On the plus side: Probably good ratings. So anyone, like me, who is holding out for someone other than Mitt and Newt, can at least hope there'll be one last chance.

On the negative side: Doesn't Donald Trump keep saying he may still run for president? Isn't he also meeting with candidates for the purposes of endorsing one of them?

I don't believe that Donald Trump believes in objectivity. I think he has a pretty high opinion of Donald Trump, and objectivity would take us further from the preferred realm of Trumpicity, so I figure this is going to be largely like the boardroom from The Apprentice, with Trump basically making demands of the would-be presidential apprentices.

Still. Big ratings.

Donald Trump is pairing up with Newsmax, the conservative magazine and news Web site, to moderate a presidential debate in Des Moines on Dec. 27.

“Our readers and the grass roots really love Trump,” said Christopher Ruddy, chief executive of Newsmax Media. “They may not agree with
him on everything, but they don’t see him as owned by the Washington establishment, the media establishment.”

Mr. TrumpÂ’s role in the debate, which will be broadcast on the cable network Ion Television, is sure to be one of the more memorable moments in a primary season that has already delivered its fair share of circus-like spectacle.

Ion? The channel I watch for Psych marathons? They're a news network now, too?

Posted by: Ace at 09:47 AM | Comments (101)
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

I've been planning on writing about this for a couple weeks now, but decided to wait and let it play out a little longer hoping it would become easier to explain. Well, I waited and it's become even more confusing, so I might as well go ahead with the post now. more...

Posted by: JohnE. at 09:05 AM | Comments (79)
Post contains 2083 words, total size 16 kb.

Linking Pethokoukis' "7 Reasons the Economy Is Still Terrible," Goldstein writes:

[I]t is crucial that “our” side point out the Magical Shrinking Labor Force. As Pethokoukis notes, “The participation rate fell from an already low 64.2 percent to 64.0 percent. In a strong jobs recovery, that number should be rising as more people look for work. If the the labor force participation rate were back at its January 2009 level, the U-3 rate would be 11.0 percent.

I have no argument with that. What strikes me is that this is so infrequently done.

It is not a very math-heavy exercise to explain that the unemployment rate is the percentage of people seeking work but not finding it, and if lots of people simply give up looking altogether, the unemployment rate technically falls while the actual employment rate -- actual labor participation -- falls even further.

I can imagine Obama and a Republican To Be Named Later debating these numbers. I can see Obama saying "The unemployment rate dropped from 8.9% in September to 8.6% in November, so we're making progress."

And I can see the Republican To Be Named Later saying, "We have more people out of work now that at any time in our history."

And then I see the end of the exchange. And the public being confused, because they've been given a couple of competing measures -- apparently inconsistent with each other -- and so it's just a he said/she said situation, and worse yet, about statistics.

And then I see them shrugging, because they don't know how to make sense of the competing claims.

Why not just explain it to them? Why not give them context? Because, in this case, the explanation and context settle the matter decisively -- in our favor, of course.

Imagine a Republican who came armed for bear. Imagine Obama making his claim. And then imagine the Republican saying, "Well, the first part of what he said was true. Now, let me tell you what he didn't tell you. Let me tell you what he doesn't want you to know."

This is nothing but upside. First of all, by providing the explanation, it is enlightening to the casual viewer; darkness is dispelled. Now he get it. Now it's not just two plainly-inconsistent numbers; now he can see how both are true, but how one number is obviously more misleading than the other.

I gotta think he now has a slightly more positive feeling about the guy who explained it to him, because two minutes ago he was confused and now he's armed with usable information.

I also think, as a general matter, the "Let me agree with my opponent, and concede this part of what he said is true, but let me now devastate him" is one of the most effective ways to debate. Admitting part of what your opponent says is true is very helpful towards establishing your own credibility and honesty. And then that makes the ensuing attack all the more potent.

Why don't politicians do this more often? Possibly it's because some of them are dumbasses, but I think it's largely because they are underestimating the public's ability to process information. They really want everything in terms of general themes and slogans, because they figure there are some people out there who really cannot process something as complicated as "the unemployed fraction is not as important as the employed fraction, which is itself falling."

But there are a few things they should keep in mind:

1. People don't always understand what a speaker is saying, exactly, but they nonetheless get that the speaker himself does understand it, and they can sense he's telling them them the truth.

