Redemption for right wing leaders

By Rick Morris

The fawning embrace given to Mitt Romney by so-called conservative leaders (bloggers, talk radio hosts, activists/lobbyists) was deeply damaging to their own credibility – but it was also unfortunately hurtful to the interests of the larger movement they claim to represent. While I’m not losing sleep about the harm done to the reputations of those like Hugh Hewitt who so consistently demeaned and undermined legitimate candidates in the race, I do recognize their power to diminish the future of this country since so many give them credit for speaking for the conservative movement. I do think the revolt against these people was a positive development, as the arrogance we’ve seen on display indicates that they’ve lost touch with those they purport to lead. Every intellectual revolution, such as this one that started with Goldwater, Buckley and Reagan back in the early ‘60s, eventually ossifies and becomes exactly that which it was supposed to oppose. For right-wingers, the Romney bandwagon of 2007-08 was the Animal Farm moment.

Herewith, my free advice for how these luminaries can get out of the hole they’ve dug for themselves and American conservatism:

^ Have the humility to read this column all the way through. Already, there are signs that the grand poobahs still don’t get it and want to foist the Mittster on us again four years hence. In this article, it is revealed that, in an insanely presumptuous and egomaniacal move, American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene took it upon himself to personally welcome Romney into the conservative movement at C-PAC. [Side note to Davey: You did nothing but induct him as a member of your little Beltway boys club. It’s very interesting that you have such contempt for the fact that a majority of conservatives in this country rejected your pet and would never call him one of their own. Who died and left you as The Sultan of American Conservatism? I’m just wondering if you put him through some rituals as part of a ceremony, such as “pinky swears” or a quiz on Bill Buckley’s five favorite Latin phrases.]. The continued arrogance of those who refuse to “get it” about Romney is unbelievable, inasmuch as they should be able to read the cold hard facts; if Mitt were the “great right hope,” then McCain and Huck put together wouldn’t have been able to stop him and he would have been more than a doormat in the bastion-of-conservatism Southern states. Leveling spurious charges of religious bigotry against the folks you clearly perceive to be nothing more than Flyover Country peasants won’t get you anywhere either. You need to accept the fact that the work many of you did for Goldwater in 1964 and Reagan in 1976 could very well be invalidated by the destructive moves you’ve pulled lately and in some cases persist in doing.

^ Crawl out of your echo chamber and be willing to defend your opinions. This piece of advice applies mostly to the talk radio potentates, most of whom hide behind the skirts of their call-screeners. Take a lesson from Michael Medved, who not only accepts calls from those unfriendly to his point of view but specifically seeks them. You have to get in fighting trim and go beyond accepting arse-kissing missives from vapid folks like “Dittoheads” and be willing to mix it up and articulate your principles in a consistent manner or learn to deal with irrelevance in a world fast leaving you behind.

^ Take an honest look at where you went wrong. Most of you were silent when you had a chance to boost Fred Thompson. Some of you, like Hewitt, actively slimed him. Regardless of how far off the reservation you went, you damaged the advancement of vital American causes. You did so in the false belief that you were embracing a candidate as sleek and supercharged as the American Motors company his father once ran. Instead, you ended up climbing aboard an Edsel that could not meet any necessary performance standards (justifying the megabucks investment in the early state contests, connecting with voters on any level, finding explanations for a myriad of conveniently-timed policy changes, creating an even moderately-successful campaign message). At long last, you need to admit that you picked the wrong “vehicle” and stop blaming others for the inevitable crash into the ditch.

^ Stop bashing populism. This edict applies specifically to good old El Rushbo, who denounced populism as part of his intellectually dishonest critique of Huck. One wonders exactly what he considers his denunciation of entities such as Nancy Pelosi and the “intellectual elites!” I realize that I speak as a member of the paleoconservative wing of the movement, which unfortunately accounts for a small minority, but let it be said once and for all that populism is a good thing! Certainly, Rush doesn’t like the concept when it’s turned on him, but that should have been an early sign that he was in the wrong. Some types of populism, such as the economic form of it that panders to folks of an illiterate mentality, are idiotic. But always, in making a choice between the people and their leaders who are pushing them down the primrose path, I side with the people and anyone aspiring to lead the conservative movement must also do no less.

^ Speak truth to power. The conservative intelligentsia has spent the last seven years toadying up to the Bush crew at all costs – Limbaugh and Hannity in particular come to mind. They’ve overlooked a host of offenses against sound policy but now ask us to get outraged about ones made by John McCain! [Another aside: how the heck does George W. Bush get a hero’s welcome at C-PAC from the same audience of “purists” who had to be begged not to chuck tomatoes at McCain? Again, not that McCain’s Mr. Right himself, but he’s made no more transgressions than Dubya and arguably has had less. But Bush pretends harder to be a consistent conservative than McCain does and appeases the sheep that way. Quite a shame the way the psychology works]. A little less worry about access to the Bushies and a little more pressure to do the right thing would have been better for the country, even if the individuals involved wouldn’t get invited to as many ice cream socials. The idea isn’t to be loved by the political elite, it’s to keep them honest. You people don’t need my admonition to hold McCain’s feet to the fire; it’s a tragic shame for our country that you chose not to apply the same standard to “The Decider.”

Mittens, don't go away mad, just go away

By Rick Morris

Today former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney suspended his campaign for the presidency, bowing out in deference to presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain. Although I have been very tough on Mr. Romney throughout his run for the Oval Office, today is a day for positive reflection on what he brought to this country during his efforts.

Well, maybe it's a day for some people to speak positively of Mittens. But, if I may quote the great Jim Halpert, "I'm not a perfect person."

Objectively Unfit Mitt defecated on every American principle you can find during a campaign waged with all the heart and positivity of C. Montgomery Burns. Were it not for the fact that I have an obligation to deliver some FDH programming tonight to our listeners and viewers, I'd be "Slurpin' a Fody" in rapturous celebration at the burst of horror so narrowly averted by our great republic.

To see this pathetic Stepford tool take the podium at CPAC today to deliver a whimpering, Uriah Heep performance babbling about how he loves his country and his party more than himself -- well, that was truly a scene that could bring a tear to a glass eye, couldn't it?

Let nobody be fooled; today marked the first chapter in his efforts to contest the 2012 Republican nomination, which he'll be officially targeting the day after he passive-aggressively finishes off his new "friend" John McCain in November. I fear it's working -- all of the gullible fools taken in by the Flip-Flopping Fraud are shedding their own tears today about what a shame it is that this would-be titan of American history was deprived of his chance to lead this land of ungrateful peons.

Well, let those of us who stood tall at this time of peril warn you jerks one more time: try to foist Wily Willard on us again, and we'll bitch-slap you again. This poser couldn't gain any votes down South once he was exposed as "Mr. $50 Abortion Co-Pay" and if you think the pushback on his attempted coup against the right wing was vicious this time? Ya ain't seen nothin' yet, because you alienated too many decent people to ever get a pass on anything ever again. Whether it be spreading malicious and untrue rumors about Fred Thompson planning to drop out of the race right after Iowa, or cancer-mongering Fred when he got into the race, or posturing like Mike Huckabee was a religious bigot, no low was too low for this crowd. It was really funny to watch the Shameless-As-A-Clinton hypocrisy, though -- whenever they'd do anything particularly vile, they'd smirk and trot out the "politics ain't beanbag" attitude -- but they'd squeal like stuck pigs whenever anyone fought back or used clever tactics, like McCain's abdication to the Huck in West Virginia on Tuesday.

Whether John McCain wins or loses in November, there is no room for the Mitt-Bot groupies to foist their Plastic Phony on us again like they came so close to doing this time. Whether it be Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Mark Sanford or some other bright principled leader, somebody will emerge and marginalize Romnoid because they will legitimately be the great conservative leader he has tried so hard to fool us into thinking he is. The real deal always beats a false replica, so if he couldn't beat a John McCain despised by many elements of the Republican Party? Say goodnight, Irene.

And now The Trust Fund Baby will finally stop spending his kids' inheritance, so they can do something with the gazillions of dollars that keep getting passed down in that creepy little clan. Here's hoping that whatever they do with it, that it doesn't end up as injurious to the U.S. of A. as what their old man had planned.

Super Tuesday Liveblogging Part IV

By Rick Morris

This will be my final post of the evening and I will be revising my previous assessment, at least on the Republican side. While I still think the race will go on for at least another few weeks, McCain comes out of tonight extending his already strong lead having just won California and Missouri. Also, at the time of my last post, I confess that I had not seen some of the internal numbers in the polling down South -- Romney, who was being propped up by so many right-wing "opinion leaders," ran in third place across wide swaths of Dixie. His enablers will cry anti-Mormon racism, I'll retort that those voters just know a slick Northern Yankee phony when they see one, but regardless, a candidate trying so hard to be Goldwater 2K8 cannot afford to be repudiated so soundly by such a significant part of the base. So my prediction in the last liveblog installment was wrong; McCain comes out of today much stronger, Romney is weaker and Huckabee is in better shape but still a distant third and almost completely a regional candidate. And the Mitt-Bot meme about McCain only winning states dominated by Northeastern fru-fru elites (I never understood how South Carolina and Florida fit into that narrative?) -- well, McCain wins Illinois and Missouri among other states. How do you like them apples, Chowds?

