THE REF'S NOTEBOOK
The Question Hillary Didn't Want Asked 
| Safety
It's been said often, Hillary has a strategy of inevitability. But now that Obama has taken the lead in Iowa in the Ref's Poll Averages and in New Hampshire in some polls, that strategy seems to have failed.
Certainly she wanted to ride the veil of inevitability as far as possible, and she's done that. There is no question that she no longer seems inevitable, although she may still be. Her advantage among women in the Democratic Party, a party dominated by women, may yet prove to make her unbeatable.
Regardless of how unbeatable she may be the Clintons have to assume the worst. Because the Clintons are now afraid you can expect the hardnosed campaign to begin drawing a clear contrast. In other words, Obama had better watch out.
Expect the Clinton campaign to drive the experience point home and to be aggressive in doing so. The Clinton campaign will attack Obama in inverse proportion to the size of her lead in the polls. Be watchful because we may witness some of the most memorable ads and attacks of the coming election year over the next seventeen days.
The Clinton campaign will do these things because the question they didn't want asked, is Hillary really inevitable, has been asked everywhere and the answer is no.
The Ron Paul Factor 
| Zeroing in on the Play
Ron Paul's performance in the polls does not suggest that he will contend in any of the primaries. But with one of the most loyal bases in the primaries on either side, Ron Paul can certainly be a factor in the general election if he carries on beyond the primaries.
Ron Paul has said he will not run as an Independent. The Libertarians, however, have said they would accept him as their nominee. See Libertarians Tackle the Ron Paul Dilemma. But I would be surprised if Paul decided to run as a Libertarian.
If Ron Paul were to run with any party he would present a problem for the Republican nominee. One must assume that a substantial portion of Paul's vote will vote Republican if he does not run. It is difficult to say what considerations will weigh in on Paul's decision or if the impact a Paul run will have on the Republicans will be a major factor in his decision.
So the question is not will he win the Republican nomination because the polls suggest that he will not, but will he run on a third party ticket. Paul says no right now. We'll see. With the kind of passionate support he receives from his base he could certainly fund a respectable third party run.
Why the Old Rules Do Not Apply 
| Start the Clock
Repeatedly one hears the pundits say, if Rudy doesn't win any of the first four states he's finished, he can't win. That is not true.
Typically this would be true but two facts combine to make this year the one that bucks the trend. First, the early primaries take place over a week whereas before they ruminated for at least a month.
Because there will be less time to ponder the implications of New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina they will have less air time and less impact.
Second, the overwhelming concern for national security prevalent in the Republican Party makes Rudy a strong candidate in every state that is not dominated by social conservatives. Because blue state delegates carry just as much weight as red state delegates, the early states simply do not have as much impact.
Iowa and New Hampshire are not Bible belt states but enough conservatives exist in the states to make it difficult for Giuliani to win. Romney, and now Huckabee, have successfully drawn that contrast.
But in the rest of the states where not nearly as much attention is paid they have not done that. So Giuliani will have the ability to ignore the early states and ride the national security issue predominance to wins in plenty of later states.
For those pundits who consistently say Rudy can't sit out the first week, you need to buy a calendar and remember what Giuliani repeatedly reminds you of, 9/11 changed everything.
Evidence that Dems are Making a Mistake 
| Timeout
Yesterday I wrote that the Democrats are making a major mistake by making Hillary their standard bearer. Today a poll came out supporting my contention. CNN released a poll of head-to-head matchups and while Hillary leads Giuliani by six, Huckabee by 10 and Romney by 11, she loses to McCain by 2.
John Edwards, however, leads all Republican contenders. He leads McCain by eight, Giuliani by nine, Romney by twelve and Huckabee by twenty-five.
Name identification plays a role in these early polls which drives down less well-known candidates like Romney and Huckabee. Hillary’s lead over Romney and Huckabee is diminished by this fact. Her lead over Giuliani is more legitimate.
Edwards also has high name identification because he ran for vice president. His leads, however, are larger than Hillary’s and may hold up better when the name identification advantage diminishes.
Hillary loses to the one candidate that has comparable name identification to her, John McCain. Edwards beats all Republicans soundly yet the Democrats are making the Democratic nomination into a laugher for Hillary. Republicans are loving it.
