Marshmallows! / 4-1-12

You know what's cool? Marshmallows. The smaller, the tastier, in my opinion. Mini marshmallows are basically cute puffy adorable clouds of heavenly sweetness. Now if you have a campfire handy, if you have one going nearby as you read these very words, then heck, any kind of mallow will do.

Sans fire, the itty bitty ones, even the generic off-brand ones, those are the best. Yum.

Excuse me while I reach for another handful of mini marshmallows. Seriously, these are like the Fred Meyer brand, and they run $1.49 for a one-pound bag, and now it's time for another handful. Dude, there's totally more than half the bag left on the couch next to me. That is so cool! (Pace yourself, me.)

You might say that marshmallows are filling a void in my life. You might say that this divine snack is just what I need right now. You might deduce I was jonesing for some sugar, and that anything sweet could have done the trick. Well, if you're going to say that, I will respectfully reply that ten minutes ago, the chocolate chips looked meh, the ice cream was very untempting, and the cereal got no second looks.

You might then, if you happen to be the exaggerating type, suggest that I had a marshmallow-shaped hole in my gut tonight. Or a marshmallow-shaped hole in my heart. A space in my appetite that could only be filled by miniature sugar clouds.

Truth is -- and we're getting somewhere, I promise, just wait for it -- I didn't know what I wanted before I sat down to dispense the first phood4thot post of the spring. But when I saw these little guys in the cupboard, they felt right. Like they were exactly what I'd been looking for when I entered the kitchen. I just didn't know it yet.

So. If that's the way I've been thinking about God, then here's hoping I wise up pretty fast.

(This post was prompted by another sighting of the phrase common in many Christian circles: "A God-shaped hole in my heart." Philosopher Blaise Pascal coined the phrase in the 17th century, actually using the terms "God-shaped vacuum in the heart of every man.")

Long ago, I came to the realization that negative definitions of God are especially significant to me. I may not know what God is like, but I feel pretty confident that God is not the world's manager, nor a slave to human emotions like jealousy and relief, is not a hateful being, and is just plain not knowable -- at least not in such a way as we could adequately express. Mostly because God is inhuman. Ever tried to maintain a relationship with a river? Or a comet? Or the color blue? (That last option sounds intriguing.)

Trying to define God is challenging. But by closing off a handful of doors here and there, I've gained a certain spiritual equilibrium. I've managed to broker a cease-fire between the forces of doubt and faith. So if I can add another helpful sign along the road that is my spiritual journey, you bet your bag of marshmallows I'm going to seize the opportunity.

So here's what that sign reads: God can't be a need we fill. Or an answer to a need we allow God to fill. (Full meta will be achieved in one more clause, so here's a change of tack.)

God can't be the answer to "Why is my life incomplete?" Because then, it's just too easy to shape God into what I decide I need at that moment, or that phase in life. And while I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that a deep devotion to God can make people happier, more driven, more peaceful, I'd like to suggest that's because we want to be more happy, more successful and closer to peace. So of course, when we find that avenue to what we wanted all along, and we travel down it, of course we get excited about nearing the destination for which we were aiming.

God isn't a means to happiness.

More tritely put, God is not a late-night mini marshmallow. No, that would be an insult to either God or marshmallows. An insult for which I deeply apologize. To both of you. I'm sorry. Whichever one of you I should be sorry toward, I am. Sorry. Please, let's move on.

Did I mention these things are delicious?

Forgiveness for the Uninformed, Rage Against the News Machine / 2-6-12

Not forgiveness for the "Uniformed." That would be a very condescending post.

I kid, because defensive mechanism. In all honesty, I'm not sure what the point of this little essay is, yet. I'm going to start with a list, follow it with between one and a dozen observations, leading to a semblance of a point, perhaps gracing it all with a counterpoint, if you're lucky. I plan to offer a conclusiony item near the endy part.

(Not sure how it's all going to turn out. This is just how they teach you to operate in school. Begin to write, then think.)