The Democratic picture is still quite muddled. Obama's going to come out of the night with more states won, but Hillary just won the Big Casino, California. That Clinton win proved a bit disquieting for Claire McCaskill ... at least from the looks of her creepy, wrinkled Oompa Loompa visage.

Late note from MSNBC: Team Mittens is having "frank discussions about the future" on Wednesday. Turn out the lights, Dandy Don, the party's over.

Super Tuesday Liveblogging-Waiting on California

by Jason Jones

Almost 2 hours since the last post, the results have changed more closely toward my favor. I want to address the delegate issue. Clearly, I do not agree with the delegate aspect at all. The House of Representatives members are determined by population per state. The American way is to have balance, that balance is found in the Senate; 2 across the board. In my simplistic way of thinking, whoever wins the most states wins, period. This happens in some fantasy sports. If one person dominates, we alter the rules to make it fair. The analogy is this, if Barack Obama wins 46 states and Hillary Clinton gets 4, there should be no way Clinton can win. Using hypothetical numbers for this exercise, if California, Texas, New York, and Florida are worth 1 more delegate than all of Obama’s 46 states, then something is wrong with the system. That just sound un-American. Luckily for me I don’t have to worry about delegates just yet.

I am still, like most of you, waiting for California. As it stands, including states that are close to being called…

John McCain-AZ, CT, DE, IL, NJ, NY, OK

Mittens Romney-CO, MA, MN, MT, ND, UT

Mike Huckabee-AL, AR, GA, WV

Barack Obama-AL, CO, CT, DE, GA, ID, IL, KS, MN, ND, UT

Hillary Clinton-AZ, AR, MA, NJ, NY, OK, TN

The math nerds at Fox News are reporting that even if McCain/Obama lose California, the number of delegates that would be divided would be enough to walk away from Super Tuesday with an overall lead for both McCain/Obama. Can you tell where my respective support lies? As I said before, this country cannot afford to allow Clinton/Romney to be the nominations. If you thought George W. Bush did a poor to a crappy job as President, Hillary or Mittens might make the country implode to a lack of F@#%ing existence.

Super Tuesday Liveblogging Part III

By Rick Morris

RealClearPolitics is still on top of the big picture.

Arizona went for McCain and by a bigger margin than was anticipated, so there goes the Mittens spin.

I spent about an hour on the phone tonight with our Senior Editor Jason Jones just chewing over what we're seeing so far. I have to say that, for what has been billed as the biggest primary/caucus day in American history in terms of delegates up for grabs on both sides, this day does not seem like it's going to change the race drastically on either side. That could be famous last words on my part, but if it is, it is, I'm not afraid to stick my neck out there. A very persuasive column surfaced today (referenced here) that suggests that the Democrats are on a trajectory to have their fight either last all the way to the convention or at a bare minimum, come down to a bloody, superdelegate-by-superdelegate struggle that casts aside all results decided at the polls. On the Republican side, as of now, McCain seems poised to come out of the day not losing any ground in terms of having a strong upper hand, but he's not going to put it away tonight.

CNN just called Georgia for Huck in an excruciating three-way between McCain and Willard. Dare I suggest that my brother and sister-in-law may have provided the margin of victory?

Missouri and Cali are too close to call still, but the polls on the West Coast have not been closed for very long.

Again, I could be wrong, but I think the anticipated impact of this day will prove to be at least slightly overrated on both sides -- and in a season of monstrous political surprises, having The Most Super Tuesday in the history of the nominating process amount to a fart in a thunderstorm relative to the momentous level of expected drama would have to be one of the biggest shocks.

Super Tuesday Liveblogging-Early Impressions

by Jason Jones

I must preface the following by saying, I have never watched Super Tuesday or any other final 2 nominees' coverage as I am now. With the 9pm est polls closing in 7 minutes, I am attempting to make some logical sense, not political sense, of what seems to be in thus far.

John McCain-Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey (still in Alabama, Georgia, Montana)

Mittens Romney-Massachusetts (still in Montana)

Mike Huckabee-West Virginia (still in Georgia)

Barack Obama-Georgia, Illinois (still in Alabama, Connecticut, Tennessee [the gap here has been narrowing])

Hillary Clinton-New York, Massachusetts, Oklahoma (still in Alabama, Connecticut, Missouri, New Jersey, Tennessee)

Democratic states too close to call at the moment: Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Missouri, New Jersey, and Arizona. At last check, I am pretty sure, unless the tide completely turns, that New Jersey will end up being a state for Clinton. Right now, the big hub-bub seems to be over New Jersey. It is a winner-take-all on delegates. Fox News is reporting that the Clinton camp believes it is all but locked up. Barack Obama was just declared the winner in Delaware with approximately 50%. Apparently, Obama is also winning and separating in Connecticut. Currently with 27% in, Obama is leading Clinton 51% to 47%. As far as Obama is concerned, Illinois and Delaware are not that much of a surprise. Georgia and potentially Connecticut would greatly surprise me.

The question that keeps coming up lately on the Republican side is, “who does Huckabee’s moderate success benefit?” Initially, most of these talking heads claimed it would support Mittens (which was the earliest disappointment for me). The move to almost punt West Virginia on McCain’s part in conjunction with other factors could swing in McCain’s favor by nights end.

Arkansas goes to Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee.

New Jersey does indeed go to Clinton.

As I sit watching this unfold, the key motivation remains the same.

1. McCain MUST SEPARATE from Mittens Romney.

2. Obama MUST REMAIN RELAVENT versus Hillary Clinton.

Clinton and Romney are bad for America. At this point, if the nominees are Barack Obama vs John McCain, I will feel as if America has dodged a bullet from the gun of inevitable demise. At that point I won’t even care who wins on the surface. Its more important that Clinton/Romney not be involved when this gets serious. We are on the cusp of a real moment. Like a promising young teenager poised to decide for or against drug use. On one hand, take the drugs and fall into a shell of itself (i.e. voting for Clinton/Romney) or on the other hand, just say no and ensure that said kid continues on a positive path (i.e. not voting for Clinton/Romney).

John McCain just won New York.

Romney crushing McCain in Arizona. ARIZONA! Guess he should’ve made more of a fuss on Illegal Immigration.

Super Tuesday Liveblogging Part I

By Rick Morris

First, let's get the initial predictions out of the way. Given the polling muddle in so many states, this assessment will be general on both sides as opposed to state-by-state.

For the Democrats, my sense is that Hillary Clinton comes in ahead of Barack Obama by a decent margin, but nothing overwhelming especially given the fact that delegates are awarded proportionally in so many places. I look for Hillary to win the majority of states tonight, however, which will provide a psychological boost to her campaign in the absence of a delegate landslide.

On the Republican side, I look for a solid John McCain win and an excellent tally of delegates given the winner-take-all victories he will earn tonight. I think McCain hangs on narrowly in California, but Mike Huckabee stays alive in the South and Mitt Romney takes a handful of states to stay alive.

Huck has already won the West Virginia caucuses with help from the McCain voters today, causing the Romney people to predictably cry. Obama won Georgia also.

Florida primary predictions

By Rick Morris

For the donkeys, in a yawner, Hillary will top 50% in what would have to be called the dubiously-named beauty pageant. That designation comes from political pundits looking for some way to offer some context to a glorified straw poll, since the Democratic National Committee yanked all the delegates away from the Sunshine State for moving its primary up without authorization. This victory will not, and should not, be taken as any time of substantive refutation for the mighty hiney-whooping she took in South Carolina over the weekend, but the shameless Clintonian spin machine will try to push that garbage anyway.

On the Republican side, the toughest prediction of any of the contests to date looms. John McCain and Mittens are running neck-in-neck continuously in the polls. Based on the very little I can discern from the polls in recent days, I give the slightest of edges to McCain based on apparent momentum coming from the endorsement of Governor Charlie Crist and the fact that he is trending better on Intrade at the moment. "America's Mayor Rudy" will be a distant third, a prelude to his coming withdrawal from the race, and The Huck's slide will culminate in a fourth-place plummet.

South Carolina/Nevada results preview

By Rick Morris

In a result that barely merits mention, the Romney campaign will rack up a sizable win by default in Nevada because the attention of all other campaigns will be diverted elsewhere – shades of Wyoming. Look for a Mittens victory dance anyway. McCain, Huckabee, Thompson and Giuliani will follow in that order.