Democrats Asleep at the Switch | Timeout
The Republicans have an unpopular president and are fully supportive of an unpopular war. A majority of the media backs the Democratic Party. Party identification with the Democrats is off the charts and the opposite is true for the Republicans. Yet when paired against the Democrats’ leading candidate for the presidency, that candidate either barely squeezes out a lead or loses.
Why do the Democrats continue to back Hillary Clinton? Her unfavorability is at or near fifty percent. She has baggage that even an airline can’t lose. She is headed for at best a narrow victory and at worst a sizable loss in the general election.
One must question the Democratic electorate’s good judgment when one considers all of these political realities. The Republicans stand to win another presidential election when the circumstances do not warrant one.
Regardless of who the Republicans’ nominee is, either Rudy, Huckabee or Romney, the Republican candidate probably stands a better than even shot at winning the White House unless the Democrats reevaluate who they will support in the primaries.
Giuliani Still the Odd Man In | Zeroing in on the Play
Why is Giuliani the odd man? He is the odd man because he is a pro-choice candidate running for the Republican nomination. At this point he holds the best position to win the nomination.
While Huckabee has shrunk Giuliani's national lead to a smaller margin than it has ever been, Giuliani is probably not that upset. Romney's strategy depends on winning the early states. If Romney loses Iowa or South Carolina or both, Giuliani heads into Super Tuesday with a great chance of winning the nomination.
Giuliani will probably win outright or a majority of delegates from the following states on Super Tuesday: New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, North Carolina, Illinois and California. He will also fare well in Maryland, Vermont, Maine, Washington and Oregon on later dates. He can pick up the rest of his delegates in states that award delegates proportionally according to the vote received.
The greater the splintering of the delegates in the rest of the country, the better is Giuliani's position to win the nomination. The biggest threat to Giuliani comes in the form of a socially conservative candidate sweeping the early states.
Such a sweep would lead to a clear contender for Giuliani and probably cost him the nomination. Huckabee's recent surge makes that unlikely unless Romney's support simply collapses, and that is unlikely because of Romney's money.
Giuliani is banking on a splintered social conservative opposition to his primary candidacy to bring him the nomination. Without a splintered opposition Rudy probably wins.
The pro-life movement simply holds too much sway in the Republican primaries for a pro-choice candidate to win so long as the perfect storm does not come along.
The perfect storm for Giuliani comes in the form of numerous social conservatives battling for the same vote. Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Thompson, Hunter and Tancredo are all splitting the social conservative vote. Giuliani stands alone on the other side almost certainly loving the fight he is seeing.
Huckabee's surge makes Giuliani's nomination much more likely. Considering Huckabee's soft demeanor he does not challenge Rudy on the issue of who is the best warrior. Rudy wins that hands down against everyone but McCain. But McCain, who has also been surging, is fighting it out against other social conservatives.
Giuliani stands quietly on the sidelines with his alliance of war hawks who are either not social conservatives or are willing to put those concerns aside for national security purposes loving the fight he is witnessing. With every Huckabee surge in the polls, Giuliani inches that much closer to the nomination.
If Huckabee manages to topple Romney altogether in the early states, however, Giuliani becomes the odd man out, not the odd man in.
Belief in Natural Law is the Common Bond | Zeroing in on the Play
Apparently many Christians are abandoning Romney in Iowa because Huckabee presents an Evangelical and electable alternative. This is according to the conventional wisdom which is often wrong. If it is true, however, one must wonder why.
In the realm of American policy the particulars of faith never really matter. In America we do not codify the particulars of individual faiths.
The foundations of faith such as the fundamental beliefs in God and the sanctity of human life represent the indispensable cords of commonality that conservatives must not compromise. Romney does not propose such a compromise.
The Ref does not endorse candidates. I write only to propose that those who determine that the specific identity of Romney's faith is relevant miss the point.
In American politics when it comes to God we debate the fundamental issues, not the particular ones. Romney and Huckabee would effectively have the same impact on matters related to faith in American politics.
Romney the Flip Flopper Has Become the One Who Will Not Compromise 
| First Down
Romney has been raked over the coals for his huge flip flop, from pro-choice to pro-life. Now Romney refuses to compromise his own faith.
While one would expect someone running for office to remain true to his or her faith, for Romney the act of remaining true seems like a courageous one to Americans.
