Can the Packers Snap the 15-1 Curse?

You are probably aware that the New England Patriots are the only NFL franchise to finish the regular season undefeated since the League went to a 16-game regular season in 1978, but do you know how many teams have finished the regular season with only one loss since then? So far, five. Only two went on to win Super Bowls, the last being Mike Ditka's Chicago Bears, who romped to a 46-10 victory over, of all teams, the New England Patriots in Super Bowl XX. Since then, no 15-1 team has even made it to the big game. Will the Packers break that streak?

The reigning Super Bowl champs are only the third team to go 15-1 since the Bears. Their immediate predecessor was the 2004 Pittsburgh Steelers. Rookie QB and dormant sexual predator Ben Roethlisberger earned his Offensive Rookie of the Year title passing for 2,621 yards and rushing for another 144 in a season that included a particularly memorable game on Halloween night 2004, when the Steelers snapped the Patriots' 21-game winning streak. The Pats got their revenge, though, taking down the Steelers to win the AFC championship game, 41-27. (I lost a dollar betting on Pittsburgh; it was the last time I ever bet money on a football game.)

The 1998 Minnesota Vikings hold the unusual distinction of being the first team to go 15-1 and not win the Super Bowl. They were remarkable for a few other things, too. The Vikings' offense shattered the single-season scoring record with 556 points, a record broken by the aforementioned 16-0 Patriots in 2007. According to something I saw on another web site and didn’t bother to check out: "The Vikings led the league with 52 plays of 25+ yards. They had 22 offensive plays of 40+ yards; no other team had more than 16 plays of that length." That record-breaking offense carried them to to their first NFC championship game since 1987. You may recall the Vikings lost that game to the Atlanta Falcons in OT. So why did they lose, and how? More importantly, will a similar fate befall the Vikings' longtime rival in the 2012 postseason?

I'm no sports expert (so maybe I should've found a better use of my time than writing this column), but I can offer a couple simple explanations for the losses of the Steelers and Vikings in their respective conference championships. Big Ben's rookie nerves got the best of him against New England's seasoned defense and QB Tom Brady, who had already earned a couple Super Bowl rings. The '98 Vikings may have been the highest-scoring team in NFL history, but their defense was far from the best, and while it sure seems like an upset when a 16-1 team loses a home game, remember that the Falcons came to the Metrodome with a 15-2 record, not exactly a Cinderella team.

If the Packers can get past the 9-8 New York Giants, then they'll play a 14-3 team in the NFC Championship game. (The Patriots, like the '98 Falcons, were 15-2 when they beat Pittsburgh on their way to Super Bowl XXXIX.) My prediction? Green Bay will be upset, either today, next weekend or in the Super Bowl. To me, the 49ers look damn near unstoppable. I know most avid football fans are hoping for a Saints-Packers showdown next Sunday, but I must be honest: the Pack is not perfect, as Kansas City showed us.

Ripping Romney's Record

The attacks themselves were nothing new; we've all heard the hits on Mitt Romney's past--the millions he made at Bain & Co. and Bain Capital, the businesses they tried to save but couldn't, the people who were thrown out of work--that have become a familiar rallying cry for political hacks trying to gin up popular opposition to what was in reality a record of leadership and job creation. What was different about this round of attacks was the source(s). The latest round of smears on Romney's private-equity exploits came not from the White House or the Obama re-election campaign, nor from MSNBC or some leftist blog. (I guess it's kind of hard to tell the difference between these different entities though.) Rather, they came from Mitt's fellow Republicans--specifically, his rivals for the GOP nomination, their campaigns, their surrogates in the media and independent groups who run ads on their behalf.

Following a pathetic showing in the Iowa caucuses, Gingrich and Perry had started grumbling about Romney's past in advance of the New Hampshire primary, but things really got heated after Romney himself dropped a catalyst into an already volatile elixir of eleventh-hour barnstorming. On the eve of the critical New Hampshire primary, Romney made an unfortunate statement that, when taken out of context, sounds really, really bad (I'm not going to come up with a colorful way to say everything.):

"I like being able to fire people who provide services to me."

Actually, it's the first seven words of that sentence that stirred up so many talking heads across the political spectrum. Mitt Romney, already under fire for not being able to save every job in every business Bain invested in while he was CEO (and, according to his detractors, thereby "firing" a bunch of workers) and anticipating a similar line of attack in the general election, said that he liked "being able to fire people."

On the surface, that remark wouldn't seem to be problematic for a presidential candidate, but because of Mitt Romney's background and the image of him as a ruthless corporate baron that his enemies are trying so hard to cultivate, his words gave pols, pundits and pettifoggers the world over something to fuss about.

"Mitt Romney likes to fire people," declared the Daily Beast, an online symposium for talentless hacks seeking a repository for their insightful prose that most of us common folk are too stupid/unsophisticated to appreciate.

Loony Larry O'Donnell told his audience that night, "I think Bain Capital is the greatest ... private equity firm in the World ever." (You can never really be sure where that guy is coming from.)

DNC Chairwoman and part-time gargoyle Debbie Wasserman-Schultz said ... well, who cares what she said? The point is, we expected the left to pounce on (and distort) Romney's words, but the most distrubing vitreol spewed from the mouths of those who seek to carry the mantle of a party that is supposed to be pro-capitalist, pro-free enterprise, meritocratic and, above all, honest. Newt Gingrich accused Romney of "looting a company, leaving behind behind broken families and broken neighborhoods and ... a factory that should be there." Rick Perry called the former Massachusetts governor a "vulture capitalist". (His campaign even turned Romney's words into a ring tone.) Even Jon Huntsman, Jr., got off his high horse and said, "Governor Romney enjoys firing people. I enjoy creating jobs."