Over in South Carolina, where everyone’s focus has been for most of the week, McCain will avenge his devastating loss to Dubya in 2000 by besting Huckabee by about four percentage points. Thompson will be a distant third, followed narrowly by Romney. The toughest dynamic for me to compute in either Nevada or South Carolina was the battle for third place in the Palmetto State. Romney is basically conceding that he will finish fourth, which, given the massive intellectual dishonesty of his campaign, naturally makes me wonder if he secretly has sound reason to believe he will finish ahead of Thompson and is anticipating another of his patented cheesy “I beat the expectations” moments. But the fact that he is tanking in the latest major poll released makes me believe that his fade is for real. Unfortunately for America, this finish could still be quite damaging if not a mortal blow to the best candidate in the race, Fred Dalton Thompson.

The Nevada Democrats appear poised to throw another curveball into what has already been a chaotic election process this year. Hillary is leading Obama in most of the major polls, and appears able to survive the endorsement momentum the Illinois senator received from major Nevada unions. Look for Clinton to win by about four points, with Edwards a noisy irrelevancy back in the high teens.

Michigan primary predictions

By Rick Morris

Mitt Romney, having provided a nauseating microcosm of his larger campaign by pandering and telling Michigan voters exactly what they want to hear about how he will be able to restore their economic greatness by executive fiat, should be able to buy his first real win (no, we're not including you, Wyoming, nobody cares) with his inherited wealth (just what this country hasn't had enough of over the decades, huh, a president from the "Lucky Sperm Club") during this election cycle. I'll go out on a limb and predict he'll finish ahead of John McCain by as many as four points. Mike Huckabee will trail Romney by at least a dozen points.

Thus far, my predictions about the winners have been two for four. I was right about Obama, wrong about Romney (yay!) in Iowa, and right about McCain, wrong about Obama in New Hampshire (but so was the rest of the world, so give me a break on that!).

Keep one fact in mind if my prediction is right and Romney does eke this one out: when Hugh Hewitt and the rest of the "Mittens is Our Messiah" crew of sellouts in the Republican party and conservative movement crow about how McCain can't win even when independents can come in and vote for him and that Romney is the choice of true Republicans: the ONLY organized attempt to corral votes outside the Republican party for any candidate was organized on behalf of Willard Mitt Romney himself by the jerks over at Daily Kos. If I were a betting man, I'd wager heavily on Hughey leaving that tidbit out of his victory lap (speaking of which, how fast can you run when you're wearing kneepads, anyway?).

And for anyone needing one more recommendation on what a vile fraud the Romney candidacy really is, I'm happy to point you to this excellent roundup at Bizzyblog. Just the mere fact that I'm directing traffic to the Biz points out what strange bedfellows politics can make -- I don't like him, because he repeatedly slimed my good friend and our FDH Lounge Dignitary Nate Noy on behalf of Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, for whom the Biz is in the tank. But Nate is actually the person who has done the most to educate me on the dangers of Mittens and his band of Kool-Aid drinkers, so I'm sure he'd approve of me directing readers to the anti-Romney roundup on that site. I guess the FDH credo is that the enemy of our enemy is a slightly lesser enemy!

I Really Hope These Focus Groups Are Not Representative of the Rest of Us

By Jason Jones

Shortly after wrapping up the Fantasy Draft Help Insider show, I decided to jump over to Fox News and see what the reactions to tonight’s debate were. It is not my place to tell you or anyone else what’s going to happen or what should happen, however I had to chime in on the responses and point out how stupid America is being. The following is a word for word account of Questions and Answers from a focus group care of Fox News/Hannity and Colmes. My comments in red.

Q: A word or phrase that stood out to you regarding Fred Thompson’s performance?

A1: Nice awakening, but too little too late.

I don’t want to hear “too late.”

A2: The “Big Bear” in Fred Thompson awoke.

He was always here, you just weren’t listening.

A3: Entertaining but not convincing (that woman is really STUPID).

Again, not listening…you’ve already decided and are a drain on the process.

A4: Very prepared and it showed.

He’s been very prepared since the day he got in.

A5: His charisma finally surfaced.

Again, since Day One. Where have you been?

A6: Showed his intelligence, he was organized and prepared.

…Day one…

A7: Sarcastic and curt with no substance.

You are probably one of the Jackasses who has been waiting for a sound bite.

A8: Surprising, a little too late.

You’re an idiot, there’s not one thing surprising about anything he said.

A9: Began to contrast himself.

The answers are the same, he just had to turn up the volume for those of you that ride the short bus.

A10: Believed he was very strong and passionate, he was ready to go.

Since when does “sounds passionate” mean squat? Is he the right man for the job?

A11: Very dynamic and great, but late.

What’s with this late crap? We haven’t even gotten to the S.Carolina primary yet?

A12: Very strong on conservative issues, very strong on immigration.

Again, no change. He’s been here since the beginning.

A13: Presidential and very convincing.

Now there’s one I cannot disagree with.

Don’t tell me he’s too late. That is complete bull@#$%. Sure every candidate and the voters who vote for him/her would love to start fast and end fast. In politics, it's rare like in NFL football that one is the ’72 Dolphins. Remember when McCain was getting his ass kicked routinely in the fall? How about when Mitt Romney was afraid to really mix it up, then he began the attack on Hillary? Where was Huckabee 2 months ago? I also think I remember everyone thinking for a large chunk of time leading up to now that this was a 2-pony race between Romney and Guiliani. Where’s Guiliani now? Holding every one else’s jock strap. And Ron Paul. For about 3 and a half weeks, people believed that Ron Paul was for real. No one is now where they started at the beginning. No one. That is clearly a cop-out for those who have put up a mental block on Fred Thompson. Those people who said, shades of Doc Brown in Back to the Future, …The actor!?!?! Get over yourselves. If you just open your minds to what’s really going on, you’ll see that tonight proves that Fred Thompson deserves to be in this race just as much as anyone else. Seriously, if you quit waiting for soundbites and personal attacks you’d see that Thompson should have South Carolina and Iowa (but people got caught up in the flavor of the week with Huckabee). Don’t believe me, ask George Foreman if Muhammed Ali got serious and passionate too late in the Rumble in the Jungle.

Q: How many of you switched your vote to Fred Thompson (show of hands-less than ½)?

Q: I want to know specifically, why?

A1: He’s shown us a turnaround. He has shown us his voice. He has shown us a seriousness on a lot of the issues that were wavering.

First off, I don’t want to scare anyone who’s now jumping on the bandwagon. He’s always been here. His voice hasn’t changed. He is the Tom Landry of this race. He should not be discredited because he is stoic and steadfast on everything, he should be rewarded for it. Since when has he wavered on anything? He just had to speak loud enough so that the Springer-Minded People could hear what he was saying. I really don’t think a man should have to call out another and get personal before you start listening.

A2: I believe he was sincere and showed real wisdom and candor.

That’s what he is. Sincere, no nonsense, stoic, educated, and everything we should be looking for in a candidate.

A3: I finally found out where he really stands.

THAT’S BECAUSE YOU WEREN’T LISTENING BEFORE, YOU IDIOT!!!

Q: So what was it? Why do you think he waited this long? You complained he was too late, what was going on?

A1: He chose the perfect state to do this in, South Carolina is very conservative and they are looking for a very conservative candidate; I think he played to it.

Need I say “Rope-A-Dope?”

A2: South Carolina is the Dickville Notch of the country. (apparently I haven’t followed enough politics to get that inside joke).

…Yeah, I got nothing.

A3: (the stupid woman) I simply think he had a good day, and it actually concerns me that he has not been this consistent throughout the campaign. (You know what concerns me? Why you deliver your stupid comments with that lame-ass Jodie Foster “I need to spit it out” manner of speaking).

The only thing he has not been consistent on is the stuff that doesn’t matter. Since you’re not listening, you don’t see that. The only thing that has changed is the volume and inflection of his voice, him singling out particular candidates to tear apart, and providing some soundbites so that you could remember tomorrow what happened tonight. This is why people should have to pass an aptitude and political current events test in order to vote. (that’s a little harsh, but am I the only one listening to the answers?). Short of saying, I don’t care if the candidate looks like a he’s high on Quaaludes, if he has the right answers, Volume and Passion should have no relevance. Some of these people are acting like, Fred thought he’d take up a hobby for a couple of months. Like some colorblind kid trying his hand a putting together a puzzle. C’mon America, you can’t be this ignorant.

A4: I mean, he made it clear when he brought everyone from his campaign down here to South Carolina, this was his last stand. He’s got to make it or break it.

A5: He came to South Carolina. It’s a strong state for him, he was confident, it showed, he looked presidential. I think he’s a tough opponent.

A6: Nice candor and wit but I don’t think he has the dynamism to be the long-term leader of this country. (you’re ignorant and clearly haven’t been paying attention).

DYNAMISM????? Wow, you shouldn’t talk…As is in having a dynamic characteristic, within the context of this race…He has exactly the DYNAMISM that we are all looking for.

A7: Fred Thompson is smarter than anyone thinks, earlier in the beginning of this whole talk said, “no one who’s ever become president has lost South Carolina." He came to South Carolina, because that’s where the winner’s gonna be found.

