Happy New Year, everyone! Due to the holiday, posting for the rest of today will be light.

When you’re celebrating tonight, take a moment to remember the 899 American soldiers who were killed in Iraq this past year. For each of them, there is a family whose New Year’s celebration will forever be one person short.

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour has appointed Rep. Roger Wicker to replace Trent Lott in the Senate; Lott is stepping down despite being re-elected handily in 2006 and winning a spot among the GOP’s Senate leadership.

Talking Points Memo reports:

Benazir Bhutto’s son will be the next leader of the Pakistani People’s Party (PPP). From CNN:

Bilawal Zardari, speaking in English at a news conference, said: “I am thankful for the CEC [Central Election Commission] for imposing their trust in me as chairman of the Pakistan People’s Party.”

“Like all chairmen of the PPP, I will stand as the symbol of the federation. The party’s long and historic struggle for democracy will continue with renewed vigor, and I stand committed to the stability of the federation.

“My mother always said democracy is the best revenge.”

Bhutto had named her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, to head the Pakistan People’s Party in her will, which was read on Sunday, but he handed over the position to the couple’s son

[...]

Ali Zardari also said the PPP is asking the United Nations to investigate the circumstances of Bhutto’s December 27 killing. He said he does not plan to call for an autopsy on his wife, who was buried in her hometown on Friday.

[...]

Pakistan’s government has given several explanations for the official cause of Bhutto’s death, most recently saying she died after striking her head on the sunroof of her car. The PPP has called the government’s changing position “a pack of lies.”

“I have lived in this country long enough to know how the autopsies are done,” Ali Zardari said Sunday, explaining why he did not give the home secretary of Punjab province permission for an autopsy.

“It was an insult to my wife, to the sister of the nation, to the mother of the nation, if I was to give her last remains to be post-mortemed and I know the forensics reports are useless.

“We know what the wound is, we know how it was done. We don’t need post-mortems to prove the death, therefore I refuse to give them the last remains, because they belong to God and the people of Pakistan.

It’s hard to tell how this will affect the PPP and Pakistan’s elections. Zardari is only nineteen, currently studying at England’s Oxford University–it’s questionable if he has the experience and the knowledge necessary to run one of Pakistan’s main opposition parties. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

In regards to Bhutto’s death, new video footage has emerged which appears to show her being shot, which somewhat contradicts the report from Pakistan’t interior ministry saying she died from head trauma incurred during the attack.

There are a number of unanswered questions here, and many of them may never be fully resolved. As it stands now, Pakistan’s future hangs in the balance, and the situation there is rapidly becoming more dangerous–Think Progress brings us this:

In the days since former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, “nationwide rioting” has “brought life in Pakistan to a standstill.” Yesterday, as “the death toll from the violence climbed above 40,” government officials began “to consider delaying next month’s elections.”

Elections are scheduled for January 8th. Whether or not they occur–and how they turn out–may change the course of Pakistan’s history.

UPDATE: Raw Story brings us this video from the BBC, which claims that Pakistan’s elections will be postponed by two months.

RS also reports on of the devastation in Pakistan’s largest city, Karachi:

The previous three days of clashes and looting left at least 40 people dead across Sindh Province, where Karachi is located, provincial Home Minister Akhtar Zemin told The Associated Press. Hundreds of bank branches were destroyed and 950 vehicles burned.

The normally bustling port city remained a virtual ghost town, shocked by Bhutto’s death. Nearly all shops were closed and streets normally packed with traffic were empty, save for boys playing cricket.

[...]

Police with assault rifles were stationed on street corners across Karachi, and military patrols in armored vehicles rode through the rougher parts of the city, such as the notorious Lyari slums that have seen the most unrest.

Hundreds of Bhutto supporters gathered for memorial prayers at a party office, chanting “Benazir is innocent!” before marching into the streets. They were trailed by a police truck with an officer on top wielding a tear gas grenade launcher.

The PPP and Bhutto’s supporters won’t be going anywhere anytime soon.  Musharraf is going to have to keep his fracturing country together, a sizable task that he might not be able to accomplish.  And now with reports coming out that the elections will be postponed, it’s likely that there will be more violence from Pakistan’s pro-democracy forces.

CNN brings us more on what precisely killed Pakistan’s Benazir Bhutto:

Benazir Bhutto died from a fractured skull caused by hitting her head on part of her car’s sunroof as a bomb ripped through a crowd of her supporters, a spokesman for Pakistan’s Interior Ministry said Friday.

“When she was thrown by the force of the shockwave of the explosion, unfortunately one of the levers of the sunroof hit her,” said spokesman Brigadier Javed Iqbal Cheema.

The explanation is the latest from the Interior Ministry. It initially said Bhutto was killed by shots fired by the bomber, and then, via the state-run Associated Press of Pakistan, it said the cause of death was a shrapnel injury.

[...]

The Interior Ministry also revealed Friday that it had proof showing that al Qaeda was behind Bhutto’s assassination.

Cheema said the government had an intelligence intercept in which an al Qaeda militant “congratulated his people for carrying out this cowardly act.”

However, that claim has not appeared on radical Islamist Web sites that regularly post such messages from al Qaeda and other militant groups.

The Interior Ministry told Pakistan’s GEO-TV that the suicide bomber belonged to Lashkar-e-Jhangvi — an al Qaeda-linked Sunni Muslim militant group that the government has blamed for hundreds of killings.

U.S. officials believe that a Taliban leader from Afghanistan, Baitullah Mahsud, may be the person behind the assassination.

Unfortunately, these revelations have to be taken with a grain of salt–these are spokespeople from Pervez Musharraf’s government, and there is a chance that elements in the government may have played a role in this. Thus, they may have an interest in misrepresenting the cause of death or pinning the assassination on someone else. Of course, it should be noted that there is also no evidence showing anyone in the government had a hand in the assassination, though many are pointing to governmental negligence as a contributing factor.

Pervez Musharraf’s government has very little credibility left, and it will be difficult for people to believe in an investigation conducted by the government. There must be some sort of investigation into Bhutto’s assassination that has a degree of independence from Pakistan’s government, in the event that individuals or groups within the government were in some way to blame for it.

Along those lines, the Pakistani government has ordered an official judicial inquiry into Bhutto’s death, which will incorporate representatives from her political party. Talking Points Memo has more:

Caretaker Prime Minister Mohammedmian Soomro told journalists following an emergency cabinet meeting that a judge would be appointed to head a committee to probe the gun-suicide bomb attack on Bhutto Thursday afternoon as she left an election campaign rally in the city of Rawalpindi.

