in the leadership of my party than I do, simply because I have the misfortune to live in Colonial DC – is beyond frustrating.  It’s unacceptable.  I give thousands of dollars every year, both directly and though my union PAC, to Democratic candidates.  I’m a unionist – part of the cornerstone of Democratic electoral success.  Every fall, I canvass is the cold, rain and snow for whichever Democrat happens to be running for whichever seat is up.  I’m a charter member of the netroots.  But I have no voting say in who leads my party.

And so while I love primary season, I want to kill it.  I want to kill it dead.  I don’t want to rejigger things by rotating other, more representative, states to the front of the line, although that’d be preferable to the farce that we have today.  I don’t want to tinker with the system and still wind up with a staggered process where largely disinterested voters in successive states winnow down the field until the nominee emerges by attrition.  I want to blow the process up, empower committed Democrats, and in so doing make the Convention vital and relevant again.  And while my plan doesn’t have a chance in hell of going anywhere, discussing it is a lot more fun than trying to decide whether Michigan of New Jersey should lead off the 2012 primaries.

Here, then, is the outline of a proposed nominating process that I’d love even more than primary season.

• Members Only.  The Democratic Party is not an arm of the government.  It’s a private entity.  Yet today, the de facto leader of this private entity is chosen in significant part by people who have absolutely no allegiance to, much less membership in, the party – simply because they’re citizens of their states.  Independents are allowed to participate in the caucus/primary process in both Iowa and New Hampshire – and in Michigan, the primary is completely open, as there isn’t even party registration.  (Vote for Mitt!)  Even where the primary is closed to registered Democrats . . . well, what does that mean?  You become a registered Democrat by signing a form you pick up at the post office.  In some states, you can register as a Democrat on election day.  Being a registered Democrat says nothing about whether you’re actually a member of the Democratic Party.  It merely says that you signed a piece of paper, possibly for reasons of pure expedience.  That’s why participation in the selection of the Democratic nominee should be limited to those who actually take the affirmative step to become members of the Democratic Party -- people who believe in the principles of the Party enough to join it.  This means that the Party needs to create a basic membership option – my feeling is that anyone willing to pay $5 in annual dues should become a member, someone eligible to have a say in party decision-making.  Of course, by limiting participation to members, we’d have to . . .
• Get the government out of the system.  There’s no reason to have state and local governmental bodies conducting what is essentially an internal organizational decision.  It’s perverse.  The government doesn’t conduct union elections, or NRA elections – why ought it have a hands-on role in running an internal political party election?  The party should conduct its nomination process itself, at its own expense, and with its own rules – so long as they comport with anti-discrimination laws.  The role of the FEC in overseeing the selection process should be just that – oversight, to ensure that the election comports with anti-discrimination laws and with the party’s own bylaws.  That’s the role that the SEC plays in overseeing corporate elections, and that the Department of Labor plays in overseeing union elections.  Both agencies allow the entities operating under their watch to administer the actual election process.  But ultimately, the union or corporation, not the government, is running its own election.  Why should our party be any different?
• All at once, all by mail.  Since the party is going to be running its own convention delegate selection process, it won't have recourse to the state and county boards of elections and their touch-screen machines, and won't hold elections at the whims of attention-starved state legislatures.  This, needless to say, is a good thing.  Without interference from 50+ states, territories, and colonial capital cities, he party can construct a fair and equitable election system.  I'd propose that all delegates to the convention be selected by mail ballot during a two week period in April of the convention year.  This puts all Democrats on an even footing in influencing the process, and ensures that there's a paper trail should there be any doubt about the accuracy of the counting process.  "Surely," some of you are saying, "this system creates a big national primary where less well-funded candidates can't gain traction?"  That'd be a good point, if we were voting for candidates in my scheme.  But we wouldn't be.  We'd be voting for delegates.
• Delegates, not candidates.  This is likely to be the most controversial aspect of my proposal among Kossacks.  I want to scrap the idea of direct voting for candidates, or even for pledged slates of delegates.  Instead, I want the members of each local party organization to choose delegates from their geographic area based on who those delegates are, and the values that they promise to bring to the convention.  Why?  I have a number of reasons – but here are a few of the best.  

  A) Because removing the idea of pledged delegates allows the presidential race to develop at a slower pace, with candidates not needing to decide that they want to run two years prior to the general election, and consequently not needing to raise obscene amounts of money just after midterms.  Unpledged delegates keep the field open longer.  And that’s good for the diversity of ideas in the party.