Pre-thinking stage: engage.

a) Israel is thinking of starting a little war with Iran.

b) A riot killed 79 people in Egypt last week, and injured hundreds. The aftershock riot, a couple days later, killed 10 more.

c) Syria continues to knock off its citizens, day by day. Russia and China are vetoing any U.N. action.

d) Oh yeah, speaking of Russia, as hundreds of its citizens continue to die of cold, hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets in protest and support for apparent King Vladimir Putin.

e) The Republicans are choosing a presidential candidate, one state at a time. One guy seems to have taken charge, but it's been a pretty topsy-turvy ride so far.

f) Facebook is readying for what could be the largest IPO of all time. Hell, throw moderation out the window. This WILL be the largest one of all time.

g) Unemployment is dipping quickly.

h) Same-sex marriage is being considered/approved in three more states (WA, NJ, MN).

i) A Super Bowl was played yesterday. A good one, too. Record viewership for the game and the halftime show.

j) Outrage at the Susan B. Komen For the Cure's plan to defund Planned Parenthood caused the board to reverse its decision.

k) Citizens United is now two years old. The court case that paved the way for unlimited (unlimited!) donations from a single entity to a political campaign. It's being challenged everywhere, because most people are against bribery. (Unlimited donations! Pause for a second and think that one over.)

Those are just the top stories I can recite off the top of my head. A bit of shallow research reveals that a few other significant things are also ongoing.

l) Russian scientists are about to finish drilling through two miles of Antarctic ice and reach a pressurized underground lake that has not been explored for 100 million years. What's that again about the Mayan prophecy?

m) More European countries' debt ratings are in danger of being downgraded as they begin to deal with the consequences of unfunded spending programs. Like France and stuff. Big financial problems ahead, probably, with worldwide ramifications.

n) Fidel Castro was seen in public, touting a memoir. Remember him?

o) Hey, guess what: this little thing called "Occupy" is still happening, with peaceful protesters being mistreated by police every day, First Amendment be damned.

Thinking stage: engage.

First pointlet, then is that all that stuff listed above happened or continued to happen last week. How can a person possibly stay informed? Reading enough on each of these topics, just enough to rise above mal-informed to semi-informed, would take a person's entire trove of free time. No matter how much that person had! 168 hours might be sufficient, on a weekly basis, provided the person were a very fast reader. And possessed a time machine.

One could read headlines only. I have lots of days when that's all I can do. The experience is very unsatisfying, like a daily diet composed of fourteen snacks instead of three and a half meals.

I didn't even include any of the gossip "news" that bubbles at the surface -- Justin Bieber this, Kim Kardashian that, Brad Pitt this, MIA that. Best leave those "stories" to the professionals.

No sense in trying to stay up on the local stuff, either. Sticking strictly with national and international stories above, and just the big ones at that. Property taxes going up or serial killer strikes again in your town? You could hardly know that, unless it was your job to know so many things. So very many things.

That's why, today, pointlet two: I'm asking for and granting forgiveness to all uninformed parties everywhere. I am extending, right now, a blanket -- nay, a veritable quilt of mercy to all planetary inhabitants. You didn't know the city of Berkeley voted to pull out $300 million in assets from a large bank, so it could place the money in a more socially conscious place? Peace be with you. You didn't catch the headlines about the quake in the Philippines? Shalom anyway, Allahu Akbar and all that jazz. You holding on to something earth-shattering I didn't know about? I humbly beg your forgiveness.

There's too much information. It's too easy to disseminate. It's getting harder and harder to sort through it all, let alone keep up with a story for more than a day or two.

I'm not sure how this will turn out, still, but it appears a major point has stumbled into this post: We, as a nation, are bombarded with news. We've become are too adept at reporting stories. I submit that we have left the land of diminishing returns, news-wise, and have bravely set foot on a new patch of terra firma, where the amount of information available now places too much power in the hands of the aggregators and the opinion makers.

An amateur news-gatherer, or a semi-interested news reader, who has literally millions of informative blogs to choose from, is ironically more at the mercy now of news aggregators than ever before.

I can't stress enough how ironic the situation has become. There are hundreds of major news outlets slanted this way or that, and hundreds more trying so very hard to be unslanted. Old media and new media have merged -- you tell me how we should tell them apart. How do you find enough to make up your mind on any issue of importance? How do you find a reliable source, who will give you facts and analysis you can trust, and I don't mean based on ideology, but on sound thought processes and verifiable events?

For so very many of us, you don't. You stop by Daily Kos and the Huffington Post on your lunch hour if you're a liberal, catch some Rush Limbaugh on talk radio in the car and log on at redstate for a few minutes in the evening if you're a conservative. Why? Because you're not going to spend half your day researching a major issue or story, unless it's your job.

