NYT link.

Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, will announce on Saturday whether he will run for president, the producer of his show on the Fox News Channel said Friday.

“Governor Huckabee will announce tomorrow night on his program whether or not he intends to explore a presidential bid,” Woody Fraser, the executive producer of “Huckabee” said in a statement. “He has not told anyone at FOX News Channel his decision.”

I am anti-wishcasting. I see a lot of commenters who I usually agree with about stuff suggesting that he won't be running. I worry that's a wishcasting thing.

I don't really want Huckabee to run, but let's look at the facts:

1. He ran before, so he wants this.

2. He's ahead in most of the polls. He even polls well-ish with independents.

3. He's one of the guys who does the best in a head-to-head against Obama.

4. No one is emerging as a catch-some-fire candidate to threaten his position.

5. They love him in early-caucus Iowa.

Now, given that, why are people thinking he's not running? I sure would.

There are a couple of reasons offered. The first is that he's doing swell on TV with money, and I don't think he comes from money at all, so that's got to be a pretty neat thing for him.

But I don't think that's a great reason to not run. Presumably, if he ran and lost, he'd get that old job back. And if he won-- well, $400,000 a year and a sweet, rent-free house is a pretty good deal. Plus, free air fare for four years, on a plane that's almost neater than the house.

At Hot Air's update, Ed Rollins says he's not running, just based on his lack of making affirmative moves to run.

[S]everal member of the inner circle said Friday that they had no knowledge of what Mr. Huckabee planned to announce, and were dumbfounded that he had kept his own would-be campaign in the dark. Mr. Huckabee has already seen most of his main operatives in Iowa and New Hampshire gobbled up by competing campaigns.

True, true, but he might have been thinking he wasn't going to run, thus allowing this to happen.

But now? Romney looks like a paper tiger, the establishment's hope, Tim Pawlenty, isn't catching on (yet), the other establishment hope has baggage of his own making (social truce), etc.

Why wouldn't he run? As Ed Rollins admits, Huck has the "clearest" path to the nomination. Exactly. It's not tricky at all. He's ahead, they like him in Iowa, he has committed supporters, he's liked by the religious base -- you don't have to postulate any tricky twist in events to see a win here.

Even though I don't like Huck -- as I've said, anybody but Obama who can win. And Huck, maybe, could win, so he passes that test.

Here's one reason I think he can't win. His negatives are famously not all that high, including with independents. This is taken by many to be a hidden strength of the Huckster.

I don't take it that way. At all. I take it as what it is -- the media never really attacked Huck because he was always a longshot. Instead, they gave Huck a pass because they never saw him as a major threat to their Awesome Boyfriend and they enjoyed his torturing of Mitt Romney (who they did see as a threat).

Now, bet your bottom dollar that if Huck gets in, and of course becomes the early favorite, this will change extremely quickly.

Will his positive/negative rating hold up when the media starts taking Huck seriously, and therefore begins treating him awfully?

I don't think so.

But, that said, on paper, he could, maybe, beat Obama, and so, for now, sure, I'm inclined favorably towards him.*

But he's another of our potential candidates who simply is not strong. We have a few bad candidates, ten meh ones, and no strong ones.

* This doesn't mean I really like him; I still have problems. But where once I had thought he was someone I just couldn't support, I have shed that. Sure, I will support him -- over Obama.

Posted by: Ace at 11:29 AM | Comments (245)
Post contains 734 words, total size 4 kb.

Mitch Daniels is waiting for his wife's okay on a presidential run.

She's long been reluctant to give her blessing, because a presidential bid would publicize already-known but not often talked about facts about their marital history. And, while no one can know the complete facts -- no one knows what the hell goes on inside a marriage, even the husband and wife -- it appears that, for once, the more innocent party is the male politician, and the less innocent party is his wife.

So she'll get an awful lot of bad attention and jokes about her on Leno and Letterman and general sniggers from our awful liberal media.

And Daniels, dutiful husband that he is, is allowing Cheri Daniels to make this decision.

