Michigan Up For Grabs

Should we even bother with the polls in Michigan after what happened in New Hampshire?

Well, the New Hampshire polls were pretty accurate with the GOP side of the race, so let's give it a try.

Six polls have been released in Michigan covering interviews conducted January 9 or later. Of those, three give Romney the lead and three give McCain the lead, with the largest lead for Romney at 8% and the largest for McCain at 7%. Huckabee is in third, about 9 points back.

(For a complete tabulation of the Michigan polls, go here.)

That means Michigan is a toss-up. A lot hangs in the balance: if McCain wins, his momentum could be enough to run the table in SC, Florida and Super Duper Tuesday. If Romney wins, however, it knocks McCain down a peg, gets the Mittster back into the race, keeps SC up in the air (leaning Huckabee) and even gives Giuliani a shot in Florida.

McCain could even come in third in Michigan--Huckabee's numbers may be a bit better than the polls, because his people will turnout. We think Romney is enjoying a mini-surge of support in Michigan, and it's not clear that independents, who McCain needs, will really turn out.

And, if Romney wins Michigan, he could end up with a very good week, as he has a good shot at Nevada with it's large Mormon population.

Looks to be another interesting week.

The Start Of A McCain Bandwagon, Or The Latest GOP Fad?

Based on the post-New Hampshire polls, it sure looks like a McCain bandwagon is starting up on the Republican side. He's leading in polls in Michigan, SC, Florida and in a couple of national polls, including CNN poll with McCain leading Huckabee by 14 points and everyone else trailing. (We will say that CNN's track record with polls in this election has been erratic, at best.)

But then, McCain had the lead early last year. Then it was Thompson. Then Giuliani. On occasion it has been Huckabee. So maybe McCain is just the latest fad.

We'll know pretty soon.

Fractured GOP: Beauty Is In The Eye Of The Beholder

If you want to know how fractured the GOP is today, just compare the following analyses of last night's Republican debate in Myrtle Beach, SC from respected political pundits:

Chuck Todd, MSNBC: "Post-Debate First Take: Fred's Not Dead . . ." Todd thinks Fred Thompson did the best. But this isn't the first time pundits thought Fred was superb in a debate--they said the same thing in Iowa. Problem is whether anyone is watching. Fred probably is dead, due to poor campaigning and lack of strategy.

Jonathan Martin, Politico: "McCain Emerges Unscathed." Martin says no one touched McCain, but these other commentators beg to disagree--for example, Dean Barnett, below, who said McCain had some good and bad moments, the bad including "annoy[ing] conservatives for no apparent reason" with his discussion of global warming.

Dean Barnett, Weakly Standard: "A Big Night For Huckabee." Barnett praises Huckabee as "an exceptional politician whose package of skills is often sold short" and says his political skills were on full display in the debate.

The two candidates who seemed not to bet much out of the debate were Romney and Giuliani, but if we look hard enough we'll probably find someone reasonably neutral who thought one or the other was superb.

Is McCain the "front-runner?" Martin, above, is one of those who thinks McCain is the "front-runner"--evidently on his own say-so. National polls of Republicans show no such thing. In the Rasmussen's four-day tracking poll, McCain is on top--by two points--over Huckabee and Romney today, but Huckabee was on top yesterday.

The more interesting story in the national polls is Giuliani--having deliberately sat out Iowa and New Hampshire, and doing the same with Michigan and Florida--Giuliani has been out of the mind's eye during all this intense media glare. He's now down to 9% in the Rasmussen tracking poll. He could resurrect himself with a strong showing in Florida, but that's not going to be easy, and even then, all he does is get himself back into the race--he hardly becomes the favorite.

McCain has small leads in recent Michigan and SC polls, but will they hold up? If they do, he will be the front-runner. On the other hand, suppose Mitt wins Michigan and Thompson wins SC (highly unlikely, but within the realm of possibility)--then we have four winners in four contests. Give Rudy Florida and you start all over on Super Duper Tuesday!

New Hampshire Gives McCain A Bounce In The Polls

Two polls are out today with post-New Hampshire results in the upcoming GOP contest for South Carolina, both showing a distinct bounce for John McCain.

Just prior to NH, Insider Advantage and Survey USA gave Huckabee a commanding, double digit lead over McCain. The two polls out today, from Rasmussen and Faux News, reverse that and give McCain a small, but significant, lead over Huckabee with Romney close behind. (Thompson, who we said five weeks ago needed to move his operation to SC, is probably too late--he hasn't really moved in the polls.)