A lot of times people judge the truth of what Speaker A says by looking at Speaker B's reaction. If Speaker B just repeats himself, without addressing Speaker A's added information, or quickly changes the subject, they get it: Point scored.

I do this all the time. I know stuff largely not in a positive way, but in a negative way -- I "know" things are true based not on a Republican saying it, but based on a his Democratic opponent being flat-footed or unconvincing in attempting to rebut it.

If I see a politician levy a charge at another politician, and the accused politician does not deny it or explain it, I assume: Point scored. That must be true, or at least partially true. If he had argument to make on this point he would have made it.

This may not be a 100% perfect rule, but I think it's 99% accurate. I'm keeping it, and I assume most other people are employing a similar rule.

2. There may be some people so innumerate they cannot understand the most basic mathematical notions. So? A lot of these people are low-functioning individuals who almost certainly are going to vote for the party that promises to take the most custody and care of them, that is to say, not us.

And so what if you lose a few of the most dunderheaded voters on a particular point? You also lose a lot of sharper voters by indulging in babytalk and sounding like an idiot yourself, by failing to make important and useful points.

3. As a general matter, independents like to think of themselves as "voting on the issues and on substance." Eh, that's not really true. Studies consistently find that independents know the least about positions than partisans on either side. But if they're going to indulge in such self-flattery, at least put on a show for them. Give them the "substance" they claim they want. Give them the numbers.

4. Any mathematical issue can be explained easily by using small numbers or more tangible terms. Chris Christie, for example, is good about finding stories that illustrate the very basic mathematical points he makes; this is not some unique skill that only he possesses.

Anyway, I'm going on and on as usual. I'm just getting so tired of Republicans leaving crucial points unstated because of either 1, a lack of homework-doing themselves, or 2, a confounding belief that the only people whose votes matter and are up for grabs are kind of stupid, and not only are they stupid, but they'll actually hold it against you if you start sounding smart for three seconds.

Posted by: Ace at 08:02 AM | Comments (235)
Post contains 1116 words, total size 7 kb.

For all of you who've been wondering "What will it finally take for the media to report on FM's role in the collapse?," we've got an answer: Republican involvement with FM, sillybeans.

That said, Sexton was right about this particular bit of public advocacy for the program. In the article Verum Serum uncovers, Gingrich does not endorse Fannie's/Freddie's practices. Instead, he endorses the model of a government-backed enterprise for handling functions that the government has gotten into.

Functions the government probably shouldn't have gotten into, but it did, and so given that it did, is it better to have a purely government division handling this, or one with some kind of responsiveness to market forces?

Newt's calculation on FM was in error, because, as circumstances would prove (and he would later state), FM was so consumed with the typical problems of government -- no matter what the decisions, someone's getting paid off for it; and of course it existed not to turn a profit, or engage in sound underwriting, but as a piggybank for its clients -- that the "market forces" part of his formulation turned out to be absent.

But even so, the basics of his article were completely unobjectionable in 2007. This goes back to that that "domination of neoconservative thinking" thing I was just discussing, where many proposals for streamlining government (federal, state, and local) in the 90s and 00s involved privatizing or, as with FM, half-privatizing some government function.

A conservative objection can be leveled: Privatizing or semi-privatizing through GSEs might be a conservative solution when we're discussing a function that has always been a purely governmental one; that is, if the government has always done something, it is conservative to push it towards private execution.

On the other hand, if a function is of much more recent vintage, like the Freddie and Fannie programs, the most conservative solution would be to simply end the programs entirely.

Things really have changed. I know I have. Two years ago I would have been much more aggressive about claiming ending this or that program (like NPR) was "unrealistic" and politically poisonous, and I would have counseled people to not overreach and set the cause back by demanding too much.

But these things do not seem unrealistic anymore. They seem merely difficult.

“While we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself,” he said. It “marries private enterprise to a public purpose.”

At the time of his comments, Freddie Mac and its larger rival Fannie Mae were under fire from Republicans, who said their government charters allowed them to make profits for shareholders while putting taxpayers at risk. Gingrich, a former U.S. House speaker, has voiced criticism of the companies in recent years.

