1. The pool pump (new house) ~1000.00 USD
2. The pipes in the storage room: ~300.00 USD (plus no hot water upstairs for 3 days)
3. My car ~800.00 USD

Cost for the birth after Insurance: $5000.00 USD
Old house (still not sold) ~4000.00 USD / month
Floor cleaning for old house (to get it sold) ~800.00 USD

-Marco

Born today. 7 lbs 8 oz. welcome to the world.

I was in a jewelry story today, buying a ring. While I waited for the girl to finish with my credit card--being watched by a security guard who stood, always, with his hand on his gun--a worn-out looking woman was trying to sell golden rings to the owner.

He examined them with his loop while she stood there with her hands shaking. He couldn't give her more than 1500--there was too much black in the diamonds. She needed 18,000. He couldn't do it. He'd ballpark the ring on her hand though, if he could weight it and such he could give her a better price.

She didn't want to take his deal--but she desperately wanted more. Finally she shoveled her gold into a huge pill bottle.

When I saw her in the parking lot, she looked like she was crying.

The Political Omnivore

I've started a new blog using blogspot. So check it out. I'll keep some of my posts here--but there will likely be Omnivore-only posts.

I'll be working on the layout over time so feel free to tell me you hate the type-writer font or the right-hand margins ...

It's coming down to the bitter--and will be bitter--end of the Florida primary as the vote will be tomorrow. The polls show Romney with a sizable lead in the sunshine state and I see no reason he won't put double digit numbers up over Newt. Blow-outs are usually highly uninteresting unless it's the underdog doing the blowing out and Romney, as rich as the past 8 presidents combined and a leader in '08 whose "turn it is now" is hardly anyone's idea of an underdog.

So what's interesting about this race?

What's interesting is two-fold: (1) The strategy and tactics that Romney used to beat Gingrich and (2) the fact that Gingrich has Sarah Palin and Herman Cain lined up on his side making him the Tea Party candidate.

STRA-TEA-GER-EY
Facing the possibility of a second loss in Florida which would cede all momentum and possibly the whole campaign to Gingrich, Team Romney, re-organized and re-tooled to go after Newt. This took the form of a far more aggressive Romney both on the stump and in the debates and, on the ground, applied pressure all over Newt with Romney supporters showing up at his rallies to heckle and rebut him. It also involved mega-bucks media-saturation ad-buys. This in-your-face blanket coverage has proven devastatingly effective dropping his favorability in SoFla from 23 points down to 10.

This is good tactics for Romney because it shows the base that he can take it to an opponent--even get personal (the link has a Romney staffer saying this isn't just about winning but about "destroying Gingrich"). This, frankly, is what the Republicans--base and otherwise--want to see in their candidate. They want someone who is angry at Obama and will bring with the holy fire of the righteous. Newt promised that--and Romney said Obama was "a nice guy but in over his head."

No more Mr. Nice Guy.

It also shows that Team Romney can handle a complex multi-pronged attack plan in one of the largest and most difficult political terrains in existence. Florida is a big state with multiple segmented demographics (democratic south Florida, the Republican cow-corridor, the Southern-State Pan-handle). It has special interest in the form of Hispanic voters and expensive media. And did I mention, it's big. As a purple swing state, Florida is crucial to the election for both parties. If Romney can dominate here he can dominate everywhere he needs to. It's a powerful argument for electability-by-competence.

Romney also hired a new debate coach (the coach Michelle Bachmann used--and whatever her issues, she was pretty sharp in terms of execution in the debates) and used his staffer's relationship with The Druge Report to fill it with anti-Gingrich material.

Basically this is complex integrated "combined arms" approach where Team Romney makes a coordinated on-message assault on Gingrich and, well, wins. It puts Obama on notice that when they're up against Romney it isn't going to be any kind of cake-walk.

That is, unless something goes terribly, terribly wrong.