  B) Because elimination of the direct primary tends to lessen demagoguery, mitigate the influence of big money, and encourage a focus on germane policy issues.  Party members who are savvy enough to become delegates are also savvy enough to force the candidates to camapign on real ideas and themes, not red herrings.  Now, I'm not saying that a delegate-driven process will eliminate factors such as charisma and general election viability from the calculus -- far from it. Delegates will be as susceptible to personal charm as anyone.  And we wouldn't want to eliminate charisma as a factor, in any event -- we need to win in November.  But the delegate-driven process will greatly diminish the focus on nonsense issues that confuse an unengaged electorate, and which don't contribute to nominating the best candidate.  Moreover, candidates won't have an overwhelming need to spend giant sums on broadcast media in a delegate-driven process -- and that lowers Democrats' reliance on big-money interests.

  C) Because the convention should be a a place where delegates, selected by active, engaged Democrats from throughout the nation, have a genuine discussion about who we are as a party. It shouldn't be an empty ritual, a choreographed pageant where delegates are little more than props in the coronation of a predetermined nominee.  A convention of activist Democratic delegates, rather than a single nominee chosen by apathetic voters of various political stripes, should set the direction for the party.

Of course, I can hear folks saying, "but Trapper -- this is completely antidemocratic!  You're channelling power into the hands of the elites, who undoubtedly will make up the vast majority of the delegate pool!"  That'd be a good point, except I would also . . .

• Increase the number of delegates.  Right now, there are about 4300 delegates to the 2008 convention.  I'd like to up that to about 7500 delegates.  With a number that large, we'd ensure that there are ample opportunities for everyday Democrats to represent their local party members -- after all, the total number of Democrats in Congress and the statehouses doesn't approach 7500.  Sure, elected Democrats will have an important say at the convention -- they do now, as superdelegates.  But under a delegate-driven system, they'll be joined by a large number of working Democrats.  I'd retain most of the McGovern-Fraser reforms, to ensure continuation of the diversity which has admirably characterized Democratic conventions for years.

I've got a lot more that I could write about this proposal, but it's long enough as is.   I can see a number of arguments against the delegate-driven process, but why should I poke holes in my own idea?  I'm sure that Kossacks will do a good enough job of that.

In the midst of the Bush years, at a time when things looked bleakest for American workers, something good happened:

For the first time in the past quarter of a century, in 2007 U.S. unions increased their share of membership among workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) annual union membership report released today. Unions added about 310,000 members last year, raising the unionized share of the workforce to 12.1 percent from 12.0 percent in 2006. . . .

Among women, union membership rose from 10.9 percent of women workers in 2006 to 11.1 percent last year. Rates for men remained unchanged at 13.0 percent. This modest narrowing of the gender gap in union membership was primarily driven by gains among white women, whose unionization rate increased from 10.5 percent to 10.8 percent in 2007. African-American men saw their membership rate grow from 15.6 percent to 15.8 percent, but rates for black women fell to 13.0 percent in 2007 from 13.7 percent in 2006.

In the private sector, which accounts for the bulk of employment in the economy, union membership gains varied by industry. Construction unions increased their membership faster than the rate of job growth in that industry, with membership jumping from 13.0 percent in 2006 to 13.9 percent in 2007. Membership in the private health and education sectors grew from 8.3 percent to 8.8 percent. Unions also made headway in the low-paying retail industry, increasing membership rates from 5.0 percent to 5.2 percent.

As the good folks at American Rights at Work point out, times are still really tough for working Americans seeking to organize.  And the increase in union density is pretty small.  But you know what?  It's an increase in union density.  For the first time in my professional life -- hell, for the first time since I was 6 -- the percentage of workers belonging to a union has grown.  No matter how you slice it, it's terrific news.  (Of course, the Bush DoL buried it in the Friday news dump.  Bastages.)

And here's the thing -- if American workers and their unions can grow when the most anti-worker administration in over 75 years is doing everything it can to thwart them, just wait till the political climate becomes more worker-friendly.  After a quarter-century on the back foot, American unions have finally learned to survive, and maybe even thrive, in a harsh environment.  Like Ginger Rogers, they're doing it backwards and in heels.  Just imagine what can happen when working people get to take the lead.