Even the stoner in the back gets it. How come the woman and the uninformed men in this focus group cannot see their head for their ass. I’m not generalized with gender, it's just an observation from this particular focus group.

A8: (some elderly woman making some comment on sacrificing his Hollywood career to become president. Blah blah blah)

Anyone who brings up the “sacrifice Hollywood for the Oval Office” angle clearly just showed up for the free coffee and donuts.

A9: That’s funny, I never thought he was passionate at all. It seems to me, that up until tonight, when he was forceful, he was only in it because other people forced him in to it.

WHAT THE F@#% DOES PASSION HAVE TO DO WITH IT?My chiropractor is not passionate about his job, but I know there is no one else I'd rather have doing the job. And forced him into it? You couldn’t force me to spend $1 on anything if I didn’t want to do it. You really think Fred Thompson is going to waste time and money on this because someone else told him to do it, while he opposed running? You, ma’am, are dumb as paint.

A10: I agree, I don’t think he had enough passion, he came off tonight wonderfully, I think he was very aggressive, but he is just too little too late. We also have to think of who’s electable. Who is going to put up a fight against the Democrats?

Listen stupid, as unbiased as I can be, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Guiliani are all electable. The only one who isn’t is Ron Paul. On top of that, I think that Thompson, McCain, and Huckabee could defeat Hillary without over extending themselves too much. Same could be said for Obama, unless minorities and the youth vote come out in ridiculous numbers.

Q: Does electability matter?

A: (in unison) YES!

Q: More of you think the Democratic candidate will be Barack Obama, so should be the republican candidate?

A: (jumbled mess of all the candidates)

Q: (Colmes) I am fascinated by what is going on there, specifically with Fred Thompson, and his showing here, but for those that thought he won the debate, but then would be reluctant to vote for him. Why if you thought he was so strong would you be reluctant to vote for him?

A1: Let’s start here in South Carolina.

Q: (interjected followup) Why?

A1: Let’s show the rest of the country that we are not afraid to elect the best candidate.

This may be the best sentence uttered all night. Forget the frills. Forget the sound bites and the inflection in each candidate’s voice. Can we just listen to the questions, then listen to the answers and formulate a solid opinion on what was said and not how it was said. I could say, “the chicken ate poopie-cahcah for brunch with the Anderson’s” and if I said with a passionate inflection and directed it at someone, America would think I really had something to say. The point would remain, IT DOESN’T MATTER HOW ITS SAID, ONLY WHAT IS SAID.

A2: I don’t think that any of the previous campaign’s (primaries/caucuses) matter. We are an independent state and we’ve shown that before.

Then secede from the nation, hillbilly boy.

Q: You said too little too late, I want to know why?

A1: Too little experience, he’s just been in the government in the legislature.

Go off yourself. Or at least Google him. Lack of experience my tookus. Lack of experience, we have a governor and a mayor running. A first lady who’s only been a senator for a short while, and what seems to be a freshman who’s only held his office for 2 years. I should slap you in the face with your own experience comment.

A2: (stupid Jodie Foster woman again) He’s an entertaining man, by all means. The consistency has not been there and that makes me nervous. I don’t know that he will handle things consistently in a forthright manner.

The consistency has been there, you are too naïve and dumb to see. Its like people have a Jerry Springer filter on. If it isn’t loud, personal, or abusive, then it's not worth listening to.

A3: I want the candidate to start strong and end strong, and he hasn’t had a strong start.

When was the last time the person who was elected President held the pole position throughout the duration of the entire process, beginning to end? It’s a lot like a basketball game. One team can win convincingly or even dominate, but it is foolish to think the other team didn’t at least go on a run from time to time. Look, I hope Fred Thompson is the San Antonio Spurs of this process. No flash, no glamour, but when the dust clears, whether you like him or not, you will recognize that he is the most complete well-rounded candidate from top to bottom and in 360 degrees. Even if his performance doesn’t come with the high-flying sparkle you’d wished it had.

A4: And I also think that with all of these situations around the world we need someone who is used to thinking about it before just jumping in and reacting to it. (you should not procreate, it might bring down the national average).

Q5: (by a show of hands) Was it right to include Ron Paul in this debate?

A: (5 to 1 in unison) YES

NNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ron Paul should go away. At least go as a tertiary party member. Ron Paul is not a Republican. It may be too harsh to call him a Democrat. When your answer to Iran is to not do anything for fear of starting World War III over a miscommunication, then I’m done. I have written you off. That’s exactly what Bob Dole would have said when the planes crashed into the trade center buildings. Let’s not get too hasty, it could have been a misunderstanding. The leader of the free world should not be the guy at standing in the corner quivering out of fear.

SOUNDBITES:

Fred Thompson-Mike Huckabee would be a Christian leader. But he would also bring about liberal economic policies, liberal foreign policies. He believes we have an arrogant foreign policy, and in the tradition of “Blame America First." He believes that Guantanamo should be shut down and those enemy combatants should be brought here.

Mike Huckabee-The Air Force has a saying, “If you’re not catching flack, then your not over the target," well I’m catching the flack so I must be over the target. Fred, I appreciate the analysis of my record.

Mike Huckabee-If you think you are going to engage the United States military, be prepared not simply to have a battle, be prepared first to put your sites on the American vessel…and then be prepared for the next thing you see will be the gates of HELL, for that is exactly what you will see.

Fred Thompson-You know how you can tell the news is good coming out of Iraq? Because you read so little of it in the New York Times.

Fred Thompson-You cannot take the judgment out of the hands of the forces on the ground, I think one more step and they would have been introduced to those virgins they are looking forward to seeing…Iran was clearly testing us, they took British hostages under similar circumstances. They are testing our resolve, they know they are dealing with a nation that will not put up with that sort of thing.

Let’s talk about the word change. Change to me is just a buzz word. Change is the transitional word that becomes a catalyst for a candidate to say “hey, look at me over here, if you don’t like the current situation, vote for me because I will change things." Change is just a word. This is an election process. Despite popular, and yet naïve, belief, you will never see change. You won’t see it because this is AN ELECTION PROCESS. All we have to go on is words. If you are a more stringent follower of political news and events maybe you can rely on voting record. It's an election, you will not see change, see change proven, feel change, visualize change. And the reason is, words are pretty much all we have to go on. Once we’ve listened to all of the words and we as a nation have made our decision, then maybe you will see some change. That’s how our political system works. Obama or McCain, Clinton or Huckabee cannot SHOW us change, and here’s the kicker, so pay attention.

THEY ARE NOT THE PRESIDENT YET!!!STUPID.

Here is another comment from the dumb Jodie Foster woman:

“I don’t even pay attention to the word change. Because I can sit here all the live long day, guess what? If you elect me I am going to change Global Warming. It won’t happen anymore. PROVE IT. No one does”.

I wish I could have 2 minutes with this woman. Have her feeling like an infant who just slammed its head into the corner of a coffee table…Lost and confused in a pool of her own disillusioned tears. I wonder if she would feel better if the candidates would close their responses with “Q.E.D.” This is not a mathematical equation or the proof of a scientific theory. These are candidates trying to say what they need to within there own belief structure (unless we’re talking about Mittens, he says whatever he has to regardless of the integrity of his true beliefs. No one should take anything he says seriously.) to convince you WITH THEIR WORDS that they are the right candidate for the job.

Some other major thoughts on tonight’s debate.

-Fred Thompson finally showed up.

-Mitt Romney was somewhere between unimpressive and detrimental to himself.

-McCain, Huckabee did not hurt themselves and held their own.

-Ron Paul officially has no shot to win.

-If these results translate to S. Carolina primary, we could be at square 1.

Keep in mind, Ron Paul not only looked like a senile old fish out of water, but also registered the worst singular response to a question since the campaigns began for 2008. Ron Paul is as I said he was, he is a Democrat in Republican clothing trying to hide his true tendencies. In a time when Republican voters want their candidate to stop apologizing for being conservative and take back the party to the ideals that drew each individual to that side, you have Ron Paul. Party affiliation aside, issues aside, personality and appearance aside, Ron Paul is the Ross Perot of this election process except Ron Paul doesn’t have the money to buy his way into the nomination of this party just so he can stick his head into the camera and say, “Look I matter," because Ron, you don’t.

With all that was said about the debate. All of the opinions uttered both by experts and random voters, here are the results of the Hannity and Colmes Text Message Poll…

Tonight Winner? (of the debate)

1 Ron Paul 32%

2 Fred Thompson 22%

3 Mike Huckabee 18%

4 Mitt Romney 13%

5 John McCain 6%

6 Rudy Guiliani 5%

This proves either, Ron Paul supporters are hackers and rigged the poll or America really doesn’t know what a win looks like. I’ll give you a hint, in football when a group of teammates dump the Gatorade on the coach, that’s not a consolation prize for the loser.

