Can pundits at least make some effort to appear objective?

During the Fox News coverage of the New Hampshire Primary last Tuesday night, former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, now chairman of GOPAC, made the absurd claim that Mike Huckabee's distant-third place finish (11%) demonstrated his competitiveness, was strong, &tc. . .

What a load of crap.

Getting tripled up on by the 2nd place finisher, Governor Romney (who had 32%), does not demonstrate competitiveness--it demonstrates that Rev. Huckster is a one-hit-wonder, a one-trick-pony, whatever your analogy of choice. He might win in South Carolina, but chalk that up to identity politics--not rational, issues-based reasoning.

I know that GOPAC is Newt Gingrich's creation, and Newt is--by some reports--backing Rev. Huckster, but (and this may be a self-answering question) do pundits have no shame?

As another famous saying goes...."Don't [pee] on my leg and tell me its raining."

Lookin' For Ugleeeeeeeee

Those darned McGraws. They can't seem to avoid shadowy conspiracies. First the photographers roaming Marmet trying to take ugly pictures of Warren McGraw, now the Bush administration is plotting the demise of West Virginia's Attorney General.

West Virginia at one point brought suit against the manufacturers of painkilling products such as OxyContin, challenging the manner in which they had been advertised. OxyContin and like drugs are highly addictive and untold thousands suffer from this problem. At issue here is how the settlement money ended up being spent.

The Attorney General's office paid the lawyers who fought the case (fair enough) but placed the rest into the Attorney General's Consumer Protection Fund. The federal government argues that it ought to receive some reimbursement for the Medicaid dollars it pours into the state annually. State Legislators assert that McGraw violated the law because only the Legislature can disburse money.

What is worse is that the Consumer Protection Fund pays for billboards, pencils, and other items that feature the Attorney General's name. Allen Loughry, former Caperton administration official, has blasted this practice as taxpayer funded campaigning. McGraw's office paints this as a Bush administration political move to discredit his office.

Now come on. President Bush sits in his Oval Office every day trying to think of ways to discredit our state attorney general? Kind of unlikely. This money ought to go to the Legisture to be budgeted and sent out to the proper recipients.

Kickoff

Pam Krushansky, thanking the larger-than-expected crowd for turning out. Introductions of the Executive Committee. Representatives of four Presidential campaigns will have 5 minutes to speak, in this order.

1 -- Ron Paul (Gabriel McCall); talking about prior to Bush, two wings of the GOP -- Rockefeller (international adventurism) and conservative. Ron Paul is the only true conservative running (never voted for an unbalanced budget, never voted for a Congressional pay increase, etc...) Cited Paul's (exceedingly admirable) 50-year marriage (to the same woman). Anti-UN statements. In all, a respectable presentation.

2 -- Rudy Giuliani (Dan Casto of Wood County GOP Executive Committee); "Why do I support Rudy?" Most qualified, experience as Mayor, as Assistant U.S. Attorney, qualifies to make tough decision. Only canidate to clearly and succinctly tell us what we're going to do. Cites Rudy as #3 in the DoJ, where he took on the mob at the risk of his own life. Cites his ability to win Democrat votes, cites George Will. Didn't take care of NYC problem by raising taxes, but by cutting spending and taxes (23 times); reduction of welfare rolls, reduction in crime. Plays to security--Rudy cleaned up New York, led in aftermath of 9/11 attacks. Cites 12 Commitments, especially commitment to protect the nation from terrorists and to cut taxes, appointing Scalia-Thomas-Alito-Thomas justices. Strong conservative governance record. Man of intellect, what you see is what you get. [I'm impressed at the positive tone of the presentations -- T.O.]

3 -- Fred Thompson (Jim Mullins); Thompson biography -- son of a used car dealer, self-made man, college, law school, etc. At 27 appointed Assistant U.S. Attorney for Middle Tennessee, went to be Republican lawyer of Watergate Committee (where he originated the phrase "What did the President know, and when did he know it"). Cites Thompson's crusades against political corruption. Thompson as a sturdy man of character. Thompson the Senate candidate (was trailing badly, but got in his red pickup truck) and turned it around. He was a citizen legislator, not a career politician, and honored his promise to not run a third time. Thompson shepherded Roberts through the Senate. Running on a simple conservative platform -- smaller government, lower taxes, judges who will apply the law not create the law. As president he will not let us down.

4 -- Mitt Romney (J.B. McCuskey); three main reasons I'm supporting Governor Romney -- 1, my wife is supporting him and I might be in trouble otherwise; 2, Governor Romney's record creating jobs and wealth in the private sector -- the government doesn't create jobs, the private sector creates jobs; 3, Governor Romney's a strong social conservative. Cites Jay Sekulow, who J.B. has a close relationship with and has worked for. Jay's support for Romney is based on Romney's strong defense of traditional marriage, and the fact that the purpose of the pro-life movement is to win hearts and minds.

In all, very good presentations all around, and very positive -- no attacks on the other candidates, which is pleasant.

Ready to begin

Yours truly was asked to give the Invocation....be back shortly.

Crowd larger than expected

There are many, many new people here who I have never seen turnout to a Republican event before. Probably about 40 people or so have showed up.

