Further summary of Family Code:

• (b–d) CA Family Code further gives the same rights to former domestic partners, surviving domestic partners, and domestic partners with respect to children.
• (e) Registered domestic partners shall be treated by California law as if federal law recognized a domestic partnership in the same manner as California law.
• (f) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights regarding nondiscrimination as those provided to spouses.
• (g) No public agency in this state may discriminate against any person or couple on the ground that the person is a registered domestic partner rather than a spouse.

Jeff Fuller (of www.mymanmitt.com) was in a discussion with a Huckabee supporter who was dissing Mitt as "Finished." 

The reponse was just beautiful: 

It looks like Mitt (after 1 month of primaries and caucuses) is going to have more total votes and total delegates than your man (Huck) will have after 2 months of primaries and caucuses. 


(CNN delegate count as of 2/13/2008)

	Delegates
McCain	830
Romney	286
Huckabee	217

Vote Tally as of 2/13/2008

	Total Votes	Percent
McCain	5,468,444	38.77%
Romney	4,293,965	30.44%
Huckabee	2,800,425	19.85%

And your man is more "finished" now than than our man was when he bowed out for the good of the party.

The Huck supporter then said that Romney spent over a million dollars per delegate and was the worst political investment ever . . . the Fuller reply: I think Rudy's $50 million for 1 delegate is probably the "worst political investment ever".

And, like Huck, I'm no math major, but I do have at least two functioning brain cells.
Romney got 286 delegates . . . your "$1 plus mil per delegate" claim suggests that he must have spent $300 million or more on this campaign.  Either you're easily duped (typical Huck supporter BTW) or your completely dishonest (typical Huck mimicker).

When a guy drops out of a masters program to be the understudy of a Tele-Evangelist - that tells us all anyone (especially any religious person) needs to know about Huck's character and aspirations.

UPDATE:  Stats were updated 2/13/08 with data current as of 2/13/08.  The Math for Huck is getting worse daily.  It still appears that by 3/4/08, Huck might still not even catch up to Romney's 2/5 numbers, where Romney dropped out for the good of the party.    

As a conservative republican, articles such as this scare the crud out of me. 

Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, and Colorado have large amounts of Mormons...and if Obama is able to capitalize off of Mormons who want to flip the bird at the Evangelical GOP base, then all five of these states are put in play for November. 

I'm a Mormon, I'm not excited about McCain's chances in November (and Huckabee's chances are even less than McCain's) but I will surely vote for McCain in November over any democrat.  (Although it is close.) 

I simply blame those who fell for the illusion and voted for him.  It was obvious that Huck didn't have a prayer of winning the nomination...even before last night. Now its even more obvious.

For anyone who thinks otherwise - do the math. Calculate how many more delegates (of the remaining 1,008 left) Huck needs to win in order to reach 1,191. (According to CNN, he currently has 176.)  I'm sure he can tell a pretty good story about 5 loaves and 2 fishes, but if Huck can miraculously make 176 + 1,008 = 1,191, then he'll not only have my vote - he'll have my attention and my wallet. 

I'm not blaming the all Huckafans for the pickle we conservatives are in - I'm just blaming those Huckafans who would have picked Romney over McCain. (You know...the more conservative Huckafans...ones who want a federal marriage amendment, ones who want lower taxes and smaller government, ones who oppose stem cell research, ones who want something to be done about high gas prices, secure borders, and illegal immigration.)

McCain is to the left on a lot of issues...(global warming, taxes, ANWR, federal marriage amendment, immigration...to name a few) which is why he will have trouble getting the conservatives to vote for him in November.

I don't believe for a second that true conservatives want the McCain kind of record in a GOP presidential nominee...if that record bothers you, and if you voted for Huckabee on Super Tuesday...it is your fault that the conservatives lost to McCain. You threw your vote away on someone like Huckabee (who didn't have a prayer of winning before Feb 5...and who still doesn't have a prayer of winning - even after a glorious Feb 5 performance that blew away the expectations of all.)

Huckabee supporters didn't turn this into a three-man race - they turned it into a one-man race. Huck isn't the one to be blamed - its the voters who bought into the illusion that Huck could actually win.