The above-listed quotes are just a sampling of the many, many shots Mitt Romney took this past week, and the stinging disappointment I felt at seeing so-called conservatives (or "classical liberals", if you'd prefer) attack one of their own for his successful career in the private-equity business was mitigated by the outpouring of support for Romney, not just from the voters of New Hampshire, but from conservative journalists who were rightly disgusted by the Obama-style tripe being peddled by so-called Republicans who for months had been denouncing similar rhetoric by Democrats. Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin wrote that the "anti-capitalistic pandering" by Romney's Republican rivals "will likely go down as a text-book example of political stupidity." Michelle Malkin (definitely not a Romney fan, for those of you who didn’t know) blogged that "incompetent non-Romneys have morphed into Michael Moore propagandists — throwing not just Bain Capital under the bus, but wealth creators of all kinds who take risks in the private marketplace." The Wall Street Journal excoriated Gingrich and Perry "for their crude and damaging caricatures of modern business and capitalism." To be fair, Gingrich and Huntsman later walked back their comments lambasting Romney for his work at Bain Capital.

All of this would warrant concern beyond this week if anyone other than Mitt Romney stood a fighting chance of winning the GOP nomination. This is not the case, however, so we must turn our attention to the irritating chatterboxes who we will have to put up with in the general election campaign and who will continue to attack Romney, fairly or unfairly, for anything they can connect him to, no matter how manufactured the tragedy or how tenuous the link.

To the extent that Mitt's business background is a liability, it poses a grave threat largely because most Americans don't know the details of it, and hence it is ripe for distortion. From my vantage point, it appears that most of the people using Bain to attack Romney don't even understand what the company does/did. This is evident in their nonsensical, absurd and often incoherent criticisms of the firm's investment ventures in the 1980s and '90s, while Romney was C.E.O. Most of them pile on Mitt for shuttering unprofitable businesses and laying off workers while drawing a hefty salary for himself. Sometimes, though, whatever reasonable shot his detractors might be able to take at him is clouded by their visceral dislike of the man and everything he stands for. As Matt Bai wrote on his New York Times blog, "the attacks lobbed at Mr. Romney have been disparate and not terribly persuasive."

Case in point: Forbes columnist Robert Lenzner accused Romney of "firing more people than he hired." Not only is this not supported by the facts, Lenzer didn't even try to back it up. Matt Bai's fellow New York Times blogger Paul Krugman made a similarly unsubstantiated (and oversimplified) claim when he wrote that Romney "was a buyer and seller of businesses, often to the detriment of their employees." (This was still less inane than his assertion in an earlier column that “Mr. Romney and those like him ... enrich themselves while helping to destroy the American middle class.”) The aforementioned Debbie Wasserman Schultz took the attacks on Mitt and his work at Bain to a new level of crazy when she claimed that Romney “bankrupted companies deliberately.” (She also echoed a new Democratic talking point that “Mitt Romney said ... that he likes firing people,” a lie so blatant that even Andrea Mitchell called her out on it.)

I’m not sure if Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz has some mental disorder that just compels her to lie, or if she just doesn’t understand what bankruptcy is or why companies enter Chapter 11, but no matter. This is, again, just a sampling of the left-wing lunacy on display in the media coverage of Romney's past. I've noticed that a lot of Romney's critics cite a recent Wall Street Journal piece in support of their attacks, which they laughably maintain are neither anti-capitalist nor anti-business. I read the entire Journal story, which was written by Mark Maremont, and I was a little surprised at some of the information that no one--not even Romney surrogates--had trumpeted in defense of the candidate and his former employer. Here's the gist of the article: The Journal examined 77 businesses Bain invested in while Mitt Romney led the firm from 1984 until 1999 "to see how they fared during Bain's involvement and shortly afterward." A figure repeated (and distorted) by the haters was that "22% either filed for bankruptcy reorganization or closed their doors by the end of the eighth year after Bain first invested, sometimes with substantial job losses." Another "8% ran into so much trouble that all of the money Bain invested was lost," according to the Journal, which means that 70% of Bain's ventures during the time frame of the study were successful. If our president had a 70% approval rating, then he'd be viewed as unbeatable.

Another point that those propagating the Romney-got-rich-killing-jobs-and-destroying-lives meme have omitted is something that really should be widely known but doesn't always dawn on your simple, self-styled blue-collar, working-class voter who might be swayed by this rhetoric: companies can emerge from bankruptcy. Often times, bankruptcy is not the end of a business; it's a reorganization. Seeking the protection of a bankruptcy court isn't necessarily a sign of long-term business failure. As Maremont noted: Not only that, but a lot of the businesses that entered bankruptcy despite Bain's involvement went bankrupt after Romney had left the company. One such company, American Pad & Paper (a.k.a. AmPad), has been a favorite of the Left as an example of the ruthless, cutthroat capitalism that is apparently bad. After Bain's initial investment in 1992, two of AmPad's American plants were closed and hundreds of employees were laid off. Bain and its investors made a lot of money. The company went bankrupt.

Many of the Bain companies emerged from reorganization healthier, just as, for instance, General Motors did a few years ago. But while bankruptcy filings aren't a perfect measure of performance, they provide a way to assess a disparate array of target businesses that in many cases weren't required to make public financial filings.

If that doesn't exactly make sense to you, then it's because I've omitted several relevant facts, just like the anti-Romney prattlers have. One of the plants was shut was shut down because of a union strike, not exactly something the Romney-bashers, most of whom carry a lot of water for big labor, would want the public to know. Also, everyone who lost their job was offerred a job at one of the other facilities. Perhaps most importantly, AmPad was acquired out of bankruptcy. It is now owned by Esselte, a Connecticut-based global office supplies manufacturer, and still employs thousands of people.

As for the companies that didn't make it out of bankruptcy, a quote from one of Romney's former co-workers sheds some light on why so many of Bain's business ventures went belly-up. There are two paragraphs in the Journal article that everyone--and I mean everyone--who has heard it referenced in any context ought to read: In other words, Mitt Romney was not a ruthless corporate shark who did whatever he could to make money, as so many pinkoes are trying to make him out to be, but he was the very thing they're trying to convince people he's not, "an excellent CEO."

Marc Wolpow, a former Bain Capital executive, said the frequency of trouble did indeed stem largely from the firm's strategy early on of investing in smaller, troubled firms it hoped to turn around.
"I don't think you can hold Mitt out as a great investor per se," Mr. Wolpow said, "but he was an excellent CEO of an investment firm, and the results speak for themselves."