The junkiest of new junkies among us will always devour enough material to satisfy their appetites, and if they do it right, they'll turn that information into knowledge. The rest of us? Good freakin luck.

I don't think the current state of news presentation is healthy for our republic. But I also don't have a solution. Feel free to suggest one.

Vouch Across America / 01-28-12

Starting in 2014, as per the health care legislation enacted in 2010, help with insurance costs is coming your way.

Yep, in two years, the government will assist you financially, if necessary, through tax credits, in obtaining health insurance. If you make less than four times the federal poverty level (presently $22,350 for a family of four), that is. Cash money, direct from the evil, wasteful, God-hating federal government; cash money to help you not die.

Joking is fun. So is seriousness: I'm genuinely excited for the program to start. The uninsured are a serious financial drain on our health care system; too many bankruptcies are caused by escalating health care bills; people ought to be able to get medical care no matter their financial situation, just as a matter of principle, otherwise, what kind of society are we trying to run?

But once the government gets involved in keeping us healthy, where do we go from there? I'd like to dream, just for an evening, of a land where even more basic needs are guaranteed.

I'd like to dream of a similar voucher program that ensures every citizen has a roof over his or her head and enough to eat every night. Yes, every American, housed and fed, with a significant helping hand from the United States Treasury.

After all, if we're going to require everyone to participate in the pool of doctor's patients, doesn't it make even more sense to require everyone to have housing? Or food? Those needs are more basic than paying for pills and prevention.

Imagine with me, John Lennon-style, a nation where the poor receive a monthly government check for x dollars to defray housing costs, another check for x dollars to cover food expenses, and a third one to help purchase health insurance.

Imagine that the check for housing can only be used for housing, and so forth. Imagine that the smaller your AGI, the bigger the check. Imagine that these vouchers extend all the way to households making $100,000 annually, and that they're adjusted for the county in which you live. (Two grand's not going as far in San Jose as it is in Tuscaloosa.)

Imagine a middle-class family of four that makes $80,000 and receives, each year, $1,500 for housing, $500 for food and $4,000 for health insurance assistance.

Guess what happens when $6,000 of that family's basic needs are met in advance of all other costs? It's not hard to see that such a family avoids debt better, invests more, saves more, spends more.

And yes, there would be guidelines on how the assistance would be spent. It wouldn't be possible for a degenerate gambler to cash the housing check at a MoneyTree and blow it all on Powerball tickets. The food check would apply fully toward purchases at grocery stores but only count halfway at fast "food" joints. Fraud would be prosecuted. It could work.

I dream.

Well, maybe you're of the opinion that the rich don't deserve the "punishment" of paying for the poor and the middle class's basic needs. OK, I can respect that. I just don't agree with it. The way I see it, everyone benefits from a strong middle class, a decrease in homelessness, a more just health care system. And even if it costs the ultra-rich some extra disposable income every year, I'm prepared to defend this version of Robin Hoodness as extremely moral... on a national scale.

No, some poor dude should not be allowed to break into some rich dude's home and help himself to a few thousand dollars. But when we're talking about making sure that our poorest citizens -- those who are stuck in dead-end minimum-wage jobs, or (heaven forbid) choose to teach for a living -- have enough to feed their kids without maxing out their credit cards, then yes, I fully support an aggressive redistribution of cash money. (I like saying "cash money." Cash money. MONEY MONEY MONEY)

I will make no apologies for my fervent desire to implement a truly progressive tax system, my waking dream to see us return to the rates we had in the 1950s, with a top tax bracket at 90 percent, the upper middle class paying half their income in taxes, and Americans everywhere being helped by their government, not hindered by it.

Or, Mitt Romney can continue to pay less than me in taxes, that's fine too. Whatever. That's sustainable, ethical and desirable. Let's keep doing it that way. Yeah.

144 Or Less, Vol. XII / 01-25-12

The more people hear Mitt Romney speak, the less they like him. Results since the actual voting phase of the campaign began bear this out.

The more people discover about his past, the less they like him. And why not? There's so very much to dislike. The putrescent tax records, the silver spoon, the Seamus rooftop story, the inability to hold a political position longer than is convenient.

Not a winning combination when trying to secure your party's presidential nomination.