Here's the thing: That's what a husband is supposed to do, right? When women imagine dream husbands, that's the sort of thing they'd claim they really respected, right?

But I don't think people will respect this. Even though this is what he supposedly should do, and we're all supposed to praise him for this, almost no one will actually praise him. They'll go through the motions of saying "It's nice to see someone deferring to his wife" right before writing about how weird and weak it makes Mitch Daniels.

And similarly with the actual marital problems themselves. (New York Times link.)

He has been married twice — to the same wife.

Should he run, that chapter in his life would no doubt be picked over in public and become a part of the personal narrative that springs up around any serious candidate: in this case a three-year gap in their marriage in the 1990s, when she filed for divorce, moved to California with a new husband and left Mr. Daniels to raise their four daughters, then ages 8 to 14. She later returned and remarried him.

He has discussed it only once publicly, telling The Indianapolis Star in 2004: “If you like happy endings, you’ll love our story. Love and the love of children overcame any problems.”

Their story is in some ways an antidote to a string of philandering male politicians. But it is a topic that Mr. Daniels does not relish delving into, several friends said. And it has been one of the factors as he weighs whether to run for president, a rare position where scrutiny begins and privacy ends whether or not one gets the job.

So here's the other part of the double-standard: Supposedly, a man is supposed to put his children above all else, and his wife -- even one who took off to marry another man -- just slightly below that. Till death do us part and all.

But a show of hands of who thinks this actually will be counted in his favor -- or will be used to paint him as a desperate, beta-male weirdo who can't keep his wife in line.

If you have two male politicians -- a Bill Clinton and a Mitch Daniels -- with some colorful marital history, which one gets falsely scolded, but actually gets a pass (and even some "pimp hand" respect) and which one gets falsely praised but actually gets his decision, whether romantic or just plain selfless, held against him as the sign of the weakling?

In this context, honestly, I think it would wind up being good news for Mitch Daniels if it slipped out he was cheating on his wife, thereby driving her away.

Weird, eh?

We have a template for that, at least. People know how to think about it. People know how to forgive it and ignore it, because they're called upon to do so so often.

But the situation here, as it seems based on the facts known -- there's not a template for that. We don't know how to react to that.

Daniels Says He'd Like Condi Rice as a VP: When I wrote this post, I expected commenters to give Daniels a bit of a break. Turns out, not so much. It seems like even people who should be predisposed to giving him some space on this are looking for reasons to mock him.

If the comments are a preview of the liberal media, then forget it.

Then again, I don't know how many of the negative comments are from people supporting other candidates and therefore not at all predisposed to cutting the guy some slack. I do know one of the commenters from Hot Air and here, who supports another candidate, was gleefully spreading this all over the blogs months ago -- that's how I first heard of it. (No, not a Romney supporter; a Palin supporter. That's not Palin's fault, of course.)

Daniels says he'd like Condi Rice as VP. Given his situation, I think he actually needs the opposite. He can't play further into the idea that women boss him.

Posted by: Ace at 09:50 AM | Comments (686)
Post contains 838 words, total size 5 kb.

Come on, tell us the titles. "Porn" in the abstract isn't embarrassing anymore; it's the specifics that wind up humiliating people.

The pornography recovered in bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, consists of modern, electronically recorded video and is fairly extensive, according to the officials, who discussed the discovery with Reuters on condition of anonymity.

I like how they're explaining porn to us, like maybe we don't know it's "modern, electronically recorded video."

Since that sounds like he was downloading it off the internet (why not just say that?), it presents the question of how he got it, having no internet connection at the compound.

But then, I'm sure every fugitive has a travelling spank bank.

Materials carted away from the compound by the U.S. commandos included digital thumb drives, which U.S. officials believe may have been a principal means by which couriers carried electronic messages to and from the late al Qaeda leader.

You know who this benefits, right?

Thanks to rd.

Posted by: Ace at 09:17 AM | Comments (480)
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

At the risk of encroaching on Monty's beat, here we go.