Hard to say who won.  As usual, Huckabee was really charming in a folksy way -- but I'm not sure that it's gonna get it done for him.  It seems his ship has sailed.  Paul was way out there, way beyond Joe and Jane Republican.  Rudy was stammering, unprepared, and generally awful.  The Florida GOP voters are about to perform a mercy killing on Hizzoner's career.

Of the big two, well . . . neither really made mistakes.  Romney had the tougher questions, but wasn't really attacked savagely, and he deflected the shots pretty well.  He's smooth.  But he's not really charismatic,  and it's clear that Huck and McCain are going to team up to try and kill him.  He's just not a well-liked guy among his fellow candidates.  I'm not sure "smooth" will get him over the all-out assault he's sure to face between now and 2/5.

McCain wasn't spectacular, either, but he certainly didn't hurt himself. And his kind words for Rudy were a clear attempt at currying his support for the gang-up-on-Mitt brigade post-Florida.  That said, I'd say it's a wash between the two frontrunners.  I doubt either of them swayed many voters tonight.

But enough from me.  Sounds like the MSNBC heads thought that Romney won, largely because he wasn't attacked enough.  So who do you think won -- from the perspective of a Republican primary voter?

MITT's hair better start attacking, because he's been put on the spot by the last two candidate questions -- from HUCK and RUDY.  Regardless of what Tweety and Russert say as they slurp MCCAIN, these guys clearly see MITT as at least a co-front-runner.

RUDY is against emissions caps.  He prefers to wait "until technology can take over."  Like in The Matrix, I guess.  He does go on to embrace something that sounds vaguely like an Apollo Energy Project, but he lost me when he called for the Rise of The Machines.

MCCAIN says climate change is real, but won't sign an international treaty till China and India blink first.  What happened to the "superpower's burden?"

Commercials.  These guys are boring tonight.  

C'mon.  I want a walker/cane fight!  As Hans Moleman -- a future Boca resident if there ever was one -- said, "we paid for blooood!"

Q to RUDY:  You're polling worse than a gay hooker at a televised Republican Senate caucus.  What's up?

RUDY is incredibly halting, like he didn't expect it.  Lays out an incredibly implausible scenario in which he wins, about as likely as any that DOCTORRONPAUL could spin.

Q to MCCAIN:  Your party doesn't like you.  Thoughts?

MCCAIN:  Ah, I'm likable conservative enough.  (This would be a helluva time to invoke St. Ronnie.  The fact that he's not taking the opportunity says a lot about why MCCAIN has such a hard time with Republicans.)

MITT weirdly says he relishes running against BILL CLINTON, because CLINTON is so . . . unpopular?  Uh-huh.  Then says that HILLARY is everything that's wrong with Washington, and the antithesis of America.   Then he invokes Reagan -- and that's why he might just win this thing.  He can play the chumps in his party like a violin, and he's soulless enough to do whatever it takes to win.  MCCAIN just won't play the game.

MITT refuses to say how much of his own money he's spending.  (God, I hate this guy.  I really, really loathe him.   Maybe worse than Bush.)

Pile on MITT!  Now he's anwering a Mormon question.  He's confident Americans won't apply a religious test.  That'd make them better people than MITT, who has said that he wouldn't appoint a Muslim to his Cabinet.

Asked about Social Security, DOCTORRONPAUL grudgingly admits that it would be a bad idea to cut off 80-year olds right away.  In time.

MissLaura will take you out, guys.

Ah, January in Boca Raton.  It's the time of year when the aging snowbirds join their even more elderly compatriots for shuffleboard, slow driving with the left blinker on, and grumping about how things used to be in the good old days.  Whether true or not, fair or not, it's a cliche that Boca is where old white folks go to die . . .

Which is why it's the perfect place to hold tonight's GOP presidential debate!  It's a shame that Fred dropped out earlier this week -- we're in his element now.

Until the debate begins at 9 Eastern on MSNBC, here's a clip of everyday life in Boca (well, "Del Boca Vista," but who's keeping track?) to tide you over.  See if you can spot TV's Fred.

Missed the beginning -- CSI ran over, and I did not want to disturb Trapper Spouse's Tivo'ing.

ROMNEY talking about stimulus, something that this crowd is going to sorely need.

McCAIN angry about not making bush tax cuts permanent.  Deeply concerned about families making up their 2010 budgets.  No, I didn't make that up.  McCAIN really believes that working Americans are doing up 2010 budgets.