The Tea Party and The Soul of the Republicans
The only problem is that however much Romney is up he's still not more beloved by the base. Oh, they may be voting for him--but almost half would prefer a new candidate. The big news, however is that Sarah Palin has, yet again, all-but-officially endorsed him. Say what you will about Sarah, she has found a way to endorse someone 'several times' making the headlines each time. She says what's on a lot of people's minds:

Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans “bitterly clinging” to their faith and their Second Amendment rights. The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the “wisdom” of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 who didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all.

A lot of people are thinking the same thing. In fact, Herman Cain--a Tea Party champion even after his fall from grace (although less so now that he did his stage appearance for Colbert) just endorsed Newt on that basis.

What Does It Mean?
Under normal conditions I would be especially impressed with the base "rising up." As we saw with the PUMAS in '08 (disgruntled Hillary voters who swore they would sweep in McCain as a lesson to the Democrats) it's mostly all talk and no (effective) action. The percent of people willing to waste their vote to send a message no one will get is small--and that small number creates a "death spiral" where, when you think about joining in, you go "But there's so few ... I'd be wasting my vote and no one would get the message anyway--or get the message we're a bunch of losers who deserve to be ignored!"

However the Tea Party is not in that category. They have (1) made their mark (the 2010 elections) and (2) they have shown they're willing to go down with the ship by backing an ludicrous candidate (O'Donnell, Angle). This means they're not so easy to ignore. Plus, hey, they're funded by Koch brothers.

I don't think all the Tea Party support in the world can help Newt win in Florida at this point--and the few races in Feb mostly favor Romney as well (heavy Mormon western states) but if Gingrich keeps at it, when the tide turns to the south? Well, he might find some stronger tea waiting for him.

It also doesn't help Newt that Santorum isn't giving up. Santorum is almost certainly pulling votes (evangelicals) that Newt would get the lion's share of--and while they won't all go to Gingrich (family values voters? Uh, not likely Mr-Three-Wives) if Romney doesn't become more likable it's Newt or Ron Paul and we know who scares evangelicals more.

What Do I Think?
I think the tastiest possibility out of this mess is that Gingrich could go 3rd party in a kamakazi strafing run against Romney. I didn't think this was likely for Ron Paul--and would be pretty meaningless for Trump at this point--but Newt? If the partisan sniping gets hotter Newt may keep his supporters well into the race. Newt has already shown a penchant for Mutually Assured Destruction (taking on Clinton's impeachment while Newt, himself, was having an affair) and making it personal.

Romney, by going directly after Newt in the debates (and schooling him badly in the last one) and having his supporters show up at the rallys? That makes it personal.

Also, consider this: the narrative in Newt-supporters minds is that, like with classic Han Solo Star Wars, Romney "fired first." The argument is that Romney "attacked from the left" against Perry by scaring old-folks with Perry's Social-Security-Is-A-Ponzi-Scheme statement (which, uh, was in Perry's book--so I'm not sure why it should be off limits) and then going in for the "Alyinskite" politics of personal destruction against Newt in Iowa--something "only the left" does.

A poster on one of the blogs asked tellingly: "When can we stop calling them leftist tactics and just start calling them tactics." To these guys, however Newt has sinned with is anti-capitalist attack on Romney's record at slash-and-burn Bain Capital, Romney started the fight and now is playing directly out of Obama's book as well.

Newt, for his part, has some nasty attack ads out that are, I think, designed to wound Romney so bad he'll be unelectable in November. I think that's Newt's bet right now: hurt him so badly there is no choice other than Gingrich. If that's the case, well, I don't know if it's possible--but it'd be scary for me as a GOP insider to watch happen.

I believe the smart money says Newt will do no such thing--and that, if he did, his decision to run 3rd would happen late enough in the race for most of the base to have decided on Mitt anyway--but the possibility is still there ... and fascinating.

OR


My father asked me to do a post on the Federal reserve because he'd heard some of the conspiracy theories about it. So I did some research. Ron Paul wants to get rid of it--he suggested a return to "Honest Money" (the Gold Standard) and people are saying the Federal Reserve is a rogue entity, control the US Money Supply from its shadowy fortress. What is it? How does it work? Is it ... out of control?