Many people do not know a Mormon and many condemn them as a cult. Because of this reality Romney is considered strong for not abandoning his faith.
Certainly Romney did not plan it this way, but what was perceived as his greatest weakness, his Mormon faith, may turn out to be his political salvation.
Democratic Discipline Could Backfire 
| Interference
One can reasonably question the wisdom of stripping the electoral rich states of Michigan and Florida of all their delegates in the Democratic primaries. Michigan will probably be there for the Democrats when the general election rolls around, but Florida will almost certainly be a battle.
I doubt Democratic activists will fail to vote for their candidate because the national party stripped their state of delegates, but soft Independents might. The Republicans might make an issue out of it, although they too are disciplining the early states, but only by taking some of the delegates, not all.
One might imagine a Dems for Disenfranchisement slogan floating around Tallahassee. I suppose it’s possible that the Democrats strip Florida and Michigan of all the hype that comes with an early primary and nobody notices, but it’s unlikely.
It probably will not matter to the party faithful, but when Floridians and Michiganders see all the hype that flows from this year’s early primaries, they might wish they had some of that action.
Axis of Evil Neutralized, Not Nuclearized 
| Touchdown
Tuesday’s National Intelligence Estimate revealed that Iran ceased its nuclear program four years ago. This is a victory for Bush, not a defeat.
It seems that so much focus remains on the prospect for war in Iran that we are ignoring the success that this represents for American foreign policy. Let’s remember that only six years ago the world thought that outlaw regimes were developing weapons of mass destruction capable of killing millions. Now we know all three members of the Axis of Evil have empty nuclear quivers.
While these things are true we also know that President Bush has been too aggressive in his rhetoric toward Iran. Mentioning World War III was not a good idea. The point is simply that while the media is bashing Bush because of the finding that Iran has stopped its nuclear program they should also give him some credit for it.
LEAD CHANGE: Major Shift in Iowa Races
| Touchdown
Mike Huckabee took a modest lead of 0.2% in the Ref's Poll Averages on Sunday. Obama took the lead from Hillary as well by a slightly larger margin of 0.6%. A lead change in an individual poll does not necessarily signify a shift in the race because of variables that impact individual polls.
When a lead change occurs in a reliable poll average, a major shift is generally occurring because averages are not as vulnerable to the variables that cause great shifts in individual polls.
We will see whether the lead changes hold up, but even if they do not both Romney and Clinton are in trouble in Iowa. Clinton can withstand a loss in Iowa but if Obama wins Iowa and Democrats begin to question Hillary's electability and competence, she could be in trouble.
Romney probably cannot withstand a loss in Iowa considering how much he has spent and the high expectations for him in the state. Huckabee's biggest Iowa fan is Giuliani. If Huckabee upsets Romney in Iowa the Romney strategy will likely derail.
One positive exists for Romney in this shift, however, in that it downgrades the expectations of Romney in Iowa. If he wins by a small margin the claim that he underperformed will not carry as much sting. Obama and Huckabee each scored big on Sunday.
| Unnecessary Roughness
CNN's chosen questions at the Democratic YouTube debate were basically sympathetic to the Democratic view on issues. They did not mock the fundamental beliefs of a large portion of Democrats and certainly were not asked by supporters of Republicans. The same cannot be said for the Republican YouTube debate. So far four of the questioners have been discovered to be open supporters of Democratic candidates.
Why would those who support a Democrat want to ask a Republican a question unless it is to make them look bad? CNN could have produced an informative and entertaining debate without giving Democrats a prominent role in a Republican debate, but they chose not to. One must wonder why a network is so willing to abandon even the appearance of objectivity. It was unnecessary and rough.
Is Huckabee's endgame the Giuliani VP slot?
| Holding
Huckabee has targeted Romney for the past few weeks. Interestingly this came at a time when Giuliani has been doing the same. It is widely known that Romney's strategy relies on winning Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan. If he loses any of the three his strategy is undermined. Huckabee seems to attack Romney with particularly severe ferocity. At the same time Huckabee reserves only timid criticism, if any, for Giuliani.
Huckabee has a strong argument for being selected as a VP nominee for a northeastern moderate like Giuliani. He would potentially bring Arkansas which Republicans may have difficulty winning with Hillary on the ticket. The fact that he is a Baptist minister also helps with Evangelicals who Giuliani may have difficulty swaying to vote for him.