So it won't be Mitt who headlines the hideous 2012 bumper stickers. I've said this before, but I was only somewhat believing myself then. Now Me has convinced I of my rectitude, and would wager serious amounts of pretend money on his non-nomination (his nonimation?), assured of my future victory.

After all, anagram of Willard Romney: Mr. Winey Dollar. Coincidence? Pffff.

(Word count: 143)

If Not These Guys, Then Who? Glad You Asked / 01-21-12

Three states have voted. Three men have won.

And still, not one of them will be the Republican nominee. Spoiler: The nominee will come from the list three paragraphs ahead.

Quick summary of my rationale: There's too much flip and way too much flop in Mitt Romney, and a quarter of his base thinks he's in a cult. There's too much baggage in Newt Gingrich; really, there's too much Newt in Newt Gingrich. Or not enough room in Newt for all the Newt in Newt's head. Something. Meanwhile, Ron Paul's in for the long haul, but he's not going to get more than 20 percent of the delegates -- which is enough to make him a serious player, but not nearly enough to win the prize. And Santorum, as will have been discussed in a future post sometime in the future, is distasteful to anyone whose political ideology falls left of Jerry Falwell. He can't win the general, and thus can't win the nomination. Republican primary voters and party bigwigs are far, far, far too pragmatic to allow an unelectable standard-bearer, especially when the incumbent president is less than popular and the economy is less than vibrant.

Well, those are the only four guys officially running. And yet, the nominee has to be someone else, someone who hasn't won a primary or a caucus, someone who has not been mortally wounded in the campaign thus far. So, also out are Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Jon Hunstman and Herman Cain.

A moment of silence seems appropriate. But screw that. The spoiler alert is expiring. Ready? Potential nominees include, in mostly alphabetical order: Chris Christie. Mitch Daniels. Elizabeth Dole. Mike Huckabee. Tim Pawlenty. Marco Rubio. Jeb Bush, too. (Yes, Jeb. I know. I know. I KNOW. You know I know. Everyone knows. Still.) And, uh, yeah, Sarah Palin.

If I had to rank them, from most to least likely to leave the 2012 Republican Convention (Official Motto: "Made You Look!") as the nominee, I'd have to go with:

1. Pawlenty

2. Huckabee

3. Dole

4. Rubio

5. Christie

6. Daniels

7. Bush

8. Palin

9. Someone Else

I reserve the right to alter these percentages after a few more primaries and caucuses. With every passing day, Someone Else rises in the polls anyway. But let's start from the bottom of the barrel.

Palin: Unelectable, yet also immortal. No human device can slay her. So should you ever cross her off the list? No matter the list? Yeah no. Learn your lesson already. Verdict: LESS THAN 1 PERCENT.

Bush: From Florida and still immensely popular there. That's all I have to say on that topic. The other things I would say have already been thought by you. Verdict: 5 PERCENT.

Daniels: Moderate from Indiana. Appealing to all wings of the party. Probably saving himself for 2016, but lust can broadside even the best intentions. Verdict: 5 PERCENT.

Christie: Same boat as Daniels. Well, no, different boat. A sturdier boat, I'd say. (Yes, that's a fat joke. I am not a proud man.) Verdict: 5 PERCENT.

Rubio: Here's where things start to get interesting. The Rubio Resume: two years in the Senate, young rising star, fresh face, likeable, great backstory, especially appealing to an important demographic group, chance to make some electoral history. Sound familiar? He'd have to overcome all the experience-based criticisms lobbed at that Obama dude four years ago, only from the other side. Entertainment value sizeably increased by watching his defenders turn into actual pretzels, fending off the same attacks they used in '08. Verdict: 10 PERCENT.

Dole: Just a gut feeling here. Total hunch. Don't have much to base it on, except having seen her name in the news from time to time in the last few weeks. She ran briefly in 2000, dropped out before the primaries, and her wikipedia page is a fascinating read. Problem is, she'd be 76 at the convention. Patriotic age, but advanced age, and that plays poorly. Verdict: 20 PERCENT.

Huckabee: Basically tied Romney in the '08 Contest To Earn The Right To Get Destroyed By The Democrat. Populist social conservative. Why is he not running again? Oh yeah, Fox "News" money. That only goes so far. Verdict: 25 PERCENT.