He does state there that regulation needs to be tightened up; and yet the general thrust is don't over-fix what's not over-broken.

But Fannie and Freddie were over-broken.

Obviously Gingrich's position was the dominant one, including in Republican circles, as the effort to reform these institutions died, and it never became known to me as a higher-order priority of the conservative movement.

This may be partly my fault, as I just never did much reading on it myself and doubt I posted at all on the issue prior to the collapse. Since I never foresaw the collapse (and few did; some, but only a few) I guess I can't fault Gingrich too much for having missed it.

Could this possibly be an issue in a general election? Well, in 2008, I expected McCain to make an issue of it. He didn't. Further, Obama claimed in a debate that he had written a letter to then-Secretary Treasury Paulsen warning him about the dangers of subprime loans (a lot of them facilitated by Fannie's and Freddie's subsidization of them) and a coming wave of foreclosures.

I couldn't believe that. I thought he was lying.

He wasn't... sort of. Although Obama would later cast his letter as having been about the need for tighter regulation and an examination of Fannie's and Freddie's practices, in fact the letter did not mention Fannie and Freddie at all, and seemed to be about... further subsidizing loans for people who couldn't repay their old loans.

There is grave concern in low-income communities about a potential coming wave of foreclosures. Because regulators are partly responsible for creating the environment that is leading to rising rates of home foreclosure in the subprime mortgage market, I urge you immediately to convene a homeownership preservation summit with leading mortgage lenders, investors, loan servicing organizations, consumer advocates, federal regulators and housing-related agencies to assess options for private sector responses to the challenge.

We cannot sit on the sidelines while increasing numbers of American families face the risk of losing their homes. And while neither the government nor the private sector acting alone is capable of quickly balancing the important interests in widespread access to credit and responsible lending, both must act and act quickly.

Working together, the relevant private sector entities and regulators may be best positioned for quick and targeted responses to mitigate the danger. Rampant foreclosures are in nobodyÂ’s interest, and I believe this is a case where all responsible industry players can share the objective of eliminating deceptive or abusive practices, preserving homeownership, and stabilizing housing markets.

The summit should consider best practice loan marketing, underwriting, and origination practices consistent with the recent (and overdue) regulatorsÂ’ Proposed Statement on Subprime Mortgage Lending. The summit participants should also evaluate options for independent loan counseling, voluntary loan restructuring, limited forbearance, and other possible workout strategies. I would also urge you to facilitate a serious conversation about the following:

* What standards investors should require of lenders, particularly with regard to verification of income and assets and the underwriting of borrowers based on fully indexed and fully amortized rates.

* How to facilitate and encourage appropriate intervention by loan servicing companies at the earliest signs of borrower difficulty.

* How to support independent community-based-organizations to provide counseling and work-out services to prevent foreclosure and preserve homeownership where practical.

* How to provide more effective information disclosure and financial education to ensure that borrowers are treated fairly and that deception is never a source of competitive advantage.

* How to adopt principles of fair competition that promote affordability, transparency, non-discrimination, genuine consumer value, and competitive returns.

* How to ensure adequate liquidity across all mortgage markets without exacerbating consumer and housing market vulnerability.

Of course, the adoption of voluntary industry reforms will not preempt government action to crack down on predatory lending practices, or to style new restrictions on subprime lending or short-term post-purchase interventions in certain cases. My colleagues on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs have held important hearings on mortgage market turmoil and I expect the Committee will develop legislation.

With the exception of the bolded text -- which does mention a "conversation" about standards for securing a loan, in a CYA manner -- everything else is about protecting these poor people from "predatory loans," and offering even more taxpayer-funded help (helping non-payers with "workouts," that is, paying less than they agreed but keeping their home).

He seems to mistake who exactly was preying on whom. He casts this in terms of the people taking out mortgages they couldn't afford, and often falsified their applications to secure, as the victims.

Rather than the taxpayer subsidizing other people's homes, and being left with a huge bill for that service (let alone a demolished economy), being the victims.

Nevertheless, he did insert that CYA bit into there, and so his narrow ass is somewhat covered.

Of course, as the PUMA blog No Quarter notes, when it came down to actually voting for reforms, he sided with Democrats and blocked them.

