Patrick Ruffini declares we have the Republican coalition backwards.  All this time, the Bush coalition was really a values coalition.  That these are really Huckabee people willing to go to McCain if the Huck ducks out.  If people are with Bush for his Catholic sensibilities on social issues, they are now with the Huck who may duck,  it seems to me that that is an argument to go to Romney, not McCain.

Ruffini mischaracterizes the wall Hugh tries to build around Romney’s religion.  It is not based on the separation of Church and State.  Romney's Religion speech emphasized that the original term was more properly a protection of Church from State.  Rather, the wall is based on Article VI of the United States Constitution that says there would be no religious test for government office.  Of course, this is a proscription on government, not individuals.   But as with freedom of speech and innocent until proven guilty, it has become part of our national consciousness as well as our ethical fabric.

So what if religion is important to you?  I once heard a Hugh caller say she could not vote for someone who did not accept Jesus Christ as her savior.  Now,  Romney speech contradicts her on the merits, but let’s discuss this as the reason why people are not getting behind Romney.  First of all, I am not sure that the caller realizes that she is more surely ensuring a Jew would never be president than a Mormon.  If I had a chance to question her, she would probably, properly tell me that she did not, in fact include Jews in her generalization.  Hopefully, she would point out Jews to be faithful, upright, righteous people.  Her best friend might even be Jewish.  This is when I would tell her—and everyone who prefers Huckabee to Romney because of values—that she is right.  That we each have our own theology.  That we want our religion to affect our lives in a myriad of positive ways.  That we want to deal with others so affected.  That we want to be led by people so affected. 

I’d hate to use the sausage analogy, but it doesn’t matter how it is made (we probably don’t want to see how it is made) as long as we like the product.  I know, I know.  Religion is not a prerequisite for ethical behavior.  Nor does religion guarantee ethical behavior.  But having a structure upon which to scaffold our ethical lessons makes it more likely that our ethical lessons will be learned.  We tend to behave better if we believe we are being watched.

Now look at Romney’s character—his life, and his family.  It is apparent that he is one of those so affected.  That the values voters disagree with Romney’s theology is irrelevant.  It is how that theology has affected his life that we care about.  It is the man, not the religion that we are judging (q.v. Harry Ried).  We judge Romney by his character.  And that judgment should lead Huckabee voters—and all values voters—to Romney.

The contrast between Romney and McCain may not always lie in their position on the issues.  It may, instead be more accurately discerned from the way they deal with issues.

McCain comes up with his positions.  The source may be his gut, his moral compass, wherever.   Once he comes to a decision, he sticks to it.  It is his decision, right or wrong--and, admittedly, mostly right.  But when he is wrong, as he has been on a number of big issues, he will stick to his guns.  This is what earned him his Maverick name.

Romney gathers data, analyzes it, then formulates a decision.  If that decision means that a previous position was wrong, he changes it.  And he has flipped a couple of times--though I have seen no one show that he has ever "flopped" back to his previous position.  If his flips are based on his due diligence, if he has determined the correct path, there would be no need to change back.

So when McCain makes a decision he sticks to it right or wrong--even in the face of contradicting data and opposing opinion.  Perhaps even because of it.  When Romney's due diligence indicates a different position is not the correct path, he is willing to change.

The positions a person takes are important.  They will influence many of the actions he will take as president.  But a president has limited ability to enact his policies.  Perhaps more important than his positions is his character and temperament.  That he is able and willing to analyze an issue thoroughly and, if needed, change course, rather than blindly follow a stated position out of pride or stubbornness.

So Guiliani steps down.

I remember hearing his maligned Christmas commercial where he proposes to send everyone a fruitcake.  A really nice fruitcake with a big red ribbon.  It provided a market list of things that he wants to give us featuring, significantly, strict constructionist judges.  The whole fruitcake thing (I can not say I have ever eaten a fruitcake--has anyone?) just shows Guiliani's personality.  Something he has in abundance.