The committee chairperson would be appointed in consultation with officials from Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), and a report would be submitted within a time frame to be determined later, he said.

Soomro said the cabinet was considering postponing elections scheduled for January 8 because of Bhutto’s murder, but would not act until after consulting with the country’s main opposition parties.

“Right now the elections stand as they are,” he said. “I am ready to meet the opposition leaders on one minute’s notice, and we are even in contact with some of them.”

It’s hopeful that the investigation into the assassination will involve Pakistan’s opposition parties, and that the elections have not been postponed yet. If Musharraf’s government interferes with either the investigation or the scheduled election, it’s likely that Pakistan will dissolve into even more violence.

Pakistan is on the verge of a power vacuum; Musharraf is hemorrhaging support and there is no longer a significant opposition figure to step forward and take control of the flagging government. This instability, combined with Pakistan’s extremist groups and nuclear arsenal, makes this a particularly difficult situation.

More as it develops…

UPDATE: Wonkette brings us a series of photographs from before and after the assassination. Before viewing, keep in mind that these photos contain significant violence and gore.

On the domestic front, Mike Huckabee uses the Bhutto assassination to show off his woeful lack of knowledge on foreign policy:

“People who questioned my view of foreign policy probably need go back and read the speech that i delivered back in Washington in September. … We have seen what happens in the Musharraf government. He has told us he does not have enough control of those eastern borders near Afghanistan to be able go after the terrorists. But on the other hand, did he not want us going in so what do we do?”

Pakistan’s western border is with Afghanistan–their eastern border is with India.

UPDATE II: Confusions remains over the exact cause of Bhutto’s death:

Bhutto’s political party disputed official versions of the incident, accusing the government of lying. Video footage of Thursday’s attack on Bhutto contains a murky shot of a hand firing a pistol three times, but the Pakistani government said Bhutto — who was standing through her vehicle’s sunroof — was not hit.

The latest explanation Friday by Pakistan’s Interior Ministry said Bhutto, 54, died from a fractured skull after hitting her head on a piece of the vehicle.

[...]

On Thursday, an initial report from the Interior Ministry said Bhutto died of a gunshot wound to the neck.

[...]

Dr. Mussadiq Khan of Rawalpindi General Hospital, who treated Bhutto before she was declared dead, said she had “a big wound” on the side of her head “that usually occurs when something big, with a lot of speed, hits that area.”

[...]

Farzana Raja of Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party said the government’s explanation is “a pack of lies,” and she offered another explanation. “It was a sniper shooting,” she said, also accusing the government of a “total security lapse.”

CNN national security analyst Ken Robinson, who worked in U.S. intelligence in Pakistan during the Clinton administration, said he suspects Bhutto’s enemies are attempting to control her legacy by minimizing the attack’s role in her demise.

“They’re trying to deny her a martyr’s death, and in Islam, that’s pretty important,” Robinson said.

Bhutto’s supporters may benefit from the assassination, if she becomes a martyr for their causes. The latest government report on the assassination minimizes the effect of the attack, stating that she hit her head and subsequently expired.  Whether the government is telling the truth or not is up in the air–maybe they played a role in the assassination, or maybe they’re using this opportunity to downplay her death, or maybe they’re actually telling the truth. At this point, nobody knows for sure.
It’s likely that the tension between the opposition party and the government will continue, which is why an independent investigation is necessary.  Even if one is completed, though, there’s a likelihood that (depending on the findings) it might end up being disputed still.

In addition, The Huffington Post brings us photos of Bhutto’s vehicle, as well as her head X-rays from after the attack.  As with the pictures above, these are also graphic.

From CNN:

Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday after addressing a large gathering of her supporters.

The suicide bomb attack also killed at least 22 others, doctors said. It was not immediately clear if Bhutto died from shots fired before the blast, or from wounds caused by bomb shrapnel.

President Pervez Musharraf held an emergency meeting in the hours after the death, according to state media.

He said the killers were the same extremists that Pakistan is fighting a war against, and announced three days of national mourning.

Video of the scene just moments before the explosion showed Bhutto stepping into a heavily guarded vehicle to leave the rally.

Police sources told CNN the bomber, who was riding a motorcycle, blew himself up near Bhutto’s vehicle

[...]

The attack came just hours after four supporters of former Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif died when members of another political party opened fire on them at a rally near the Islamabad airport Thursday, Pakistan police said.

Several other members of Sharif’s party were wounded, police said.

First off, there should be no rush to judgment–we don’t know who planned this or why. It could have been supporters of President Pervez Musharraf hoping to keep him in office; it could have been supporters of Bhutto hoping to use her death to take down the Musharraf regime; it could have been any number of other groups pushing some kind of political agenda, or it could have just been one person with a political axe to grind. As it stands now, nobody knows who did this or why.

In addition, it should be noted that Bhutto has a number of enemies in Pakistan. Though the media portrayed her as the country’s pro-democracy savior, she was partially responsible for Musharraf’s rise in the first place–she was so dogged by charges of corruption and nepotism as Prime Minister that her government was dismissed twice, once in 1993 and again in 1996.

Alex Rossmiller at AMERICAblog has some thoughts on this:

In terms of policy implications, this is reflective of a massive US foreign policy blunder, in that the Bush administration, in a monumentally stupid move, shoved Bhutto down the throat of Musharraf (and the rest of Pakistan) as a savior, despite her lack of broad popular support and general reputation as corrupt. In making someone who didn’t necessarily have the ability to deliver the savior for democracy in Pakistan, we simultaneously set up our own policy to fail and offered Musharraf a return to (or continued) total power in the event that our little power-sharing arrangement didn’t work. We also — though not only us — painted a big fat target on her back. Really a debacle all the way around.

Along these lines, there have been calls for Musharraf to step down–either because he’s responsible for the attack or because he was negligent in going after extremists and providing Bhutto protection. Bill Richardson has released a statement along those lines, and longtime Bhutto advisor Husain Haqqani has also said as much:

“There is only one possibility: the security establishment and Musharraf are complicit, either by negligence or design. That is the most important thing. She’s not the first political leader killed, since Musharraf took power, by the security forces.”

