It's far too early to be focused on polls, but I'm sharing this one.  ARG is reporting that Giuliani is leading in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

What does this mean?  Nothing.  Rudy has been ahead in national polls for the better part of a year now.  It's so early that even polls in Iowa and New Hampshire are all but meaningless at this point.  So any candidate's lead is pretty meaningless.  
 
So I cite this not as evidence that Rudy is on his way to the nomination.  I believe he will win, not because of what the polls say today, but because he will prove himself to be the strongest candidate as the campaign moves forward.  Instead, I cite this to prove two points:  first, the early polls are meaningless and second, the "win the early states" strategy is a sure loser.  (In other words, Mitt better change course quickly.)

To review, Rudy has been the man to beat now for a year.  Meanwhile, "insiders" have been touting Mitt Romney, based on the fact that he has developed big leads in Iowa and New Hampsire, while Giuliani, McCain and Thompson were largely ignoring the small states at this point. 

But Mitt's support in these states has been based entirely on name ID, which is all these early polls are at this point.  Romney has spent  heavily on advertising in Iowa and New Hampshire, and he's been the only one doing so.  So it's no surprise that he's had a lead, he's the only one voters can see is running for President. 

Common sense would tell you that, once the others started buying ads, the "ad inflation" would go away, and Mitt's numbers would begin to align with his national numbers, unless and until he could develop a national following.  Sure enough, Rudy buys some ads in Iowa and New Hampsire, starts paying attention to the little states, and, boom, there goes Mitt's insurmountable lead.  When Fred buys ads, he'll no doubt get a similar, and similarly meaningless, boost.

What we're looking at here is a national primary.  Yes, the winner of the early primaries will get a little boost, but, because there are so many big states coming on the heels of the little primaries, there's also going to be influence going the other way - the candidate whose locked up the "big states" is going to have an advantage even in the small states in a way that hasn't happened before.  If Rudy looks great in California, there are going to be bandwagon voters in Iowa and New Hampshire who'll want to be the first to get on the Rudy Train.  Don't believe me?  How else do you explain Fred Thompson's numbers?

So, yes, the little states will have an impact on the national primary, but it will also go both ways, which means if you're strong in Iowa and New Hampshire, but weak everywhere else (Romney), you're vulnerable.  That lead will get you some national attention, but you better build a national organization and get some broad support, or that national weakness will hurt you even in the little states. 

Does this mean Romney is toast?  Of course not.  But he and his organization need to quit listening to the people telling him he's a lock in the early states, and that this strategy will somehow propel his weak national numbers over the top.  He's not a lock anywhere until he can prove he is a viable national candidate.  Burning money in two increasingly meaningless primary states during the most meaningless phase of the election season is not the path to national viability.

Time for the old school pundits to change the calendar, and for Romney to change strategy.

We've been hearing evidence that the surge is working.  Over at Vicroty Caucus they have proof that the surge is working.  Coalition casualties are down.  Secterian violence is down.  The number of weapon caches found is up.

The military leaders are telling the story as well.  Sunnis are turning in Al Qaida, and even pledging to fight the "insurgents."  Our generals are reporting that al Qaida is "on the run."  The news is good, even better than I had predicted we'd see at this point when I predicted in the spring that the surge would work, and ultimately be the Democrats' undoing.

The MSM has not reported any of this success, yet despite the media's efforts to paint a bleak picture, good news is finding its way to the general public.  Support for the war is still low, but increasing.  Republicans are feeling more comfortable in staying the course, despite the loud whinings of the surrender caucus.

Now the MSM is starting to acknowledge that the war is going better than they expected, that the surge is working.  Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack from the Brookings Institute came back from Iraq and report that the is now "A War We Just Might Win."

"Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference."

Meanwhile, the Democrats at home have painted themselves into a corner, having opposed the surge and demanding immediate retreat.  They've lost every Congressional battle on this issue they've engaged in, and that was when support for Bush and the war was at its lowest.