Of course, I will always think of Guiliani (even a President Guiliani) as Uncle Joe from the Bronx, as he described himself when he played a Mayor Rudolph Guiliani who wanted to meet the president in an episode of Cosby.

He withdraws and endorses McCain.  We now have to convince his supporters that Romney is the proper successor as candidate to Guiliani.

I'm sure by now no one reading this would be surprised that I agree with Jubal's post and they would be right.

It was a shock like cold water on my face when I got to the end and saw what he said about Bruce Herschensohn.  I remember his campaign for Senate.  I was disappointed to say the least that he lost to Barbara Boxer and the way he lost.  He was the best candidate and a good man.

Reading this I was shocked that he was a McCain man.

It was also a reminder of something I learned that bodes ill for Mitt:  In politics good guys finish last.

Earlier, I made reference to the proper way to have one-on-one debates--do Lincoln Douglas the way high schoolers do!

But, if the candidates turn out to be McCain and Obama, I have only two words to say about this.

Never mind.

It wouldn't be a pretty picture.

Why Tuesday asks this question of all the candidates and complains because Romney fails to participate other than to say, "I sure do."

Well, I do too.  But you don't fix it by increasing voter turnout.  I shudder every time I think of the voter registration drives we have at my high school.  We don't need to increase voter turnout.  Having greater voter turnout doesn't always produce a better result.  We don't want to emulate other countries if the results aren't enviable.

We don't fix the system by increasing voter turnout.  We fix the system by increasing the turnout of informed voters--a rare commodity.

I'm not complaining about the number of Democrats--though from what I've heard they know all of the talking points and none of the details.  But having thousands more people go to the polls knowing nothing more than what they've heard on TV commercials isn't my idea of fixing the system.

Back to overcommunicating. . . . .

Robert Novak writes of McCain telling us that he never said that Alito was too conservative for the supreme court.  In this, he seems to evoke Reagan in ways no one seems to mention.  "I cannot recall" is the phrase that comes to mind.

So he wants to reassure us on Alito.  He wants to reasure us on tax cuts.  He wants to reassure us on immigration enforcement.  These are not flip-flops, to be sure.  But they are flips in greater degree designed to capture the Republican nomination by placating critics than Romney's alleged flips.  At least Romney's flips, such has his pro-life stance,  occured while he was governor and he spent his term as governor working on the basis of the new stance.

McCain is a flipper. Assurances at this point seem week and forced.  But if it was possible to rely on this assurances, then never mind Alito.  I want McCain to tell us he would nominate another Scalia.

Watching yesterday's NCIS a random agent walks by Gibbs and asks him if he wants coffee.  Gibbs accepts and says that he wants a double.  In the exchange, you think nothing of it, but Gibbs does mention his name.  My enchanting bride said it was probably someone important.  We turned on the Closed Caption so we could read the name.  It turned out to be Betro as in Thomas A. Betro, Director, Naval Criminal Investigative Service.

Gotta watch those Cameos.

Hugh Hewitt's math may be technically correct as far as it goes, but we need to look deeper.

It takes 1,191 delegates to secure the nomination.  There are more than 900 delegates left to fight for after Super Tuesday.

Start looking hard at the numbers and put yourself in the discussions with Team Romney.  It isn't pretty, but it is far, far from over.

A number of years ago, my school district was searching for a superintendent.  After a while, I read that a businessman had been in contention.  He dropped out, he said, when he realized that they were set to select an Hispanic. And he was not.  I was very perturbed.  It was bad enough that they were discriminating against a candidate based on his race, but I was also disappointed we would not be getting a businessman running our district.  We sure needed one.  We need one now.  We need someone who knows how to run a business.  We need someone who will prune and weed until we have an efficient education machine.  Instead we have had people who continue to bloat the administration.  People who take COLAs from the state and offer the teachers nothing.  At the very least we need someone who knows that schools are "profit centers" and every administrative office is a
"loss center."

