In the wake of Mike Huckabee's victory, I think it serves us well to remember the Kubler-Ross stages of grief.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm jumping head-first into stage two. Huckabee won by a pretty commanding margin, and identity politics played a stronger role in the Republican caucus than the Democratic one.

Bryan calls that a depressing thought. I tend to agree. Basically, Huckabee was able to shade his record, lie to Iowa voters and play underhanded political games and still win based almost entirely on the fact that he is a Christian. Disheartening doesn't even begin to describe it.

On the plus side, Thompson put in a surprisingly strong showing. Hopefully he now ignores New Hampshire and puts all his energy into South Carolina, where I think his federalist message will play well. He beat McCain, who I think needed a stronger showing in the GOP race and a weaker victory by Obama in the Democratic race. Obama's unbelievable victory (Clinton was third?) may motivate many of the independents McCain is counting on in New Hampshire to vote Democratic in an attempt to make history. McCain may be happy that Romney took a hit tonight, but I think his joy will be short-lived. His NH surge isn't based on GOP voters, after all.

Still, I'd much rather see him as the GOP nominee than Huckabee. When all is said and done, I can vote for McCain because I respect him despite the disagreements I have with his positions and record. I cannot say the same about Huckabee.

Update - How can I say Thompson finished surprisingly strong? Well, I think third place is strong enough to keep him in for now, especially considering Huckabee's win. At this point, economic and national security cons are going to be desperate now for someone they can unify behind in SC. If Thompson plays his cards right, and campaigns like the wind, he stands a good chance of being that guy.

Maybe it's time to help him out a bit. I just did.

These are serious times. I wish more Iowa voters had realized that.

Posted by: Slublog at 07:58 PM | Comments (137)
Post contains 363 words, total size 3 kb.

To help get rid of the caucus-night bad taste in your mouth:

[Oh, and I know Slublog's got you all trained not to click on the picture posts, but this one's okay.] more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:49 PM | Comments (59)
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

I meant to do this last night but I was dicking with commenter ghengis.

Now He Hate Me.

heh

Posted by: Dave In Texas at 06:35 PM | Comments (15)
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

Fred's "shock the world" snippet:

Guess we'll know soon enough.

My prediction, which isn't what I want, mind you, is Huck, Romney (close), McCain, Thompson, and then Paul's idiots getting a respectably high percentage.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 05:12 PM | Comments (288)
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

You're William Shatner, baby! I thought we could use some lighter fare on this caucus night. It turns out Shatner has been doing Priceline commercials for ten years. Has it really been that long?

His career appeared to be winding down when he started in 1998. Shatner thinks the commercials may have had something to do with his recent success:

"It's possible that when I was being amusing in these commercials, David Kelly saw them and brought me to mind for a part in 'Boston Legal,' " Shatner said on the set in Koreatown.

[...]

Shatner said he turned down commercials early in his career "because they lacked purity or art" -- and then realized commercials could be art too.

I suspect his attitude change also helped. Since he met a sense of humor, he's been in a bunch of movies and TV shows, some serious, but many in which he plays a caricature of his old self. I especially liked him as Stan Fields in Miss Congeniality and on his Comedy Central roast.

When he started the Priceline commercials, I was in high school and spending all my time on diving and band. What were you doing?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:00 PM | Comments (40)
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.

*******WORLD EXCLUSIVE*********
******Must Credit Jack M.'s ability to read Drudge*******
******IMPACTING HARD*********

RESULTS:

Clinton 0; Obama 0; Edwards 0
Huckabee 0; Romney 0; McCain 0; Paul 0; Thompson 0; Giuliani 0

I report. You decide.

Posted by: Jack M. at 04:03 PM | Comments (48)
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

The Politico gets a lot of big-talk "scoops" but a lot of them turn out to be vapornews.

Posted by: Ace at 02:48 PM | Comments (20)
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

Just a public service announcement, folks: don't believe any media accounts of who "won" or "lost" today until the actual numbers come in.

Remember calling Florida for Gore before the polls even closed? Remember the 2004 day-of-election polls showing a Kerry landslide (and causing Ace to soil himself)?

Yeah. Real trustworthy. Now factor in the billion-way race going on...