Others who actually worked with Mitt Romney and got to know him have similar praiseworthy things to say about him. Before I get to my next example, I need to bring up what appears to be a good-faith but still misleading analysis of Romney's business record. Earlier this week, the Washington Post published their "fact check" of Romney's claim that Bain “invested in over 100 different businesses and net, net, taking out the ones where we lost jobs and those that we added, those businesses have now added over 100,000 jobs.” They called the 100,000 jobs figure "untenable" and gave Romney's comments three pinocchios, which indicates "significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions." While acknowledging that "Romney certainly has a good story to tell about knowing how to manage a business, spotting opportunities and understanding high finance," Glenn Kessler writes that, "if he is to continue to make claims about job creation, [then] the Romney campaign needs to provide a real accounting of how many jobs were gained or lost through Bain Capital investments while the firm managed these companies — and while Romney was chief executive. Any jobs counted after either of those data points simply do not pass the laugh test."

Among other examples, Kessler points to Staples, one of Bain's most successful ventures, which has added 89,000 jobs since Bain's initial investment. Says Kessler, "Bain may have provided management expertise or money when others would not, but a company such as Staples — one of the biggest contributors to Romney’s job figures — was largely the brainchild of entrepreneur Tom Stemberg." I'm sure Stemberg appreciated that backhanded shout-out, but I know he would dispute the implication that Romney doesn't deserve some credit for Staples's growth and success. How do I know that? Let's just say I can see the future.

I realize that, no matter how much research I do or how many sound, logical arguments I make, there are some people I just won't get through to because I have no credibility with him. So, if you're a Lefty who still thinks Mitt Romney made a fortune as the head of a heartless, avaricious corporate raider that lined its investors' pockets with the gains it reaped from slashing and burning companies, then you ought to read an opinion piece written for POLITICO by none other than Steven Rattner, the investment banker/financier and big-government booster who recently served as the Obama administration's "car czar". While making it clear that he's "all in favor of piling on Mitt Romney for any number of reasons," Rattner makes it clear that, "with modest exceptions (keep reading to learn more about these), Bain Capital was a thoroughly respectable — nay, eminent — investment manager that successfully discharged its responsibility of earning high returns for its investors by deploying capital in companies privately rather than by buying shares in the public market."

In addition to providing an accurate (and, impressively, concise) explanation of what the private-equity business is all about, Rattner's article chronicles the early history of Bain & Co. He provides specific examples of Bain's successes and failures, with objectively verifiable facts and figures detailing what investments the company made, the human cost of saving businesses that would otherwise have gone under, what "success" and "failure" meant in dollars and cents, and, perhaps most importantly, how Bain did right by its investors: So, to recap: Bain Capital, under the leadership of Mitt Romney, sought out struggling companies that needed saving (like AmPad), promising start-ups in need of seed money (think Staples) and older, more developed businesses ripe for leveraged buyouts (e.g., Domino’s Pizza). Some of the ventures were more successful than others, and a handful went into bankruptcy (though I've yet to learn of one that did while Romney was still at the helm). It's beyond dispute that, however incalculable the actual number of jobs created or saved by Bain during Romney's tenure, the net increase of jobs at the companies Bain invested in far exceeds the job losses at all those companies. Finally, and again most importantly, "Bain Capital more than fulfilled its responsibility to a gaggle of investors, who were mostly foundations, endowments, pension funds and the like."

Overall, Bain Capital’s record was extraordinary, among the best in the business. According to a Bain placement document, through the end of 1999 (effectively, when Romney left), the firm had achieved annual returns of 88 percent per year.
That is not only wildly more than the single-digit returns most investors achieve by buying stocks or bonds, it is far higher than those of typical private equity or venture capital firms.

Romney was the CEO of Bain Capital, not of the individual enterprises that Bain invested in, managed and tried to save. But if his critics won't give him credit for any of the jobs that were created in these companies after Romney left Bain, then they can't fairly blame him for anything that happened to these businesses or their employees after 1999, either. The key word there is, of course, "fairly." There's no doubt in my mind that Mitt Romney will win the nomination and the presidency this year if his opponents play fair, which is why they won't.

Romney vs. Paul Would Make Long, Protracted Primary Fight Worth It

AP File Photo

As the focus of the race for the 2012 GOP nomination turns t0 South Carolina, two apparent realities cannot be ignored: (1) Mitt Romney has the nomination all but locked up, and (2) Ron Paul must be taken seriously as a presidential contender. At least one of these will no doubt be hard to swallow for many Republican faithful, but acceptance of reality is a necessary characteristic of any true Republican in our country today. The facts are thus: Mitt Romney placed first in both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, and he's leading all the national polls in the race for the GOP nomination. He also leads every poll I've seen out of South Carolina in recent days. Other than Romney, the only Republican to break 20% in both Iowa and New Hampshire so far this cycle is Ron Paul. None of this is up for debate. Now, what can we gleam from these facts?

What I've concluded is that Mitt Romney is going to be our nominee in the general election (barring his sudden death or some other unforseen act of God), and Ron Paul is not the loony-tune fringe candidate he was four years ago. If you're just going by vote totals so far, then Dr. Paul is the only candidate who should be regarded as a credible, serious challenger to Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination. Yet, he is the only one of the five alternatives who is not. Why? Many reasons, not all of which warrant mention here. I personally would not want our party to nominate someone who voted against the Patriot Act and still opposes it to this day, who declined to state that he would have authorized the Navy SEALs to kill Osama bin Laden, and who wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve. (The continued existence of the Fed is a debate worth having, but suffice it to say for now that I don't want to go back to the time when "panics" were a routine occurrence.) Nevertheless, there are substantive disagreements I have with at least one position taken by each of the candidates for president this year. I'm sure most Republicans feel the same way.