RUDY playing "can you top this" on tax cuts, saying that he wants the biggest tax cuts in American history.  Which taxes does he specify?  Cap gains and corporate.  Way to play to regular voters hit by the credit crunch, guy.  Something tells me Rudy hasn't been talking to underpaid workers lately, which is odd, since all his staffers have been cut back to part-time pay.  

Q to McC: Is it true you know nothing about economics?

McCAIN: No, it's not.  I have smart people around me, like Jack Kemp.

HUCK worried that rebate checks will fuel Red China, proposes widening I-95, investing in infrastructure.  (Wow.  Holy shit.  Huckabee is making perfect sense on stimulus -- invest in infrastructure.  I'm sorry -- I'll wash out my mouth.  But damn it if that wasn't the answer I'd want from Democrats.)

MITT returns the debate to the "Who Can Cut Taxes More" fantasy land.

McCAIN attributes GOP defeat in 2006 to spending too much money on pork.  Not, you know, Iraq.

DOCTORRONPAUL admits that government has a role in fighting recession -- and that role is cutting taxes and regulation.  You can tell that it's all he can do not to start screaming about the gold standard and worthless fiat paper.

Q to RUDY: Unamerican for banks to seek sovereign wealth fund investment?  Should they refuse dirty Middle East money like you did after 9/11?

RUDY:  C'mon.  I'm a rich Republican from New York.  Wall Street bankers are my pals.  You think I'm gonna criticize them for selling themselves to oil barons?  

Q to MCCAIN:  Given how badly Bush has destroyed the economy, why should Americans elect a Republican?

MC: We may suck, but the Dems are worse.  I hate pork, unlike George Bush (and the Democrats).  "We'll clean up our act."  Seriously.  Trust us.

Once again, HUCK injects talk about the struggles of working people into the debate.  It sounds so odd, so out of place -- and even his prescription for tax cuts doesn't quite make him sound like his fellows.

MITT refuses to condemn BUSH, while at the same time running away from W right back to that spectacular 2002 Olympic success.  (When did running a Winter Olympics qualify anyone to run a government?  By that standard, Juan Antonio Samaranch should be World Czar.)

DOCTORRONPAUL disavows any responsibility for the past eight years, promises a new dark age.

Q to MCC:  How can we sustain effort in Iraq, given that we can't?

MCCAIN:  Iraq is going swimmingly.  I have no idea what you're talking about.  Why would we get out of Iraq?  It's going great?  Besides, we've got sort of a white-man's-burden thing going on, what with being a superpower.  

OK, MissLaura's got the next thread.  See you in 20 or so.

It's amazing how a primary challenge can focus an incumbent's vision on the thing that matters the most -- namely, retaining one's job.  On the same day that the Washington Post ran an item about the tough primary challenges in OH-10 to the frequently absent Congressmen Dennis Kucinich, Kucinich decided that this might just be the right time to abandon his neverending, quixotic Presidential bid, and rush back to Cleveland.

"I want to continue to serve in Congress," he said.

Well, at least he's honest.

Race tracker wiki: OH-10

I wrote the following FP post about Ronald Reagan on the afternoon that he died.  For all intents and purposes, it served as the Daily Kos obit.  In light of the attention that he and his legacy have been getting round these parts, I went back and read the piece this morning.  I think it holds up -- and I still think it's about the least nasty, most polite thing that a progressive can honestly say about a man who took a sledgehammer to the post-war social contract, and who paved the way for the depredations of Gingrich, Bush and Cheney.

Ronald Reagan died today at the age of 93. He earned the enmity of many of us on the left through his dismantling of the New Deal and enabling of a culture of greed -- but we should not forget that he was once one of us, an FDR Democrat. His journey to the far right mirrored a similar, if less dramatic, shift that occured in the general American psyche. And while Reagan cannot be excused for his utter failure as president, we must never see him solely as a symbol of a shameful era -- because his rise was attributable in part to an inertia and lack of vision that gripped our predecessors on the left. It was in part our inability to satisfy the hunger of Americans for positive leadership that caused Reagan and other former liberals to embrace a radical ideology that was before only espoused by crackpots and the prophets of selfishness.