It seems Giuliani and Huckabee have teamed up, if not formally certainly informally. They share a mutual target in Romney. If Huckabee can win Iowa it splinters the anti-Giuliani vote. Huckabee's job, therefore, is to block for Giuliani. The aggressive nature of his blocking deserves a holding call.
Dems Set to Dig In on Iraq War Opposition Despite Progress
| Interference
Congressional Democrats have made clear their intention to push forward with their attempts to end the war. See the article Democrats Say They Won’t Back Down on War.
It seems that Democrats and their allies in the press have invested so much in a Bush defeat in Iraq that they will continue to harshly oppose the war regardless of the progress made in the country.
They never believed in the war effort and seemingly oppose the notion of building a more democratic government so strongly that no facts can exist in their minds to counter their original assumptions about the governing possibilities in Iraq.
At this point Democrats should not abandon their opposition but temper it long enough to find out if this progress will last.
When one blasts the war effort in Iraq despite the facts it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the individual simply does not care about the facts, but only about narrow political self-interest. Just let it play out for a while and quit interfering.
Obama Out Clintons the Clinton Machine
| First Down
At this stage in the game Obama needs an onside kick and a hail mary just to tie the game and get to overtime. His performance in the CNN debate left much to be desired and amounted to a sack for a substantial loss of yards. Obama's management over the last several days, however, of Bob Novak's amorphous warning that the Clinton machine is coming in for the fatal blow demonstrated some political skill.
Had Obama not called Hillary out on the behind the scenes suggestion that much in Obama's record can harm him, and then reminded the media that he has some history with marijuana and cocaine, that already disclosed information might have taken on a new life.
Obama cannot do much at this point but put his head down and fight for every yard, but his management of the backstage attempt to shut off all oxygen to his campaign might have ended this race before Obama has the chance to throw the hail mary in Iowa. As it stands Obama is gaining in Iowa, and is even ahead in one survey, and has preserved his chance at a major upset.
Remarkable Intolerence for Such Enlightened Individuals
| Personal Foul
The constant mentioning of Mitt Romney's Mormon faith demonstrates the hypocrisy of so much of the liberal establishment press. Simply put, constantly mentioning Romney's faith diminishes his public policy positions to secondary status behind his faith, an important component of his identity. This type of political "analysis" elevates identity politics to ultimate status and is analogous to reading only the headlines. One has a difficult time imagining that some substantial portion of the reason behind mentioning Romney's faith is a desire to hurt his chances at winning the nomination. The political media continues to try to make the news, rather than simply reporting it, to a greater degree than most other parts of the media. The problem is not that they mention his faith, but that they barely mention his name without mentioning it. They are obsessed with Mitt Romney's faith.
SEVENTH PLACE
REPLAY THE DOWN: Rudy did his best on Saturday to mollify restless social conservatives at the Values Voter Summit in Washington on the issue of abortion, but he seemed to make little to no progress. According to an AP article Giuliani said, "My belief in God and reliance on his guidance is at the core of who I am, I can assure you of that . . . But isn't it better for me to tell you what I believe rather than change my positions to fit the prevailing wind?" See the Article, Giuliani Tries to Assure Conservatives, Jim Kuhnhenn, Yahoo News, AP.
Giuliani promised to lower the number of abortions, appoint conservative judges and promote school choice, according to the article.
Despite such promises Giuliani finished seventh place out of eight places in the straw poll taken at the Summit. Mitt Romney finished first place. Perhaps Giuliani believes that peeling off a small minority of socially conservative might be enough to squeak victories in more liberal states. The problem for Giuliani lies in the fact that even in solidly blue states, the majority of primary voters will probably be pro-life.
So far the conservative vote remains splintered in all primary states between Romney, Thompson, McCain and Huckabee. If the conservative vote rallies around a particular candidate, Giuliani stands little to no chance of winning the Republican nomination. If the more conservative candidates continue to split the vote, Giuliani may ride to victory on a plurality. Whether candidates such as McCain and Huckabee remain in the race will likely determine the winner.