In Michigan, we also have a new poll with McCain taking a small lead, although that poll was taken before NH and conflicts with another poll taken in the same period. (For Michigan poll results, click here.)

That's all good news for McCain--if he can win both Michigan and South Carolina, he'll be in terrific shape to vanquish Rudy G. in Florida and run the table. If he wins neither, it's back to the old grind.














5

Why Hillary Won In New Hampshire

To know why Hillary won in New Hampshire, you need only speak to a politically savvy Democratic woman. The Curmudgeon's stepmother clearly fits that bill, and her comments, validated by Mrs. Curmudgeon, tell the story.

"First of all, the people that caused Hillary to win were (besides Hillary and Bill, who worked their butts off) Rush Limbaugh, Fox News Pundits, Chris Matthews and Keith Oberman.

Bill Reilly's rush to get an interview with Obama pointed up the
ridiculousness of this infatuation with the newness of Obama as Reilly made a
total boor of himself. Matthews, Limbaugh, and even ultra liberal
Oberman, for different reasons, excoriated Hillary day after day, pounding nails
in where ever they could -- from hair do and bags under her eyes to tears of
exhaustion.

One now has to question polls that asked if people liked Obama more than
they did Hillary, setting her up for that question to which she answered, "It
hurts my feelings" when asked how she felt about it. This answer, and her
continual step by step actions through the slog they have been throwing at her,
humanized her in ways she couldn't do herself. It made it clear that those
kind of men would prefer any man to a woman.

Then, Gloria Steinheim's marvelous op-ed in the NY Times was over the top -- asking if a woman had only two years as a US Senator, and a few terms in a state legislature if she would ever have been considered a viable presidential candidate.
Asking whether these pundits that call Obama "fresh" and his speeches
"inspiring" wouldn't instead call them "emotional" if they had come from a
woman. It pointed out quite clearly what women have been feeling
since Iowa.

Darn it, enough is enough. Obama may be a phenomenon. But a
woman getting this far is also one. Hill won because the NH women
were furious at the pundits and the men who criticize her. If
men pull back and stop jeering at her, then we can have a civilized race.
If not -- well, there ARE more women then men."

There you have it. The women have spoken, now listen up!

Maybe Mitt, Not Hillary, Should Look To Bill's '92 Example

Back when everyone thought Hillary was going to lose New Hampshire, her campaign kept reminding everyone that in 1992 Bill lost seven of the first nine contests, and do don't count Hillary out.

Perhaps it's Mitt Romney who should be pointing to 1992. The key to Bill Clinton's win in '92 was that four different Democrats--Bob Kerrey, Paul Tsongas, Jerry Brown and Tom Harkin--were winners in the other contests, meaning there was no front runner.

Likewise, by the time we get to Tsunami Tuesday on February 5, there could be at least three different Republicans, besides Romney to have won a round (recall that Romney did win Wyoming already). The idea that Romney is finished, in a five man field, after a couple second places is absurd.

Bill Richardson Calls It Quits

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson will announce tomorrow that he is quitting the presidential race, AP reports.

Good for Bill--it's the right thing for him to do. We liked Gov. Bill and endorsed him early on, but despite about a month of movement during the summer he never really caught on, hindered especially by a couple of erratic debate performances.

Look for Richardson to resurface in someone's cabinet, possibly as Secretary of State, and look for him to help out with the Latino community come this Fall, regardless of who the nominee is.

That is, unless he decides to run for the Senate seat in New Mexico being vacated by Pete Domenici--it would be Richardson's for the taking, although he told Democratic Rep. Tom Udall he wouldn't run, and he should probably honor that promise.

First Michigan Poll In A Month Shows Tie Between Romney and Huckabee

It's been nearly a month since anyone release a poll of Michigan voters, which is the next battleground for the GOP. Today, an outfit called the Rossman Group released a poll, obviously taken before the NH results were known (but the expectations of a McCain victory were already in hand). The results:

Huckabee 23%
Romney 22%
McCain 18%

Huckabee could do well--evangelicals are an important component in Michigan and they will turn out.

The Double Deadlock Scenario

Last night's result in the Democratic race in New Hampshire, with Hillary making a "comeback," raises a new spectre--the Double Deadlock scenario.

