It was predictable; I don't usually make specific predictions but it seemed to me that New Hampshire, despite its vaunted 'conservative' reputation, is decidedly more mainstream Republican than conservative. And McCain has had longstanding popularity there, so the results were no surprise on the Republican side. I would have hoped that Ron Paul would do better, of course. Huckabee continues to do much better than he would in a just and sane world.
As for the Democrats, I would not have ventured to guess which way it would go; with the media strewing flower petals in Obama's path wherever he goes, and all but offering him a crown and sceptre, I half-expected another Obama victory, but it just goes to show that much of what is predicted in the media is part wishful thinking on the part of the journos, and part spin and manipulation to bring about their wished-for result.
As to the lesser candidates, I posted a link on the forum to a Washington Times piece which claimed, incredibly, that Huckabee proposed a Constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship for babies born to illegal aliens. It seemed rather strange, considering Huckabee's frequent pro-illegal Mexican words and deeds. He is an open borders True Believer, and it was hard to imagine him having a Damascene conversion to hardline measures like ending birthright citizenship. But as it turns out, the story the Washington Times ran, based on statements by none other than Jim Gilchrist, is now being denied by Huckabee's spokesmen, per the Say Anything blog, via Brian's Brain:
In a monumental gaffe, today the neocon Washington Times tried to bogart the 14th Amendment fight from Ron Paul, with collusion from the (temporarily, at least) addle-pated Jim Gilchrist: [Emphasis is mine]
Mike Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to prevent children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens from automatically becoming American citizens, according to his top immigration surrogate[*] — a radical step no other major presidential candidate has embraced.
Mr. Huckabee, who won last week’s Republican Iowa caucuses, promised Minuteman Project founder James Gilchrist that he would force a test case to the Supreme Court to challenge birthright citizenship, and would push Congress to pass a 28th Amendment to the Constitution to remove any doubt.
Now, this is just my opinion, but it seems to me that this is an unadulterated campaign promise on its face. Huckleberry has been in favor of giving illegals the rights of the firstborn [or better] since way back. In his forty-acres-and-a-mule plan for Confederate penance, Mikey-my-boy championed in-state tuition for illegals in Arkansas, something I could not get for my Texan daughters.
[...]
I do not support an amendment to the constitution [sic] that would prevent children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens from automatically becoming American citizens. I have no intention of supporting a constitutional amendment to deny birthright citizenship.
Meanwhile, there is an anti-Ron Paul hit piece at the New Republic, based on quotes from old newsletters put out by Ron Paul's staff, which contain politically incorrect statements.
Ron Paul issues a statement denying the allegations that he said or wrote the controversial statements.
The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
Dr. Paul's statement is a little politically correct for me, but I believe it represents his true sentiments. I recognize that he holds a more libertarian view, which discounts the importance of race, ethnicity, or any kind of 'collectivist' identity. I of course disagree with that, but I respect that Dr. Paul's stance is sincere, and I also believe that, while he does not embrace an old-style nationalistic view, neither does he accept multiculturalism and Political Correctness. So I accept his statement as honest and sincerely held. I believe that by contrast, all the other GOP candidates (and I mean ALL of them) bow at the altar of multiculturalism and political correctness.
I continue to be baffled by the many conservatives who attribute quasi-supernatural powers to Hillary Clinton; one of the things that wearied me over at those conservative megaforums was the obsession with Hillary. Now I have long had a healthy dislike of Mrs. Clinton and her politics -- although I don't think she is the doctrinaire leftist her detractors on the right believe, but unlike those detractors I thought Bill Clinton was the worse of the two. I am not sure why Hillary seemed to draw the lion's share of the vitriol, while many Clinton critics appeared to think Bill Clinton was just a rogue and a rascal, not a dangerous man, while Hillary was the real 'power behind the throne.' I see Bill and his personality type as more dangerous, because he is a seducer; I mean that in a figurative sense as well as the literal, sexual sense. Bill has an outwardly genial personality which disarms people. Hillary, by contrast, was not nicknamed 'Sister Frigidaire' by her high-school classmates for nothing. She is cold and brittle and unlikable, and therefore automatically makes many people wary of her. This is a good thing. Bill, on the other hand, has an oily charm that draws people to him. I see exactly the same kind of quality in Obama, and hence he is someone to be wary of, as Bill Clinton is. Far better to have someone leading the other side who inspires wariness and resistance than someone who is a charming pied piper.
I include Mike Huckabee as another of the slick seducer types.
But the American people in general are easy prey for such glib, charming personalities. There is a kind of shallowness and a willingness to be led up the garden path that has allowed a lot of snake-oil salesmen to attain high office in our land. This habit of ours is a real detriment. If Americans don't start exercising a little discernment and common sense, rather than reacting to surface charm and smooth talk, we will never get the leadership we need.