This brings me to my thesis du jour: if the race for the Republican nomination were to quickly come down to a two-man contest between two candidates who both had a realistic path to the nomination, then a Romney-Paul showdown would be the only protracted primary battle worth having. Think about it: An existensial debate, not just over the platform of the GOP in the 21st Century, but about the issues that will no doubt be litigated in the general election: the role of government in people's lives, the role of the U.S. on the world stage, how best to prosecute the War on Terror, how soon and how deeply to cut federal spending. Wouldn't that be more exciting (and more intellectually satisfying) than this hackneyed tripe about "vulture capitalism" or Super-PACs?

As ferociously as the Paul campaign has gone after his opponents, he rightfully came to Mitt Romney's defense after the others piled on him over his record as CEO of Bain Capital. This was just the latest example of Paul's maturity as a candidate and the Bohemian approach that has always characterized his campaign style. Romney, too, has refrained from the petty politics of drive-by attacks aimed at scoring cheap political points; he hasn't addressed Newt Gingrich's various personal transgressions, Rick Santorum's borderline-homophobic remarks or Rick Perry's obvious lack of ... well, let's just say "book smarts". He did take a cheap shot (in my opinion) at Jon Huntsman for the latter's service as Ambassador to China, but this was far from the ad hominem attacks that the others have engaged in.

A fervent, extended primary fight between Ron and Romney would be good for our party and our country. Sadly, it is not to be. Right-wing Genius out!

Why the Daley Resignation Is Significant

Three years ago, when President-Elect Obama was appointing his new administration, I noticed a curious absence from the list of people he was nominating to his cabinet and other high-ranking officials: William Daley.

The son and brother of former Chicago mayors had a résumé that made him as suited for a powerful position in a Democratic administration as anybody. He was Secretary of Commerce from 1997 to 2000, when he resigned to chair Al Gore’s presidential campaign. (He had previously chaired Bill Clinton' 1992 presidential campaign in Illinois.) He even co-chaired the president-elect’s transition team!

Of course, he also ran a couple of Fortune 500 companies, namely SBC Communications and JPMorgan Chase & Co. You would think this would be another asset for a prospective cabinet-level appointment, especially in an administration tasked with getting a flailing economy back on track, but having just won an election lambasting ... well, a lot of things. He was kind of all over the map. Let’s just say capitalism in general, Obama may have been weary about someone who seemed to exemplify the Wall St.-Washington liaison that he had disingenuously but convincingly decried in 2008.

Then, last year, Daley resurfaced when Obama tapped him to serve as White House Chief of Staff. His appointment was regarded by those on the Right and the Left as a smart choice. People who fancied themselves astute political analysts (not me) viewed it as a business-friendly entreaty by a president whose big-spending, job-killing, anti-free-enterprise agenda had been dealt a crushing blow at the ballot box a couple months earlier.

In October, Daley told the press that he planned “to put the president through his re-election” and then return to Chicago, so it came as a surprise to many (including me) when the administration announced that Daley was stepping down as Chief of Staff this month. Suprising, that is, if you didn’t know about what happened last November (which I didn’t).

About two months ago, Daley is handed off “some of the day-to-day management” duties at the White House to Peter Rouse, a longtime Democratic hand in Washington who had served as interim Chief of Staff between the time Rahm Emanuel left in October 2010 to run for mayor of Chicago and Daley taking office the following January. According to Will Rahn at the Daily Caller:

Congressional Democrats had criticized Daley, a former commerce secretary under President Clinton, for what some described as his imperfect understanding of the legislative branch, and his tense relationship with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. This stood in marked contrast to his predecessor, Rahm Emanuel, a former Democratic congressman who is now Mayor of Chicago.
“Rahm Emanuel was not only a creature of the House, he knew many of the senators,” Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin told The Huffington Post in September. “Bill Daley does not have that depth of relationship coming in.”
One senior Democratic aide was more blunt, saying that the party’s congressional leadership had “basically come to the conclusion that he’s not up to the job and doesn’t really get how Congress works. At all.”

Apparently, Daley’s pragmatic mindset had no place in an administration that has made a firm policy of deferring to congressional Democrats, who as we all know are led by a cadre of rabid ideologues.

The most important thing to recognize when processing the news of Daley’s departure is this: the last time an incumbent president replaced his chief of staff in an election year was in 1992, when Pres. George Bush swapped Samuel K. Skinner for Jim Baker. For all the presidents Obama has compared himself to, we don’t think the fate of George Bush’s '92 reelection is one he wishes to emulate.

Last month, I blogged about the premature excitement over Obama’s approval numbers. A new rash of polls out this week show him sinking yet again, and the gap between his approval and disapproval ratings has widened. Gallup pegs his job approval at 43%, while Rasmussen Reports has it at 46%. A Reuters/Ipsos survey gives the president a 47% approval rating, and CBS News says he’s at 45%. In all four polls, more respondents disapproved of the president’s performance than approved.

Obama’s in trouble. Swapping out his Chief of Staff won’t save him. If the Republicans get their act together, then we can swap out our president for one who will know what he’s doing and who actually cares about middle-class Americans.

Anything Can Happen

Let's start by acknowledging the inevitable: Mitt Romney will win the New Hampshire primary. I'll be stunned if he doesn't win by double digits. Having already placed first in the Iowa caucuses, Romney should have the nomination sewn up after a decisive win in New Hampshire, yet Pundits, pollsters and political junkies are buzzing about "the battle for second place" (as well as 3rd and 4th, if it's close). What I find especially interesting is that the air of mystery surrounding the first-in-the-nation primary this year is just as strong, if not more so, than it's been in previous years, despite Romney's incredibly strong poll position going into tonight and the paucity of doubt that he'll win by a sizeable margin. It's anyone's guess what order the runners-up will finish when all the N.H. votes are tallied. Ron Paul has consistently been polling in 2nd place since Newt Gingrich's collapse, but just like in Iowa, he seems to have plateaued. It's also worth noting that, while Santorum and Romney both outperformed their poll numbers in Iowa, Ron Paul's 21% of the vote was much closer to his position in the polls leading up to the caucuses. (A similar phenomenon occurred in 2008, where Romney and McCain both finished well ahead of their positions in the RCP average, while Paul underperformed.) For you empiricists out there, this portends and underwhelming finish for Paul in the Granite state, but he'll no doubt plod along.