Don't weep for Hillary

By Rick Morris

Less than a week after Barack Obama stunned the world by drilling Hillary Clinton in Iowa and seizing the mantle of front-runner, the Clintons shockingly exceeded their 1992 moment of triumph in New Hampshire (keep in mind Bubba didn't actually win the state that year). Her late surge, forecast by none of the polls (and not by me as I picked her to lose by double digits) was truly amazing, and indicates that these two titans of the Democratic Party should be dueling later than any of us would have thought possible. Forty years after the legendary 1968 political season, we may yet be moving into a year with just as many earthquakes and shocks to the system.

And this isn't even taking into account the action on the Republican side. John McCain bested the expectations of many observers, including myself, by "beating the spread" against Mitt Romney. The expected late surge for Romney did not materialize. Never fear, however, as Romney Minister of Propaganda Hugh Hewitt attempts to enlighten all of us dummies who think that a winner has to actually win a contested election at some point. The message? Mittens will keep trying to purchase the nomination with his huge inheritance and the aid and comfort of the GOP and "Conservative Movement" elites. On to Michigan, where McCain and Huck can hopefully bury the Plastic Panderer for good.

As for my boy Fred Thompson, it's getting late pretty early, as Yogi Berra might say. Here's hoping he can edge ahead of Huck for a needed win in South Carolina so that the media can get off his back.

Romney loses, so America wins!

By Rick Morris

It's a sad night for Mittens and his spinmeister-in-chief Hugh Hewitt, but their Establishment Hollow Man bit the dust in overwhelming fashion. Mike Huckabee beat the spread in terms of expectations by a wide, wide margin and notwithstanding Hewitt's hilarious rationalizing, the nomenklatura of the Republican Party and the hierarchy of the right-wing blogosphere had their attempts at mind control shoved right back into their bloated, plutocratic faces tonight in the Hawkeye State.

Again, Huck is not my first choice and maybe not even my second, but Romney cannot be allowed to steal this nomination in the smoke-filled back rooms of the GOP fixers and tonight's outcome makes his campaign's attempts to do so more unlikely. The "Al Davis Republicans" that Hewitt speaks of, those who want somebody who can "Just win, baby!" -- they've got to be
wondering about their boy the Plastic Panderer when he gets smoked by a country preacher from Arkansas with no money who made a ton of rookie mistakes down the stretch. The Android is not dead, however, and it will be up to John McCain to finish the job in New Hampshire by putting a wooden stake through his heart and sending him back to his gay-marriage haven in a pine box (figuratively -- I don't need a visit from the Secret Service!).

As for my candidate, Fred Thompson, at this writing it looks as though he has managed the third-place finish he needed. In a diffuse race that looks like it could be dominated at different points by different candidates, he can stay viable if he can replenish his coffers. In the event that Romney goes down for good, maybe enough influential sellout conservatives will take the chance to redeem themselves by getting behind the only Republican in this race worth any excitement.

Congratulations to Huck for proving me wrong and winning this race tonight. His ability to reach out to average working people is rare for a Republican, especially for one who is not liberal (and he is not). Other Republicans can learn from him.

On the Democratic side, congratulations to Barack Obama. I don't agree with him politically on almost any issue, but I appreciate the hope and optimism he portrays and the fact that he does not run as a racially divisive candidate as Jesse/Sharpton did. I do think he's a good guy, which I would rarely say about a national Democratic figure, and I would not vote for him, but his approach to politics is good for the country. I thought Hillary would finish just ahead of Edwards, and apparently I was wrong, so she's in big trouble. She needs to win New Hampshire to keep the snowball from running further downhill, although she will stay in this race very late regardless.

Iowa caucus predictions

By Rick Morris

Proving that any bitter, impassioned rants that I may make have no bearing on my capacity for rational judgment, I am agreeing with Bob Novak's assessment that Mitt Romney will pander his way to first place in the Iowa caucuses. I am predicting a narrow win based on the fact that he has built a conventional machine there (perfectly appropriate, given his politics-as-usual theme for the campaign) as opposed to Huck's strategy of assembling many evangelicals who are not political regulars. Huck should finish about 2% back of Romney, with the battle for third place as a virtual dead heat. Months of battering from Hugh Hewitt and his fellow-traveling sellouts in the Conservative Establishment will also end up mattering, as will Rush Limbaugh's last-minute kidney punch for good measure. Who saw El Rushbo's cheap pile-on coming a mile away? Oh, that's right, it was me!

Ultimately, I believe that my candidate Fred Thompson does have enough support from influential conservatives on the ground to eke out a narrow third-place finish. I had thought that Ron Paul would be in the top three or four, but with John McCain supposedly surging, I think he'll nip out Paul just barely for fourth. With all three of these candidates likely to finish in the low teens, however, there won't be much room for any of them to brag.

On the Democratic side, I agree again with Novak, albeit to a limited extent. I think Barack Hussein Obama will complete a victory that the polls are suggesting right now, but will nonetheless shock the world. I do think Hillary Clinton will finish a close second, and that's where I disagree with Novak. I understand his rationale that John Edwards will benefit from being the second pick of far more people whose candidates don't make the 15% cutoff to proceed, but I think the Clinton machine will carry her just a hair past Edwards for second.

My early guess for New Hampshire is that if these results come in as predicted, Mittens is in very good shape. Independents who might have crossed over to vote for McCain if Obama were severely damaged in Iowa might not do so under these circumstances. If this occurs, the stampede towards the nomination that Hewitt and his cohorts have long been trying to engineer under the guise of "sober analysis" could be well underway.

A New Year’s Plea: Fred!

By Rick Morris

As managing partner of the FDH family, I want to wish all of the readers, viewers and listeners of our content a very Happy New Year.

Now, speaking only for myself …

Our 22^nd edition of The FDH Lounge program this past Sunday night featured our first fantasy presidential election draft and a tremendous political roundtable afterwards. During the course of that discussion, I ended up butting heads with my fellow Dignitaries Burrell Jackson and Chris Galloway. Burrell is explicitly for Mitt Romney on the Republican side in the upcoming presidential race and Chris, while agreeing with me that Fred Thompson is the best candidate, does not oppose Mittens with nearly the same intensity I do (to put it mildly!). The segment was a truly outstanding piece of broadcast entertainment, as three passionate followers of the political game let loose as only we can. As Burrell and Chris correctly noted, my usual insane level of intensity was even more pronounced than usual as I begged and pleaded for what seems like the inevitable to be stopped – the Republican nomination of Mitt Romney.

Chris did not agree with my use of the word “conspiracy” to describe what is happening right now, and we could perhaps quibble on the exact application of the word vis-à-vis this process, but it is indisputable that the Grand Poobahs of the Republican party and the conservative movement are closing ranks behind Romney at light speed. I have already written here on how these self-appointed arbiters of what’s best for America, including a who’s who of the right-wing blogsphere, are having it both ways by ignoring Romney’s past aversion to conservatism while trying to read Mike Huckabee and John McCain out of the conservative movement. Huck and McCain have their share of deviations, to be sure, but it’s the height of hypocrisy to denounce them while praising Romney as a “full-spectrum conservative.”

I believe strongly that Romney cannot be trusted given the fact that he ran on one set of beliefs to get elected governor of a radical left state and a contrary set of ideas when trying to get elected nationally. I believe strongly that Romney, given his plastic, calculated, say-anything, politics-as-usual persona, will have absolutely no appeal to independent and Democratic voters in the fall – and that his cold corporate persona reinforces every preconceived notion about the Republican party not caring about the little guy and is particularly unsuited to draw votes in these uncertain economic times. I believe strongly that Romney is outside the Judeo-Christian tradition that has governed our country since its inception (and I urge those who disagree with me about this to at least research Romney’s religion first rather than spitting out tired clichés about religious bigotry). And I believe strongly that Romney has served as a magnet for every phony conservative leader who can’t sell out his or her beliefs fast enough.

It didn’t have to be this way. Earlier this year, Fred Thompson served as a beacon of hope for not only Republican voters, but also open-minded independents and Democrats who related to his plain-spoken common-sense approach. He chose the unconventional approach of trying to enter the race as an official candidate in the autumn months while serving as an unofficial “non-candidate” earlier. We can perhaps quibble on whether he should have thrown his hat in earlier or put in more appearances in the early states or any other “inside baseball” notion that wouldn’t have any resonance at all with the American people if the professional pundit class wouldn’t beat it into the ground. But what is clear as day is the notion that I angrily spit out to Chris Sunday night when he alluded to some of these notions working against Fred: if he loses this race, in large part it won’t be because of the self-inflicted wounds everyone speaks of incessantly. No, if he loses, it won’t be suicide on the part of his campaign. It will be premeditated murder on the part of the self-serving parasites in the Republican party and conservative movement who could have heeded his call to join a purifying movement to save our country but chose instead to sell their souls to Romney’s well-heeled greasy machine.