I’m inclined to agree somewhat–Pakistan is home to a wide array of extremist groups, including the remnants of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda–Musharraf has done little to combat them, allowing those groups to flourish under his rule. As the July 2007 NIE [PDF] concluded:

Al-Qa’ida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the Homeland, as its central leadership continues to plan high-impact plots, while pushing others in extremist Sunni communities to mimic its efforts and to supplement its capabilities. We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership.

Bhutto’s assassination is a tragedy, there’s no doubt. And it’s likely that–no matter who is responsible–Musharraf may use this to his political advantage.

Even if he and his people aren’t responsible, his poor leadership in going after extremism has allowed violence like this to happen. No matter what, Musharraf carries some of the blame for this, and he should bear some responsibility.

Should he step down? Certainly not now, when Pakistan is mired in domestic turmoil, but there should be some accounting for his multiple failures over the years.

More as this develops…

UPDATE: John Cole provides some perspective:

Pakistan is important to US security. It is a nuclear power. Its military fostered, then partially turned on the Taliban and al-Qaeda, which have bases in the lawless tribal areas of the northern part of the country. And Pakistan is key to the future of its neighbor, Afghanistan. Pakistan is also a key transit route for any energy pipelines built between Iran or Central Asia and India, and so central to the energy security of the United States.

[...]

The NYT reported that US Secretary of State Condi Rice tried to fix Musharraf’s subsequent dwindling legitimacy by arranging for Benazir to return to Pakistan to run for prime minister, with Musharraf agreeing to resign from the military and become a civilian president. When the supreme court seemed likely to interfere with his remaining president, he arrested the justices, dismissed them, and replaced them with more pliant jurists. This move threatened to scuttle the Rice Plan, since Benazir now faced the prospect of serving a dictator as his grand vizier, rather than being a proper prime minister.

With Benazir’s assassination, the Rice Plan is in tatters and Bush administration policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan is tottering.

CNN has more:

But it was not immediately clear, however, what if any influence Washington might have or whether Bhutto’s death would drive the United States into a deeper embrace of Musharraf, whom some believe offers the best chance for Pakistani stability despite his democratic shortcomings.

“This latest tragedy is likely to reinforce beliefs that Pakistan is a dangerous, messy place and potentially very unstable and fragile and that they need to cling to Musharraf even more than they did in the past,” said Daniel Markey, who left the State Department this year and is now a senior fellow at the private Council on Foreign Relations.

“The weight of the administration is still convinced that Musharraf is a helpful rather than a harmful figure,” he said.

[...]

“The United States does not have a great deal of leverage where Pakistan is concerned,” said Wendy Sherman, who served as counselor to former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. “And at the end of the day, the decisions are going to be made by the Pakistani people and by the leadership of Pakistan and not by the United States.”

Other analysts warned that Bhutto’s assassination might further damage Musharraf, whose democratic credentials have been seriously tarnished by growing authoritarianism, and have lead to widespread unrest.

“Legitimacy for Musharraf will be deferred if not impossible,” said Christine Fair, a South Asia expert at the RAND Corporation. “The U.S. likely does not have a plan for this contingency as Musharraf remains a critical ally and because Bhutto’s participation was hoped to confer legitimacy to the upcoming January elections.”

Pakistan’s future is in turmoil. Musharraf has been hemorrhaging support in recent years, particularly in response to his consolidation of power. He could attempt to use the assassination (and the resulting turmoil) to solidify his power and quell political dissent, but it’s likely that any attempt to do so would simply inflame the opposition, leading to even more violence. And why wouldn’t they react with violence? With Bhutto–their best chance to crack Musharraf’s iron-fisted rule–gone, what do they have to lose now?

Even if Musharraf doesn’t take advantage of the situation, the opposition will. In fact, they’re already blaming him for the assassination. Whether they accuse him of having a hand in it or simply being negligent in fighting extremism, they’ll hold him responsible and call for him to resign. It’s likely that the assassination will erode Musharraf’s support even more, and it could even be the spark that takes down his regime. Of course, whether that is a good thing or a bad thing depends on who would take power afterwards.

It’s hard to tell where things will go from here, but it’s clear that things will get worse before they get better. The biggest loser here is the Pakistani people, who face increased violence and instability in their country. A close second is Bush administration, who pinned their plan to democratize Pakistan on Bhutto’s victory. She was our leverage against the Musharraf regime–without her threatening his power, the U.S. has lost a lot of leverage in pushing for democratic reforms.

UPDATE II: According to Adnkronos International, Al-Qaeda is claiming responsibility for the attack:

A spokesperson for the al-Qaeda terrorist network has claimed responsibility for the death on Thursday of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

“We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahadeen,” Al-Qaeda’s commander and main spokesperson Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid told Adnkronos International (AKI) in a phone call from an unknown location, speaking in faltering English. Al-Yazid is the main al-Qaeda commander in Afghanistan.

It is believed that the decision to kill Bhutto, who is the leader of the opposition Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), was made by al-Qaeda No. 2, the Egyptian doctor, Ayman al-Zawahiri in October.

Death squads were allegedly constituted for the mission and ultimately one cell comprising a defunct Lashkar-i-Jhangvi’s Punjabi volunteer succeeded in killing Bhutto.

UPDATE III: Turning to the domestic implications of the Bhutto assassination, Matt Yglesias has this to say:

Well, it seems to me that we desperately need to break away from the “trouble abroad, let’s turn to hawkier hawks!” mode of organizing our politics. After all, there was a strategic choice undertaken by the United States of America during the year 2002 to refocus our attention away from Central Asia and the Pakistan/Afghanistan area and toward the Persian Gulf. That was, of course, the “tough,” “strong,” “serious” thing to do.

Then throughout 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 it’s been the case that the “tough,” “strong,” “serious” thing to do is to maintain a massive strategic focus on Iraq in particular and the Persian Gulf in general. Vast quantities of troops, money, and attention lavished on the Gulf was Central Asia languishes.

[Emphasis Added]

Whenever there’s violence or political turmoil abroad, our polity–particularly the political press–embraces right-wing hawkey as a solution.

Why, though? Here in the U.S., right-wing hawks made both America and the world less safe–they invested huge amounts of time, effort and money into Iraq, which has devolved into an unstable, violent civil war. Iran has become more poweful due to the fact that they no longer have Iraq to keep them in check. North Korea behan building and testing nuclear weapons, which ended only when hawkishness was abandoned and negotiation was embraced.  In addition, the hawks took America’s focus off of Al-Qaeda–which has been re-establishing itself in Pakistan and took credit for the Bhutto assassination–and instead put it all on Iraq.