And, finally, Pawlenty: Undamaged goods. Dropped out before Iowa, so has not been numerically rejected by the voters. Yes, he had trouble in polling throughout 2011, and yes, he had trouble fund-raising, but at a hung convention where the party elites are just trying to avoid disaster, he's an ex-governor of a blue state, a man with few skeletons, if any, in the closet, an electable guy, not unattractive to independents, a guy whose worst fault is blandness. In short, Pawlenty's the exact opposite of disaster. Verdict: 30 PERCENT.

Pressed for an answer right now, I'd say the nominee will be either Pawlenty or Huckabee. But this election season has been quite instructive in that it's taught me to expect the unexpected... sigh. Swell. Just swell. Now what can I find to put in the "unexpected" box?

Oops, Mitigated / 1-3-12

Earlier today, when I could still claim youth and inexperience, I forecast a photo finish between Paul, Santorum and Romney -- in that order -- at the Iowa Caucuses.

So, yeah, oops. That prediction was meant for entertainment purposes only, and I hope you took it that way. Turns out Romney and Santorum tied at 24.6 percent, with Paul behind at 21.5 percent. (The men at the top each scored six delegates in the nomination race; Paul nabbed four as a consolation prize.)

Now let me mitigate my giant oops a little. In the second half of the early post, I explained why a Paul-Santorum-Romney-everyone else finish creates problems for Republicans who want to win in November. It divides the party into about one fifth libertarian, two fifths TP/Evangelical, and one fifth moderate/establishment.

Well, although the top three didn't finish in the order I anticipated, look at these aggregated results:

Paul: 21.5 percent. About one fifth.

Santorum/Perry/Bachmann: 40.0 percent. About exactly precisely two fifths.

Romney/Gingrich/Hunstman: 38.5 percent. Yeah, you found the last two fifths.

The first group doesn't want to vote for the other two in the fall. The second and third groups are equal in representation but their agendas don't match. Whoever the nominee is will have some decrepit bridges to mend, because the other wing of the party will make its reservations known. And these won't be Obama-Clinton-2008-style reservations -- those two Democrats showed little to no policy differences throughout the primary season. No, the chasm is huge in the GOP. Santorum and Romney might easily belong to altogether different parties, from the stark difference in their political records.

At this point, final Iowa numbers are pretty to look at, but also pretty insignificant. The Republicans still have a faction problem even if Romney pulls out a 20-vote win (out of more than 120,000 votes) or Santorum edges the Massachusetts Silver Spooner by an fetus's fingernail.

And Paul's 21 percent aren't closing shop anytime soon.

The voting also confirmed a fun trend that polling suggested throughout 2011: Romney has a 25 percent glass ceiling outside of the Northeast. Interesting to see if that changes after a couple decorative candidates drop out. (Yes, Rick, yes, Michele, I'm talking directly to you, and thanks for reading.)

All in all, good entertainment tonight. Which reminds me, I still owe you guys an answer to "If not Romney, then who?" and "If not Gingrich, then who?" and "If not Paul, then who?" That's coming soon too. Spoiler (I love spoilers): It ends with "If not Santorum, then who?"

[UPDATE, 11:58 p.m. PDT: Romney 30,015, Santorum 30,007 is tonight's "final score." Wow. The top three finishers all get seven delegates apiece. Which is splendid.]

Drive-By Iowa Prediction / 1-3-12

Little-known fact: Iowans vote tonight!

(Well-known fact: Never resist a sarcasm-based joke! Ever never)

I like to predict events. Sometimes, when I'm really on my game, I can even foresee things before they happen. Like tonight, for example. Spoiler: The guy to the left is going to grin even wider after they count the votes.

At the Iowa Republican caucus-thingy taking place this evening, here is the order of finish I'd like to predict:
1. Ron Paul, 24 percent
2. Rick Santorum, 23 percent
3. Mitt Romney, 21 percent
4. Newt Gingrich, 13 percent
5. Rick Perry, 9 percent
6. Michele Bachmann, 8 percent
7. Jon Hunstman, 2 percent

Taking those numbers one step further, that would mean 24 percent for the outsider, 36 percent for the establishment and 40 percent for the evangelical/TP crowd. It's also the recipe for a serious fracture down the road, and if not in 2012, then some other year. The sooner the better!

My job as a clairvoyant pundit is done here. Next post: some analysis of the actual results, but only if an accident of fate causes them to turn out any different.