Sure, he can write a cover-your-ass letter mentioning, briefly, a "conversation" about increasing the standards for subprime loans. But when it's time to do more than have a "conversation" about this, he sides with Barney Frank.

I mention all of this because Obama will in fact attempt to get to Gingrich's "right" on the issue, and will once again proclaim, "I wrote a letter," as he did with McCain.

So I do want to know the exact services Gingrich provided for Fannie or Freddie. If it really was just a public defense of the basic model of the GSE, combined with, as he claims, private criticism offered to them about their lending practices being "insane," that's one thing. That's not so bad at all, really. Not good, certainly, but not so bad.

But if it's more than that, we need to know that.

Posted by: Ace at 06:47 AM | Comments (201)
Post contains 1462 words, total size 10 kb.

Time once again for the monthly straw poll. Anybody want to bet on who the Not-Mitt-of-the-Month is, or is it too bleedin' obvious by now? And you guys doubted me last month when I said it was happening.

You know those people who can't ever pick a restaurant? They're always like, "What do you feel like?" "No, what to do you want?", for thirty freakin' minutes while you stand there with your stomach chewing on your small intestine and your eyes rolling in your head?

Yeah.

Prior AOSHQ straw polls: October-ish, September, August, July, June, May.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:28 AM | Comments (472)
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.

Happy Friday.

First up, the Case for Oklahoma State at the BCS Championship. As we head into Bedlam, some analysts are saying "Alabama? Really?"

Congress is indeed headed to a showdown with the President over the defense authorization bill. Last night, the Senate overwhelmingly (93-7) approved its version, which includes, with a limited waiver, a measure requiring the military to hold suspected terrorists linked to al-Qaida or its affiliates. The bill now must be reconciled with the House version (it also has a detainee provision) before the final bill hits the President's desk. The White House says the President stands by his veto threat.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:58 AM | Comments (114)
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

The Truth About Violence

Well the best defense against violence is to simply not be around when bad shit goes down. But if you do happen to be there, then the next best is to run away - there's never such a thing as safe brawling and people get killed everyday that way. And if you can't run away, well then you're going to have to fight long enough until you can get away.

And should someone ever try to abduct you, then fight like your life depends on it. Because if they succeed, statistically you will end up dead.

If you find yourself in a situation where a predator is trying to control you, the time for listening to instructions and attempting to remain calm has passed. It will get no easier to resist and escape after these first moments. The presence of weapons, the size or number of your attackers—these details are irrelevant. However bad the situation looks, it will only get worse. To hesitate is to put yourself at the mercy of a sociopath. You have no alternative but to explode into action, whatever the risk. Recognizing when this line has been crossed, and committing to escape at any cost, is more important than mastering physical techniques.

(video below the fold) more...

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:39 PM | Comments (869)
Post contains 798 words, total size 7 kb.

Could this possibly be true?

Many religious people donÂ’t like atheists, and in fact would apparently rate them alongside rapists on levels of trust, suggests a new Canadian study that claims to be one of the first psychological probes into anti-atheist prejudice.

Okay. Alarm bells already going off. 1, it's a "study." Yeah. "Studies" seem to be created chiefly to be linked in Cosmpolitan magazine lately.

2, it seems designed to discover that what it has already determined must exist -- "anti-atheist prejudice."

3, I figure all of the people doing this study are among the new class of Evangelical Atheists who are all butthurt that their idea for a new alternative Christmas, celebrating the day God was not born, to be called "Regular Sunday," isn't catching on.

But, for the sake of me posting something in this two hour slot, let's just go along with it.

Researchers at the University of British Columbia and the University of Oregon conducted a series of studies that found a deep level of distrust toward those who don’t believe in God, deeming them to be among the least trusted people in the world — despite their growing ranks to an estimated half billion globally.

“There’s this persistent belief that people behave better if they feel like God is watching them,” said Will Gervais, lead study author and doctoral candidate in the social psychology department at UBC. “So if you’re playing by those rules, you’re going to see other people’s religious beliefs as signals of how trustworthy they might be.”

That doesn't sound like science. That sounds like a personal anecdote.

The research began a few years ago, when a series of polls revealed atheists to be some of the least liked people in areas with religious majorities, which is to say, much of the world. In one poll, only 45% of American respondents said they would vote for a qualified atheist presidential candidate and overwhelmingly preferred to vote for African American, Jewish and female candidates. Americans also rated atheists as the group that least agrees with their vision for the country and the group theyÂ’d most disapprove of their child marrying.