Clearly, hawkishness has contributed to global instability and violence.  In light of recent history,  perhaps our political press should re-evaluate the way it perceives–and portrays–events such as this.  Hopefully we can put the “trouble abroad, let’s turn to hawkier hawks!” electoral philosophy to rest once and for all.

From the Ron Paul Political Report, 1992:

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced?  We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

[...]

Taken from the Ron Paul Political Report, 1120 NASA Blvd., Suite 104,
Houston, TX 77058 for $50 per year. Call 1-800-766-7285.

[Emphasis Added]

Congressman Ron Paul, ladies and gentlemen.  Leading the ‘revolution’ with insane, half-baked ideas and outright racism.

Due to the holiday, I won’t be posting later today (unless there’s some important breaking news later).  So step away from your computer a bit and go spend time with those you love.

If you want to read something political, you can take a look at my post on the “War on Christmas,” which was featured on Salon’s Blog Report.

George W. Bush and the Roadblock Republicans are intent on shutting down the Federal Election Commission before the 2008 elections. More from The Washington Post:

The federal agency in charge of policing the torrent of political spending during the upcoming presidential primaries will, for all practical purposes, shut its doors on New Year’s Eve.

The Federal Election Commission will effectively go dark on Jan. 1 because Congress remains locked in a standoff over the confirmation of President Bush’s nominees to the panel. As a consequence, the FEC will enter 2008 with just two of six members — short of the four votes needed for the commission to take any official action.

[Emphasis Added]

Here’s what that means for the upcoming elections:

Although the 375 auditors, lawyers and investigators at the FEC will continue to process work already before them, a variety of matters that fall to the commissioners will be placed on hold indefinitely. Chief among them are deciding whether to launch investigations into possible campaign finance violations and determining the penalties.

Seven presidential candidates have applied to receive public matching funds for their campaigns, but they may not be able to access the money until the FEC certifies their requests. That takes four votes.

The national political parties each anticipate an infusion of about $1 million from the U.S. Treasury to help pay for their national conventions. Releasing that money takes four votes.

And then there is a range of vexing campaign finance questions that hang in limbo: Can a firm that operates a blimp accept unlimited contributions to fly it over New Hampshire with Ron Paul’s name on the side? Can a senator use his campaign account as a legal defense fund? How will campaigns comply with the new law that requires them to identify the lobbyists who are collecting campaign checks on their behalf?

[Emphasis Added]

What’s holding the confirmation process up? The usual suspects, of course: George W. Bush and the Roadblock Republicans.

The conflict started when Bush nominated Hans A. von Spakovsky–who infamous for supporting right-wing voter suppression laws–to serve on the FEC.  Spakovsky supported the GOP’s Texas gerrymandering scheme, which redrew Texas’ Congressional districts to the benefit of Republicans and unseated 4 duly-elected Democratic Representatives in the process. In addition, Spakovsky supported legislation in Georgia to require photo identification for voting–a strategy that Republicans use to keep the poor (who are overwhemingly Democratic) from voting.

Simply put, Spakovsky is nowhere near moderate or independent enough to serve on the FEC; Senate Democrats realized this and, rightly, refused his confirmation. In retaliation for having their extremist nominee blocked, the Roadblock Republicans resorted to playing politics, blocking two Democratic nominees to the election commission.

This is nothing new–the Republicans are notorious for undermining our democracy through manipulating election laws and the voting process.  That’s why they’ve jumped at the chance to shut down the FEC–it’s good for the GOP if nobody’s looking over their shoulders and keeping them honest.  The remains of the DeLay-Abramoff network of anonymous donors, shady organizations and money laundering still exist–without the FEC, nothing keeps Republicans from restarting their illegal election machine.

Once again, the Roadblock Republicans keep our government from doing its job, putting their partisan interest ahead of the American people. We deserve honest candidates and transparent campaigns, yet–once again–the Republican Party is more than willing to stand in the way of clean elections.

Or something like that. From AMERICAblog:

Romney said his father had told him he had marched with King and that he had been using the word “saw” in a “figurative sense.”

“If you look at the literature, if you look at the dictionary, the term ’saw’ includes being aware of in the sense I’ve described,” Romney told reporters in Iowa. “It’s a figure of speech and very familiar, and it’s very common. And I saw my dad march with Martin Luther King. I did not see it with my own eyes, but I saw him in the sense of being aware of his participation in that great effort.”

But historical evidence, including news accounts at the time, shows that George Romney never marched with King, though he supported King’s agenda.

[...]

Romney has repeated the story of his father marching with King in some of his most prominent presidential campaign appearances, including the “Tonight” show with Jay Leno in May, his address on faith and politics Dec. 6 in Texas, and on NBC’s “Meet The Press” on Sunday, when he was questioned about the Mormon Church’s ban on full participation by black members. He said that he had cried in his car in 1978 when he heard the ban had ended, and added, “My father marched with Martin Luther King.”

Mitt Romney went a step further in a 1978 interview with the Boston Herald. Talking about the Mormon Church and racial discrimination, he said: “My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit.”….

“Clearly, Mitt Romney will say absolutely anything to smooth talk his way to the Republican nomination, even if it means playing loose with the facts on his own father’s civil rights record,” said Damien LaVera, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee.

[Emphasis Added]

This is just embarrassing–Flip Romney digs himself deeper, playing fast and loose with the facts to to cover up the fact that he’ll say anything to get elected.

The choice Republicans have seems to be between Romney and Huckabee–neither of which are paritcularly appetizing candidates. It makes you wonder, what’s worse–someone who’s completely inauthentic yet moderate, or someone who’s authentic yet completely extremist?

Keep digging, Mitt…

In order to diffuse criticism that the Mormon church is racist (since it took them until 1978 to allow African-Americans to be ordained or participate in certain temple ceremonies) Mitt Romney started saying that his father–Michigan Governor George Romney–once marched with Martin Luther King Jr.Unfortunately for him, a few journalists started digging and they found that Romney’s story is completely made-up.More from Blue Mass Group:

Mitt Romney will stop at nothing to score political points. Even if it means lying outright about his father.

I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.

Uh huh.

He made a similar statement Sunday during an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” He said, “You can see what I believed and what my family believed by looking at our lives. My dad marched with Martin Luther King. My mom was a tireless crusader for civil rights.”