$2,100,000 LETTER
Click the Image to Download a Copy
TOUCHDOWN: The letter from Senate Democrats calling for Clear Channel Communications to ask Rush Limbaugh to apologize for his "phony soldiers" comment sold for 2.1 million dollars on EBay Friday. This represents a victory because all proceeds go to a very deserving charity and it highlighted a grossly intrusive action into the area of free political speech by meddling politicians acting in unison and representing the majority that currently controls the US Senate. If a senator condemned Limbaugh's comment in the media as an individual senator, and not under US Senate letterhead, the action would not have offended nearly as much as the official condemnation did.
Most importantly, the money, which Limbaugh will match, will go to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation that provides scholarships to the children of Marines and federal law enforcement personnel who die in the line of duty. What better result could one expect to such a misplaced attack on political free speech in America?
In addition to the win for the children of heroic Marines and federal law enforcement officials, free speech also won big. Liberals recently seem to want to resort to their governing power to fight battles that should remain solely in the private sphere. The recent push to bring back the fairness doctrine represents a perfect example of this tendency. This letter stands as a gleaming symbol of this tendency and the record breaking price it brought in a public auction demonstrates the high degree of dislike the public has for this Washington tendency.
Read the story here, Limbaugh Letter Fetches $2.1 Million on eBay, Fox News
New York Times: Missing the Point TIMEOUT: The New York Times editorialized that President Bush should learn a lesson from the Dalai Lama about peace. They miss no chance to ridicule President Bush in clever ways. A bigger lesson should be taken from this meeting. In its effort to advise President Bush the New York Times wrote in an editorial on Thursday, “Through violence, you may solve one problem, but you sow the seeds for another,” is one of his statements that politicians everywhere might meditate upon. Or this: “The world has become so small that no nation can solve its problems alone, in isolation from others.”" Honoring the Dalai Lama, New York Times.
The New York Times ignores the fact that Bush has taken enormous criticism from media in this country and others for bringing the Dalai Lama to the White House when nothing, they say, can be gained from it and it will only anger communist China. Bush is taking a stand for freedom and self-rule, ideals the New York Times presumably would place just below peace at all cost. One hopes that the New York Times does not seriously suggest that in the modern world all problems must be resolved without war. If they believe this they truly possess little understanding of the six billion people who occupy this earth with us.
Nevermind the fact that the Dalai Lama called his meeting with Bush a family reunion, the New York Times simply missed the point of this meeting. The message one should take from this meeting is that freedom represents the pinnacle value for all Americans and President Bush recommends that for China. The New York Times looks at this meeting and sees an opportunity to contrast the philosophies on war and peace of the President of the United States and the Dalai Lama. They do not prefer to highlight the significance of the world's superpower siding with a long besieged minority, a victim of the world's next greatest economic power. Perhaps the New York Times needs a timeout to gain some perspective.
Global Warming?
PERSONAL FOUL: Media Matters, like so many reactionary left wing organizations, assumes that any scientist that questions global warming can never be considered a good meteorologist. They ridiculed MSNBC for labeling William M. Gray a “top meteorologist,” who has called global warming a hoax and stated that the natural cycle accounts for rising temperature. Media Matters wrote that MSNBC should have pointed out that the “overwhelming majority of scientists disagree” with Gray’s assertions.
Media Matters then lists several other meteorologists who criticize Gray on the grounds that he has not published his opinion regarding global warming in any peer reviewed journals, that he is being heard only because of media connections, alleged his ideas “are not taken seriously in scientific circles” and labeled Gray as “increasingly on the fringe.” Finally, in the coup de grace, Media Matters insists that MSNBC should have referred to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its disagreement with Gray’s claim that increased temperatures are simply a part of the natural cycle.
Media Matters quarrels with MSNBC’s use of the words “top meteorologist” despite the fact that Gray pioneered the science of forecasting hurricanes, developing the seasonal system of forecasting. Presumably Media Matters prefers that the media include no voices of dissent on matters where a scientific consensus exists. No one can seriously doubt that if Media Matters existed in the early twentieth century it would have lambasted the media for talking to those who questioned the steady state theory of the universe, the long debunked but then a consensus view. Media Matters would criticize as biased anyone who questioned the coming ice age, the consensus scientific view in the 1970s. Simply put, Media Matters favors the tyranny of scientific consensus. Unfortunately for Media Matters, science is not about consensus, but proving, disproving, testing and retesting. No view should be shut out of the debate and a highly accomplished meteorologist like William Gray should not be brow beaten into conforming to the consensus view. All views should be heard. Read the Media Matters article here.