[As an aside, we have to wonder about the media's role in painting these "victories" and "defeats." If the polls had shown Hillary with the lead that they instead attributed--falsely--to Obama, then Hillary's three point victory would have been portrayed much differently, maybe even as Obama exceeding expectations. The delegate count puts it where it should be: a tie.]

For months now, we've speculated about the possibility of a Republican deadlock, i.e., no one in the field having a majority of delegates before the convention. That possibility remains quite real, with four viable candidates, none of whom draws better than 25% support in national polls. If those four stay in the race and divide the delegates along their poll lines, no one will have a majority.

But we haven't discussed the possibility of a Democratic deadlock as well, the conventional wisdom being that the Dem race would quickly come down to two candidates. But we now have to consider the possibility. The Democratic Party awards delegates much more proportionally than the Republicans. The result is that although Hillary won yesterday, she and Obama got the same number of delegates. Likewise, in Iowa, Obama won, but got only one more delegate than Hillary.

And, in both races, Edwards won a few delegates. Edwards says he going to stay in it for the long haul, and he may very well do so. If that's the case and he gets 15-20% of the delegates while Hillary and Obama go back and forth, then the Dems could end up in a deadlock, too.

We wouldn't put it past Edwards to be a spoiler, with his huge ego. And we wouldn't put it past Democratic voters to consistently give him 15-20% of the vote--he appeals to the "angry" Democrats who believe his schpiel that the world's woes are caused by corporate greed.

We don't think a deadlock would be good for either party. A double deadlock might even things out, but it would encourage third party candidacies and lead to an endless summer of speculation and hand wringing. The odds of a deadlock on the Democratic side are still pretty low, but if neither Hillary nor Barack comes out of February 5 with a clear advantage, the odds go up.

Meanwhile, just think of the irony here: everyone moved their nominating contests up this year because they wanted their votes to "count," to be "meaningful." And yet it now turns out that the LATE nominating states may have the more meaningful say.

The Punditocracy Has It Wrong On The GOP Race

Now that we've digested last night's results and surveyed the punditocracy this morning, we have a few more thoughts on the Republican side of the presidential race.

1. While Democrats get a bit of a breather, the Republican field will continue at an all-out sprint. That's because in the next contest--Michigan (next Tuesday, January 15)--Obama and Edwards boycotted the ballot, so it really doesn't count for Democrats, whereas Republicans have a fully contested race (well, at least between McCain, Romney and Huckabee). Then Republicans have both Nevada and South Carolina on Saturday, January 19, but Democrats don't have SC until January 26. Florida is on January 26 for both parties, and then Super Duper Tuesday.

2. The pundits are being very unfair to Mitt Romney. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Romney does not have to win Michigan. He probably cannot afford to come in third there, but a strong second wouldn't finish him. We don't like Romney, but the claim that he's somehow finished is hogwash. At this point, the GOP race looks like a four-man field (if you count Giuliani--more on that below). In that field, Romney has one win--Wyoming--and two strong second places. McCain has a win, a fourth place and a tie for fourth (in Wyoming). Huckabee has a win, a third place and a tie for fourth (in Wyoming).

Romney leads in delegates, he has money and a national organization. All of that counts in a race that looks to go the distance. To anoint McCain at this point is silly, especially when NO Republican polls above 25% in national polls.

Romney is also well-positioned to win Nevada. The press may decide that some races are more important than others, but in such a crowded field, winning "inconsequential" races and coming in second in others is not a bad strategy. Wouldn't ol' Fred Thompson wish he was in Romney's shoes. If Romney wins Nevada and comes in second in Michigan, then he's got two firsts and three seconds and still the most delegates.

Romney's campaign does need to start managing expectations and make clear he's in for the long haul. And, if I was in Giuliani's campaign, I'd have the same message, otherwise McCain could look like a runaway winner before Florida.

3. While the pundits declare Romney dead, they're giving Giuliani a free pass for a suspect strategy. The fact is that Giuliani was the second highest spender in New Hampshire, after Romney, and he came in a very distant fourth. You can say that's because he didn't compete, but it would be false--he did compete, but then when it was clear he wasn't doing well, he took his ball and went home.

