Jackson Jambalaya

Newt wrote a column that although published today, was written before the New Hampshire primary although most of the salient points are still valid:

"Republicans had better learn that change is going to beat "more of the same" decisively....
Americans are taking seriously the opportunity to express their opinion and to change their government. In Iowa, the Democrats more than doubled their turnout from 2004 and the Republicans had a 40% increase over their last contested caucus in 2000....
So here are the bullet points for going forward:
Message beats money.
Enthusiasm beats paid staff.
Hope beats negativity.
People are smarter than the consultants.
If Republicans don't learn these lessons, they will be in for some very difficult elections..."
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges.php?id=1386102

This is probably the most wide open Presidential race I have ever seen. If there was one thing New Hampshire proved the other night it is that the media once again got it wrong. Before the primary the media reported Obama was going to win by double-digit margins, could Hillary keep going after losing New Hampshire, how could the Republicans beat Obama, etc. Then reality hit and Hillary actually won the primary, bringing to mind past blown calls by the media.

In 1994 the media completely missed the Republican takeover of Congress. Bush beat Reagan in Iowa. McCain beat Bush the Younger in New Hampshire. Tsongas beat Clinton in New Hampshire. Buchanan beat Dole in New Hampshire. The point is that these primaries early on are not indicative of who will win the nomination. The caucuses are not elections but are instead negotiations. The primary in New Hampshire is an anomaly compared to most states. While Obama gets love from the press and adoring crowds, people forget that it takes more than colorful rallies to win elections. In the presidential primaries, it comes down to having a well-run organization in EVERY primary, not just looking good on tv or pumping up a crowd. Due to low voter turnout and state rules restricting voting to party members, turnout is the key and that usually comes down to who has the state organization locked up. The point here is do not count out Hillary. I would still bet money on her winning the nomination as she has this game figured out and even if she comes out poorly in the media, she will have the advantage in machine politics.

It is also ironic that Obama has the change mantra. Sound familiar? It should as in 92 that was Clinton's theme. Change, change, change. What kind of change would Obama bring? Keep in mind that for all of his talk of bipartisanship, he was the third most liberal member of the Senate. That will play well in the primaries, however, that will not be the case in the general election. Don't think he is invincible for one second as history has shown no politician is except for Reagan and FDR.

Keep also in mind that despite what the media says about Romney's chances of winning the nomination, he still has the most delegates. Only the dumbass media would ask if he is going to quit when he is actually winning. However, he faces a vigorous fight from Rudi, Huck, and McCain.

One final note. The Democrats are overconfident right now as they are overlooking one flaw in their candidates. The Democrats have focused completely on their personalities, chances of winning in November,and other more personal criteria. These candidates do NOT differ much on the issues. Health care, foreign policy, taxes, immigration, spending. What substantive difference is there between Edwards, Obama, and Hillary? Meanwhile on the Republican side there is a diversity of opinion on issues. McCain has one position on immigration and taxes different from the others. Rudi is very different from the others on social issues and gun rights. While the Democrats focus more on personality, the Republicans are focusing more on issues. The result is the nominee will have defended his positions against candidates who really do think differently than he does on the issues, not just worry about being caught in a flip-flop or some other meaningless debating trick. This point has been overlooked by the media as well and should not be discounted. It is important because when the winners face each other after the conventions, the issue-tested candidate is going to be much better prepared than the one who is not so tested. Whether the nominee is McCain, Rudi, Obama, or Huck, none of them will be intimidated by Obama or Hillary in a debate nor outclassed. One thing is for sure, this election is shaping up to be like no other in American history.