This is a funny statement. It's almost like they're saying, "Seriously, you trust us less than those darkies and sheenies? Come on! At least we're white!"

The resulting paper, published in the current online issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, includes six studies all designed to measure peopleÂ’s perception of an atheistÂ’s trustworthiness. The first study asked 351 Americans from across the country to compare the trustworthiness of an atheist and a gay man, since both represent groups often described as threatening to majority religious values. MThey rated atheists significantly higher than gay men on distrust, though lower on levels of disgust.

What? This seems like a very strange way to do things. "Compare atheists to gays"?

Again with the "Are you kidding? At least we're not homos!" stuff.

Okay, are you ready for this? Here comes the "science."

The second study recruited 105 UBC undergrads —they purposely targeted a more liberal sample from a less-religious nation — to test whether distrust of atheists is more pronounced than distrust of other groups, including Muslims. The students read a description of an untrustworthy man who pretended to leave insurance information after backing his car into a parked vehicle and were asked to say whether it was more likely the man was either a Christian, Muslim, rapist or an atheist. People were far more likely to say he was either an atheist or a rapist and not part of a religious group. They did not significantly differentiate atheists from rapists, something Mr. Gervais found disconcerting.

1, it doesn't seem odd to me that Christians would assume he's not a Christian. It may be irrational, but it is perfectly understandable to assume that "Someone Like Me" wouldn't be up to some funky business.

2, they can't say "Muslim" because that's racist, man.

3, I have no idea why they'd say the driver is just as likely to be an atheist as a rapist, except that... as a matter of strict logic, the driver is far more likely to be an atheist than a rapist, because, in civilized countries, atheists constitute about 5% of the population and rapists constitute something like one one hundredth of one percent.

So, like, if you ask me who's more likely to find my lost wallet and not return it, an atheist or a rapist, I'm going to go with "atheist" myself.

Plus, it's just intellectually disjointed. When you say "rapist," the image you immediately put into my mind does not involve road accidents. Seriously, this actually makes me start thinking there's going to be a follow-up question in which a rapist is more obviously implicated.

Like: "Now imagine the vehicle he's driving is this one. Now who do you think is driving?"

This is a frankly bizarre method of measuring things. It's so contrived it seems purpose-built to deliver a specific "poor me" conclusion.

Mr. Gervais Seems To Be Working On His Own Bugaboos And/Or Building a Cottage Industry: His bio:

My research draws upon a wide variety of subfields within psychology, including social cognition, prejudice/stereotyping, reasoning, evolutionary psychology, and cultural psychology.

To me, some of the most interesting questions about human psychology involve supernatural thinking: Why do people tend to hold unverifiable supernatural beliefs? What cognitive, evolutionary, and cultural forces facilitate belief in counterintuitive supernatural agents? How do beliefs about supernatural agents in turn affect cognition, evolution, and culture? Why do some people believe in gods? Why do other people not believe in gods? What are the psychological causes and consequences of religious (dis)belief? Why are atheists disliked?

I actually looked that up because he shares a surname with a famous atheist -- Ricky Gervais. No sign they're related, apart from that. This dope grew up in Colorado.

Posted by: Ace at 02:59 PM | Comments (801)
Post contains 1016 words, total size 7 kb.

They break stories over there.

Gingrich says the difference between Fannie/Freddie Gingirch and today's Gingrich is the collapse itself, which has caused him to rethink the viability of the government-sponsored entity model, at least as regards mortgages and home-ownership promotion.

Which is all well and good but so what? Everyone can say that. Everyone now knows this. (Except Democrats, but they can't permit themselves to know it.)

ItÂ’s perfectly understandable that one would have a different view after the crisis.

Sure, John, but it doesn't explain the soft-thinking prior to the collapse.

Sexton continues:

That said, it doesnÂ’t quite line up with his recollection at the CNBC debate, i.e. that he warned Freddie Mac their business model was impossible and insane. That seems like a little bit of retro-projection based on hindsight. The actual record reflects that he was a paid consultant and a Fannie/Freddie defender in 2007.

Yup.