The country's two marquee social insurance programs, Social Security and Medicare, face worsening fiscal conditions driven by near-term economic challenges and long-term trends of population aging and health care costs, according to the annual report released by the two entitlements' board of trustees.

The trust funds of Treasury bonds that provide back-stop funding for the programs will be exhausted sooner than anticipated: the Medicare hospital insurance fund will exhaust five years sooner than previously expected, in 2024, and the Social Security trust fund will expire in 2036, a year earlier than last projected.

The trustees, led by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, concluded the two programs are not on a sustainable path and that legislative action will be needed to avoid "disruptive consequences" to benificiaries and taxpayers.

Clearly this news will lead Democrats to act in a responsible way and work with the GOP to tackle this ticking time bomb ratchet up their "Republicans Want To Kill Old People" rhetoric to unprecedented levels.

Related enough: You remember Obama's big plans to save money on healthcare costs as part of ObamaCare? Yeah, totally "unworkable".

President Barack Obama's main idea for getting quality health care at less cost was in jeopardy Wednesday after key medical providers called his administration's initial blueprint so complex it's unworkable.

Just over a month ago, the administration released long-awaited draft regulations for "accountable care organizations," networks of doctors and hospitals that would collaborate to keep Medicare patients healthier and share in the savings with taxpayers. Obama's health care overhaul law envisioned quickly setting up hundreds of such networks around the county to lead a bottom-up reform of America's bloated health care system.

But in an unusual rebuke, an umbrella group representing premier organizations such as the Mayo Clinic wrote the administration Wednesday saying that more than 90 percent of its members would not participate, because the rules as written are so onerous it would be nearly impossible for them to succeed.

What's that word again? Oh right, DOOM.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:48 AM | Comments (124)
Post contains 371 words, total size 3 kb.

Another seat in play for Republicans to pick up.

Kohl is the sixth Democratic-aligned Senator to step aside in advance of the 2012 election. Two Republicans arenÂ’t running for reelection next year.

Democratic strategists insisted that they will field a top-tier candidate in the open seat, noting that the fight between Gov. Scott Walker (R) and national unions over collective bargaining in the state earlier this year has energized the party.

Rep. Ron Kind and well as former Sen. Russ Feingold are sure to be leading candidates for Democrats. Former Rep. Tom Barrett, who ran lost to Walker last November, as well as Reps. Tammy Baldwin and Steve Kagen are also mentioned.

Obviously Paul Ryan is the big name on the GOP side but for what it's worth there's this from Wisconsin political guy Kevin Binversie.

Memo to DC pundits, a Russ Feingold v. Paul Ryan race will not happen. The two are personal and family friends. Quit daydreaming.

Should Ryan really be the first choice for conservatives? I think he can do far more good as a senior member of the House than a freshman member of the Senate. Now, if he's the only/best hope of winning the seat, that's one thing. If there's another viable conservative to run, isn't it better to have Ryan driving the budget/entitlement agenda from the House side?

Posted by: DrewM at 07:21 AM | Comments (183)
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

Mitt's doubling down on government-mandated healthcare yesterday reaffirmed his status as the leading GOP big-name technocrat.

Romney also stood by his decision to implement individual mandates, a hot-button topic for conservatives because it forces each resident to buy insurance or face a government fine.

He said he backed mandates to discourage a so-called “free rider problem” and “insist on personal responsibility,” instead of billing taxpayers for the uninsured’s health care.

Get that? Government-mandated personal responsibility. What a curious notion.

It works something like this: Homeowners were long noted as a thrifty, industrious, responsible class. I mean, who wouldn't want all of America to be one white picket fenced cul-de-sac? So our wise solons in DC convinced themselves making everyone a homeowner would result in their being more responsible citizens without ever once thinking that maybe, just maybe, they had the cause and effect relationship exactly backwards. We all know how this story ends.

Now along comes Mitt Romney to tell me, a citizen of Massachusetts, that he made me more "personally responsible" by requiring me to buy health insurance. What next?

