[Posted by Karl] My general impulse is throw cold water on momentary buzz, so this bit of hype from Camp Santorum reported by Byron York after sweeping Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado caught my attention: After the returns came in, I asked Santorum spokesman Hogan Gidley what he thought about Rich Beeson’s message. Sure, Santorum did well on Tuesday, but doesn’t Romney have the money and infrastructure to outdistance Santorum, and everyone else, in the long run? “What an inspiring message,” Gidley said sarcastically. “That is really inspiring. I can’t wait to put a bumper sticker on my truck that says MONEY-INFRASTRUCTURE 2012.” “No one had more money and infrastructure than Hillary Clinton, and hope and change wiped her off the map,” Gidley continued. “We’ll have money, and we’ll have infrastructure, but our nominee has to have a message that people can get behind and inspires people.” In fact, Obama raised more money than Clinton headed into the Iowa caucuses. Obama’s endorsements in early states were competitive with hers . And Obama out-organized Hillary. It’s too bad for Rick Santorum that his staff apparently does not know this, as there’s an important lesson for them in it. Obama was able to wage a long campaign against Clinton in 2008 because he followed (and improved on) McGovern’s 1972 strategy of picking up cheap delegates in caucus states, particularly “red states,” which his rivals ignored. Santorum’s wins in bluish-purple caucuses — Iowa, Minnesota and Colorado – and his plans to target Washington state’s caucus in the upcoming rounds suggest a general awareness of Obama’s strategy. The RNC, having noticed that the Dems’ long 2008 campaign drove registration and organization in more states, helped open the door to an insurgent campaign by dictating proportional allocation of delegates for primaries and caucuses held before April , although some of these early non-binding contests awarding delegates later complicate these calculations. The RNC’s plan did not anticipate this cycle’s unexciting and inept field of candidates. In any event, it also ultimately works against a NotRomney like Santorum. In March, with its treasure trove of delegates, there are plenty of places a NotRomney could do well, including caucuses. Many of these states lean conservative and evangelical . But proportional allocation of delegates insures Romney will get a share of delegates in most of these contests. Moreover, if Newt Gingrich remains in on Super Tuesday, he may do well in Georgia (one of the biggest delegate counts that day) and other southern states, splitting the NotRomney vote. Indeed, Newt has already headed to Ohio, another state where Romney would benefit from a split vote on Super Tuesday (Ohio moved the GOP primary from June back to March. Given the likely Santorumentum from last night’s sweep, I wonder whether the Mitt-backed superPAC will dial back its attacks on Newt in Ohio.) Moreover, Ron Paul is openly pursuing the McGovern/Obama cheap delegate strategy in caucus states, which complicates efforts by other NotRomneys hoping to do the same. Furthermore, the strategy has its limits: only 486 delegates will be awarded in caucus states. Once winner-take-all contests become prevalent in April, the calendar becomes heavily weighted to northeastern states — Pennsylvania and Wisconsin being Santorum’s best opportunities. May would be a more Santorum-friendly month. June will be dominated by California, New Jersey and Utah, all presumably Romney-friendly states. Contra Santorum’s flack, the fact that the eventual nominee will have money and organization does not help Santorum become the nominee today. Despite the big wallet of Foster Friess , Santorum needs money and organization now. And he needs Newt to be out of the race by Super Tuesday. At the moment, that scenario seems unlikely. –Karl
See the original post here:
Mitt Clinton, Rick Obama?