On Super Tuesday the Huckabee Supporters came out in droves and voted for McCain via Mike Huckabee.   That surprised many of us.  How about West Virginia?  Caucus participants in WV noticed after the first round that Romney was at 41% and climbing...so the McCain supporters during the second round decided to throw their support behind Huckabee (as evident in the ending numbers:  Huck - 52%, Mitt - 47%, and McCain - 1%) in a strategic move to help McCain by giving Huckabee a win in West Virginia that would have gone to Romney. 

What can I say to that?  I've got to hand it to the WV McCain caucus-goers for using Huckabee as a pawn in their strategy.  Yes, it was a cheap shot at Romney, and perhaps it gave Huck some momentum in a few later states without making him a serious threat to McCain...but unfortunately this is what happens in politics...You'd better believe November is going to be full of dirty little tricks like that.        

Mike Huckabee (despite his better than expected performance last night) still has no chance of winning...and even though Romney widened his lead over Huckabee last night, Mitt needed a much better Feb 5 performance to contend with McCain.  Right now results still show that McCain is barely over halfway to the 1,191 delegates he needs to secure the nomination...although numbers from Feb 5 aren't final yet.  McCain (as of right now) still needs 511 more delegates.   

CNN shows the total delegate count now as follows: 

McCain:          680
Romney:         270
Huckabee:      176

Expect those numbers to shift some more over the next day or two since unpledged delegates will still get factored in at some point.  
  
Despite the statement from James Dobson on February 5 (which was a little late in my opinion) it appears McCain will ultimately get the nomination and probably lose in November due to his lack of support and enthusiasm from the GOP base.  I say that because there seems to be quite a conservative movement that feels the GOP will be better poised to make a return toward conservatism by electing a Democrat in November than it would by electing McCain.  Obviously that movement includes James Dobson and Ann Coulter.   The level of resistance toward a McCain nomination/presidency seems to be unprecented. 

Although I can relate to this conservative movement, my opinion is that much more conservative ground will be lost to the left if Hillary or Barack get elected...I could be wrong.     

My March 4 vote (in Texas) is still going to be for Romney (and I am still as ticked off as ever at McCain for the many times he has thumbed his nose at conservatives) but at least I can take some comfort in McCain's flip-flop, pandering pledge to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.  I don't believe him, but at least his empty promise is a better alternative than what Barack & Hillary want.  I'm not optimistic about McCain's chances in November (especially since McCain's measley fund-raising is dwarfed by the well-funded democrats...and even more especially if McCain runs against a young, very charismatic Barack Obama) but I will still pull the lever for McCain if I have to.

I'm still very surprised the Huck supporters came out in such droves last night and cast their votes for McCain via Mike Huckabee.  I thought is was pretty obvious that Huck couldn't possibly win.  What wasn't obvious last night is much more obvious now because even after Huck's glorious Feb 5 performance that blew away the expectations of all - Huck is still as unlikely to win the nod as he ever was...he still needs over 100% of the remaining delegates to win the nod.  Now it increasingly looks like Romney is almost as much of a long-shot as Huck. Nonetheless, all three have vowed to stay in the race.

McCain currently looks like he is 511 delegates away from securing the nod - which would imply he needs to take over 50% of the remaining 1,008 delegates to secure the nod. If the remaining 1,008 delegates continue to split 3 ways over the next several weeks, McCain may still not reach 1,191 delegates. 

There's no point for anyone to drop out, because a brokered convention (at this point) might be good for the party.  The GOP can force McCain (through the political horse trading) to take some more conservative positions in his candidacy to bring him more in favor with the base.        
           

McCain: 
1. Opposes federal marriage amendment; Romney/Huck favor it.
2. McCain-Kennedy
3. McCain-Feingold
4. McCain-Kennedy-Edwards
5. McCain-Lieberman (including a new $0.50/gallon gas tax to fight global warming????)
6. Opposes Guantanamo Bay...let's bring terrorists here and give them constitutional rights
7. Philosophy of bigger government & higher taxes

This is far from conservative. That's why conservatives don't like McCain.