So while we rightly condemned Reagan for his extremism and hostility to the egalitarian ideals of his youth, perhaps we should take this occasion not only to remember Reagan's failings, but also to reflect upon the failings of the left that allowed the ascension of the extreme right. We've learned a lot about how to talk with the American people over the past few years, and we've reclaimed the fighting spirit that has characterized the best of the left through American history -- let's never again allow ourselves to become so self-satisfied that we allow another Reagan to capture the hearts of everyday Americans. And let us remember that in spite of his many faults, he was a human being, and his family is entitled to an appropriate level of decorum in their time of loss.

Elvis may have left, but Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are still here, if just for 10 more minutes.  How will this American Trilogy finish up?

Q:  Inappropriate for JRE to talk with Musharraf after Bhutto's death?

JRE:  I've known Musharraf for some time, and what I said to him he needed to hear.  I told him that he has to stay on the path to democracy, and allow international investigators in on the Bhutto case.  Finally, I said that the elections must take place.

Q: When and why did you decide to run for president?

HRC:  Last new year's -- I want to solve America's problems.

JRE:  December 2006.  My family and I asked how we can best serve this country.

OBAMA:  December 06.  I asked whether the family could manage it, and whether I could bring the country together more effectively than other candidates.  I decided that I could.

And that's it!  A thoughtful debate, and a real departure from past fracases.  Thanks for playing, from both mcjoan and me.

It's fascinating -- the candidates are focused on substance, they're treating each other and the audience like adults, and they're having a serious, adult conversation about generally meaningful issues.  We haven't seen that very often in the past.  I don't think we'll ever see it in a Republican debate.  We've got three potential presidents up there -- they've got Lord of the Flies.

Q: Ha!  Just as I take over from DK's Western correspondent, we get the inevitable Yucca Mountain question.  Will you kill Yucca?

OBAMA:  Yes.  It's not based in sound science, and while you hate to waste the billions that have been spent, cutting our losses is the right thing to do.  Need to convene experts to determine what to do with waste.

HRC:  I voted against Yucca, I've always been against it.  Other candidates have wavered.

OBAMA:  Not me!

JRE:  I'll end Yucca Mountain.  Moreover, I'm against building any new nuke plants -- unlike the other two.

HRC:  But you voted for Yucca!  Twice!

JRE:  Yeah, but the science has changed my mind.

Q: 29 nuke plants in the planning stages -- when you, OBAMA, voted for the 2005 energy bill, did you realize that it was possibly going to lead to more nuke plants?

OBAMA:  I voted for that bill because it pushed clean energy.  But I wouldn't rule out new nuke plants.  Need to keep various options open -- we need to create a menu of energy choices, an energy mix.

HRC:  The 2005 energy bill was a love note to Dick Cheney.  It was a clearly awful bill.  And we have to break the lock of special interests on energy.  I'd like to take subsidies away from gas and oil industries and shift that money toward clean energy development.  

Q:  To JRE -- how can you be against nuclear power in light of our severe energy crisis, you hippie?  Wind and solar can't solve everything.

JRE:  There's a lot of options beyond nukes, wind, and solar.  Need to cap carbon emissions, 80% reduction by 2050, and massive investment in wind and biofuels.  And I'd go another step -- no more coal plants.  (!)  Need to lead on climate change.

HRC has a plan for energy.  There's plenty of work to do.

OBAMA: We need to reduce consumption.  Citizens need to make a change.

(HRC has a plan, OBAMA believes we need change, and EDWARDS is in favor of radically changing our current policy.  The campaign encapsulated in a question/answer period.)

Q:  Problems with English as official language?

JRE:  Need comprehensive immigration reform, with path to citizenship -- WILLIAMS interrupts, "what about English?" -- I'm getting to that.  Immigrants need to learn English, but it's not the be all and end all.

Q: Black/brown division?

OBAMA:  Not anymore -- they all vote for me.  (First zinger of the night.)  Latinos see that I can lead on issues that matter.  

OBAMA follows up by discussing focus on early childhood ed, especially among disadvataged communities.  NCLB needs to work for, not against children and schools.  No sense of urgency in White House on these critical issues.

mcjoan has a new thread.  Will it be the last one?  All depends on how many comments you guys add!

WILLIAMS sez that the candidates are about to get a chance to ask each other questions.  But first, one or two more from the NBC boys, who appear to have finally  settled into more substantive lines of inquiry . . .

Q: JRE asked to follow-up on the sovereign wealth fund question.  

JRE:  Transparency is key, because of what it means to the American search for stability.  Americans are worried and insecure -- housing, jobs, etc.  The great test for America is making sure that the next generation has a better life than we had.  That's what I'll focus on.