Right. Got it — dad marched with MLK. Even David Broder says so, and supplies some corroborative detail intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative. (BMG bonus points for identifying the source of that phrase!)

As Mitt Romney recalled in his address, his father was able to remind people that he had marched with Martin Luther King Jr. (through upscale Grosse Pointe, Mich., in support of open-housing legislation).

Problem is, it’s not true. None of it. As the Phoenix’s David Bernstein reveals (see also update here) in some superb digging, George Romney never marched “with” — i.e., in the presence of, at the same place at the same time — Martin Luther King, Jr.

Here’s Bernstein, who in addition to calling out Romney, calls out Broder:

[W]hile the late George W. Romney, a four-term governor of Michigan, can lay claim to a strong record on civil rights, the Phoenix can find no evidence that the senior Romney actually marched with King, nor anything in the public record suggesting that he ever claimed to do so. Nor did Mitt Romney ever previously claim that this took place, until long after his father passed away in 1995 - not even when defending accusations of the Mormon church’s discriminatory past during his 1994 Senate campaign.Asked about the specifics of George Romney’s march with MLK, Mitt Romney’s campaign told the Phoenix that it took place in Grosse Pointe, Michigan. That jibes with the description proffered by David S. Broder in a Washington Post column written days after Mitt’s College Station speech.

Broder, in that column, references a 1967 book he co-authored on the Republican Party, which included a chapter on George Romney. It includes a one-line statement that the senior Romney “has marched with Martin Luther King through the exclusive Grosse Pointe suburb of Detroit.”

But that account is incorrect. King never marched in Grosse Pointe, according to the Grosse Pointe Historical Society, and had not appeared in the town at all at the time the Broder book was published. “I’m quite certain of that,” says Suzy Berschback, curator of the Grosse Pointe Historical Society. (B[ro]der was not immediately available for comment.)

Faced with the unfortunate reality that Mitt was making things up, his campaign has retreated into a hilarious Humpty-Dumptyism about what it means to “march with” someone. You see, it doesn’t mean that you were actually there. It means that, well, you participated in a march about a related topic on a different day, and maybe you thought about the guy while you were doing it.

Mitt, in other words, was “speaking figuratively, not literally.”

[Emphasis Added]

This is just ridiculous. Romney has been lying and flip-flopping since day 1 of his campaign, but this more than takes the cake. What sense does it make to diffuse criticism that the Mormon church is racist by making up a story about his father marching with Martin Luther King, even though such a claim is blatantly untrue and can be proven false relatively easily? And what kind of truth-bending hair-splitting parsing is it to say that his father marched “figuratively” with King? How does one figuratively march with someone?

Seriously, is this is the best the GOP can do? A flip-flopping serially-exaggerating Governor of Massachusetts, the scandal-prone law-bending cross-dressing Mayor of New York City, and the corrupt, incompetent, vindictive, radical fundamentalist Arkansas Governor with exceptionally poor judgment and Ron Paul? Seriously?

Conservatives don’t seem to understand that the Republican Party is at a historic crossroads. They have the chance to leave their Reagan-Bush era baggage behind and redefine what it means to be a conservative. They can ditch the burden of the Bush years by nominating a visionary candidate who will lead their party into the future, undoing the damage they caused and improving the lives of millions of Americans.

Instead, the GOP nominates a field full of faceless cookie-cutter Republicans; a field full of liars, exaggerators, incompetents, radicals, extremists and others who are completely unfit to be America’s next President. Romney’s latest fabrication shows just how poor the Republican field is, and just how desperate the GOP has become.

UPDATE: Daily Kos has this supposed clarification from the Romney campaign:

A spokesperson for Mitt Romney now tells the Phoenix that George W. Romney and Martin Luther King Jr. marched together in June, 1963 — although possibly not on the same day or in the same city.

[Emphasis Added]

Again, how can you and someone else march together if you’re not in the same city or even doing it on the same day? Doesn’t that contradict the meaning of “together?” Do we even need to discuss this?

Romney’s in serious trouble. He’s been losing momentum for weeks, and this latest incident shows just how much of a slick used car salesman he is–willing to say anything, anything at all, just to get you on his side. This man should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. Period.

UPDATE II: More from The Huffington Post’s Chris Kelly:

Although they never marched together, they did march separately. In that they were both in Michigan and ambulatory at the same time. And, by “the same time,” I mean “different times.”

Except, if you read the Phoenix story, George Romney didn’t actually “march” anywhere. But he was present at an event. Where King was not.

And Mitt never “saw” it, because he was doing missionary work in France.

WHAT MITT MEANT:

We can all agree that George Romney and Martin Luther King were both alive in June, 1963.

In the 2008 fundrace, the Democratic committees are beating the Republican committees by a huge margin.

First, let’s look at the DCCC:

• For the first time in at least two decades, the DCCC has out-raised the NRCC, and by the sizeable margin of $56.6 million to $40.7 million.
• The freshmen Democrats, many of them elected from normally GOP constituencies in 2006 and thus potentially vulnerable, have been doing particularly well in fundraising.
• Out of 23 open seats for 2008–places where the incumbent member of Congress has decided to step down–nearly three-quarters (17) are held by Republicans… As of now, not a single retiring Democrat is leaving a seat easily subject to a takeover bid by a Republican, while at least seven GOP seats are clearly vulnerable and comprise our TOSS-UP category for the moment.

Ouch.  Democrats have a solid freshman class and a $16 million advantage, while Republicans will have to defend a lot of vacancies with little money.

Now, let’s look at the DSCC:

[Emphasis Added]

In fact, the Roadblock Republicans are on track to use 134 filibusters in two years, more than doubling the previous record.

So congratulations, GOP.  You have almost no money and plenty of seats to defend, your members in Congress are deserting you like rats from a sinking ship, and your legislative strategy consists of obstructing as much of the people’s business as possible.  You’re both unpopular and ineffective–with less than a year left until the 2008 elections, you’re not even close to improving your destroyed image in the minds of the voters.

It’s official:

Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, whose forceful opposition to illegal immigration vaulted him to national prominence, plans to announce he is abandoning his long-shot bid for the presidency, a person close to Tancredo said Wednesday.

The five-term Colorado congressman planned to make the announcement at a news conference in Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday, the person said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for Tancredo or his campaign.

Tancredo’s campaign would only say he planned a “major announcement” Thursday.

Tancredo has consistently polled at the back of the nine-person GOP field.