Let's face it...Huck isn't seriously competing in even 1/4 of the states right now..and even those are all close races - AL, GA, MO, OK, & TN.  In just the winner-take-all states alone, McCain will likely have over 300 more delegates on 2/5.  McCain & Romney will split CA's 173 delegates.  McCain doesn't have a single state where he polls under 20%, so he will likely have a very strong day on 2/5 and end the day anywhere between 500 & 800 total delegates. 

Huckabee's absolute best-case scenario will be to bring his 29-delegate total to somewhere around 250 (realistically he probably hits 183.)  This means Huck's only shot at the nomination will be to win 100% of the votes in all post-February-5 states.  Probability = 0.  There is no way Huckabee can win. 

Romney polls well in most of the 2/5 states, and will likely win MT, CO, MA, ND, CA, UT, and possibly more.  Two of those are winner-take-all states.  Romney's worst-case 2/5 scenario puts him at about 320 total delegates, but for him to hit 400-500 total delegates on 2/5 is certainly not unreasonable by any means.  If neither Huckabee nor Romney break 400 total delegates on 2/5, it is highly unlikely either of them can win (because each must then win over 791 [nearly 80%] of the remaining 1008 delegates to secure the nomination.) 

Huckabee Supporters: Choose carefully.  If you like McCain, there is no harm in voting for Huck...but since most of you are true conservatives, you probably despise McCain almost as much as you despise Clinton or Obama.  If the latter applies, you need to think this through carefully, seriously examine Mitt Romney's stand on the issues ,  and see for yourself how conservative Mitt really is.  It will be easy to pull the lever for Mitt once you do that.     

			Most Recent 2008 Polls			Delegate Split
2/5 State	Delegates	Winner Take All	McCain	Romney	Huckabee	McCain	Romney	Huckabee
Alabama	48		40	21	31	21	11	16
Alaska	29		45	35	20	13	10	6
Arizona	53	Winner Take All	43	34	9	53
Arkansas	34		20	35	45	7	12	15
California	173		32	40	12	66	82	25
Colorado	46		45	35	20	21	16	9
Connecticut	30	Winner Take All	53	31	6	30
Delaware	18	Winner Take All	45	35	20	18
Georgia	72		31	29	26	26	24	22
Illinois	70		43	20	15	39	18	13
Massachusetts	43		34	57	3	16	26	1
Minnesota	41		45	35	20	18	14	8
Missouri	58	Winner Take All	35	24	27	58
Montana	25	Winner Take All	45	35	20		25
New Jersey	52	Winner Take All	45	35	20	52
New York	101	Winner Take All	53	19	8	101
North Dakota	26		45	35	20	12	9	5
Oklahoma	41		45	35	20	18	14	8
Tennessee	55		32	22	30	21	14	20
Utah	36	Winner Take All	45	35	20		36
West Virginia	30		45	35	20	14	11	6
Total	1081					604	322	154
Delegates Already Won						97	92	29
Total Delegates after 2/5						701	414	183

*In states where recent poll data was not available, I assumed McCain gets 45%, Romney 35%, and Huckabee 20%...that should be a little conservative from Romney's perspective.   
**Under this scenario, 2/5 effectively eliminates Huckabee from the race whether he drops out or not since he will now require all remaining 1,008 delegates in order to reach the magic number of 1,191 needed to secure the nomination.  Huckabee is clearly not in this for the win...I wish his supporters could see it this way. 

***Noteworthy is that 369 of McCain's delegates (129% of his lead over Romney) are from winner-take-all states...which just doesn't seem right. 


The table below shows what Romney must do for victory if the likely scenario above plays out on 2/5.  Essentially - Romney must win the three remaining winner-take-all states AND he must beat McCain by an average margin of 63.38% to 36.62% in the other states.  That is how Romney can reach the magic number of 1,191 delegates.  This isn't pretty, but (given the opposition to McCain in the GOP) this isn't out of reach for Romney.   Huckabee's chances are...well, let's just say much, much smaller than Romney's chances.    Huckabee is certainly not in the race to win...which will be even more obvious if he does not drop out on February 6. 