OBAMA:  Our lack of an energy policy plays a big role in the ability of the Kuwaitis to operate as they do.  Segues to the subprime crisis, and his desire to strengthen transparecy and regulatory oversight.  (Really solid and smooth answer, imo.)

Q: To JRE -  something to do with the bankruptcy bill -- sound cut out a bit.

JRE:  It was a bad bill -- should not have voted for it.  Need to ameliorate sense of insecurity, and bankruptcy bill did opposite.  Incomes stangnat, cost of living going up.  What are we going to do about it?  Need universal health care.  Need to crack down on predatory payday loans.  Need to index minimum wage.  (Tight encapsulation of what Edwards is about.)

(Having only three candidates on stage definitely is leading to more substantive answers.  It's about time.)

Q: To HRC -- do you regret voting for bankruptcy bill?

HRC:  Sure -- but it never became law, so . . . segue to subprime, and the need to try and relieve pressure on homeowners, and the need to relieve insecurity in general.  (mcjoan points out that this, too, is a solid answer -- strengthened by HRC's clear passion.  We've got three candidates in midseason form.  They're all on.)

OBAMA continues on the subprime crisis.  Need to relieve stresses on people losing health insurance who also have mortgage problems.

Q: Internet Q to Obama -- how can you protect regular Americans when you reverse Bush tax cuts?

OBAMA:  I'll make sure I don't raise taxes on middle-class Americans.  Points out the absurdity of tax laws that punish inciome from work, and exempt income from wealth.  Proposes offsetting payroll tax, exempting SS income.  We'll pay for it by closing loopholes, rolling back Bush cuts for the wealthy.

(The intracandidate questioning still hasn't started.  Had to change the post title.)

HRC discusses the need to stimulate growth while stabilizing the financial situation of regular Americans.

(Key, if not only, theme tonight -- Democrats keenly recognize that Americans are really worried about their financial security.)

And here comes the potentially nasty part, as the intracandidate questioning starts.  mcjoan, take it away!

Greetings from fabulous Las Vegas, where mcjoan and I are seated in the decidedly un-fabulous press room at the Cashman Center.  The TVs here aren't showing the MSNBC pregame show, so we have no idea what sort of expectations are being set by Tweety, KO, and the gang.  On the other hand, that means we don't have to listen to Tweety.  It's a mixed bag, this on-site liveblogging.

So I'm left with the less-than-thrilling news that Kucinich won't be on stage.  I have nothing more to say about that.

Ah, the MSNBC feed is up.  It looks like Mittmentum has triumphed.  Good job, Michigan Dems!

Here's the King to welcome the candidates to Vegas:

It's a roundtable format.

Q1: Delving right into the tough stuff -- on MLK's b-day, Williams wants to know, how did the racial brouhaha begin?

HRC:  All the Dem candidates are progressives on civil rights issues.  Edwards "is the son of a millworker."  (No!)  Obama and I entered into a truce.  And we're all here as a result of Dr. King's work.

Obama:  We need to unite as a nation -- that's what Dr. King stood for.  I hope that my campaign has inspired those same sentiments.

JRE:  As a Southerner who grew up during the civil rights era, I feel a duty to move the nation forward on these issues.  Forwards, not backwards.

Q2:   Russert to Obama -- HRC says you pushed the racial angle.  What say you?

OBAMA: Need to focus on the big issues.  Everyone on stage is committed to racial eqauality, and I'm going to be judged on what I can do as President -- on the economy, on foreign policy.  That's the basis on which the race is going to be won and lost.

RUSSERT:  Believe that the Wilder effect reared its ugly head in NH?

OBAMA:   No.  HRC ran a good campaign.  We need to move forward as a united nation for change.

Q3: Russert to HRC -- what's with your subordinates making insinuations about Obama's admitted past drug use?

HRC:  Let's not get diverted by tangential issues.  What's important is leadership, economy, etc.

(These folks really don't want to talk about the racial flap.  Very tentative and nicey-nice right now.)

Q4: To Edwards -- Where do you fit in when running against two historic candidacies -- the first viable woman and first viable black candidate?

JRE:  The decision that voters make is going to be on the big issues -- economy, rights in workplace, etc.  

(Everyone agrees what the big issues are, I guess.)

FOLLOWUP:  What's a white male to do, Senator Edwards?

JRE resists the temptation to dismiss a loaded question, and says that this campaign says great things about the Party and America.