Likewise, Rudy spent a fair amount of energy on Iowa. Now he's retreated to Florida, but the press shouldn't let him off so easily. In any event, Rudy's Florida strategy is fatally flawed. In the most recent Florida poll, released yesterday from Insider Advantage, Rudy leads Huckabee and McCain by five points (24% to 19% for each of Huck and Mac).

Let's say that holds up and Rudy wins Florida by five--a big if, since the numbers will change in response to the upcoming contests that don't include Rudy. Big deal. That's hardly a resounding bounce into the February 5 mega-primaries. If you look at who's voting on Feb. 5, you see that all four candidates (and even Thompson if he's so inclined) have states they are likely to carry and states where they're likely to do poorly. It's not likely anyone could come out of Super Duper Tuesday with more than 40% of the delegates awarded that day--unless a couple guys drop out before then.

On the downside for Rudy, if he loses Florida, the pundits will say he's finished. (They'll be wrong, too.) As long as Rudy, Huck, Mitt and Mac keep going at this, it's anybody's game--or maybe no one's. And for that very reason, we think they'll keep at it.

4. There is one scenario for a "roll-up" by McCain. He wins Michigan and Romney drops out. McCain then gets Nevada and comes in second in SC and goes into Florida as a fairly clear front-runner and trounces Rudy. He might then have enough momentum on Super Duper Tuesday to knock out Huckabee.

5. Fred Thompson is done. He never had a strategy, or any passion. He could, however, stay in and try to collect Tennessee's delegates on February 5 and use that as a stake in case there is a deadlocked convention.

New Hampshire: BIG WINNER--Hillary; Other Winners and Losers

Here's our New Hampshire wrap-up and analysis of winners and losers.

Clearly, the biggest winner is Hillary, because she completely defied expectations. (The pollsters didn't know Hillary's secret weapon, which we at the Curmudgeon will now reveal: between Iowa and New Hampshire, Hillary got a large monetary infusion from Mrs. Curmudgeon, which clearly put her over the top.)

EVERYONE said, based on unanimous polls, that Obama was going to win. The only question was by how much--would it be double digits? The question now is why, and how could the polls be so wrong? Hillary now has some momentum and has taken some of the air out of Obama's balloon. Meanwhile, Edwards is finished, so we're down to a two candidate race.

The rest of our winners and losers:

Democrats:

Pretty simple here. Hillary wins, Obama has a significant setback, but it could be only temporary, and Edwards, while he'll probably keep at it, is really out of it. This race will probably go down to Super Duper Tuesday on February 5 and be decided then. Or maybe a week later when Virginians vote--yea!

The pollsters lose. For the record, realclearpolitics.com lists all the publicly released polls for New Hampshire in chronological order. Of the last 20 polls in the state, all taken between January 4 and January 7, only 1 (Suffolk/WHDH) had Hillary in the lead, and that one by two points. We can't give that poll credit however, because that same poll had LATER results (yesterday) showing Obama up by 5 points.

Bill Richardson is a loser. He barely registered after spending a fair amount of time and money on the state. He loves campaigning and pressing the flesh, but he really should drop out now, lest he become a caricature of himself.

The press and the political commentariat is a loser, too--to a person they didn't see this coming. Now, they get to question the polls the rest of way out.

Whether the Democratic Party is a winner is yet to be seen. On the positive side, despite a disadvantage to Republicans statewide in voter registration, Democrats had about 40,000-50,000 more voters. On the other hand, the party is now looking at a drawn out fight that could turn divisive, rather than an Obama bandwagon that might have brought newfound enthusiasm to independents and young people.

It will be interesting to see how the independents broke. Obama may have been hurt by more of them going over to the Republican race at the last minute. Just doing a quick count of the numbers, it looks like about the same number of voters selected each party's primary (slight edge to the Democrats).

Republicans

Obviously, McCain is a winner. If he had lost New Hampshire, his campaign would have been crippled. There were some signs in late polls that Romney might be coming back (although they said that in Iowa too, so we discounted it here), so McCain's people were a little concerned. McCain's margin of victory--5%--is just enough to make it a comfortable win, although they clearly were hoping for something a little bigger.

Now McCain has a shot at the nomination. But those predicting it's all his are WAY premature. This race is still wide open, with a lot yet to happen.

Another winner is Huckabee, who cinched third place with 12%, which was about the upper limit of what he could've achieved in New Hampshire. It demonstrates that Huckabee's people really do come out to vote. He'll have a shot in Michigan, will be formidable in SC, and has a good shot in Florida if his folks stay loyal and turn out like they have. Then, anything goes on Super Duper Tuesday.