Romney's post-2/5 path to Victory - This isn't pretty, but it isn't out-of reach

				Polls		Delegate Split
	Post 2/5 States			McCain	Romney	McCain	Romney
9-Feb	Louisiana	47		36.62	63.38	17	37
9-Feb	Washington	40		36.62	63.38	15	32
9-Feb	Kansas	39		36.62	63.38	14	32
12-Feb	Virginia	63	Winner Take All	36.62	63.38		63
12-Feb	Maryland	37		36.62	63.38	14	30
12-Feb	District of Columbia	19	Winner Take All	36.62	63.38		19
19-Feb	Wisconsin	40		36.62	63.38	15	32
4-Mar	Texas	140		36.62	63.38	51	78
4-Mar	Ohio	88		36.62	63.38	32	58
4-Mar	Rhode Island	20		36.62	63.38	7	18
4-Mar	Vermont	17	Winner Take All	36.62	63.38		17
10-Mar	Mississippi	39		36.62	63.38	14	32
22-Apr	Pennsylvania	74		36.62	63.38	27	52
6-May	North Carolina	69		36.62	63.38	25	49
6-May	Indiana	57		36.62	63.38	21	43
13-May	Nebraska	33		36.62	63.38	12	28
16-May	Hawaii	20		36.62	63.38	7	18
20-May	Kentucky	45		36.62	63.38	16	36
20-May	Oregon	30		36.62	63.38	11	26
27-May	Idaho	32		36.62	63.38	12	27
3-Jun	New Mexico	32		36.62	63.38	12	27
3-Jun	South Dakota	27		36.62	63.38	10	23
	Total	1008				332	777
	Delegates Already Won					701	414
	Total Delegates after 2/5					1033	1191

Observations: 

In the analysis above, I assumed McCain takes Missouri.  Romney can lighten his post-February-5 workload with a win in Missouri.  Right now that doesn't look too promising.  

Under the scenario above, I am almost certain Huckabee drops out on 2/6 and endorses McCain.  Huckabee's delegates (from what I understand) follow his endorsement and go to McCain.   That scenario would put McCain only 307 delegates from the nomination and make Romney's job post-February-5 that much more difficult since Romney would now need to edge out McCain by slightly higher margins in all remaining post-February-5 states to prevent a McCain victory.

I hope conservatives (especially in Missouri) who are considering voting for Huckabee on 2/5 really think this through.  McCain isn't the choice of a true conservative.          

UPDATE:  The Massachusetts polls were originally shown incorrectly with McCain at 57% and Romney at 34%.  The reverse is true.  This was corrected immediately. 

UPDATE II:  Delaware & New Jersey are winner-take-all states.  Arkansas is not...but Huckabee is favored to win Arkansas.  The tables have been modified to reflect these updates. 

Remember when Reagan pre-emptively announced his Richard Schweiker and gained a ton of momentum after a series of losses in 1976?  (Although Reagan was a little late on that strategy, it very effective and probably would have worked had Reagan done it sooner.) 
 

Perhaps the time has come for Mitt to do something similarly unorthodox.  How about a pre-emptive announcement from Romney that his "Richard Schweiker" is going to be J.C. Watts?  A Romney-Watts ticket would thrash all hopes of a Hillary or Obama victory because it yanks away African American bloc voters from the Dem's.  Furthermore it adds evangelical comfort to the Romney ticket with a good ole Southern Baptist.
   

I think that might even be enough to give the "I'm settling for McCain because he's electable" crowd something to get excited about...and McCain might no longer squeak by as the unintended beneficiary of a divided party on 3% - 5% victories.  There are too many conservatives who don't want McCain to be the nominee.  McCain is bad for the party.  Romney needs to harness all that opposition to McCain and put it to work for him.     

After a victory in Florida, it looks like McCain is now the true front-runner on the GOP nomination.  The opposition to McCain winning the nomination has been intense, but it has also (up to this point) been fairly divided.  There are two possible paths that can result from McCain's January 29 victory in Florida: 

1.  McCain gains unstoppable momentum that carries him to the GOP nomination; or
2.  The opposition to McCain now has one clear alternative:  to unite behind Mitt Romney.