The most exciting thing may be a last-minute surge by Jon Huntsman, who's arguably got the most to lose tonight (except for Mitt Romney). I pondered this possibility in a post last week, but by this weekend I was convinced that that ship had sailed. I may have spoken too soon; a spate of polls out of New Hampshire show real momentum for the even-tempered Mormon Sinophile. Rasmussen Reports has him at 15%, up from 12% in their previous New Hampshire survey. Public Policy Polling, which also had Huntsman polling at 12% the last week of December, released the results of a poll that pegged him at 16%. Perhaps most telling is the candidate's surge in the Suffolk University/7News tracking poll, in which Huntsman has doubled his share of the vote in the last week.

All of these polls have Huntsman in 3rd place, behind Romney and Paul, but a poll released over the weekend from American Research Group has him in 2nd place at 17%, followed by Ron Paul at 16%. Today the two are separated by three percentage points in the RCP average of N.H. polls, which for some reason does not include the ARG survey results; just five days ago, that gap was twelve points.

Huntsman won't win the New Hampshire primary, but there's a very real possibility that he could come in a strong 2nd. That would effectively quash Rick Santorum's momentum coming out of Iowa, and with a 10-day interim between today and the South Carolina primary, just about anything can happen.

Can Huntsman make a Santorum-style surge in New Hampshire?

The biggest story to come out of last night's Iowa caucuses last night--apart from Mitt Romney's unprecedented eight-vote margin of victory--has to be Rick Santorum's amazing (and, for most, unexpected) performance. The former Pennsylvania senator had been polling in the single digits in Iowa and barely registering nationally. Then, about a month ago, his poll numbers in the Hawkeye state began creeping up, and by last week, he was nipping at the heels of Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, who were locked in a virtual dead heat atop most surveys. In no poll did Santorum register more than 18% support, however, making the 25% of the vote he pulled in last night's caucuses all the more impressive.

Never taken seriously by the media and most primary voters, Santorum long ago decided to focus almost exclusively on Iowa, and he still had to stretch his miniscule campaign treasury pretty thin (as evidenced by the pickup truck he traveled the state in). He didn't have much, but he had a message--and an m.o. (Sorry for the alliteration; I can't help it.): visit every county; talk to anyone who will listen; speak from the heart; perform the occasional exorcism. (I might not have that exactly right, but I wasn't there. This is all being relayed secondhand.) It's a strategy reminiscent of Mike Huckabee's 2008 campaign, which peaked when the former Arkansas governor won the Iowa GOP caucuses, only to flame out like a supernova.

It's also strikingly similar to another candidate's strategy this year. Jon Hunstman, Jr., the former Utah governor and veteran diplomat, is trying in New Hampshire what Santorum tried (successfully) in Iowa. He's devoted more time to the state than anyone left in this race (which, as of this morning, does not include Michele Bachmann), but he still lags way behind Romney in the polls there. (Even worse, he hasn't even gained as much support in the state as Ron Paul.)

This is not to say that all of Huntsman's time and effort in the state has been for naught. As is so often the case, the numbers tell the tale: Eight weeks ago, Huntsman and Gingrich were tied in the RCP average of polls in New Hampshire. As Gingrich began to gain steam, he pulled away, and soon moved into a firm 2nd place behind Romney in the Granite State. One month later, the former Speaker peaked at 24.3% in the RCP average. (Romney was at an even 36%.) Huntsman, meanwhile, crept up to 11.8% by Christmas, by which time Gingrich was down to 20%. Since then, however, Huntsman hasn't gained much traction; he's actually down slightly, at 10.3% as of today. (Gingrich sits at 11.3% and will probably sink even further before next Tuesday's primary.)

Today, the media's primary focus shifts from Iowa to New Hampshire, and the results of a Suffolk Tracking poll did not provide welcome news for Huntsman, who I maintain is the best candidate we've got. He registered only 7% support in the survey of 500 "likely GOP primary voters," a distant 4th behind Romney, Paul and Gingrich. That's actually his worst showing in a New Hampshire poll in nearly two months. If Huntsman is hoping to pull off a Santorum-style surprise, then he's going in the wrong direction.

Huntsman's best argument against the plutonian picture painted by the polls (There's that alliteration again! Damn!) may be that all polls taken in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses greatly underestimated Santorum's performance there, by anywhere from seven to ten percentage points. He may also want to point out that, six days before the caucuses, Santorum was at 9.8% in the RCP average of polls there, half a point lower than Huntsman's current position in the New Hampshire poll average.

It's highly unlikely that anyone other than Mitt Romney will win the 2012 New Hampshire Republican primary, but there's still a very good chance that Jon Huntsman will finish a strong second. The days ahead will be critical; if no one even comes close to Romney in the polls and he wins the primary by double digits, then he'll be in very good position going into South Carolina, with a ten-day buffer to shore up his support there.

To the anybody-but-Romney crowd, I say: you've gone through everyone else; if you don't want to vote for Mitt, then your only choices are Santorum, Huntsman or Dr. Paul. (C'mon, do you really even need to think about this?)

The Flaws in Obama's Re-Election Strategy

While scanning the Sunday paper yesterday, this headline on the front page caught my eye: “Obama to target Congress in re-election campaign”. In the article, New York Times White House correspondent Mark Landler reports that “Obama’s election-year strategy is an attempt to capitalize on his recent victory on a short-term extension of the payroll tax cut and on his rising poll numbers.” Now, I can't seriously dispute that the president got what he wanted in this latest mix-up over extending the payroll tax holiday, but this business about "rising poll numbers" is far murkier.

The Dems were all excited late last month when a couple of polls showed a slight up-tick in the president's approval ratings. Calmer heads, including myself, dismissed this as a fluke or a temporary crest in the numbers that warranted no anxiety, and predictably, the most recent survey results to be released show his job approval to be in the mid-forties, where it's been for much of the year. In fact, I have not seen a poll in which the president registered a 50% approval rating or higher since June.