Eh, I guess I'm butthurt that my guy's miserable failures seem to stick so firmly in people's heads while other guy's miserable failures get a shrug.

Earlier: Newt claimed in the CNBC interview that his involvement with Fannie/Freddie was confined to telling them how insane it was to promote mortgages for people who couldn't afford them.

For those who thought, "I really doubt someone would be paid $1.6 million for such advice," congrats, it seems they got a little more than some criticism.

Posted by: Ace at 12:17 PM | Comments (637)
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

Mitt Romney's campaign has been caught flat-footed by Gingrich's super surge, which is really not a reason to go all Nelson Muntz on them, because it really was a pretty unexpected event.

I mean, does everyone remember Gingrich's press release after the "Rightwing social engineering" fiasco?

All along, everything has gone according to Mitt RomneyÂ’s plan. His strategists didnÂ’t believe that Tim Pawlenty would catch on. They were confident that Michele Bachmann would fade. They were prepared for Rick Perry. They never thought Herman Cain would pass the commander in chief test.

But they didnÂ’t count on a late and strong rise by Newt Gingrich.

Once left for dead, the former House speaker has suddenly emerged as Romney’s most durable opponent yet — in part because he has performed well in the debates and, unlike the others, he is viewed by many in the Republican Party as a plausible president.

For this unexpected turn in what has been a steady and sure campaign, the Romney team has no road map. With just five weeks until the Iowa caucuses, the former Massachusetts governor and his advisers are trying to figure out what to do. Will they stick to their tried-and-true playbook and hope Gingrich falls on his own, just like the others? Or will Romney engage Gingrich directly and aggressively, either through ads or in a pair of upcoming debates?

“Is there enough time for Gingrich to self-destruct on his own before Jan. 3, or do you have to help it along? It’s a tough call,” said a GOP strategist who informally advises Romney’s campaign...

It's a real problem, attacking Gingrich, since Gingrich has kept it pretty positive, and the voters have signaled they really hate intramural attacks. So any attack by Romney will hurt Romney almost as much as it hurts Gingrich.

I think a coblogger suggested Romney's best play might be a tricky thing, pointing out all the areas in which Gingrich and Romney have agreed in the past. Stuff like, "Like Newt, who once championed global warming, I've evolved a little on the issue." This tactic would, in theory, not sound very negative (we once agreed!), while still delivering the deadly payload.

Will it work? I doubt it. It's too transparent.

One problem I've found in this whole primary (and this drives me bonkers):

There is a contingent of voters who vow they will not vote for anything but a very Strong, Nearly Pure, Conservative.

And yet they of course desperately wish to vote for someone, as they really want to boot Obama out of office.

So what keeps happening is that people seem to seize on the idea that whatever candidate these voters are currently supporting, that candidate must be, by definition, a Very Strong Conservative, and arguments to the contrary are met with anger, because -- why are you trying to tear down a Very Strong Conservative?

This candidate must be a very strong conservative. After all, I'm supporting him. And I only support Very Strong Conservatives.

Ergo, your attempts to trick me into thinking he's not a Very Strong Conservative must be some kind of dishonest effort to help Romney and/or Obama.

So the moment someone gets blessed with this Very Strong Conservative designation, a series of obstinate/information-avoiding impulses kick in. And it becomes very hard to convince a supporter of a Very Strong Conservative that his candidate is not, in fact, particularly strong.

Like: Herman Cain suddenly deciding that abortion was a "family decision" into which the government should not intrude.

Ordinarily you would consider such a statement to be fairly good evidence -- certainly relevant evidence -- that a candidate is not in fact as Very Strong a Conservative as advertised.

This cycle, however, pointing that out constitutes a Personal Attack and a Gotcha and an attempt to Do the Establishment's bidding.

The point is, I think Newt is now a "Very Strong Conservative" according to this "whatever guy we're on must be a Very Strong Conservative" thing.

And it's very hard to push people off of that. They kinda don't want to hear it, even if it's pretty relevant to the designation which is so crucial to their decision.

And you know who will have almost no ability at all to carry such a line of attack? Mitt Romney. If I get accused of carrying water for Mitt Romney every time I point out accurate information, I'm pretty sure Mitt Romney will likewise be accused of carrying water for Mitt Romney.