Conservatives win on the latter.  As noted in earlier posts, McCain has a consistent record of turning his back on conservatives.  This does not come without consequences, and McCain cannot expect conservatives to blindly line up to support him just because he manages to pull off the GOP nomination.  Conservatives (as Mark Levin observed) still need to find a way to forgive McCain for

1. McCain-Kennedy;
2. McCain-Feingold;
3. McCain's opposition to the Bush tax cuts;
4. McCain-Lieberman;
5. McCain-Kennedy-Edwards; 
6. The McCain philosophy of drug Re-importation;
7. McCain's support of the ACLU; and
8. McCain's repeated calls to close Guantanamo Bay.

 

This isn't a record that's easy for conservatives to swallow...it certainly needs a lot of explaining and definitely requires a lot of forgiveness before the GOP base will show up in support of McCain in November.  I am even hearing chatter in the blogosphere from conservatives that perhaps another Democrat in the whitehouse is the only means of getting the GOP to return to its conservative roots.  For these reasons, I am very pessimistic about McCain's chances in November.  [Given the potential for the next president to make three to four Supreme Court appointments, the timing for such a "GOP object lesson" would be terrible.]   On brighter note, I suppose it is possible in November that McCain could draw enough support from moderate and independent voters (much more likely in a McCain-Clinton race than in a McCain-Obama race) to offset the lack of support from right-wing conservatives (even though that consideration provides plenty of additional things to worry about.)   

Either of the two paths shown above seem like reasonable possibilities at this point...but I think we will see immediately (over the next five or six days) whether the latter starts gaining traction.  If the latter gains traction, I'd expect the Romney surge to continue rampantly and perhaps even a new influx of Romney endorsements from fence-sitters.  (James Dobson - are you reading this?  I know you aren't wildly excited about McCain's opposition to a federal marriage amendment...this might be your maximum-impact opportunity to sway the political scene toward family values.)   

Perhaps a few hefty endorsements for Romney would be impeccable timing that might really throw some momentum toward the latter path as well.  If Romney were to get three or four such endorsements this week, I think McCain would have a real fight on his hands that I'm not sure he could win.

The flip-flop charge to Romney (as discussed below) has never really had any substance.  I wondered whether or not someone would conduct a study that would show the REAL underlying reason for all the opposition to Romney.      

Now we have it!   Vanderbuilt University has completed a study which concludes Romney's religion is the real reason for the continued opposition to his candidacy.  I have blogged extensively this year shooting down the "flip-flop" charge (with ease...I might add) since the flip-flop charge has lacked substance. 

Romney's positions on gay rights, gay marriage, gun control, economic/fiscal policy, and American family values have remained unchanged throughout the years.  Romney's so-called "flip flops" consist of his one-time conversion from pro-choice to pro-life.  Prior to this conversion, Romney still  refused to refer to himself as pro-choice because that did not reflect his personal views (which personal views have always been detesting the practice of abortion.)  

Romney cannot be a member of the LDS church in good standing if he encourages, participates in, or funds abortions...and Romney has always been an LDS member in good standing.  This makes it clear that (as far as politics was concerned, Romney was suppressing his personal views on abortion with a constitutional approach.  In the constitutional approach, the question is one of women's rights verses rights of the unborn.  Stem cell research and arguments presented before Governor Romney (during his term in Massachusetts) answered that question clearly - that the unborn are living beings whose rights to life are protected under the constitution - which was the realization that brought Romney on board the pro-life cause.   

Definition of Flip-Flop:  To change from one position (flip) then change back again (flop.) 

By definition - Romney has "flipped" over to the pro-life cause - but he has never "flopped" back the other way.  Furthermore, Romney has always supported gay rights while stopping short of supporting gay marriage; hence this issue has been portrayed by the un-informed as a flip-flop.  Unfortunately - gay marriage and gay rights happens to be an issue where Romney hasn't even committed so much as a "flip."  

Whether the issue is on abortion, gay rights, or gun control...the flip-flop attack on Romney has always lacked substance...and it has always been relatively easy for me to dispel these weak attacks with facts.   

Romney is one of the best candidates the GOP has ever had...it will be most unfortunate for America if the bigotry over Romney's religion continues to be this much of an obstacle in getting Romney to the whitehouse.  Cowardly as it may seem, the bitter "flip-flop" charge to Romney (as concluded by Vanderbuilt University's study) is merely a mask that opponents of Mormonism are hiding behind so that these opponents can claim their opposition to Romney is not based upon bigotry (even though bigotry is the real reason.)   