The Federal Reserve Bank
The Federal Reserve System is the term for the central banking system of the united states. Almost all nations have some kind of central banking system and this one is ours.

How Does It Work?
It's like this--the Fed, through 12 Federal Reserve Banks around the country sets the interest rate for loans to major banks thereby controlling the supply of money to them and thereby the nation. As this money is, yes, a loan, it gets repaid by the banks with interest--and therefore makes a profit.

Furthermore, as it issues stock which is owned by those banks ... it's ... well, is it a PRIVATE company? Making billions of dollars in profit?! With NO congressional oversight!? And maybe all that stock is owned by the Rockerfellers and Rothchilds and what-not. Overseas foreigners? The Illuminati? This thing has to be stopped?

To Start With?
No. The Federal Reserve does issue stock--but it isn't even remotely normal stock. Stock holders (the huge banks) don't control it with those stocks. It may not be sold, traded, or used as collateral for a loan. Dividends are fixed by law at 6% per year.

Secondly the Fed does make a profit. A big one. Like 24.9 billion dollars last year. Isn't that a conspiracy? Only if you leave out that it paid 24.5 bn to the US Government. The rest went to the banks as their dividends and operating expenses. Horrors.

What about NO OVERSIGHT!? Uh. No. Congress controls and audits the bank. It is true that it does not need to seek permission to take action (set interest rates, etc.)--but it can have it's mission changed and controlled by Congress. The President can't remove the chairman--but most capitalist economies have fairly autonomous central banks. And they work most of the time.

Who appoints the Fed Chairman? A shadowy force from Indonesia ... President Obama. If you're gonna buy into one conspiracy theory you might as well buy into all of them.

What's The Conspiracy?
So I'm going to take a minute here to talk about two things: What/Why people hate the Fed--and then how to think about things if you find that you've bought into this. Dad, if you are reading this, read them both.

Why Do People Hate The Fed
There are several reasons to hate the Fed--but it cones down to two of them. The first is that since the US moved from the Gold Standard (which, by the way, the existence of the Fed pre-dates) the fear has been (in some quarters) that we would spiral into hyper-inflation in an orgy of printing dough. The Fed is actually there to stop that--but some people have never gotten over it.

The other reason people hate it is that, going way back, there is a belief that the bible prohibits fiat money (money that is not backed by gold) and is "dishonest." The actual passages that support this are all about not using tricked scales to cheat people--but it gets evolved into a hatred for all kinds of complex money tricks. This echoes what we see today in "Islamic banking" where the products have to comply with fundamentalist Islam to be sold to the believers.

How Do I Stop From Believing This Stuff?
Today there is a vector for conspiracy theory that is unlike any other: the Internet. How is a person to know if information they are being told is true or not? How can you be sure anything I wrote up there is true or not? I had to wade through several pages and, ultimately, had to take the word of the website of the Federal Reserve itself to an extent in the end. I also used Wikipedia--and anyone can edit that.

So how can you believe what I wrote?

Well, I believe it because I've read all kinds of shit on the Internet and I have a good sense for conspiracy theory. But what if you don't (or what if I'm wrong?).

Here's what you need to do: Apply Ockham's Razor--that's the philosophical tool that says "The simplest answer is preferred." Conspiracies are complex things--a shadowy government organization that makes billions of dollars selling money to the US when we freakin' print our own money doesn't make much sense. The idea that Congress would allow a group that could set the prime interest rate to exist without oversight would be, well, shocking.

This goes for 9/11: a government plan involving scores of people (demolition squads, planners, controllers, etc.) and requires that no one talk in the face of abomination--is complex. Believing in conspiracies requires delicate webs of trust. It requires (often) armies of faceless killers who, there is no evidence, have ever existed. Maybe it's because I've known plenty of real special forces guys that I know they wouldn't take on missions to kill civilians without thinking about it for themselves (and no matter what you may have heard, these guys are not chosen because they are ultimate order followers--they are all chosen for intelligence and performance characteristics ... and mental stability--something that anyone participating in a 9/11 cover-up would lack).