Q5:  Well, they sure aren't asking about the big issues -- OBAMA asked about the "you're likable enough" slight.

OBAMA:  Everyone on stage is good and capable -- let's focus on who's got a vision to bring country forward.  Let's focus on who can transform Washington.

Q6: To JRE -- did you buddy up with Obama against HRC?

JRE pretty much ignores, and talks about the powerful interests that stand between working Americans and the "promise of America."

(Kudos to the candidates, who want to talk real issues -- the questioners don't seem to.)

Heckler heckles inaudibly.

Q7: Sorry -- I missed the question in the excitement about the heckler.  Whatever it was, it's prompted HRC to talk about the mortgage crisis, the health care crisis, and the lack of a sane energy policy.

mcjoan is raring to go with a new thread.  

Wolfie interviewed RNC Chair Mike Duncan about Mike Huckabee's decisive victory in Iowa.  I've reprinted a CNN rush transcript in full below.  Note the name that the figurehead of the Republican Establishment dare not speak in an interview on the night of the critical Iowa caucus:

BLITZER: Mike Duncan is joining us right now from Republican headquarters. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for coming us. What do you think about this? CNN projecting Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, will win the Iowa caucuses.

MIKE DUNCAN, RNC CHAIRMAN: Good to be with you this evening, Wolf, and I'm very pleased to get this campaign off to a great start. I congratulate all the candidates on both sides and the people of Iowa for doing a great job today.  Wolf, my job is not to be an analyst. My job is to be a -- someone who does strategy for the party, and to prepare for the candidates coming forward. And we've been doing that. We have raised $83 million here at the RNC. I have $17 million cash on hand, and I'm ready for the Democrats.

BLITZER: You can't obviously have any favorites right now as chairman of the RNC. You love all of these Republicans. But give us a little sense of what Mike Huckabee means to the Republican Party.

DUNCAN: Well, Wolf, let me talk about what the Democrats are doing and why we're going to win this fall. We're going to win because we're putting forward our ideas. The Democrats are putting forward old ideas of more government, larger government, more taxes, less responsibility. And our candidates are talking about lower taxes, individual responsibility, and a strong national defense. That's going to be the difference. And it's going to be a difference with -- if it's Hillary Clinton on their side, it is going to be a difference about trust; if it's Barack Obama, its' going to be a difference about experience; and if it's John Edwards, it's going to be hypocrisy.

BLITZER: What do you think, Mr. Duncan, as the chairman of the party, when you see these Republicans bitterly going after each other, trying to attack each other on their views, whether Romney going after Huckabee or vice versa, or Romney going after John McCain or vice versa. How do you react as someone who would like to see all these Republicans basically on the same page?

DUNCAN: Well, Wolf, I have a front row seat to history, and as you know, I don't comment about our candidates. I will say that our candidates are talking about the issues that will resonate with the American people. They are talking about lower taxes and less government. They are talking about individual responsibility, and they are talking about a strong national defense. And what we're hearing on the other side is a real contrast.

BLITZER: So basically what you're saying is that all of the Republicans are great and all of them would be much better than any of the Democrats. We would hear Howard Dean, the Democratic Party chairman, say obviously exactly the opposite. But give us a little flavor right now. You've become the minority in the House of Representatives, you've become the minority in the Senate. And, at least the polls show that generically, the Democrats are favored to recapture the White House. If you lose the House, you lose the Senate and you lose the White House, that's a huge setback for your party.

DUNCAN: Well, Wolf, you're talking in 2006 terms. A lots of things happened in 2007. If you have not noticed, the momentum is going with us. We won two out of three governors races; we won two out of three special congressional races this last year. We raised over $30 million more than the Democrat National Committee raised, and the recent polls have indicated that we have closed the gap, the generic gap on people who self-identify as Republicans. We took that from 7 to 2 percent right now. The Republicans are on a roll. I'm very optimistic about us winning the White House and winning back more congressional seats in 2008.

BLITZER: Are you ready to predict that the Republicans will be the majority in the House and the Senate once again, or are you just going to pick up some seats?

DUNCAN: Well, we'll talk about that. As I said, I'm not an analyst. I'm someone who puts the pieces together that helps make it possible later on. And I feel very good about our position right now.

BLITZER: Mike Duncan is the chairman of the Republican Party. Thanks very much for coming in. Good luck to you, good luck to all of the political leaders out there.

Huckabee delenda est.