Perhaps the surest sign that Republicans needn’t worry—at least not yet—about a sudden, election-year upswing in Obama’s poll numbers is that, despite the trend in some polls, his approval rating never surpassed his disapproval rating in the RCP average, indicating that the slight increase in his ratings were either a fluke or a very real but short-lived bump-up.

Back to the president's joke of a re-election strategy. Much of Lander's article consisted of relaying the communiqué of Deputy Press Secretary and snake-oil salesman Joshua R. Earnest:

“In terms of the president’s relationship with Congress in 2012,” Mr. Earnest said at a briefing, “the president is no longer tied to Washington, D.C.” Winning a full-year extension of the cut in payroll taxes is the last “must-do” piece of legislation for the White House, he said.

Funny how the Republican-controlled House actually passed a full-year extension of the lower FICA rate, and the president poo-poohed it. Oh well, I guess Obama flip-flopped again, but no matter. The president and his minions evidently think they've got a winning strategy, and they've been busy developing the narrative they want to force on the largely ignorant and ill-informed voters who gave Obama his winning edge over John McCain in 2008:

The White House has been refining the message since July, when Mr. Obama’s attempts to forge a “grand bargain” with the House Republicans on fiscal policy collapsed and he reverted to a populist, anti-Congress strategy.

But it did not gain traction until the last few weeks, when polls began showing that nearly half of Americans approved of the job he was doing, up from percentages in the low 40s during most of the year.

House Republicans inadvertently helped him just before they recessed for the holidays when they initially refused to extend the payroll tax cut.

Mr. Earnest said the strategy had successfully planted “the image of a gridlocked, dysfunctional Congress and a president who is leaving no stone unturned to try to find solutions to the difficult financial challenges and economic challenges facing the country.”

While Congress's approval ratings have taken a hit, the president has not seen a corresponding surge in his numbers, and herein lies another problem with this "populist, anti-Congress strategy." Many American voters may be stupid (They voted for President Obama, for God's sake.), but they at least understand that they're electing a president and a Congress. For Obama, it's not a pick-me-instead-of-them situation. He'll be running against a Republican candidate in the general election, and the odds are very high that it won't be a member of Congress. (Sorry, Ron Paul supporters.)

Then of course there's the comparison that so many political yuppies have been making. Mark Landler reports:

The president’s antagonism toward Congress evokes that of President Harry S. Truman, whose come-from-behind campaign in 1948 focused on a “do-nothing Congress.”

But Republican analysts have pointed out that the national unemployment rate in November 1948 was 3.8 percent — not 8.6 percent, as it is now — and that the American economy was on the upswing.

Another critical difference, of course, is that in 1948 both houses of Congress were under GOP control. Currently Republicans hold the majority in the House of Representatives only. (You would think this fact would be so obvious that Landler wouldn’t feel the need to point it out, which he didn’t, but it’s amazing how ignorant so many voters can be.) Indeed, every major piece of legislation seeking to enact an Obama policy that has been advanced in the Senate only to be blocked or voted down has failed because of bipartisan opposition. Of course, Democrats don’t like to talk about this inconvenient truth, and some have expressed anger over the president’s indiscriminate lambasting of “Congress,” without partisan qualification:

For Mr. Obama, a heavily partisan strategy carries the risk of ... antagonizing Congressional Democrats, who were angry when administration officials, including the White House chief of staff, William M. Daley, criticized Congress without distinguishing between Democrats and Republicans.

Democratic leaders said they were satisfied that Mr. Obama was adequately making that distinction, and they said they understood why he would want to run against a Congress whose Republican leadership had blocked his legislation and declared that its primary goal was to defeat him in November.

“He has been emphatic in stating that he is running against obstructionist Republicans in the House,” said Representative Steve Israel of New York, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

“As long as the president includes the word Republican when he says he is running against Congress, more power to him.”

Israel's sickeningly sycophantic support for Obama aside, the president would do well to remember that his party must defend 23 Senate seats to the Republicans' 10 in 2012, and a negative image of Congress won't exactly do wonders for endangered incumbents like Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jon Tester (D-MT) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.). His president-vs.-Congress rhetoric, assuming it sinks in, further presents a two-edged sword for Republicans, who could argue to voters that, by Obama's own logic, a Republican president's economic recovery agenda would not meet as much resistance in Congress, especially if the GOP takes back the Senate.

In the coming months, Republicans will choose their nominee to take on President Obama, and voters in both parties will pick their candidates for the House and Senate. Once the 2012 general election begins in earnest, we may see a reversal of fortune for a president whose re-election prospects are increasingly grim and an energized, enthusiastic Republican Party poised to take over the U.S. Senate and hold on to the House of Representatives. It may be that voters suddenly change their minds and come around to a president whose policies have thus far been met by rejection, protest and dissatisfaction by a majority of the electorate. What seems more likely, however, is yet another course correction for a campaign that faces a lethargic economy, an unenviable record to defend, and an electorate fed up with Washington skulduggery and yearning for change. (Sound familiar?)

One Week To Go...

Are you sick of hearing about the impending Iowa caucuses?

Me neither. One week from today, voters in the Hawkeye State will kick off the 2012 election cycle with their mystifying mêlée of...whatever. Anyway, before parsing the polls out of Iowa, I'd like to discuss an interesting development in the race for the 2012 Republican nomination.

It seems that neither Texas Gov. Rick Perry nor former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (who until recently the undisputed frontrunner in the GOP primary campaign) have been able to collect and submit the 10,000 signatures necessary to appear on the ballot in Virginia. For Perry, this is not that big a deal; he wasn't going to be the nominee anyway (thank God), and it will be pretty pathetic if he hasn't dropped out of the race by the time Va. holds its primary. But for Gingrich, not being on the ballot in Old Dominion is a pretty big embarrassment, not least because it's his home state.

Yes, the former Speaker spent twenty years representing an Atlanta-area district in Georgia, but he currently resides in the state that has already delivered us more presidents than any other (eight, to be exact). I recently made the acquaintance of one Bryan Eppstein, a legend in Texas politics. Bryan's reputation as a political shark is such that politicians here have been known to retain him, even if they have no need for his services; they just don't want him working for an opponent's campaign. He told me that Al Gore did not lose the 2000 presidential election because he lost Florida; he lost the election because he failed to carry his home state of Tennessee.