The statement that Obama is "the most divisive president ever" has never been very resonant with me: when I look at his policies I see a mish-mash of right and left--even his signature healthcare plan, The Affordable Healthcare Act (which we all know as ObamaCare) was taken from mainstream Republican thought of a decade or two ago. He's been friendly with big business, bailed out the banks (TARP wasn't his--but he agreed to it and did his own version) and has waged war quite effectively--even more effectively--than his Republican predecessor.

If he was in bed with his green energy friends, Bush II was in bed with his oil-energy friends (Halliburton). If his stimulus didn't "do enough," charges that it "didn't do anything" are at odds with what we know of the facts (over 1MM jobs created according to the CBO).

He desegregated the military--but did it by eschewing judicial solutions over a home-grown approach. He hasn't even come down as pro-gay marriage.

Plus, people always like to argue that "Now is the worst time in history" or "We live in the end-times" or whatever. The rhetoric in the early years of the country was as vicious and partisan as anything we've ever seen today. It was overtly religiously centered and pulled no punches.

However ...
This Gallup Poll shows historic levels of polarization in partisans for a 3rd year president. Make no mistake: Bush II's 8th year still well tops anywhere that Obama is--but it's worth nothing that (a) this trend is likely to amplify as the year and the campaign continues and (b) Bush II's negative popularity is still impacting politics 3 years later (Jeb Bush is considered a non-starter because, well, Bush).

What if things Really Are Different This Time?

Why Would That Be?
I googled Why Is Obama The Most Divisive President Ever" and looked at the top results. Here's what I found (minus articles about him trying to be less divisive or general divisiveness discussion).

Allen Schanman of Boca Ration (my home town!) writes a letter to the editor. Here's a section:

He espouses economic equality, just like the socialists and communists have always done before him. A failed economic theory that has never worked, in which the most productive are suppose to support the least. All under government supervised outcomes which are never achieved. He wants the government to redistribute the earnings and wealth of our citizens based upon what bureaucrats in Washington think is “fair”, through manipulation of the tax system.

I'm not sure he knows what communism is.
A site called Flopping Aces has a lengthy post which goes into several sections:
1. He uses divisive rhetoric ("Bring a gun to a knife fight", "Get in their faces!", and "It's time to fight for it!")
2. He has "targeted" various groups for "ridicule" including groups such as Bankers (whom the president calls "Fat Cats"--a term I feel certain bankers have never heard applied to them), African Americans (he tells them to stop complaining--again, new stuff for them, I think), and even Americans (whom he tells us have gotten 'a little bit soft and lazy and lost our competitive edge'). One might almost think that with his 360-degree ridicule hose he'd be more of a common enemy and a uniter than divisive. But I do see what he's getting at here.
3. The Anti-Business thing. More about that in a minute.

On the Free Republic there is this quote:

“All 50 States are coordinating in this – as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders.”

It turns out that rather than being ascribed to Obama--or even a staffer--it may have come from a user-generated comment on a website. But no matter.

Oddly enough, I had trouble finding cites to Obamacare and the recess appointments which, you would think, would be pretty divisive.

What Does It Mean?
On the rhetoric front I'm going to have to say I'm not sure that trying to rally your people to fight is particularly bad--especially since I wasn't on the shout-down-Palin crowd for her cross-hairs Gifford flyer. If someone on the right wants to make the call that calls to 'fight' are over the top they had better decry Palin first and foremost. The only person who got beat up by an Obama supporter that we know of was the girl who faked it.

Likewise the ridiculing and instituting communism charges are, well, ignorant. Communism and socialism hasn't changed since the Hermitage Foundation, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney all came out with their pro-mandate statements. Marxism hasn't changed since 2008 where RomneyCare wasn't a problem for a presidential candidate. To think that these words are anything but labels is, uh, ... uhm ... well, hateful rhetoric? Meant to--uh--fire up the base?