Now the tide is turning, and even the MSM is having the admit that things in Iraq are better than expected.  While Harry Reid continues to insist that the surge is failing, he's having a harder time convincing the media to continue to ignore facts that show just the opposite.

And so we're facing a political situation where the Democrats, much like the Civil War Democrats, have tied themselves so tight to surrender that any success in the battlefield is now a failure for the Dems.  Americans don't much care for having political leaders who root against our soldiers.  I figured this dynamic alone would be enough to sink the Democrats.  But when a party is rooting against our troops, and our troops are winning... well, now you've got a real problem.  Most Americans don't like the anti-military attitude of the far left, and nobody likes a loser.

In other words, Harry Reid's 15% approval rating won't be going up anytime soon.

The Democrats, Clinton included, have tied themselves so tightly to the "war is lost" wagon that their only hope at this point is if they can sabotage the war politically.  That's why they're desperately trying to find a way - any way - to stop the surge and ensure defeat. They couldn't stop the surge in the beginning, and it's increasingly unlikely they'll be able to stop it now, which means they'll lose on the floor of Congress, on the battlefield of Iraq, and in the hearts of voters come 2008.  It's only a matter of time before panic will set in.

I'd predicted that the pattern would go like this:  The surge would work, and we'd start seeing reports of success in the fall; Bush's numbers would start climbing toward the end of 2007 and into 2008; the Democrats would be seen at the loser party, not only rooting for US defeat in Iraq, but rooting for the losing team, and they'd spend the summer and fall of 2008 watching their certain landslide fritter away week by week and end up losing a close election, 2004-style, to Giulianai.

I'm now adjusting my prognosis.  The surge is working better than expected, Bush will start seeing his approval rating increase before Labor Day (it's already happening), and being anti-Bush will not be a political asset anymore by the end of 2008.

The Democrats will go into 2008 with a 50-50 shot at winning the White House and keeping Congress.  As the surge continues to succeed, Bush will increasingly be seen as a resolute leader and the Democrats will be forced to scrap their #1 asset - Bush hating.  If the surge continues to work, a large number of troops will start coming home in the summer of 2008, and by the fall, a good number of Democrats will also be sent home and Rudy Giulianai will be the next President.

Now, some of you I'm sure are thinking I'm expecting the impossible - a 100% turnaround on Iraq.  Not at all.  For Bush to go from unpopular to neutral, all that needs to happen is for the war to go from hugely unpopular to moderately unpopular.  The economy is great; people are basing their negativity almost entirely on their intense dislike for the wat.  If it looks like we're holding our own, the dislike becomes far less intense, which is all we need to get the GOP back in the game.

But what if we continue to make a breakthrough in Iraq, and bring the terrorists to their knees?  What if, instead of 60% of Americans opposing the war, a majority think we're winning?  What if the war issue is taken completely off the table as far as a push issue for voters?  What if we're left to debate the economy and which party is more resolute in fighting terrorists, the Republicans or the party that wanted to turn Iraq over to the terrorists?

Make no mistake of it, we have the best military in the world, and we finally have a strategy that works.  Do you really want to bet against these soldiers now that the tide is turning?  They can say what the want, but the Democrats are very, very worried.  And they should be.

A study shows that teenagers exposed to those annoyingly self-righteous "Truth" anti-smoking ads are more likely to smoke. 

Heck, they have the same effect on grownups.  I'll admit that I've lit up more than one cigar just to spite the makes of those annoying ads.

Of course, those ads don't hold a candle to those annoying Sit 'N Sleep Ads (#2 worst on the linked list).  If you're in LA, you know what I'm talking about - "You're killing me, Larry!"

 Rumors have been swirling that Fred Thompson would finally drop the charade and become a real candidate this month.  There were also rumors that Fred Thompson had raised $5million.  He won't be announcing anytime soon, probably September, and he's nowhere close to $5million.

Even worse, he's using Mary Matalin, the Democrats' best friend, as a consultant. 

It's in the latest article, that suggests Fred's non-campaign is not as sharp as people once thought.