144 Or Less / 12-17-11

If you mean to sign a pledge defending marriage, but instead you end up offending it, you might be Newt Gingrich.

First of all, I'm sorry -- really sorry. Secondly, you should rethink your decision to sign this.

This is, in short, the latest Republican-sponsored quixotic battle against same-sex marriage.

Given that you cheated on your first two wives, once while you were impeaching Clinton for lying about sexual indiscretions, then also while another was fighting off cancer (successfully!), you're better off signing an overt declaration of war on marriage rather than a laughable oath to "protect" it from committed people who would like their children to grow up in a stable home where two loving parents don't have to explain to their children why the government disallows their union.

Long sentence there. Shorter ones now.

Now go win the nomination, you double-talking sleazebag. Please.

(Word count: 144)

And Now It's Ron Paul's Turn / 12-17-11

Not his turn to win, mind you. Don't get your man-panties in a bunch. Or even your lady panties. Which is somewhat redundant, come to think of it, and why wouldn't you think of it?

(I'm glad I don't have to be as serious for this one as for the Romney one.)

My last two full posts have laid out why Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich won't win the 2012 Republican nomination. Since those guys account for about two-thirds of Republican voters, that means Ron Paul, who generally places third in national and state-by-state polls, is the new favorite to oppose Obama next year... right?

Yeah no. Not happening. Whatever the opposite of "right" is. Is there even a word for that?

It's not going to be Paul either. (Waiting for your objection. Noted. Waiting for your next question.) Then who? (There we go. Thanks for participating.)

To be totally honest, I haven't figured that one out yet. Possible future post, yay! No, for now, I'm just excluding people one at a time. In much the same way that I've been methodically honing my impressions of God by excluding traits -- God is not male, is not the world's manager, is not Santa Claus, is not summoned by our prayers to magically heal and protect us, is not fighting a proxy war through us against some red dude with horns and a pitchfork -- I also have been trimming the Republican field of candidates.

Which doesn't necessarily mean I'll finish this journey with a good answer. Why should it?

Redirecting. Ron Paul will not be the nominee for a variety of reasons, none of which is convincing enough on its own, but when combined with its buddies, gains extra power. Yes, just like the Constructicons. I was thinking that too.

1. Paul is 76 years old. I'm not being ageist. I'm being realistic. Everyone else is being ageist. The oldest presidential candidate to ever win a first term was Ronald Reagan, who was 69 years old in 1980. (Modern technology has permitted Reagan to age only six years since then!) Paul is in good health. He's a doctor. He's a spry 76. But he'd be 77 and five months on Inauguration Day, and people don't put people in office when 80 is right around their corner. Not in this country, anyway.

2. Paul isn't a Republican. (This is probably a good 1. reason, but I wrote 1. first, so this is 2.) He wears the R label, but only because he's not a Democrat either. He's a Libertarian Lite. A Conservative Constitutionalist. (A con-con, if you will. I will. I already did.) Here is his list of positions. You put him in a box, if you can find one the right shape. He voted against the 2011 Republican budget as drafted by Paul Ryan. Good for him. But you could say that loyalty to the party brand is not his forte.

You know, that's practically a disqualifying offense on its own. Practically.

3. Paul is ignored/laughed at/derided/choose your term/mocked by the mainstream media. Hoping for this to change is pointless. Should Paul win three early states (Iowa, NH and Nevada are certainly fertile ground for him, and the February calendar is caucus-heavy, which bodes well for him too), Paul's most unpopular traits will certainly get highlighted. Mind you, this will not deter his most hard-core supporters, but it will help empty the bandwagon pretty quickly.

4. He doesn't look the part. Voters like their candidates to look presidential, and Paul's rumpled suits, 5'10''-or-so height, and semi-grouchy mannerisms are a turn-off for too many people. It's shallow. It's also hard to deny. Although if denial is one of your specialties, go right ahead.

5. He's a sure loser in the general election. Paul's right on the national pulse when it comes to certain things (lower taxes, against wars of choice, pro-civil-liberties, slashing foreign aid) but is so very extreme in his proposed budget cuts, his contempt of labor unions, and his plans to scrap the Federal Reserve would make for so very many effective negative ads it's not even funny. (If the inevitable ads were funny, like Jack-in-the-Box-meets-Old-Spice funny, then it's all worth it, he should totally score the nomination.)