I mean, I already had health insurance through work so no change there, but I also stay up late at night reading Ace of Spades and don't exercise much except for the frequent 12-ounce curl. And if a day doesn't start with bacon and a pot of coffee ... well shit, it just ain't worth getting out of bed.

If the AoSHQ Lifestyle™ winds up costing the state an inordinate amount of healthcare dollars, does Mitt Romney think it should be regulated? Should the state make me run on a treadmill to generate power for my Internet connection like a mouse on a wheel? Out with bacon, in with broccoli?

No. Thanks.

As I look for a candidate to support in 2012, technocrats who want to make big government work better (Romney, Gingrich) aren't even on the radar. I'll take a candidate who wants to make big government a thing of the past. If I can find one.

Posted by: andy at 06:52 AM | Comments (168)
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.

Serial candidate Rep. Ron Paul is officially running again. He said so this morning.

Paul will converse with that little guy with the precisely-tousled hair who used to work for Bill Clinton. And 48 hours after Paul opened his Iowa caucus campaign headquarters -- News Bulletin -- he will "reveal" to "Good Morning America" his candidacy for president of the United States.

Here's why Paul and ABC are doing this together: It seems like news. Real news is hard to come by on Fridays. Especially "exclusive" access. It saves Paul ballroom rent money and gets....
...him more national media exposure than some New Hampshire street corner scrum with supporters chanting in the background.

As Malcolm notes, Paul is 77 years old, five years older than McCain was in 2008. The President will be 51 at the time of the election next year (assuming we know his actual birthdate, retorts the Birthers).

For reasons we discussed yesterday, let me take a line from the Donald and say that Ron Paul will never be president. Hit that first link up there for much more on Paul's chances campaign history.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:23 AM | Comments (482)
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

FRIDAAAAY!

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:52 AM | Comments (122)
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

Europe: Borders Are Back Baby!

During the heyday of the European Union Euro-types were fond of pointing out how Europe no longer had internal borders - you could travel from Rome to Copenhagen with just your EU passport - and lecturing Americans over our passé notions of immigration control. But now that the PIGS countries are collapsing and refugees are pouring in from outside the EU, suddenly national border checks are back:

Denmark is to reintroduce controls at its EU borders with Germany and Sweden in an attempt to curb crime and illegal immigration, ahead of todayÂ’s [Thu] meeting in Brussels that will discuss the visa-free Schengen zoneÂ…

Passport-free travel across the ‘Schengen’ area, which does not include Britain or Ireland, has come under unprecedented pressure after Italy gave residence permits to more than 25,000 Arabs last month, allowing them unfettered access to the rest of the EU.

The European Commission was last week forced to propose the reintroduction of temporary passport controls as “under very exception circumstances” after a conflict between France and Italy threatened to destroy the border-free zone.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:37 PM | Comments (770)
Post contains 895 words, total size 8 kb.

Not pissed off enough at the GOP? I can fix that.

For a moment last October I had some hope that the incoming GOP House majority might really be getting it. Then Speaker in waiting Boehner proposed forcing each agency and department to justify its budget separately and not as part of one of the 13 gigantic appropriation bills. Boehner said it would make cutting spending easier.

As I wrote then

Not to be Mr. Wet Blanket but I think we're all a little worried that while getting the GOP back in power is necessary, it's also necessary to make sure they don't immediately go back to the GOP circa 2000-2006 on spending.

No one is going to confuse presumptive Speaker in waiting John Boehner with a tea party activist but it's good to see he recognizes that if the GOP gets a second chance so soon, they need to really change things.

It's a process and inside baseball thing but it might actually lead to some spending discipline.

Oh wait, I believed something a politician said during a campaign? My bad. I guess I should have known better and deserve to be smacked around. .

Boehner issued the plan in a speech on congressional reform last September, but the Appropriations Committee says it received no instructions from the leadership to follow through with it.

Bait and switch, it's as simple as that.

Posted by: DrewM at 02:13 PM | Comments (422)
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.