Romney is a loser, but not as badly as the punditocracy thinks. He's had two strong second place finishes in a six man field. Yes, he spent heavily in Iowa and New Hampshire, but guess what--so did Thompson and Giuliani at one point, before they gave up. Romney can and will go on, although he'll need to shake up his campaign and run on a leaner organization (which might free him up to be himself instead of the Manchurian candidate).

Giuliani is a loser. Once again, he's out of the national spotlight with his silly strategy. Finishing fourth, barely ahead of Ron Paul, is not the stuff of a winner. We can guarantee you that whatever Giuliani is doing in Florida, it's overwhelmed by the headlines there about New Hampshire.

Thompson is a loser. He probably ought to suspend his campaign and endorse his friend McCain. But another option is to keep going, in a low key way and amass a handful of delegates and be an option for a deadlocked convention. We just don't think he has the heart for the campaigning--too bad he can't subcontract with Bill Richardson to do the pressing the flesh part of it.

Ron Paul is a loser--he really needed to get in the top four to be taken more seriously. New Hampshire is probably his high water mark. It will be downhill from here for Dr. Paul, especially after everyone takes a look at The New Republic's piece detailing Paul's history of racist and anti-semitic writings over the years.

The Republican Party may be a loser, or may be a winner. It clearly has a badly splintered electorate. If they decide McCain is the man they need, and rally around him, then the GOP may yet be saved. Absent that, it could be a long, hard and potentially disastrous year. Can anyone say 1964? (On the other hand, the Republicans may be happy--they'd clearly rather run against Hillary than Obama, although you should always watch what you wish for.)

The pollsters did a better job on the GOP side. Our pollster winner is: CNN/WMUR/UNH, which had McCain by 5%, had Huckabee in third by himself by three points, and had Giuliani and Paul tied, which is pretty much the way it played out. That's good for CNN, because it was our loser in Iowa. Our poll loser is Suffolk/WHDH, which had Romney winning and had Paul at only 5%.

And once again, a big winner is the commentariat, because every time the voters defy expectations, they give us that much more to write about!

Hillary Upset In The Making?

With 27% of the vote counted in New Hampshire, Hillary leads 40-36. The exit polls also give her an edge of about the same margin.

Good lord, how could almost ALL the polls be wrong!

Later we'll do our winners and losers analysis. Things could be quite topsy!

UPDATE: Here's the exit poll numbers--frustratingly, they don't give you a bottom line number, but you can get pretty close with the gender breakdown.

Among women, who made up 57% of the poll (and presumably of the primary voters where the exit polls were conducted), Hillary beats Obama 47%-34%. Among men, the percentages flip, but men are only 43% of the respondents, so a much smaller group. There, Obama leads Hillary 42%-30%. Based on the exit poll, then, Hillary should win. You can find the whole darn thing on CNN here.

Goodbye, Joe Gibbs

Joe Gibbs is retiring as Redskins head coach.

We have a fond place for Coach Gibbs in our heart, but it's the right decision.

Gibbs was a good coach for the Redskins in the '80's--he fit what the Redskins had and the envirnoment in which they played.

But he's not a terrific coach in today's environment. Mostly, he's just too conservative with play calling. No sooner than the Redskins get a lead than does he go into a stall. You may burn up three minutes in the last quarter on three consecutive running plays, but if you then have to punt it away, you're giving the other team a chance. Too often Gibbs did just that, rather than take a little risk for the reward of keeping the ball longer--or, heaven forbid, scoring again.

Contrast Gibbs with Bill Belichek, who frequently goes for it on fourth down, and succeeds. You just can't win consistently without taking some measured risks.

The Redskins did well to make the play-offs this year, but they should have had at least two, and as many as four, more victories during the season.

A fresh face will do the 'Skins good. We'll miss ol' Joe, but somehow we think he'll be having fun with his racing toys.

Mitt Romney's To Do List: Pander, Pander, and Pander Some More

Talk about pandering! Yesterday, at one of his rallies, Mitt Romney unveiled the following "to-do" list if he's elected President. See if you can spot any contradictions.