This is one of the reasons why Romney would be a great president.  It is impossible to make Washington efficient.  But Romney's fortes (one of them) is trimming the fat out of bloated organizations to make them viable again.  And I can't think of anywhere more bloated than Washington.

Yes, Romney has flipped (he has never flopped). But I don't understand why it is bad to flip over to your side.  Some coaches say it doesn't make sense for a student to speak on both sides of a bill in student congress.  I always thought that, in addition to having strategic advantages, that it makes sense in the context of a congress.  What is the sense of having a debate if not to change minds.  Well, what if you were wrong and your mind was changed?  I joked that the students could begin their second speech by proclaiming, "I have seen the light!"  Well, Romney has seen the light.  And he flipped.  And he is now on the Right side.  I see nothing wrong with that.

McCain has flipped.  He was against Bush's tax cuts until he was for them.  His claim that to repeal them now would amount to a tax increase is disingenuous.  Tax payers aren't checking if the taxes are being increased or decreased.  They want to pay the least amount of tax.  Now.  The stimulus was needed at the time it was proposed and that we got it when we did is responsible for the Goldilocks  economy we enjoy (or enjoyed up until a few months ago).

Worse is his stand on immigration.  Now he sees that American's want enforcement first.  Of course, if he sees that American's want enforcement first that doesn't mean HE wants enforcement first.  I still can't see him putting true enforcement ahead of any kind of regularization.  I still don't see him giving us our damned fence.  I still don't see him putting security provisions that will really work.  I do see him putting people in high positions who owe allegiance to Mexico above the United States.

And this doesn't even cover other pecadillos such as McCain- Feingold, judges, etc. etc.  MSM likes McCain.  The Democrats like McCain.  They can elect him.  He has not been a loyal Republican.  Republicans want Republicans.

Let Republicans elect Republicans.

I don't understand the momentum thing.  What do you gain by voting for the winner if the guy you want is number two?  Vote for the guy you want.  Republicans should vote for Republicans.

Ujohn kindly writes

Are we comparing and valuing our corrections and apologies against what "any liberal blogger/talk show host" post? Should I be grading Hugh's apology and retraction against whether a lib would do the same, so that makes it authentic ?

Certainly not.  But one of the missions of The Other Side has always been to contrast the left and the right. That we see corrections and apologies on the right and not on the left is one such contrast.  The right seems to want to keep the record straight.  The left seems to want us to forget their mistakes.  They are very good at forgetting.  From celebrities saying they would be moving to a different country if Bush is elected, predictions that Bush would reinstate the draft if he is elected to predictions of body bags from Iraq at the same magnitude as Viet Nam . . .  They say there will never be a military solution to Iraq, then when it seems within reach it becomes a political solution that seems unattainable.  Anecdotally, at least they would rather rely on our short memory than our forgiving nature.

Hugh Hewitt often points out that the original Lincoln Douglas debates of a century and a half ago really allowed the candidates to go at it.  One person spoke for an hour, his opponent would speak for ninety minutes and the first speaker would return for a thirty minute rebuttal.  This point is important for two reasons:  They brought Lincoln into prominence while losing him the congressional race, and they could never happen today.

Nevertheless, that does not mean we have to settle for the joint press conferences we have today.  The debates today tell us more about the people running the debate than they do the candidates.  Don’t get me wrong.  We need to see how these candidates respond in a variety of situations, including non-traditional ones.  You never know when a candidate will visit with a foreign leader only to find oneself sitting across the table from a talking snowman.  Let’s just hope we have some campbell’s soup at hand.  The problem is we also need to find out about what makes the candidates think.  We don’t need to worry so much about $300 haircuts as what those haircuts are hiding.

So here are some ideas from a (former) speech coach about how debates should be run.