Tancredo was little more than a gimmick, an extremist single-issue candidate who failed to get more than 2% of the vote at any time. In fact, if you look at his numbers, you can see that his support flatlined somewhere in the 1-2% range.

In that regard, Jonathan Singer brings up some good points:

If the Republicans were so smart to center their campaigns on anti-illegal immigration screeds during the 2005 gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, then why did they lose both contests? If the Republicans were so smart to focus on immigration during the 2006 midterms, how come they lost their majorities in both chambers of Congress and seats in races in which a hard right, anti-immigrant Republican went up against a Democrat moderate on the issue? If the Republicans were so smart to center their campaign to hold the Virginia legislature this past fall on immigration, why did they lose the lower chamber? And if Tom Tancredo was so smart to run a presidential campaign on the immigration issue, why is he dropping out in ignominy?

[...]

Tancredo may have had some successes in convincing his Republican brethren, both within the Congress and within the presidential field, to follow him off the cliff on this issue. Along these lines, Tancredo has been remarkably able at helping make his party unelectable in a lot of areas of the country (and perhaps across the country as a whole — we’ll have to wait til next fall to see if that is true). But aside from this, he has no success, whatsoever. Hard line immigration legislation isn’t likely going to pass any time soon, and the Tancredo brand of anti-immigration rhetoric has only yielded more deadlock on Capitol Hill — deadlock that has allowed the flow of unlawful entry into the United States. So congrats Mr. Tancredo. Your political career has been really fruitful.

The GOP seems to be banking on using immigration to propel themselves back into the majority, but they’re just spinning their wheels. Anti-immigrant sentiment has played a significant role in a number of Republican defeats in recent years. And now, a GOP presidential candidate who has based his entire candidacy on opposition to illegal immigration stagnated at the bottom of the pack, raising pathetic amounts of money and basically just showing up to the debates.

Considering that Hispanics are the fastest-growing group in the United States, the GOP is shooting themselves in the foot every time they pull their nativist rhetoric out of the closet. Between 2004 and 2006, the Democratic Party’s share of the Hispanic vote increased by a whopping 16%, playing a huge role in our midterm victory. A few election cycles from now, the Hispanic population of the United States will be so large–and (hopefully) so attached to the Democratic party–that a lot of red states could turn into swing states or even blue states.

If anything, Tancredo has proven that–while immigration is on America’s political radar–his particular take on it isn’t. While he may try to parlay his failed Presidential run into a future campaign, his radical anti-immigrant stance will only continue to hurt his party. Will the GOP wizen up and ditch radicals like him, or will they contribute to their own marginalization by welcoming Tancredo with open arms?

Only time will tell…

Here are some bite-sized bits of news from around the web:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that he will prevent President Bush from making controversial recess appointments over the winter holiday. Good for him–Bush brought this on himself by nominating outside-the-mainstream right-wing radicals to crucial government posts. The fact that Bush has to shoehorn these guys into office through recess appointments because they’d never get confirmed is disqualifying in and of itself. Give ‘em hell, Harry!

From the Department of Tell Me Something I Don’t Know: Mitch McConnell doesn’t have any faith that he’ll become Majority leader come January, 2009:

“There’s no question that if you just look at the numbers, we have a daunting task,” McConnell said at a Wednesday news conference on the eve of the year-end congressional adjournment. “I think the chances of you all calling me the majority leader a year from now are rather slim because of the number situation.”

When the Republican leader in the Senate says the GOP is in trouble, then the GOP is in trouble–remember, these guys can never admit when they make mistakes. Now, you would think knowing that a bunch of Republican Senators are going to get fired soon would lead the GOP to abandon their hyperpartisanship and obstructionism, but I guess not. Maybe they’ll learn after their defeat…

Meanwhile, Republican Presidential longshot Ron Paul is keeping a campaign contribution from a white supremacist leader, claiming

“Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he’s wasted his money,” Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. “Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom.”

Hey, guys? Usually campaigns donate tainted money to charity–Megan Carpenter suggests the NAACP, the Anti-Defamation League or the Southern Poverty Law Center. They don’t usually pocket the money–a lot of people dislike a Presidential campaign being run on dirty money. Just saying…

Moving on, both Mitt Romney and John McCain are complaining about Time’s choice of Vladimir Putin as Person of the Year. From the horses’ mouths:

[Romney:] “He has squelched public dissent and free press. And to suggest that someone like that is the Man of the Year is really disgusting. I’m just appalled.”

[...]

[McCain:] “I noticed that Time Magazine made President Putin the Time Magazine ‘Man of the Year…I understand that probably, but my man of the year is one Gen. David Petraeus, our general who has brought success in Iraq.”

Keep in mind, Time’s Person of the Year is not an honor or an award–it’s supposed to acknowledge a person, group of people or thing that has had significant impact in the prior year. Putin certainly fits that criteria–consider his recent  consolidation of power, forging of diplomatic ties with China and Iran, and his party’s resounding victory in Russia’s parliamentary elections.

Instead, they wanted David Petraeus. Yes, the White House political appointee who has presided over our mission in Iraq–which is currently wracked with violence, rampant sectarianism, a destroyed infrastructure and an ineffective , deeply-divided government. If you want the Person of the Year to go to the individual responsible for the recent reduction of violence in Iraq, then you should be lobbying for Moqtada Al-Sadr, not Dave Petraeus.

On that note, Congress just passed a bill dumping an additional $70 billion into Iraq, no strings attached. From CNN:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada, said Democrats would continue trying to bring an end to the conflict, and he warned that Bush was driving his GOP allies “over the cliff” by continuing the war.

“I hope this last year of his eight-year reign will be one where he will understand — and more importantly, the Republican senators will understand — that they’ve got to break away from this,” Reid said.

Rep. David Obey, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said Democrats “have tried every way known to man to bring this war to a conclusion.”

“I think it is clear that if the nation wants a change in direction with respect to this war, it has only two options,” said Obey, D-Wisconsin. “One is to elect more progressive voices in the United States Senate, and second is to elect a president who has a different set of priorities domestically and a different vision for America’s involvement in the Middle East — and especially in Iraq.”

Most Republicans repeatedly refused to break with the president. They pointed to reports of declining U.S. military and Iraqi civilian casualties since August as a sign that Bush’s commitment of nearly 30,000 additional troops to Baghdad and its surrounding province was bearing fruit.

“It’s an undeniable fact — or, should I say, an inconvenient truth — that things are getting better in Iraq, and I think the American people are noticing,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said Wednesday.