Let's face it - if Romney were a true flip-flopping, political opportunist who would say or do whatever it took to get elected, he would have abandoned his Mormonism about 2 years ago. 

I'm still convinced that if Romney can win the nomination - there are enough important issues at stake in this election that those with bigoted views toward Mormonism (mostly evangelicals as Vanderbuilt's study suggests) will still ultimately vote for Romney because his political views are in line with the political views of mainstream Christianity.  Romney is pro-life, and he is one of the only GOP candidates who favors a federal marriage amendment to the constitution to define marriage as an institution between one man and one woman.  These are important issues to evangelicals and in my estimation these issues will trump the fact that Mitt happens to be mormon.   

Once again, Huckabee is taking it to the churches to win yet another state. 

What is most ironic about the continued Huckasurge from evangelicals is that evangelical leaders are the ones who threatened to abandon the GOP in the general election if a pro-choice nominee such as Giuliani were to end up being the nominee.  (Remember September, 2007 with the meeting in Salt Lake City where these evangelical leaders mulled over the idea of running an independent candidate if Rudy became the nominee?)  Now these folks obviously seem to be the ones using their infrastructure to get the vote out for Huckabee and attempt to shove down our throats a candidate who meets their agenda, but not the agenda for the rest of conservatives.   

I liked Rudy, but have since gravitated toward Mitt due to my understanding that Rudy was un-electable without the support of pro-life, pro-traditional-marriage evangelical GOP voters.  Mitt's platform still possesses all the fiscal/economic issues I want to see in a candidate while maintaining a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage platform that would appeal to any evangelical voter.  Fred's platform appeals too (although to a lesser extent than Romney because of his opposition to a federal marriage amendment.)      

It is time for the evangelical Huckabee supporters to understand that Economic & Fiscal conservatives now get to make the same threat that Evangelicals made earlier.  Evangelical Huckabee supporters don't like Rudy because he's pro-choice.  Economic/Fiscal conservatives don't like Huckabee (nor McCain for that matter) because these guys aren't fiscal or economic conservatives at all...their records prove it.  

Here are the ultimatums from both sides:    

 

• Nominate Rudy and Evangelicals abandon the GOP in Nov.
• Nominate Huckabee (or McCain) and Econ/Fiscal conservatives abandon the GOP in Nov.

 

Either way - we all lose. 

 

Fred & Mitt are the only candidates who offer both groups what they want in a presidential platform and thus Fred & Mitt are the only candidates who can win in November.  Of those two - Fred is the long shot and doesn't have a whole lot going for him at all...which makes him the poorer choice of the two.  The time has come to take a serious, serious look at Mitt Romney and everything he stands for.    

 

The GOP victory or loss in November might very well be decided in the next few weeks.  Evangelical support for Huckabee (due to identity politics) is a very short-sited approach for America that could get him the nomination, but will ultimately lose the presidency due to Huckabee's isolation of the non-evangelical GOP voters.  On economic and fiscal issues - there is little difference between Huckabee, McCain, Hillary, or Obama...which makes Huckabee (and McCain) un-electable in November...since people like myself wouldn't vote for any of those choices come November. 

Once again, here's my ultimatum to evangelical conservatives:  You thumb your nose at me by nominating your one-issue pastor for pastor I mean president...and the rest of us in the GOP will let you try and win this election on your own.  Clearly, none of our GOP's fiscal/economic agenda is being represented if Huckabee (or McCain for that matter) becomes the nominee. 

Choose your vote carefully. 

UPDATE: 

Someone commented that I was too hard on McCain.  Truth be known, I probably wasn't hard enough on McCain.  Check out some of the highlights of McCain's record. 

Regarding my thoughts on Fred...he took 13.4% (barely 3rd place) in Iowa and 2.2% (6th place) in New Hampshire.   Mitt has yet to take anything worse than 2nd place.  Don't get me wrong...I like Fred a lot, but if Fred can overcome his early performance and win the presidency, it will be unprecedented...and nothing short of miraculous.  In choosing between the two most conservative candidates on the GOP side (Mitt & Fred) the smart money is on Mitt.