The above reasons don't preclude a major role for Paul in the process. I can see a scenario where he finishes with the second-most delegates, and another where he is offered the vice-presidential slot on the ticket. But in only the most far-fetched parallel universe is he the Republican nominee.

In conclusion? Sorry Noah S., Matt L. and Mike G.

But if not Ron Paul, who?

The Gingrich Who Stole Christmas / 12-14-11

My last post ended with "If not Romney, who?"

Glad you asked. Turns out Newt Gingrich enjoys a double-digit lead in national polling for the 2012 Republican nomination. He leads in Iowa, where they'll be voting in three weeks. He leads nationally. He leads in Florida and South Carolina, states which hold the other January primaries, by an average of 19 points. Real Clear Politics does a poll of polls every day, and here's their latest one, showing Gingrich with a 12-point cushion. The predictive model at Fivethirtyeight.com, which rose to prominence in 2008 with its statistically rigorous look at the election, predicts he'll win the first caucus.

Newt Gingrich has stolen Christmas from Mitt Romney and is now the undisputed front-runner.

Yes, that Newt Gingrich. Yes, him. It's almost too easy to write the post about how the man will not be the Republican nominee.

Oh, I'm going to write the post anyway. Not doing so would be a wasted opportunity. It would be borderline irresponsible. Besides, I have to write this tonight, so I can give the same treatment to Ron Paul tomorrow. After that, eh, who knows. Because if it's not going to be one of the three front-runners... wow. If it's not one of those three guys, and I really don't think it'll be, then we're in for a doozy of a primary season, and a Republican convention actually worth paying attention to.

Seriously, my political lobe is all tingly. *shivers*

So. Newt will not win the nomination for a variety of reasons. Let's give these reasons some sequential numbers.

1. He says stuff. So much stuff. Even for a Republican, it's seriously crazy stuff. For example, last week, he warmed up by stating in a debate that our child labor laws are "truly stupid," then stood by his remarks. Just read the first few quotes here, remembering that this is Newt defending his stance that children should in part replace adult janitors who, according to him, make too much money. Oh, and calling Palestinians an "invented" people is just the sort of thing a president ought to do, too. (And that was just last week! Both statemenst! Days apart!)

2. He has more enemies than friends in the GOP power corridors. More on why this matters this two reasons later.

3. He's not going to win Iowa or New Hampshire, and that will take the sails out of his campaign. According to multiple reports, he's massively disorganized compared to Paul, Perry and Bachmann -- even compared to Romney. One of those four is winning the Hawkeye State. (My money's on Paul.) Meanwhile, Romney will at least eke out a win in New Hampshire. Fundraising will dry up and supporters will voice their doubts more openly after the perceived front-runner fails to take either of the first two contests.

4. His personal life is too much of a liability. And because of 2., 4. is amplified. Any campaign manager who wants to destroy Newt can make it happen. It's not hard. You just remind people that the guy led the drive to impeach Clinton... while he was having an affair of his own. You remind them that at the height of the mortgage crisis, he took $1.6 million in pay from Freddie Mac... then claimed, straight-faced, he was being paid for his services as a historian. You remind them he cheated on his first wife, then divorced his second one while she was dying of cancer so he could marry his current spouse... before Wife Number Two had the decency to die. Those are the broad strokes, but after that who cares about the details: There's three women, lots of cheating, and massive douchebaggery, all rolled into one guy.

And I haven't even yet mentioned the time Newt admitted that he shut down the government in part so he could exact revenge on the President for making him sit in the back of Air Force One.

I'm all for politicians making mistakes and learning from them, you know, like regular people, but the baggage above is too much for Newt to overcome. And we're just talking, so far, about the luggage he checked at the counter. There's plenty more: carry-ons, backpacks, rolling suitcases, laptops, and fanny packs full of additional icky Newtrivia, just waiting to be unpacked on the national scene.

5. My favorite. He made a well-intentioned video to help raise awareness of climate change. In the video, he sits on the couch with fellow former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, or as she's known to Republican voters, Harpy McLucifer (D-San Frangaysco). Newt might as well have shot a commercial for an abortion clinic and solicited funds for Planned Parenthood, standing in front of a juicy Robert Mapplethorpe painting. That would have gone over way better.

Newt will win some delegates along the way. Just not the nomination.

But if not Newt, who?

[Respoiler: Ron Paul's up next. Guess how the post ends!]