Well.

On the 99% #Occupy stuff though, maybe there is a problem: is Obama dividing the country that way? It's a fascinating charge. Dave Mustaine of Megadeath charges Obama with being divisive:

“I think it’s really dreadful what’s happening. I’ve never, in my 50 years of being alive, listened to an American president try and turn one class of people against another class of people. I’ve never heard a president say, ‘Go down and join the protesters down at Wall Street,’ knowing that there are Nazis down there, knowing that there are people down there who are trust-fund babies, that are super, super wealthy and they’re going down there and pretending that they really care; they just wanna be part of the ‘movement.’”

Is he right? Well, for one thing ... he's not right. Obama, so far as I can tell, never said that. In a post titled Obama Comes Out In Full Support Of Occupy Wall Street Anarchy the quote is (from the article, which is what the author alleges Mr. Obama said):

"Referring to protests that have spread from Wall Street to London, Rome and elsewhere, Mr Obama said: “Dr King would want us to challenge the excesses of Wall Street without demonising those who work there.” Mr Obama had previously said the protests “express the frustration” of ordinary Americans with the financial sector."

Did this guy even read his own post? Write it? Maybe the blogger just did the headline?

But beyond whatever Obama has or hasn't said: if Obama's tactics were to divide the 99% from the 1%, while that would be a division--to be sure--it could hardly be said to be "ripping the country apart"--unless the Republican Party --the whole elephant and it's supporters is there for the 1% (or, to be fair, maybe they just don't want anyone kicked out of the great American experiment. Let's test that: Gay marriage and integration into the military ... Hmm.).

What Do I Think?
I'm pretty unimpressed with the class-warefare angle. For one thing, it's calling Obama a Marxist without actually using the term. As the GOP realizes they can't--the sane ones, anyway--get away with that nonsense (it's too inflammatory!) they just pick a euphemism and roll on that.

Also, we're told, the GOP is the pro-everyone (but gays) party: they're the uniters of Real Americans^TM. If that was true, how come Gingrich--the guy who's at the top in the national polls right now (if only for today) is slinging anti-Bain stuff like it's going out of style? Could it be (a) that the position is nuanced or (b) that one's virtues are heavy and therefore the first thing jettisoned when the airship looses altitude. Either way isn't good because if Newt can be nuanced the Democrats can be too (and Obama).

The last few presidents that I have been aware of: Clinton, Bush II and, and Obama have been disliked viscerally by the opposite bases. In the case of Clinton this was comedy (the list of people the Clinton's had silently killed, for example). In the case of Bush II it was disturbing (Truthers). In the case of Obama it has become an actual movement.

That progression--the "weaponizing" of [Politician] Derangement Syndrome--is what I think might be 'different' now. We have a model--the Tea Party and the Arab Spring--that did not and, due to the facilitation of technology, probably could not exist in the past. Small organizations have easy access to the most powerful media in the world (anyone can cut a video and then distribute it to millions of people). Instant communications haven't just helped you find your kids at the mall--now you can organize a food tent. Electronic money movement for the masses doesn't just delivery Kindle books immediately to your iPad--it can also be used to donate to far-flung movements.

Email and other forms of electronic communication get the word out--even to the older Tea Party generation. If you can make a T-shirt, Cafe-Press can monetize it. If you can articulate a slogan, Twitter and a hash-sign can make it global.

With media outlets like Fox News and MSNBC--not to mention Pajamas Media and other on-line services--it should be no surprise that there is a growing divide. David Frum says 'We used to say you were entitled to your own opinion--but not your own facts. Now everyone feels entitled to their own facts.' I think that's accurate: my worldview is very different from the people's I read online--very different than that of my close friends--and all of us, with a mouse click, can be armed and loaded with talking points ranging from insightful to dubious to fraudulent--but who cares?