So yes, I agree that I was coming across with scary intensity Sunday night. Guilty as charged, because I’ve seen this routine before. The Republican party as a rule casts aside its best and most qualified candidate in favor of the person they cynically perceive as a winner for whatever reason. The insiders gathered in the smoke-filled rooms of D.C. in a panic in ’96 when their pet Bob Dole got smoked by the people’s populist Pat Buchanan in New Hampshire. Every piece of filthy politics imaginable got thrown Pat’s way over the next few weeks as the party succeeded in its foul desire to foist Bob Dole’s wrinkled bones on the American people in November. How’d that work out? In 2000, the process repeated itself as the GOP string-pullers decided early on that George W. Bush should be anointed as the prince. Pliable puppets like Rush Limbaugh slimed Buchanan on a daily basis and kidney-punched John McCain relentlessly when he emerged as Bush’s main competition. Is there any sane observer of the political process who is still willing to say that George W. Bush was the best possible candidate for president on the Republican side in 2000? Leaving aside Ronald Reagan, who I believe to be the best president of my lifetime (faint praise when you examine the weasels he’s measured against) and also the best since Lincoln, when has the GOP actually rallied behind a strong and attractive-on-policy candidate?

Again, I am not for McCain or Huckabee, I am strongly for Fred Thompson. But I do not brush off lightly the one-sided treatment these candidates have received from the GOP and right-wing nomenklatura. In this zero-sum game that we find ourselves in just prior to the Iowa caucuses, an attack on McCain or Huck for being unauthentic while ignoring every objectionable aspect of the Romney campaign is a blatant in-kind contribution to Team Mittens. Likewise, the simple-minded dismissals of Fred as a non-starter are dishonest because they serve the exclusive purpose of pushing Romney towards ultimate inevitability.

Burrell warned me that if enough people agree with me that Hillary Clinton will end up getting elected president. I repeat here what I said to him: it won’t be on our heads, it will be on the heads of those who crammed Romney down the throats of the American people as one of two nominees for president. The notion that absolutely any squalid excuse for a candidacy can be foisted on us with the bogeyman of Hillary Clinton being utilized to expect us to behave as robots will apparently have to be squashed the hard way when the Mittbots end up ensuring the third Clinton term.

Despite my pessimistic tone above, I must mention and reiterate that it is not too late for this country to come to its senses. Fred posted an unbelievable video summation of the rationale for his candidacy and for what he will do for this country if elected. Chris and I joked about how I as a paleocon see the glass half empty. But I do believe these are dire and urgent times for our country. The Republican party, for all of my many and profound differences with it, remains the institution closer to my belief set by far, and it needs redemption after the many problems with adherence to conservative principles and competent execution of policies these past seven years. As was the case in 2006, the political winds are blowing strongly to the Democrats and we face the very real possibility in 2009 of a President Hillary Clinton working with an enlarged Democratic majority in the House under Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid having a filibuster-proof 60 votes in his back pocket on any issue. Our country cannot be saved by cynical attempts to rally around a politician perceived to be slick enough to be a winner. We can only salvage our future by getting behind an honest man who doesn’t pander and tell us what we want to hear – a man with experience who commands confidence by communicating strongly to us a principled vision for the future. That man is Fred Thompson, and in lieu of a general wish of Happy New Year for this country, on this day I wish for our country to prove itself worthy of many happy years to come by getting behind Fred while we still can.

Mitt's big speech (yawn!)

By Rick Morris

The biggest political topics of the week have been the surge of Huck in Iowa and the Mitt Romney speech about religion in Texas. The two are, of course, joined at the hip, as the desperation of a sliding Romney campaign and fears from within the campaign that he is being maligned by bigots led to his decision to confront the "Mormon issue."

I have made my views on the subject perfectly clear on The FDH Lounge program previously. I think that religion is a perfectly valid subject on which to judge a candidate, as it frames the person's worldview in a way that nothing else does. I said on our most recent program that I want a candidate that comes from within the traditional Judeo-Christian framework that we have always had for the presidency, and in my estimation Romney does not. When questioned by my friend and colleague Burrell Jackson about the likes of a Joe Lieberman, I replied that I did of course see him as being within that tradition and I would not hesitate to vote for a Jewish individual for president -- just not him, as I don't agree with him on many policy issues. Is it too late to get a "Draft Dennis Prager" movement going? Eh, maybe for 2012.

I would not vote against Romney with the same relish that I would a satanist, atheist or agnostic, as I would reject those pathetically-oriented people with relish. I feel that the Mormon faith is misguided in several ways, but I believe most adherents of the religion to be good people trying their best to do what is right. But I do have many legitimate questions about the Mormon religion, some from relatively close range. The father of one of my closest friends was recently recruited by the church and I became aware of some disturbing policies and tendencies from the Mormon institution. Previously, I had known little about it and tended to regard its differences from traditional Christianity as quaint and unimportant. No more. I invite those who loosely throw around charges of religious bigotry to investigate this religion fully before they malign others.

And that is the very point of this issue. While there are certainly bigots in the world who discriminate on the basis of race or religion while knowing nothing (such as the Klansmen of the early 20th century who attacked my fellow Roman Catholics for reasons of complete ignorance), there are also a great many people who will use religion as a basis for forming legitimate opinions about one's fitness for office. While the likes of Hugh Hewitt will cross even further into the realm of self-parody than even I thought possible with hysterically orgasmic Romney praise about the speech, it cannot be judged as anything more than a mild success at the most under the circumstances. Hewitt's point about conservative opinion leaders saying nice things about Romney is an important one, as was his point about the admittedly dignified and eloquent nature of the effort, but it fails to take into account the fact that Romney's Mormonism is a non-negotiable issue for many of us.

Combined with his rampant flip-flopping on social issues, Romney is a tough, tough sell for the vast majority of the GOP electorate, to say nothing of the general election voters. And the very elitism of Hewitt's argument about how the Powers That Be like he, Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson and others are putting the seal of acceptance on Romney's backside misses the point in a completely hilarious way. There are a great many voters who feel as I do that the Conservative Establishment, as well as the Republican Establishment, is corrupt and not to be trusted given the policies they have either ignored or condoned over the last seven years. If the top-down model of royally anointing a candidate worked this time, like it usually has with disastrous results for the Republicans (think about it, really: aside from Reagan in '80, when has the GOP front-runner actually been the best candidate?), then Mike Huckabee wouldn't be turning the entire process upside-down at the moment. While I certainly have my problems with Huckabee on many issues, at least if he wins the nomination we can be freed from the oppressive grasp of the conservative "leaders" who have lost their way. What the United States needs most is for the conservative movement to purify and simplify, to get back to the roots of the Sharon Statement, and to cast off the leeches and Beltway sellouts who have led it down a primrose path.

Huckabee, McCain and GOP double standards

By Rick Morris

The continuing assaults on Mike Huckabee and John McCain as less-than-authentic conservatives in the Republican race for president are indicative of a general stupidity that has long affected the right side of the political spectrum when it comes to selecting this nation's chief executive.

As listeners to The FDH Lounge program are aware, I am not endorsing either candidate, instead preferring Senator Fred Thompson. But the hypocritical piling-on that so-called conservative entities such as the Club For Growth are engaging in at the expense of Huck and McCain illuminates a much, much bigger problem for Republicans. The clear and simple truth is that either man would easily make a better president than the two empty suits that the party establishment seems determined to cram down everyone's throats, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.

True, Huckabee supported tax hikes as governor of Arkansas and has an economic record that would not work well if he attempted to replicate it on the national stage. He has, however, supported a flat tax plan that would mandate a fiscally conservative path as president. Fears that he would bring the "Razorback Style" to D.C. are completely unfounded and disingenuous, since Republicans of all stripes learned the lesson of the first President Bush that tax hikes are a one-way route to defeat for re-election. Even the second President Bush, with his countless deviations from conservative governance, wasn't dumb enough to chase a tax hike and neither would Huckabee.

And McCain does have a boatload of annoyances to his dubious credit as well, from the blatantly unconstitutional McCain-Feingold monstrosity to the "Gang of 14" judicial deal of 2005, but he's also the biggest foe of pork-barrel politics ever to run for president. While he opposed the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, his overall economic record has been exceptionally conservative.

Both Huckabee and McCain have been unwavering in their support of the unborn and both have supported marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. Frankly, however, we have seen just how little social conservatism matters to the insiders and vile interests who control the Republican party.

On social issues, Rudy Giuliani is the most liberal major candidate for president in the Republican party since Nelson Rockefeller. Mitt Romney now claims to be conservative on each of these issues, but was a proud and unapologetic liberal on all of them when he was governor of Massachusetts. As I have noted with my FDH partner Jason Jones, he is fairly libertarian on social issues and I am not -- but neither one of us trusts Romney because he sounded like Jason when it was convenient in the Bay State and now he sounds like me when it is convenient on the national scene. Additionally, while this is an unpopular point to make in this sensitive day and age, Romney represents what would be the largest break ever with our nation's rule by individuals under the traditional Judeo-Christian banner.