I can remember watching the returns roll in on Election Night 2000, and while the race was still up in the air, I remarked that Bush had won Tennessee. (For the record, Bill Clinton carried Tennessee twice.) I wasn't as politically astute back then as I am now, but I found it strange that the election was so close when one candidate couldn't even carry his home state.

Gingrich's failure to make it onto the Virginia primary ballot is all the more galling when you consider that he's been leading the polls there. In a protracted race for the nomination, every delegate counts, and if Newt and Mitt are still duking it out come February, then effectively conceding a state with more delegates than New Hampshire and Iowa combined before any votes are cast will go down as one of the greatest campaign blunders of all time.

The Gingrich campaign didn't do their candidate any favors with their apparent sour-grapes attitude yesterday. Campaign director Michael Krull:

Only a failed system excludes four out of the six major candidates seeking access to the ballot. Voters deserve the right to vote for any top contender, especially leading candidates.

I agree; voters should have the right to vote for any top contender, which is why Virginia, like all states, has certain requirements that candidates must meet in order for their names to appear on the ballot. Newt Gingrich failed to satisfy all the necessary requirements, so I don't think excluding him from the Virginia primary ballots evinces a "failed" system.

Back to Iowa: Gingrich's decline in the polls has not been matched by an equal surge in one candidate's numbers; instead, it appears that his loss is Mitt Romney's, Ron Paul's, Rick Santorum's and Michele Bachmann's gain. Every poll out of the state in the last two weeks has shown either romney or Paul leading; this has pundits buzzing about the prospect of the 76-year-old Congressman and cantankerous old coot winning (or even finishing a close 2nd in) the Iowa cacuses. Such a result would be in affront to the political narrative that the Iowa GOP caucuses are dominated by social conservatives. (Hence, the impressive performances of Mike Huckabee in '08, George W. Bush in 2000 and Pat Robertson in '88.) One interesting quirk in the run-up to the caucuses this year is the failure of any one candidate to lock in the evangelical vote; Michele Bachmann was the early favorite to win this group, then Rick Perry, then Herman Cain, and now it appears evangelical Christians are torn between Bachmann, Santorum, Perry and Gingrich. The latter two have had their moments as King of the Hill, and I highly doubt that either of them are coming back. Ditto Bachmann, but swap "Queen for a Day" for "King of the Hill." Santorum, however, has never topped the polls in any state and may just be the next candidate to surge. He's arguably devoted more time and energy to Iowa than anyone else, and his fervent appeal to church-going folk in middle America while running his campaign on a shoestring budget conjures up memories of Huckabee four years ago. (For the record, it was in December of 2007 that the former Arkansas governor surpassed Mitt Romney in the polls in Iowa, where Romney had held a steady lead for months.) My predictions: Ron Paul will soar no higher; he has reached his peak in Iowa, though his current poll position (22.7% in the RCP average) is probably pretty close to what he'll actually pull next week in the caucuses. Santorum will outperform Bachmann among evangelicals and finish well ahead of her in the final tallies. Romney looks good to win; he'll definitely be first or second. Perry and Gingrich will underwhelm but stay in the race, and Baylor will crush UW in the Alamo Bowl.

The Freedom Fighter and the Farce

This past Sunday, we learned of the deaths of two world leaders. Former Czech president Václav Havel died in Vlčice at age 75, and Korean Central Television reported that Kim Jong-il had died of a massive heart attack Saturday morning.

It seems fitting to do a compare-and-contrast piece on the lives and legacies of these two men; one a Communist dictator, the other a dissident who rebelled against Communism and spent many years in jail. While one made human rights a focal point of his career and even chaired the New York-based Human Rights Foundation, the other presided over a government that Human Rights Watch called "among the world's most repressive". The similarities between the two leaders extend far beyond their status as heads of state, however. Both emerged as major players on the world political stage in the late 20th Century, and both led storied personal lives, the details of which we may never be sure of. Perhaps most noteworthy is that both men were born into powerful families.

Havel was born in Prague in 1936. His father, Václav Maria Havel, was a wealthy entrepreneur who owned various high-dollar real estate properties throughout Bohemia. Havel's mother, Božena Vavrečková, was the daughter of an ambassador and well-known journalist. The Havel family was closely connected with the Czech cultural and political scene, and it was Bozena herself who encouraged young Václav to convene his first literary circle. Kim Jong-il, meanwhile, was born Yuri Irsenovich Kim, according to Soviet records, in the small Russian village of Vyatskoye in 1941. His father, Kim Il-sung, commanded the 1st Battalion of the Soviet 88th Brigade, made up of Chinese and Korean exiles.

1948 proved a pivotal year in the lives of both men and their families (as well as millions of other people). In February, the Soviet-backed Communist Party of Czechoslovakia took over the Czechoslovakian government. Havel's family holdings were seized by the authorities. Then, on May 1, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was officially founded. Kim Il-sung was installed as prime minister September 9th.

While Kim purportedly composed six operas in two years and enjoyed staging elaborate musicals, Havel actually wrote more than 20 plays, including The Garden Party (1960), The Memorandum (1965) and The Increased Difficulty of Concentration (1968), all of which were performed at the famous Theatre on the Balustrades ("Divadlo Na zábradlí") in Prague. "The cultural tradition prevalent in his family focussed Havel's attention on humanistic values of Czech culture which were suppressed in the fifties," according to the former president's official biography on the Prague Castle web site. He also wrote countless essays and worked as a magazine editor.

Following the Soviet invasion and crackdown in 1968, the government banned Havel's plays and sent him to work at a brewery. Not even the rank fumes of totalitarian swill could stifle his prosaic propensity, however. He was the principal author of Charta 77, a kind of dissident manifesto that gave rise to an anti-Communist movement among a section of Czechoslovak citizens.