At the end of the day, the engine that drives this is emotion and the global economy is a dark engine that is pumping out misery right now. Our dialog--the dialog that wraps and frames the entire race is a reflection of that signal and the technology enablers that we use to have that conversation amplify it (the same way that instant movement of money 'amplified' the 'amount of money' in the world when the Electronic Funds Transfer network was set up).

Good luck.

The image is from a rejected Bloomberg cover and noted here. In the final stretch Romney leads by a 3pt nose (RCP) and Gingrich is doing his best with a 6MM ad-buy courtesy of his SuperPAC friends.

On the stump, Newt rolls some 99% boulders Romney's way:

"I think you have to live in worlds of Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Island accounts and automatic $20 million a year income with no work to have some fantasy this far from reality," Gingrich said, jabbing at Romney's self-released income taxes from this week.

By comparison, Gingrich said, his approach to immigration includes "people who have been here for a long time, who are grandmothers and grandfathers, who have been paying their bills, they've been working. Now, for Romney to believe that somebody's grandmother is going to be so cut off she is going to self deport? This ... is an Obama-level fantasy."

The conservative blogosphere is up in arms about it and Ann Coulter brings out the big guns:

Gingrich may have spent his entire life in Washington and be so much of an insider that, as Jon Stewart says, "when Washington gets its prostate checked, it tickles [Newt]," but he is deemed the rebellious outsider challenging "the Establishment" -- because, again, "the Establishment" is anyone who opposes Newt.

This is the sort of circular reasoning one normally associates with Democrats, people whom small-town pharmacists refer to as "drug seekers" and Ron Paul supporters.

She thinks--and so do a lot of other people--that Gingrich not only isn't an outsider ... isn't a conservative ... but is a November disaster in the making for the GOP.

But if Mitt is also a loser, what's to be done? Hot Air 'debunks' the hope for a brokered convention? Who do you think is in those smoke-filled rooms? It's the establishment, bunky!

Even if you got a good candidate, what then?

Some of those choices might appeal to some Republicans, but consider the hole from which this nominee would start. Ten weeks from the election, the party would have a nominee for which no one had cast a ballot in a primary, who has raised no money, who has built no organization, and who has articulated no platform before getting drafted at the convention. Put that up against the re-election campaign of Barack Obama and his $250-$300 million campaign fund and more from unions and the entertainment industry, and it would be a prescription for political suicide – and not just for the presidency, either. The disarray would impact House and Senate races all around the country and risk not just the opportunity to take back control of the upper chamber, but also put control of the lower chamber up for grabs.

He also takes on the late-entrant question.

But the real meat of his post is this: Rick Perry was everyone's dream candidate--see how he turned out. If what you are hoping for now is your other dream candidate? Why do you think it'll be any different?

What Does It Mean?
I think it means more that people who know are scared of Gingrich more than they like Romney. None of these screeds are about Mitt's problems (he's 99% bait, for an animatronic hall-of-presidents super-candidate he sure does seem to stumble around a lot when he's thrown off his game, and he's called Obama a 'nice guy whose in over his head'--which is poison to the base. Oh, and RomneyCare)--or rather how they might not count. No, this is just pure fear of Newt.

What Does It Mean?
The polls say Santorum's vote will go to Newt and there are rumors (denied) that Santorum will drop out before Saturday. That'd make a big difference but if the man is in the debate tonight I'll assume he's holding out for Florida. Maybe Mitt even gave him a secret sweetener? I wouldn't put it past him.

It also seems to hold some water that this fight is driving up everyone's negatives--so there's no GOP observer who wouldn't want to see it stop--soon.

What Do I Think?
I think that this is an interesting article from the Wall Street Journal: The State of the Union is Angry.

We were tired when we got home last night, too tired to pay much attention to the substance of President Obama's State of the Union Address. But we dutifully sat through all 65 minutes of it, and they made a strong emotional impression: This guy is angry. And it was a vigorous sort of anger, not the thin-skinned petulance to which this president has accustomed us. The tone was not whiny but combative. Obama reminded us of Newt Gingrich.