1. Make America safer
--Stronger military
--Better intelligence
--Strengthen alliances
2. End illegal immigration
3. Reduce taxes
4. Cut pork
5. Better care for veterans
6. Health insurance for everyone
7. End dependence on foreign oil
8. Make government simpler, smaller
9. Grow the economy and keep our jobs
10. Fix social security
11. Put people ahead of selfish interest
12. Strengthen our families
13. Balance the budget

Well, now; that's certainly utopian. Why not: world peace, end poverty, end hunger, end crime.

Let's see, how does this distinguish Mitt from any of the other Republicans running? Oh, it doesn't. Well, what about the Democrats? Nope, they're for all that too.

Mitt seems to be getting dopey as he gets desperate.

More On Bob "Taliban" Marshall's Run Against Gilmore

Here's a follow-up from the Washington Post to our piece yesterday on Del. Bob Marshall--aka Virginia's Taliban--plan to seek the GOP nomination for the open seat being vacated by Senator John Warner.

Could the "abortion is the only issue I care about" wing of the Republican Party in Virginia be enough to propel this whackjob to the nomination?

Don't Count Out Hillary Or Romney, Even If Both Lose New Hampshire (As Expected)

That was fast--the New Hampshire primary is tomorrow already. And just like that, pundits and politicos are prognosticating that Obama will be the Democratic nominee, and that Mitt Romney's campaign will be finished if, as expected, the NH winners are Obama and McCain.

Not so fast.

We fully expect another Obama victory. The man is on a HOT streak. He may even win by 10 points or more. And that will give him considerable momentum--enough, at the least, to run the table through Nevada, Michigan and South Carolina.

But don't count Hillary out. She's got the money, she's got the party mainstream, she's got the ambition, and she's got the drive to keep at it. Remember when McCain was done? Hillary will be able to stick it out through February 5 and the Super Duper Tuesday primaries.

In the meantime, Obama will become the frontrunner, and that stubborn little pest John Edwards will fade away. As the frontrunner, Obama will undergo a different kind of scrutiny. Suddenly, the smallest little mis-step, the gentlest of gaffes, will make the news.

Further, a lot of Democrats not quite yet swept up in Obamania will have to ask themselves, "what do we really know about this guy?" There will be revelations. Obama's bound to slip up--maybe not big time, but something. And the expectations for him will be oh so much higher.

If we were betting real money right now, we'd have to give Obama the edge--he's got momentum and lot else going for him. He really does look Kennedy-esqe. But we wouldn't bet the house--Hillary's got the resources and she could still win the nomination.

Likewise, many in the commentariat are saying that Romney is finished if he doesn't win New Hampshire. Certainly, we'd agree, he's wounded. But he's not dead yet.

Like Hillary, Romney has the resources to continue to compete up through Super Duper Tuesday. And it's a bit much to write him off so quickly in a five-man field. After all, Romney would have won two second place finishes in hotly contested races. Yes, he was the leader for some time in both Iowa and New Hampshire, but he never came close to leading in national polls.

More to the point, there's no reason for Romney to concede anything to the rest of the field. McCain could emerge from New Hampshire as the "front-runner," but a fellow standing at 20% in national polls who is unpopular with a significant percentage of Republicans is hardly running away with it. McCain could win Michigan--with Romney again in second (or Huckabee)--but then Huckabee will probably take South Carolina, and any of them could take Nevada.

That then sets up the showdown in Florida to see if Rudy can vindicate his strategy. If Rudy wins, then there's no clear front-runner. Even if McCain gets a narrow victory, with say 30% of the Florida vote, that's hardly a ringing endorsement.

Romney should stay in through Super Duper Tuesday. So should Thompson. There's a good chance that no one emerges from that contest with a clear lead: Rudy gets NY, NJ, Connecticut; Romney gets Utah, Massachusetts; Thompson could get Tennessee; Huckabee gets Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, maybe Missouri, Oklahoma; McCain wins Arizona and a few other western states and maybe Minnesota. California is up for grabs.

So now everyone's got some delegates and the rest of the race is a muddle. Romney goes to the convention with enough delegates to make an impact and anything can happen over a long summer of bargaining and bickering. He could still end up the nominee.

It's true that Romney's original strategy for winning--sweep Iowa and NH--would be in tatters, but it wouldn't mean he couldn't win it all.

Meanwhile, maybe such a mess will convince at least Republican Party leaders that they REALLY need to do something about the crazy nominating calendar!