Will Bachmann step up the plate? Maybe. Paul already did. And of course all the other NotRomneys have an interest in taking Gingrich down, just as Romney does.

Huntsman, rising a bit in New Hampshire, is pouncing on Romney's Bret Baier interview.

But time is running short. The Iowa caucus is January 3rd, and people are not going to hear a lot of news for a week and a half before this. Christmas, New Years. Time off, shopping, cooking, seeing family.

As Drew said in an email, Newt Gingrich may be the "Flavor of the Month," but if so, This is the month to be Flavor of the Month in.

Meanwhile, a Romney aide regrets the implosion of Cain, because Cain kept Perry down.

An adviser to Mitt RomneyÂ’s presidential campaign says in a new book that the campaign was not happy to see former GodfatherÂ’s Pizza CEO Herman CainÂ’s campaign rocked by allegations of inappropriate behavior dating back to the 1990s.

“We didn’t want [opposition research] on him coming out. We wanted him to stay where he is. He keeps Perry down,” the anonymous aide said, referencing Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

As Romney has thusfar been unable to knock together more than 25-30% support, his victory path seems to rely on a field with multiple viable Romney alternatives.

I have to ask, as a commenter would ask, if I didn't: Is this Romney's attempt to resuscitate Perry's campaign a little -- just a little -- to pull enough support from Gingrich that Romeny can go back into the lead with 30%?

Possible. I doubt it, but possible.

Romney isn't being super-subtle about the chief contrast between himself and Gingrich.

When Mitt Romney stopped in Iowa for a town hall-style meeting the day before Thanksgiving, as Newt GingrichÂ’s surge was solidifying in the polls, a woman stood to ask Romney what single thing set him apart from his Republican competition.

“Umm…,” Romney said, thinking for a moment. “The most extraordinary wife in the world.”

A Politico story claims that wasn't a one-off.

TheyÂ’ll point out GingrichÂ’s past policy shifts which can protect them from attacks against RomneyÂ’s own inconsistencies. TheyÂ’ll highlight GingrichÂ’s conservative apostasies as a hedge against RomneyÂ’s own moderate views. And theyÂ’ll highlight his stable family while leaving an unspoken impression about GingrichÂ’s two divorces.

The plan to increase the attention to RomneyÂ’s wife of 42 years and five sons in the hopes of sparking more conversation about GingrichÂ’s three marriages without raising the topic themselves is one of several subtle offensives.

Before anyone goes ape-poop over that, that is among the baggage we have always meant when we said "Newt Gingrich's baggage." As one blog puts Cain supporters' consideration of jumping to Gingrich, they're choosing between an accused adulterer or an admitted adulterer.

I'm past Gingrich's divorces. C'est la vie. And there is no doubt at all that America cares less about this issue than it once did, and there is no doubt in this fateful election they will care even less about it than usual.

But I don't know if that's the same as "not caring about it."

I really don't know. This is one of the several reasons I've questioned what exactly we "win" by choosing Gingrich over Romney, except a less-electable candidate. I'm not sure if the very marginal gain in supposed "Very Strong Conservatism" makes up for the big hit in general electability.*

Newt's not unelectable. He could win. I just don't know if he has a particularly good shot at winning, or would enter the race as an underdog.

Newt Continues Crushing, Per Rasmussen: Nationally, 38 for Gingrich, 17 for Romney.

When Perry entered the race, the number I had in mind at which a candidate would be all but a lock was 40%.

And By The Way: People have the idea the contest is all but over in January. Iowa, NH, SC, Florida. Done and done.

But...

Because those states all moved up their schedules so far ahead in the calender, there is now a huge eight week gap between the early primaries and Super Tuesday.

Eight weeks is a lot of time for an implosion.

And as I think that most candidates are haunted by the Ghost of Tim Pawlenty, I think most of them will stay in the race, as a formal matter, even if they have to turn their campaign into a skeleton crew and only get to show up for occasional debates and interviews.

So.... this might not be over quite as soon as it looks like.

You might get to enjoy this volatile dogfight through March.

* Then again, that Democratic "flip flop" ad on Romney was brutal. It could be that Romney is a lot weaker than I'm generally imagining he is.

Posted by: Ace at 10:52 AM | Comments (465)
Post contains 1572 words, total size 11 kb.