And yet, sellout "conservative leaders" are trampling each other for the disgraceful opportunities to climb aboard the Giuliani and Romney bandwagons and lyingly bash Huckabee and McCain as less conservative. In many cases, this can be tied back to the old adage that no matter how pure at heart these pretenders claim to be, all they ever really want is the glory and influence of being associated with a winner. Witness Rush Limbaugh's hit jobs on Pat Buchanan and John McCain in 2000 to clear the way for Junior because El Rushbo thought he smelled a winner -- all the while hypocritically denying that he was making a specific endorsement for president -- and the move of influential "conservative leader" Ralph Reed to endorse Bob Dole in 1996 when he was pretty much the most liberal candidate in the field. In this election cycle, Hugh Hewitt has insulted everyone's intelligence at every turn, professing neutrality while breaking out the kneepads for Master Mitt at every turn. Examples of this sad phenomenon, the tendency of sellout conservatives to kneecap the greater good of the movement for their own selfish reasons, are unfortunately endless.

The picture gets worse, however, when you factor in petty personal issues and other inexplicable matters. Dr. James Dobson, allegedly the purest of the pure in terms of conservative leadership in this country, took cheap shots at Fred Thompson apparently for the "sin" of puckering up insufficiently to kiss his tuckess. This occurrence was even more sickening given the fact that Thompson was considered at the time a highly viable alternative to Giuliani and Romney and this did not impede Dobson's selfish grudge one iota.

The inescapable truth is that most conservative leaders are being unveiled as complete phonies in this election cycle. They are willing to foist Giuliani or Romney on the public notwithstanding the fact that both would be completely unreliable as president and neither is electable in the first place (neither can turn out the party base in the South, Giuliani because of his social positions and Romney because he represents the aforementioned deviation from the American Judeo-Christian tradition). They bury Huckabee and McCain at every turn for their supposed heresies while turning a willful blind eye to the far worse actions of their liberal Northeast pets. They brand Thompson as unelectable because of some supposed foibles with his campaign and his campaign style, all the while pretending to be ignorant to the fact that their attacks will in large part be responsible in the unfortunate event he is unable to secure the nomination.

The double standard applied is nothing short of sickening. Apparently in the Republican party, the only allowable policy crimes are against the social conservatives, not the economic ones. The party is never going to shake its image of putting Wall Street above Main Street if it keeps urinating on social conservatives and only wailing about policy failings involving monetary interests.

A great many conservative voters, myself definitely included, long ago accepted the notion that the vast majority of Republican politicians are worthless frauds who talk a good game but sell us out at the first opportunity. The wonderful conservative pundit M. Stanton Evans long ago coined "Evans' law," which states that "Whenever one of 'our people' reaches a position of power where he can do us some good, he ceases to be one of 'our people.'" However, we don't apply the same standard of suspicion to those advocates in right-wing interest groups claiming to speak for us. It's time we started, because most of them are proving to be every bit as harmful as the charlatans they have put in office.

Ron Paul trumps Huckabee on rasslers

By Rick Morris

Forget Nature Boy Ric Flair's endorsement of Mike Huckabee for president. I'm far more impressed with Ron Paul's procurement of the blessing of pro wrestler and onetime horror film star Glen Jacobs (aka Kane). After all, if there's one thing that could trump the comedic value of Naitch doing his "kiss-stealing, wheeling and dealing" schtick in the form of a Huck commercial, it would be the sight of a bald seven-foot guy doing a monster gimmick preaching the gold standard, Austrian economics, the Tenth Amendment and international isolationism -- in a menacing growl, of course!

The Presidential Race / NFL Playoff Push

by Jason Jones

Imagine for a moment, if you will, the Presidential nominees in an NFL style playoff run. Mind you, not in the playoffs, but a playoff run. As the landscape of the NFL begins to take shape, we start to realize not every team is worthy of a spot based on the competition ahead of them. The same can be said about the presidential nominees that have no place in this race (namely Ron Paul).

If we are to fairly examine both sides we must create a depth chart or power ranking of both the NFL and the presidential nominees. These are the rankings as I see them:

(Note my opinion does not reflect that of the FDH Lounge, FantasyDraftHelp.com or any of its subsidiaries)

NFL ------ Nominees

1 New England Patriots ------ 1 Fred Thompson

2 Indianapolis Colts ------ 2 Rudy Guiliani

3 Dallas Cowboys ------ 3 John McCain

4 Green Bay Packers ------ 4 Barack Obama

5 Pittsburgh Steelers ------ 5 Mike Huckabee (name change rec.)

6 Detroit Lions ------ 6 Tom Tancredo

7 New York Giants ------ 7 Dennis Kucinich

8 Washington Redskins ------ 8 Bill Richardson

9 Cleveland Browns ------ 9 Duncan Hunter

10 Tennessee Titans ------ 10 Joe Biden

11 Tampa Bay Buccaneers ------ 11 Mike Gravel

12 Jacksonville Jaguars ------ 12 Chris Dodd

13 San Diego Chargers ------ 13 Ron Paul

14 Baltimore Ravens ------ 14 John Edwards

15 New Orleans Saints ------ 15 Mitt Romney

16 Buffalo Bills ------ 16 Hillary Clinton

Now for some explanations. Starting with the Nominees side, I am sure most of you are wondering why my power rankings in almost no way mimic that of the American public. Well, in short, people can be very smart, but groups of people are F@#!ing retarded!!! We will revisit this idea later.

- Starting at the top, Fred Thompson is the most well rounded perfect candidate on the docket. Consequently, this is where the first tier ends. If you do not agree you are entitled to your opinion like the stupid people are entitled to reproduce. This piece is not a debate over the candidates, maybe as we get closer we will do just that.

- Second is Rudy Guiliani, I am not especially riveted by this guy; especially when he mentions being in charge during 9-11. I do get the impression that he could do the job. He would be popular. Whether you like it or not, the average American doesn’t really care about the specific nature of the issues, it’s a feel thing. For some strange reason Rudy rubs people the right way.

- Third is John McCain, for those that know me, this one is probably a shock. There is on doubt, saying he has been underwhelming in the debates is a vast a polite understatement. Nixon looked more calm and collected versus JFK in the debate forum. Bottom line, John McCain knows how to play the game. I do not agree with even the vast majority of candidacy to this point, but he could do the job with a veteran savvy. This ends the second tier.

- Fourth is Barack Obama, the first Democrat on the list and believe me if I considered my party bias the first Democrat would probably come in around 9. He is very very green. This is where my confidence that the candidate is competent enough to do the job waivers. Obama is like a great top shelf minor league baseball player. He looks like he can play the part, his record looks good, and he’s confident that he can play with the big boys. Then he gets there and everyone wonders why his .385 batting average doesn’t translate literally to the majors. Some day Obama might be a great politician, but today is not that day. We need to send him back to the senate and let him work out the kinks for a while.

- Fifth is Mike Huckabee. Lets be honest, he just seems like a good guy. Do you remember that story about conservation? The one where he ride his bicycle to the grocery store to conserve on the gas he uses in his environmentally friendly car and his kids laugh at him for it? Do you remember that? I thought, “aw that’s sweet, what nice guy, a little HIPPY-ish for me, but a nice guy”. News flash, it should take more than NICE GUY. I’m sure under his old and alien like physique, Bob Dole is a nice guy. But would you have felt comfortable 10 minutes after watching any network television on September 11^th, knowing he was probably cowered in some corner sucking on his binkie?

- Sixth is Tom Tancredo. First and foremost, Tom we get it. You don’t like foreigners. Maybe its just illegals from South America. Maybe he doesn’t like Canadians, Europeans, Asians, or Russians if they are here illegally. If that’s the case, this point is mute anyway. You still have to admire the solid Titanium balls on that guy to be so adamant about a single issue. I could have sworn I heard in a debate, Tancredo conclude that the answer to an exit strategy to the Iraq conflict and Universal Heath Care will come in solving our illegal immigration issue. I bet if he could he would have military snipers every 5 feet from California to Florida. Oh, and just a thought. Do you think an American born, suburb raised, heterosexual, 30 something man with a Business Administrations bachelor degree, who pledged for a well renouned fraternity in the Ivy League laid the foundation on his house? Just speculation, but I am pretty sure some illegal contributed to Tancredo’s life positively in some way…and that probably burns him up.

- Seventh is Dennis Kucinich. Not a popular guy. In the Presidential Election ’08 made for tv movie, Kucinich would be played by D.J. Qualls (the skinny kid from Road Trip). Nobody likes creepy to greet you when you’re expecting another spine tingling episode of 24 and get D.J. Qualls addressing the nation. I cannot see Kucinich running the country, but I want to believe he is a good honest man when all is said and done. This concludes the third tier.

- Eighth is Bill Richardson. Let’s not sugar coat it. This is where the bottom falls out. I do not claim to know much about the rest of these with three exceptions. The truth is aside from hearing Richardson spout off his political resume during a debate and his appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, I’ve got nothing on Richardson. He seems like a decent guy who has some gumption. Besides, this list should have ended at Tancredo anyway.