Starting to arrive

6:23pm -- most people showing up so far are members of the county committee. 15 people here so far. Expecting more to begin showing up shortly.

Live! From Morgantown!

Hi! I'll be liveblogging the Monongalia County GOP convention beginning at 7:00pm

"Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated"

Mark Twain's famous quote has great application to Governor Mitt Romney following the results of the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire Primary. The nomination process, due to the high number of candidates without a single candidate dominating the race, resembles nothing so much as the NASCAR Nextel Cup. Consider the outcomes to date, and think of them as individual races:

Iowa -- Romney, 2nd Place
Wyoming -- Romney, 1st Place
New Hampshire -- Romney, 2nd Place

In fact, Romney currently leads in the delegate count (which is the only number that matters). The current delegate breakdown following the New Hampshire results:

Romney: 30
Huckabee: 21
McCain: 10
Thompson: 6
Paul: 2
Giuliani: 1
Hunter: 1

So long as no candidate is consistently coming in first, Romney's consistent second place finishes are good for two reasons: first, as stated, like the Nextel Cup, consistent high finishes allow the racer to rack up points, and it's points that determine the champion. Second, it indicates that Romney may emerge as a consensus 2nd choice--in the event of a brokered national convention, he may rise to the top, or it may make him an attractive Vice Presidential nominee.

So, when I hear the same media writing off Romney when they were writing off Clinton, I just consider the source.

McCain Wins New Hampshire, Obama Clinton battling

Republican (24% Reporting)

1) McCain 37%
2) Romney 29 %
3) Huckabee 12 %
4) Giuliani 9%
5) Paul 8%
6) Thompson 2%

Democrat (26% Reporting)
1) Clinton 40%
2) Obama 34%
3) Edwards 17%
4) Richards 4%

The Economy bad? Are you crazy? Remember 1983?

1983 Unemployment topped out at 10.8% and now it is around 4.7% for the latest numbers.

In 1983 the Dow basically remained flat for the previous 15 years, for the past 15 years the Dow has increased nearly 400%.

In 1983 the prime interest rate was at 11%, which was down from 20.50% just 2 years prior. Today it is at 7.25%.

For those saying the economy is bad, I can't imagine what they would think if we had 1983 numbers today.

Let's face it the numbers look pretty good right now. Most people that can afford a home have one. Most of us are employed, and most have stocks, mutual funds, and IRAs that giving us pretty good returns.

Maybe it is fast foods fault? You walk into a fast food place and you have 3 sizes of drinks Medium, Large, and Extra Large. You have the same thing with Pizza's Medium, Large, and Extra Large. What happened to the small? Perhaps people are looking at the economy with fast food eyes, good, great, and outstanding economy.

The good or great economy we are in right now is not the doom and gloom people are talking. The economy is strong. If we had 1983 numbers today, then would people be willing to except small drinks and small pizzas?

Keeping It In Perspective

MSNBC exploded into my living room last night to announce that Election 2008 will be the most critical in our history. It then "treated" me to shots of Keith Obermann, Chris Matthews, and other screaming meemies it plans to use to cover this year's cycle. This represents one of those rare events that outhypes the Super Bowl.

Honestly the news has completely lost its credibility. When Dan Rather uses very questionable evidence to attack a president and elections are treated like ballgames, you can see that the media creates stories as much as reports them. The hype machine for this year's election started in 2006 and has resulted in frenzied coverage of every potential aspect, right down to how Chelsea Clinton responds to reporters.

Actually this election may be one of the less eventful or important in terms of the presidency compared to others in our nation's history. The election of 1800 was important because we transferred power from one party to another peacefully for the first time. In 1828 white men without property voted in many states for the first time, opening a new era in national politics complete with slogans and mudslinging. Both of Lincoln's elections addressed major national questions, in 1864 quite possibly whether the Union would win the Civil War or allow the Confederacy to live. Of course FDR's first election in 1932 brought on the New Deal and our world would look very different if the results of 1980 had been anything other than a Reagan victory.

This election so far has sputtered and puttered along. No candidate really has grabbed the imagination of their party while the presumed nominees from about this time last year have hit some obstacles. America's mayor has great leadership qualities, but what are his core beliefs and how will they affect his decisions? The former first lady right now seems to frighten some liberals almost as much as conservatives, although despite Iowa, she is a likely shoe in as the Democratic nominee. Obama will give her a scare early, as McCain did Bush in 2000. However she has been preparing this for too long.

That being said, this election does not seem to feature great national questions. Iraq is winding down towards a positive conclusion although the Middle East still has severe problems. Suddenly Democratic nominees want to debate the economy again. The Republicans have a pretty good track record there, despite the media attempts to paint it otherwise. Bush's administration has secured America from attack for almost seven years now, enabling the population at large to put the homeland security issue on the backburner. In other words, what are the great issues of this cycle? They are important, but they do not compare to the nation torn in two or crippling economic depressions.

Don't get me wrong, that does not mean that this election is not important. There are many reasons to be concerned about who will run the country for the next several years. However, overhyping anything produces mental callouses on the intended audience. How can presidential candidates seriously debate important issues when the media overhyping has caused too many to tune out? Then the media will wring its hands and wonder why so many voters ignore the elections altogether.