Obama is coming out swinging. That's certainly tactical on his part--he isn't an angry politician by nature. Gingrich, on the other hand, certainly is:

Here is Gingrich from the stump:

“He is counting on us not having YouTube. That’s how much he thinks we’re stupid, and we’re not stupid,” Gingrich said. “The message we should give Mitt Romney is you know, `We aren’t that stupid and you aren’t that clever’.”

The former speaker conceded the weight of the ads coming from the Romney campaign has hurt his campaign, but sought to remind voters where Romney, who holds stock in Goldman Sachs, gets his money.

“Let’s be really clear, you’re watching ads paid for with the money taken from the people of Florida by companies like Goldman Sachs, recycled back into ads to try to stop you from having a choice in this election,” Gingrich said. “That’s what this is all about.”

This is an angry age and whoever wins ... is going to have it out. I suspect that Obama, taking a measured approach--but signalling to the base that, yes, he is going to fight (similar to the way that our weapons-grade sanctions are close to provoking actual military responses from Iran: we. mean. business.)--is telling us that he doesn't plan to coast for the next few months.

I think Newt's supporters desperately, desperately want to beat Obama. I suspect that for a lot of them, seeing him on TV is painful no matter what he's doing. I think they believe the best and maybe only way to do this is to take the fight to him. McCain wasn't willing to call Obama a socialist/communist/Islamist. I don't think Romney believes a word of that either (Romney understands something about universal health care after all--seeing his model go national must be gratifying)--but Romney will say those things.

Just not very convincingly. And not as dirtily as Newt.

I don't think Newt believes them either: he is a historian. He knows what communism and socialism are. But I think his innate, inherent anger is a furnace sufficient to fuel any attack he makes on any target. The voters on the far right are responding emotionally to that--perhaps their own anger reflected in him?

But in the general? When the author of How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Absolutely Must) (Ann Coulter) doesn't back Newt? It's time to take a hard look at that. She might be a rabble rouser too--but trust me: she wants to win.

I got a comment yesterday--and one a few days ago--that people (most of whom I don't know) were reading and enjoying the political commentary. I love that--it means a lot. Mostly, except for one or two commenters and a family member, I get no feedback on this. It's all just for me.

But once in a while someone will let me know they're enjoying it and that's a fantastic feeling.

So here's my question to you, the silent masses: if I were to start a separate blog--using Blogger--for the political commentary:

1. Would you read it or subscribe to it?
2. Would you link to it / re-post it on FaceBook or G+ or anything like that?

My thinking is this: if people are enjoying the politics I'd like to have a larger readership--but I don't think mixing personal stuff and my own name is necessarily a good idea (I'm not exactly shy about it either--but if people were going to widely link to my posts or comment on them I'd rather have a nom-de-blog).

So if you read this regularly please let me know if you have ever considered forwarding a link to one of my posts and, if I had a separate blog (I'd probably still re-post them here--but maybe Friends only) would you find it easy enough to subscribe / read it there?

There is an article of faith in conservative circles that "The Liberals will tell you who they're afraid of--" by saying the opposite. So if a Democrat says "We'd really love to run against Romney! Romney is an easy to beat candidate--" it means they're terrified of him. Now, there's some obvious truth to this: if some politician's lips are moving it's a good bet they're lying. If what they're saying is "We'd like to run against 'X'" then, hey--good bet that's a lie.

But you can take it too far. When the money comes down it gets scary.

Here is a story where a union (AFL-CIO) takes an 800k media buy to attack Romney. The union is liberal. Romney is a Republican--presumably a strong-ish one--so they take a kill him now approach when he's battling Newt. Makes sense? But in the comments the readers are upset at the bloggers for being Romney-shills.

The only folk who are doing the Left's work for them are the ones writing this blog, and threatening to chuck their toys out of the cot if Gingrich is the nominee. I think the three of you should relax, and give your 100% support to the eventual winner. You sound like petulant children right now.