[Emphasis Added]

Shameful. I’m disappointed in the Democrats in Congress–you just gave over $400 billion to the Pentagon that had a provision allowing them to use that money to pay for the war. The White House threatened you and you collapsed. I know we need more Democrats, but I wish the Democrats we had would do more–all future funding needs to be tied to troop withdrawal, no excuses. It’s not too much to ask, and the American people are on your side

Also, note that Republicans are pointing to a reduction in violence since August. You know what else happened in August? Moqtada Al-Sadr announced a 6-month ceasefire for his Mahdi militia so that they could reorganize and strengthen themselves. Al-Sadr is intent on becoming a power player in Iraq, even if he has to carve out a place for himself by force. That ceasefire is up at the end of February–I wonder what the GOP would say if he decides to resume violence against U.S. troops again. If that were to happen, I think even David Petraeus wouldn’t be able to fix it…

And that’s the news for this evening.

Rumor is that Dodd is considering challenging Reid. From Sam Stein at The Huffington Post:

As the political season reaches its Iowa caucus climax, momentum is building for Sen. Chris Dodd to parlay his presidential campaign into a bid to challenge Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, for Majority Leader.

Almost all of the support for this effort now comes from the netroots, much of which favors such a move. But talk of Dodd making a run at the post has slowly crept into the corners of Capitol Hill as well. And in light of the Connecticut Democrat’s successful filibuster threat this week over granting immunity to telecommunications firms that conducted warrantless surveillance, some in the progressive community see the framework for a potential shakeup.

[...]

Still, a major obstacle for a Majority Leader Dodd remains: Senate Democrats are, by and large, happy with the work of Reid. Many note the difficulties in working with a one-vote majority and say he has done the best with the hand he was dealt. In the wake of an April 2007 Washington Post column that was highly critical of Reid’s leadership on Iraq, every single member of the Senate Democratic Caucus signed a letter to the paper, challenging its assertions.

“If it were to happen, the pressure would have to come from the outside,” said an aide to a prominent senator, not from Dodd’s office. “I haven’t heard of anyone being upset with Reid. There has been, in fact, an awful lot of support.”

“Dodd has tried for leadership positions before and he has lost races,” Jennifer Duffy, Senior Editor at the Cook Political Report, told the Huffington Post. “He is not going to just jump into this. I don’t think he will announce anything like that without counting noses first. And when he does, he might find that the votes aren’t there.”

Of course, if Dodd were to try once more for the Democrat’s top Senate job it would mean that his aspirations for the White House had met an unsuccessful end. Currently, his poll position in Iowa and New Hampshire leaves substantial room for improvement. But his name has been floated around as possible cabinet member. And his campaign insists that, even in the wake of the FISA victory, they have only the oval office on their minds.

In all likelihood, Dodd will not leave the primaries as the Democratic nominee. Still, he has decades of experience that nicely compliment his progressive spirit.

Personally, I don’t dislike Harry Reid. He has a difficult job–keeping his caucus together, placating both red state Democrats and blue state Democrats, all while trying to defeat the Roadblock Republican’s 60-vote standard. Reid has to tread carefully, pushing progressive change against the Republican perma-filibuster while trying not to lose moderate Democrats in the process. He has to pick his battles wisely since he’s swimming against the Senatorial tide, which leaves him with very few options. Considering the poor situation he’s found himself in, I think he’s done an admirable job.

Still, there are times I think Reid could do more. I understand the difficulties he faces, but I would like to see him stand up and slug it out with McConnell more often. Yes, there are red state Democrats he has to worry about protecting, but the GOP also has blue state Republicans that we should be bringing over to our side now and again. Sometimes Reid prefers to negotiate rather than fight, which is problematic since the GOP doesn’t negotiate–they demand, and too often Reid is willing to give them what they want. The American people want leadership, and I don’t think it would hurt to be more progressive–to show the people that we’re willing to stand up and fight for them, even when the going gets rough.

The biggest hurdle Dodd would face is the fact that Reid is highly-regarded by his colleagues–Reid would have to do a remarkably poor job for the caucus to boot him. Dodd’s situation is also complicated by the fact that he isn’t a member of the leadership, and that some Senators who are–such as Schumer and Durbin–also want to move up. Simply put, if Dodd wants the position he’ll have to do a lot of work in the next several months to prove himself.

No matter what, things should improve markedly come January, 2009. Though I doubt we’ll enter the 111th Congress with a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate, I’m confident we’ll grow our caucus by a few seats. Perhaps then the GOP will be more likely to negotiate, and perhaps then it will be easier to sway more vulnerable Republicans to our side. No matter what, we’ll need strong, visionary leadership, and I hope we have someone in charge who will provide it.

The rumor on the ground is that Rep. Tom Tancredo will be dropping out of the GOP Presidential race tomorrow.  Marc Ambinder has more:

The scuttle is:

Rep. Tom Tancredo will drop out of the presidential race tomorrow and endorse either Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson…. neither of those candidates know who, just yet.

But the scuttle is probably wrong. Tancredo has been critical of all his opponents, and, given his issue’s saliency, he does not need to endorse. His party sounds like him, now, on immigration.

Tancredo is a one-note right-wing extremist–the only reason he’s running is to push the GOP to the far right on immigration.  I’m not sure if he’ll drop out–it makes sense for him to stay in for as long as possible so he can continue pressuring the other candidates. Anyway, it’s so close to the primaries that it makes little sense to drop  out now.

Then again, Tancredo could duck out to avoid a humiliating defeat in the primaries that would hurt his political future. He could parlay his Presidential run into a future candidacy–former GOP presidential candidate Jim Gilmore, for instance, is running for Senate in Virginia.  This would make sense, considering that it’s rumored Tancredo is hoping to challenge Sen. Ken Salazar in 2010.  Quitting now would give him a relatively high profile, a decent enough fundraising base and devoted  (though not large) following, all of which could be of use to him in the future.

We’ll have to see what happens.  His exit won’t really affect the dynamics of the GOP primary, but if the rumor’s true then I doubt this will be the last we’ll see of Tom Tancredo.

The Iowa caucus is just 15 days away, and both the Republican and Democratic races are showing significant fluidity according to recent polls.