Of course, a debate is only a debate if it is one-on-one.  If you have more than two people running, you have multiple debates so that everyone gets to go up against everyone else.  The current format for Lincoln-Douglas debates being used nationally is intriguing:

6 minute affirmative constructive (opening speech)
7 minute negative constructive
4 minute affirmative rebuttal
6 minute negative rebuttal
3 minute affirmative rebuttal

The designations “affirmative” and “negative” would be irrelevant in presidential debates and are only presented here to indicate which one of the two candidates would speak.  Also, each constructive is followed by a cross-examination period wherein the person who has just spoken is asked questions about his speech by his opponent.

All together this format would take about 30 minutes.  The current debates usually last about 90 minutes.  That allows time for three of these Lincoln Douglas debates during one telecast.  I see two possibilities.  If there are two candidates debating (such as during the general election), have three debates, each one on a different issue.  These might range from the war against radical jihad, the economy, health care, education, and so forth.  The other possibility is that there are three candidates in the general election, and, in that case, it may be that we want each candidate to debate each of his opponents.  This would require 90 minutes and would magically fit into the usual telecast time.

Another popular event in the high school forensic circuit is SpAr.  This does not mean that the debaters put on boxing gloves, at least not literally.  This stands for Spontaneous Argumentation.  The pattern goes like this:

1 minute affirmative opening speech.
1 minute negative opening speech
3 minutes unstructured argumentation
1 minute negative closing speech.
1 minute affirmative closing speech.

Unstructured argumentation means that the candidates are free to argue with each other.  Hopefully, they have a constructive discussion, but if they are incapable of doing this in certain situations, that would be a useful thing to know.  The one minute speech format for this format is a bit anemic for a presidential debate, so we may want to bump up the time to two or three minutes for an opening speech and either ninety seconds or two minutes for the closing speech.

This would still leave a very short debate, so the ninety minute telecast could consist of more debates on more issues than Lincoln Douglas would, or it could allow for a greater number of candidates to debate each other.

It should come as no surprise that RightTeacher1 would support a Republican for president and I do.  It may surprise that I am fairly confident that either Romney or Guiliani would have a marvelous November.  The reason is that I believe the best television in the fall will be Romney or Guiliani against Hillary or Obama in a one-on-one debate.  I don’t know if it is their lack of experience or lack of debating skill that would harm the democrat the most, but I predict that the republican will give them a pretty good shellaquing.  If debates matter, if performance can persuade, if completely overpowering an opponent in a debate doesn’t scare some people about whether their candidate is “presidential” then any combination of these democrats against these republicans in a debate should bring enough of the independents over to the R column to win the election.

Don’t get me wrong.  Obama has superb forensic talent.  His speaking ability is really the only reason he is running right now.  He would be a formidable candidate if he spent another complete term or two in the senate.  But other than his speaking skills, I just don’t see a whole lot of there there.  And being a good speaker doesn’t always translate into being a good debater.

This last in a series of posts is a modest proposal for the next election.  I have a better idea for the primaries for next time.

Most republicans would rather vote for a republican for president that for a democrat.  Likewise, most democrats would rather vote for a democrat than for a republican.  More so for democrats, I think.  This means that the top issue should be electability.  This is usually considered a secondary consideration or an insubstantial issue.  It might simply lead one to vote for a more moderate candidate that might have more appeal for independents.  But I think that if a candidate is strong enough, he (she?) ought to be able to win over independents.  Nevertheless, who attends the inaugural, democrat or republican, is the crucial question and we vote in the primaries for the person we think has the best chance of beating the other guys in the general.

The debates in the primaries should not be separate press conferences for the dems and the reps.  We should still have one-on-one debates, as I suggested above,  but this time between one democrat and one republican.  We would have a debate with each democrat going up against each republican.

This leads to a large number of debates, but how many have we had so far this primary season?  Have multiple debates during one telecast and we could go through all of the combinations in fewer telecasts than we have had so far.

The next time republicans ask, who would be most strong in a competition against either Hillary or Obama? We would already have the answer.