Just A Thought: someone is obviously right; exit polls are unreliable in real elections, never mind in this goofy fake-pretend thingy, where the great bulk of exit-pollsters will be, of course, in the largest cities in Iowa, sprawling metropli like... DeMoines. But there will be no one at all checking in to see how the farflung rural precincts are voting.

But I'm not sure how much that matters. This isn't an election where projections in Iowa influence what happens in California. I suppose early buzz that, say, "Huckabee's running away with it!" or the like could make some (dumb, sheeplike) caucusers join the bandwagon.

So I guess the takeaway is if you are in Iowa, and you are dumb and weak (be honest with yourself come on, you know you are), you should not listen to anyone else but rather just follow your dumb, stupid, ignorant weak-willed heart.

Oh, and PS: None of this really matters all that much. This is a goofy frickin' fake election. It's only slightly more important than the surprise news that Ron Paul won the "MySpace Primary," in which all participants note their favored candidate and also their a/s/l.

Posted by: Open Blog at 02:16 PM | Comments (34)
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.

He's a global warming bleeding heart, but he admits he continues, and will continue, to purchase high-energy-demand stuff.

He says that a surtax on high-energy-demand products isn't enough to change his behavior. Nor would even be a direct government subsidy to purchase more energy-efficient products.

He can see only one solution for himself, and thus only one solution for you.

Shockingly enough coming from a college professor, it involves government coercion.

UPS delivered my hedge trimmer a few weeks ago. Actually, it is not just a hedge trimmer but has interchangeable heads so that it can trim grass, mow down brush and cut small tree limbs. The whole thing was a steal: $359. As I powered it up, I felt mild pangs of guilt -- the two-cycle contraption uses a mixture of oil and gas to cool the engine as well as fuel it, which makes it not just copiously smelly but also a behemoth when it comes to producing carbon dioxide.

If you think that is bad, so do I -- especially since I could have bought a slightly more expensive four-cycle model that does not require mixing the oil and gas. And I know better. But my knowledge did not translate into action. I knew I was doing wrong. I even agonized about doing wrong. But it did not stop me.

...

But there is another problem. I like Hummers. Not the really big Hummer I, but the more demure Hummer II. I like its boxy design and its commanding presence on the road. I secretly desire to command the road. Here I am not irrational, just retrograde when it comes to my preferences. And if my preferences are strong enough and my wallet is large enough, no tax is going to make me give up my Hummer for a Prius.

I am not alone in loving Hummers. An effective tax will have to take into account all variety of Hummer lovers, the strength of their preferences and the size of their wallets.

I say: Better not to tempt me in the first place. Take the Hummers away. Don't clutter my world with things I should not have. Don't dangle them in front of me, creating desire, only to then try to have me renounce them. Just ban the damn two-cycle hedge trimmer and let me be done with the matter.

I don't like that universities are stocked full of fluff-headed leftist professors. Perhaps we should pass a law mandating that 50% of all professors in all departments be conservative-leaning.

Eh, fuck that. Let's make it 90%.

Freedom is overrated anyway (but not overtly so). Let's use the power of government to do some real good, goddamnit.

Thanks to MattM.

Let's Cut Out The Middleman... suggests Additional Blonde Agent:

I have a better idea. Long as the government's being called into action, just have it kill him.

More efficient that way.

True dat. As all socialist/communist/fascist regimes eventually discover, people themselves are the root of all problems. Get rid of the people, problem solved!

Since this guy is advocating that, why doesn't he just off himself and set the example for the rest of us?

UPDATE [Dave in Texas]: There's some recent and unfortunate precedence for his stupid idea in the Energy Bill Bush just signed.

More Snark [Ace Again]: Kasper Hauser wrote this guy:

I just e-mailed the professor ('bunzl@rutgers.edu') as follows:

"What are you? A child?

The government should outlaw stuff because you donÂ’t have the self control to live up to your political/social/environmental mores?

How about we just cut academic salaries and limit your purchasing power? Would that help?

I like that AoSHQ readers are so dedicated to helping other people. Gives me a warm glow.

[PA's energy rant below the fold] more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:47 PM | Comments (52)
Post contains 874 words, total size 5 kb.

Kinda funny. I'm sure Tom can relate.

Thanks to Conservative Belle.

Posted by: Ace at 01:26 PM | Comments (17)
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.