In the same time frame Nancy Pelosi, she-demon of the Right, declares I know something about Gingrich that ensures he'll never be President! Gingrich, of course, responds "Spit it out."

In the comments:

I know something about Pelosi – she’s full of BS.

But we knew that already.

The left will always tell you who they fear the most.

But she did serve with him--they sat on a love seat together. Could she actually know something? She has since recounted that (apparently what 'she knew' was that 'Newt would never be president')--but the fear persists (what if ... they slept together!?)

If the unions are attacking Romney--if Nancy says Newt will never be president ... does that mean Newt is the most scary? Or--wait--is it Romney--I CAN'T TELL!

What Does It Mean?
It means this: We're fighting over two guys and neither side thinks the other can win. That's a Red State article and it's doom-laden. Erick Erickson writes:

I am a firm believer that primaries make stronger candidates. But at some point you just have to stand back, take a sip of bourbon, and sigh “Damn” under your breath as you behold the carnage being wrought within the Republican Party.

The fight has gotten so bitter and acrimonious with only three states chosen because neither side thinks the other side can win. Gingrich supporters understand that the secularists in the media — not the Democrats, but the media to the extent it can be separated from the Obama Machine — will spend six months creeping out independent suburban voters about Mormons, holy underwear, Kolob, postmortem baptism, and views on black people and then, as the coup de grace, Barack Obama will fire up millions of dollars of ads on Bain Capital raiding pension funds forcing the government to cover the debt so Mitt Romney could make millions whether he won or lost a deal.

Romney supporters understand Newt Gingrich will open his mouth.

He wishes Perry was back--and his solution is "A New Challenger Appears." Draft someone (he, wisely, doesn't say who).

What it means is this: every candidate in the race (that's Romney, Newt, and, uh, Santorum ... and that other guy Ron-something-or-other) has such significant negatives that they, through a not-unreasonable lens, appear un-electable. This is a frightening position to be in and it's not, it seems, going away any time soon.

This guy thinks that South Carolina chose Newt ... for the entertainment value. I think, and he means it a little more deeply and cuttingly than that, that he's probably right:

That's my theory for why South Carolina gave Newt Gingrich his big primary win on Saturday: Voters instinctively prefer the idea of an entertaining Newt-Obama contest—the aspiring Caesar versus the failed Redeemer—over a dreary Mitt-Obama one. The problem is that voters also know that Gaius Gingrich is liable to deliver his prime-time speeches in purple toga while holding tight to darling Messalina's—sorry, Callista's—bejeweled fingers. A primary ballot for Mr. Gingrich is a vote for an entertaining election, not a Republican in the White House.

What Do I Think?
After Florida votes in a precious few days we should see Santorum drop out. I think we'll see Newt holding two states, Romney one--and most of Iowa--and going into February in a virtual tie with the momentum to Newt. The Tea Party, energized by Newt's willingness to attack Obama in terms they desire (Kenyan anti-colonialist) combined with Romney's Adviser saying there will not likely be complete repeal of Obamacare--no matter what people say on the stump--is going to be like political cocaine.

They're going to be stoked.

So we get a February of battle and then, well, March and Super Tuesday--and then we'll know. But here's what I think: I think that Obama is playing to win. Although his State of the Union address was hammered on by all the pundits there's some frightening stuff in there for the GOP. He's unleashed what Mother Jones called a patriotic, quasi-populist progressivism (using the Seal Team Six flag--signed by the men who killed OBL is a prop in that--while taking the message of the 99% and dressing it up so that conservatives are forced to boo even popular statements.

Basically, Obama, even with the bad economy, is up against two very, very damaged candidates and they're determined to do more damage to each other. Both of them have to hope that Obama fails completely but for different reasons. Romney has to hope that his steady hand and moderate-pleasing demeanor is seen as superior to a utterly failed presidency. Newt has to hope that independents and moderates warm up to his red-meat take-no-prisoners message.

So far, Obama is, 10 months before the election, not making that easy for them.