On the Democratic side, an ABC News/Washington Post poll shows Obama leading in Iowa with 33%, while Clinton has 29% and Edwards has 20%. Predicting the early states is difficult–at this point, polls can only provide a rough sketch of where things stand–but it’s clear that Clinton is slipping and Obama is rising. The real question is, how much ground has Clinton lost and Obama gained? That’s difficult to say, for sure.

Also, keep in mind that the Democrat’s Iowa caucus is unusual–voters don’t just show up and vote for a candidate. There are multiple rounds of voting, where–if a candidate fails to garner 15% of the vote in the first round–the candidate is eliminated and additional rounds of voting occur. Thus, supporters of the eliminated candidates can end up voting for their second (or even third or fourth) choice.

The above poll took the second-choice factor into account:

Among those whose first choice is below 15% viability, Obama leads as the second choice with 37%, with Hillary at 31% and Edwards at 26%.

Thus, if candidates such as Gravel, Kucinich, Biden, Dodd and Richardson are eliminated in the first round, their supporters may end up voting for different candidates, completely changing the dynamics of the caucus.

Nationally, there has been a sea-change similar to the one in Iowa–Obama has gained support, while Clinton has slipped. A new Diego/Hotline poll has these results:

Hillary Clinton 35%
Barack Obama 30%
John Edwards 14%

Clinton’s national lead is shrinking. Her large leads in the early states has evaporated, eliminating her buffer zone and increasing the potential for a devastating loss early on. Her support in the Super Tuesday states–some of which gave Clinton a commanding lead–has begun to shrink, too. Take, for instance, this story out of California:

Clinton still holds a 14-point lead over fellow U.S. Sen. Obama among likely voters in the Democratic primary, 36 percent to 22 percent. But the margin between the two has dropped from the 25-point gap Field recorded just two months ago.

This should be raising some eyebrows in the Clinton camp, but nothing is assured yet. Things are starting to change extremely quickly–all I can say for sure is that the Democratic primary is completely up in the air.

On the GOP side, the above national Diego/Hotline poll has these results:

Rudy Giuliani 21%
Mike Huckabee 17%
Mitt Romney 13%
Fred Thompson 11%
John McCain 10%
Ron Paul 7%

But a national Reuters/Zogby poll released today shows different standings:

Giuliani 23%
Huckabee 22%
Romey 16%
Thompson 13%
McCain 12%
Ron Paul 4%

Giuliani’s national lead, which could have buffered his defeat in Iowa and New Hampshire–states he has all but ceded–seems to be evaporating as Huckabee’s momentum in IA translated to momentum nationally.

Romney is definitely slipping, but he is leading in NH, which could very well turn that around once the primaries are in full swing.

Thompson and McCain have both pretty much failed–the high expectations drummed up for Thompson’s presidency have been dashed, while McCain’s start as the undisputed front-runner has dissolved into a 5th-place position.

Ron Paul has tons of money, but very little support on the ground. Money can influence votes, but will Paul’s money be able to make his bizarre beliefs palatable to GOP caucus-goers? If the entire race up until now is any indication, the answer is no.

I know that 15 days is a long time in politics, but–as the holidays approach–it will be harder for candidates to get attention and influence the race. We won’t know much for sure until the first votes are cast, but it’s undeniable that this will be an interesting primary battle for both Republicans and Democrats.

Republican Senator Thad Cochran says:

What I do know is that Congress should never yield its right or its power to make annual spending decisions and include those decisions in the appropriations bill. Congress should not just leave it up to the executive branch…if Congress has to undergo vetoes of appropriations bills and make modifications of bills as a result, so be it.

Of course, none of that applies to Iraq. As far as Republicans are concerned, Congress has a right and a power to make budgetary decisions…except when the President demands funding for an open-ended war. Then Congress should just shut up and give the White House everything it wants unconditionally.

Hypocrisy abounds. Is there any doubt left that these guys have to go?

It’s starting to look like Ron Paul’s massive fundraising isn’t translating into grassroots support– according to Gallup, Paul’s national support among Republicans is 3%, which ties him with off-the-wall newcomer Alan Keys. More from Greg Mitchell:

While I agree that the media has been slow to cover Rep. Ron Paul’s fundraising success -– and I sympathize with his antiwar stance – the notion that the press is missing a true grassroots surge for Paul in the race for president is questionable. A new Gallup Poll out today shows that his support among Republicans nationally has actually dropped in the past month, from a paltry 5% to a pathetic 3%. This is after he did get more press and appeared in most of the TV debates. By the way, that 3% total now ties him with new entrant….the loony Alan Keyes.

And do any of the thousands who have donated money to Paul wonder when he will actually start spending a lot of it? He was getting 3% nationally in Gallup back in July, and hasn’t gained an inch since. Anyone else suspect he wants to bank some of it for unspecified future activities — such as an indy run?

[Emphasis Added]

The Ron Paul “Revolution” that his supporters trumpet is turning into an expensive flop.  His massive fundraising events are simply stunts where his handful of hardcore followers dump huge amounts of money into his campaign. Do they know their money is going to waste? Are they aware that they’re not part of a pro-Paul grassroots groundswell? Do they understand that their candidate has little chance of being the GOP’s nominee?

Who knows.  But this revelation raises a more important question–what will Ron Paul do when he loses the Republican primary? Will he go back to the House? Will he run as an independent? Will he back someone else? And what about his devoted–albeit small–core of followers? Will they disperse? Support someone else? Or will they goad Paul into mounting an inevitably-doomed independent bid?

Only time will tell.  Paul’s campaign is an anomaly, but it’s not a popular anomaly.  Though there is little certainty in politics, it’s nearly assured that Paul will not be carrying the GOP’s banner in 2008.

Another news cycle, another embarrassing story for Mike Huckabee. This time, it’s a book he wrote in 1998 called Kids Who Kill. Some key excerpts:

Abortion, environmentalism, AIDS, pornography, drug abuse, and homosexual activism have fragmented and polarized our communities.

[...]

It is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations—from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia.

[...]

The legal commitment of ideological secularism to any and all of the fanatically twisted fringes of American culture—pornographers, gay activists, abortionists, and other professional liberationists—is a pathetically self-defeating crusade that has confused liberty with license.

[...]

Men who have rejected God and do not walk in faith are more often than not immoral, impure, and improvident (Gal. 5:19-21). They are prone to extreme and destructive behavior, indulging in perverse vices and dissipating sensuality (1 Cor. 6:9-10). And they—along with their families and loved ones—are thus driven over the brink of destruction (Prov. 23:21).