- Ninth is Duncan Hunter. At least he is a Republican. He has no chance, which is a major part of this exercise.

- Tenth is Joe Biden. Again, I could see him doing the job. He has said a great deal of things that I do not agree with, but aside from Fred Thompson, there is not going to be a candidate I will agree with 95% of the time.

- Eleventh is Mike Gravel. Again, I have nothing. I have not heard much one way or the other. What I have heard has forced me to change the channel. While watching presidential debates, one must have an alternate channel to click to when the responses get unbearable. I recommend ESPN Classic or the Discovery Channel. Anything that resides on the other end of the spectrum from Politics.

- Twelfth is Chris Dodd. Insert previous statement here. Conclude tier four

- Thirteenth is Ron Paul. Strap in ladies and gentleman this one begins the tri-fecta of doom. Ron Paul is a hack! A phony, a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I know he has somewhat of following, but so did Ross Perot. Ron Paul is not only bad for president, he’s bad for politics in general. He doesn’t play by the rules. I get it, Libertarian, Liberal Republican, Left Wing Republican, or whatever you want to call him. He should be running as an independent. At least that way the lobe of the American Human brain that tells us to almost disregard Independents because the math precludes them from winning, he would finally get the attention he deserves. Next to none. He’s is a hippie claiming to be the image that the Republican party should be. Believe me, I am not one to say that a single former President embodies every iota that oozes “Republican”. It just seems to me, if the entire party thinks Ronald Reagan is the Republican party, then Ron Paul is as far away from that as one can be without literally being a Democrat.

- Fourteenth is John Edwards. C’mon, are we serious. John Freaking Edwards. Has there ever been a Nominee that more exemplified the smelly kid who wanted to be cool? He’s the kid at the park who wants to be picked to play in the game and keeps getting passed over for kids who are busy doing other things (like 30 yards away on another part of the park). I also get the impression that if he were to be the next president, he is the kind of guy who would have the angle of, “fine, I’m taking my ball and going home, you guys suck!” Which is not really the attitude you want your president to have when dealing with foreign policy and cabinet meetings.

- Fifteenth is Mitt Romney. I really hope you have your seatbelt on for the next two. Plain and simple. Do not believe this devilish swindler. I bet that if I had a 60 inch High Definition television with all of the HD channels and watched a Republican Debate, I would clearly see the horns poke out through the skin on his forehead. Politically, Mitt Romney is the ANTI-CHRIST. The guy has one general thought process when he wants to get elected in Massachusetts, and a completely different thought process to get elected to president. When people bitch and moan about why they don’t like politics and more specifically, politicians; guess what? Mitt Romney is who they are talking about.

- Sixteenth is Hillary “Holy F#@K You Can’t Be Serious” Clinton. I cannot believe this is even a remote possibility. I keep waiting to wake up from what can only be confused as 2 year comma. I keep hoping I’ll wake up and say to someone, “Does Hillary really have a shot”, just to be told she was never even a candidate and that I must have dreamt the whole thing. Remember I said, people can be smart but groups of people can be retarded. In the trial of the State vs. Group’s of People’s Sanity, the prosecution presents Hillary Clinton for President of the United States into evidence as exhibit alpha. This is such a bad idea on so many levels. I’ll admit, aside from Bill downsizing the military to a dreadfully dangerous number, I did not hate Bill Clinton. Just because the majority of the average American populous believe Clinton was a good president is not enough to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt. This is not a gender issue. This is a Hillary Clinton is a crazy bitch issue. Speaking of crazy bitches, am I the only level headed American who is deathly afraid of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Peloci joining their powers of evil combining to create the kind of super villain that the minds of Stan Lee and Todd McFarlane could not dream up. It would be the catalyst for the apocalypse. Nothing she says makes any sense, she just parades around in slip on shoes and pant suits hoping the people will believe the answer to fixing this country is to have a female president; and she’s the only one. Believe me the bitch is banking on it. I am pleading with every American, don’t let it happen. Further food for thought, if Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney consummated and conceived a child, that child would undo existence. It would unravel the threads of life. Dark would become light, good would become evil, right would become left, “in short, it would un-make the world”

Now that we have addressed all of the candidates, it is time to bring the NFL into this discussion. The problem here is the AFC is the Republican Party and NFC is the Democratic Party. In one tier all by themselves are the New England Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts; there’s no two ways about it. New England is just insane. Arguably the best offense I have personally ever seen. And Indianapolis is inches behind New England after coming off last years SuperBowl win. The second tier has the Dallas Cowboys all by themselves. What a difference a free wheeling coach makes. Same players, different result. Tier three doesn’t make any sense. Why is Green Bay winning? Why has Pittsburgh only lost twice? Brett Favre and a collection 3^rd + round picks. He should be babysitting not winning football games. Pittsburgh, they’re o.k., but top 5? C’mon, somebody step up and expose them PLEASE!!! They are not THAT good. Tier four is again where things start to loosen up. Detroit is doing better than they ever have in a non Barry Sanders season. Statistically, offense and defense at the top. New York Giants finally woke up. This team puts season long sack numbers up in one game, thus elevating some of the pressures that Eli Manning cannot handle on his own. The Washington Redskins are all around o.k. Young QB is getting better, solid running game, 17 #2 and #3 WR’s, a good TE, and a solid Defense-nothing exciting. And that’s tier four. Tier five brings tears to my eyes. The Cleveland Browns. I never thought I’d see the day when I could say the Browns at least have a shot (ever week). They are alone on this tier because after this, no team can claim balance. The next tier, 6, is where it gets sloppy. Tennessee Titans keep winning despite the fact their QB hasn’t thrown 1,000 yds yet and has more INT’s than TD’s and has no one else on offense worth a damn. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers have a pretty decent passing game right now and a no-name running back by committee system. If Jacksonville ever becomes a team with no defense, they will be the worst team in the league. I bet they wish they had all of there QB and WR draft picks and traded players to pick over again. This season the Chargers have LT, but not much else. This is not the team that went 14-2 last season, unless you want to put all of the fault on the GM for firing Marty. Tier seven has two former playoff teams who are playing drastically under the mean. Baltimore and New Orleans. Not to be harsh, but the whole “playing to win for the victims of hurricane katrina” can only take you so far. Let’s face it, Baltimore peaked. The defense is getting old and the offense has been dog s#@t since Billick got the job; offensive guru my ass. The last and eighth tier belongs to Buffalo. Who knows what’s going on up there. Lynch is nice and the rest of the kids are having fun and playing well since week 3.

So, what does it all mean. All of the previous comes down to one concept. Who belongs and who doesn’t. In the NFL, just because 12 teams make the playoffs, doesn’t mean 12 teams are worthy of being in the playoffs. In the Presidential Race, 16 nominees is unacceptable. If Cleveland beat Pittsburgh in the first round, or Buffalo beat Dallas that wouldn’t be right-and it won’t happen. The bottom line is no matter who you are a fan of, not everyone is worthy. There’s an old saying, “That’s why they play the game”, horse s#@t. The same is true with this presidential race. Sure the Patriots, Colts, Cowboys, Packers, Steelers, and Lions probably deserve to be in the playoffs. Washington through Buffalo probably do not. Similarly, from Mike Huckabee on down also do not belong in the Presidential Nominee push. Narrow the debate’s contestants. Sorry Democrats, call back when you have someone worth pushing. Give Dole a call maybe he’ll join the race for you. Just like in the NFL, it isn’t a question of who should win the SuperBowl. It’s a question of whoever wins the Republican nomination should be the next president. Its not an issue of Democrat vs Republican. There just is not a legitimate Democrat worth voting for. Just like, no matter how hard Dallas, Green Bay, or Detroit try they will not should not and on this plane of existence cannot beat Indianapolis or New England. Whoever wins that AFC championship game should be crowned the winner. While Tom Brady or Peyton Manning are hoisting the AFC title trophy there should be a small man engraving the Lombardi Trophy to that same team. The same is true for the Presidential Nominees. McCain is better than any Democrat. Rudy Guiliani is better than any Democrat. There is no question, Fred Thompson is better than any Democrat; this time around or possibly in the last decade or more.

All in all, just be smart. Just because someone is literally in the race, doesn’t mean they have a legitimate shot at winning or have earned the right to waste your valuable time and energy listening to their s#@t.

Clinton = Apocolypse

Romney = Apocolypse

Ron Paul = Woodstock at the White House

Fred Thompson = Top 10 President in History

Rudy Guiliani = Competent Politician

John McCain = Great Candidate 3, 5, 8 years ago

Cleveland Browns, SuperBowl Champs = Apocolypse

Detroit Lions, SuperBowl Champs = Apocolypse

Pittsburgh Steelers, SuperBowl Champs = The books are cooked in Vegas

Green Bay Packers, SuperBowl Champs = I saw this movie before, it was more realistic in the 1990’s

Just be careful, and remember to think for yourselves. They are politicians after all.