The return of Aung San Suu Kyi, the dynamic Burmese political figure and international icon, from long-term house arrest to full activity has energized her entire country. The United States has accepted the Burmese government’s claim that it has released “hundreds” of political prisoners, though there are hundreds more still being held. How this will manifest itself in the near future is open to debate, but full diplomatic recognition is now in the works even though the U.S. never did fully close its embassy when it withdrew its ambassador in 1990. Meanwhile, the crush of celebrity visitors to Yangbon (Rangoon) run the gamut from Hillary Clinton and George Soros to every precious stone dealer and extractive industry executive who can afford the trip. They are all, whether diplomat, politician or businessman, already behind the curve. Burma in all its not inconsiderable economic potential already has been well reconnoitered over the past decade and earlier. Soros, himself, for some years has been running an active behind-the-scenes operation through his multiple charitable foundations. George Soros has never missed a chance to take advantage of political/economic openings afforded by his conveniently targeted eleemosynary activities — and it’s doubtful he has changed his modus operandi when it comes to Burma. With the aid of the global photo opportunity queen, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Burma has become an example of the Obama Administration’s theatrical foreign policy that has discovered an international issue in the last year on which to focus the attention of its left-liberal base. The image of Hillary and Suu Kyi in matching local hair-dos as “bosom buddies” linked in the fight for freedom was of great use to the White House. The Obama Administration is eager to portray itself as the champion of high profile Asian democracy as it seeks to cover its waning involvement in the previously priority areas of the Middle East. Washington officialdom is not the only foreign group seeking to take credit for Burma’s reform. Any changes that exist, however, are due strictly to internal developments, including the ascent of the new government under President (formerly General) Thein Sein and Aung San Suu Kyi’s willingness to work with him. Andrew Seith, highly respected Australian analyst of Burmese affairs, has written , “…there is hardly a single sector of Burma’s government economy and civil society that is not begging for reform and desperate for financial, technical and other kinds of assistance.” Expectations by outside do-gooders have to be adjusted to deal with these many difficult realities. The long-standing issues involving ethnic minorities such as the Karen and Shan have at last grown into full-scale negotiations. Unfortunately the Kachin insurgency has continued, some say quite unabated. Some of the ethnic tribal leaders question Aung San Suu Kyi’s judgment or even interest in these matters. Problems between the military and the various tribal groupings go all the way back to their treatment after World War II. Reform in relations with ethnic minorities in Burma, as elsewhere in Southeast Asia, is more the result of historical complaints than it is the product of perceived contemporary disadvantage. Not talked about openly, but always on the mind of her supporters, is the upcoming parliamentary elections in April as the first step in what many consider Suu Kyi’s rightfully inherited position of the nation’s leader. Too fast a move beyond a parliamentary seat could trigger a serious military backlash, and she is well aware of that. The complexity of the country’s problems will require many years to solve. During that period it must be remembered that Burma holds a strategic position between China and India. External factors easily can become determinant depending on regional events. Pragmatism on the part of Aung San Suu Kyi dictates she work with, and even perhaps for, President Thein Sein to achieve mutually desired goals of national reconciliation and reform. He can supply the discipline necessary to introduce a controlled but workable democracy, while she can continue to act as an inspiration for a future more open to democracy. It will take both leaders to focus the many voices of the nation in such a manner as to construct a consensus of the electorate and a military that would no longer see itself as the sole arbiter of justice and fidelity to national interests. If Aung San Suu Kyi finds she can not work with Thein Sein, contrary to current appearances, this entire national reformation enterprise could still collapse. So far it appears that both principals are well aware of this and are working hard to preserve their initial collaboration. Meanwhile all of Burma holds its breath — and the rest of the world tries to figure out where they should line up. They should keep an eye on George Soros. He seems to make money from every situation.
Go here to see the original:
Burma Awaits Its Tomorrow
Early in Thursday’s Republican presidential debate, CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer caught Mitt Romney flatfooted on one of his anti-Gingrich ads. The ad accuses Newt of calling Spanish a “language of the ghetto.” What, Blitzer asked Romney, did you mean by that? “I haven’t seen the ad, so I’m sorry, I don’t get to see all the TV ads,” replied Romney. “I doubt that’s my ad.” But it is his ad. “We did double check, just now, Governor, that ad that we talked about,” said Blitzer. “We double checked. It was one of your ads. It is running here in Florida on the radio, and at the end you say ‘I’m Mitt Romney and I approved this ad.’” The exchange captured what Romney has tried to avoid — the image of a remote plutocrat working so hard to buy an election he isn’t even aware of his own ads. Establishment pundits will no doubt ooh and ah over Romney’s generally confident performance — CNN informed viewers that he now enjoys the services of a new “debate coach” — but rank-and-file conservatives should find the prospect of a rising Romney deeply depressing. How is it possible that two years after the Tea Party propelled the GOP back to congressional power Republicans are contemplating a former Paul Tsongas voter as the head of their party? Gingrich spent too much of the debate responding to attacks rather than making them. He should have used every question as an occasion to remind voters of Romney’s liberalism. The best licks on Romney as a liberal ended up coming from Rick Santorum. Training less fire on Gingrich at this debate than at previous ones, Santorum turned his attention to Romney with a sustained broadside against Romneycare. How, Santorum asked, will the GOP be able to argue against the Obamacare mandate with a nominee who hatched the idea? Romney said in reply: “It is not worth getting angry about.” Yes, it is.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton plans to step down if President Obama is re-elected, but she noted that the State Department could get more done if people aren’t paying attention , according to Josh Rogin of Foreign Policy: Clinton warned her employees that the election season would “suck up a lot of the attention” from foreign policy issues. “But the good news is, you know, maybe we can even get more done if they’re not paying attention,” she said. “So just factor that in.” The comment came as Clinton was announcing changes to expect during the upcoming year, including the drawdown in Afghanistan and a pledge to allow employees upgraded browsers.
View post:
Hillary Clinton: State Dept. can get more done without public paying attention