While Havel was repeatedly being jailed and released by the Communist government, Kim Il-sung was grooming his son as the heir apparent to his all-powerful position. In the 1970s, Kim Jong-Il moved quickly through the ranks of the Korean Workers Party (Communist) hierarchy, eventually becoming a member of the Central Committee, the Military Commission, and the politburo. He assumed the title "Dear Leader" (친애하는 지도자) and was made a member of the Seventh Supreme People's Assembly (whatever that was) in February 1982.

If there was a singular event that marked the death knell of Communism as a major statist force/threat, then it was probably the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989. Eight days later, riot police suppressed a peaceful student demonstration in Prague. A series of popular, largely nonviolent demonstrations followed, and by November 20th the number of peaceful protesters assembled in Prague had swelled from 200,000 the previous day to an estimated half-million. A two-hour, nationwide general strike was successfully held one week later. The following day, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia announced that it would relinquish power and dismantle the single-party state.

At the center of this so-called Velvet Revolution was Václav Havel, who along with other members of the Charter 77 dissident movement founded Civic Forum (not to be confused with the online symposium for Honda Civic owners/drivers). After Pres. Gustáv Husák resigned on December 10, Havel was elected president.

According to at least one Havel biographer, it was at this pivotal time that Havel's Machiavellian side emerged. Alexander Dubček, the one-time leader of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia whose attempted liberalization was crushed in 1968, looked to be the likely choice to take over as president during this transitional period, but Havel deftly ushered him aside and was reelected in 1990, when what was then Czechoslovakia held its first free elections. Dubček had to settle for being Speaker of the Federal Assembly. Compare this to Kim's early days on the KWP Central Committee; he reportedly wrested the post of party organization secretary from his uncle in September 1973 and used his position as head of the Organisation & Guidance Department to purge the KWP of those not sufficiently loyal to his father. He became Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army in 1991.

Havel lost the presidency in 1992, shortly before his country split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The following January, he was elected the first President of the Czech Republic. That same year, Kim Jong-il assumed the role of Chairman of the National Defence Commission in North Korea. After his father's death in 1994, Kim succeeded him as supreme leader of the God-forsaken Communist state. In 1997, he officially took over as both Chairman of the Military Commission and General Secretary of the WPK.

As president of the Czech Republic, Havel led his country into the OECD and NATO and laid the groundwork for its 2004 accession to the European Union. He left office in 2003, the same year that North Korea began participating in six-party talks sponsored by China that went absolutely nowhere. At the very least, Kim Jong-il can tout his country's acquisition of "the bomb" as an achievement during his tenure.

The contrast is striking: one man led a government that propogated fantastic tales of its leader's musical talent, athletic prowess and influence in the fashion world, the other actually lived an incredible life, accomplishing feats that lesser men could not have.

Havel and Kim were both powerful men during their lifetimes, and now they are no more. But, while one leaves behind a legacy of leadership marked by courage in the face of oppression by a brutal Communist regime and shepherding his country through a peaceful transition from a Soviet-dominated police state to a democratic republic, the other will be remembered as an evil dictator, a nepotist clown who presided over the mass starvation of his own people and whose actions led to the further ostracization of his already isolated state. While Havel rebelled against the intimidating power of the Soviet Union that had supported Czechoslovakia's Communist government for over 40 years, Kim Jong-il spent his time as supreme leader trying to model his state after the former U.S.S.R. in a futile attempt to attain that unattainable goal, a socialist paradise. North Korea was only a paradise for the Kim family. Havel, meanwhile, is experiencing true paradise right now, in the eternal kingdom of the Almighty.

Christopher Hitchens: A Man of Faith...in Himself

When I heard that Christopher Hitchens, the short, pudgy, British athiest, had died, I immediately wondered, What happened to his soul?

The self-described “anti-theist” wallowed in obscurity for much of his career but gained international renown for his 2007 best-seller God is Not Great. I'll refrain from making specific comments on the book because I have not read it and probably never will, but I want to call attention to something Hitchens said while promoting his magnum opus back then.

After the death of Rev. Jerry Falwell, Hitchens appeared on CNN. When Anderson Cooper asked him if he thought Falwell had gone to heaven (qualifying it by acknowledging that he didn't know whether his guest believed in an afterlife), Hitchens responded, "No, and I think it's a pity there isn't a hell for him to go to."

There's so much wrong with that statement that I don't quite know where to begin. Hitchens went on to make numerous incedniary remarks about Falwell throughout the interview, calling him "evil", "a little toad" and an "ugly little charlatan", among other things, but that first remark really stood out to me and other Christians who saw/heard it. It encapsulated Hitchens's view of Judeo-Christian beliefs in general and specific religious leaders. Granted, Hitchens had a special disdain for Falwell and those like him, the so-called "televangelists" who appeared to serve mammon over God, but his contempt for organized religion and people of faith went far beyond feelings that many of us share about the more reprehensible among us who, in addition to using Christianity as a profit-making tool, poison society with irrational, bigoted messages of intolerance.

Hitchens believed it was possible to lead a moral, ethical life without God (who he always referred to as "god"). He discounted the myriad ways in which people's faith had motivated them to do good, even great, things for mankind. To his credit, he was an equal-opportunity offender, writing frankly about the atrocities perpetrated by radical Islamists in the name of "Allah", which many so-called journalists who shared his beliefs (or lack thereof) refused to do. He also didn't shy away from intellectual discussions or fervent arguments with those who challenged him. I can recall watching him spar with the likes of Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham on FOX News. This is not to say he couldn't be condescending; he was so confident in what he believed that, even when he was facing off against someone he respected, he exuded arrogance and hauteur. His ovoid visage, sallow skin and English accent made him almost like a caricature of the stereotypical obnoxious, left-wing faux-intellectual, but I return to my original question: what became of his spirit after his body expired? Is he burning in Hell? For that matter, I wonder, since he so adamantly believed there was no God, no heaven or Hell, no afterlife, whence did he think his soul came from? I suppose I might find the answer to that last question in some of his writings, but being a full-time law student, I haven't much time to read for pleasure. (Then again, I have no guarantee that reading Hitch's polemic prose would be pleasurable.)