"While Thompson is moving steadily in hiring a staff and building a campaign infrastructure, aides say they do not want to rush an announcement before they are ready. A kickoff will not happen in July, said several aides who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the campaign has not publicly announced its intentions.

Republican consultant Mary Matalin, who is advising Thompson, said the announcement will be made when the campaign infrastructure is ready to make the most of the surge in interest she believes will follow.

"He has made up his mind," she said. "And one can appreciate that planning the announcement of what's on his mind needs to take place in a deliberative fashion."

Aides brushed aside the idea that the delay in an announcement is the result of disappointment in fundraising. Initially, reports suggested that Thompson's goal was to raise close to $5 million in the first month. Later, campaign staffers said the goal had always been $2 million in the first month, and they said that had been exceeded."

Gee, this whole Presidential campaign thing isn't so easy, is it?  With Matalin giving advice, Fred's right on track to fizzling out before Iowa.  What the hell is Fred thinking??

This isn't a rant about Townhall's steady slide into the Paleocon morass of nativism and know-nothingism.  (I'll rant about that later.) It's a beef with their blog hosting. 

In a word, it sucks.

Sure, Townhall would say I'm getting to blog for free, so why should I be complaining that half the time I try to post I get an error?  Because the reason I'm blogging for free is because those advertisers you see in the margins paid Townhall to host their ads on every "free" blog.  So if the blogging on this site is a joke, and it is, then those advertisers aren't getting their money's worth from Townhall.

Good bloggers are leaving in droves, or not posting out of frustration.  Those who are sticking around are grumbing aloud about the Information Supercesspool that is Townhall, or "Clownhall," as it's becoming known to the blogging community.

Maybe Townhall bit off more than it could chew with this whole blogging business, but they better upgrade this mess or dispose of it, because every day this continues is just making Townhall, and its advertisers, look more and more stupid.

The Palin for VP movement keeps growing. Now Fred Barnes has jumped in with an article on her.

He says:

“She is now the most popular governor in America, with an approval rating in the 90s, and probably the most popular public official in any state.

Her rise is a great (and rare) story of how adherence to principle--especially to transparency and accountability in government--can produce political success. And by the way, Palin is a conservative who only last month vetoed 13 percent of the state's proposed budget for capital projects. The cuts, the Anchorage Daily News said, "may be the biggest single-year line-item veto total in state history."

An ethical governor who smashed the corrupt regime, said “no” to Republican pork-barrel spending, and who has been rewarded with the highest approval ratings of any governor in America? It would be quite a change for the GOP.

Spiro Agnew must be rolling over in his grave at the prospect of a Palin Vice Presidency.

The anti-sex lobby of the right wing, who is despearate to paint the Republican Party as a bunch of tightasses who don't enjoy sex and get indignant at every little thing, is at it again.  Now they're attacking Romney because - get this - he was on the board of Marriott and Marriott offers x-rated movies to its customers on Pay Per View.

So that makes Romney a porpnographer.

It would be laughable except that people actually call this wackos "leaders" of the Republican Party.

Um.... NO.

Actually, truth be told, Republicans (or the huge majority, at any rate) enjoy sex.  A lot.  Someday I'm going to find that article, written by a Democrat, that explains why Republicans make better lovers (and it's not because they wait until marriage, because, trust me, 90% of us DON'T, and we don't have any problem with that, either).

From a male perspective, I'd say that my best lovers were Republicans, and it wasn't because they wanted to wait, because they didn't.  The logest I ever waited for a women to agree to have sex with me was in college - and she was a Democrat.

But I digress...

Anyhow, if a few wingnuts from the Tightass Wing want to give Romney a hard time because a hotel he served on the board for showed some X-rated movies, good luck with that.  Giulianani cheated on his wives; Thompson is a divorce who slept around while he was single - apparently a lot, if the stories are to beleived; Gingrich cheated on his wives; McCain cheated on his first wife.  So Romney's service on the Marriott board fits WHERE in that context?

How lame do you have to be to even bring this up as an issue?  Puh-thetic.