Virginia's Taliban--Bob Marshall--To Oppose Gilmore For Senate Nomination

Now this is entertaining: Virginia Republican Delegate Bob "Taliban" Marshall has announced that he is running for the Republican nomination to fill the Senate seat being vacated by John Warner.

[We call Marshall the Virginia Taliban because he is one of those ultra-right wing legislators who, like the Taliban, would like the State to tell you how to live your life, especially when it comes to sexual mores. For more, see our prior posting, "Virginia's Taliban: Bob Marshall."]

We love it--in announcing his run, Marshall accused Gilmore, a stalwart of the party's conservative wing, of being too moderate. "I did a lot of calling around the state, and I got an excellent response from Republican Party officials," Marshall was quoted in the WaPo. "I just concluded I matched their aspiration for the views they think should be expressed and defended by a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate."

Too bad Virginia's GOP isn't holding an open primary, rather than a closed convention. With Marshall running to the right of Gilmore, perhaps Tom Davis should reconsider whether to run as well, splitting delegates three ways.

The GOP nominee will face off against Democrat Mark Warner, who, at this point is heavily favored. (But, we remind our readers: George Allen was heavily favored at this point two years ago and look how that turned out.)

Murky Electoral Process May Not Clear For Some Time

We thought we'd pass along this analysis from Dick Morris and Eileen McGann in the New York Post, "There Will Be Blood," outlining likely scenarios for both parties' nominating contests as we go forward.

Dick Morris is not a very savory character, but he is an astute political observer. The key points, as we see them: Hillary won't stop just because she loses New Hampshire, or even SC and Nevada to boot--she'll be there through Super-Duper Tuesday, whereas Edwards will soon be gone.

And, on the GOP side, Giuliani doesn't benefit from McCain being the front-runner and the Republicans could still wind up at their convention without a nominee.

Waste of Newsprint: McGovern Op-ed In WaPo Calling For Bush Impeachment

You'd think in this hectic time of political activity, the Washington Post would have plenty to fill it's Sunday "Outlook" opinion section with.

Evidently not. The lead piece in today's Outlook was an op-ed by former Senator George McGovern, who must be like a million years old by now, calling for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

It's a waste of newsprint. Titled "Why I Believe Bush Must Go," it recounts how McGovern "belatedly and painfully" reached his conclusion.

And the Post wonders why it's circulation is stagnant. The Curmudgeon agrees with much of McGovern's reasoning--but not his conclusions. The question is, why should anyone care about McGovern's personal opinion on the matter?

McGovern isn't somebody who matters today. And, as he says, he reached his conclusion "belatedly." In fact, so belatedly that it's too late to impeach the President and Vice President. McGovern "believes" the Prez "must go," but the fact is that he will be gone in just over one year. And he (like McGovern) is largely irrelevant already--he has no ability to set an agenda with Congress.

If impeaching Bush and Cheney could somehow undo all the harm they've done to this country, we'd be all for it. But it wouldn't do that--indeed, it would create more harm, paralyzing our government during an election year with a process that couldn't logically be completed until just months or weeks before the White House changes occupants anyway.

We don't have any real truck with McGovern's opinion, but by the same token there's nothing new or newsworthy in his argument. Many have already made similar arguments, much sooner.

Our problem is with the Post's judgment that this is somehow important--so important, for that matter, as to merit being the lead opinion item on a weekend between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primaries. The fact of the matter is that NO ONE CARES what McGovern thinks at this late date. (Yes, we know--save your comments--no one cares what the Curmudgeon thinks, either.)

Whoever's running the Outlook page really needs to get a clue.

Blowhard O'Reilly Bullies His Way Around Obama Rally

Here's a great piece from Slate's John Dickerson on Fox blowhard Bill O'Reilly's asshole antics at an Obama rally in New Hampshire.

There's more. Other bloggers report on details, including the Secret Service restraining the Bloviator, and O'Reilly going on Faux News to lie about "his" side of the story. Huffington Post says it will have video.

O'Reilly claims he was just there to ask Obama to come on his show. Sure. Right. There are ways O'Reilly could have done that without creating a spectacle, but, of course, it was all about the attention O'REILLY could get. He wanted a spectacle, which is why he went in with a full entourage and Faux "news" camera and then took up a position guaranteed to cause a problem.

The really bad part: now all the other right wing nut job "commentators" will try to one up each other with similar stunts.